EVE Search - Suicide Ganking: coming to an end?

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Suicide Ganking: coming to an end?

» 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 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 32 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 2 post(s)
Andski GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 581	Posted - 2011.11.07 12:13:00 - [421] - Quote Jaroslav Unwanted wrote: Malcanis wrote: Michael Holmes Holmes wrote: besides, I doubt you would have much to shoot at if carebears could not build your ships and ammo for you. You realise that "PvPers" can train industry skills as well as anyone else, right? And that's before we even consider alts. Then they are no longer PvPers but EVE players... Get your fact straight. PvPers are arcade players... they play to destroy, and often get destroyed, they buy GTCs and sells them to have their "five seconds of glory" in game. Very few "PvPers" sell GTCs for ISK to fund themselves.
Ryllic Sin School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 3	Posted - 2011.11.07 12:20:00 - [422] - Quote Inbrainsane wrote: Botters rejoice. Botters already rejoice, they rent space from alliances, plus of course plenty of "PvPers" use bots, the number of hypocritical nulltards is hilarious.
Andski GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 581	Posted - 2011.11.07 12:25:00 - [423] - Quote please keep coining more portmanteaus involving "nullsec", it makes you look clever and witty
Ryllic Sin School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 3	Posted - 2011.11.07 12:30:00 - [424] - Quote Andski wrote: please keep coining more portmanteaus involving "nullsec", it makes you look clever and witty Cleverer than the nulltard hypocrites who only whine about bots in hi-sec...
Jenshae Chiroptera 126	Posted - 2011.11.07 13:04:00 - [425] - Quote yumike wrote: ... There's no reason they should take that much risk when i'm virtually risk free (I go into every fight knowing I will die.) It doesn't make sense. If your arguement is "they shouldnt be using autopilot" then I do agree, but intelligent people isn't what this topic is about. I risk giving kill rights to a bear for 30 days (And only ever had one drake pilot actually come hunt me down to try, which I applauded him for) They risk.. Their ship + whatever isk is in their cargo hold. As it stands right now on tq, I risk 10/20mil isk usually depending on my module drop/salvage (bc/bs). When my potential earnings are in the billions (Got a geddon BPO my third week of suicide ganking, I was pretty pumped!) ... Quoted for highlighting purposes. CSM do you think? No matter the changes, high sec people chose the safests. Lots of stick and they will leave. Half the problem is the players in null sec; we do not want to be there with you.
Ladie Harlot GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 682	Posted - 2011.11.07 13:06:00 - [426] - Quote Ryllic Sin wrote: Andski wrote: please keep coining more portmanteaus involving "nullsec", it makes you look clever and witty Cleverer than the nulltard hypocrites who only whine about bots in hi-sec... You're going to the 'nulltard' well a bit too often. If you're shooting for clever and witty you'll need to learn to mix it up a bit. The artist formerly known as Ladie Scarlet.
Jowen Datloran Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 73	Posted - 2011.11.07 13:41:00 - [427] - Quote So, it finally came to be. No surprise either. Mr. Science & Trade Institute, EVE Online Lorebook-á
Lucien Visteen Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 45	Posted - 2011.11.07 13:41:00 - [428] - Quote inexistin wrote: So we won't be seeing any other gank ships except for thrashers and uberfitted lvl4 running faction bs' will be pretty much forever safe. Newsworthy. Although I hate the thought of so many headless chickens driving their bling through the neighbourhood in nearly complete safety. Then I promote you to be the bringer of death to these pimped out faction bs'. Show these lowly cretins what happens if you get too lulled by a false sence of security!
