I know this has been discussed before, but why has it not been implemented?

the gankee loses his ship and gains insurance (heh probably not knowing hi-sec), the ganker loses his ship and loses security status

if anything hi-sec ganking should be buffed

Nope.
Hell, it was recently increased by about 400%.

Because what you describe is the players' job, not something that should be handled by NPCs.

Confirming that I am a MURDERER!

there ought to be enough risk in putting me at risk to ensure i am 100% safe while afk mining at all times

No, it's not

That's why the guns shoot at me when I shoot at someone near empire gates - even in low sec space.

If it is so easy and so profitable with no downsides, they why don't you do it?

I think the punishments are fine:
Cannot do anything in space for 15 minutes
Shootable by everyone for 15 minutes
Killrights for 30 days
Large sec hit which will make you shootable by everyone forever until you fix it which is no easy matter
No insurance
Ship blown up 100% of the time

Oh god, I'm posting in another "let's nerf a certain playstyle because I don't like it" whine thread again.

Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

Yes it is. Your security is your responsibility. Keeping you safe is your job. The NPCs are not part of it, in highsec or anywhere else. If you want people to be kept out of highsec because they threaten your security, then it's your job to keep them out.

If you think the penalty is too low, it's because you make it too low. You are willingly nullifying some of the costs. Your choices are not a game design problem.

No. They do that because you engage in a criminal act, not because you have any specific level of security status. It's exactly the same as why CONCORD doesn't chase outlaws, only cirminals. You're confusing two completely separate mechanics.

No, the price is not too low.

The price is that gankers eventually lose enough security status to not be able to go into any hisec system owned by one of the four Empires without attracting a massive fleet of NPCs that chase him through space and time, and can alpha all but the largest and most heavily tanked ships.

To fix this, a ganker must grind missions in low and null until his standing and security status are at a level that he can enter a hisec system without attracting said fleet of uber-ganky NPC police.

What's the one thing a ganker supposedly hates most of all? Grinding. What does he eventually have to do if he wants to continue ganking? Grind.

Seems a fitting punishment to me.

The suicide ganker is 100% guaranteed to lose his ship, some modules, and sec status. It is the highest risk activity in EVE. Anyone can acknowledge that.

CONCORDS response to Outlaws/Criminals that enter Hi-sec is very underwhelming. Currently you can be -10.0 and still go anyway in EVE. Which would not be an issue if there were not ways to getting ships after entering.

I have no issues with gankers other then the impunity in which they seem to operate in hi-sec. Having CONCORD deem them Shoot on Site after they have reach a certain security status would slow down their activities and would make paid events like Hulkageddon unsustainable in hi-sec.

As was pointed out above, you are responsible for you own security. But this isn't 0.0 where you have an alliance to keep out the un-welcomed. In Hi-sec you only have CONCORD.

I agree that the security status is the responsibility of the character, but I don't see what that has to do with anything. I'm talking about there being fundamental differences between high security space, low security space and null security space. To commit a murder in for instance Minmatar Republic should have more severe consequences either by Minmatar Republic itself, or CONCORD. Why would they wait until your security status drops enough? Is one murder not enough? I agree that the player-base should in essence rule the game, but there are differences between the different securities of space, and these differences cannot be ignored as long as there is any kind of environmental game-play in New Eden.

No, they are not, but it is a game design problem if your reward far exceeds the risk of killing me in CONCORD/faction space.

I never said it has anything to due with "specific level of security status".

What this thread is about is simple: does the reward exceed the risk too much of suicide-ganking? I believe so, why else are so many doing it? I'm not saying that we should prevent it because many are doing it; merely look at it and ask if it isn't too easy after all. I'm just trying to get a discussion between two parties' going here; a break from the goon-whining and the miner-whining.

Yes, "eventually" that will happen. I propose a harder, more cold, if you will, punishment for committing murder in high sec.

CONCORDS response to Outlaws/Criminals that enter Hi-sec is very underwhelming. Currently you can be -10.0 and still go anyway in EVE. Which would not be an issue if there were not ways to getting ships after entering.

I have no issues with gankers other then the impunity in which they seem to operate in hi-sec. Having CONCORD deem them Shoot on Site after they have reach a certain security status would slow down their activities and would make paid events like Hulkageddon unsustainable in hi-sec.

As was pointed out above, you are responsible for you own security. But this isn't 0.0 where you have an alliance to keep out the un-welcomed. In Hi-sec you only have CONCORD.

Hmm,

Well a couple of points stick out about this:

1. Goons claim they have way too much money on their hands.

2. CCP is looking for ways to reduce ISK float in the game.

3. Suicide ganking is a great avenue to reduce ISK float in the game so make it happen.

I agree that the security status is the responsibility of the character, but I don't see what that has to do with anything.

I'm talking about there being fundamental differences between high security space, low security space and null security space.

Why would they wait until your security status drops enough? Is one murder not enough?

No, they are not, but it is a game design problem if your reward far exceeds the risk of killing me in CONCORD/faction space.

I never said it has anything to due with "specific level of security status".

I'm sitting here asking myself what I should reply. I see this ignorant and stupid post and I see that, of course - you're a goon, and I ask myself if I'm racist against goons or if I'm just a realist for not being surprised that ignorant, stupidity and goons walk hand in hand, but then I realize that I'm better off reading about Einstein's theory on relativity, so I walk away.

Not security status, physical security as in being secure in your posessions as in not getting your shit blown up.

