EVE Search - Suicide Ganking is a bad mechanic

Search EVE-Online forums for:

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Suicide Ganking is a bad mechanic

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Topic
Malcanis We are Legend	Posted - 2008.07.19 09:30:00 - [1] Originally by: Nikita Alterana No, highsec should not be safe, yes I shouldn't fly into Jita carrying billions of isk in a shuttle, and yes freighters should be hard to move around. BUT, suicide ganking is not the answer, regardless of whether your a gankie or a ganker, you should agree that its a very strange, unrealistic mechanic, it makes no sense from an RP perspective and it makes no sense from a gameplay perspective. I understand CCPs desire for a dark universe, and there should be a mechanic that allows for highsec robbery, ganking and murder. But the mechanic of avoiding Concord just long enough to kill something is fairly stupid. In fact the entire operation of Concord is fairly stupid, they should act like a real police force, with the same strengths and fallacies, I understand that they are supposed to protect you in highsec, but their AI is stupid, and the mechanic behind them (dropping tons of ships on you instantly) isn't a good way of running them. I'm not saying it should be easy to avoid a concordokken, but at the same time It shouldn't be impossible. Concord is stupid and suicide ganking is simply exploiting that stupidity. There should be a mechanic where players can pirate in highsec and sometimes avoid capture, but the current suicide ganking mechanic is just bad. Allow me to sympathise with the following thought: Stop whining, you whiney whiner. You lost a ship, you knew the risks, suck it up. CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that.
Malcanis We are Legend	Posted - 2008.07.19 11:49:00 - [2] Edited by: Malcanis on 19/07/2008 11:55:08 Edited by: Malcanis on 19/07/2008 11:53:41 Originally by: Leandro Salazar Edited by: Leandro Salazar on 19/07/2008 10:38:45 Originally by: Malcanis CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. You know, you really should correct you signature to read "CONCORD provide consequences which the SCC promptly negates, not safety; only you can do that." Unless you've got someone providing you with free modules, and then bringing you assembled fitted ships on their own time, and then hopping in to their T3 Frigate and using a Light Remote Sec Status Repair III on you, you're flat out wrong. You just don't think that CONCORD provides enough consequences is all. But I look around hi-sec and see thousands of non-blues not shooting each other except when someone does something outrageously stupid like AFK highly valuable cargoes, and I think the balance is fine. Since you obviously think that suicide ganking is too prevalent (which is fine), please provide arguments and data to show why it's too frequent. Seriously: I'm open to persausion here. If you can give me a more substantive argument than "waaah it's not fair THIS WILL KILL EVE", then I'd love to hear it. On a side note, how much would be "too little", and how much would be "just right"? To this day, I've never found anyone able to tell me. For my part, I infer from (as noted above) the near complete lack of combat interaction by non-WTs in Empire a good indication that CONCORD are a very good deterrent. Additionally, given that people - with old characters mark you - still fly around AFK with valuable cargos, it's difficult to avoid concluding that the absolute risk of being ganked is still too low to make people fly with the minimum of attention required to warp to 0km even if they have a hold full of BPOs or faction goodies. As a final thought: gank ships are almost free because the only thing holding up the price of T1 ships is the insurance value. This indicates to me that there is a negligible effect on empire industry from ganking. If producers were seriously suffering, ship prices would rise as less capable builders were driven out of business. Industrialists aren't suffering from suicide ganking: missionbears are. I lack sympathy for hi-sec level 4 mission runners because I know myself how insanely lucrative and risk-free the process is. Hearing these guys whine that it's not safe to use A-type boosters and officer cap chargers any more is like hearing some guy cry that his youngest kid can't afford to drive his H2 any more because petrol taxes are too high. Petrol taxes are high, but you still want him to shut his whine-hole. Disclaimer: I have never suicide-ganked anyone, although I've had it tried on me. It turns out that cloaked agility-rigged nanoViators piloted by someone with Evasive Maneuvering 5 and an agility implant are not so easy to gank. I run a billion ISK or so of T2 mods, faction ammo, implants right through the Jita region without worry, because I pilot my ship. CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that.