March rabbit Ganse Shadow of xXDEATHXx 34	Posted - 2011.11.07 14:05:00 - [429] - Quote Montevius Williams wrote: Takashi X2 wrote: Tippia wrote: Selinate wrote: If you find someone floating around in space with a ton of expensive stuff in their cargo hold and want to suicide gank them, fine, but you really shouldn't get the majority of the isk loss from your lost ship back also... It's rather one-sided in favor of the suicide gankers in that case. It's only one-sided if the victim chooses to make it one-sided by not equipping his ship properly, by not flying it properly, and by not enforcing the consequences on the aggressor. Outta curiosity if the enemey brings 50 BS's to gank a Freighter full of really expensive cargo flying through high sec gate to gate instead of autopiloting how is that anywhere near fair to the frieghter pilot? You cant fit it better and gate to gate is the quickest way to do it. You cant fly with support against that many enemies and theres no real way to know if they are coming for you some times even if you have scouts 3 systems out. I would like to know the answer to this as well. ask Tippia: - her hulks are not-killable by 2-3 alpha-tempest - her scounts are able to detect any links between chars in game to detect if they are in 1 gank or not (even if they are from different corps and not in one fleet)
Jaroslav Unwanted Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 44	Posted - 2011.11.07 14:23:00 - [430] - Quote Andski wrote: please keep coining more portmanteaus involving "nullsec", it makes you look clever and witty thanks i would, however i leaved that carebear paradise, because it stopped to be sanctum paradise So now its for few people who actually want PvP, altho i miss the point of null sec in this case, they can go with low sec with it. Generally carebear 0.0 nerf was good for "general economy" however its bad for population of nullsec. Since carebears actually provided intel they were the eyes. Now its like it "should be" ?? questionable.

Ryllic Sin School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 4	Posted - 2011.11.07 14:27:00 - [431] - Quote Ladie Harlot wrote: You're going to the 'nulltard' well a bit too often. If you're shooting for clever and witty you'll need to learn to mix it up a bit. Twice isn't often... If you don't like it stop crying and HTFU... The only thing I'm shooting for is pointing out the hypcriscy of many members of nullsec alliances when it comes to their whining about botting in hi-sec...
Jack All'Trade Republic University Minmatar Republic 8	Posted - 2011.11.07 14:31:00 - [432] - Quote Andski wrote: please keep coining more portmanteaus involving "nullsec", it makes you look clever and witty omnomnom goon tears are sweet
Jaroslav Unwanted Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 44	Posted - 2011.11.07 14:36:00 - [433] - Quote Andski wrote: Jaroslav Unwanted wrote: Malcanis wrote: Michael Holmes Holmes wrote: besides, I doubt you would have much to shoot at if carebears could not build your ships and ammo for you. You realise that "PvPers" can train industry skills as well as anyone else, right? And that's before we even consider alts. Then they are no longer PvPers but EVE players... Get your fact straight. PvPers are arcade players... they play to destroy, and often get destroyed, they buy GTCs and sells them to have their "five seconds of glory" in game. Very few "PvPers" sell GTCs for ISK to fund themselves. true but the/an they are not pure PvPers, they got at least one alt attached to making iSK, which makes them EVE players. As i stated few posts above.
Jack Dant The Gentlemen of Low Moral Fibre 83	Posted - 2011.11.07 14:43:00 - [434] - Quote Jaroslav Unwanted wrote: Andski wrote: Very few "PvPers" sell GTCs for ISK to fund themselves. true but the/an they are not pure PvPers, they got at least one alt attached to making iSK, which makes them EVE players. As i stated few posts above. An EVE Player is someone who plays EVE. That's the only valid definition, not the one you invent yourself.
Jaroslav Unwanted Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 44	Posted - 2011.11.07 14:45:00 - [435] - Quote Jack Dant wrote: Jaroslav Unwanted wrote: Andski wrote: Very few "PvPers" sell GTCs for ISK to fund themselves. true but the/an they are not pure PvPers, they got at least one alt attached to making iSK, which makes them EVE players. As i stated few posts above. An EVE Player is someone who plays EVE. That's the only valid definition, not the one you invent yourself. Thats the whole point. EVE player is one who plays EVE as you wrote. Yet somehow some people feel that they play-style is only way how to play EVE.
