These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Crime & Punishment

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

pushing for harder punishment on hi sec gankers

First post
Author
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#301 - 2014-08-25 12:28:36 UTC
Leto Thule wrote:
I'm not trolling you bud. I'm just saying it isn't easy to gank a target that is trying not to be ganked. I agree with your other points.

Edit: and everyone should ALWAYS be doing everything they can not to be ganked. The tools are there for players to prevent their losses.
Not everyone knows how to prevent being ganked. Lets face it, people don't choose to gank out of some altruistic desire to make everyone tank (even if new order claim to do so). They do it because they know that there are loads of easy targets. Regardless though, I'd not say that anything should be done to make it tougher to gank individual pilots, just that there should be more longer lasting consequences of choosing to do so and more reason to actively hunt gankers.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Gadon Longstar
Doomheim
#302 - 2014-08-25 14:18:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Gadon Longstar
Lucas Kell wrote:
Leto Thule wrote:
I'm not trolling you bud. I'm just saying it isn't easy to gank a target that is trying not to be ganked. I agree with your other points.

Edit: and everyone should ALWAYS be doing everything they can not to be ganked. The tools are there for players to prevent their losses.
Not everyone knows how to prevent being ganked. Lets face it, people don't choose to gank out of some altruistic desire to make everyone tank (even if new order claim to do so). They do it because they know that there are loads of easy targets. Regardless though, I'd not say that anything should be done to make it tougher to gank individual pilots, just that there should be more longer lasting consequences of choosing to do so and more reason to actively hunt gankers.

Not the worst point, although I question how much it would actually matter.

While I do not know the numbers, it seems most people I've encountered (either with or against) are using gank alts. That is to say the character in question does nothing but suicide ganking. So, I do have to question what mechanics could be implemented to achieve greater repercussions for gankers without those repercussions being more tedium. It's not like limiting there access to L4 agents is going to affect them, nah mean?
Dirk Decibel
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#303 - 2014-08-25 15:23:55 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Regardless though, I'd not say that anything should be done to make it tougher to gank individual pilots, just that there should be more longer lasting consequences of choosing to do so and more reason to actively hunt gankers.


Like what? We're already at a point that you usually make dedicated ganking chars cuz doing it on your main is way too risky in hi sec cuz of killrights and below -5 sec status.

Players already have the tools to foil ganks and/or hunt gankers, they just hardly ever do it... Can't say I blame them even, it must be boring as hell as targets will be few and far between and after one encounter you'll be on the ganker's watchlist. It works the other way around too though. The days of belts filled with easily soloable untanked barges are long gone, at least in my area of operations. It's all skiffs, procurers and tanked exhumers.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#304 - 2014-08-25 16:12:38 UTC
Who knows. I'm not saying I have the ideas to fix it, but I understand the frustrations. A white knight has pretty much a single option, stop the ganker as he tries to gank. At any time other than that he'll be untouchable. Kill rights and bounties are completely useless and as you say, alts just get used. Effectively gankers are just a restriction on what ships can be used in highsec rather than being an entertaining element of gameplay.

Maybe it would be nice to see space slit down a bit, so pirates live in low, and non-pirates in high, with the 2 sides of the factions also restricted from each other, so there's more conflict and more reasons for people to venture out of their comfort zones.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Andski
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#305 - 2014-08-25 16:43:17 UTC
CCP has been ratcheting up the consequences of suicide ganking for years. It's never been enough for some people because suicide ganking is still possible.

So kindly rewrite your request into what you really want, for suicide ganking to be removed from the game.

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar

Xuixien
Solar Winds Security Solutions
#306 - 2014-08-25 16:49:08 UTC
Giuseppe R Raimondo wrote:
a way to reduce highsec ganking is to remove the option to turn in tags and buy your security status up. Everyone knew it was a stupied idea when introduced, i am supriced its still a thing


Tags4Sec don't have much to do with ganking, if anything at all. It makes it easier for Tornadoes to camp a gate, but at the end of the day you're free to gank anyone and anything even with -10 security status.

Epic Space Cat, Horsegirl, Philanthropist

Ecrir Twy'Lar
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#307 - 2014-08-26 03:22:47 UTC
Andski wrote:
CCP has been ratcheting up the consequences of suicide ganking for years. It's never been enough for some people because suicide ganking is still possible.

So kindly rewrite your request into what you really want, for suicide ganking to be removed from the game.


I just don't think a criminal should be able to hide in a highsec station. Maybe instead of being concorded, make it so they can't dock up and they can't safely log out of the game for a period after a gank. Maybe they can't even use a gate for a while. So they are always fleeing and hiding. Would probably be more fun for everyone involved.
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#308 - 2014-08-26 09:27:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
Ecrir Twy'Lar wrote:
Andski wrote:
CCP has been ratcheting up the consequences of suicide ganking for years. It's never been enough for some people because suicide ganking is still possible.

