EVE Search - Pirate Battleships & Absurd Ganker Arguments

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Pirate Battleships & Absurd Ganker Arguments

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18668	Posted - 2017.02.23 10:45:24 - [1] - Quote Naye Nathaniel wrote: Ima Wreckyou wrote: Spenser for Hire wrote: CCP won't release the numbers of people who quit after being Suicide ganked. Or the numbers of people who cite having been Suicide ganked as the reason they are quitting. So, the Suicide Gankers have been having a field day mystifying everyone who complains on the forums with their absolutely absurd arguments. But they did mention that from all the players who quit, < 1% even cite ship loss as a reason. They also conducted a study to find out if suicide ganking makes it less likely that a new players subscribes. The results showed quite the opposite. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A92Ge2S8M1Y U really trust that? Would speak wide open that a half of ppl left Eve cause of losing a ship cause of being ganked? If so then another half of eve would leave cause CCP would have to do an action against that, as ppl live in null sec and SPECIALY in low sec play eve ONLY cause of possible ganking other and harass reason - and i think thats more ppl than being gangked (eve is all about allianced, corporations, WHICH are ganking others =] Lets put it this way, why would CCP post results that fly in the face of the last 6 years of changes they have made to EVE if it's not true. What exactly do they gain by showing that the massive amounts of nerfs and content removal in that time was unjustified?
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18668	Posted - 2017.02.23 10:48:18 - [2] - Quote Arthur Aihaken wrote: Infinity Ziona wrote: EvE was never designed to support ganking That's not what I took away from it - what I got is that piracy (etc.) is intended to be more lucrative outside of high-sec. As I don't operate in low or null-sec, I can't comment on whether this is true beyond theorizing that the generally accepted term of "piracy" doesn't really exist in EVE. Or are ships routinely robbed of their cargo and released to continue on their way? (and not in the form of a pod or jump clone) Ransoms and cargo seizing was a thing for a few years until too many spergs decided to kill them anyway. Once that trust went so did the ransoms.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18669	Posted - 2017.02.23 11:05:00 - [3] - Quote Naye Nathaniel wrote: lilol' me wrote: funny thing is 0.0 is safer than highsec... the carebears and ultimately the problem is nullsec not highsec. the problem with people whining about highsec is from useless pvpers who want easy kills. this So why does every survey find that highsec has less killed per head of population and null eats up the vast bulk of destruction?
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18669	Posted - 2017.02.23 11:05:47 - [4] - Quote Malcorath Sacerdos wrote: baltec1 wrote: Arthur Aihaken wrote: Infinity Ziona wrote: EvE was never designed to support ganking That's not what I took away from it - what I got is that piracy (etc.) is intended to be more lucrative outside of high-sec. As I don't operate in low or null-sec, I can't comment on whether this is true beyond theorizing that the generally accepted term of "piracy" doesn't really exist in EVE. Or are ships routinely robbed of their cargo and released to continue on their way? (and not in the form of a pod or jump clone) Ransoms and cargo seizing was a thing for a few years until too many spergs decided to kill them anyway. Once that trust went so did the ransoms. indeed and now we have rampart HS Ganking as the new baseline piracy. Ganking is way lower than it used to be.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18669	Posted - 2017.02.23 11:10:40 - [5] - Quote Arthur Aihaken wrote: baltec1 wrote: Ransoms and cargo seizing was a thing for a few years until too many spergs decided to kill them anyway. Once that trust went so did the ransoms. Many low-sec players claim that piracy is alive and well and that ransoms are routinely offered and honored. I contend that this is not the case, and that the prevalence of killmail bragging, joy in shooting blinged ships and pods and extracting as many tears and salt as possible is now standard operating procedure. Or is this perception off? I'd say that's right, it's been a very long time since I heard of anyone trying to get a ransom.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18669	Posted - 2017.02.23 11:29:07 - [6] - Quote Malcorath Sacerdos wrote: baltec1 wrote: Ganking is way lower than it used to be. cool shure doesent feel like it at times i guess there is data suporting this? Tippia looked into this the other year and fond the there is noticeably fewer miners getting ganked. Hardly surprising given all of the nerfs and buffs over the last six years. CCP also pointed out a big drop in the number of exhumers getting ganked after the first barge change. There has been a lot of nerfs and more safety buffs since then.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18669	Posted - 2017.02.23 11:41:54 - [7] - Quote Malcorath Sacerdos wrote: baltec1 wrote: Malcorath Sacerdos wrote: baltec1 wrote: Ganking is way lower than it used to be. cool shure doesent feel like it at times i guess there is data suporting this? Tippia looked into this the other year and fond the there is noticeably fewer miners getting ganked. Hardly surprising given all of the nerfs and buffs over the last six years. CCP also pointed out a big drop in the number of exhumers getting ganked after the first barge change. There has been a lot of nerfs and more safety buffs since then. i see the problem. you count only miners getting ganked. broaden your search to include all of hs and all types of suicide ganking. Every barge that was ganked in highsec was included.