EVE Search - Is the penalty for suicide-ganking too high?

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Is the penalty for suicide-ganking too high?

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Mallak Azaria xX-Crusader-Xx Luna Sanguinem 120	Posted - 2012.05.31 01:08:00 - [1] - Quote Many posts are appearing of late asking if the penalty for suicide-ganking is too low. From the gankees point of view, it probably is. They lost a ship. I will now put to you the other side of the argument. Suicide-gankers blow people up for many reasons. It may be for profit, in response to a player event or in many cases, they do it simply because it's fun[ny]. Now lets talk about penalties. The gankee loses a ship & it's mods, plus whatever else resides in the cargohold. The ganker loses a ship & it's mods, whatever resides in the cargohold, sec status, gains a 15 minute GCC timer & can be shot by anyone for the duration. Can you really say the penalties are too low?
Haldor Rune State War Academy Caldari State 24	Posted - 2012.05.31 01:12:00 - [2] - Quote The only reason to say that they are too low is to point to the fact that despite the penalties that currently exist, large-scale suicide gank-fests are not only possible, they're encouraged and actively organized (or at least, it seems that way). For the gankee, the penalty must be so excessively harsh as to completely dissuade anyone from even considering attempting it.
Richard Desturned GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 585	Posted - 2012.05.31 01:13:00 - [3] - Quote As long as suicide ganking is possible, the penalties will always be "too low." eh
Juess Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 8	Posted - 2012.05.31 01:14:00 - [4] - Quote When an entire segment of Eve's population refuses obstinently to take up arms, being flagged for PVP by them in High Sec isn't really that much of a penalty. I mean what are they going to do? I think we all know the answer to that.
RubyPorto SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT 1663	Posted - 2012.05.31 01:14:00 - [5] - Quote Bring back tankable CONCORD and the m0o Perma-Camp! Single-Shard, *Player Driven-áSandbox*. 5 words. That's what makes it special.
James 315 Caldari Provisions Caldari State 1806	Posted - 2012.05.31 01:16:00 - [6] - Quote The security status penalties for suicide ganking are too high. They were more reasonable before (one of) the suicide ganking nerfs for which the carebears bleated so much. Since ratting for security status is one of the worst activities in EVE, it shouldn't require so much to repair one's security status. Fortunately many gankers are able to operate even with -10 status, but that doesn't excuse the flawed mechanic.
Spikeflach Echo's of Liberty Dominatus Atrum Mortis 20	Posted - 2012.05.31 01:17:00 - [7] - Quote Loss of the gankers ship is no loss. They know its going to be lost, and its going to profit them even if its not a monetary profit.
Mallak Azaria xX-Crusader-Xx Luna Sanguinem 121	Posted - 2012.05.31 01:18:00 - [8] - Quote Spikeflach wrote: Loss of the gankers ship is no loss. If it's not a loss, why do they lose it?
Richard Desturned GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 585	Posted - 2012.05.31 01:18:00 - [9] - Quote Spikeflach wrote: Loss of the gankers ship is no loss. They know its going to be lost, and its going to profit them even if its not a monetary profit. i know that you can only look at a spreadsheet and say "hmm yes the penalties are too low" but the fact that you have to operate very differently when you're -5 or lower is quite a substantial penalty eh
Hammer Crendraven Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 4	Posted - 2012.05.31 01:20:00 - [10] - Quote Juess wrote: When an entire segment of Eve's population refuses obstinently to take up arms, being flagged for PVP by them in High Sec isn't really that much of a penalty. I mean what are they going to do? I think we all know the answer to that. What a sideways argument completely off the mark.
Haldor Rune State War Academy Caldari State 24	Posted - 2012.05.31 01:23:00 - [11] - Quote Mallak Azaria wrote: Spikeflach wrote: Loss of the gankers ship is no loss. If it's not a loss, why do they lose it? It's a monetary loss, but some people like to argue in terms of utility - the satisfaction a ganker receives from ganking - which is immeasurable. Abstract concept gain outweighs quantifiable ISK loss... right. It does, to some extent, which is why ganking occurs at all, but it's no way to make an argument about changing game mechanics.
