These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
DJentropy Ovaert
The Conference Elite
Safety.
#321 - 2014-08-28 16:18:30 UTC
Ecrir Twy'Lar wrote:


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.


Yes spending 15 mins warping from safe to safe with my egg sounds like a ton of fun, please sign me up.
Revis Owen
Krigmakt Elite
Safety.
#322 - 2014-08-28 17:07:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Revis Owen
Lucas Kell wrote:
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.


That's only one side of the coin, and some-not all--of those players choosing to quit. The other side of the coin are those players who want to stick with Eve, will be somewhat forced to finally learn a little more about the tools and social interaction (it's an MMO for Christ's sake!) required to protect themselves, and will come to a more full and enjoyable experience in Eve than they thought possible back when they were so ignorant.

For the quitters, I say GOOD RIDDANCE!

Lucas Kell wrote:
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.


And beyond no benefit, there is detriment to catering to those who don't want to fight back. Take away the possibility of every player's sand castle to be knocked over, and the soul of Eve is destroyed.

Lucas Kell wrote:
The result of that will be the defender leaving and the aggressor still having nobody to fight.


Wrong. By your own statement, you said those "who in no way are going to fight back". Those are not "defenders". Defenders fight back. So, as I illustrated above, there will be plenty of defenders in Eve. They will be the one's who don't quit, stick with Eve, and get better with the tools and social interactions to protect themselves. Also, aggressors are defenders, too, because often the shoe is on the other foot. There's no such thing as a perma-aggressor in Eve.

Lucas Kell wrote:
Surely the game would be better with more players


Wrong. More players does not equal better game automatically.

Lucas Kell wrote:
and thus more income for CCP to expand it


Where's your empirical evidence that shows that? I can think of numerous online games that protected those who "don't want to fight back" that have come and gone in the 10+ years Eve has been around.

Agent of the New Order http://www.minerbumping.com/p/the-code.html If you do not have a current Mining Permit, please contact me for issuance.

Trixie Lawless
State War Academy
Caldari State
#323 - 2014-08-28 17:58:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Trixie Lawless
DJentropy Ovaert wrote:
Ecrir Twy'Lar wrote:


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.


Yes spending 15 mins warping from safe to safe with my egg sounds like a ton of fun, please sign me up.



Well you are a member of CODE and therefore a roleplayer. So do the crime, do the time. It's not very realistic letting mass murderers hang out in a station after being publicly identified by authorities.

I don't really have a problem with the suicide gankers, as long as they actually follow their RP or at least sometimes go for ta rgets that have a chance to dust them instead. AFK freighters and toons old enough to fly a barge but refuse to throw on some tank or completely AFK it kinda deserve what they get. They should fly smarter.

What I do think is kinda stupid, is suicide tankers being able to undock, pop a target in 30 seconds, dock their egg back up for 15 minutes while they salvage on their scouting alt, and then head back out and immediately do it again.

The ganker loses maybe 3 mill on the catalyst while they destroy at least 20 mil-30 mil on the coveter or the the retriever. Being able to dock back up just makes it too damn easy.

I have a better idea for those who want to RP as criminals. Its more immersive, and adds a level of realism to the game. Actually create a punishment system instead of sec status loss (which is lame because -10 is like an award).

1st Offense - Gankers market price ship value is given to gankee as compensation.
2nd Offense - compensation plus "jail time" (two hours of logged in time where no skill point increase occurs and the character is stuck in a penal station)
3rd Offense - compensation + 3 hours jail time.

And so on....

Of course their would need to be some form of rehabilitation Available to the offending player so their toon is not worthless after so many offenses, but if CCP is going to consider it a crime in highsec and have space police, then make more realistic.

Plus I think this would separate the true CODE members who want to RP and actually teach a valuable lesson to rookies, and the jackwagons that simply want to grief.

Just my .02 isk.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#324 - 2014-08-28 18:49:28 UTC
Revis Owen wrote:
That's only one side of the coin, and some-not all--of those players choosing to quit. The other side of the coin are those players who want to stick with Eve, will be somewhat forced to finally learn a little more about the tools and social interaction (it's an MMO for Christ's sake!) required to protect themselves, and will come to a more full and enjoyable experience in Eve than they thought possible back when they were so ignorant.

For the quitters, I say GOOD RIDDANCE!
And the ones that stay would have stayed anyway. So by all means say Good Riddance, what you are saying is that you are happy for CCP to have reduced revenue from their game (meaning less cash to put towards improving the game) so that you can only play with people that want to do things you want to do, even though the people that quit would not have even remotely affected you.