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18669	Posted - 2017.02.23 12:04:41 - [8] - Quote Malcorath Sacerdos wrote: industrials, freighters, orcas (not that they are easally ganked anymore), blinged out ship of everytype. you get what i am aiming at right ? Feel free to put in the same amount of effort we did with the barge data. You will still finding ganking levels are lower than six to seven years ago. We worked out that the chances of having your freighter ganked stands at something like less than 0.2% over 1.7 million gate jumps.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18669	Posted - 2017.02.23 12:26:55 - [9] - Quote Malcorath Sacerdos wrote: yea id need to get the data from ccp on howmany gatejumps are done by freaighters each day and then correlate that with how many freighters get ganked each day. then do that for all ship types in eve in HS. i have acual research projects going on atm but if i ever get bored with those i might look into this. Or you can use the data from the largest shipping organisation in EVE, Red Freight. I'll be frank, over the years we have amassed a mountain of evidence that shows ganking is not just on a downward trend but is also far harder, more expensive and easier to counter than ever before. It has also been show that if anything ganking keeps players in game rather than drives them away. There is no evidence at all that ganking is either easy, risk free, harms EVE in any way or is at record highs.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18669	Posted - 2017.02.23 13:06:14 - [10] - Quote Malcorath Sacerdos wrote: Black Pedro wrote: Malcorath Sacerdos wrote: i see your point. the numbers are at or near 2012 -2011 numbers but an all time low i would say no to. I don't have the numbers to say that, and yes, suicide ganking rates were probably lower early on immediately after CONCORD was made invincible and and for freighters, before they even dropped loot, but there is no evidence that suicide ganking is increasing, out of control, or even a problem which is the usual carebear narrative. CCP Quant's numbers show that total destruction (from all sources, not just suicide ganking) makes up less than 0.1% of all goods transported in highsec, and ganking of barges shows a similar decrease in recent years, which is off true all time lows in 2012 when Dr. Eyjo reported that Exhumers were blowing up at "historically low rates" (pg. 104). Highsec is extremely safe. CCP has buffed safety so much it is near impossible to make a living as a pirate there. The cost to attack is so high, only when another player makes a mistake and undocks in an overloaded hauler or blinged out ship is it even possible. CCP always intended you to be at risk in highsec, and always intended for you to be able to attack another player if you were willing to accept the consequences. Everything is working as intended. The only problem here, and it isn't probably one worth discussing, is that the OP is playing the wrong game. He is not willing to accept loss in his gaming experience, either from suicide gankers or from a changing market that has devalued his battleship. He probably should just move on and let us all get back to playing in our competitive PvP sandbox together. im looking at the concord numbers as we speak i copied over the zkill stats to an exell cheat quite intresting really. yea ppl will cry over all sorts of things and they will have opinions. ever since 2013 the number os concord kills in HS has been dropping akording the the zkill data so i guess ill have to amend my own opinions to better suite the facts in this case. i would love to do this on crest data straght from ccp if possible tho :) You also need to factor in the rise of the catalyst and the increases in the EHP of the victims. Fewer ships are getting stomped by concord while at the same time more gank ships are required per kill.

baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18669	Posted - 2017.02.23 18:26:26 - [11] - Quote lilol' me wrote: oh true story i saw yesterday literally 50 large t1 and t2 bubbles on a gate both sidea to stop people hassling carebears.. crazy eh.. cant do that in highsec Don't have to, highsec has concord, faction police and station/gate guns.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18669	Posted - 2017.02.23 19:15:30 - [12] - Quote lilol' me wrote: concord does and stops nothing thats why we have rampant suicide ganking What rampant suicide ganking? lilol' me wrote: lowsec gates guns can be easily tanked infact warp off come back and they forget you even did anything. gatea guns dont do much in a belt or anom in low aec either. We are talking about highsec not lowsec, those belts will have faction police and concord arrive. come on mate get with it... lilol' me wrote: i mean lets talk about PL and carebearing shall we. you think its OK for PL to earn billions in PASSIVE income for owning tons of moons or even renting systems for doing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING? I mean seriously yiu complain about highsec dudes earning a few million isk!! Come and attack those assets then.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18675	Posted - 2017.02.24 09:01:01 - [13] - Quote lilol' me wrote: and thats EXACTLY the problem.. What is?
