These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Ramona McCandless
Silent Vale
LinkNet
#1581 - 2014-07-08 14:04:45 UTC
Gully Alex Foyle wrote:
Couldn't you take her as a trainee slave and teach her?

Btw, wb crazy woman, I missed you (a bit).


Thanks, I missed you too, baldy

Im afraid my slaves tend to be chosen for their intellect and their submission (though not necessarily both in all cases) so she wouldn't work out.

"Yea, some dude came in and was normal for first couple months, so I gave him director." - Sean Dunaway

"A singular character could be hired to penetrate another corps space... using gorilla like tactics..." - Chane Morgann

Christina Project
Screaming Head in a Box.
#1582 - 2014-07-08 14:08:52 UTC
Yesterday, CODE blew up what could be considered a botter.

Several times. Mackinaw ORE editions, pimped into billions,
failfitted with a Shieldboost amp ... and no booster.

Several. This guy lost billions of ISK yesterday and kept undocking his ships.
All fitted the same, with billions of ISK and no brain.


Even people in anti-ganking laughed about it.


Some people simply deserve it more than others.

[i]"Don't look into another human's bowl to see how much he has ... ... look into his bowl to see if he has enough !" - Sol[/i]

Gully Alex Foyle
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1583 - 2014-07-08 14:25:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Gully Alex Foyle
Kal, come back! Tell us more about The Great Miner Strike!

I don't mine, so I can pretend to be on strike if it helps.

I could even riot a bit and shoot a couple of rounds at the Jita monument.

Make space glamorous! Is EVE dying or not? Ask the EVE-O Death-o-meter!

Ramona McCandless
Silent Vale
LinkNet
#1584 - 2014-07-08 14:28:03 UTC
Gully Alex Foyle wrote:
Kal, come back! Tell us more about The Great Miner Strike!

I don't mine, so I can pretend to be on strike if it helps.

I could even riot a bit and shoot a couple of rounds at the Jita monument.


Oh felgercarb, does that make me Thatcher?

"Yea, some dude came in and was normal for first couple months, so I gave him director." - Sean Dunaway

"A singular character could be hired to penetrate another corps space... using gorilla like tactics..." - Chane Morgann

Toriessian
Helion Production Labs
Independent Operators Consortium
#1585 - 2014-07-08 14:34:38 UTC
Kal Murmur wrote:
Funny how all your input on this subject seems to end up being 'miners deserve whatever they get'. I'd love to see how you feel about ship prices if all those miners stop mining.


Who is John Galt?
Who is Kal Murmur?

Just doesn't have the same PSSSHHHH to it.

Every day I'm wafflin!

Kal Murmur
Lazortits
#1586 - 2014-07-08 14:38:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Kal Murmur
*EDIT* Post nerfed itself. Must L2P
Christina Project
Screaming Head in a Box.
#1587 - 2014-07-08 14:39:09 UTC
Wow, if all the miners stopped working ...
... I'll order my siblings to do it.

It's like... omg economy dictates the peoples' actions! O:

[i]"Don't look into another human's bowl to see how much he has ... ... look into his bowl to see if he has enough !" - Sol[/i]

Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#1588 - 2014-07-08 14:47:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Kagura Nikon
Tippia wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Destruction activities should never be a zero cost net result. They should always reduce the final state.. its entropy. Let it work liek entropy.
Good news: it already does.

Quote:
Suicide ganking cannot be done too easily.. .neither impossible. Needs to have a balance.... you get a huge advantage of surprise infinite selection of targets etc.
So what you're saying is that suicide ganking needs to be buffed, since not only do you have no element of surprise in the instant-intel world of EVE, but you also have a very minute selection of targets and even among that selection, the targets are largely self-selected rather than something the gankers can pick and choose from.

Quote:
It MUST cost more than the other options to kill ships in high sec.
No, the exact opposite is true: it absolutely must not cost more to kill than it costs to be killed because then you have such an immense imbalance that you might as well remove 99% of the game. You are trying to use cost as a balancing factor. The problem with this is that cost can never be a balancing factor — it can only, at best, be a product of balance. The moment you try balance according to cost you have removed all choice, all variety, and all balance because cost has never in the history of gaming stopped anyone from getting the “best” ship that is the inevitable result of this kind of non-balance.



You make completely no sense. Eve is about risk and effort vs reward. IT cost more and takes more effort to kill people with wars than with suicide ganks. That is inbalanced.

