EVE Search - Consensual PvP and Suicide Ganking

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Consensual PvP and Suicide Ganking

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Le Xu	Posted - 2008.03.07 19:59:00 - [1] IÆve been watching the tournament podcasts. TheyÆve been quite entertaining. CCP have done a good job. IÆve especially enjoyed the commentary regarding the various strategies and tactics employed by the sides in the matches. I think it might provide CCP some insight if they were to project the same kind of format for the type of griefing pvp that commonly happens in the game. What kind of commentary would there be? How engaging would the play by play of a lopsided suicide gank of miners in high sec be? If context independent non-consensual PvP is the cornerstone of the value proposition of EVE and makes for the heart and soul of the entertainment the game offers to current and potential customers, why is the tournament based on restricted consensual PvP? Why didnÆt any of the teams field a fleet of Hulks so we could enjoy all of the excitement of explosions without experiencing any of the unpleasant anxiety associated with an unknown outcome? Seriously though, I understand the benefit and need for environments with unrestricted PvP. It does add an element of excitement to the game. However, there is also a need for areas of restricted PvP. CCP themselves recognized this when they created CONCORD and security ratings. The reason is basic game design. The greater the connection that a player feels exists between any in game outcome and the decisions they make, the more engaged they will be in the game. Suicide ganking takes a large (according to the latest CCP published statistics, the vast majority) of the customer base choosing to do things in high sec space and decouples the rather significant game mechanic of system security ratings theyÆre basing decisions on from the outcomes they experience in the game. ThatÆs simply bad game design that erodes a playerÆs confidence in the fidelity of the game system theyÆre playing. Suicide ganking is like adding numbers to the roulette wheel after the bets are placed. If CCP want absolute, unrestricted PvP, remove CONCORD altogether and make the entire Universe 0.0. I really believe that this is just a basic game design quality issue and not nearly as nuanced as the proponents of suicide ganking would suggest. The current implementation of the insurance system is simply undermining the design intent of consequence associated with CONCORD and the security system. ThatÆs pretty much it, from my point of view. It should be fixed.
agent apple Spartan Industries Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.03.07 20:06:00 - [2] Normal ships go about unmolested High value ships piloted by nubs die I'd say the system works pretty well
Wu Jiun	Posted - 2008.03.07 20:07:00 - [3] So how much fun would it be to watch people mining or starting research jobs? How much fun would it be to watch people grind missions like crazy? I tell you: none! So whats your point anyway? Do we want to remove that all from the game because we can't make eve tv about it? Thats certainly a good measure of game design. As for your statements about the security rating: high != absolute or total. There isnt much more to say about it really.
Le Xu	Posted - 2008.03.07 20:11:00 - [4] I guess the highly skilled hulk pilots must not have known about the tournament. Either that or I just missed the match. How'd they do?
Le Xu	Posted - 2008.03.07 20:15:00 - [5] Yeah, I've heard all the sayings too. High sec doesn't mean 100% safety. Only fly what you can afford to lose. CONCORD only provides consequence. Etc. Right now, it's that last one that is off with the current implementation of insurance.
Tarminic Forsaken Resistance The Last Stand	Posted - 2008.03.07 20:21:00 - [6] Edited by: Tarminic on 07/03/2008 20:23:17 Originally by: Le Xu Suicide ganking is like adding numbers to the roulette wheel after the bets are placed. I disagree completely. Just because you don't factor it into your cost/benefit equation doesn't mean that other people don't. Quote: ThatÆs simply bad game design that erodes a playerÆs confidence in the fidelity of the game system theyÆre playing. I don't think so - this might be bad game design for an area that is supposed to be completely free of non-consensual PvP, but CCP constantly reminds you that high security space does not ensure you will not be attacked, only that the attackers' ships will be destroyed in the process. If this "erodes the players confidence," then the players have misinterpreted how the security system functions. Originally by: Le Xu I guess the highly skilled hulk pilots must not have known about the tournament. Either that or I just missed the match. How'd they do? Tournament PvP is a different set of rules and mechanics than the real PvP that occurs in EVE. I don't think the comparison is an intellectually valid one. ---------------- Tarminic - 33 Million SP in Forum Warfare Play EVE: Downtime Madness v0.79
Claus VonStuffer Port Royal Independent Kontractors Atrum Tempestas Foedus	Posted - 2008.03.07 20:24:00 - [7] Quote: If context independent non-consensual PvP is the cornerstone of the value proposition of EVE and makes for the heart and soul of the entertainment the game offers to current and potential customers, why is the tournament based on restricted consensual PvP? Why didnÆt any of the teams field a fleet of Hulks so we could enjoy all of the excitement of explosions without experiencing any of the unpleasant anxiety associated with an unknown outcome? Wait, what? You are basing your logic on the tournament which in it's very definition is a competition and not what you would expect to see in reality. Using this tournament for your dislike for suicide ganking would be like me saying f*ck the NFL because when I went to war in reality and they didn't line up at the line of scrimmage like I was taught in the NFL. I cannot imagine in this game having you fly up next to another ship and type /dual.. holy crap would that ruin the immersion in this game.