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18677	Posted - 2017.02.24 18:14:42 - [14] - Quote lilol' me wrote: people not being able to take those assets when you can drop 1000 dreads and supers..... but i guess its OK for you to have passive income but not others...hmmm sounds like hypocricy We are not invincible
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18679	Posted - 2017.02.24 20:47:37 - [15] - Quote Reiisha wrote: Suicide ganking and gatecamping are not a problem whatsoever. The real problem lies in the unlimited use of alts to sidestep all consequences. However, that is hilariously difficult to even think about fixing and most people are so ensorceled by the alt meta (which has existed since 2003) that they will defend it to the death, despite the massive problems alts bring to the systems currently in place - Let alone that the game has been quasi designed around the use of alts over the years. You can bet that if gatecampers and suicide gankers couldn't use alts anymore, they'd be hypocritically crying havoc over how unfair the game is to them once they actually have to deal with the consequences of being at -10. Sadly, this will likely not happen for a long time, given how critical alts are for nullsec - Even if just to keep the game from being too boring (unless there are people who want to play a fulltime cyno character for example). That would hit miners and mission runners just as hard if not harder.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18687	Posted - 2017.02.25 11:06:14 - [16] - Quote Salvos Rhoska wrote: Sure, I can understsnd what you mean, but none of that refutes or contradicts my suggestion above. This is what we call the just one more nerf argument. Ganking is already the most punished activity in EVE as well as needing to be one of the most organised as far as highsec goes and undoubtedly the most expensive activity in EVE outside of the suicide dreads.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18687	Posted - 2017.02.25 12:05:05 - [17] - Quote Salvos Rhoska wrote: I already went over the peculiar nature of this in a previous post. Making cargo scanning a suspect offense in HS, doesnt upset that. Why should this happen? Ganking is already at its lowest point in history as is highsec pvp content in general. Frankly we should be expanding scanning more not punishing more. Bring in more content such as players hunting for drugs and such.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18687	Posted - 2017.02.25 12:50:34 - [18] - Quote Salvos Rhoska wrote: The change should happen, because it rationalizes the underlying mechanics. Cargo scanning is an invasive action. You intrusively pry into the hold of another player. This should not occur without a reciprocal cost. Currently, there is none. Having a scanning ship on site, does not in and of itself constitute a cost, because the scanning ship is not currently implicated in any way. They can scan all the ships they want, intrude i to their holds, at no cost or risk. So we should do the same with combat probes too then? Salvos Rhoska wrote: Cargo-scanning is not mandatory for suicide ganking Its just a convenience to pick out lucrative targets. How else are you going to know what the hauler is carrying to make the call on if it is profitable or not? Its fundamental to ganking. Salvos Rhoska wrote: If cargo scanning issued a suspect flag, they can still continue scanning as many holds as they wish, unless so eone eliminates them. We all know that cargo scanning ships are implict in the suicide gank operational system. They are part of the suicide gank team effort, as much as the attack ships, and the loot pickup ships. Th attack ships get rekt by CONCORD, the loot pickup teams go suspect. So too should the cargo scanning elements go suspect. You have yet to answer why ganking needs yet another nerf.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18687	Posted - 2017.02.25 13:55:59 - [19] - Quote Salvos Rhoska wrote: 1) Combat probes do not scan the contents of a ship, merely its location at that moment. Furthemore a combat probe search requires far more time and effort, and is homologous with core probing sigs. Combat probes are more than core probes, they are made with the goal of hunting down other ships. Its the same as scanning a ship, both are pvp activities just with slightly differnt goals. One lets you find a players ship even though they don't want you to and the other scans a players ship even though they dont want you to. It can also lead to other problems such as the bloakade runner now has. CCP adding the unscannable bonus to them did not make them safer, it put more risk on them because the ganks went from targeted to random. Salvos Rhoska wrote: 2) My change does not mean they cant ascertain the contents of a ship. Just that they incur a suspect flag for intrusively obtaining that data of what is on someone elses ship. What justification is there, for a ship in HS to pry into the contents of somone elses autonomous ship, without consequence? You can already counter the scanner. Salvos Rhoska wrote: 3) This is not a nerf to suicide ganking. Yes it is.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18687	Posted - 2017.02.25 17:50:22 - [20] - Quote Salvos Rhoska wrote: 1) Combat probes are not tthe same as cargo scanning. They are furthermore entirely different skill trees. Combat probes deliver information on location at great range. Cargo scanning is a matter of kms. Their function is unique and unlike the other. Combat probes, especially in HS, are used for finding mission ships onsite, at great range. Cargo scanning, in HS, is used almost exclusively for the purpose of identifying fat targets, onsite. (And scanning ghost/relic/data cans) Both are used in ganking, the same arguments you are using asast cargo scanners can be used on ship scanners and combat probes. Salvos Rhoska wrote: 2) Blockade runners remain unscannable in my proposal, as they are now. Zero change. You missed my point, BR have been made less safe because of the unscannable change. Salvos Rhoska wrote: 3) Double packing, flooding cargo with trash, are ways of impairing data to a cargo scanner. But they are niot an issue of cargo scanners themselves. They are a direct counter everyone can already use, there is no need to further nerf ganking. It simply isn't needed.

baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18691	Posted - 2017.02.26 02:39:26 - [21] - Quote Salvos Rhoska wrote: Suicide ganking, as I outlined earlier, is a very peculiar niche. I dont know if it was intended, but it doesnt really matter. It serves to introduce risk to HS, at absolute fatality to itself. But. Its only the attack ships in a suicide gank fleet that incur that. That leaves the haulers and cargo-scanners. Haulers already incur a suspect timer for looting the wreck, as does anyone else that grabs the loot. Cargo-scanners, however, suffer no penalty for intrusively investigating a ships contents. I move, again, to propose that cargo-scanning a ship in HS should incur a suspect timer. There are already counters to being scanned, ganking does not need even more nerfs.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18693	Posted - 2017.02.26 11:15:39 - [22] - Quote Salvos Rhoska wrote: It doesnt nerf suicide ganking. Of course it does. Salvos Rhoska wrote: It doesnt remove the existing counters to being scanned. The question is why do we need more nerfs when there is already a counter. Salvos Rhoska wrote: It just makes scanning a suspect offense, thus creating more player opportunity to engage. And this is just one more nerf to ganking that has yet to be justified. If you want to expand on content then expand upon scanning. Bring in stuff like scanning for contraband rather than nerfing already existing content.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18694	Posted - 2017.02.26 11:30:28 - [23] - Quote Salvos Rhoska wrote: It does not nerf suicide ganking at all. It makes zero change to the activity of attempting to destroy a target before CONCORD curbstomps you. It makes them go suspect which means free to fire upon by anyone. Thats a nerf. Salvos Rhoska wrote: It doesnt nerf the means available to counter scanning at all. You can still double wrap, fill cargo with trash lists, cloak, instawarp, use blockade runners etc. Still doesnt change the fact that we already have very easy counters to being scanned, you have yet to tell us why further nerfs are required when we already have counters. Salvos Rhoska wrote: It just makes scanning a suspect offense, as an intrusive act, so other players can destroy you. This is good for generat7ng more ship destruction and aggression in HS. You are nerfing the people who are destroying ships. If you want more ship destruction then you should be targeting the very people you are trying to get more protection for. Salvos Rhoska wrote: Contraband scanning can be implemented separately, as a CONCORD and Customs sanctioned act, with a specific module that ONLY scans for contraband, and making the target a suspect if the scan identifies contraband. We dont need a new mod, we have one that does the job already.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18695	Posted - 2017.02.26 11:55:45 - [24] - Quote Salvos Rhoska wrote: Your arguments arent honest. There honest, you just don't like them. At the end of the day we need more pvp content in highsec not further nerfs to what we have left.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18695	Posted - 2017.02.26 12:12:37 - [25] - Quote Salvos Rhoska wrote: Incurring a suspect timer for ship/cargo scanning directly leads to more pvp in HS. What it does is make ship scanning incredibly hard and increases expenses. Ganking is already in near terminal decline, it does not need further nerfing. Salvos Rhoska wrote: Your arguments arent honest because you conflate suicide ganking, with ship/cargo scanning. They are two separate acts and mechanics. Who else scans cargo in highsec? Salvos Rhoska wrote: It is also dishonest to claim that enforcing a suspect timer on ship/cargo scanning would not increase surface area for player aggression in HS. It will reduce it because you are making ganking for profit much harder. If you want more pvp going on then why are you not looking at things such as the wholesale destruction to jetcan piracy and the anti-piracy that spawned? Why are you not looking at making mission running more competitive and disruptable? Why are you not looking to bring back the FW raids in highsec systems that we used to have? More nerfs to ganking is not the answer to bringing more ship destruction to EVE..