Revis Owen wrote:
And beyond no benefit, there is detriment to catering to those who don't want to fight back. Take away the possibility of every player's sand castle to be knocked over, and the soul of Eve is destroyed.
LOL. Yeah, because if a guy can sit and do missions with no risk all day, I'm suddenly unable to play the game I want to play, right? These people have zero effect on the game. I know you all like to think that they are terrible for the game, and that the game would die if they were allowed to stay, but it's horseshit. EVE is more likely to die through attrition than by any other means.

Revis Owen wrote:
Wrong. By your own statement, you said those "who in no way are going to fight back". Those are not "defenders". Defenders fight back. So, as I illustrated above, there will be plenty of defenders in Eve. They will be the one's who don't quit, stick with Eve, and get better with the tools and social interactions to protect themselves. Also, aggressors are defenders, too, because often the shoe is on the other foot. There's no such thing as a perma-aggressor in Eve.
Incorrect. The EVE wardec system classes the attacking corp as the aggressor, and the target corp as the defender, regardless of how many kills they get. And the vast majority of wars are pretty one sided. Out of the 42214 wardecs that show up as having ships killed on either side, only 3688 of those wars had the defender killing more ships than the aggressor.

Revis Owen wrote:
Wrong. More players does not equal better game automatically.
Of course not, but it's certaily the right direction. I doubt many game developers will be saying "damn, I wish I had less money coming in, that way I could really develop this game!".

Revis Owen wrote:
Where's your empirical evidence that shows that? I can think of numerous online games that protected those who "don't want to fight back" that have come and gone in the 10+ years Eve has been around.
And therefore the reason EVE is still around must be that they don't protect their players?

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Doomheim
#325 - 2014-08-28 19:21:14 UTC
CCP Falcon wrote:
Why should CCP provide protection for your haulage in high sec?

CONCORD offer a level of deterrent just the same as any law enforcement agency, but as with any police for they're reactive and punitive rather than proactive.

If you want your haulage to be safer, bring the guns. If you don't have any guns, sacrifice some of your profit margin and hire someone who has them to escort you.

Welcome to New Eden, you just learned a very valuable lesson in being prepared and covering your back.

Smile

FALCON PUNCH!

That is all.

F
admiral root
Red Galaxy
#326 - 2014-08-28 19:57:49 UTC
Trixie Lawless wrote:
Well you are a member of CODE and therefore a roleplayer.


Wrong. Not all members of Code, or the New Order, are roleplayers. I think we even have some of the special people among us who laugh at people doing such a thing in a roleplaying game. They're still good people, though.

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff

Thomas Mayaki
Perkone
Caldari State
#327 - 2014-08-28 20:18:36 UTC
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
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


Naturally the aggression timer would take precedent over the 'docking timer' when the crime is committed. The 'docking timer' would be a permanent penalty according to sec status. The idea is to punish the negative sec status by not refusing but delaying entry to law abiding stations. Remember these are criminals we are talking about not just when they aggress :).
Trixie Lawless
State War Academy
Caldari State
#328 - 2014-08-28 20:20:49 UTC
admiral root wrote:
Trixie Lawless wrote:
Well you are a member of CODE and therefore a roleplayer.


Wrong. Not all members of Code, or the New Order, are roleplayers. I think we even have some of the special people among us who laugh at people doing such a thing in a roleplaying game. They're still good people, though.



Ahhhh. Didn't know that. Just know I've seen a lot of the James 315 references. I still stick by the rest of what I said though. Its just too easy to undock, dust someone, and then dock back up.

And I kinda feel that's almost the same as an AFK miner. The character is just sitting there until its time to be used For a single purpose. Alt gankers press their F1 button to blow up a venture like a minor switches targets only after he has wasted 80% of a cycle and hears "Asteroid is depleted".

The gank toon gets to sit in station completely safe until it is time to switch rocks.

Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#329 - 2014-08-28 20:29:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Ralph King-Griffin
Thomas Mayaki wrote:
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
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


Naturally the aggression timer would take precedent over the 'docking timer' when the crime is committed. The 'docking timer' would be a permanent penalty according to sec status. The idea is to punish the negative sec status by not refusing but delaying entry to law abiding stations. Remember these are criminals we are talking about not just when they aggress :).

iv been at -9 sec status, i got there by asploding gooooon and code cats at burn jita last year by repeatedly disco balling apocalypse shiniganising them as they went in for the gank (funny as all hell btw will probably do it again next year).
should i have incurred this penalty aswell?
my point is, even "counter ganking" will net you the same results, theirs plenty of deterrents in place as is,
too many in fact.
Paranoid Loyd
#330 - 2014-08-28 20:52:07 UTC
Thomas Mayaki wrote:
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
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


Naturally the aggression timer would take precedent over the 'docking timer' when the crime is committed. The 'docking timer' would be a permanent penalty according to sec status. The idea is to punish the negative sec status by not refusing but delaying entry to law abiding stations. Remember these are criminals we are talking about not just when they aggress :).


I don't need a station, this is easily circumvented by warping around until the timer is complete, if I find another target within the "no docking" timer I simply fly another gank ship out to myself with an alt.

"There is only one authority in this game, and that my friend is violence. The supreme authority upon which all other authority is derived." ISD Max Trix

Fix the Prospect!

Helicity Boson
Immortalis Inc.
Shadow Cartel
#331 - 2014-08-29 11:31:50 UTC
This is the fifteen hundredth time we have laughed at this thread.

We have become exceedingly efficient at it.
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#332 - 2014-08-29 14:11:31 UTC
what a terrible thread

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133

Dirk Decibel
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#333 - 2014-08-29 14:27:54 UTC
Trixie Lawless wrote:


1st Offense - Gankers market price ship value is given to gankee as compensation.
2nd Offense - compensation plus "jail time" (two hours of logged in time where no skill point increase occurs and the character is stuck in a penal station)
3rd Offense - compensation + 3 hours jail time.

So again, someone is asking for game mechanics to dish out the punishment. Again, the measures will have a more severe effect on newbies since multi-accounting gankers will be much more efficient at circumventing these measures.

The skill point freeze is ridiculous to begin with. First of all: gank alts are mostly specialized chars trained for flying specific fits and after they reach their goals they don't do much training anymore. Second: I'd just switch my training to another char b4 ganking. But you're prolly gonna suggest the skill training stop should be 'account wide' or something like that now... Roll
Leto Thule
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#334 - 2014-08-29 14:44:05 UTC
Trixie Lawless wrote:

I have a better idea for those who want to RP as criminals. Its more immersive, and adds a level of realism to the game. Actually create a punishment system instead of sec status loss (which is lame because -10 is like an award).

1st Offense - Gankers market price ship value is given to gankee as compensation.
2nd Offense - compensation plus "jail time" (two hours of logged in time where no skill point increase occurs and the character is stuck in a penal station)
3rd Offense - compensation + 3 hours jail time.


This is a bad idea, and you should feel bad for posting it.

I have a better idea.

1st Offense - Victim should now understand how to prevent future ganks
2nd Offense - Due to victim being a numbskull, "jail time" (two hours of logged in time where no skill point increase occurs and the character is stuck in a penal station)
3rd Offense - GM convo's victim to ask "Dude, what do you not get?" Toon is biomassed.

Hows that for a punitive list because I dont like your gameplay style?? How is yours fair and this one not?

Thunderdome ringmaster, Community Leader and Lord Inquisitor to the Court of Crime and Punishment

Trixie Lawless
State War Academy
Caldari State
#335 - 2014-08-29 15:26:36 UTC
Dirk Decibel wrote:
Trixie Lawless wrote:


1st Offense - Gankers market price ship value is given to gankee as compensation.
2nd Offense - compensation plus "jail time" (two hours of logged in time where no skill point increase occurs and the character is stuck in a penal station)
3rd Offense - compensation + 3 hours jail time.

So again, someone is asking for game mechanics to dish out the punishment. Again, the measures will have a more severe effect on newbies since multi-accounting gankers will be much more efficient at circumventing these measures.

The skill point freeze is ridiculous to begin with. First of all: gank alts are mostly specialized chars trained for flying specific fits and after they reach their goals they don't do much training anymore. Second: I'd just switch my training to another char b4 ganking. But you're prolly gonna suggest the skill training stop should be 'account wide' or something like that now... Roll



Hell no I wouldn't suggest account wide. If someone can circumvent that then props to them. But there are gankers out there that multibox and don't just turn off training after they can fly t1 fitted cats. And yeah, I do think game mechanics should take care and offer more protection for noob pilots, especially when they have less than a million skill points and are flying ventures to start their industrial path. If they are dumb enough to go solo mine in a coveter and jetcan then they deserve what they get, but too many gankers are nailing ventures and frigate miners because noobs don't know any better or don't yet have the skills to sufficiently tank their ship.

