These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page12
 

Change ganking rules

First post
Author
Basil Pupkin
Republic Military School
#21 - 2015-01-02 15:51:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Basil Pupkin
Dr Cedric wrote:
My take on it, having been the AFK-Target of gankers (a very long time ago) and now the At-Keyboard-Target of gankers (at least daily in 0.0):

Make 1.0 to 0.8 security space Concord protected. Immediate retribution for any acts of violence that are not sanctioned and consensual - remove everything but the puniest of asteroids and lamest of level 1 missions.

Make 0.7 to 0.5 security space Faction protected. Slower response, just as powerful, and add faction-based security standings losses. Kill enough people in amarr, eventually the police get the idea and run you out of town, try your luck in Rens.

0.4 to 0.1 stays the same

let people have their "safe-zone." Just make it a single solar system or two per faction so that 20000 people are fighting each other over the 100k units of veld that system supports for the day.

Probably won't really change anything, but it makes people feel safe, right!



Welcome to the goonie "nerf hisec we're afraid of it" chorus.

Komi Toran wrote:
Interesting. I move billions of ISK through Uedama all the time and have yet to be ganked. I guess I'm doing something wrong.


Yes, you're bragging on boards and not even trillions, pathetic.

Being teh freightergankbear automatically puts you below missionbear and minerbear in carebear hierarchy.

If you're about to make "this will make eve un-eve" argument, odds are you are defending some utterly horrible mechanics against a good change.

Euripedies
Hot Droppin Cherry Poppers
#22 - 2015-01-02 16:28:53 UTC
There is a problem in space and its called ganking.

the 20 seconds they get to do the job in a .5 is plenty of time to make the gank, Concord responds and kills their crappy T1 gank ship, then lets their pod get away. Gankers hang out in stations, untouchable, until their alt finds another target, where they repeat the exact same gank and repeat the process. It is mind boggling that a -10 character and their alt can continue to do this hundreds and hundreds of times. Whats really mind boggling is that the ganker and their alt continue to do this mind numbing activity over and over again.

gameplay in the form of ganking helpless ships is fun apparently for some. For those who get ganked its not so fun.

here is the issue. Ships cost isk, isk, at its roots, costs money. You wouldn't be there making isk if you hadn't paid money to get into the game.

gankers taking down your freighter or your retriever or whatever just cost you money in the form of isk. For the space rich its something you recover from and move on. for the space poor, it is frustrating and can easily lead to dropping your subscription and moving on to a game where people are not actively trying to destroy your space cash.

I read on the mittani today about a bowhead that was ganked by a solo player who used catalysts, shuttles and an orca to gank the bowhead. It was a clever use of the game mechanics to **** up someones brand new ship. hilarious, if you aren't the bowhead pilot. A bowhead is about 4 bil isk now? which is about 50-60 dollars. Who on this forum thinks throwing away 50 dollars is funny?
My numbers may be off due to market fluctuations, but I think my point stands. CCP is creating a space sim where your money is getting thrown away for ganker giggles. Is that a game worth playing? Im having some real second thoughts about it.
Iain Cariaba
#23 - 2015-01-02 16:33:00 UTC
Celthric Kanerian wrote:
Shai'd Hulud wrote:


[b] CCP should instead encourage and promote noble values.


Are you stupid? This is EVE. There is no nobility anywhere.

Sure there are. Amarr has nobles. So OP is promoting the values of the Amarr nobles. Yes, slavery and genocide are good things for the game. Twisted
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#24 - 2015-01-02 17:12:03 UTC
Shai'd Hulud wrote:
CCP should instead encourage and promote noble values.
CCP already does.

ISD Ezwal Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#25 - 2015-01-02 17:32:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Daichi Yamato
chaosgrimm wrote:
I don't have a problem with non consensual PvP, but I do think that highsec ganking is not currently balanced in terms of risk v reward. Just a few examples of other professions:

* freighter pilot risks a 1bil hull and a bil or bil+ in assets just to hopefully make 5-20% off of their haul. This is at risk every jump.
* miner is at risk for the entire time they spend mining
* pos related stuff is nearly constantly at risk
* pocos are nearly constantly at risk.
* traders are at risk of market swings or other players manipulating a market.


Gankers.... There losses generally only take the form of opportunity cost.. They hide in stations til its time to gank, and stick to targets that guarantee profit. There should be added risk of loss to ganking imo


What you consider balance is human behavior, supply and demand.

Freighter hauling and mining pays low because its low risk, low maintenance and easy to do such that everybody does it. Maybe if the whiners hadnt asked for ganking to be nerfed so many times it would pay more because not every tom, **** and harry could do it whilst afk. And now your asking for further nerfs for ganking? pat yourself on the back...

The rewards for gankers are determined entirely by the haulers stupidity. If you want to hurt ganking rewards, stop painting bullseyes on yourselves. If you want to increase the rewards of mining and hauling, add risk and effort.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs

admiral root
Red Galaxy
#26 - 2015-01-02 17:33:05 UTC
You forgot that ganking is torture, e-thuggery, cyberbullying, slavery and stuff.