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18695	Posted - 2017.02.26 12:47:34 - [26] - Quote Salvos Rhoska wrote: Incurring a suspect timer for invasively investigating someones private ship data, doesnt change suicide ganking. Yes it does. Salvos Rhoska wrote: You dont need to scan a ship, to suicide gank it. And how else are you going to target a ship for profit? Salvos Rhoska wrote: Going suspect, does not prevent you from further scanning. Your ship expolding does. Salvos Rhoska wrote: Going suspect from scanning, does not prevent you from suicide ganking either. It hurts the process of selecting the target. Needing to replace your scanning ship every time you scan something mean that not only will ganking become more expensive and require even more work but it will also mean you cannot scan anywhere near as many ships simply because most of your time will be spent on timers, replacing ships and setting up again. Salvos Rhoska wrote: It is irratonal to claim that incurring a suspect timer for intrusively prying into another players ship, would reduce pvp in HS. It does the exact opposite. It creates pvp opportunities. Pre-change, you cant do anything when you are scanned. Post-change, you and others can attack the player that is scanning. As I said you will force scanner ships into similar downtime as the gankers themselves face, increase cost, increase the effort required and reduce the effectiveness greatly. Less ganking will happen because of these things which means less pvp. Again, nerfing pvp does not create more pvp.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18695	Posted - 2017.02.26 13:15:55 - [27] - Quote Salvos Rhoska wrote: Going suspect for scanning a ship, does not prevent you from scanning other ships, or suicide ganking. The exploding part does, thats the part you are adding. Scanning mods dont tend to work after your ship is turned to dust. Salvos Rhoska wrote: If you want valuable data on the private contents of a ship, then be prepared to accept risk for doing so. Hire/involve Alphas as scanners for that data if you dont want to do it yourself. You can scan ships in a rookie ship, with Alpha skill sets. (iirc) Not free and still takes time. your effectiveness is greatly reduced. Salvos Rhoska wrote: Scanning =/= Suicide ganking. They are systemically unrelated actions. Name any other activity that used a cargo scanner. Salvos Rhoska wrote: It is nonsense to claim, that going from being unable to aggress a scanning ship, to being able to aggress a scanning ship, would reduce pvp in HS. It categorically increases it. There is no way to argue around that. You can agress a scanning ship currently, its called ganking. Salvos Rhoska wrote: I typically fly ships with more than enough alpha dmg/tracking to instablap any frigate, and almost cruisers. If someone scans my ship and my personal data, and this incurred a suspect tag, I will blow them out of space. Currently, I cannot do that. It is abundantly clear, even in my example above, that incurring a suspect timer for intrusively gaining valuable data on my personal fit/hold, will lead to more pvp than now. You scan a ship, you die, you go back to the station for another ship, warp back to the gate, you scan a ship, you die. Its unworkable, do you even know how many ships you need to scan before you find a target? Go and count how many ships pass though the amarr/jita trade route over an hour. Under your plan you would be scanning at best a fraction of the ships you could before, this is what will mean fewer ganks happening. This is a big nerf to targeted ganking and if you need an example of what happens when you nerf targeted ganking into the ground just look at what happened to barge piracy (It doesn't exist anymore).