So fit your ship in a way that makes it uneconomical to gank. You're choosing to fit a ship in a way that's worth ganking.

People are doing it because a group of players has decided that they can make a profit by encouraging it through significant bounties. Suicide Ganking miners is exactly as easy as miners make it.

If you're suggesting CONCORD start Podding, that breaks something that's been true for years and won't change the cost of a gank that much. CONCORD destroys the ship that performs an illegal action and puts a mark on the pilot's record. What more consequence do you want?

If CONCORD, the NPC space police starts podding, why shouldn't Pirate NPCs pod? They're criminals, they can't show more restraint than the Police, right? Now we have Rats podding newbie players who don't know what's going on. And the game would be poorer for driving newbies off like that.

No, they are not, but it is a game design problem if your reward far exceeds the risk of killing me in CONCORD/faction space.

1) Ganker pays the insurance payout to the victim. This also has the effect of reducing an ISK faucet.

That's not true, though. I fit a cheap rifter if I'm looking for some fun frigate pvp, and I couldn't care less if I lost the ship.

Now, if I fit a 100m+ hurricane with 29m back on insurance, then I do care about losing it or not. My point is that losing ship A is cheaper than ship B and I can adapt what I spend with the reward I receive from suicide-ganking.

You'll have to rephrase this. My apologies.


People are doing it because the reward far exceeds the risk, which is the point I'm making.

No, high sec-players have a right to CONCORD interference (in penalty, not to guarantee safety); this is to allow a sandbox in New Eden. I have told miners to build an alliance and fight back, and I have told them this is not a very hard thing to do and it would probably be fun to fight for something they believe in, but the reality is also that the reward exceeds the risk too much of suicide-ganking in space which supposedly is ruled by NPC's.

I'm not suggesting they should pod.

text

What if I empty my gank alt's wallet?

Possible increase in penalties:

1) Ganker pays the insurance payout to the victim. This also has the effect of reducing an ISK faucet.

2) If you have a negative wallet, you may not board any ship except a shuttle.

Another day, another "punish the meanies!!!!!" thread. -1/10

I hope you're not surprised or anything.

Negative score? Is this like negwalleting?

Another day, another "punish the meanies!!!!!" thread. -1/10

It's not "my" job to make unless I've given my loyalty to a faction or to CONCORD.

People should be allowed to suicide-gank; I am not arguing for 100% safety in New Eden whatever the security status of the system may be, but I am arguing for better penalties when breaking the law committing murder.

The fundamental flaw in your rhetoric is that you're looking at this from a perspective which is incapable of perceiving change or fault in the game-play.

You must view this from a perspective that high security space run by CONCORD and the different factions actually have an interest in punishing criminals more realistically.

You can argue for that, but in this thread we are looking at it from a perspective that NPC has a somewhat control over the space they have gone to war over

Er, no. That is a problem SPECIFIC to players. If the "victim" carries stuff that is of lower value than it takes to gank, then most gankers will pass them over.
Hell... many will ignore you just for tanking your ship as they are simply looking for the easiest targets.

It is you, the player, who makes ganks worthwhile or not.

You are incorrect. You are not guaranteed to die in a Rifter and it's much cheaper. If you agress someone in ANY ship while in hi-sec you WILL die. You are also not guaranteed to actually kill your target. They may have more EHP than you anticipated, CONCORD may get you before you get them or the module drop simply isn't high enough to profit (with more people getting suicide ganked more people are **** fitting to save money).

Then fit your ships in a manner that makes it uneconomical to gank them.

CONCORD provides exactly what you say you have a right to. It provides a penalty for illegal agression

Then, forgive me, what kind of enhanced penalties are you looking for?

CONCORD destroys your ship when you illegally aggress. They also mark off some Sec Status. At -5, the faction police start preemptively shooting you.

Aside from podding, how can you make the penalty for illegal aggression worse than a guaranteed loss of the ship?

Another day, another "punish the meanies!!!!!" thread. -1/10

I hope you're not surprised or anything.

Negative score? Is this like negwalleting?

1) Suicide ganking voids any and all insurance, even the 40% base insurance making this point moot.

2) See 1.

I somewhat agree, but the fact still remains that suicide ganking should have a punishment which too must be taken into the equation of measuring risk and reward.

My point was that suicide-gankers don't fly around in excessively expensive ships to suicide-gank with; they make a clinical calculation of risk and reward, and I say there's too much reward and too little risk.

No-one will suicide-kill my pvp-ship; they will, however, do it if I fly around in a cargo-ship, mining-ship, etc, etc. I want more risk to balance out the potential reward of suicide-killing me flying around in such a ship

I want immediate reaction from CONCORD and/or faction; choosing between a hefty bribe and exile sounds good.

What you people must understand is that I take into consideration the fact that high security space isn't player-governed.

I somewhat agree, but the fact still remains that suicide ganking should have a punishment which too must be taken into the equation of measuring risk and reward. If I fly around in cargo-ship I know that even in high-sec I may be targeted, and I can deal with that, but it annoys me greatly that if someone chooses to shoot me (because, come one, what am I going to do about it if CONCORD doesn't react fast enough other than fit myself for protection best I can?) they won't suffer a punishment equaling to their crime in a system CONCORD-ruled.


My point was that suicide-gankers don't fly around in excessively expensive ships to suicide-gank with; they make a clinical calculation of risk and reward, and I say there's too much reward and too little risk.


No-one will suicide-kill my pvp-ship; they will, however, do it if I fly around in a cargo-ship, mining-ship, etc, etc. I want more risk to balance out the potential reward of suicide-killing me flying around in such a ship, for I cannot fit myself for battle.

