These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Sibyyl
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#1941 - 2014-07-15 04:39:37 UTC
Gilly Vertrag wrote:
That said, if people feel that the burden of two minutes' planning is too great to bear, and the risk unpalatable, Red Frog is standing by to safely transport your goods for you. Big smile

http://red-frog.org/jumps.php

Mm, lemonade.

Joffy Aulx-Gao for CSM. Fix links and OGB. Ban stabs from plexes. Fulfill karmic justice.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#1942 - 2014-07-15 04:47:49 UTC
Professor Solus wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

Of course it's good for the game, that isn't even in question. It might not be good for *your* game, but it's vital to the game as a whole.

EVE has an economy that requires destruction of assets in order to fuel demand. And given CCP's most recently released numbers for "Production vs Destruction", it's something that needs to happen.

When you see a suicide ganker in local, you should thank them for the valuable service they provide.


https://warosu.org/data/fa/img/0084/29/1404199924544.png


Lol, good one. But I am actually serious.

"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.
Gallowmere Rorschach
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1943 - 2014-07-15 04:49:21 UTC
Charles Ofdensen wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Charles Ofdensen wrote:
Nice of CCP staff to pop in and derail in CODE's favor.


Suicide ganking is intended gameplay, after all. I would hardly call it a derailment.


Everyone knows CCP is biased in favor of the entities that suicide gank in highsec. CCP actually financially benefits from it, so they do everything they can to ensure the status quo in highsec endures.

Whether or not this is good for the game is another question entirely!

Sooo, let's see if I am following you here. It makes them money...which then allows them to reinvest into development...which gives us more reason to stick around and keep blowing up your stuff...which makes them more money...which...yeah, looks like the only one losing here is you. Why are you still here?
Lady Areola Fappington
#1944 - 2014-07-15 06:47:27 UTC
Gallowmere Rorschach wrote:
Charles Ofdensen wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Charles Ofdensen wrote:
Nice of CCP staff to pop in and derail in CODE's favor.


Suicide ganking is intended gameplay, after all. I would hardly call it a derailment.


Everyone knows CCP is biased in favor of the entities that suicide gank in highsec. CCP actually financially benefits from it, so they do everything they can to ensure the status quo in highsec endures.

Whether or not this is good for the game is another question entirely!

Sooo, let's see if I am following you here. It makes them money...which then allows them to reinvest into development...which gives us more reason to stick around and keep blowing up your stuff...which makes them more money...which...yeah, looks like the only one losing here is you. Why are you still here?



It's just more cognitive dissonance.

Ganking is causing CCP so much money in lost subscriptions, this is why CCP maintains the status quo on ganking because it makes them money.

7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided. --Eve New Player Guide
Kal Murmur
Lazortits
#1945 - 2014-07-15 11:58:20 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Of course it's good for the game, that isn't even in question. It might not be good for *your* game, but it's vital to the game as a whole.

EVE has an economy that requires destruction of assets in order to fuel demand. And given CCP's most recently released numbers for "Production vs Destruction", it's something that needs to happen.

When you see a suicide ganker in local, you should thank them for the valuable service they provide.


No, it most certainly is in question, and you piping up trying to smack down any dissenting voice on the subject doesn't make it any less so. Eve is a huge balancing act, it thrives on being edgy, hardcore and dangerous, but if it ever gets too much so then the new subscriber numbers will drop to an unsustainable level.

CCP know this, which is why they keep bringing in small nerfs to the various forms of griefing that hurt new players. Of course in typical Eve fashion, the bitter vet response to this is to just up their game and be even more dickish, which is certainly going to work out exactly as they expect. Like the last 20 or so times.
Gully Alex Foyle
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1946 - 2014-07-15 12:02:29 UTC
Kal Murmur wrote:
No, it most certainly is in question, and you piping up trying to smack down any dissenting voice on the subject doesn't make it any less so. Eve is a huge balancing act, it thrives on being edgy, hardcore and dangerous, but if it ever gets too much so then the new subscriber numbers will drop to an unsustainable level.

CCP know this, which is why they keep bringing in small nerfs to the various forms of griefing that hurt new players. Of course in typical Eve fashion, the bitter vet response to this is to just up their game and be even more dickish, which is certainly going to work out exactly as they expect. Like the last 20 or so times.
Why do you assume current and potential EVE players dislike danger?

Why do you assume new players are all victims?

It takes much less to train a catalyst than a charon, you know.