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18695	Posted - 2017.02.26 17:50:47 - [28] - Quote Salvos Rhoska wrote: Its no-one elses problem if your scanning ship explodes, than your own. You dont need a scanning ship to suicide gank. If you want to invasively investigate my private fit/hold, for data as to whether to attack me or not, I should be able to retaliate for you doing so. The argument that "I should be able to pry into your private ship/hold data, so as to decide whether to suicide gank you or not, and there is nothing you can do about it" is crap. What goddam business is it of yours what my fit is or what Im carrying? If you are going to invade my personal data, for purposes of deciding whether to suicide gank me, I should be able to defend myself by eliminating you. IRL if you think Im going to stand by while you investigate the contents of my car, my pockets/bag or my house for purposes of destroying them and stealing their contents, you better believe I will come at you with all force available to me. PS: As to any other activity that uses a cargo scanner, exploration does to investigate relic/data/ghost can contents. Again your dishonesty is apparent. If you had spent even 5s on considering this, you would not have had to ask. And here we get to the truth, this was never about more pvp but pushing for even higher levels of safety via nerfs. We have several counters to scanning, we can already blow up the scanning ship, you can also avoid being locked entirely. This is just another call to nerf ganking so you don't have to put any effort into your own gameplay.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18699	Posted - 2017.02.27 00:22:48 - [29] - Quote NofriendNoLifeStilPostin wrote: baltec1 wrote: Salvos Rhoska wrote: Its no-one elses problem if your scanning ship explodes, than your own. You dont need a scanning ship to suicide gank. If you want to invasively investigate my private fit/hold, for data as to whether to attack me or not, I should be able to retaliate for you doing so. The argument that "I should be able to pry into your private ship/hold data, so as to decide whether to suicide gank you or not, and there is nothing you can do about it" is crap. What goddam business is it of yours what my fit is or what Im carrying? If you are going to invade my personal data, for purposes of deciding whether to suicide gank me, I should be able to defend myself by eliminating you. IRL if you think Im going to stand by while you investigate the contents of my car, my pockets/bag or my house for purposes of destroying them and stealing their contents, you better believe I will come at you with all force available to me. PS: As to any other activity that uses a cargo scanner, exploration does to investigate relic/data/ghost can contents. Again your dishonesty is apparent. If you had spent even 5s on considering this, you would not have had to ask. And here we get to the truth, this was never about more pvp but pushing for even higher levels of safety via nerfs. We have several counters to scanning, we can already blow up the scanning ship, you can also avoid being locked entirely. This is just another call to nerf ganking so you don't have to put any effort into your own gameplay. get a life and pull your head out of your ass, forum clown. suicide ganking is all about no risk for potentially enormous reward and is a huge part of why your game is such a joke that nobody wants to play. The penalties for suicide ganking are negligible and that is why every one of you pathetic shitters are doing that instead of doing real pvp against people who actually shoot back. if suicide gankers didn't have it so easy those shitters might be out doing real pvp instead of preying on the unaware and making other players want to quit because of how bullshit it is that griefers should have it so easy. Are you really so stupid that you can't figure that out? I wonder, can you list all of the risks and punishments a ganker has? Let's see if you know anything about this activity.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18703	Posted - 2017.02.27 10:20:52 - [30] - Quote NofriendNoLifeStilPostin wrote: baltec1 wrote: I wonder, can you list all of the risks and punishments a ganker has? Let's see if you know anything about this activity. yea, you lose your ship and take a meaningless sec status hit, can't dock for a while and your victim gets a kill right on you. So Next to nothing. Worst case scenario you lose a ship that you were already willing to pay as a negligible cost in order to blow up someone elses ship. Try not to be such a narrow-minded forum dwelling twit and accept that the critics of suicide ganking have a point. suicide gankers have it easymode in EVE, playing with no real risk for potentially tremendous rewards. EVE is definitely not a harsh and dangerous place for all and the grief monkeys want to keep it ****** like that. Well in that case lets put the exact same punishments on anyone who shoots an NPC ship. After all, according to you its risk and punishment free.

baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18704	Posted - 2017.02.27 10:46:03 - [31] - Quote Salvos Rhoska wrote: baltec1 wrote: Well in that case lets put the exact same punishments on anyone who shoots an NPC ship. After all, according to you its risk and punishment free. NPCs are not players, or capsuleers. A suspect timer is not a "punishment". Its a mechanic which enables NPC free player conflict, as a consequence of taking action against another player. Which as I pointed out to you several times means gankers will have greatly reduced ability to scan people. That is a hefty nerf.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18704	Posted - 2017.02.27 10:55:22 - [32] - Quote Salvos Rhoska wrote: baltec1 wrote: Salvos Rhoska wrote: baltec1 wrote: Well in that case lets put the exact same punishments on anyone who shoots an NPC ship. After all, according to you its risk and punishment free. NPCs are not players, or capsuleers. A suspect timer is not a "punishment". Its a mechanic which enables NPC free player conflict, as a consequence of taking action against another player. Which as I pointed out to you several times means gankers will have greatly reduced ability to scan people. That is a hefty nerf. Your "ability to scan people" is not reduced. Scan all you want. A suspect timer does not prevent you from scanning. Yes it is reduced simply because you have to replace that scanning ship every time you scan something. Do you have any iddea how many ship need to be scanned before you find a profitable target? Hundreds of ships get scanned, under your plan each and every time you scan you will likely get blown up and every time you will need to go and grab a new ship which means an hours work will become a weeks work. You also completely render the passive targeter pointless