Tchell Dahhn Amarr Deny Reality	Posted - 2008.03.07 20:46:00 - [8] This: Originally by: Le Xu The greater the connection that a player feels exists between any in game outcome and the decisions they make, the more engaged they will be in the game. Contradicts this: Originally by: Le Xu Suicide ganking takes a large (according to the latest CCP published statistics, the vast majority) of the customer base choosing to do things in high sec space and decouples the rather significant game mechanic of system security ratings theyÆre basing decisions on from the outcomes they experience in the game. ThatÆs simply bad game design that erodes a playerÆs confidence in the fidelity of the game system theyÆre playing. I am completely connected with EvE BECAUSE of this ability, as it best mimics 'real life'. You have high security areas, which are not 100% safe, because, in real life, are you 100% protected from everything 100% of the time? No. Can you get shot going to the corner store? Absolutely. Will the Police come and investigate? Definitely. Are there places where you can go, where, if you get shot, you might NOT be found? Guaranteed. Sounds like EvE to me, except, replace "going" with "flying", "corner store" with "Jita" and "the Police" with "Concord". (Oh, and those "places" I mentioned? They're losec.)
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2008.03.07 20:46:00 - [9] Let's make an analogy here. Just because people can fight in a boxing match for prizes, that means everybody can, should and will just settle their differences in a box match, and in reality, no murders, thefts or plain old violence actually exist ? Ok, not the best analogy, but you get the idea. 1\|2\|3\|4\|5.
Ungdall Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.03.07 21:42:00 - [10] Edited by: Ungdall on 07/03/2008 21:42:00 I hate you people who make these threads without thinking about any of the thought CCP put into this game. They didn't want there to be a place of perfect safety ANYWHERE IN THE GAME. That's why CONCORD has a delayed response. If CCP wanted a perfect carebare zone, there'd be one, but you nits don't think about that. You ignore their intentions for your profit. People accuse goons of ruining the game, when you people trying to make CCP change core concepts are the true destroyers.
Hong Jiansen Port Royal Independent Kontractors Atrum Tempestas Foedus	Posted - 2008.03.07 22:00:00 - [11] Originally by: Ungdall People accuse goons of ruining the game, when you people trying to make CCP change core concepts are the true destroyers. I never thought I'd say this but I agree with the goon here. That's exactly what you guys are calling for.. breaking the game. -------- Originally by: Soggybottom Only one thing died tonight and that was honour. To roaring applause...
