These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Has suicide ganking become a problem? Empty freighters being ganked.

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1301 - 2014-07-05 06:54:55 UTC
Sentamon wrote:
DJentropy Ovaert wrote:

Stop expecting CONCORD to do your work for you.


Sure, right after CONCORD stops protecting your bumbers and ship scanners. And right after you quit moving CONCORD to give yourself more gank time. Deal? Blink


So remove concord.
DJentropy Ovaert
The Conference Elite
Safety.
#1302 - 2014-07-05 07:34:27 UTC
Sentamon wrote:

Sure, right after CONCORD stops protecting your bumbers and ship scanners. And right after you quit moving CONCORD to give yourself more gank time. Deal? Blink

Since you're acting all pro-pvp you'll support suspect flags on people scanning ships and people bumping at high speeds. Bear


CONCORD is not "protecting" "bumbers" (lol) any more then they "protect" anyone else in this strange and wonderful universe - you go GCC, you get CONCORDED. They don't discriminate between bumper, freighter, random carebear, or chief fedo wrangler of Dodixie. The playing field is level.

I'm quite pro-pvp, but suspect flags on ship scanning is just insane. A ship scan causes ZERO active harm to the player who was scanned. As someone else pointed out earlier, it's like glancing in someone's grocery basket who happens to be shopping in the same store as you. As for bumping resulting in suspect flags - I have one answer for that.

"Jita 4-4 undock"

So now everyone is suspect and everything explodes.

:P
Altessa Post
Midnight special super sexy
#1303 - 2014-07-05 10:02:54 UTC
GM Lelouch wrote:


I'll keep this brief but yes, we do investigate alt character recycling and we do take offenses of this nature very seriously.

What we cannot do is manually monitor every PVP ship loss which occurs in EVE so we need you, our players, to file a report and let us know if you suspect foul play of this sort. Alt recycling is not very common these days but it still does happen from time to time. Please do file a ticket including all the information you have concerning this loss, we'd be happy to look into it for you.

Alt recycling is verifiable in our logs and it will have consequences for the player's main account(s) too, if disposable accounts are used for this purpose.

One final clarification: Alt recycling is defined as the act of using a disposable character/account to perform actions which carry negative consequences within the game and then recycling (biomassing) the character to bypass said consequences and starting all over again with a new character.

1. Using an alt account to suicide gank and then farming up security status once it drops too low? This is totally okay with us.
2. Using an alt account to suicide gank and then deleting the character and replacing it with a new one once security status drops too low? This is not okay.

Hmm, I guess this post didn't end up being as brief as I intended but I hope you all found this post informative.


Thank you very much for the clarification.
Also thanks to Lady Areola for the "confession".

I like the idea that the game allows ganking. However, there must be consequences and there must be a way to counteract. Being able to report suspicious characters for a recycle check is one possible tool. Once gankers travel with enough negative security status we can counter them before the gank Blink

On the internet, you can be whatever you want to be. It is amazing that so many people chose to be stupid.
Gully Alex Foyle
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1304 - 2014-07-05 10:09:48 UTC
Altessa Post wrote:
Once gankers travel with enough negative security status we can counter them before the gank Blink
Exactly!

But if be 'we' you mean 'all half-awake anti-gankers', Leadership I will be enough to fleet them all.

Make space glamorous! Is EVE dying or not? Ask the EVE-O Death-o-meter!
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#1305 - 2014-07-05 10:19:21 UTC
Gully Alex Foyle wrote:
Altessa Post wrote:
Once gankers travel with enough negative security status we can counter them before the gank Blink
Exactly!

But if be 'we' you mean 'all half-awake anti-gankers', Leadership I will be enough to fleet them all.
1 person is a fleet these days?

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack
admiral root
Red Galaxy
#1306 - 2014-07-05 10:21:11 UTC
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Gully Alex Foyle wrote:
Altessa Post wrote:
Once gankers travel with enough negative security status we can counter them before the gank Blink
Exactly!

But if be 'we' you mean 'all half-awake anti-gankers', Leadership I will be enough to fleet them all.
1 person is a fleet these days?


It is if you're an opponent of the Code.

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff
Heinrich Erquilenne
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1307 - 2014-07-05 11:35:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Heinrich Erquilenne
Sentamon wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Sentamon wrote:
baltec1 wrote:

And?

We have tens of thousands of alts for supplying nullsec to avoid wardecs too.


... and we need to quit talking like there are meaningful consequences for ganking in highsec. There are none.




Aside from the fact that at -10 you are open to attack from everyone, gate and station guns open fire on you and cannot stay in any place longer then 30 seconds or have the faction navy warp in and kill you.


Tell us how everyone can attack them while they sit in 100% safe stations while their high security alts do all the important work? Lol


Then maybe the solution would be high sec stations not accepting to dock players with a dreadfully low sec status. Like players who get their overly expensive ships killed have to farm isk to get them back, people who have a -10 sec status should definitely spend some time to grind sec status. Seems fair (which is why this option will likely be unpopular).
Karak Terrel
Foundation for CODE and THE NEW ORDER
#1308 - 2014-07-05 11:40:39 UTC
Vincent Athena wrote:

One:
If you are -5 or less, and;
Have a criminal flag, and;
lay the final blow on a ship, then;
The insurance payout for that ship comes from your wallet.