Lexmana Imperial Stout 43	Posted - 2011.11.07 14:54:00 - [436] - Quote Jaroslav Unwanted wrote: Jack Dant wrote: Jaroslav Unwanted wrote: Andski wrote: Very few "PvPers" sell GTCs for ISK to fund themselves. true but the/an they are not pure PvPers, they got at least one alt attached to making iSK, which makes them EVE players. As i stated few posts above. An EVE Player is someone who plays EVE. That's the only valid definition, not the one you invent yourself. Thats the whole point. EVE player is one who plays EVE as you wrote. Yet somehow some people feel that they play-style is only way how to play EVE. Not only that. EvE is a PvP-game and that makes every EvE player a PvPer even if some are in a state of denial.
Dorian Wylde Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 54	Posted - 2011.11.07 14:55:00 - [437] - Quote Supporting this change, hope its real, hope it goes live. Make insurance more realistic, and support a better risk vs reward model.
baltec1 179	Posted - 2011.11.07 15:01:00 - [438] - Quote Jaroslav Unwanted wrote: Jack Dant wrote: Jaroslav Unwanted wrote: Andski wrote: Very few "PvPers" sell GTCs for ISK to fund themselves. true but the/an they are not pure PvPers, they got at least one alt attached to making iSK, which makes them EVE players. As i stated few posts above. An EVE Player is someone who plays EVE. That's the only valid definition, not the one you invent yourself. Thats the whole point. EVE player is one who plays EVE as you wrote. Yet somehow some people feel that their play-style is only way how to play EVE. The irony is strong in this post
Jack Dant The Gentlemen of Low Moral Fibre 83	Posted - 2011.11.07 15:06:00 - [439] - Quote Montevius Williams wrote: Outta curiosity if the enemey brings 50 BS's to gank a Freighter full of really expensive cargo flying through high sec gate to gate instead of autopiloting how is that anywhere near fair to the frieghter pilot? You cant fit it better and gate to gate is the quickest way to do it. You cant fly with support against that many enemies and theres no real way to know if they are coming for you some times even if you have scouts 3 systems out. I would like to know the answer to this as well.[/quote] 50 BS is a very high estimate. It'll take more like 15 BS to alpha a freighter (you can get away with less, but bring a few extra to make sure). For each BS, you can count on a 30 mil loss or so, plus, as a bare minimum, 100 mil profit per pilot. So it takes a minimum of 2b in loot to justify the gank. Now, on average, only half the cargo will drop, meaning you need a target with at least 4b in cargo. Not something freighter pilots do every day. Now, 15 BS waiting around on a gate are easy enough to spot. Just have a friend or alt run 1-2 jumps ahead of you checking the gates and short range scan for a bunch of BS. If you find something suspicious, dock up, take a detour, or split your cargo in smaller chunks. You will complain other people are forcing you to change your playstyle, but that's just the nature of the game. It's a multiplayer game, and you need to take other people's actions into account. Refusing to do it is like complaining about paying rent to other players in Monopoly.
baltec1 179	Posted - 2011.11.07 15:20:00 - [440] - Quote Jack Dant wrote: Montevius Williams wrote: Outta curiosity if the enemey brings 50 BS's to gank a Freighter full of really expensive cargo flying through high sec gate to gate instead of autopiloting how is that anywhere near fair to the frieghter pilot? You cant fit it better and gate to gate is the quickest way to do it. You cant fly with support against that many enemies and theres no real way to know if they are coming for you some times even if you have scouts 3 systems out. I would like to know the answer to this as well. Dont stuff the frieghter to such an extent that it makes it worth ganking.

Lexmana Imperial Stout 43	Posted - 2011.11.07 15:28:00 - [441] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Jack Dant wrote: Montevius Williams wrote: Outta curiosity if the enemey brings 50 BS's to gank a Freighter full of really expensive cargo flying through high sec gate to gate instead of autopiloting how is that anywhere near fair to the frieghter pilot? You cant fit it better and gate to gate is the quickest way to do it. You cant fly with support against that many enemies and theres no real way to know if they are coming for you some times even if you have scouts 3 systems out. I would like to know the answer to this as well. Dont stuff the frieghter to such an extent that it makes it worth ganking. This ^^ I am amazed that so many are lacking common sense. Maybe you all can learn a real lesson in EvE. EvE is real.