Hammer Crendraven Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 4	Posted - 2012.05.31 01:31:00 - [12] - Quote James 315 wrote: The security status penalties for suicide ganking are too high. They were more reasonable before (one of) the suicide ganking nerfs for which the carebears bleated so much. Since ratting for security status is one of the worst activities in EVE, it shouldn't require so much to repair one's security status. Fortunately many gankers are able to operate even with -10 status, but that doesn't excuse the flawed mechanic. I tend to agree the flawed mechanic is that negative sec status is an attempt to keep them out which is not working either. I would rather have a stand your ground rule to allow high sec players to defend themselves from gankers rather than a pathetic attempt to keep them out. But alas I have no idea how to make such a law or rule or mechanic work. I was thinking about a pretimer like the GCC timer but it counts down and the ganker can not attack until the timer runs out. During that 15 minute window the ganker(s) are legal targets in high sec. But that is too cumbersome and would not work well at all either. If you saw a target at a gate how could you track it for 15 minutes while your timer wound down? No not a good way at all. Like I said no idea how to make this work.
Ashina Sito Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 23	Posted - 2012.05.31 01:32:00 - [13] - Quote Mallak Azaria wrote: . Can you really say the penalties are too low? Eve is suppose to be harsh. The penalties for being a pirate in High Sec are not harsh enough. There is no problem with suicide ganking. It should be there. It should not be common place or a day in day out operational standard for a pilot. Pilot Sec status is suppose to mean something. It doesn't amount to much. The impact needs to be. greater. Being "bad" in game should not be an easy road. It should mean something when you see someone -10, it does not at the moment.
Mallak Azaria xX-Crusader-Xx Luna Sanguinem 121	Posted - 2012.05.31 01:36:00 - [14] - Quote Ashina Sito wrote: Being "bad" in game should not be an easy road. It should mean something. Being "good" in game shouldn't be an easy road either. It should mean something.
Oraac Ensor School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 8	Posted - 2012.05.31 01:36:00 - [15] - Quote Mallak Azaria wrote: Spikeflach wrote: Loss of the gankers ship is no loss. If it's not a loss, why do they lose it? The point is that it's not a net loss - they gain overall. The penalty should be much higher so that they have to think a lot harder before risking it.
Mallak Azaria xX-Crusader-Xx Luna Sanguinem 121	Posted - 2012.05.31 01:40:00 - [16] - Quote Oraac Ensor wrote: Mallak Azaria wrote: Spikeflach wrote: Loss of the gankers ship is no loss. If it's not a loss, why do they lose it? The point is that it's not a net loss - they gain overall. The gankee also gains knowledge from the experience, which is far more valuable than any monetary gain on the gankers end.
Snow Axe GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 298	Posted - 2012.05.31 01:44:00 - [17] - Quote Oraac Ensor wrote: The point is that it's not a net loss - they gain overall. The penalty should be much higher so that they have to think a lot harder before risking it. No, the correct answer is that they MIGHT gain, if the right loot drops, if they actually succeeded or not, and if they brought friends, the profit gets cut that many more ways. Ganking CAN be profitable, with the right targets. They don't always exist.
RubyPorto SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT 1665	Posted - 2012.05.31 01:48:00 - [18] - Quote Snow Axe wrote: Oraac Ensor wrote: The point is that it's not a net loss - they gain overall. The penalty should be much higher so that they have to think a lot harder before risking it. No, the correct answer is that they MIGHT gain, if the right loot drops, if they actually succeeded or not, and if they brought friends, the profit gets cut that many more ways. Ganking CAN be profitable, with the right targets. They don't always exist. And the availability of profitable targets is entirely determined by the potential target's choices. Single-Shard, *Player Driven-áSandbox*. 5 words. That's what makes it special.
Juess Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 9	Posted - 2012.05.31 01:53:00 - [19] - Quote Hammer Crendraven wrote: James 315 wrote: The security status penalties for suicide ganking are too high. They were more reasonable before (one of) the suicide ganking nerfs for which the carebears bleated so much. Since ratting for security status is one of the worst activities in EVE, it shouldn't require so much to repair one's security status. Fortunately many gankers are able to operate even with -10 status, but that doesn't excuse the flawed mechanic. I tend to agree the flawed mechanic is that negative sec status is an attempt to keep them out which is not working either. I would rather have a stand your ground rule to allow high sec players to defend themselves from gankers rather than a pathetic attempt to keep them out. But alas I have no idea how to make such a law or rule or mechanic work. I was thinking about a pretimer like the GCC timer but it counts down and the ganker can not attack until the timer runs out. During that 15 minute window the ganker(s) are legal targets in high sec. But that is too cumbersome and would not work well at all either. If you saw a target at a gate how could you track it for 15 minutes while your timer wound down? No not a good way at all. Like I said no idea how to make this work. What a sideways argument completely off the mark.