Two:
If you are -5 or less, and;
have a negative wallet, then;
You may not board, activate, or undock any ship bigger than a shuttle.
Reason: All larger ships have a crew, and no crew will work for a criminal who has no money.

So basically you screw everyone in low, null and wormsec who have a negative sec status too, just because you want to AFK in highsec?
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#1309 - 2014-07-05 11:44:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Heinrich Erquilenne wrote:
Then maybe the solution would be high sec stations not accepting to dock players with a dreadfully low sec status.
Solution to what?
And no, it's not NPCs job to restrict what players have access to.

Quote:
Like players who get their overly expensive ships killed have to farm isk to get them back, people who have a -10 sec status should definitely spend some time to grind sec status. Seems fair (which is why this option will likely be unpopular).
No, it will be unpopular because it's not fair. Fair would be if those with overly expensive ships had to lose those ships before being allowed to dock up. After all, they also sit in 100% safe stations while their cheap-fit alts do all the important work. If you lock one party out for arbitrary reasons, the fair thing would be to lock the other out for equally arbitrary reason.

If you want to force people to grind back their sec status, then you have to force them. There is absolutely no reason why the game should do it for you.
Gully Alex Foyle
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1310 - 2014-07-05 12:24:24 UTC
Heinrich Erquilenne wrote:
Then maybe the solution would be high sec stations not accepting to dock players with a dreadfully low sec status. Like players who get their overly expensive ships killed have to farm isk to get them back, people who have a -10 sec status should definitely spend some time to grind sec status. Seems fair (which is why this option will likely be unpopular).
I personally see some potential from doing that, while eliminating FacPo.

The idea of neg sec status players being free to fly around highsec but having to operate out of POS and such sounds fun. Pirate hideouts, assets to shoot at, ...

CONCORD response times may be tweaked accordingly, if ganking becomes on average harder or easier.

Make space glamorous! Is EVE dying or not? Ask the EVE-O Death-o-meter!
Li Quiao
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#1311 - 2014-07-05 13:17:24 UTC
Altessa Post wrote:


I like the idea that the game allows ganking. However, there must be consequences and there must be a way to counteract


Well, since there *are* consequences and there *are* ways to counteract, you must be happy, then. Problem solved!
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#1312 - 2014-07-05 13:17:54 UTC
Altessa Post wrote:
The proposal to "report them" is silly. I do not have the data to prove a violation. In fact, it is impossible for me to prove a recycle. So, next time please try to suppress the Pavlovian urge of your culture ("You should sue them!").

I also do not like the speculation about what is illegal and how CCP goes against them. That is just guesswork. Until today, I did believe that alt recycling is not a common practice. Yet, after my observation in Niarja I have my doubt.

Can somebody from CCP comment whether you actually do investigate into alt recycling?

Yes you do, you just have to do a tiny amount of work. Check if the char that ganked you is in doomheim in a month.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#1313 - 2014-07-05 13:28:58 UTC
Altessa Post wrote:
Being able to report suspicious characters for a recycle check is one possible tool. ]


It should be pointed out that reporting every neg sec status person you see is a really easy way to get banned for malicious reporting and abuse of the petition system.

Aside from that, have fun.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Benny Ohu
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#1314 - 2014-07-05 15:11:37 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Altessa Post wrote:
Being able to report suspicious characters for a recycle check is one possible tool. ]


It should be pointed out that reporting every neg sec status person you see is a really easy way to get banned for malicious reporting and abuse of the petition system.

Aside from that, have fun.

uh, a person recycling characters to avoid negative security status would not be using a negative security status character for anyone to see and report P
Organic Lager
Drinking Buddies
#1315 - 2014-07-05 16:02:41 UTC
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
All of which is very predictable, and extremely well documented. In a well fitted ship missions are trivial and require so little effort that people have written software that do them automatically*

If we're talking people that run missions in undersized ships for the challenge then yes they have more to worry about, your standard run of the mill missioner doesn't do that, they simply follow the "script"


Sooo because a bot can do a mission that somehow means there is no risk or preparation required on the mission runners end? How does what you've said negate any of what i stated about the work involved in running an L4?

Quote:
Yes, because missioners, myself included, are fed everything they need to know on a silver platter, gankers have to use their initiative, get their own intel and organise themselves.


Sooo because I don't have to scan my mission down that somehow means a ganker puts in more effort? Please see above for other **** an L4 runner has to worry about aside from simply scanning down a ship risk free.

Quote:
Try being an FC, try organising a gank fleet etc


Yeah I bet it is hard to find guys to form a gank fleet with. The pay is low and it's boring waiting to find something to kill, but due to the lack of risk, isk/sp investment and effort that's the way it should be. I mean just how easy should it be to gank? how profitable? where it sits now seems pretty inline with the rest of high sec, more then mining, less then missioning, way less then incursions.