Cost is a balancing factor , no matter how much you want it to not be. It controls how attractive an activity is. You do nto need to work as hard as wardecs, you have an extremely predictable result and the targets do not knwo you are there. Suicide gankign already have all the advantages. The proof is how expensive a target must be to be worth declarign war vs suicide ganking. declaring war usually requires that you observe the targets to operate an excess of 10 BIL isk on predictable location to make a minimum size war dec. For suicide ganking, you do not need even half a billion. No suicide ganking shoudl not cost always more than what you kill, that would be dump. But the value of the target should need to be higher...

That proves that suicide gankign is too easy compared to waging war. If cost of suicidign is to be this one, then wars shoudl cost 10 times less than now.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"

Ramona McCandless
Silent Vale
LinkNet
#1589 - 2014-07-08 14:51:43 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:


That proves that suicide gankign is too easy compared to waging war. If cost of suicidign is to be this one, then wars shoudl cost 10 times less than now.


Highsec war is just a way to evade CONCORD. It serves no other purpose.

"Yea, some dude came in and was normal for first couple months, so I gave him director." - Sean Dunaway

"A singular character could be hired to penetrate another corps space... using gorilla like tactics..." - Chane Morgann

Kal Murmur
Lazortits
#1590 - 2014-07-08 14:55:24 UTC
Ramona McCandless wrote:
What? Sorry on what planet does a Proc mine signifigantly less than the tankless heap that is a Ret? Have you actually looked at statistics or are you guessing?


The proc has half the ore bay of the ret.

Ramona McCandless wrote:
No, my input is that morons who dont take responsibility for their actions get what they deserve.


It takes time for people to learn the game properly, find out about forums/news sources and find a corp that actually has a useful CEO instead of some semi-afk wannabe or scammer. Even for people who do know the rules you're asking that they consistently carry out a series of boring precautions so that they can be safe doing something that's already pretty boring. Mining for instance is usually a means to an end, not an end in itself. Same with hauling.

And for what exactly? Why do you care that highsec is a boring place full of dumb noobs and people who are happy doing things that are pretty boring? Why is it so essential to the bitter vet community that high sec of all places becomes crappier for the people who actually want to live there.

Please don't give me that 'creating content' stuff btw, it's already boring. Perhaps if people actually lived in low sec more, you'd get more genuine content instead of all this stamping on carebears crap.

Ramona McCandless wrote:
I have stated THREE TIMES already that I have alts, friends and slaves who all mine perfectly well and have not suffered ganks in MONTHS and yet you refuse to even ackowledge this fact.


Sorry, you were waiting for me to acknowledge your anecdote? Really? Well I'm sure your personal experience with both your friends proves your entire case, well done.
Ramona McCandless
Silent Vale
LinkNet
#1591 - 2014-07-08 15:10:11 UTC
Kal Murmur wrote:

The proc has half the ore bay of the ret.


That makes it signifcantly slower in what way? You slow-boating back to the station are you?

Kal Murmur wrote:
Why do you care that highsec is a boring place full of dumb noobs and people who are happy doing things that are pretty boring?

Why do you? Perhaps I have a vested interest in it. Perhaps their profits are tied to mine, and that many of my infgame activities have to do with how well or badly mining is done, and perhaps if **** CEOs actually looked after their guys, more people would learn how to play. But no, Im sure your idea of keeping people ignorant until something bad happens and they ragequit is a much better idea.

Kal Murmur wrote:
Sorry, you were waiting for me to acknowledge your anecdote? Really? Well I'm sure your personal experience with both your friends proves your entire case, well done.

Like your anecdote about how because you dont mine and you "gank" in lowsec, you've noticed some apparent rise in successful ganks? That one that you want others to take on face value? Fine, you call me a liar. I know that they havent been ganked, and I know amny many others in the same boat and as you have no first hand experience of it yourself, it kind of means I do know more about it than you, so I am in a position to call BS on your claim.

So go ahead, keep telling me all about how the thing you dont do and take no part in affects you more than it does me, how my own experience is lies and how you know so much more about it.

"Yea, some dude came in and was normal for first couple months, so I gave him director." - Sean Dunaway

"A singular character could be hired to penetrate another corps space... using gorilla like tactics..." - Chane Morgann

Carmen Electra
AlcoDOTTE
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#1592 - 2014-07-08 15:12:20 UTC
You know what's become a problem? This thread.
admiral root
Red Galaxy
#1593 - 2014-07-08 15:14:16 UTC
Kal Murmur wrote:
Why do you care that highsec is a boring place full of dumb noobs and people who are happy doing things that are pretty boring? Why is it so essential to the bitter vet community that high sec of all places becomes crappier for the people who actually want to live there.


