Originally by: Ethidium Bromide

---

you are moving stuff around that is worth billions of ISK in a flimsy hauler and wonder why you get blown up

honestly, if someone would drive millions of euros around in an open lory..
**** i'd have some millions more on my RL account.

---

Originally by: TrulyKosh

---

Originally by: Wolfways

---

Suicide attacks are the problem.

2) Get friends to escort you whenever you are hauling anything you really don't want to lose.

3) Get Concord to escort you.

---

Both ideas will not solve the problem. The escort will not prevent the target from being blown to bits. The attackers will be killed anyway as it is now.
It's the ability to pick up the loot with a 3rd party account standing by that makes this tactics profitable. And this 3rd party account cannot be attacked by your friends (without being killed by Concord as well), nor will any Concord escort take any action against this account as it did not (officially) participate in the attack.
Only way to get rid of suicide gankers is see, is to get rid of alts completely.

---

Quote:

---

The act of piracy due to the victim not taking proper acction to prevent it....

---

Quote:

---

piracy (please stop calling it "griefing" its very immature)

---

Quote:

---

the reality is the risk vs reward pardigm of this game is so majorly messed up its not funny.

---

Originally by: Sendraks

---

Originally by: Wolfways

---

please stop calling it piracy, it's lying.

---

How is it "lying?" The act of destroying another ship in order to sieze its cargo is piracy.

Originally by: Wolfways

---

The player who is not used to pvp, and who's ship isn't set up for pvp risks losing much...while the pirate risks virtually nothing yet recieves the rewards.

---

I consider myself to be a player who is not used to PvP, yet I fit my ship against such predations.

I do see where you are coming from, but I really don't see why you think it is such an issue when it is so easy to protect yourself against this kind of behaviour. All I see being suggested is that players should have "risk free" gaming, because they can't be bothered to make the effort to take precautions.

---

Originally by: Tirg

---

Originally by: Rekindle

---

Edited by: Rekindle on 07/11/2006 13:27:57
I'm comparing this to other games that have created consentual and non consentual zones of pvp encounters (well, well, well before WoW). In many games if you attack within the range of "guarded space" you get insta wacked. Eve has a similar system except its not sufficient enough to protect everyone, just people in certain ships.

---

However, in Ultima, you could get theived in town. They would go grey, you could call the guards, they'd get instawhacked, but you wouldn't get your item back. He was smart enough to pass that item off to his buddy before dieing, or his buddy looted him and passed it to a 3rd guildmate, before he also got whacked. The person traded to never got whacked:)
Sound familiar?

---

Originally by: Crumplecorn

---

Originally by: Wolfways

---

To me that is completely different to the player who exploits game mechanics to achieve a kill and/or loot at the expense of another player. I call that player a griefer.

---

(emphasis added)
Prime example of someone who just doesn't understand the term.

---

Originally by: Aodha Khan

---

Edited by: Aodha Khan on 07/11/2006 14:43:35

Originally by: Bhaal

---

Quote:

---

Can you honestly say that 500 people in Jita, flying around with billions of ISK worth of cargo with absolutely no risk what-so-ever is what CCP envisioned?

---

Uhm, YES!

It's a freaking 1.0 trade hub!

What would you expect?

---

There is no such thing as zero crime. The game was designed in certain way to offer an amount of freedom and creativity. If someone is stupid enough to walk around central station with their wallet sticking out their back pocket they are bound to have it stolen. Why should Eve be any different?

Eve is unique and people play this game because of the way it was designed. There are plenty of dumbed down games on the market. Go play one of those if that's what you really want.

---

Originally by: Tirg

---

My point is the OP was refering to UO as a consentual/non-consentual PvP game, with guards who instawhacked. If it didn't happen in a guard's sight, you had to call out for them. If you died before you called, the Pker got away clean. Thieves however, worked right in the bank square:)
Maybe the OP forgot this point?
I'm one of the carebears who moved to Trammel btw:) I just wished they had left Fel alone, rather than turn it into terror-town.

---

Quote:

---

Who says it is acceptable? It is just a sensible way of trying to ensure that in that setting, the goods you went to the trouble of stealing did not immediately get returned to their owner. If they did, that would ruin the concept of having "theif" as a profession.

---

Originally by: Omuro Takeda

---

Originally by: Bhaal

---

Freedom & creativity?

That's what you'd call suicide ganking?

Now I've heard it all.

By the way, more restrictions & penalties on the criminals is not going to eliminate suicide ganking, just make it much less prevalent. Right now it's the flavor of the month piracy, you call that freedom?

---

Giving a player the choice to try and blow up somebody else in what seems secure space, with a 100% chance of him loosing his ship - THAT's called freedom, yeah. Figuring out how to profit from it is the creative part.

---

Originally by: Alowishus

---

Originally by: Wolfways

---

Figuring out how to exploit the game mechanics is just being creative eh?

---

Since when is using an alt an exploit?