Malcanis We are Legend	Posted - 2008.07.19 11:58:00 - [3] Edited by: Malcanis on 19/07/2008 11:58:49 Originally by: Dzajic Only, and only thing that should be done about suicide ganking is to remove insurance payout if you get CONCORDEKEN. Its absurd. "Hi mister insurance guy, can I have my policy money, I lost my ship to the legitimate interstellar police fore that attacked me when I committed to criminal activity, please mister insurance guy?" Virtually none of the reasons that "insurance" in EvE pays out for would merit so much as a reply from a RL insurance company. Off-hand, about the only scenario that might would be corp theft, and even the the loss-adjusters would probably have you bent and spread when it came to negotiating the amount. And that's one thing you don't get insurance payouts for in EvE! "So you gave this guy executive power of attorney over your mining ships, right...?" CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that.
Malcanis We are Legend	Posted - 2008.07.19 22:26:00 - [4] Originally by: Sergeant Spot Edited by: Sergeant Spot on 19/07/2008 19:48:09 Edited by: Sergeant Spot on 19/07/2008 19:46:14 Originally by: Aria Seniste ^ Scouts are hard. Those 20 battleships sitting on the gate are probably making S'Mores. We should take our freighter through and see if they have extra. lol, MUCH better suggestion than a logistics for remote reping:) A scout can indeed help keep a frieghter alive. Edit: However, 20 battleships sitting 100,000km from the gate, aligned and up to speed won't be on the gate to be seen. 2nd Edit. But then your scout could have scanner to BS and BC only, and adjust range, however, in some systems there well could be that many BS within a few million km of a gate just PvEing. Or your scout could have a web so that the freighter warps off before the BS arrive CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that.
Malcanis We are Legend	Posted - 2008.07.20 07:32:00 - [5] Originally by: Le Skunk Originally by: Sergeant Spot Oh, and for the record, I don't mind suicide ganking in high sec, but I don't think they should get insurance. And i would agree. But on the proviso that your lot dont get insurance out throwing battleships away out in 0.0 jumping though gates to your certain death. SKUNK Oh no no no. Only your play style must be nerfed. Mine must remain untouched, or perhaps even enhanced to compensate. CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that.
Malcanis We are Legend	Posted - 2008.07.20 08:38:00 - [6] Originally by: Hieronimus Rex Originally by: Nikita Alterana No, highsec should not be safe, yes I shouldn't fly into Jita carrying billions of isk in a shuttle, and yes freighters should be hard to move around. BUT, suicide ganking is not the answer, regardless of whether your a gankie or a ganker, you should agree that its a very strange, unrealistic mechanic, it makes no sense from an RP perspective and it makes no sense from a gameplay perspective. I understand CCPs desire for a dark universe, and there should be a mechanic that allows for highsec robbery, ganking and murder. Wait...so you're saying they should allow the SAME thing as suicide ganking, but implement it through a different game mechanic. I suppose 10/10 for originality but this is a terrible idea. Originally by: baltec1 People wouldn't be suicide ganked if they didnt make themselve a target. Putting 1 billion in an untanked badger with low slots and rigs filled with cargo expanders is not a good idea. Putting 100 million in a blockade runner with rigs and low slots that help it align faster and a cloaking device is a good idea. Even if you do somwhow get ganked in it you won't end up losing everything. They also wouldn't be suicide ganked if CONCORD took the loot. So in essence careless players should not have to suffer any disadvanatges over careful ones? People should just be allowed to AFK valuable cargoes in perfect safety? CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that.
Malcanis We are Legend	Posted - 2008.07.20 08:38:00 - [7] Originally by: Hieronimus Rex Originally by: Riho once more... CONCORD DOES NOT DEFEND ANYONE... GET IT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111111111111111111111oneoneoneleven they just punish... and that works perfect. suicide ganking is ok. tyvm PS: no im not a suicide ganker myself... Punishment should include taking the loot. If you can't be bothered to look after your stuff, why should concord do it for you? CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.