These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

HighSec Ganking and Appropriate Punishment

Author
Capt Starfox
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#41 - 2015-07-16 05:12:01 UTC
Silent Renegade wrote:
The simple fact is CODE and similar HighSec Space Gankers are just low-life bullies; no better and no different to the low-life that creates a false account on Face Book to bully someone online from their school or work place.


Eve is a PvP game at heart. Blowing up your space ship pixel is not IRL bullying. It's game play. There is a difference.

Silent Renegade wrote:

People who pay to play eve make their own choice when it comes to how they wish to play EVE. Not everyone wishes to PvP or venture outside HighSec. I personally know people who just like to log on once or twice a week and do a little bit of HighSec PvE mission running or just enjoy the challenge of playing the market. They don’t ask any interaction with low-life gankers that deliberately exploit the game mechanics to attack people in HighSec without a WARDEC.


One word: Sandbox.

Welcome.

Silent Renegade wrote:

At this point in time, NullSec is a far safer place to fly than any of the main HighSec trade routes, and CCP are blatantly guilty of creating this situation.

If I am in a fleet and web my Corp mate’s freighter off a gate, I get an aggression timer that will not allow me to dock or jump through a stargate. I have done nothing wrong, but am forced to pay a penalty of 60 seconds.

A low-life ganker can attack and destroy billions of ISK worth of freighter and cargo belonging to someone who chooses to play EVE for their own enjoyment, chooses to stay in HighSec and has no wish to be involved with PvP. All the low-life gets is the same 60 second penalty before they can dock up and wait out the 15 minute Criminal Timer, jump in a new ship and go do it all again. You cannot even try to defend your freighter or industrial ship, as you will get CONCORDED if you initiate any action to try to defend your ship in HighSec.

That is no penalty – it is an exploit; one that CCP is well aware of and as yet does nothing to fix and curb the bulling they knowingly allow in what is supposed to be the HIGH SECURITY play area of the game.


Nullsec: It's only as safe as the amount of time and effort your alliance and coalition (if you belong to one) are willing to put in to make it safe. On a side note I hear the east is not so safe at the moment, or was that the south? Southeast? Russians?

The 60 second aggression timer has been known to help players find their podex home (why can't i dock??).

The ganker receives standing loss, loss of security status, is killable by everyone in highsec, to name a few. Whenever a player emails me about becoming a ganker pirate criminal I ensure they understand that it can be a one way trip.

As a mean, nasty, bullying criminal you cannot enjoy PvE related activities in Highsec on the character you do pirate-y things with; if you can call that enjoyment, anyway. You also can't stay still for very long (10ish seconds) before the Police try to kill you, so traditional war-deccing is out as well.

This is all part of the penalty. Once you become an evil criminal you limit yourself to a few styles of game play in Highsec; and, I believe that's criminal activities, station trading and the random wardec whoring. So, basically, ganking.

Silent Renegade wrote:

Two years ago, it was normal to see 27 to 33 thousand accounts online in the Australian Time Zone. Now, two years on, I’m lucky if I see 17 to 20 thousand accounts. With FozzieSov coming I am already seeing numbers as low as 15 thousand when I logon of an afternoon now. Talking to Corp mates from other countries, there are 15-20 thousand less accounts online across the USA TZ, and a similar number in the EU TZ. Over 24 hours and all time zones, this is a rough average of up to 40 thousand less accounts active in the game.

People claim it is all the multi-boxers and bot miners out of the game. Really? My brother no longer plays – 2 accounts; one of my best mates in WA no longer plays – 2 accounts; a friend in Melbourne no longer plays – he had 6 accounts; my son no longer plays – 1 account.

They are just the people I know personally, but there are many others I know only through the game that no longer play, and every one of them quit EVE because the HighSec ganking - not just of freighters, but the stand over tactics of CODE bulling miners into paying for a permit to mine in HighSec.


Ganking is not the reason for tens of thousands of players not playing Eve. Find another horse. If for some reason a random Highsec nobody quit Eve because they lost some internet spaceship pixels, they should not have been playing Eve in the first place.

ISboxing is no longer a thing. It's highly probable that thousands of accounts lapsed as a result.

There are plenty of tools at each players disposal to avoid being ganked/attacked without active war. The problem is most Highsec players won't put forth the effort. It is then the fault of said Highsec player as to why he/she lost his/her ship.

Abandon all hope ye who x up in fleet

Capt Starfox
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#42 - 2015-07-16 05:12:48 UTC
Silent Renegade wrote:

I don’t know what CCPs grand vision is, but all I am seeing is $760,000US per month no longer getting into CCPs bank account. That is $9.12 million per year. Every one of those accounts was effectively a PLEX, and those PLEX only got into the game if someone bought them in RL and put them into the game.


Can I see the spreadsheet where you came up with these numbers?

Silent Renegade wrote:

Personally, I don’t believe the mechanic should change that allows someone to target and shoot someone in HighSec without an active declared war. It is a conscious decision on their part if they choose to be a bully. It is the penalty they pay that needs to change. The current penalty makes a complete joke of the term ‘High Security Space’.

If CCP can make an aggression timer that locks a player’s access to docking or Stargates for 60 seconds, then they can write better penalty into game code than that. My personal thoughts on an appropriate penalty for killing another player’s ship in HighSec without an active declared war are:

1. CONCORD kills both Ship and Pod of the offending player(s);

2. Offending player has security status set to -10 for all factions and a criminal flag set until that security status is pushed back to zero or above for the faction space they wish to enter;

3. Offending player’s medical clone (if in HighSec) is relocated by CONCORD to the nearest NPC NullSec (possibly LowSec) station; and

4. The Criminal Flag set on an Offending player should act like an aggression timer, in the sense that it should bar them from accessing any stargate into HighSec space until they grind their security status back to a zero or positive state for the faction space they wish to access. Jump cloning into a HighSec station is also barred until the criminal flag is removed.


1. NPC's don't pod, but I could be down for Concord attempting to pod players. That would make some great carebear tears.

2. You do realize a character that is a criminal can't really do much other than criminal activities in Highsec, yes? It's not like that flashy red pirate is going to turn around and start running some L4s when the fleet's over...

3. No.

4. What I got from this was, "Don't let pirates into Highsec!!" -Again, that would be "no".

So, basically you want criminal's to get podded by Concord where they are then sent somewhere outside of Highsec (preferably Nullsec according to you), then not allowed back into Highsec.

Damn, I should've seen that coming.

Abandon all hope ye who x up in fleet

Kandu Harr
Doomheim
#43 - 2015-07-16 05:40:51 UTC
player with a criminal timer should not be able to board a ship in space.
otherwise I don't see an issue with the whole thing. op is wrong.
Alana Charen-Teng
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#44 - 2015-07-16 06:13:26 UTC
We've already proven that CODEdot is the most elite pvp alliance in New Eden - with science and math.

Can I get an "Amen!"

Can I get a "Miner Calm Down!"
BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#45 - 2015-07-16 06:39:28 UTC  |  Edited by: BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie
Well I just finished hitting like on every worthwhile post in the thread. If I missed yours it was probably on purpose.

Founder of Violet Squadron, a small gang NPSI community! Mail me for more information.

BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie's Space Mediation Service!

Martyr Oira
Thundercats
The Initiative.
#46 - 2015-07-16 07:56:46 UTC
Kandu Harr wrote:
player with a criminal timer should not be able to board a ship in space.
otherwise I don't see an issue with the whole thing. op is wrong.


So you don't want lowsec residents to reship in space after they went criminal?
Lan Wang
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#47 - 2015-07-16 08:05:00 UTC
Kandu Harr wrote:
player with a criminal timer should not be able to board a ship in space.
otherwise I don't see an issue with the whole thing. op is wrong.


thats really silly, as silly as miners not being able to warp back to a belt once they have left it

Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel

Calm down miner. As you pointed out, people think they can get away with stuff they would not in rl... Like for example illegal mining... - Ima Wreckyou*

Kandu Harr
Doomheim
#48 - 2015-07-16 09:04:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Kandu Harr
Lan Wang wrote:
Kandu Harr wrote:
player with a criminal timer should not be able to board a ship in space.
otherwise I don't see an issue with the whole thing. op is wrong.


thats really silly, as silly as miners not being able to warp back to a belt once they have left it


1. combat probes at Jita undock, scan freighters for sigs and cargo
2. let freighter warp to safe bookmark, or gate
3. neutral machariel lands before freighter has come out of warp
4. bump, until 2nd neutral machariel lands to help manage the freighter and keep in range
5. neutral bowhead lands full of stealth bombers
6. ganker lands and begins smashing the freighter
7. throwaway neutral alt draws concord to distant station
8. bowhead drops bomber, ganker boards and continues smashing
9. repeat until freighter dies. ganker never leaves grid.
10. drop mtu and scoop all the loot and (blue) wrecks

Globby doesn't want you to know how easy and profitable this is, so he removed his API from the killboards.
Watch the killboards.

This is not at all the hyperdunking discussion ccp falcon talked about.

CCP Falcon wrote:
This involves leaving a grid where a criminal action occurs to draw away CONCORD and reshipping to continue shooting at a target.


not anymore.

player with a criminal timer should not be able to board a ship in space, in high sec then.
all of it is ok, but remove #8. it is now broken.
Adrian Maifeld
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#49 - 2015-07-16 09:36:40 UTC
Silent Renegade wrote:
... just low-life bullies...
...low-life ...
...low-life gankers that deliberately exploit the game mechanics...
...A low-life ganker ...
...All the low-life ...
...a bully...


lol ... who do you think you are?

I'm wether a bullie nor am I a "low life"!

There is only ONE "low life" around here.... make a guess...

People like you are the real problem of this community, not us.

Best regards,

a "low life"
Alleja DeSan-na
La Rapida
#50 - 2015-07-16 10:29:33 UTC
Hello OP

May you courtesely stop to insult other players?

TYA
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#51 - 2015-07-16 10:42:02 UTC
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
Serendipity Lost wrote:
This is an easy one to fix too. Put a limit on the war activities that concord will sanction for any given entity. Cap it at 10. Having 100 open war decs and the current ally w/ everyone mechanics make the war decs meaningless. There is no need to pick and choose. The fees are upside down also. The more of an underdog you are (number of corp members) the cheaper the fee should be.

It's not that simple at all.

Large numbers of wars are generated by corporations dropping from an alliance. If you just put a hard cap on the number of aggressive wars you have you could cause people to cap out on their maximum wars by declaring a war on a single alliance and winning. In order for a limit to be mechanically sound there would need to be an established distinction between actual declared wars and "legacy" wars resulting from corps dropping from alliances.

It should be noted that alliances have never had a limit on the number of wars they can declare, but prior to inferno alliances with huge numbers of wars wasn't really a thing.

The reason why highsec PVP alliances with large numbers of members and huge quantities of wars became a thing was because the Inferno war mechanics removed the value of being in a corporation, rather than an alliance as a highsec PVPer.

Previously being in a corp meant wars against other corporations were extremely cheap, but you were limited to three and could not declare war instantly. Being in an alliance meant you wars were 2500% more expensive, but you were not limited in quantity and could declare war instantly.

Currently if you're in a corporation your wars cost as much as if you were in an alliance, which when paid continuously and in multiple is prohibitively expensive for more casual players, so those players join large alliances like Marmite rather than remaining independent. The larger groups need to declare more wars to provide sufficient content for their members, otherwise they lose members to their competitors, and subsequently are motivated to declare as many wars as possible.

If you want a system involving in limit to work I think would be best implemented as follows:

Corporations are limited to 10 aggressive wars, wars resulting from corporations dropping from an alliance and tagged as "Legacy" wars and don't count towards this cap, alliances have no limitation. Wars declared by a corporation against another corporation cost 10 million isk per week, wars between a corporation and an alliance, between two alliances or between an alliance and a corporation cost 50 million. There is no cost scaling whatsoever.

I'd also like to see changes to the ally system wherein a defender calling in an ally allows the aggressor to call in one of their own, allowing back and forth escalation, so that the system doesn't serve just provide anyone other than dedicated PVPers a massive disincentive to declaring wars. Aggression should be rewarded, not punished as conflict creates content.


It is pretty easy, but as usual you have it wrong. I agree 10 active conflicts and legacy decs don't count. That's a pretty obvious part of it. Capping corps at 10 and giving alliances no limit is just a bad idea. Put the same 10 cap on every group. It promotes the pick and choose concept and will put meaning back into the war decs.

The reason defenders can assist and attackers can not is so that not so pvp oriented corps have an avenue to defend against 'leet hs pvp' corps such as yours. The notion that allowing both sides to pull in allies to promote escallation of conflicts is utter garbage. For the most part leet empire merc groups rarely fight each other. That's been true since 2008.

Keep the rules simple:
1 - You can have max 10 active war decs / assists at any time (10 that your initiated)
2 - It should cost a more for big guys to lump up on little guys (and scale by the difference in numbers)
3 - only the defender can pull in allies (if you want to pile on helping the agressor - open your wallet and jump in)

These simple rules will put meaning back into HS war decs.

Congratulations by the way. You haven't lost a ship in just about a year. That leaves me with a decision. I'm trying to decide if you are really that super awesome at pvp or if you are a risk averse scrub that doesn't engage in anything but lopsided easy win combat that can't (after a years worth of data) even be considered pvp.