I can use my pvp-alt to protect my industrial alt - and I do - but this should never be calculated into the equation of building a game-play system ... but it is, on many levels.

Oh, well, I disagree. I still think that committing murder and piracy in CONCORD-ruled space, with the result of losing a bit of sec status and a ship which intent is death, is unbalanced.


I want immediate reaction from CONCORD and/or faction; choosing between a hefty bribe and exile sounds good.

What you people must understand is that I take into consideration the fact that high security space isn't player-governed. In goon-land we obey goon-laws - in Gallente-land we obey Gallente-laws. Does the Gallente allow murder? I think not! Are people in New Eden susceptible to bribery? I think so!

You really need to improve your quoting style because I have no idea what you're responding to half of the time. AnywayGǪ

Yes it is. Your security is your concern and yours alone. If you want to secure space by keeping people out, it's your job to make sure they can't enter that space. NPCs are not there to enforce those kinds of restrictions GÇö it's up to you to create and enforce them.

Better than GÇ£automatic death and being a free-for-all targetGÇ¥? If the penalty is low, it's because players choose to make it low because they choose to not do their job at securing the space they're in. If players can't be arsed with it, the NPCs most certainly shouldn't step in and do it for them. Quite the opposite: the situation should deteriorate to the point where the players realise that they need to step up to the plate and provide the security they feel they need.

No, quite the opposite: I'm looking at it from the perspective of players responding to changes by altering what they do and how. I also don't see any fault in the gameplay. I particularly don't see it as a flaw when people refuse to adapt even when there is ample room to do so and plenty of tools available. That means the fault is not in the design but in the player decisions.

No, I really don't. I could just as well view it from the perspective that highsec is simply a place where aggression comes at a cost, and CONCORD and the different factions are simply mechanics to enforce this design.

No we are not. You might be, but you are not GÇ£weGÇ¥. Also, RP is secondary-átertiary-ádead last as far as game mechanics considerations go. If you want to balance the risk/reward ratio GÇö something that is almost entirely player-created, then go do so. You are a player; create the risk and reward you think is suitable.

murderer

lol actualy it puts more isk in goons pocket lol

CONCORD exists to punish, not to protect. I think the OP is missing this small but important fact of CONCORD's existence.

If you want to make mining less risky, make yourself harder to gank. Get a friend in a Scimitar and some escort ships to run security for you; gankers don't like the idea that they could get blown up before they get their juicy kill.

Ok, then what's the difference between different HS sec statuses? Right now they're differentiated by CONCORD response time.

After that, I'd pick exile every time. Since the game's a sandbox, there aren't any prohibitions on travel*, I'd just be an outlaw in the space I've been exiled from. Since NPCs don't pod, I'll just move around in a pod like usual. Grab something out of my Orca, then Gank!

Tah-Dah.

Your suggestion simply adds the ability to pay to avoid Sec status hits.

*if you're suggesting an absolute gates-are-closed restriction, there's probably no reaching you. Needless to say, it would be an idiotic suggestion.

If you'd bothered to read my posts you'd know that 'm speaking about penalty, not protection.


Less risky? I make my business in enemy wormholes. I eat risk for breakfast!


I was more speaking about high sec, low sec and null.

No, I don't want prohibitions on travel - I actually want to nerf the ridiculous power of the NPC's (what skills have they trained? tell me so I can train it too!) - but of course reaction at gates.

Sec-status would be affected, too.

in Gallente-land we obey Gallente-laws. Does the Gallente allow murder?

So then how would your proposed choice between exile and a bribe be anything other than paying isk if you want to escape sec hits?

With all this effort going into "save us" posts, how about even looking into any existing possibilities to protect yourself and organize your own safety. I mean you're not bound by game mechanics to mine afk without a tank in busy systems or systems with only a few belts. I don't see any "go forth and gank" buttons in the UI, yet you seem to want artificial safety.

Oh yeah "we don't want to ban ganking but make it so gankers are not allowed in high sec" . Brilliant logic and totally objective as expected

Upon thinking about this deeply, I came to the accurate conclusion that the penalty for suicide ganking is too high.

Gankee: Loses a ship.
Ganker: Loses a ship & sec status.

Perhaps a compromise would be in order. The ganker could either not take a sec hit, or the gankee could also take a sec hit. This would make the situation fair to both sides.

Did you in fact think at all, or does the gankees ship lack cargo-space?

Does the gankers ship also lack cargo space?

Can you show me those laws, please? This is a serious question because it's the first time that I hear that a capsuleer is under any form of government control. I learned from the back story that open space is dangerous and only the wealthy that can afford clones venture there. For very good reason!

You leave the safety of a station or a planet and there is no police to go after criminals. There is only CONCORD to stop unsanctioned acts of aggression. CONCORD has the simply function to keep violence at a tolerable level, what they do. The empires have their own problems (like a serious lack of presidents) that they can't deal with all those pirates that operate in open space. Why do you want to shift the burden to solve conflicts to them? Heck, there are still Minmatar children die by starvation!

We capsuleers have anything we need to handle our conflicts ourselves. There is no need of the empires to step up and start to restrict our freedom with their government bullshit.

With all this effort going into "save us" posts, how about even looking into any existing possibilities to protect yourself and organize your own safety. I mean you're not bound by game mechanics to mine afk without a tank in busy systems or systems with only a few belts. I don't see any "go forth and gank" buttons in the UI, yet you seem to want artificial safety.