Ungdall Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.03.07 22:12:00 - [12] Originally by: Hong Jiansen Originally by: Ungdall People accuse goons of ruining the game, when you people trying to make CCP change core concepts are the true destroyers. I never thought I'd say this but I agree with the goon here. That's exactly what you guys are calling for.. breaking the game. :woop::woop: gotta be right eventually :woop::woop:
Le Xu	Posted - 2008.03.07 22:37:00 - [13] Edited by: Le Xu on 07/03/2008 22:37:45 Thanks for the responses. Steady there, Goon. First, I donÆt want EVE to be a tournament type game. I would hate that. lol I also like the open ended nature of the game. The only reason I used that ridiculous analogy was to illustrate the point that the actual combat that takes place in EVE, is most interesting when itÆs between evenly matched opponents. PvP combat in a non-consensual game engages the player through decision making that happens outside of the actual combat. That decision making is all about risk assessment. A pure PvP game would have nothing influencing player combat outside of the actions of players themselves. 0.0 rules everywhere. However, CCP did not do that with EVE. They introduced CONCORD and a whole progressive security system. Why is CONCORD in the game? What is the point of having differing levels of security? Ironically, some of the best examples that illustrate my point are some of the real life analogies that have been used to challenge it. In real life, a suicide bomber doesnÆt get to attack more than once. An insurance company assesses the risks associated with insuring when determining whether they will insure at all and at what price. You are more likely to get mugged in a dark alley than a police station. Etc. WhatÆs broken with suicide ganking is simply that insurance is a flat risk mitigator for the ganker that undermines the progressive risk mitigation CONCORD offers the miner. Either, remove CONCORD altogether and leave insurance as it is or put insurance on the same progressive scale as system security status. An even better system, in my opinion, that would match the dark mercenary world of EVE, would be for kill rights to be issued by CONCORD based on standings with CONCORD to everyone with the correct positive standing against any pilot breaking CONCORDÆs laws. This would give the ôcarebearsö an opportunity to respond with the same degree of force as the aggressors and take the fight back to them. It would also give players who otherwise would never get the chance, an opportunity to have some fun in some of the bigger PvP battles. This would also allow the non consensual PvP mechanic to work for the ôcarebearsö as much as it now works against them. I, for one, would have a lot more fun flying around belts hunting gankers and griefers than rats.
Insidi Us Amarr Suicidal Mercenaries Pure.	Posted - 2008.03.07 22:46:00 - [14] Originally by: Le Xu Edited by: Le Xu on 07/03/2008 22:37:45 Ironically, some of the best examples that illustrate my point are some of the real life analogies that have been used to challenge it. In real life, a suicide bomber doesnÆt get to attack more than once. Stop right there. RL analogies either for or against your argument are almost entirely worthless. Lets see what happens in real life when the suicide bomber gets his clone back. Until then such a weak analogy is just that. ------------- RIP Constructive Criticism
Valan The Fated Odyssey.	Posted - 2008.03.07 22:50:00 - [15] OK I agree remove PvP from high sec. But to balance remove level 4 missions and high end level 3 to low sec. Shouldn't be allowed to earn billiosn risk free. I'm a little confused why we have to change a game thats been that way for five years for you when the player base keeps going up to the point where the server barely supports it anyway. /start sig I love old characters that post 'I've beeen playing the game four years' when I know their account has been sold on. /end sig
Tarminic Forsaken Resistance The Last Stand	Posted - 2008.03.07 22:59:00 - [16] Originally by: Le Xu WhatÆs broken with suicide ganking is simply that insurance is a flat risk mitigator for the ganker that undermines the progressive risk mitigation CONCORD offers the miner. This much is true. Quote: Either, remove CONCORD altogether and leave insurance as it is or put insurance on the same progressive scale as system security status. I don't think that we need to rush to either extreme, honestly. It's true that insurance is a mitigating factor that reduces the consequences of attacking another ship in high-security space, but this is not the complete picture either, because there are many actions that the defenders can take to reduce their risks as well and increase the risk the attackers must take to succeed. I think that when all is said and done, the defensive player has more means to increase the cost of a suicide gank than the attacker has to reduce it. It's true that given the proper number of ships, any defending ship in high-security space can be destroyed. But even counting insurance and discounting fitting cost, suicide ganking is by no means free, and there are actions that force the attackers to spend more time and effort organizing the attack and invest a greater amount of ISK to insure that the attack is successful. My personal belief