Make space glamorous! Is EVE dying or not? Ask the EVE-O Death-o-meter!
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#1947 - 2014-07-15 12:02:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Kal Murmur wrote:
CCP know this, which is why they keep bringing in small nerfs to the various forms of griefing that hurt new players.
When was the last time they did that?

e: Also…
Quote:
No, it most certainly is in question
No, it most certainly is not. The entire game is predicated on and built around it. It instantly collapses without it. Any suggestion otherwise only demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the core mechanisms of EVE: the market, the industry, and the combat it relies on.

vv damn, too slow an edit.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#1948 - 2014-07-15 12:04:46 UTC
No, it's not in question. The fact that you think it is just highlights your ignorance.

If people did not destroy things, then you lot would have no reason to suck on roids or haul stuff all day. Because there would be no one who needed to buy things.

Suicide ganking, along with any and every form of destruction or loss of assets in this game, is vital to the continuation of EVE. The game literally does not work without it.

"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.
Arkady Romanov
Whole Squid
#1949 - 2014-07-15 12:05:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Arkady Romanov
Kal Murmur wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Of course it's good for the game, that isn't even in question. It might not be good for *your* game, but it's vital to the game as a whole.

EVE has an economy that requires destruction of assets in order to fuel demand. And given CCP's most recently released numbers for "Production vs Destruction", it's something that needs to happen.

When you see a suicide ganker in local, you should thank them for the valuable service they provide.


No, it most certainly is in question, and you piping up trying to smack down any dissenting voice on the subject doesn't make it any less so. Eve is a huge balancing act, it thrives on being edgy, hardcore and dangerous, but if it ever gets too much so then the new subscriber numbers will drop to an unsustainable level.

CCP know this, which is why they keep bringing in small nerfs to the various forms of griefing that hurt new players. Of course in typical Eve fashion, the bitter vet response to this is to just up their game and be even more dickish, which is certainly going to work out exactly as they expect. Like the last 20 or so times.


Stop equating ganking/scamming/awoxing with griefing, because they are two very different things. Ganking/scamming/awoxing is non-consensual, but totally EULA/TOS compliant PVP. Griefing is a bannable offense.

You are not advocating for the admirable cause of doing away with griefers. You are calling for a nerf on legitimate gameplay. Gameplay which has been the cornerstone of EVE since its inception. Gameplay that has attracted people to the game (the heists, ponzi schemes and other villainous activity)

Furthermore, newbies are no more subject to either than anybody else. That is why CCP watches what people do in newbie systems.

Whole Squid: Get Inked.
Aralyn Cormallen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1950 - 2014-07-15 12:27:50 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
I'd like to confirm that one of those freighters that made it safely through Uedama today belonged to me. I typically try to make trips in that time zone, that way the Americans are still at work and the EU guys are likely asleep.

I do have the benefit of having watchlisted the major CODE guys on that character since I know who they all are.


Wooooaaahhh. Hold on there cowboy, are you saying you took precautions to avoid being ganked. But, but, I heard that wasn't possible!
Lady Areola Fappington
#1951 - 2014-07-15 12:43:44 UTC
Aralyn Cormallen wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
I'd like to confirm that one of those freighters that made it safely through Uedama today belonged to me. I typically try to make trips in that time zone, that way the Americans are still at work and the EU guys are likely asleep.

I do have the benefit of having watchlisted the major CODE guys on that character since I know who they all are.


Wooooaaahhh. Hold on there cowboy, are you saying you took precautions to avoid being ganked. But, but, I heard that wasn't possible!



Here, let me see if I can pull this off. Ahem.


As a disabled single-parent combat veteran with three full-time jobs, five kids, and two dogs, I can't be expected to just be able to login whenever and do my hauling. I have a life! I can only play EVE for a limited time every day, and I demand CCP cater to my whims when it comes to gaming. People like me make up the vast majority of the EVE playerbase, and if CCP doesn't do something to protect us from these no-life sociopaths, we'll all leave!


There, I think I covered it all.

On an unrelated note, today is my birthday, and I'm posting to the EVE-O forums. How sad is dat?

7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided. --Eve New Player Guide
Gully Alex Foyle
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1952 - 2014-07-15 12:59:15 UTC
Lady Areola Fappington wrote:
On an unrelated note, today is my birthday, and I'm posting to the EVE-O forums. How sad is dat?
Happy birthday!

Now, gtfo and go party.

Make space glamorous! Is EVE dying or not? Ask the EVE-O Death-o-meter!
Kal Murmur
Lazortits
#1953 - 2014-07-15 13:17:14 UTC
Tippia wrote:
When was the last time they did that?


Ooh let me think, Crimewatch? Remember when can flipping was a thing? The suicide gankers and highsec griefers are constantly whining about the nerfs they've received over the years, but always seem to lack the intellect to question WHY their gamestyle keeps getting nerfed.