Oh yeah "we don't want to ban ganking but make it so gankers are not allowed in high sec" . Brilliant logic and totally objective as expected

Well the high sec game mechanics are the problem. They do not allow players to defend themselves. They only allow for concord retribution after the fact. That is what most peoples problems are with them or at least mine. Of course that problem goes away in low sec or null.

If a method can be found to allow players to defend themselves from gankers in high sec without getting concorded then the risk of operating in high sec would be restored IMHO. But I have no idea how to make that happen. AS of right now all of the methods that would work the best are as illegal in high sec as ganking is. In other words any method that has a real chance to defeat a ganker fleet and save the defender also will get the defender concorded. High sec needs a stand your ground rule (mechanic).

Come one, I'm offering you argument here far from whatever the **** you received yours. Could you please be so kind to not give of such a completely ignorant response that I might just have to ask Mr. Darwin what went wrong with you?

No, no, Hakaari, don't be so hard on him.

Yes, I must - it's for his benefit.

No, no. He can't help it.

He has freedom of choice; born free into an absurd world, so spoke Mr. Camus.

Indeed, but that doesn't mean-

Ooooh. I was wondering how long it would take for such obvious and constant stupidity on these forums to literally drive me insane.

Is the gankees ship empty? Why, then, is it attacked?

It wasn't a thought through penalty. Someone asked for an example and I delivered it.

Penalties should be much more thought through with consideration to the economy and the affect it would have on the game as a whole.

Haha, nice. But really all your post, just like all the other crybabies, boils down to is what I said. You upset that I didn't repond to exact phrases you may have typed by pretending to be objective? You can't expect at this stage for people to even bother having intellectual arguments. Especially since the topic is born out of stupidity and willful ignorance.

Ganking has plenty of penalty. Asking if the penalty is too low is simply implying how it is bad and should be dealt with. Based on what? Opinion?




The original post actually.

Your wallet goes negative. See rule #2

2) If your wallet is negative, you cannot board any ship except a shuttle.

I most definitely believe that suicide ganking is unbalanced. The risk/reward is completely skewed. No risk (You plan on losing your ship anyways) and plenty of reward. Basically, it's like handing out candy to the dude that sets up a machine gun nest right next to a freeway and starts unloading into passing cars.

I'd say the best solution is to levy a sizable fine OR have all modules/cargo destroyed. It's not even about protecting carebears really. It's Just the same argument against being able to make isk in high sec. If you do something with virtually no risk, there should be virtually no reward. Suicide ganking, as it stands, is really less risk than running missions.

If you institute either control, only the juciest targets will be suicide ganked, along with the occasional victim of a sociopath ganking for the laughs. And really, it's your fault if you leave 2bil in modules on a ship. It's like walking down a dark alley in the bad part of town, drunk off your ass and covered in money.

Another option is to just add in more risk. I'm not really sure how to actually add risk to such an event though. Maybe have suicide ganking come with a pod kill via concord along with an SP loss? I don't know. I really have no idea how to add actual risk to such an endeavor. Wish I did though, so suicide ganking could be somewhat legitimate instead of a game of gank the unarmed civilian and get free cash.

Ok, come up with a harsher penalty that doesn't break the rule on NPCs podding, doesn't impose artificial travel restrictions, and doesn't automagically whisk isk out of the ganker's wallet. Since none of those things happen in game currently, there's no reason to add them.

I'll wait.

To choose between a 50- 100m bribe with a low sec status (because CONCORD will keep their eyes on you) and exile. If one wishes to return from exile one must establish contact with CONCORD, which will happen when entering a CONCORD guarded gate; they will talk to you and you will offer them a bribe - with interest.

You're asking for a fast reply so you'll get a fast reply. The above example is just a possibility. The size of the bribe could of course be affected by other things, such as skills in Social and/or previous gankings, etc.

To choose between a 50- 100m bribe with a low sec status (because CONCORD will keep their eyes on you) and exile. If one wishes to return from exile one must establish contact with CONCORD, which will happen when entering a CONCORD guarded gate; they will talk to you and you will offer them a bribe - with interest.

You're asking for a fast reply so you'll get a fast reply. The above example is just a possibility. The size of the bribe could of course be affected by other things, such as skills in Social and/or previous gankings, etc.

What risk do miners have? (besides Suicide Ganks which you're trying to ban)

Why don't miners make it unrewarding to suicide gank? A tank fit hulk isn't profitable to gank. A Mining fit Rokh is even worse. The only reason Suicide ganking is profitable is because miners allow it to be.

The risk miners have is probably suicide. I know I'd put a round in my head if I had to make my isk through mining. Also, who said I'm trying to BAN suicide ganking? I'm arguing against it's profitability. If you want to go kill unarmed civilians in job lots, go do it. Go nuts. Have a field day with it. I'm only asking that the activity have a risk associated with it, or at the least, enough consequences to make it something other than free isk.

Suicide Ganking isn't the equivalent of shooting people. It's the equivalent of blowing up construction equipment, stealing the scrap and selling that. The explosives you use are the equivalent of the gank ship.

Stealing scrap from construction sites is incredibly profitable in RL, judging by the number of people who get caught doing it. Getting to blow up and salvage the huge equipment would be even more profitable.