is that the options open to defenders and the options open to attackers are balanced. For example, a way to make being suicided in high-sec in less likely and lest costly: 1. Fly a Covetor 2. Use T1 Strip Miners 3. Avoid crowded systems 4. Keep a vigilant eye on local chat 5. Have a friend repairing you Of course, all these have costs of their own, but the only options open to the attacker is to spend more ISK (in the case of #5), gain smaller profits from the act (in the case of #2), or spend more time and effort executing the attack (#3, #4, #5). I think that these factors are well-balanced. Quote: An even better system, in my opinion, that would match the dark mercenary world of EVE, would be for kill rights to be issued by CONCORD based on standings with CONCORD to everyone with the correct positive standing against any pilot breaking CONCORDÆs laws. This would give the ôcarebearsö an opportunity to respond with the same degree of force as the aggressors and take the fight back to them. It would also give players who otherwise would never get the chance, an opportunity to have some fun in some of the bigger PvP battles. This would also allow the non consensual PvP mechanic to work for the ôcarebearsö as much as it now works against them. I, for one, would have a lot more fun flying around belts hunting gankers and griefers than rats. I like this idea, but I don't think it should entirely replace the ability to execute a suicide gank. ---------------- Tarminic - 33 Million SP in Forum Warfare Play EVE: Downtime Madness v0.79
Le Xu	Posted - 2008.03.07 23:10:00 - [17] I donÆt know. IÆve never played a game that was perfect, including EVE. From my perspective, I see a lot of posts talking about increasing levels of PvP. I see a huge amount of the Universe unused. I see people begging others to come into low sec and others saying itÆs worthless space. I see the Goons angry that people are making money in high sec and engaged in suicide ganking to force them into low sec. IÆm not saying that EVE is a bad game or that it needs to fundamentally change. On the contrary. I believe EVE is a great game. IÆm just questioning some game mechanics and the intent. It seems to me, like some things arenÆt working exactly as intended and that there is room for improvement on the open ended PvP side. IÆd like more PvP. I didnÆt buy EVE and donÆt pay my subscription to play the PvP equivalent of a carebear by ganking defenseless miners with insurance to cover my loss. I say let them gank, but also give kill rights to everyone with positive CONCORD standings. YouÆd get a lot more PvP. What about wanting more PvP in EVE is killing the game?
Le Xu	Posted - 2008.03.07 23:16:00 - [18] Thanks, Tarminic. You raise excellent points that really touch on the heart of the argument. I appreciate you taking the time in the discussion. I agree. They should be able to execute the gank. The kill rights idea wouldn't take that away from them. It would just make the gank the opening move of a much larger PvP gambit that could involve a lot more pilots in PvP than the current system allows.
Ungdall Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.03.07 23:25:00 - [19] Originally by: Le Xu I donÆt know. IÆve never played a game that was perfect, including EVE. From my perspective, I see a lot of posts talking about increasing levels of PvP. I see a huge amount of the Universe unused. I see people begging others to come into low sec and others saying itÆs worthless space. I see the Goons angry that people are making money in high sec and engaged in suicide ganking to force them into low sec. IÆm not saying that EVE is a bad game or that it needs to fundamentally change. On the contrary. I believe EVE is a great game. IÆm just questioning some game mechanics and the intent. It seems to me, like some things arenÆt working exactly as intended and that there is room for improvement on the open ended PvP side. IÆd like more PvP. I didnÆt buy EVE and donÆt pay my subscription to play the PvP equivalent of a carebear by ganking defenseless miners with insurance to cover my loss. I say let them gank, but also give kill rights to everyone with positive CONCORD standings. YouÆd get a lot more PvP. What about wanting more PvP in EVE is killing the game? If that's all you want, then CCP already solved the problem. Other people have every right to kill the suicided. They just have to accept the consequences. When lose every ship in every attack, even if that attack fails. You, and anyone else around us can kill us just like we killed that Hulk or Mack or what have you. You get insurance isk back just like we do, in fact, you would lose us money. We profit off dropped mods. We all have to accept the rules, some are wiling to accept the consequences, and they do it. Others aren't, and they sit by and complain. Pick your role and fill it.
Kahega Amielden	Posted - 2008.03.07 23:32:00 - [20] EVE is full PVP. That's the way it works, and yes, it is intended by devs. Don't believe me? Read this If you want to be completely and totally 100% safe, don't undock. If you want to be 99.999999999% safe, don't fly **** gankers would want to pop. If you want to be mostly safe, exercise smart safety techniques in hisec.
Le Xu	Posted - 2008.03.07 23:35:00 - [21] EVE is not full PvP. If EVE is full PvP, why not make everything 0.0?