So kindly rewrite your request into what you really want, for suicide ganking to be removed from the game.


I just don't think a criminal should be able to hide in a highsec station.
Why not? Also incredibly trivial to get around, they'll just use a dickstar to park their pods in and/or a neutral Orca to stage out of.

Quote:
Maybe instead of being concorded, make it so they can't dock up and they can't safely log out of the game for a period after a gank. Maybe they can't even use a gate for a while. So they are always fleeing and hiding.
We'll be back to the good old days of pulling off ganks in multiple locations by warping around (see boomerang exploit). Removing Concord from the equation will increase ganks, not decrease them.

Quote:
Would probably be more fun for everyone involved.
Hardly anybody shoots at gankers or criminals now*, the changes you propose will do nothing to change that.

*Ask Solestice Project, she can often be found sitting on the undock or derping around having a giggle, all the while being flashy red.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack

Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#309 - 2014-08-26 10:14:58 UTC
Andski wrote:
CCP has been ratcheting up the consequences of suicide ganking for years. It's never been enough for some people because suicide ganking is still possible.

So kindly rewrite your request into what you really want, for suicide ganking to be removed from the game.



I think the valid point is.. not if suicide ganking should be possible. Because it should by very definition of the game. THe problem arises when suicide ganking is easier, the most secure and predictable form of PVP up to the point that is more effective than sanctioned high sec combat like wars.

That is something hard to solve, because you do not want to make suicide ganking impossible, but you must keep it in a fine balance before it becomes too hard or too easy to do with too little consequences.

One thing I was thinking is that concord response could be escalated by the number of agressosrs (just a raw Idea here). So if you suicide gankg somethign with 1 ship, they take a logn time to arrive. But if you use a fleet of 40 destroyers, they arrive much faster. That makes suicide ganking for revenge, for anger or just to hurt someone while acceptign to pay a reasonable price when concord arrives still completely viable. On other hand make the dumbshit catalysis mass suicide ganking with no purpose less likely.

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

Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#310 - 2014-08-26 11:30:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
Kagura Nikon wrote:
I think the valid point is.. not if suicide ganking should be possible. Because it should by very definition of the game.
Agreed, suicide ganking should definitely be possible. The problem with changing the mechanics is that suicide gankers tend to be pretty quick at adapting to any changes, whereas their prey generally can't even adapt to the current ones.

One group is dedicated, some of the other group just can't be bothered.

Quote:
The problem arises when suicide ganking is easier, the most secure and predictable form of PVP up to the point that is more effective than sanctioned high sec combat like wars.
It's certainly 100% more effective than wardecs when used against NPC corp members Pirate

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack

Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#311 - 2014-08-26 11:34:24 UTC
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:
I think the valid point is.. not if suicide ganking should be possible. Because it should by very definition of the game.
Agreed, suicide ganking should definitely be possible. The problem with changing the mechanics is that suicide gankers tend to be pretty quick at adapting to any changes, whereas their prey generally can't even adapt to the current ones.

One group is dedicated, some of the other group just can't be bothered.

Quote:
The problem arises when suicide ganking is easier, the most secure and predictable form of PVP up to the point that is more effective than sanctioned high sec combat like wars.
It's certainly 100% more effective than wardecs when used against NPC corp members Pirate



Solution.. make NPC corp tax 30% after 6 months old character and 50 % after 1 year. Also Player corps start paying a tax of 20% that is reduced by 1% per member. That would make peopel flock into reasoanbly sided corps... would brign them to the real eve, they woudl make friends, and wardecs woudl be more relevant than suicide ganking.

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

Dirk Decibel
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#312 - 2014-08-26 13:29:14 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:


Solution.. make NPC corp tax 30% after 6 months old character and 50 % after 1 year. Also Player corps start paying a tax of 20% that is reduced by 1% per member. That would make peopel flock into reasoanbly sided corps... would brign them to the real eve, they woudl make friends, and wardecs woudl be more relevant than suicide ganking.


They'd just avoid wardecs by hopping around several corporations.
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#313 - 2014-08-26 13:51:50 UTC
Dirk Decibel wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:


Solution.. make NPC corp tax 30% after 6 months old character and 50 % after 1 year. Also Player corps start paying a tax of 20% that is reduced by 1% per member. That would make peopel flock into reasoanbly sided corps... would brign them to the real eve, they woudl make friends, and wardecs woudl be more relevant than suicide ganking.


They'd just avoid wardecs by hopping around several corporations.