Tippia wrote:
No, it most certainly is not. The entire game is predicated on and built around it. It instantly collapses without it. Any suggestion otherwise only demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the core mechanisms of EVE: the market, the industry, and the combat it relies on.


Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
No, it's not in question. The fact that you think it is just highlights your ignorance.


Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Suicide ganking, along with any and every form of destruction or loss of assets in this game, is vital to the continuation of EVE. The game literally does not work without it.


This stuff is just nonsense. The idea that Eve would collapse without suicide ganking in high sec is laughable in the extreme. Despite the damage suicide ganking can do to new players, in terms of ships destroyed it's nothing compared to a decent null war.

The part you guys keep ignoring though is most of us don't want suicide ganking banned, we just want the people doing it to show a little restraint and be the clever bandits they used to be, instead of this ridiculous new(ish) thing of popping any miner they catch in a belt, or any empty freighter that doesn't have a fleet accompanying it.

Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
If people did not destroy things, then you lot would have no reason to suck on roids or haul stuff all day. Because there would be no one who needed to buy things.


I don't haul or mine. Maybe you should spend a bit of time outside carebear land in the places where ships get blown up in huge quantities and without relying on griefing newbies. Or would you then have to actually learn to fly something rather than just trying to drive new players out of the game between sessions trolling the forum?
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#1954 - 2014-07-15 13:26:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Kal Murmur wrote:
Ooh let me think, Crimewatch? Remember when can flipping was a thing?
Yeah, see… that wasn't a change aimed at protecting newbies from griefers. That was a change aimed at protecting the servers from a tangled and incomprehensible mess of character dependencies. So no, that was not the last time they did that.

Quote:
This stuff is just nonsense.
No, it's not.
Destruction — on a massive scale — is one of the three cornerstones for the game, without which it would simply cease to work. It's really as simple as that and there is absolutely no question about it. Trying to wave it off means you have fundamentally failed to understand how EVE works. Any attempt at dismissing the critical important of mass destruction, on the other hand, is so thoroughly nonsensical that it immediately invalidates any argument even remotely based on it.

Quote:
Despite the damage suicide ganking can do to new players, in terms of ships destroyed it's nothing compared to a decent null war.
The damage suicide ganking can do to new players is very close to zero for one simple reason: they're new players. By virtue of being new, no damage dealt to them can be very high.

Quote:
The part you guys keep ignoring though is most of us don't want suicide ganking banned, we just want the people doing it to show a little restraint and be the clever bandits they used to be, instead of this ridiculous new(ish) thing of popping any miner they catch in a belt, or any empty freighter that doesn't have a fleet accompanying it.
Good news: what you're describing isn't what's happening. Gankers have to be very clever to get at even the utterly minute target selection available to them (which excludes new players by default, again by simple virtue of them being new). If the gankers were allowed to do it without restraint, ganking wouldn't be so laughably rare as it is now.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#1955 - 2014-07-15 13:30:51 UTC
Kal Murmur wrote:


This stuff is just nonsense. The idea that Eve would collapse without suicide ganking in high sec is laughable in the extreme. Despite the damage suicide ganking can do to new players, in terms of ships destroyed it's nothing compared to a decent null war.


Side note, this is why people like this get pwned on the forums all day every day by the Tippias and Kaarouses (Tippii and Kaarousii?) of the forum. Kaarous said DESTRUCTION, ganking is a form of destruction and it's existence is demonstrably good for the EVE economy.

Ganking also creates an air of danger and uncertainty, which are also great qualities to have in a sandbox game. I've spent 7 years learning how to not get ganked, how to avoid scams and danger. For a sandbox PVE player (like me), that's content in the same way that this game taught me as a child how not to get eaten by crocodiles.

I will NEVER understand the people so 'victimish' and weak that they can't even deal with a small amount of danger in a video game. If ganking scares you, sleeping without a night light must be cause for some very wet bedsheets.......
Benny Ohu
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#1956 - 2014-07-15 14:14:53 UTC
Kal Murmur wrote:
The part you guys keep ignoring though is most of us don't want suicide ganking banned, we just want the people doing it to show a little restraint and be the clever bandits they used to be, instead of this ridiculous new(ish) thing of popping any miner they catch in a belt, or any empty freighter that doesn't have a fleet accompanying it.

i don't want mining removed, either. i just think that miners should show some restraint regarding how much ore they mine each day.

a great man once said, "Miners should not fall into a routine of mining all day. I want well-rounded people in my system, not ice-mining machines."

i want to see the clever miners that used to be, not these modern miners that strip every asteroid they see only for the sake of it.
Benny Ohu
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#1957 - 2014-07-15 14:16:06 UTC
Lady Areola Fappington wrote:
today is my birthday

you look like a monkey, and you smell like one, too.
Darek Castigatus
Immortalis Inc.
Shadow Cartel
#1958 - 2014-07-15 14:26:01 UTC
Lady Areola Fappington wrote:
On an unrelated note, today is my birthday, and I'm posting to the EVE-O forums. How sad is dat?