Bootleg Jack Potters Field 128	Posted - 2012.05.31 01:54:00 - [20] - Quote Mallak Azaria wrote: Many posts are appearing of late asking if the penalty for suicide-ganking is too low. From the gankees point of view, it probably is. They lost a ship. I will now put to you the other side of the argument. Suicide-gankers blow people up for many reasons. It may be for profit, in response to a player event or in many cases, they do it simply because it's fun[ny]. Now lets talk about penalties. The gankee loses a ship & it's mods, plus whatever else resides in the cargohold. The ganker loses a ship & it's mods, whatever resides in the cargohold, sec status, gains a 15 minute GCC timer & can be shot by anyone for the duration. Can you really say the penalties are too low? You suicide gank with cargo and mods?? Seriously, if you are at -10 and you get your ships from a corp orca the risk is what again? Z E R O I'm an American, English is my second language...
Mallak Azaria xX-Crusader-Xx Luna Sanguinem 121	Posted - 2012.05.31 02:00:00 - [21] - Quote Bootleg Jack wrote: Mallak Azaria wrote: Many posts are appearing of late asking if the penalty for suicide-ganking is too low. From the gankees point of view, it probably is. They lost a ship. I will now put to you the other side of the argument. Suicide-gankers blow people up for many reasons. It may be for profit, in response to a player event or in many cases, they do it simply because it's fun[ny]. Now lets talk about penalties. The gankee loses a ship & it's mods, plus whatever else resides in the cargohold. The ganker loses a ship & it's mods, whatever resides in the cargohold, sec status, gains a 15 minute GCC timer & can be shot by anyone for the duration. Can you really say the penalties are too low? You suicide gank with cargo and mods?? Seriously, if you are at -10 and you get your ships from a corp orca the risk is what again? Z E R O There is always something in the cargo, even if it's only air. It's also pretty hard to gank without having any guns on your ship. Even at -10, you still lose a ship, you still lose the mods & there is the ever present chance of failure. The risk will never be zero.
RubyPorto SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT 1666	Posted - 2012.05.31 02:05:00 - [22] - Quote Bootleg Jack wrote: Mallak Azaria wrote: Many posts are appearing of late asking if the penalty for suicide-ganking is too low. From the gankees point of view, it probably is. They lost a ship. I will now put to you the other side of the argument. Suicide-gankers blow people up for many reasons. It may be for profit, in response to a player event or in many cases, they do it simply because it's fun[ny]. Now lets talk about penalties. The gankee loses a ship & it's mods, plus whatever else resides in the cargohold. The ganker loses a ship & it's mods, whatever resides in the cargohold, sec status, gains a 15 minute GCC timer & can be shot by anyone for the duration. Can you really say the penalties are too low? You suicide gank with cargo and mods?? Seriously, if you are at -10 and you get your ships from a corp orca the risk is what again? Z E R O Aside from Suicide Ganking (which you want banned), what is the risk to a miner? Z is for Z, the last letter in the alphabet E is for EHP R is roaming around and ganking Hulks O is for OMG... tears Single-Shard, *Player Driven-áSandbox*. 5 words. That's what makes it special.