Garreck Amarr Border Defense Consortium Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.03.07 23:41:00 - [22] Edited by: Garreck on 07/03/2008 23:41:29 Originally by: Le Xu EVE is not full PvP. If EVE is full PvP, why not make everything 0.0? You're confusing "pvp" with "consequence." Empire has varrying levels of NPC enforced consequence for pvp (and that's only if the 'victim' is not canflagged or a wartarget.) 0.0 has player enforced consequence if you will. But pvp is the common thread whether you're in High sec, low sec, or 0.0.
Kahega Amielden	Posted - 2008.03.07 23:41:00 - [23] Edited by: Kahega Amielden on 07/03/2008 23:41:41 If EVE isn't full PVP, why have CONCORD at all? They want varying levels of PVP and consequence, they do NOT want no PVP in any area of space. If it wasn't full PVP, they would simply disable attacking in hisec
Le Xu	Posted - 2008.03.07 23:43:00 - [24] I'm not arguing for 100% safe. I'm arguing for either 100% unsafe or kill rights against gankers for those who have positive CONCORD faction. If you want to gank, gank. Then get ready for more PvP when you undock.
Le Xu	Posted - 2008.03.07 23:53:00 - [25] It's the varying level of consequence that is out of whack with the current system since insurance pay outs are flat and decoupled from the progressive security system. I like having consequence in the game. I think it is a vital element. The kill rights for CONCORD "allies" idea would add player made consequences that would mean more PvP.
Ghengis Gone	Posted - 2008.03.08 00:06:00 - [26] You are all over the place, Le Xu. All you want is for the kill rights system to be expanded so that kill rights can be traded or bounty hunters can hunt criminals in high sec or whatever. That is a completely fine idea, lots of poeple have had it and I would love to see it. But bringing up un-relevant topics like the tournament and the fairness of eve pvp and suicide ganking makes your actual point lost in a sea of random thoughts.
Le Xu	Posted - 2008.03.08 00:10:00 - [27] Ungdall, if the solution is for the carebears to suicide back and CCP have already taken care of it and everything is working perfectly, why haven't they? Have the miners whose ships you destroyed now moved operations to low sec as you wanted? You guys put a lot of effort into your plan. Is it working?
Deatra Cl'oth	Posted - 2008.03.08 00:15:00 - [28] Real life this, Real life that blah blah blah. If it was like real life those people who ganked would be thrown in jail for life for murder. While most of us understand that 'No Where is safe'. There is a point when you have to stand back and say "Wow, Hi Sec is worse than Low sec and 0.0 is safer than Low sec." Something with this just isn't right... A lot of 0.0 corps and Low-Sec corps Mine in Hi Sec and Mission run in Hi Sec; not saying all of them do or a vast majority does, just some of them do with alts. Everyone cries about Hi Sec mission runners and Miners, how they make so much without risk... Well I have news for you, 0.0 ratting beats the hell out of Missioning and Mining and you can make much much more with little to no risk. Just think about one thing, the miners are the people who mine the ore to build the ships you gank with. The mission runners are the ones who find the named items you fit to gank with. If it wasn't for them most of that crap wouldn't be there to be had. Oh BTW, the biggest carebears are the people who gank like [Tri] and such. No risk at all... insurance pay out for their ships and all they have to do it sit and wait for a CNR or another ship to gank. Fire all weapons, wait for concord response, loose ship get insurance payout, watch buddy in hauler go around grab all loot, wash and repeat and then say five times 'I'm not a carebear.' and hope someone is listening. Yes, I posted with an alt, it doesn't make it any less true. Now all you wanna be pirates, that can't hack it in low sec and 0.0, can cry and moan and complain. Let the looser flames begin.
Le Xu	Posted - 2008.03.08 00:20:00 - [29] Fair enough. I probably should have narrowed the point down faster. I was just addressing the issue from a variety of different perspectives and trying to emphasize why it's a good idea using current events as examples.
hydraSlav Synergy Evolved Daisho Syndicate	Posted - 2008.03.08 00:25:00 - [30] Originally by: Akita T Let's make an analogy here. Just because people can fight in a boxing match for prizes, that means everybody can, should and will just settle their differences in a box match, and in reality, no murders, thefts or plain old violence actually exist ? Ok, not the best analogy, but you get the idea. That about sums it up == Above comments are my personal views Oveur >Local shouldn't be a tactical tool, it's for chat

Pages: [1] 2 :: 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.