Stealing scrap also comes with real penalties. You know, things like jail time. It has risks associated with the rewards. Suicide ganking does not. It's just free and easy isk. Sure, if you're lucky enough to find the motherlode walking around in an uncloaked stealth bomber on auto pilot, feel free to profit greatly. Outside of those extremely lucky occasions, the costs/risks associated with suicide ganking (for profit, not fun) should be substantial enough to warrant actual consideration.

Stealing scrap also comes with real penalties. You know, things like jail time. It has risks associated with the rewards. Suicide ganking does not. It's just free and easy isk. Sure, if you're lucky enough to find the motherlode walking around in an uncloaked stealth bomber on auto pilot, feel free to profit greatly. Outside of those extremely lucky occasions, the costs/risks associated with suicide ganking (for profit, not fun) should be substantial enough to warrant actual consideration.

You can't be a murderer in a world of immortals.

Suicide Ganking comes with real penalties. You know, things like getting your ship blown up. It has risks associated with the rewards. The risk of a bad loot drop. The risk of unexpected tankiness. The risk of whoops forgot to OH. The costs of suicide ganking for profit are very substantial compared to the expected reward, it costs ~10m Isk to gank something with an expected drop worth ~10m ISK.

And you can't count any player bounties in your reward calculation, because player events aren't something you balance on.

That's like saying going to a firing range is dangerous because if you're really stupid you can put a bullet in yourself. You can scan ships, and you can build a ship for suicide ganking with 2m ISK. Even poor loot drops are profitable unless you're throwing full T2 destroyers away firing on the first thing you can get a lock on before it warps out. You've already chosen to sacrifice the ship as well, so it's hardly a risk. You know exactly what you're losing, you can scan to make an educated guess of what you'll receive. You kinda have to put your try hard pants on induce any possibility of losing isk on this. That's an accomplishment along the lines of committing suicide by holding your breath. It takes serious dedication to do yourself harm to pull off.

By definition, "risk" implies an uncertain outcome.

OTOH, picture the lowly miner.

How about a variable response time for Concord, from instantaneous as soon as the ganker fires the weapon, to a slower response that just might let them escape off grid. This would introduce an element of uncertainty, or risk, to the equation.

How about making ship scanning an aggressive act, such as can flipping. It wouldn't bring Concord down on them, but it would give the miners escorts the ability to engage preemptively.

This whole notion that a ganker is risking something is almost humorous....

By definition, "risk" implies an uncertain outcome. The ganker knows he is going to lose his ship, so that is no risk, it is a cost of doing business.

Some argue there is a risk of failure, but CCP has eliminated this risk as well. A ganker can ship scan a potential target before committing themselves. They can see what kind of tank that juicy Hulk may or may not have. This eliminates the risk of failure.

There is a potential financial risk of course. You can't be certain the number of modules that will be dropped intact. However, the Goons have tried to eliminate this risk as well. I've heard it cost about 10 Mil to fit out a gank ship. Funny, the Goons will pay out a bounty of 100Mil for every 10 Hulks. So over the long run, they have eliminated the financial risk as well.

So, gankers face no RISK.

OTOH, picture the lowly miner.

Every time they undock to mine they are at risk of being ganked.
They can't chose to engage or not (unlike the ganker who has that choice)
They don't know the outcome (unlike the ganker).

While there are things that the miner can do to reduce their risk, they are faced with RISK, unlike the Goons. So when the Goons go on and on about how whimpy the mining communittee is, remember this. Miners are taking risk, the Gankers aren't.

There are ways to introduce risk into the act of ganking. How about a variable response time for Concord, from instantaneous as soon as the ganker fires the weapon, to a slower response that just might let them escape off grid. This would introduce an element of uncertainty, or risk, to the equation. How about making ship scanning an aggressive act, such as can flipping. It wouldn't bring Concord down on them, but it would give the miners escorts the ability to engage preemptively.

Of course nothing like this will be done because the Goons would whine and pontificate. Heaven forbid that the Goons face risk or uncertainty in their activities. And it is obvious that CCP is unwilling or afraid to do anything counter to Goon interests.

Indeed, and I agree, my security is my responsibility, but I'm talking about the penalty of committing murder.

I disagree. In my opinion, the different security systems fills an essential purpose to New Eden; it makes it diverse and full of life. I can choose to stay in high security space or I can choose to join an alliance in null; either way, I should feel an obvious difference rather than the lacking of useless NPC's and a failed story-line.

CONCORD should have a will to protect CONCORD space from undesirables, and equally so should the factions.

I guess I really don't see what harsh consequences suicide-gankers have when breaking laws in empire.

Yes, you really do

Its not high enough.

Detach the ability to grind security status from ratting in null and deny people with -2 sec or more docking rights in 0.5 or up.

After all, Eve is supposed to be cold and heartless.....a dog eat dog world

Cold and heartless only for some right?

It's difficult to maintain a dog-eat-dog world if some of the dogs refuse to biteGǪ and if they decide to do so, they ca't really complain that it's only cold and heartless for them and not for the dogs on the not-receiving end of the non-bite.

So why does your monumentally stupid idea introduce the only game mechanic that forces a wallet to go negative, hmm?

Its not. If you smuggle and get caught, you are fined. If you do not have the ISK to pay the fine, your wallet goes negative.

I have come to realize that you just want to play an easy game that doesn't give hard consequences to your actions - and here I thought that I was playing with cool, antisocial EVE-players, when it turns out that you're just a bunch of wow-guys who wants profit the easy way.

I am so disappointed in you.

No, the price is not too low.

The price is that gankers eventually lose enough security status to not be able to go into any hisec system owned by one of the four Empires without attracting a massive fleet of NPCs that chase him through space and time, and can alpha all but the largest and most heavily tanked ships.