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18704	Posted - 2017.02.27 10:58:53 - [33] - Quote Salvos Rhoska wrote: Shae Tadaruwa wrote: Salvos Rhoska wrote: ... reducing consequence for the ganking alts in the group effort. Typical stupid Salvos 'logic'. I don't want to reduce anything. Scanning ships can be ganked, just like any other. No change needed. All ships can be ganked. So what? The issue is that scanning ships incur no risk/cost for acquiring valuable data from a potential targets fit/cargo. Their scans can be blocked by double wrapping Their scans do not work on blockade runners Their scans do not work on people pulling the MWD cloak trick The scan ship can be ganked. Thats more risk than a hauler has.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18705	Posted - 2017.02.27 11:19:18 - [34] - Quote Salvos Rhoska wrote: You dont "have" to replace it, unless it is destroyed (pvp is fine). A suspect timer does not prevent you from scanning. Scan ships are super easy to find and easy to kill, you will have people who will dedicate their time to blowing them up. Under your plan losing the scanning ship is all but guaranteed. Salvos Rhoska wrote: I dont care how many targets you have to scan to find a profitable target. That is your problem, not the games or its mechanics. You dont have to scan ships inorder to suicide gank them. You do have to scan them if you want to turn a profit. It doesn't matter if you don't care this is what will happen with your plan. Needless to say your play would be a very heavy blow to ganking and would reduce greatly the number of people ganking simply because turning a profit would become borderline impossible. Salvos Rhoska wrote: As I said, afaik scanning can be done by rookie ships with Alpha clones. Hire/involve them instead then. You are still ignoring what I am telling you. The big issue is the amount of time you will lose under your plan means the vast bulk of potential targets will not be scanned. You are effectively killing profitable ganking because they can't scan enough ships to be able to find the profitable targets. They would be relying on blind luck their one scan result every few minutes pings a viable target. Salvos Rhoska wrote: The passive targeter is not rendered pointless. You can still use it to acquire targets without their notice, but if you activate a scan module on that target, suspect tag will be applied. What is the point of hiding your locking the ship if you go suspect the moment you hit scan? You literally light up like a Christmas tree.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18705	Posted - 2017.02.27 11:21:47 - [35] - Quote Salvos Rhoska wrote: NPCs are not players. NPC destruction incurs a standing loss. It makes the NPC entity increasingly hostile towards you, but is unrelated to your situation with other players. Furthermore, NPC entities do not interfere with suspect timers. If its not a nerf and not a risk then mission runners who are blatantly are breaking the no aggression in highsec rules should at the very least go suspect.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18705	Posted - 2017.02.27 11:27:26 - [36] - Quote Salvos Rhoska wrote: Suspect timer fulfills all these. It destroys for profit ganking, which is what you want. This isn't the first nerf ganking idea you have started.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18705	Posted - 2017.02.27 12:35:44 - [37] - Quote NofriendNoLifeStilPostin wrote: quoted for hilarity Now quote the rest.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18705	Posted - 2017.02.27 12:42:37 - [38] - Quote Salvos Rhoska wrote: This is false. When I probe and complete Sig sites, I have no control over the profit. This isn't sig sites, for every profitable kill there are hundreds that are not. Your plan means we go from spending a lot of time scanning and finding nothing of worth to one scan every 4-5 min. In practice this means simply by shear numbers the likelihood of scanning the profitable target is very very low. Ganking for profit cannot exist as a profession based upon pure luck you find something. Salvos Rhoska wrote: 4) "What is the point of hiding your locking the ship if you go suspect the moment you hit scan? You literally light up like a Christmas tree." The purpose of a passive targeter is an undetected target lock. No more, no less. You get 6 seconds to lock the target, scan it and unlock. There is no point in hiding just the locking because that is done near instantly.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18705	Posted - 2017.02.27 12:50:13 - [39] - Quote Salvos Rhoska wrote: baltec1 wrote: NofriendNoLifeStilPostin wrote: quoted for hilarity Now quote the rest. No, she was right. It was laughable. Also you didnt quote her in completion either. Arguing that a scanning ship should incur no risk, whereas the target of their scans has their data intrusively investigated, so as to increase their risk of a suicide gank AND the profits from that gank effort makes no sense. There is no equity there. If you want data so as to inform the profit/cost of a suicide gank, you should accept reciprocal risk. The suicide gank itself incurs fatal CONCORD loss. The haulers incur a suspect timer. Yet the scanner incurs no loss, risk or cost. That is not rational, and goes against EVE principles. Its perfectly rational, you just want this nerf because you want to kill ganking. Just like all of your other anti-ganking nerfs you have come up with.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18711	Posted - 2017.02.28 10:17:36 - [40] - Quote Salvos Rhoska wrote: You argue as "we". This is telling and significant. It implicates you as biased and arguing for a specific "we", and its interests. Feel free to look at the last time I ganked. Salvos Rhoska wrote: If you want important fit/data on a potential target, that should incur reciprocal cost/risk. It does. The can block your scan, stop you from locking in the first place or gank you. Salvos Rhoska wrote: You dont need fit/cargo data to suicide gank You do if you want to turn a profit, AKA piracy. Salvos Rhoska wrote: You are again conflating unrelated mechanics. I repeat again, that the purpose and function of a passive targeter, is to obtain a target lock without detection. Nothing more, nothing less. No, its to allow you to lock a target for 6 seconds with them knowing. Its right there in the mods description.

baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18711	Posted - 2017.02.28 10:39:51 - [41] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: Hiasa Kite wrote: You have a choice between tank and yield. Each option comes with different play styles and associated risks. Choose whichever best suits you. Mining barges do not have a choice the way other ships.do however. They have very limited slots and insanely low pg & cpu. Most of your choice is purely dependant on the hull. Compare this to.combat ships where you get the option to glass cannon, balanced or brick tank all on the same hull. And you can speed tank, fit Ewart etc as well. Suffice to say the general design philosophy of industry type ships has flaws. Mining barges are horrible. Shoehorned into roles, very little to zero ability to custom fit to your wants and needs and horribly imbalanced with each other and the wider ship lineups.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18712	Posted - 2017.02.28 10:54:33 - [42] - Quote Salvos Rhoska wrote: 1) I hesitate to call suicide ganking, piracy. They are blowing you up to get your cargo. Its is the only way to get the cargo in highsec and the shipping lanes are all in highsec so that is where the pirates are. Salvos Rhoska wrote: 2) Yes, you get an undetected lock on the target. That does not contradict what I said. You think its just for locking the target, its not. That six seconds is to cover the scan and unclocking so they don't know you are looking. Going suspect means you light up in the overview and on the hud so fitting the passive targeter is entirely pointless. Salvos Rhoska wrote: 3) Arguing as "we" is dishonest. Your posts and views are your own, no-one elses. Mechanics changes impacts everyone, hence the we. Salvos Rhoska wrote: 4) The defensive measures a target can take to protect their data, are not costs/risk/effort to the scanner. They are cost/effort/risk taken by the target. Of course they are risks and costs to the scanner. Failing to get a scan has a cost of missing a potential target which is undoubtedly a risk the scanner faces every time they try to get a scan. As pointled out many times to you we alreay have highly effective counters to scanning.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18712	Posted - 2017.02.28 12:40:16 - [43] - Quote Salvos Rhoska wrote: 1) Not all suicide ganking is motivated by profit. Just most of them. Salvos Rhoska wrote: Furthermore, suicide ganking involves, well, suicide. Its difficult to compare that to conventional definitions of piracy, because IRL, where these terms are derived from, its not possible to survive your own suicide. How else can you get the cargo out of their ship and into your hands? If you don't want pirates to be forced to suicide gank then you have to get rid of concord. Salvos Rhoska wrote: IRL This is not real life, we are immortal demi-gods flying around in spaceships. Salvos Rhoska wrote: As to HS being where the trade lanes are, this is only partially true. The trade lanes extend through LS to the deepest reaches of NS. No they don't. Outside of highsec cargo is transported via jump freighters that jump from citadel to citadel in perfect safety. Salvos Rhoska wrote: 2) Passive targeters enable an undetected lock. Nothing more, nothing less. That scanning the ship does not break that undetected status, does not change what passive targeters do. You lock the target in one server tick, a passive targeter is entirely pointless when the second server tick you start flashing yellow.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18715	Posted - 2017.02.28 22:54:33 - [44] - Quote Lucas Lucias wrote: The issue is more to do with playing defence rather than attack, as soon as we started to attack by blowing up freighter wrecks the EHP of freighter wrecks got changed so you had to use a Talos. So much for a leval playing field, if only... That was broken and you know it. Lets not forget that freighters got an EHP buff 10 times stronger too. Lucas Lucias wrote: And the speed of that change was just incredible, talk about a direct line to get the mechanics changed in their favour. Change was asked for and provided for null sec entities who had been complaining about super and titan wrecks getting easily destroyed for years.

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.