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff

Arya Regnar
Darwins Right Hand
#27 - 2015-01-02 17:40:29 UTC
Shai'd Hulud wrote:


I play this game since 2007 and I have witnessed the deterioration of the game in highsec area.


The deterioration is present because of nerfs to content creative play styles which is exactly what you are trying to push here.

You are not the cure, you are the cancer in its most malignant form.

EvE-Mail me if you need anything.

Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#28 - 2015-01-02 18:26:19 UTC
I'm all for ganking. I've even dropped a few mission boats operating out of Apanake. Figuring out how to make it profitable was a fun math problem to work on for a few weeks. We only had a few guys and we weren't always successful.

Not always being successful brings me to my point. A hard -10 up through a -5 should have some chance of getting popped by concord when travelling though high sec. The hard -10 guys that spend all day in HS in cats or thrashers with zero chance of being popped by concord until they gank someone is unbalanced.

I'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed to do it. I'm saying there should always be a reasonable chance that concord wonks them before they gank someone. There should be consequences to be flashy red - I suppose I'm saying there should be one more consequence.

You shouldn't be flashy red AND be able to fly around HS in a ship w/ guns 100% of the time. There should be no ship fit that allows you to have 100% chance to get that gank off.

There should be no thrasher fit that lets a flashy pilot fly around ALL DAY LONG w/out getting concorded. I don't care what the percent chance per stop is, but there should be some chance they get concorded.

My examples:

Mean Marty (sec status -10) warps back and forth between gates in Bearville (sec status 1.0) looking to gank a pod w/ his thrasher. There should be some percent chance that he gets nabbed by concord every time he comes out of warp. Let's say 10%. So in theory he can undock and warp between the gates 5 rounds (on average) befor concord pops him. If he's unlucky he gets whacked when he undocks and if he's super lucky he can get more than 5 round trips.

Ganker Gary (sec status -10) does the same thing in Dangerville (sec status 0.5). His thrasher has only a 5% chance of getting nabbed by concord. The lower true sec raises his survivability time.


I think the problem folks have w/ ganking (excluding 'he blew up my stuff') is that flashy red guys can fly around all day, and if they take some minimal precautions are pretty much safe from concord consequences until they engage in ganking someone. Add a small percent chance that concord can apprehend the flashy red ganker BEFORE they get the gank off.

This percentage chance of concord doing their job should satisfy everyone. Gankers lose their thrasher immunity. You just have to add 1 addition thrasher for every 10 you are using now to account for it, so it's not a huge change in the math to success. It's a simple die roll in the programming to see if they make it before getting into warp.

If you gank in a bigger ship, your chance of concord intervening goes up. Move from thasher to a thorax then concord's odds go up from 10% to maybe 15% or 20%. All this would be easily scalable based on shiptype and system truesec. Easy balancing for CCP to get the right numbers.
Basil Pupkin
Republic Military School
#29 - 2015-01-02 18:33:00 UTC
Daichi Yamato wrote:
What you consider balance is human behavior, supply and demand.

Freighter hauling and mining pays low because its low risk, low maintenance and easy to do such that everybody does it. Maybe if the whiners hadnt asked for ganking to be nerfed so many times it would pay more because not every tom, **** and harry could do it whilst afk. And now your asking for further nerfs for ganking? pat yourself on the back...

The rewards for gankers are determined entirely by the haulers stupidity. If you want to hurt ganking rewards, stop painting bullseyes on yourselves. If you want to increase the rewards of mining and hauling, add risk and effort.

Ganking is not further-nerfs, it needs finally-nerfs, it received a crapton of buffs recent years.
The risk for gankers is NONE. The reward of gankers is ANYTHING they have the numbers for, at ZERO risk.
Even the genius hauler cannot evade the gank, just raise the bar of cost a bit, but NEVER to the point even the stupidest of gankers can't shuffle.
This is the problem: The risk for haulers is infinite(they can raise the bar a little bit, but even the stupidest ganker can still vault it), the risk for ganker is zero (scan, spreadsheet, go, no risk at all).

Being teh freightergankbear automatically puts you below missionbear and minerbear in carebear hierarchy.

If you're about to make "this will make eve un-eve" argument, odds are you are defending some utterly horrible mechanics against a good change.

Shai'd Hulud
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#30 - 2015-01-02 18:34:17 UTC
ISD Ezwal wrote:
Shai'd Hulud wrote:
CCP should instead encourage and promote noble values.
CCP already does.


This activity being very lucrative, CCP encourages indirectly the ganking. And I have as proof : the proliferation of corporations and alliances which behaviors of terrorists (gank) and mafia rules (Extortion) in highsec.

And if you look the killboard of these corporations and alliances, the big majority of vessels that are destroyed are vessels used by new player (Example : Retriever). It is very welcoming for our new players!

And if CCP already does how do you explain the proliferation of this degrading behavior ?

Fly safe!
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#31 - 2015-01-02 18:57:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Daichi Yamato
Basil Pupkin wrote:
Daichi Yamato wrote:
What you consider balance is human behavior, supply and demand.