Perhaps because some of them live in highsec themselves and thus don't want it to be boring? As for bitter vets, I don't know any. I do know that we have a lot of newer players in the New Order who discover the joys of actively playing the game.

Kal Murmur wrote:
Please don't give me that 'creating content' stuff btw, it's already boring. Perhaps if people actually lived in low sec more, you'd get more genuine content instead of all this stamping on carebears crap.


Content is content, regardless of age. This smells of "highsec should be perfectly safe, PvP belongs in low / null", which I'm fine with if CCP remove *all* PvP, including mining, mission running, the market, contracts, etc.


No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff

Christina Project
Screaming Head in a Box.
#1594 - 2014-07-08 15:15:41 UTC
Cost is not a balancing factor.

Your opinion is irrelevant, as CCP creates the facts and obviously knows best,
as they have all relevant data about the matter.

Cost is determined by the people as a whole,
therefore any argument about cost being able to balance things is null and void.

Titans aren't cheap. Did it work as balancing factor? No.

Make it ten times as expensive to gank a miner,
people will organize and build everything simply themselves.

People will start to use alts to mine minerals,
investing time instead of ISK,
until a satisfying flow of minerals is achieved.

Group efforts will always relativize cost.


[i]"Don't look into another human's bowl to see how much he has ... ... look into his bowl to see if he has enough !" - Sol[/i]

Tauranon
Weeesearch
CAStabouts
#1595 - 2014-07-08 15:20:18 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Tippia wrote:
]No, the exact opposite is true: it absolutely must not cost more to kill than it costs to be killed because then you have such an immense imbalance that you might as well remove 99% of the game. You are trying to use cost as a balancing factor. The problem with this is that cost can never be a balancing factor — it can only, at best, be a product of balance. The moment you try balance according to cost you have removed all choice, all variety, and all balance because cost has never in the history of gaming stopped anyone from getting the “best” ship that is the inevitable result of this kind of non-balance.



You make completely no sense. Eve is about risk and effort vs reward. IT cost more and takes more effort to kill people with wars than with suicide ganks. That is inbalanced.



I'd suggest that marmite has yanked more isk from the still smoking wrecks of wardecced pblrd ships than anyone has ganking, and its a far more effective tool than ganking at forcing me into nullsec levels of defensive piloting whilst in highsec, since EHP is not a successful mitigation strategy for anything flown by this character as concord won't save me.

Not only that, they can cover far more gates and pipes when they only need 1 neut to scout and establish a temporary tackle and then 1 combat pilot to kill a jumpfreighter if its fully unsupported.

ie if you think war isn't more profitable, then you probably do war wrong.
Aralyn Cormallen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1596 - 2014-07-08 15:31:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Aralyn Cormallen
Kagura Nikon wrote:

You make completely no sense. Eve is about risk and effort vs reward. IT cost more and takes more effort to kill people with wars than with suicide ganks. That is inbalanced.

Cost is a balancing factor , no matter how much you want it to not be. It controls how attractive an activity is. You do nto need to work as hard as wardecs, you have an extremely predictable result and the targets do not knwo you are there. Suicide gankign already have all the advantages. The proof is how expensive a target must be to be worth declarign war vs suicide ganking. declaring war usually requires that you observe the targets to operate an excess of 10 BIL isk on predictable location to make a minimum size war dec. For suicide ganking, you do not need even half a billion. No suicide ganking shoudl not cost always more than what you kill, that would be dump. But the value of the target should need to be higher...

That proves that suicide gankign is too easy compared to waging war. If cost of suicidign is to be this one, then wars shoudl cost 10 times less than now.


Cost as a balancing factor is dumb, and will always be dumb. Opening your wallet should never make you immune to player (especially combined player) effort.

And all your nonsense of War Decs is misdirection - you can justify any arguement either way by talking about tangientially-related subjects that have no real bearing on the subject. Look at the cost on the market of a Shield Extender, an Invulnerability Field, a Damage Control Unit. A million each, maybe 0.7 for a DCU2, 1.8 for an Invuln 2? They add considerably more than protection against an extra million isk of gank-power. Are you also argueing that the materials for a T2 DCU should be increased by 15-25 times? Or maybe their effectiveness nerfed to the same as the damage difference between a single medium meta 3 and meta 4 gun? Of course you are not, because that would both be ridiculous, and not helpful to your pet complaint.
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Doomheim
#1597 - 2014-07-08 15:32:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Apologies for coming late to this thread.

In short, the OP exhibits an expectation many new to EvE have, that hisec somehow means 100% safe space, and no personal effort or brain cells are required to operate safely therein.