CCP addressed this by taking cruise missiles away from frigs, it requires much more isk and training time to make a suicide alt, the idea was to make it not worth the effort. It's not CCPs fault that stupid people transport BPOs in a T1 hauler thus making suiciding worth the effort. If people were smart and weren't lazy then suicide alting would not occur. But because there are retards who will put a mess of BPOs in a T1 hauler, this tactic is valid.

And using an alt to do what any other third party can do- pick up a random can in space- is not an exploit. It's simply paying money to be two separate people in Eve. When I NPC hunt in a Raven picking up cans, even with a tractor beam, can be a pain. Is it an exploit to use an alt in a Vigil to loot my cans since a Raven was never meant to go 2000m/s? No, of course not. And I am paying $15 a month to be able to do it.

---

Originally by: Alowishus

---

Originally by: Wolfways

---

Originally by: Alowishus

---

Originally by: Wolfways

---

Figuring out how to exploit the game mechanics is just being creative eh?

---

Since when is using an alt an exploit?

CCP addressed this by taking cruise missiles away from frigs, it requires much more isk and training time to make a suicide alt, the idea was to make it not worth the effort. It's not CCPs fault that stupid people transport BPOs in a T1 hauler thus making suiciding worth the effort. If people were smart and weren't lazy then suicide alting would not occur. But because there are retards who will put a mess of BPOs in a T1 hauler, this tactic is valid.

And using an alt to do what any other third party can do- pick up a random can in space- is not an exploit. It's simply paying money to be two separate people in Eve. When I NPC hunt in a Raven picking up cans, even with a tractor beam, can be a pain. Is it an exploit to use an alt in a Vigil to loot my cans since a Raven was never meant to go 2000m/s? No, of course not. And I am paying $15 a month to be able to do it.

---

I'm not talking about just using alts.
The whole idea of killing yourself for profit is rediculous. You don't see that?

---

But this isn't the real world. In Eve, two characters are two people. The one who kills himself is not profiting, the one who is picking up the can is. And it costs an extra $15 a month for one person to be able to be two separate people in Eve.

---

Quote:

---

This is not reality. For posessions to be returne the theif in question must either a) be in possession of the stolen goods or b) be able to tell the police where the goods are. If he doesn't have a) and can't/won't do b), then recovering stolen goods is a time consuming activity with little guarantee of success.

---

Originally by: Alowishus

---

Edited by: Alowishus on 07/11/2006 17:22:48

Originally by: Wolfways

---

If CCP want to keep pirates as they are, with the ability to attack anyone, then they should state clearly on all advertising that EVE does not support pve.

Or run two servers. One pvp, one pve

---

I like both pve and pvp. Here's an idea, since CCP advertises that the game has both, how about it still has both and only people who want both should play? And if you only want one or the other, play a different game... CCP is not forcing anyone to pay for a subscription.

---

Originally by: Alowishus

---

Originally by: Wolfways

---

It does involve pvp, but it is mainly about attacking those who don't want to pvp.

---

If you don't want the possibility of being killed by other players then other games beckon. Period.

---

Originally by: Wotar

---

Originally by: Wolfways

---

Pk'ing is not pvp.

---

wtf so its only pvp if its consentual? Whose definition is this? Not CCPs, for sure.

---

Originally by: Lord Dynastron

---

Originally by: Arii Smith

---

Danger is fun.

Case closed.

---

You would think this would be a very popular epitaph

---

Originally by: Alowishus

---

Originally by: Wolfways

---

Other than still having what he had in the first place, nothing.

---

Then why do it? There must be *some* reward. Whether it be moving to a new area to join a new corp with better oppurtunities, get a new agent, find a research slot, there is some reward. If not then he's pretty stupid for doing it. That's like saying, "what's the reward for taking an unfitted BS through a chokepoint with 500 BPOs in the hold." Well the lack of reward should be pretty obvious to all and the question doesn't need to be asked.

---

Originally by: Sammiel

---

I want to know where these mythical 5% costs from an insurable ship come from also. Here is a hint, loss = ship cost + insurance cost + module cost - insurance payout. It is going to be more than 5m for a Raven.

Also, transports aren't just for 0.0. That is just silly, and using the RP description of a ship to determine its stated purpose is even more silly. They are for transporting high value cargo in more security. Like when you want to avoid a suicide gank.

I fail to see what is broken about the mechanics involved in suicide ganking other than some spurious real world examples. It punishes carelessness and acts as an ISK sink. Seems like a win win to me.

---

Originally by: Alowishus

---

Originally by: Wolfways

---

Originally by: Alowishus

---

Originally by: Wolfways

---

Other than still having what he had in the first place, nothing.

---

Then why do it? There must be *some* reward. Whether it be moving to a new area to join a new corp with better oppurtunities, get a new agent, find a research slot, there is some reward. If not then he's pretty stupid for doing it. That's like saying, "what's the reward for taking an unfitted BS through a chokepoint with 500 BPOs in the hold." Well the lack of reward should be pretty obvious to all and the question doesn't need to be asked.