Mallak Azaria xX-Crusader-Xx Luna Sanguinem 123	Posted - 2012.05.31 03:03:00 - [23] - Quote RubyPorto wrote: Bootleg Jack wrote: Mallak Azaria wrote: Many posts are appearing of late asking if the penalty for suicide-ganking is too low. From the gankees point of view, it probably is. They lost a ship. I will now put to you the other side of the argument. Suicide-gankers blow people up for many reasons. It may be for profit, in response to a player event or in many cases, they do it simply because it's fun[ny]. Now lets talk about penalties. The gankee loses a ship & it's mods, plus whatever else resides in the cargohold. The ganker loses a ship & it's mods, whatever resides in the cargohold, sec status, gains a 15 minute GCC timer & can be shot by anyone for the duration. Can you really say the penalties are too low? You suicide gank with cargo and mods?? Seriously, if you are at -10 and you get your ships from a corp orca the risk is what again? Z E R O Aside from Suicide Ganking (which you want banned), what is the risk to a miner? Z is for Z, the last letter in the alphabet E is for EHP R is roaming around and ganking Hulks O is for OMG... tears I could offer a compromise for that aswell. If suicide-ganking were to be banned (will never happen, deal with it), mining should also be banned. One can always find a happy ending :)
RubyPorto SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT 1666	Posted - 2012.05.31 03:06:00 - [24] - Quote Mallak Azaria wrote: RubyPorto wrote: Bootleg Jack wrote: Mallak Azaria wrote: Many posts are appearing of late asking if the penalty for suicide-ganking is too low. From the gankees point of view, it probably is. They lost a ship. I will now put to you the other side of the argument. Suicide-gankers blow people up for many reasons. It may be for profit, in response to a player event or in many cases, they do it simply because it's fun[ny]. Now lets talk about penalties. The gankee loses a ship & it's mods, plus whatever else resides in the cargohold. The ganker loses a ship & it's mods, whatever resides in the cargohold, sec status, gains a 15 minute GCC timer & can be shot by anyone for the duration. Can you really say the penalties are too low? You suicide gank with cargo and mods?? Seriously, if you are at -10 and you get your ships from a corp orca the risk is what again? Z E R O Aside from Suicide Ganking (which you want banned), what is the risk to a miner? Z is for Z, the last letter in the alphabet E is for EHP R is roaming around and ganking Hulks O is for OMG... tears I could offer a compromise for that aswell. If suicide-ganking were to be banned (will never happen, deal with it), mining should also be banned. One can always find a happy ending :) Mining is a good thing in this game. I see no reason for it to be banned. Gankers aren't calling for miners to be banned, we're calling for miners to put some slight effort into their gameplay. The mining whiners are the only ones calling for anyone's playstyle to be nerfed or banned. Single-Shard, *Player Driven-áSandbox*. 5 words. That's what makes it special.
bongsmoke School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 58	Posted - 2012.05.31 03:07:00 - [25] - Quote I dont care about this thread or what anyone says in the thread, I have no opinion. I just wanted to post, I can't believe your not a goon. Edit: @OP
Mallak Azaria xX-Crusader-Xx Luna Sanguinem 123	Posted - 2012.05.31 03:23:00 - [26] - Quote bongsmoke wrote: I dont care about this thread or what anyone says in the thread, I have no opinion. I just wanted to post, I can't believe it's not butter. Edit: @OP Maybe it is?
Jayrendo Karr Suns Of Korhal Terran Commonwealth 133	Posted - 2012.05.31 04:12:00 - [27] - Quote GCC should include podding for agressive actions (not can flipping etc)
Hammer Crendraven Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 5	Posted - 2012.05.31 04:38:00 - [28] - Quote Juess wrote: Hammer Crendraven wrote: James 315 wrote: The security status penalties for suicide ganking are too high. They were more reasonable before (one of) the suicide ganking nerfs for which the carebears bleated so much. Since ratting for security status is one of the worst activities in EVE, it shouldn't require so much to repair one's security status. Fortunately many gankers are able to operate even with -10 status, but that doesn't excuse the flawed mechanic. I tend to agree the flawed mechanic is that negative sec status is an attempt to keep them out which is not working either. I would rather have a stand your ground rule to allow high sec players to defend themselves from gankers rather than a pathetic attempt to keep them out. But alas I have no idea how to make such a law or rule or mechanic work. I was thinking about a pretimer like the GCC timer but it counts down and the ganker can not attack until the timer runs out. During that 15 minute window the ganker(s) are legal targets in high sec. But that is too cumbersome and would not work well at all either. If you saw a target at a gate how could you track it for 15 minutes while your timer wound down? No not a good way at all. Like I said no idea how to make this work. What a sideways argument completely off the mark. But you like it sideways...
Danel Tosh EVE Protection Agency Intrepid Crossing 23	Posted - 2012.05.31 04:42:00 - [29] - Quote in Answer to Your Question, No.
Mcpewy Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 0	Posted - 2012.05.31 04:47:00 - [30] - Quote Anyone aiding a pirate gets gcc. If a pirate takes a ship out of an orca it can be attacked just like the pirate can be. No warping to gates or docking for 15 minutes. Just like a remote repper gets in trouble so should a orca for suppling the ship to a pirate.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

Copyright © 2006-2025, Chribba - OMG Labs. All Rights Reserved. - perf 0,05s, ref 20251023/0134
EVE-Online™ and Eve imagery © CCP.

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.