Time to enter a new corp if you already entered a corp this week ( 7 days). They can still avoid the war, but at MASSIVE costs.

But the best solution would be to make the war FOLLOW anyone that leaves a corp under war for 7 days.

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

Dirk Decibel
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#314 - 2014-08-26 22:33:08 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:


Time to enter a new corp if you already entered a corp this week ( 7 days). They can still avoid the war, but at MASSIVE costs.

But the best solution would be to make the war FOLLOW anyone that leaves a corp under war for 7 days.

Unless they changed the cost of setting up a player corp when I wasn't looking (could be, haven't set up a player corp in years), there are no 'massive costs' involved.

" War following" corp members that drop corp, that would be interesting if it followed individual corp members. If it means that the entire new corporation of the member that dropped corp is affected, that would open up entire new ways of griefing and piracy.

War decs were nerfed and nerfed again to accomodate high sec carebears to a point that they were almost completely useless, making them meaningful again has my vote but I reckon it will just create more whining as 'miners just want to mine in peace'...
Ssabat Thraxx
DUST Expeditionary Team
Good Sax
#315 - 2014-08-27 06:51:08 UTC
Christopher Mabata wrote:
You forgot the part where your -5 MASS Murderer already died and came back to life, effectively not guilty anymore as he paid with his life for his crimes


You leave Jesus out of this X

\m/ O.o \m/

"You're a freak ..." - Solecist Project

Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#316 - 2014-08-27 09:45:23 UTC
Dirk Decibel wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:


Time to enter a new corp if you already entered a corp this week ( 7 days). They can still avoid the war, but at MASSIVE costs.

But the best solution would be to make the war FOLLOW anyone that leaves a corp under war for 7 days.

Unless they changed the cost of setting up a player corp when I wasn't looking (could be, haven't set up a player corp in years), there are no 'massive costs' involved.

" War following" corp members that drop corp, that would be interesting if it followed individual corp members. If it means that the entire new corporation of the member that dropped corp is affected, that would open up entire new ways of griefing and piracy.

War decs were nerfed and nerfed again to accomodate high sec carebears to a point that they were almost completely useless, making them meaningful again has my vote but I reckon it will just create more whining as 'miners just want to mine in peace'...



Readign comprehension 101. that was a SUGGESION to add to my previous suggestion.

But CCP woudl never accept single character cntaminating the other corp.

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

Thomas Mayaki
Perkone
Caldari State
#317 - 2014-08-28 11:56:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Thomas Mayaki
Give gankers a 'docking delay'' when they try to bluff themselves into stations according to their sec status.
Another plus of this is that it would increase player interaction which I believe is one of the goals of the New Order.

EDIT By 'docking delay' I mean a extra 1-2 seconds before being able to dock when requested.
Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#318 - 2014-08-28 12:38:57 UTC
Thomas Mayaki wrote:
Give gankers a 'docking delay'' when they try to bluff themselves into stations according to their sec status.
Another plus of this is that it would increase player interaction which I believe is one of the goals of the New Order.

EDIT By 'docking delay' I mean a extra 1-2 seconds before being able to dock when requested.

there's already an aggression timerRoll
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#319 - 2014-08-28 14:32:33 UTC
Dirk Decibel wrote:
War decs were nerfed and nerfed again to accomodate high sec carebears to a point that they were almost completely useless, making them meaningful again has my vote but I reckon it will just create more whining as 'miners just want to mine in peace'...
War decs were nerfed? I was under the impression they made them cheaper and removed war shedding.

Wars are pretty useless, yes, but that's more because the people that want to declare war want to do so on entities that have no interest or ability to defend themselves against the aggressor, then the aggressor cries when nobody logs on or people quit the defending corp. Wars following individuals wouldn't change that. They aren't going to stick around and get killed for no reason, so the result would just be more players in NPC corps, and if NPC corps were no longer viable it would simply lead to them quitting.

At the end of the day, there's no benefit to catering to people who want to attack people who are in no way going to fight back. The result of that will be the defender leaving and the aggressor still having nobody to fight. Surely the game would be better with more players, and thus more income for CCP to expand it, even if some of those extra players just want to be left alone.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#320 - 2014-08-28 16:15:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
Lucas Kell wrote:
Dirk Decibel wrote:
War decs were nerfed and nerfed again to accomodate high sec carebears to a point that they were almost completely useless, making them meaningful again has my vote but I reckon it will just create more whining as 'miners just want to mine in peace'...
War decs were nerfed? I was under the impression they made them cheaper
Nope, they made them more expensive, base cost of a wardec used to be 2M isk IIRC, it's now 50M isk and that ramps up considerably depending the amount of people in the corp being wardecced.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack