open All Channels
seplocked Features and Ideas Discussion
blankseplocked Suicide Ganking and Concord Salvaging
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Author Topic

Shuluman
Posted - 2010.03.09 15:27:00 - [1]
 

I have seen alot of threads on the subject of suicide ganking and various ideas on how to make it less attractive by removing insurance payouts to the gankers etc.

This doesnt feel as though it will work because if you suicide gank a ship with some good cargo the reward will be much higher than the loss of the ship to concord.

Rather than mess about with the cost to the ganker how about taking away the potential profit than increasing the cost.

For example if an IttyV carrying five hulks gets ganked by a battleship then the person doing the ganking may well lose the ship at a cost of around 100m. However using a different character who is sat there waiting they can potentialy scoop up several hundred million in loot from the wreck so its still worth their while to do it even without insurance payouts.

A solution to this is the ganked wreck becomes the property of Concord (when they arrive) and anyone who loots or salvages from it is aggressed by concord and attacked. This will stop a ganker having an out of corp alt loot the wreck while he is getting blown up. The one exception to this is that the corp mates of the person who was ganked can loot the wreck. Concord wrecks should be coloured differently than normal ones so people know not to touch them.

At the moment the current system of destroying the agressing ship and then ignoring what happens to the ganked wreck is a little strange. Its similar to someone throwing a brick through a shop window and while they are being arrested someone else wanders past and picking things out of the broken shop window while all the time the police are not paying any attention to them.

Taking away the reward for suicide ganking is more of a deterrant than making it more expensive.

cheers

Shuluman

DuKackBoon
Posted - 2010.03.09 15:29:00 - [2]
 

No. Suicide ganking is intended, doing this would effectively kill it off. Fact.

mchief117
Posted - 2010.03.09 16:17:00 - [3]
 

Originally by: DuKackBoon
No. Suicide ganking is intended, doing this would effectively kill it off. Fact.


to me it seams the abuse of an old game mechanic. CCP incorages the use of alts so that there are more "players" paying for more characters and thats fine, but just because im new to town does not mean that if i happen to see a guy blow a hole in the wall of a bank that while hes getting the snot kicked out of him i can grab a bag of loot with no concequences. and its not like you cant simple gank plp in low/null sec.

Flying ZombieJesus
Posted - 2010.03.09 16:46:00 - [4]
 

I think this is a good idea, but needs a little tweaking.

For example, there are lots of people that sit out in haulers at jita undock but do not have a ganker present. They're just trying to scoop other peoples loot!

So I agree that the wreck should be locked - like a secure can, or POS password, and can only be accessible by the attackers corp (or those that get the password correct).

That will effectively end all this horrible horrible loot ninja'ing that I hear about in the forums everywhere and allow me to pick up that faction tower that was so rightfully mine because I volleyed the idiot in the untanked T1 hauler carrying it.

Durzel
The Xenodus Initiative.
Posted - 2010.03.09 16:57:00 - [5]
 

This won't work because CONCORD don't play by the same rules as players - they lock instantly, have infinipoints, insane neuts and ECM that never fails. If you stole from a CONCORD-owned wreck you would be vaporised just like the ganker was.

It would completely wipe out suicide ganking (which according to CCP is an intended mechanic) because there would be impossible to profit from it at all.

Vespoi Filar
Posted - 2010.03.09 18:02:00 - [6]
 

Originally by: Flying ZombieJesus
I think this is a good idea, but needs a little tweaking.

For example, there are lots of people that sit out in haulers at jita undock but do not have a ganker present. They're just trying to scoop other peoples loot!

So I agree that the wreck should be locked - like a secure can, or POS password, and can only be accessible by the attackers corp (or those that get the password correct).

That will effectively end all this horrible horrible loot ninja'ing that I hear about in the forums everywhere and allow me to pick up that faction tower that was so rightfully mine because I volleyed the idiot in the untanked T1 hauler carrying it.


If the changes are made like the above then I fully endorse this product or service!

Fritzman
Aliastra
Posted - 2010.03.09 18:22:00 - [7]
 

Edited by: Fritzman on 09/03/2010 18:22:21

If the cans are locked or concord blows you up when you steal from one, how exactly would gankers make profit at all? I think you've misunderstood the term "balance", it doesn't mean making things completely unplayable to the other side of the equation. I'm all for removing insurance, but the loot-changes that you suggested would completely kill off ganking as a profession.

When thinking about ganking where insurance is removed, you also need to factor in the time it takes to find a target. Without insurance, you won't just hit any target for a profit of 50m isk. Even now finding a good target and killing him in an area where the loot won't be stolen takes hours, usually 4-8 hours for a single good kill. If you removed possibility to scoop the loot, do you think anyone would continue doing it? Suicide ganking is about profit, not about the kill. Any proposed idea should be based on that train of thought.

Shuluman
Posted - 2010.03.09 18:29:00 - [8]
 

lol. Seems like a few of the above posters are too scared to go to 0.0 or lowsec so like to earn ISK by preying on empire targets.

Ganking someone, getting blown up and then using an unconnected alt is an exploit of the game mechanics because there is no payback for your actions. Its a cowards way of making money too.

If you want to blow people up in hisec then CCP provided wardecs for those who want to shoot people but are too chicken to leave empire.

The whole point of this idea is to make the rewards for suicide ganking very low and discourage people from doing it.

And before you ask I have not been suicide ganked before but i find its just one of those annoying parts of eve populated by the kind of people who used to pick on the smaller kids in school. So i decided to think of a way to stop it. :)

Fritzman
Aliastra
Posted - 2010.03.09 18:39:00 - [9]
 

Edited by: Fritzman on 09/03/2010 18:40:49
Originally by: Shuluman
lol. Seems like a few of the above posters are too scared to go to 0.0 or lowsec so like to earn ISK by preying on empire targets.

Ganking someone, getting blown up and then using an unconnected alt is an exploit of the game mechanics because there is no payback for your actions. Its a cowards way of making money too.

If you want to blow people up in hisec then CCP provided wardecs for those who want to shoot people but are too chicken to leave empire.

The whole point of this idea is to make the rewards for suicide ganking very low and discourage people from doing it.

And before you ask I have not been suicide ganked before but i find its just one of those annoying parts of eve populated by the kind of people who used to pick on the smaller kids in school. So i decided to think of a way to stop it. :)


My main has lived in 0.0 since 2003, but what does that have to do with this issue anyways? I've tried pretty much every aspect of the game, but this is the one I'm enjoying the most - suicide ganking. I simply love being a sadistic bastard, preying on the weak. When there's good profit involved, it's even better.

If we're following your thinking of "stopping suicide ganking", shouldn't other empire-professions then get nerfed too, including mining and missions? Why would you make the reward low for just one single profession? Because it's somehow "morally wrong" or "bullying"? This is a game where being sadistic, evil, and morally corrupt is a completely valid style of playing.

I'd like to see an official post from CCP stating that suicide ganking is an exploit of the game mechanics since you're so sure that is the case. Please post the link, I'm waiting for it right now.

Callista Sincera
Amarr
Hedion University
Posted - 2010.03.09 18:42:00 - [10]
 

Edited by: Callista Sincera on 09/03/2010 18:47:43
Originally by: Shuluman
This doesnt feel as though it will work because if you suicide gank a ship with some good cargo the reward will be much higher than the loss of the ship to concord.


Suicide ganking itself is an "ok" gamemechanic. It's ok that you can get ganked for shipping a cargohold full of implants in an Ity V on autopilot. Actually, that would be well deserved...

What's not ok right now is, that you can't even ship a cargohold of tech 1 reprocessing loot in that same Ity V without risking a gank. That's because a bored suicide ganker might blow you up for as little as a couple of millions, if no better targets show up all day. While not using the autopilot helps tons here, ending up as huge fireworks is still a distinct possibility. Not to mention the whole risk vs. reward problem: There simply isn't a lot of risk in a suicide gank if you fit cheap and use an insured ship. Insurance removal would alleviate this problem.

Whatever CCP decides to do, I doubt they'll go for anything that completely removes the risk from highsec. It's simply not supposed to be that boring.
And no, suiciding isn't an exploit. There have been multiple devposts and a blog about this and going by the latest post just a couple of weeks ago, CCP does intend to make it a bit harder than it is right now, but it most certainly isn't an exploit either. Apparently the problem is, that they don't want to punish newbies too harshly for attacking another player by accident. Can't say I'd share that opinion, but apparently they want at least some part of this game to be newbie friendly Rolling Eyes

KaiserSoze434
Posted - 2010.03.09 18:57:00 - [11]
 

Amendments to this idea that would make it fair by the standards you set.

Rebalance highsec so that the most profitable activities occur in low and nullsec.

No NPC corps (if the counter is we have wardecs then there can't be a way to "exploit" that and be immune to them).

If ganking and looting with an alt is an "exploit" then creating an alt to move goods that you make with greater safety is an "exploit". As you say, using an alt to assist in the profitability of your primary character's actions is an "exploit". CCP should aggressively track such behavior and make it impossible to use alts to avoid enemies/wardecs in this "exploit".

If CONCORD is now in the business of protecting your cargo after a ganking (you stated they should guard it until your corp comes to collect it) they should raise taxes to account for it. I'd say 10% tax per security lvl on the market. After all, they are now effectively providing convoy escort to you and with the insurance system a gank would amount to absolutely no loss to you. You should pay a hefty premium for that service. Now that I think of it, gate fees based on mass of the ship sound good too. Providing all that protection would be pretty expensive.

Or maybe just realize highsec is profitable enough and attempts to totally neutralize a playstyle in the interest of "balance" are going to be identified and mocked in about .5 secs.

Shuluman
Posted - 2010.03.09 19:01:00 - [12]
 

I couldnt care less about people getting blown up in hisec. If you want a totally safe game then go play on a WoW pve realm.

The aspect i dont like is that with current game mechanics Concord will blow you up if you agress another player. It doesnt stop you blowing up someone up and using an out of corp alt to collect the loot. This means you effectively neutralise concords retribution to get what you want.

Seems like i have touched a nerve here as this is obviously an effective way to stop this and people dont like it. Very Happy

KaiserSoze434
Posted - 2010.03.09 19:13:00 - [13]
 

You're right, people don't like it. Because its been stated that this is part of the game design and therefore SHOULDN'T BE STOPPED. Instead of some slick attempt to attempt balance you should have just stated upfront that you want CCP to stop suicide ganking in spite of numerous assertions by them that it is part of the game. You aren't balancing anything, you're trying to unbalance thing to make everyone's game weaker, less edgy, less fun. Your premise is that suicide ganking is wrong and shouldn't be encouraged/profitable in any way. You are not paying to play a game where that is upheld as a principle. Its too bad if you thought you were buying checkers and it turned out to be chess (with balls), but you're absolutely right that it ****es people off when you suggest that maybe some of the pieces shouldn't have so many options instead of just realizing you should unsub and go find the game you want instead of lobbying to screw up the setting for the rest of us. People are supposed to get killed in highsec. People are supposed to be able to make money and have fun doing it if they're smart and coordinated enough. You're supposed to have a way around it if you're smart and coordinated enough. Lobbying for for other's intelligence and coordination to be neutralized so you can not have to use yours and afk isn't balance or in line with the spirit of the game, as pointed out by CCP as recently as the lastest CSM minutes where they said highsec ganking is intended in the game.

Flying ZombieJesus
Posted - 2010.03.09 19:34:00 - [14]
 

Originally by: Shuluman
The aspect i dont like is that with current game mechanics Concord will blow you up if you agress another player. It doesnt stop you blowing up someone up and using an out of corp alt to collect the loot. This means you effectively neutralise concords retribution to get what you want.

Seems like i have touched a nerve here as this is obviously an effective way to stop this and people dont like it. Very Happy


No, you're just proving you're ******ed. The ganker gets exactly the same penalties they would get if they shot any other ship in hisec - massive loss of sec and one dead ship.

If the person doing the shooting had the foresight to bring another character to scoop any loot that may have dropped from their actions, well good for them.

Shuluman
Posted - 2010.03.09 19:53:00 - [15]
 

I found a couple of dev blogs that said they were looking at ways of increasing the penalty for suicide ganking but none saying its encouraged as part of the game.

It seems like the Carebare Pirates dont like the idea but the suggestion is here now for everyone to see. I know alot of players who hate how easy it is to do it as there are plenty of places to go if you want pvp but seemingly none if you dont want it. Where is the balance in that? Cant please everyone all of the time I suppose.

Fritzman
Aliastra
Posted - 2010.03.09 19:56:00 - [16]
 

Edited by: Fritzman on 09/03/2010 19:59:01
What is so difficult to understand about this?

Suidice ganking IS killing for profit.
Suicide ganking IS NOT killing to get a kill or a killmail.

Why do you keep bringing the issue of PVP into this discussion, since that is not what motivates people to suicide gank in hi sec? Sure there is combat involved in the actual gank, but just getting combat action isn't the reason why gankers keep throwing their ships and sec status away.


DuKackBoon
Posted - 2010.03.09 19:56:00 - [17]
 

When will you fricken get it damnit? Undocking, no matter where, is consenting PVP.

Shuluman
Posted - 2010.03.09 20:24:00 - [18]
 

Edited by: Shuluman on 09/03/2010 20:32:13
Originally by: Fritzman
What is so difficult to understand about this?

Suidice ganking IS killing for profit.
Suicide ganking IS NOT killing to get a kill or a killmail.

Why do you keep bringing the issue of PVP into this discussion, since that is not what motivates people to suicide gank in hi sec? Sure there is combat involved in the actual gank, but just getting combat action isn't the reason why gankers keep throwing their ships and sec status away.

[/quote



you obviously didnt read my first post. this is aimed at stopping suicide ganking for profit and not for just getting a KM. its teh wreck loot that is makes suicide ganking attractive and this aims to stop that.

also i know undocking is pvp but its called hisec for a reason. it shouldnt mean you are safe but it should mean that its a real pain for people to make money from killing you.

Fritzman
Aliastra
Posted - 2010.03.09 20:37:00 - [19]
 

Edited by: Fritzman on 09/03/2010 20:39:35
Yes, I have read the whole thread. The fact remains that you still haven't answered the main question behind your suggesion: Why should just suicide ganking have its financial reward removed if other forms of making an income in hi sec are left intact?

After answering that, please list the aspects which make suicide ganking a less valid form of gameplay than, say, mining or running missions. If you're going to answer "the use of an alt to pick up the loot", then think further - aren't alts used to pick up loot from missions and to move goods around too? What makes this usage so much more noble than using your alt to assist in a suicide gank?

You need to think of this issue from the point of view of all playing styles, not just the ones which you think are ok and "not bullying".

Maybe you should actually try making a living from suicide ganking and hit that -5 sec status just once, so you'd know the amount of waiting you will have to do to get a good gank, and the amount of work it takes to get up to positive sec status. I can tell you right away, it's not as easy and rosy as the forums make it sound like.

GavinCapacitor
Posted - 2010.03.09 21:09:00 - [20]
 

This idea is bad and you should feel bad.

Gleabus
Posted - 2010.03.09 21:14:00 - [21]
 

This thread is pointless because suicide ganking is not a problem to be solved. It works as indented.

DuKackBoon
Posted - 2010.03.09 21:43:00 - [22]
 

Originally by: Shuluman
you obviously didnt read my first post. this is aimed at stopping suicide ganking for profit and not for just getting a KM. its teh wreck loot that is makes suicide ganking attractive and this aims to stop that.

also i know undocking is pvp but its called hisec for a reason. it shouldnt mean you are safe but it should mean that its a real pain for people to make money from killing you.


You idiot do not get it do you god friggn's **** damnit, do you? SUICIDE GANKING IS A ****ING GAME MECHANIC GOD DAMN IT WORKS AS INTENDED! *cough* Sorry, But I had to, and it really felt good.

In civilised ways: Suicide ganking is Not a problem to be solved for it works as intended. There is no safe place in EVE outside the stations, not even highsec. It is a bit more secure, but that's it.

Takemikazuki
Posted - 2010.03.10 01:51:00 - [23]
 

Dumb idea.

If one can't bother to learn the art of proper hauling or to protect ones assets through other means one should educate oneself. Use couriers, pay a professional shipping corp, use your brain when hauling, cooperate with yr corpmates etc. It is really not that hard to avoid getting ganked.

I say this as a trader: I want the trade routes to be infested with ninja looters, suicide gankers and other dangers. If anything there should be more danger, not less. One should really make it legal to attempt to avoid the wrath of CONCORD. Make it legal but frickin hard.

Your RL analogies of throwing bricks thru shop windows doesn't really support how the mechanics of an online spaceship game centered on competition of resources, power and PvP should be designed.

CONCORD ain't the RL police ya know.

HeliosGal
Caldari
Posted - 2010.03.10 05:59:00 - [24]
 

great idea roll with it

Bunyip
Gallente
Center for Advanced Studies
Posted - 2010.03.10 06:08:00 - [25]
 

I'd like to start out by saying that I am a carebear who despises PvP. That being said, I'd have to agree with most of the other posters - your idea would kill suicide ganking and ruin a cherished part of the game for many.

I've been suicide ganked, and it hurts. However, this game is not for the weak, instant-gratification crowd that tend to swarm other games like WoW. This is Eve, a cold dark ruthless place where the police have to limit their protection to a small area just to keep balance in the game, despite having uber-ships.

As soon as you stop thinking of this as a whitewashed Star Trek universe where everybody lives in a cosmic utopia and start thinking of it in Firefly terms, you'll start to get the picture. Suicide ganking encourages people to be at their computers with a careful eye on what's happening in the game.

While I support removing insurance for self-destruction and concord kills, your idea would cause a massive plummet in subscriber rates. CCP is smarter than that. Not supported.

Metalcali
Posted - 2010.03.10 17:31:00 - [26]
 

Originally by: Shuluman
I found a couple of dev blogs that said they were looking at ways of increasing the penalty for suicide ganking but none saying its encouraged as part of the game.

It seems like the Carebare Pirates dont like the idea but the suggestion is here now for everyone to see. I know alot of players who hate how easy it is to do it as there are plenty of places to go if you want pvp but seemingly none if you dont want it. Where is the balance in that? Cant please everyone all of the time I suppose.


You can attack anyone anywhere for any reason, even no reason at all. Two quotes from the same thread show CCP Zymurgist supporting pvp in any form, and here is a quote from the meeting between CSM and CCP in Iceland.

Located on page 15
Quote:
The CSM brought up the issue of suicide ganking and feels it is too easy. The main problem is that this is in effect subsidized by insurance. CCP is aware of the issue and has discussed it at great length in-house. CCP feels it absolutely needs to compensate newbies that attack players by mistake in high-sec. This may get changed in the future but not in the summer expansion. It was made clear that suicide ganking is an accepted game mechanic.


Thread
Originally by: CCP Zymurgist
I'd like to stop by and remind everyone that Macroing is not allowed. Doing so risks your account. YARRRR!!

Please continue to file petitions against these people, as well as doing what C&P is great for... Blowing them up! Heck pod everyone you pirates, Get off the forums and go kill someone!


Originally by: CCP Zymurgist
You have always had permission to kill anyone in game you see fit to lose a ship!


 

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only