To fix this, a ganker must grind missions in low and null until his standing and security status are at a level that he can enter a hisec system without attracting said fleet of uber-ganky NPC police.

What's the one thing a ganker supposedly hates most of all? Grinding. What does he eventually have to do if he wants to continue ganking? Grind.

Seems a fitting punishment to me.

i am curious though as to how many times you can gank people before you can't exist in high sec. (i.e. please tell me)

We already have hard consequences to our actions. You want them to be harder, so your game can be easier.

There is no such limit.

Yes, the penalty for suicide-ganking is too low.

If you are suicide ganked, you should be auto-podded. I think this is a fair penalty, as the suicide-ganker has to track you down, plot and scheme and LOSE HIS SHIP for attacking your immortal, guarded self.

I underlined the part that showed us how stupid you are.

Does death have consequence?
I thought I read in the ad copy for Eve that death had consequences but I must have been wrong, because clearly it doesnGÇÖt. Yeah, sure you lose a ship, and that could really hurt. As a newbie I sure know that. But the idea that suicide gank is a standard practice proves the point. The idea that someone would do a dozen suicide ganks in a row just adds unrealistic insult to the gameworld. You get to be a bully and never face consequences for it. If youGÇÖre on the Concord GÇ£most wantedGÇ¥ list you should get podded, and getting podded by CONCORD should cause a loss that matters - presumably skill points as if your clone could only handle 95% of your SP or something. This might be harsh for first time - maybe the first death in 24 hours is no loss, then it starts accelerating from there. The realistic alternative would be that Concord arrests the characters, but taking someone out of the game (even for just 24 hours) seems problematic.

Suicide ganking for profit makes sense in the world of New Eden but when it becomes a concerted and ongoing campaign it's no longer piracy. It's bigotry.

Call a spade a a spade. EVE is seeing an attempt at culture cleansing right now.

exactly.

tl;dr: suicide-ganking is too easy and should have greater penalty; life for suicide gankers should be no easier than life for miners. EVE is a system built on risk/reward - and the reward for suicide-ganking outweighs the risk of doing it.

Regards,
J. H.

You got it in one there. CCP Likes Suicide Ganking, as it's helping flush all the illegal botter isk out of the economy. Just wait until the great minerals crash that's coming, then you're gonna see some real fun!

Often. Because the result is funny.

so, artificial travel restrictions

Mallak Azaria <---you mean that part?

TROLL-B-GONE

Will someone please address me the issue of the cost difference between the ganker and gankee

as well as my issue with juszt creating a new alt to get around the security status drop?

I have never seen such a community filled with so much hate.

Consequences shouldn't be only for miners and industrialists. EVE should be hard on everyone regardless if you put your SP in industry, mining or gunnery.

the gankee loses his ship and gains insurance (heh probably not knowing hi-sec), the ganker loses his ship and loses security status

if anything hi-sec ganking should be buffed

You're either not paying attention, ignoring the fact or you just haven't seen the forums of many other games. It's universal.

The consequences are already there. They're far higher for ganking than they are for being ganked. There is literally no justification for raising the consequences for the ganker further at this point, considering they were raised 6 months ago. That's pretty much why I made the other thread :p

Ok, come up with a harsher penalty that doesn't break the rule on NPCs podding, doesn't impose artificial travel restrictions, and doesn't automagically whisk isk out of the ganker's wallet. Since none of those things happen in game currently, there's no reason to add them.

I'll wait.

the gankee loses his ship and gains insurance (heh probably not knowing hi-sec), the ganker loses his ship and loses security status

if anything hi-sec ganking should be buffed

tl;dr: suicide-ganking is too easy and should have greater penalty; life for suicide gankers should be no easier than life for miners. EVE is a system built on risk/reward - and the reward for suicide-ganking outweighs the risk of doing it.

Thus ends the thoughts of Gaius Julius - oh, no, wait - Julii Hakaari (doesn't sound at all as awesome, now does it?).

What are your thoughts? And, yet again, please, for goodness sake, act as the intelligent EVE-gamers your propose yourselves to be.

Regards,
J. H.

no grinding required, merely another alt with a relatively short training time to get back out and do it again. (correct me if i'm wrong)

i am curious though as to how many times you can gank people before you can't exist in high sec. (i.e. please tell me)

What do you suicide gank in? how much does it and your gear cost? how hard is it to use said equipment to break the tank on a hulk and how much do you gain from salvage and loot?

losses a ship usualy worth at max 10m with fittings, looses sec status, gets loot drops from miners, transfers isk etc to anotehr alt, gets biomassed, new char made trained in a few hours, rince repeat....

tbt think CCP should put a 1 week delay on chr deletion, you delete it, you have to wait 1 week for it to actualy happen, means you either have to have more accounts or you cant gank as frequently with VERY LITTLE risk vs reward....

kill rights for 30 days, isnt enough in my opinion. Hiding in low/null when they've committed the crime doesnt help matters. Even ive gone after gankers before, but your so outnumbered, its hard to pick them off to gain revenge.

15 mins Global countdown? big whoop. after a minute or two, they can just dock up & wait out the timer anyways in their pods. ISK fines based on their sec status's would hopefully curb some of the aggressors.

If you want to gank, use the war declaration system. Thats what its for. If your out mining or mission running & get ganked, well,then i have no sympathy for you anyway. thats your own fault.