If you want to add something like locking pirates out of stations so they have to set up a pos to operate, I could see making concord tankable or increasing response times, something that would allow for more profitable ganks and in exchange more risk with having to defend a pos... not that it's really hard but at least it's something.

Quote:
Planning, something the gankee often fails to do. If you're caught unprepared, it means you didn't plan well enough or use the tools at your disposal correctly. Last time someone tried to bait me into shooting at them in a mission space, I purposefully popped a trigger and dropped an Elite Frigate and Cruiser spawn on them, then warped out to let them deal with it.


Once again the effort to avoid a gank is all on the gankee, fit better tank, watch local, watch descan, avoid systems. What effort is put in by the gankers to make a more successful gank? what risks? sit on station and scan ships coming and going, freely calculate your odds of success, suicide ganking is almost as binary as the concord.

Quote:
Stupidity is infinite, as evidenced by the amount of people that fly into well known choke points blind. It doesn't get punished nearly enough, there's still a lot of it about.

*People who do this need to be terminated, in game, with extreme prejudice; then banned.


110% agree with you here, but I don't think we can say ganking is too hard or should be made more profitable until gankers are forced to put in more effort then having one guy risk free look for a target while the rest ship spin in station.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#1316 - 2014-07-05 16:17:33 UTC
Organic Lager wrote:

Once again the effort to avoid a gank is all on the gankee, fit better tank, watch local, watch descan, avoid systems. What effort is put in by the gankers to make a more successful gank? what risks? sit on station and scan ships coming and going, freely calculate your odds of success, suicide ganking is almost as binary as the concord.


You have the wrong mindset toward this.

We pick our targets. We don't have the ability to attack freely, we have to wait for someone else to make mistakes before we gank them. The risk is 100% determined by the potential victim.

That's how it's supposed to work in EVE. Yes, the aggressor has the advantage in an individual confrontation, by the very nature of having chosen to attack in the first place. Because of the 100% effective magic space police, we have no choice but to attack when we think we are guaranteed to succeed. You can thank CCP for that.

But across the game as a whole, not just one individual gank, the advantage is overwhelmingly in the hands of the freighter pilots. This can be observed due to just how very few of them actually die. Thousands of freighter jumps per day, and a handful die. And so few of them actually die because the initiative is almost completely in their hands. Red Frog doesn't have a loss percentage in the single digits for nothing.

Ganking is very much a reactive force. I know this isn't the answer that carebears want to hear, but if they're not proactive in their own defense, that's their problem. Not a problem with the game balance, not a problem with any mechanic, their problem.

Being asked to put some effort into your own self defense is not asking too much.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#1317 - 2014-07-05 16:30:23 UTC
Oh, and I find it hilarious that you are complaining about ganking being binary.

No duh it's binary, that's because CONCORD makes it that way. Carebears cried to CCP until ganking has zero margin for error, either we succeed or we fail, and because we adapted our gameplay, upped our game, we need nerfed again?

Screw you, carebears. You made your bed, now sleep in it. This "one more nerf" crap that you lot never cease with just exposes you for the Trammel disciples you really are. It just shows that your goal is to make non consensual PvP impossible.

Disgusting.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
#1318 - 2014-07-05 16:30:26 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Stuff


I can't disagree that the weak and the stupid should be culled from the space lanes. Ganking them is a fine mechanic for that and one I fully support.

The issue I have is that CPP has bent over backwards to make it as risk free as it gets in their effort to promote their 'bad boy' MMO and market to the lowlife griefer that has been kicked out of every other game. Sec status loss is no consequence and neither is the loss of a cheap destroyer.

Mr Epeen Cool
Morganta
The Greater Goon
#1319 - 2014-07-05 16:31:07 UTC
flying stupidly is a disease
ganking is the cure

profit is nice, but if some moron is sitting afk in something undefended and shiny they will get deprived of that item as punishment
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#1320 - 2014-07-05 16:40:44 UTC
Mr Epeen wrote:

The issue I have is that CPP has bent over backwards to make it as risk free as it gets in their effort to promote their 'bad boy' MMO and market to the lowlife griefer that has been kicked out of every other game. Sec status loss is no consequence and neither is the loss of a cheap destroyer.


Is that why they buffed freighters, barges and T1 haulers this past few expansions?

Or why they raced to hotfix the MTU "exploit" faster than anything else they have ever done?

Or hey, why NPC corps remain functionally immune to PvP in highsec?

Or why people who flagrantly break the EULA regarding verbal abuse against gankers are pretty much never punished?

Nevermind the 6+ years of nerfs to ganking added up before the things mentioned above. Buffing destroyers and adding sec tags amounts to nothing compared to the mountain of nerfs ganking has received. Not even Caldari has been nerfed as much in the game's history as has ganking.

"bent over backwards", don't make me laugh.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.