Help me out here. I just can't decide.
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#52 - 2015-07-16 11:16:29 UTC
Noragen Neirfallas wrote:
The issue that would immediately arise is the current groups would DEC the biggest high sec corps and instead of the casual attitude they currently have they would hunt them to extinction. This is the problem with limiting content to an established group. Ideally a content driver needs to open up new opportunities for new conflicts because imposing sanctions hurts everybody using that space



Nice try. What would really happen is all the Jita docking ring heros would flee the large dec alliances because they lost their supply of layups. 70% of the docking ring heros won't engage where they can't dock after they lose their second ship.

When groups such as yours are forced to hunt and forage for kills AND you have to do it where you might lose a ship, the numbers will drop rapidly. You'll be left with actual mercs that will actually do merc things with you. You will actually have fun!

This isn't about the marmites. It's about putting meaning back into empire war decs. What you guys do makes HS war decs meaningless. This is about fixing what got broken.

You guys had a good run exploiting a bad mechanic. That's eve at it's best. I applaud you for that. The other side of the coin though is that you aren't entitled to an sort of continuity of content just because you're an established group. You look at it as imposing sanctions because it will affect what you are currently doing. It's not a sanction. It's correcting a bad mechanic. Like I said, you guys had a good run - enjoy what you got.

Based on how you capitalized on these mechanics I have full faith that you will find the best way to proceed with any future changes to the war dec mechanics. At the core you guys will adapt and thrive - you'll just have to shed all the scrubs and work a new angle. Be honest, most of those undock scrubs give you a headache anyway. Am I right?
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#53 - 2015-07-16 12:48:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Vimsy Vortis
Are you just that new that you aren't aware of the background of the current war system and what the general highsec PVP landscape looked like before or are you willfully ignorant? My corp existed for literally years with a 3 war limit on it, guess what? Wars weren't any more or less "meaningful" during that time, moreover I fail to see how an uninvolved party is ever going to see any war as being "meaningful".

The more you post the more you come across as an ignorant carebear with no knowledge or compression of the subject matter and whose general preference is to restrict and limit conflict in highsec as much as possible.

Catering to that kind of crap is frankly what resulted in the current situation.
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#54 - 2015-07-16 13:27:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
Kandu Harr wrote:

1. combat probes at Jita undock, scan freighters for sigs and cargo
2. let freighter warp to safe bookmark, or gate
3. neutral machariel lands before freighter has come out of warp
4. bump, until 2nd neutral machariel lands to help manage the freighter and keep in range
5. neutral bowhead lands full of stealth bombers
6. ganker lands and begins smashing the freighter
7. throwaway neutral alt draws concord to distant station
8. bowhead drops bomber, ganker boards and continues smashing
9. repeat until freighter dies. ganker never leaves grid.
10. drop mtu and scoop all the loot and (blue) wrecks

1: Wrong, combat probes don't allow you to scan the contents of a ship, they allow you to find a ship that isn't on grid. A cargo scanner is what allows you to see the contents, and a ship scanner gives you a good estimate of a fit.

2 & 3: It's not a safe bookmark if a Machariel pilot can get there before the freighter. If it was a safe bookmark the Machariel pilot would have to wait until the freighter gets there and then scan it down with combat probes.

5: Catalysts are their usual ship of choice. They're cheaper than bombers and more effective unless you're trying to take the ship down via alpha strike rather than DPS.

7: Wrong, after the gankers ship has been exploded by Concord they generally warp back to station or a safespot and board/undock in a shuttle/rookie ship, which attracts Concord away from the gank site

9: If the ganker never leaves the grid, why aren't you shooting at him? In fact the Bowhead never leaves grid, the ganker generally reships into a shuttle or rookie ship at a safespot, or station and undocks to draw Concord away.

10: The only loot that an MTU will scoop in this scenario is the blue loot from the gankers ship. It will not loot the freighter wreck because it's flagged as belonging to the player whose freighter it used to be. Looting the wreck of the freighter results in a suspect flag for whoever does it.

Quote:
This is not at all the hyperdunking discussion ccp falcon talked about.

CCP Falcon wrote:
This involves leaving a grid where a criminal action occurs to draw away CONCORD and reshipping to continue shooting at a target.
It's exactly what CCP Falcon was talking about, the fact that you're completely ignorant of how the mechanics involved work, as evidenced by your post, doesn't change this

Quote:
player with a criminal timer should not be able to board a ship in space, in high sec then.
CCP obviously disagree, otherwise they would have implemented this long ago.