Inconsequential or not, the ISK lost from the miner/victim, & the insurance payed should come out of the gankee's wallet. & the full ISK amount, not some chump-ass insurance quote thats broken on T2 ships it is currently.

& if he/she has no ISK in their wallet, well, i fully expect a negative wallet. Then ship replacement programs will be funded outta their own wallets.

A properly tanked Hulk has 30k EHP, all T2 Fit. A gang of 4 (20m Isk) Catalysts can kill that before CONCORD arrives. Put some RR on the field in the Hulks favor and that number jumps to about 15 Catalysts (75m) or 6 Tornados (380m).

A Hulk drops ~10m in loot and ~10m in salvage (average). Tanking your Hulk, with no RR means it takes 4 people to break even on the gank and split a 10m Isk bounty (which isn't something to balance on, cause it's not a game mechanic). With RR, your Hulk cannot be profitably ganked.

If only the killmails showed the fits of the gankers for proof of the fits.

Loss of the gankers ships is a calculated loss and is of benefit to them in whatever way they see it as benefiting them.

Jumping into something expecting to win and invariably losing is what a loss truly is.

The suicide ganker is 100% guaranteed to lose his ship, some modules, and sec status. It is the highest risk activity in EVE. Anyone can acknowledge that.

tl;dr:

Carebear loses 300 mil hulk

Goon loses a Catalyst

Agreed. Also doing it more than once or twice will also make life in hi-sec really irritating avoiding the police all the time.

Which is why they use alts, we all know that.

I'm sitting here asking myself what I should reply. I see this ignorant and stupid post and I see that, of course - you're a goon, and I ask myself if I'm racist against goons or if I'm just a realist for not being surprised that ignorant, stupidity and goons walk hand in hand, but then I realize that I'm better off reading about Einstein's theory on relativity, so I walk away.

You are ignorant to believe that this is a pvp-optional game. It is not.

in a sandbox I am allowed to form my own fate

without this static high sec, I'd be forced to join a corporation with an alliance to gain protection; being forced to do such a thing would in essence remove my freedom of choice of not doing that, since quitting would be my only other alternative. Is that a sandbox?

If someone is willing to die "for the lulz", as some of you have argued is enough, well, then, I guess EVE isn't the cold hearted ***** we thought she was.

if you are willing to die "just like that", even for a marginal profit, then death is too little of a consequence.

Wow, Julii. That has to be among the most hateful, anti-social, and hypocritical things I've ever read on these forums. I'm very impressed.

You really need to take your medication now

You also really need to learn what GÇ£multiplayer sandboxGÇ¥ entails, because it's not what you think it is.

Incorrect. In a multiplayer sandbox, you are allowed to try to form your own fate, but you'll have to do it in competition with everyone else trying to do the same. Their attempts my very well be at odds with yours, and you are in no way guaranteed to come out on top in that clash.

Yes, because you're not actually forced to do anything and because the tools remain the same, and those tools still allow you (and everyone else) to create your own shared world. It's the latter part that is the sandbox, far more than the former. Even if you were forced to do things because of the actions of others, that would still not make it any less of a sandbox because that's just how things will work out in a shared multiplayer sandbox: some will get their wish; as a result, others will not.

No. It's just that they value the real-life fun higher than some virtual assets. Seems rather healthy, to be honest.

No. If there's a marginal profit in it, it means that they've taking the consequences into account, no matter how large or small they are GÇö whether they die or not is quite irrelevant at that point.

Yes, hateful posts are typically the result when hate is of issue. I hate bullies. What is your excuse?

I never argued for anything else.

No, they actually don't remain the same.

Ah, and here you completely ignored what I said, too.

How does death have consequences if real-life fun outweighs the negative effects of death in New Eden?

Right now a Wardec just means players quit corp.

or war deccing corps have members outside of corp, find war targets while having an application in, application accepted just before gank on target, ganker quits corp....

CCPs changed it so they cant rejoin for 7 days which is one thing.

No, they actually don't remain the same. Let me make it simple to you: I give you a toolbox, but I steal a tool from you. Does the toolbox then remain the same? You are talking about making a big sandbox very tiny to fit a certain play-style; this is not something you can debate yourself out of since it would also be the result. What makes you think you are more entitled to your play-style than anyone else? What if I want to be self-sufficient? How would that be possible in a sandbox that didn't give me the tool (to go through a safer place, i.e. high sec) to do just that?

Above you said they "value the real-life fun higher", i.e. you spoke of that as a reason, and that is also the reason unless a ganker gets lucky and hits jack-pot when scanning a cargo. How does death have consequences if real-life fun outweighs the negative effects of death in New Eden? It doesn't. You know it, I know, CCP knows it. It's a matter of fact that death doesn't have consequences in EVE unless you spend a lot of money on implants.

Yes, hateful posts are typically the result when hate is of issue. I hate bullies. What is your excuse?.

At the moment, any player can create a brand new alt and on his first day of noobness, without any mission grinding whatsoever and a 0.0 sec status, get with a few buddies and probably get off a good many ganks in 0.5s before even having the first worry about faction navies. If a game mechanic was implemented to dissuade ganking at some point, yet players can create infinite alts and gank with virtual impunity, then there's probably going to come a time to re-evaluate this and reassess whether this penalty working as intended.

You cannot create infinite alts. You can use the buddy system to make ~30 alts, but being that recycling them is illegal, CCP would probably ban you for doing that.

Don't some people have 15-20 accts? That's more than 30 alts. We're debating semantics? Who cares what the number is? Whatever the number is - its huge. You can do a lot of damage with a single alt. It may be illegal to recycle alts, but if you can come up with any reason whatsoever why you did it, it's no longer a violation. And there's basically nothing stopping anyone from creating trial accts (I'm sure it happens every day) and ganking people - with no intention of ever developing those characters. Who would keep track of this? How would the victim know? The devs can't keep up with the number of petitions they get. You expect me to believe that they constantly monitor 400,000 accounts daily for biomass legitimacy? Unrealistic. I'm sure if someone gets reported and they can confirm the exploit, then yeah that person might face consequences. But my point is that if 1000 players or 5000 players join together and attempt to disrupt high sec, based on the limitless alt bonanza they can unleash, the sec status sure isn't going to do much to help anybody in that situation.

Yonis Kador

TLDR? With no way to monitor alt creation, the sec status penalty is an ineffective deterrent to crime.

TLDR? With no way to monitor alt creation, the sec status penalty is an ineffective deterrent to crime.

Bad analogy. The better analogy is given that toolbox, I threaten to hit you over the head with a spanner every time I see you use the cordless drill. Now, the cordless drill drills holes faster than the eggbeater drill, but the eggbeater drill does the same quality job. You could use the cordless drill anyway and accept the beatings, or you could hide from me while you use it, or you can simply use the eggbeater drill.

Your choices remain the same. The possible and likely outcomes have changed, but the choices haven't.

If Death doesn't have consequences, why do people cry about getting ganked? The consequences are still there, gankers have just adapted and made the consequences less relevant to them. Miners can do the same thing.

The choice we make depends on the outcome so if we change the outcome then we also change the choices, e.g. the choices would change if we went from a publicly funded police force, which would punish you for an act of murder, to a state with no police force.

When I say most of you are intellectually dysfunctional then I don't mean people like you and Tippia whom I may not agree with, but rather than trolling you engage in a discussion which is something I respect, so why do you embarrass yourself like this? We both know that suicide-ganking is act of suicide, and what is suicide? It's the choice of dying. Why would anyone make that choice in EVE? "For the lulz", apparently. Is it logical to die "for the lulz" in a "hard core game" where death should be something we try to avoid?

A suicide-ganker builds a cheap ship to suicide-gank. He doesn't spend tons of money and fills his cargo with stuff before he goes out into space and commits an act of suicide. If you fail to see the difference in self-made choice of death, and simple death, then I don't think you and I can get any further in this discussion.

Is trial account creation monitored per IP addy? Or are violations only reported? And what's to stop someone from claiming their sister,mother,father,brother wanted to try the game so they set up an acct for them? Seems weak.

I guess we can debate this all day but sec status still won't be any kind of deterrent to crime (though I keep seeing it brought up as a part of some balance in-game.)

[quote=Yonis Kador]
GǪand then we come to the plan the devs mentioned about being able to buy your sec status back up with tags. That idea alone kind of tells us what they think of this GǣproblemGǥ.

Yes, but you can only buy your status back once.

Have any of the other mega-alliances in EVE's history ever declared a neverending assault on high sec?

They should only distribute those tags through hi sec miners to sell

ISK loss for ganking is inconsequential, Sec penalty is easily circumvented, kill rights are a joke.

What we need is Community Service and tagging.

Force the aggressors to clean grafiti off the side of a station in a pod for 4 hours every time they gank a barge before they can leave the system or dock.

That'll teach em !

/shakes fist

I like this approach. Make it so they can only fly mining ships for a week.

When I first started, I mined in a destroyer for a while. Must be that Destroyers are mining ships.

lets make it a retriever then. If you dont have the training for it. All other training is locked till you have trained for it. Punishment starts the moment you can fly a retriever

Having the game force people to do what they do not want to do is not how a sandbox works.

Unless, of course, they liked the old inventory system.

Fair point. Guess I should have put "is not good game design," but even CCP noticed that they screwed up the new inventory.

I'd accept that. The further we get from the misleading misuse of "sandbox", the better.

There are also plenty of other examples (using the weak sense of "force", as in "If you choose to play in manner X, you are forced to Y") that arguably are good game design. And the weak sense of the word is the only one that applies.

An appeal to the authority of "sandbox" to enforce a style of play or prohibit an outcome is fallacious. The sandbox can and does change fairly frequently.

Yes, they should isnta kill (CONCORD, Navy, gate guns) pods when criminals enter high sec.
So you cant scoot around high sec freely in their pod


(Wait for the qq from the ppl who fear consequences for their actions)

Yes, they should isnta kill (CONCORD, Navy, gate guns) pods when criminals enter high sec.
So you cant scoot around high sec freely in their pod

Ok, so long as the punishment for miners getting ganked is sitting in a BLOPS for two weeks. All other training is locked, yadda yadda.

Having the game force people to do what they do not want to do is not how a sandbox works.
Having people force other people to CHOOSE to Adapt or Die is in the highest traditions of sandbox gameplay.

Why?

Because Eve is sold as a heartless MMO filled with 1 sided PvP in a dimension where the undeserving die a quick death.

Except in the sandbox with a bully, the gentle lamb can truely kick the bully in the crotch when they know the bully plans on kicking down his castle.

As luck would have it, EVE allows this already. It's just that experience has shown that the lamb absolutely does not under any circumstances whatsoever want to kick the bully and want others to do it for him without him getting involved in any way.

Except in the sandbox with a bully, the gentle lamb can truely kick the bully in the crotch when they know the bully plans on kicking down his castle.