What do you mean zero consequences? The navy shoots me whenever they catch me and players can shoot me at will. What more do you want?

CFC ganking the caldari ice fields? I'll be the first to say "Welcome to EVE." right until they hit the -5 line, then you've crossed the line from actual gameplay into rulebreaking.

See, there are two sets of rules here

i. The actual rules that apply in the game in reality [NOT BROKEN]

ii. The imaginary rules that you are trying to apply here but that don't in fact exist [BROKEN]

Sadly, CCP will only enforce.... well look, you see where this is going, right?

Pressing on CCP to change the rules is also a way to PvP.

Suicide ganking is called suicide for a reason, they don't get away with it and 90% of the time lose ships,

Can someone explain to be how this isn't abusing loopholes in EVE mechanics to get around security status and not an outright exploit?

there's little reason for actual gankers to care about their status.

Anyone can shoot a -10 character. CONCORD won't do it because they've already punished him for whatever he did. But they won't interfere if you want to.

Top guy on the E-Uni kill-board the month that the new aggression mechanics went in was a guy who sat in Amarr shooting Suspects and -10s. In-fact some of his biggest kills were -10 pods (pretty sure I remember him getting a guy with full Slave set).

If you have a fleet of catalysts warping to you then hire a guy with a fast-locking Battlecruiser to watch your backs. Hell some would probably do it just for the fun of it.

Hell, these are Gank Catalysts. Moving around with an AB fit will probably throw off their warp-in point enough that you can react at least a little.

Good for him: he's actually doing -and proving it can be done- what the OP is complaining doesn't happen. There are the "consequences".

"please remove suicide ganking CCP, nobody told me this game was challenging in any way"

IMO anytime a -5 or below can fly around highsec in a ship and not get killed is a broken mechanic. (and yes they are in fact not getting killed when they can warp from stations/gates in anything other than a near instawarp ship) -10 has always been a can't survive in highsec status, and if you can survive long enough to suicide gank then you are surviving way too long already if you're already -10

So shoot them instead of whining.

funny i seem to be missing where I whined at. And it aint my job to go around doing concord's job.

edit: There also seems to be this issue with people constantly complaining about people "whining" about stuff when in reality they are just voicing their opinion, not actually whining. Here is a link for you folks so you have at least been told the actual definition of the word whine http://www.thefreedictionary.com/whine

It has never been Concords job to preemptively defend those that choose not to defend themselves. Suicide ganking has been nerfed into the ground and is at historically low levels according to CCP but still bears demand more nerfs. When exactly will you be satisfied?

Got a source for "at historically low levels"? Because I don't quite think I believe that...

Got a source for "at historically low levels"? Because I don't quite think I believe that...

Got a source for your disbelief?

Nevertheless my recollection matches Cade's. IIRC the numbers were mentioned a few months ago. My impression from CCP is that they think they might have over-nerfed suicide ganking.

That graph doesn't go back far enough to show the major nerfs to suicide ganking, like Crucible removing insurance for ganks. Even so highsec security hits look pretty flat and very low to me, especially compared to lowsec activity. This against a backdrop of numbers online only growing.

http://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/8089066/csm-ccp-meetings-december-2012

Page 104:

"For reasons that are left as an exercise to the reader, Exhumers are now blowing up at historically low rates."

ohhhh looky here a source
http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/wanttotrade-tags-for-security-status/

1st graph has ship value destroyed in pvp going up in high
3rd graph has chars recieving sec status penalties going up in high

hmmmm that seems to tell me that suicide gankings are going up, what does it tell you? how exactly is suicide ganking "nerfed into the ground" when it's on the rise?

In regards to Doris, indy ships when fitted to haul are simply not defendable against someone who wants to suicide gank them, which btw I'm fine with that. What I'm not fine with is those who are supposed to not be able to operate in highsec very well operating in highsec pretty darn well afterall. THAT is a broken mechanic, people who are below -5 should not be able to go around suicide ganking in high like it's nothing.

That graph doesn't go back far enough to show the major nerfs to suicide ganking, like Crucible removing insurance for ganks. Even so highsec security hits look pretty flat and very low to me, especially compared to lowsec activity. This against a backdrop of numbers online only growing.

That's about a 25-50% increase in sec status hits on the highsec line starting in Dec of 2012, it seems flat only because it's being compared to the much higher low sec sec status hit line. also http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/3288 has stats for 2008-2011. It's hard to directly compare the 2 because the 1st graph (9-2012 to 4-2013) has alot of slopes instead of exact data points like the 2nd one (2008-2011) does but it does seem at the least to be very similar in numbers, certainly enough to prove that suicide ganks have by no means gone down very much if they even went down.

Also not necessarily a good measure of suicide ganking since it covers all PvP kills, not just suicide ganks. The spike could be due to the tag changes but it could also be a result of high sec wars or any number of other things.

Plus overall the PvP kills for the three regions are increasing together with Low-Sec showing the greatest deviation at the time of the tag changes.

The 3rd graph is what you need to be looking at, sec status hits in highsec are going to almost purely be suicide ganks.

Yes, but while there's definitely an increase it's a fairly small one, especially compared to the low-sec increases, and seems to be trending back downwards there at the end which is significant given the spike in hulls destroyed on the first graph for the same time period.

It's a 25-50% increase for the highsec sec status hits...that aint small by no means. And you cant compare lowsec and highsec sec status hits when you are talking about suicide ganks since there are no suicide gankings in lowsec :/ 90% or more of all pvp in lowsec generates sec status hits, only suicide ganks generate them in high ergo not comparable.