Quote:
it is now broken.
As is your understanding of how ganking works.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack

Kandu Harr
Doomheim
#55 - 2015-07-16 13:31:55 UTC
Jonah, i sat and watched this happen, i have screenshots. don't tell me how it works.
your point arguments are not relevant.
there is no escape, short of ganking the machs.
or being let go.
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#56 - 2015-07-16 13:34:28 UTC
Kandu Harr wrote:
Jonah, i sat and watched this happen, i have screenshots. don't tell me how it works.
your point arguments are not relevant.
there is no escape, short of ganking the machs.
or being let go.
Yet you're still wrong Shocked

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack

Kandu Harr
Doomheim
#57 - 2015-07-16 13:39:29 UTC
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Kandu Harr wrote:
Jonah, i sat and watched this happen, i have screenshots. don't tell me how it works.
your point arguments are not relevant.
there is no escape, short of ganking the machs.
or being let go.
Yet you're still wrong Shocked


no, unfortunately.

1. i never said the cargo was scanned with probes, its a cargo scanner on the undock
2-3 the mach lands before the freighter has 'come out of warp'. a single pass on a scanner, they already have the sig
6. stealth bombers
7. ganker never leaves grid
9. shooting the bomber doesn't free your ship
and can flipping the fallen loot is trivial.

wake up, you are smarter than that.
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#58 - 2015-07-16 13:40:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Serendipity Lost
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
Are you just that new that you aren't aware of the background of the current war system and what the general highsec PVP landscape looked like before or are you willfully ignorant? My corp existed for literally years with a 3 war limit on it, guess what? Wars weren't any more or less "meaningful" during that time, moreover I fail to see how an uninvolved party is ever going to see any war as being "meaningful".

The more you post the more you come across as an ignorant carebear with no knowledge or compression of the subject matter and whose general preference is to restrict and limit conflict in highsec as much as possible.

Catering to that kind of crap is frankly what resulted in the current situation.



Repo Industries was an established and reasonably successful empire merc corp before break a wish existed. Your corp came into being as the leadership of my corp got tired of the kb centric HS merc stuff and withdrew to wh space. Basically our success attracted a bunch of guys that just wanted the core of the corp to provide easy kills while they lounged semi afk waiting for a few guys to call them in as dps. Check out Repo.griefwatch.net for our merc days stuff. Yeah, we're that freaking old. Search Repo industries in the forums and you can page back through a lot of empire merc tough guy stuff. It's all there.

I was a director at the time. I balanced dec fees, the number of pilots we had, the number of targets we had, areas of engagement and a lot of other stuff that just isn't a part of the current merc stuff. The deciding contract for us was also the first contract Noir (pre dot) ever took. It was in branch. It's where it became painfully apparent that the bulk of our pilots wanted to do layups in HS and were unwilling to risk LS or null sec. It was the beginning of the end of our HS merc days.

My theme here isn't to end HS conflict. I think it's great and it's where I got my pvp start. My theme is to put some meaning back into HS conflict. I can drop a war dec with an alt corp right now and within 4 hours I'll get a mail from at least 3 empire 'merc' groups to assist. 1 will be for free, one will be for 10 mil and the other - who knows. The mercs offering assistance aren't offering to help me in my war effort. 1 is looking for free assist targets and one is looking for 10 mil to pop any of my targets that use a trade hub. There is no meaning there. I'd like to see the meaning come back to empire conflict.

I don't like that I can war dec a corporation and then for an additional 10 mil isk to marmites hell camp Jita with zero effort. In my mind that isn't how it is supposed to work. In 08 we worked hard for pvp/kills and got paid in the billions per contract to do it. Now 'mercs' put their hand out looking for pennies from every war dec that goes live. It's just dumb and needs fixed.

EDIT ADD: funny story - your boy Yuller was in our merc alliance briefly at the end as we spun down. That's how I know of him. He was in Shena Windall's corp I think. I liked Shena and would do anything he asked to this day. I didn't like Yuller. A bit maniacal for my taste. He was one of those guys that didn't understand that being louder didn't make you right - it just meant you were louder. If I recall correctly he thought we should go from out standard DPS tanking ways to sniper megathrons. Sniper megathrons in HS merc work.... sigh.
Mike Adoulin
Happys Happy Hamster Hunting Club
#59 - 2015-07-16 13:47:25 UTC
Kandu Harr wrote:
blah blah blah



Pics or you're just another damn alt liar.

Everything in EVE is a trap.

And if it isn't, it's your job to make it a trap...:)

You want to know what immorality in EVE Online looks like? Look no further than Ripard "Jester" Teg.

Chribba is the Chuck Norris of EVE.

Kandu Harr
Doomheim
#60 - 2015-07-16 13:52:00 UTC
Mike Adoulin wrote:
Kandu Harr wrote:
blah blah blah



Pics or you're just another damn alt liar.


fair enough. i'll post them when i get home from work.