Freighter hauling and mining pays low because its low risk, low maintenance and easy to do such that everybody does it. Maybe if the whiners hadnt asked for ganking to be nerfed so many times it would pay more because not every tom, **** and harry could do it whilst afk. And now your asking for further nerfs for ganking? pat yourself on the back...

The rewards for gankers are determined entirely by the haulers stupidity. If you want to hurt ganking rewards, stop painting bullseyes on yourselves. If you want to increase the rewards of mining and hauling, add risk and effort.

Ganking is not further-nerfs, it needs finally-nerfs, it received a crapton of buffs recent years.
The risk for gankers is NONE. The reward of gankers is ANYTHING they have the numbers for, at ZERO risk.
Even the genius hauler cannot evade the gank, just raise the bar of cost a bit, but NEVER to the point even the stupidest of gankers can't shuffle.
This is the problem: The risk for haulers is infinite(they can raise the bar a little bit, but even the stupidest ganker can still vault it), the risk for ganker is zero (scan, spreadsheet, go, no risk at all).


Buffs to ganking (what have i missed?)
- dessie buff
- tier 3's
- Security tags (debatable)

Nerfs to ganking (what have i missed?)
- insurance nerf
- CONCORD reaction time buff
- CONCORD power buff
- Killrights nerfing casual gankers
- EHP buff to barges
- Barges dont have to choose between tank and capacity
- Tankable freighters (debatable)
- Ganking made certain death

The risk for gankers is not whether they die or not, they always do. But what reward drops is random. The whole effort of a gank can be wasted on the roll of a die. Add to that the dependance on stupid people that gankers have and its easy to see why ganking doesnt need any nerf. And thats even assuming the ganking is successful. Many arent.

But what i said is true, the rewards of non-mission activities in hi-sec goes down the easier they become. If you want mining to be more worth while, attack other miners and ask for more risk and effort to be introduced to the activity.

If ganking was made easier it would be great. All the stupid lazy people would lose their stuff and i would be richer for it.

Shai'd Hulud wrote:


And if CCP already does how do you explain the proliferation of this degrading behavior ?




It happens less now than ever before.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs

Shai'd Hulud
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#32 - 2015-01-02 19:14:23 UTC
Arya Regnar wrote:
Shai'd Hulud wrote:


I play this game since 2007 and I have witnessed the deterioration of the game in highsec area.


The deterioration is present because of nerfs to content creative play styles which is exactly what you are trying to push here.

You are not the cure, you are the cancer in its most malignant form.


Hello,

lol, I like little comic! You are the reason why I am making this request because you can not distinguish between right and wrong.

If I remember in 2007, we had no problems. An industrial could do his job without too much risk in Highsec.
After this, once a year, the goon alliance who was bored in 0.0 had come to pew pew in highsec. They called this event Hulkaguedon. Thereafter, it was bumping is appeared. And recently ganking appear and now these gankers want isk (extorsion, you know?).

Currently all the risks are on the side of the miner and industrial.

We are very very far from the miner mine AFK!!!!



Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#33 - 2015-01-02 19:22:30 UTC
shai'd you are grossly misinformed if you think ganking was harder to do in 2007.

in 2007 you could gank two barges with a thrasher AND warp away afterwards...or if you died you got paid by insurance for the ship loss.

And how do you intend to increase the risk beyond 100% chance of death for gankers? or was:

Quote:
Currently all the risks are on the side of the miner and industrial.


the most pointless statement of the decade.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs

James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#34 - 2015-01-02 19:34:51 UTC
Its a pretty simple equation, very similar to slots, with the odds being fixed, but the jackpot and cost to enter set by the hauler.

You set the cost by how you tank your ship. The cost is equal to the minimum number of ships needed to gank you, of the most cost effective type. Most gankers end up paying a slight premium for some cruisers or battlecruisers in the case of freighters.

The reward is set by what you carry and your killmail, especially if they get their own loot back.

Set it up so you aren't a good bet, and you are usually safe. Set up routes so you go around places where they are already set up for it, or use a durable webber (instalock, armor tanked loki with the web subsystem and trip webs FTW)

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp

Mag's
Azn Empire
#35 - 2015-01-02 19:43:00 UTC
1/10.

[✔] Uses emotional wording way too much
[✔] Claims to have played since 07, but remains deliberately clueless on how things actually were then.
[✔] Claims not to want ganking removed, but suggests a way of removing it.
[✘] New ideas and out look on the topic.
[✘] Pink Monkey socks. (Purple ones are so last year.)

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.

ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#36 - 2015-01-02 19:43:43 UTC
On second thought (and all kidding aside), thread locked as this is neither a proposal for a new feature or a new idea.

The Rules:
17. Redundant and re-posted threads will be locked.

As a courtesy to other forum users, please search to see if there is a thread already open on the topic you wish to discuss.
If so, please place your comments there instead. Multiple threads on the same subject clutter up the forums needlessly, causing good feedback and ideas to be lost.
Please keep discussion regarding a topic to a single thread.

ISD Ezwal Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Previous page12