They also introduced the Attack Battlecruisers though, which were a major buff to suicide ganking in general, especially against large targets like Freighters. Overall after the Cruicible changes the isk/EHP gank value of a Freighter actually went down, not up even taking into account the insurance changes and you need fewer people to gank a Freighter cost effectively.

Let the -10 or lower fly in the systems, the consequences of negative standings imply a consent for fines to use empire gates, docking and a market tax on top of Concord and the local navy after them.
The more negative security status + higher security system = greater fines.

Especially since they can easy fix their security status with tags4sec option.
Concord should pod them.

The buff that suicide ganking got with Attack Battlecruisers was dampened by an equal (and greater) amount with the removal of insurance from ganking.
At the time, any loss of a ship with premium insurance would get a pilot most of the hull cost back. It didn't matter how expensive a ship was (I remember people nuking Freighters in Maelstroms, Tempests, and Megathrons)... a ganker would only lose less than 20% of the overall hull cost due to the insurance coverage fee (and remember... at that time, low-end battleships were somewhere in the range of 95 to 120 mil per).

tldr; it was significantly cheaper to suicide gank before Attack Battlecruisers were introduced.

Got a source for your disbelief?

Nevertheless my recollection matches Cade's. IIRC the numbers were mentioned a few months ago. My impression from CCP is that they think they might have over-nerfed suicide ganking.

The Maelstrom was actually around 150mil back then and for Alpha was the only hull comparable to the Tornado. The Megathron was around 120 but has never quite been equal to a Tornado/Maelstrom for a .5 sec system gank where you can get two good volleys off from 1400s.

Also remember that when they were introduced the Tornado ran about 60mil per hull, putting their total cost at only double the insurance payout for a Maelstrom at the time.

Overall the Attack Battlecruisers lowered the SP and initial ISK investment required to suicide gank and while they may not have completely canceled out the insurance changes for large targets they made it easier to get groups of people together for ganking large targets and lowered the investment required for a gank.

Pre-insurance nerf you'd literally get back your money afterward, successful gank or not. Remember, the insurance system at the time was also borked in that it gave almost equal mineral value or more for the ship lost (because insurance rates were fixed and not dynamic at that time). People were building ships, insuring them, and then self-destructing them for a profit.

So while initial costs for ganking with battleships was higher before Attack Battlecruisers came into being... the net loss was significantly less.
Today, a suicide ganker's ships is considered a total loss.


Not quite.

Certainly, the skill Battlecruiser requires a bit less time to train into compared to Battleships (like, 5 days less overall)... but Attack Battlecruisers and Battleships both use large turrets and the skills required to support them.

Let the -10 or lower fly in the systems, the consequences of negative standings imply a consent for fines to use empire gates, docking and a market tax on top of Concord and the local navy after them.
The more negative security status + higher security system = greater fines.

Especially since they can easy fix their security status with tags4sec option.
Concord should pod them.

So what you are saying is they should remove the ability for ANYONE to shoot -10s and just have them pay to use gates? IGÇÖm sure they would agree to that in a heartbeat.
Unless of course you are suggesting they in fact have 2 sets of consequences, the above mentioned vulnerability to all comers AND the fines?
Or did you just ignore the existing consequences to make your GÇ£argumentGÇ¥ look better?

[quote=Mythrandier]

As is, the inability to engage in PVE activities, inability to use low agility ships, and KOS status on undock is a pretty huge limitation for a single character. Any worse and you're looking at a functional ban on ganking.

CCP have repeatedly affirmed that suicide ganking is not just legitimate but intended.

It would be hugely easier to simply disable players from making any "CONCORDable" action than to have the whole flagging/CONCORD system, but CCP don't do this because it's both appropriate and necessary for players in hi-sec to be at risk of non-consensual PvP.

Anyone can shoot a -10 character. CONCORD won't do it because they've already punished him for whatever he did. But they won't interfere if you want to.

Why punish me, because of how others play as outlaws?

I don't rely on alts and i am in space all day,
bouncing around bookmarks,
for everybody to be seen and shot at.

Not only that, i keep kicking the asses of those who believe i can't fight back,
much to the amusement of the residents of Hek.


Now i'll read the rest of what is probably a huge trainwreck...

If you're -10 and Red and fly around Hek all day taking fights without using alts or workarounds then you're exactly what this game needs.

Why punish me, because of how others play as outlaws?

I don't rely on alts and i am in space all day,
bouncing around bookmarks,
for everybody to be seen and shot at.

Not only that, i keep kicking the asses of those who believe i can't fight back,
much to the amusement of the residents of Hek.


Now i'll read the rest of what is probably a huge trainwreck...

you're also full of ****. No one is going to continuosly bounce around all day long as you claim. The tediousness of constantly making sure you're in warp so concord doesn't kill you is far too much for anyone to actually do. Which means you are using an alt to find someone to kill just like everyone else.

The issue isn't suicide ganking.

The issue is that the game appears to have a mechanic to limit the amount of suicide ganking a character can do - sec status loss - but ingenious players have devised workarounds so they can ignore this mechanic. If they have a safed up Orca....

Thank you for displaying that you have absolutely no clue about this.

CONCORD doesn't give a rats ass about security status. If you don't believe me,
feel free to come to Hek and get your candy ass kicked. :)

Are you trolling or are you really expecting anyone to read 2 walls of text esp when the first 2 paragraphs can be summed up as "im right, you're wrong". retype it into something actually worth reading.

You really are one big bag of stupid.
Your cluelessness goes beyond what i can take and so i'll simply block you.

Also ... try reading books. That's even harder.

-10 has always been a can't survive in highsec status