Happy Birthday, now go do something birthdayish rather than post here :P

Pirates - The Invisible Fist of Darwin

you're welcome
Hiply Rustic
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1959 - 2014-07-15 14:38:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Hiply Rustic
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Arkady Romanov wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Ah, so they do to you guys what they do to us for internet. Gotcha.


We have the same thing with Internet servicespecially too. Plus our infrastructure is laughable compared to most modern nations.


Idk about that, I'm in telecomm myself. The United States is staggering along under an infrastructure that, if given scrutiny, has barely been touched since the 70s.

The telecomm company breakup in the late 90s (thanks, Clinton) turned one relatively benevolent monopoly into fifty small, localized, extremely hostile monopolies. The end result of course is that we now have three choices, and they're all basically the same.

But the worst thing was that, where AT&T had EARNED their infrastructure, built it from the ground up and had plans to upgrade it, these new companies had earned nothing and were only out to see who could milk their customers the hardest, now with government mandates and support. The new companies paid nothing for their infrastructure, and they've been riding on next to zero operational expenses for almost two decades now. The "cost" of telecommunications services is 100% arbitrary.

So they're silver spoon babies, with all the contempt and hostility to their customers that only entitlement can bring.



You might want to not blame Clinton for something that started with a federal anti-trust suit in 1974, took 8 years until AT&T knew they were about to lose and signed a consent decree, and was ultimately presided over by Reagan in '84. The AT&T breakup started all of that, and it most assuredly did not start under Clinton's watch.

Also, AT&T was a benevolent monopoly? Also, if you want to talk about Clinton and telcos you're remiss in leaving out the monstrous windfalls handed to them by the "National Infrastructure Initiative" launched during Clinton/Gore which resulted in dramatically higher fees and tax breaks to fund an infrastructure buildout that was never completed.

Whoever is to blame, in this case it sure as hell isn't Slick Willy.

Ralph King-Griffin wrote: "Eve deliberately excludes the stupid and the weak willied." EvE: Only the strong-willied need apply.
Kal Murmur
Lazortits
#1960 - 2014-07-15 14:57:05 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Destruction — on a massive scale — is one of the three cornerstones for the game, without which it would simply cease to work. It's really as simple as that and there is absolutely no question about it. Trying to wave it off means you have fundamentally failed to understand how EVE works. Any attempt at dismissing the critical important of mass destruction, on the other hand, is so thoroughly nonsensical that it immediately invalidates any argument even remotely based on it.


This is why I find you guys so laughable, absolutely no-one is calling for the removal of 'mass destruction' in Eve. All some people are asking for is that you carry out the majority of your mass destruction in parts of the game where it doesn't drive away new players.

Incidentally, you appear to want it both ways. Either suicide ganking is 'laughably rare' or it constitutes 'mass destruction' on a level that would make Eve 'instantly collapse' were it removed. Well, which is it?

Quote:
The damage suicide ganking can do to new players is very close to zero for one simple reason: they're new players. By virtue of being new, no damage dealt to them can be very high.


You should really slow down, if you make many more comments as utterly ridiculous as this, we're going to end up passing some form of idiot event horizon. So you can't damage new players? No, you're right they can just pack up and leave the game and then the rest of us can suffer the consequences of a falling userbase and an uncertain future for Eve.

Quote:
Good news: what you're describing isn't what's happening. Gankers have to be very clever to get at even the utterly minute target selection available to them (which excludes new players by default, again by simple virtue of them being new). If the gankers were allowed to do it without restraint, ganking wouldn't be so laughably rare as it is now.


Ganking isn't laughably rare, which is why CODE keep posting huge lists of all the ganks they're carrying out. The other day we went over the zkillboard data which also showed a huge rise in suicide ganking, and it was brushed off as 'bad historical data'. Why don't you just tell the truth and stop with this pathetic pretense that the numbers even matter to you? You want to troll newbies and carebears and if that results in a worse future for the game then you clearly don't give a damn.

Oh and please never stop telling everyone how clever you are, and how uber leet carebear ganking is, it never stops being funny.