How many times have we seen the likes of beautiful double-rainbows like this, where the victim honestly didn't realize non-consensual buttsex in hisec was even possible?

tldr;
The failing here is actually CCP's, in not expectation-levelling with new players that hisec is NOT 100% safe. The path to subscription retention should be better (cold, stark) tutorials, not nerfing our HTFU traditions or mechanics in a heretical dumbing down of EvE to service the ineptness of the lowest common denominator.

F

p.s.
For the OP's heresy against EvE HTFU, a +1 has been added to the Kill-It-Forward queue, and GOD have mercy on his soul.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#1598 - 2014-07-08 16:29:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Kagura Nikon wrote:
You make completely no sense. Eve is about risk and effort vs reward. IT cost more and takes more effort to kill people with wars than with suicide ganks. That is inbalanced.
It would be if those were true. As luck would have it, they're not.

Quote:
Cost is a balancing factor , no matter how much you want it to not be. It controls how attractive an activity is.
No, it really doesn't, as every attempt at using it as a balancing factor has shown. This is not wanting it to be a certain way; this is game designers with decades of experience having proven it time and time again. Cost — indeed any kind of availability — only ever controls the grindiness of getting your hand on something and grind is trivial to overcome. It's because of that triviality and that single effect that it is useless for balance.

Again, what you're seeing is actually the exact opposite: cost as a result of balance. A ship that offers a marginal improvement in one area (and less capability in many others) are given an exponentially higher price because that's the cost of improvement. It is not a 1:1 relationship and the cost is not there to balance the improvement out. It is there to tell you how much people value that marginal improvement. It is also there to give you a range of choices in what you want to employ and for what reasons — choices that are instantly removed if you try to balance using cost. Put another way: cheap crap can be as cheap as you like, it's still crap and therefore useless; and overpowered stuff is still overpowered no matter how ridiculously expensive you make it. The costs don't balance out the design flaws — there is only one choice available and that is the overpowered stuff, which then sets the standard for how much you have to invest to participate.

Quote:
You do nto need to work as hard as wardecs, you have an extremely predictable result and the targets do not knwo you are there.
This is complete nonsense. The targets know you're there in the same way as during a wardec, and unlike with ganking, decs reduces your cost to a fixed sum for as many targets as you can grab. Your operating costs are zero. You can throw the most absurd levels of overkill at the target and not lose a cent — in fact, that's how you ensure that you don't lose a single cent. Everything you get is pure profit. Ganks have no rebates; definitely no zero costs; no assurances; profit is entirely reliant on finding suitably expensive targets — there is no way to accumulate over time in small drips and drops.

Oh, and as others have mentioned, wardecs means that every standard anti-gank strategy other than complete avoidance becomes useless for defending yourself: EHP doesn't save you, anti-gank makes you lose more, support ships makes you lose more. Hell, you can lose more without even being logged in. You could go on the offensive, but since we're comparing against suicide ganks, where that's also a possibility, you will notice that this option simply isn't an option for the people involved.

Quote:
That proves that suicide gankign is too easy compared to waging war.
No, blatantly lying about something does not actually prove anything other than that you are either woefully unfamiliar with the mechanics or trying a particularly absurd new avenue to get in Yet Another Nerf™ for an activity that desperately needs to be buffed.
Kal Murmur
Lazortits
#1599 - 2014-07-08 17:32:52 UTC
Tippia wrote:
No, it really doesn't, as every attempt at using it as a balancing factor has shown. This is not wanting it to be a certain way; this is game designers with decades of experience having proven it time and time again. Cost — indeed any kind of availability — only ever controls the grindiness of getting your hand on something and grind is trivial to overcome. It's because of that triviality and that single effect that it is useless for balance.

Again, what you're seeing is actually the exact opposite: cost as a result of balance. A ship that offers a marginal improvement in one area (and less capability in many others) are given an exponentially higher price because that's the cost of improvement. It is not a 1:1 relationship and the cost is not there to balance the improvement out. It is there to tell you how much people value that marginal improvement. It is also there to give you a range of choices in what you want to employ and for what reasons — choices that are instantly removed if you try to balance using cost. Put another way: cheap crap can be as cheap as you like, it's still crap and therefore useless; and overpowered stuff is still overpowered no matter how ridiculously expensive you make it. The costs don't balance out the design flaws — there is only one choice available and that is the overpowered stuff, which then sets the standard for how much you have to invest to participate.


This is so utterly and mindnumbingly wrong that it's hard to even find words..
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
#1600 - 2014-07-08 17:39:49 UTC
CCP Falcon wrote:
Some men just want to watch the world burn.

There's space for us all in New Eden.


Yeah... no.