---

So you think that getting to your destination equals the potential reward for the pk?

---

No, but on the otherhand you can limit your risk so that the reward/risk factor is better for you. When you do things in Eve that have extreme risk, with no reward and you are taken advantage of, that's your fault.

---

Quote:

---

But do you think that the pk, who risks virtually nothing by using this game mechanic, should reap the benefits?

---

Originally by: Alowishus

---

Originally by: Wolfways

---

But do you think that the pk, who risks virtually nothing by using this game mechanic, should reap the benefits?

---

That's what smart piracy is, my friend. Do you think sitting in a gate camp of fifty people (thus risking virtually nothing) and insta-popping every person that comes through one by one and looting their can is an exploit? When I'd go around ransoming mining barges in an interceptor, was I exploiting? What about when I'd tank the sentry guns in my Arma and pop haulers and grab their loot with an alt? If it was an exploit, don't you think the sentry guns should instapop me? Low risk vs. high reward, regardless of the risk vs. reward of your victim/opponent, does not make anything an exploit, it just makes you smart.

---

Originally by: Dee Ellis

---

Stupidity shouldn't equal bigger risk

When someone throws money at me instead of knives,
I just don't make an effort...

When a little T1 frigate charges my BS head first,
I don't make an effort either...

When someone brings an Oberon and a big ass tanker,
I just don't make an effort...

However, when someone thinks you can jump around screaming "I'm wearing a platinum rolex and can't fight!!" infront of a gang of thugs,
it's just not an efort for them...

---

Originally by: Alowishus

---

Originally by: Wolfways

---

Originally by: Alowishus

---

Originally by: Wolfways

---

But do you think that the pk, who risks virtually nothing by using this game mechanic, should reap the benefits?

---

That's what smart piracy is, my friend. Do you think sitting in a gate camp of fifty people (thus risking virtually nothing) and insta-popping every person that comes through one by one and looting their can is an exploit? When I'd go around ransoming mining barges in an interceptor, was I exploiting? What about when I'd tank the sentry guns in my Arma and pop haulers and grab their loot with an alt? If it was an exploit, don't you think the sentry guns should instapop me? Low risk vs. high reward, regardless of the risk vs. reward of your victim/opponent, does not make anything an exploit, it just makes you smart.

---

Ah thank you. So bigger rewards should not mean a bigger risk. Finally someone from the "other side" who admits that pvp has nothing to do with risk vs reward.
In that case hi-sec should have access to everything low-sec has, like better ores, tougher npc's, etc.

Or do you mean that risk vs reward matters, unless players can find a loophole in the game mechanics to use?

---

Nope, PvP has nothing to do with risk vs. reward. Only PvE does. But CCP gives you all the tools required to navigate high sec space with almost complete safety and avoid losses to PvPers. In high sec space, maybe PvP isn't voluntary, but dying and losing BPOs is. He didn't have to be lazy and stupid, he chose to do it. He may as well have just jettisoned his cargo in the middle of Jita. If he did that and I looted a BPO would I be exploiting because there is no risk? No. The fact is that you guys don't like the tactic. And I can't even say I'm fond of it really, but I understand it's a valid tactic and if it happens to me I have nobody to blame but myself. On the flip side I won't protest too highly if CCP comes up with a good way to change it.

But people need to take some personal responsibility and realize that a lack of total safety is part of this game.

And if you think this tactic inidicates the risk in 0.0 is no higher than empire, please bring some BPOs in a hauler out to Curse.

---

Originally by: Alowishus

---

Originally by: Wolfways

---

If pilots are that carefree about their lives why bother with guns and missiles? Just make ships that create a huge explosion at the command of the pilot (who obviously doesn't care about the crew either) and have a friend along who'll pick up the pieces.

---

The sec status hit? Maybe the reward is only worth it to the suicider if he only gets a hit for killing one ship. If he is a giant flying bomb in Empire there is the possibility he could go to -10 in one incident.

---

Originally by: Alowishus

---

Originally by: Wolfways

---

If you're a criminal you're a criminal.

---

Ever wanted to shoot a macro miner or ore thief? Just once? What if you accidentally set off a smartbomb or ECM burst? Do you think doing so should be an automatic ban from high sec?

---

Originally by: Lorn Yeager

---

Edited by: Lorn Yeager on 09/11/2006 09:25:58
A quicky: Would you like to have places in eve where nobody can open fire at you? (aside from when you are docked?)

A naive but honest question in all of this...

---

Originally by: Steven Dynahir

---

Originally by: Lorn Yeager

---

A quicky: Would you like to have places in eve where nobody can open fire at you? (aside from when you are docked?)

---

No.

A quicky 2: Would you like to have places in EVE where shooting at you would cause negative concequences to the shooter?

---