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 990	Posted - 2011.11.07 15:40:00 - [442] - Quote Vertisce Soritenshi wrote: The only people that have a problem with this are the suicide gankers. This change makes complete sense and should be implemented. I can't imagine why any insurance company would want to reward someone for breaking the law. Last time I checked...if your car is shot up because it was the getaway car in an armed robbery the insurance company does not pay for your repairs. A little more common sense in EvE. This is a good thing. No insurance company would pay out for just about any of the shiploss scenarios that currently get an insurance payment. You're saying it's "common sense" that we get do insurance for a ship we lost to self-destructing, taking a ship into a known warzone, deliberately hunting pirates, bubbling yourself in the middle of an enemy fleet, etc, but not for shooting a hauler? No "real" insurance company would pay for any of those losses. Just about the only common ship-loss scenario that a "real" insurance company would pay out for is, ironically, one for which EVE Insurance doesn't pay - when a ship is stolen from a hangar. Indeed, one might almost think that "common sense" would bring us to the conclusion that EVE insurance is nothing in common with "real" insurance except the name. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players. Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
yumike Eve of Madness 6	Posted - 2011.11.07 15:43:00 - [443] - Quote Vertisce Soritenshi wrote: The only people that have a problem with this are the suicide gankers. Simply put, You are wrong. The biggest advocater in this thread how this is a bad idea has self-admittedly never suicide ganked. I've easily suicide ganked 80~ or so ships across 4 characters and think this is a great change. Stereotypes are bad okay?
Generals4 Caldari State 281	Posted - 2011.11.07 15:54:00 - [444] - Quote I don't get why people complain. Sure it might dissuade a couple of suicide gankers but lets not forget dessies are getting a buff and tier 3 BC's will be awesome suicide gankers. So we have two changes which favor suicide ganking and which dissuades it and people whine about the death of suicide ganking?! The only thing this will change is a reduction in isk creation through insurance, which is good. *-Death is nothing, but to live defeated and inglorious is to die daily.*
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 1278	Posted - 2011.11.07 15:56:00 - [445] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Why does Tipsy keep harping on about "false sense of security"? Most high sec dwellers don't read dev blogs fully or come on the forums, so they will be unaware of this change. It is really just the gankers that will notice it. Because safety in highsec is what you create for yourself. It seems more and more common that people expect the game to keep them safe, when it is in fact they themselves that have that responsibility. Highsec is no different from any other kind of space in this regard, and that's what they are missing. It is this false sense of security I'm talking about: people who assume that they don't/shouldn't have to do anything to protect themselves because they are in GÇ£safeGÇ¥ space. The best thing that can happen to these people is not to make the space they're in safer GÇö it's to teach them how to make it safe. Why do you keep hearing the GÇ£the real carebears are in deep nullGÇ¥ bitterwhine? Because it's true, because those people are part of groups who have made their space safe. Nothing beats the safety you create for yourself. Nor should it, imo GÇö if you can't create that safety, you should be left with your arse hanging out. Pandering to their false sense of security by fiddling with the mechanics they (incorrectly) think are there to make them safe will only make them even less inclined to create any actual safety for themselves and will thus make them less safe. They will engage in far more risk behaviour than before and get even more upset when it turns out that their behaviour got them killed. This is why I think highsec safety needs to be rolled back: because as CONCORD and insurance have been adjusted over the years, people have just become more and more stupid in how they think about their own safety. Easing off on those adjustments would send the signal that, no, you are indeed not safe unless you do something about it yourself, and thus increase people's use of safety tactics and techniques. Making the space less safe will (seemingly paradoxically) make the people in it more safe (or, rather, more risk-aware, which leads to safer behaviour). March rabbit wrote: ask Tippia: - her hulks are not-killable by 2-3 alpha-tempest - her scounts are able to detect any links between chars in game to detect if they are in 1 gank or not Three is iffy, two is definitely possible to tank against (unless they get lucky with the die rollsGÇª but on average). And it's not about detecting some kind of link GÇö it's about detecting a situation; noticing things that are not as they should be; noticing people who behave oddly; in short, about a healhty(?!) dose of paranoiaGÇª Remember the old adages: it's not paranoia if they're really out to get you, and just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you. GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á
Renan Ruivo Hipernova Vera Cruz Alliance 289	Posted - 2011.11.07 16:06:00 - [446] - Quote Dear god the level of the TEARS on this thread is epic. So you LADIES cannot GANK anyone because OH NOES ITS TO EXPENSIVEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!11111111111one Grow a pair, grab your Tornado and gank that boat, son! Rated ARG for Pirates. *** you.*
baltec1 179	Posted - 2011.11.07 16:23:00 - [447] - Quote Renan Ruivo wrote: Dear god the level of the TEARS on this thread is epic. So you LADIES cannot GANK anyone because OH NOES ITS TO EXPENSIVEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!11111111111one Grow a pair, grab your Tornado and gank that boat, son! Im starting to think people who post things like this arn't being entirely honest about reading this topic.
March rabbit Ganse Shadow of xXDEATHXx 34	Posted - 2011.11.07 16:23:00 - [448] - Quote Jaroslav Unwanted wrote: Scalar Angulargf wrote: The F Word wrote: This is a good change.Empire does not NEED more PVP, it needs SMARTER PVP. What? Empire does need more PVP. Carebears need to HTFU and deal with it. If you want a game where you're always safe, go back to STO or PVE WOW And why do you care ? it's maybe because everyone ignores him?
Desert Ice78 Gryphon River Industries Bloodbound. 19	Posted - 2011.11.07 16:32:00 - [449] - Quote CCP Soundwave wrote: We took the insurance out because having it was silly. It's like a double reward when you gank someone, you get their cargo and insurance. It won't stop suicide ganking, it just fixes something we haven't really felt made sense for a long time. Quoting for prosterity. So Tippia, them apples??? I am a pod pilot: http://dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/DesertIce/POD.jpg
Kheper Ra Industrial Strength Killers Enlightened Violence 1	Posted - 2011.11.07 16:38:00 - [450] - Quote A little late on this post.. Not sure I understand the logic of why hi-sec needs to be made 'more unsafe'. That's why there is lo-sec, null-sec and w-space. It appears to me that those who engage in attacking hi-sec targets (non pvp'ers), don't want to risk losing their ships to real pvp'ers in lo-sec, null-sec, and w-space. Kind of like the school yard bully who only picks fights with the 95 pound weakling, then brags how he knocked him out. That same bully won't pick a fight with the Jiu-Jitsu black belt and risked being choked to sleep... It's very easy to attack ships that are not looking for a fight in hi-security space. A mission runner who has a pve fit gets ganked and now the ganker thinks he/she did something special...not sure I see the 'win' logic in that. After reading the QEN and finding out that 75%+ of all players reside in hi-sec I realized that there is a reason for that. They clearly DO NOT want to do PvP. Trying to force PvP on them (by being the bully) is a joke. The harsh reality for the gankers (read school yard bully) is that if you want a real fight...go to lo-sec, null, or w-space. Stop complaining that your ganking is becoming less effective, or how you'll have to switch tactics and use SB gangs to gank those who cannot defend themselves. And those who complain that the game is going down the drain or carebears are taking over, and they are threatening to leave EVE...I have one question for you. Can I have your stuff? Tippia wrote: Igualmentedos wrote: High sec isn't completely safe. It pretty much was before this, and this change GÇö if intentional GÇö inches it even closer, which is the wrong way to go. Highsec needs to be made more unsafe, not less.



Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 32 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

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.