And no...I don't feel bad for posting that. Maybe you should "feel bad" for wanting others to face consequences for gameplay choices (which can at times can be an extremely expensive screw up) while you face minimal penalties for your actions. Maybe instead of gankers being able to dust a toon every 15 minutes they should have to wisely pick their targets and make the gank worth it in terms of isk and time.

I'm not asking for ganking to stop by any means, I would just have more respect for it if the ganker had to actually put some forethought into it.
Dirk Decibel
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#336 - 2014-08-29 15:46:22 UTC
Trixie Lawless wrote:


I'm not asking for ganking to stop by any means, I would just have more respect for it if the ganker had to actually put some forethought into it.

I'll keep saying this: ganking requires a hell of a lot more effort than mining, missioning or other favorite carebear pass times. You're just like every other whiner about ganking: "No, ganking should be viable! But we just need one more nerf cuz it's really too easy and profitable now! Just ONE more nerf, I swear!".

As for ganking noobs: good, we need more of that, not less, teach them to lose ships and how to avoid losing them while they are young lest they turn in to whiny little bitches Lol
Leto Thule
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#337 - 2014-08-29 15:58:26 UTC
It was not meant to be an actual suggestion. It was actually intended to make you see how ridiculous it sounds to put gankers in "jail".

Thunderdome ringmaster, Community Leader and Lord Inquisitor to the Court of Crime and Punishment

Trixie Lawless
State War Academy
Caldari State
#338 - 2014-08-29 16:02:18 UTC
Dirk Decibel wrote:
Trixie Lawless wrote:


I'm not asking for ganking to stop by any means, I would just have more respect for it if the ganker had to actually put some forethought into it.

I'll keep saying this: ganking requires a hell of a lot more effort than mining, missioning or other favorite carebear pass times. You're just like every other whiner about ganking: "No, ganking should be viable! But we just need one more nerf cuz it's really too easy and profitable now! Just ONE more nerf, I swear!".

As for ganking noobs: good, we need more of that, not less, teach them to lose ships and how to avoid losing them while they are young lest they turn in to whiny little bitches Lol


And I'll keep saying this...pressing the undock button, flying to the asteroid belt, clicking approach and pressing F1 to pop a venture in two cycles and then docking back up after waiting a bit at an unaligned safe spot takes no more effort then mining or running missions.

Its like some of you who want to only grief others just don't understand how business works. Star Citizen is not too far off and WoW is getting ready to drop a new expansion (lol @ WoW all you want, I do), and the trend in the gaming industry is for a gentle ease into player vs player combat.... Not getting ganked by more experienced players in the first week of play. Just pay attention to rookie chat sometime and count how many potential customer say "effe it, I'm out" when they have been ganked two days into the game and lost most of their assets. I understand the "it's Eve", but if this game doesn't find a way to better transition toons into actually being able to defend themselves, then new games coming out (especially Star Citizen) is going to take a huge chunk out if its player base.

Hate carebears all you want, they make up the large part of the gaming community and pay the bills. And at that I'm done in this thread. No point in trying to talk sense or have a logical discussion on this topic anymore.
Leto Thule
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#339 - 2014-08-29 16:08:22 UTC
Nobody "hates" carebears.

What people HATE, is when people ask for the game to be changed. Every single person here has BEEN new. They went through it. I went through it. You learn to play the game, or you leave.

"The TREND in the gaming industry"?

No. EvE survives because it does not follow the trends of the gaming industry.

Also, LOL @ people who think star citizen is going to be a forgiving environment. It will be the cut throatness of EVE with no CONCORD.

Thunderdome ringmaster, Community Leader and Lord Inquisitor to the Court of Crime and Punishment

Iain Cariaba
#340 - 2014-08-29 16:16:32 UTC
Dirk Decibel wrote:
[quote=Trixie Lawless]1st Offense - Gankers market price ship value is given to gankee as compensation.
2nd Offense - compensation plus "jail time" (two hours of logged in time where no skill point increase occurs and the character is stuck in a penal station)
3rd Offense - compensation + 3 hours jail time.

Here's a better idea: Rather than come up with more idiotic 'punishments' for gankers that not only are simplistic to bypass , but run counter to the very spirit of the game, try making yourself less of a loot pinata.

Oh, sorry. I forgot for a moment I was conversing with the WoW/Hello Kitty/ESO entitlement set who are seemingly incapable of properly playing a PvP game.