EVE Search - Ganking - Serious Crime, Serious Consequence

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Ganking - Serious Crime, Serious Consequence

» 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)
Crystalis Tadaruwa State War Academy Caldari State 0	Posted - 2012.04.15 19:07:00 - [1] - Quote Greetings. I tried to look anything similar related to ganking but I couldn't find any and I don't know does CCP have interest changing how this works, so don't burn me for this. Basically my idea is to add more weight to consequence for ganking someone in high-sec. Currently we have no insurance payout and some security standing loss penalty for illegal action such as ganking. For me it feels like its nothing while other side, the one who is being ganked, most likely loses their hundreds of millions worth of ship (Hulk, Mackinaw...) and gets no justice for the crime performed. So here are my suggestions what Concord could do to make it more disfavor for the gankers: (you can pick one or both) 1. Training Time Freeze I would imagine this really discourages gankers to destroy T2 ships or/and freighters illegally in high-sec for easy salvage and loot. Training freeze could be around 5 to 14 days. 2. Monetary Compensation To The Victim Title says it all. Price could be taken from database for how much victim lost or set default price to be sufficient for all basic high sec losses. Does conflict if ganker has no money. Perhaps applying training freeze if ganker doesn't pay? Now many of you might think "But making trial accounts is easy way to go around this!" Indeed. So my additional suggestion would be to prevent trial accounts from performing illegal action(s). Mostly ganking, perhaps ninja-looting also so they can't go into mission and steal anything to extort with. My two cents. - Crystalis
Wolodymyr Breaking Ambitions Solid Foundation 117	Posted - 2012.04.15 19:24:00 - [2] - Quote In before the flames start up....... Eve is a harsh universe. You shouldn't be safe, even in highsec. If you don't want to get ganked don't mine in a system right next to lowsec, fit a tank on your ship, and safe up when 4-5 flashy reds all jump in system at the same time. Or go be pets / renters of some nullsec alliance. Oh yeah and trashing your sec status and not being able to make jita runs on your own is a big hassle. Try losing some sec status yourself and try living like that for a while.
leviticus ander CATO.nss 145	Posted - 2012.04.15 19:28:00 - [3] - Quote no, ganking is a somewhat integral part of EVE.
Avila Cracko 336	Posted - 2012.04.15 19:38:00 - [4] - Quote ganking must be there, even i say that, so it cant be punished too hard. but it need to be harder than today. but one your point i fully support. remove ability of doing illegal actions from trial accounts!!! and remove ability to biomass chars that have engaged in illegal activities in the last 6 months. I would like to hear things against this if anyone have any. If you gank, gank with real character. truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
ShahFluffers Ice Fire Warriors Late Night Alliance 545	Posted - 2012.04.15 19:53:00 - [5] - Quote The premise of your idea is wrong. Ganking IS an intended game mechanic. What high sec is supposed to provide is higher penalties (relative to low sec) for engaging in "illegal aggression"... which hopefully dissuades the general rabble of the game from doing it left and right without completely preventing dedicated people who have found a way to earn a living doing it. As for the cost disparity between ganker and gankee ships... you'll find that this trend extends into actual combat ships as well. A basic t1 frigate has the capacity to completely lock down a ship thousands of times it's sizes and value with a single mod. Change isn't bad... but it isn't always good. Somtimes, the oldest and most simple of things can be the most elegant and effective.
Danika Princip Freelance Economics Astrological resources Tactical Narcotics Team 378	Posted - 2012.04.15 20:16:00 - [6] - Quote Ganks have always been a part of eve. Ganks will always be a part of eve. There are steps you can take to make yourself a less attractive target, how about you try those before you demand the game be changed to suit your whims?
Katerwaul The Scope Gallente Federation 2	Posted - 2012.04.15 21:44:00 - [7] - Quote Avila Cracko wrote: ganking must be there, even i say that, so it cant be punished too hard. But it need to be harder than today. remove ability of doing illegal actions from trial accounts!!! and remove ability to biomass chars that have engaged in illegal activities in the last 6 months. I would like to hear things against this if anyone have any. If you gank, gank with real character. So this proposes an interesting "solution" to ganking. I'd like to second the idea of a biomass lockdown for illegal activities by a character. Rather than removing illegal actions from trial accounts I'd propose a greater sec status penalty for illegal actions. I'd imagine that concord will be watching the newest members of the capsuler community more closely & respond more drastically to hostile action until they had worked their way past the trial period. Working with everyone to improve New Eden -- Internet Spaceships Iz Serious Business.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 6104	Posted - 2012.04.15 22:21:00 - [8] - Quote Crystalis Tadaruwa wrote: For me it feels like its nothing while other side, the one who is being ganked, most likely loses their hundreds of millions worth of ship (Hulk, Mackinaw...) and gets no justice for the crime performed. Yes you do. People just choose not to make use of it. You're trying to kill legitimate gameplay through meta-gaming punishments. This is completely nonsensical, ridiculously excessive, solves nothing, and serves no purpose whatsoever. In short: no. 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¥ Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants.
Serge Bastana GWA Corp 317	Posted - 2012.04.15 23:21:00 - [9] - Quote The training freeze sounds incredibly petty, you're stopping actual character progression just because you're upset about falling prey to valid game play. That's not the kind of thing I would want to see happen to any player. WoW holds your hand until end game, and gives you a cookie whether you win or lose. EVE not only takes your cookie, but laughs at you for bringing one in the first place...
Crystalis Tadaruwa State War Academy Caldari State 0	Posted - 2012.04.15 23:41:00 - [10] - Quote First of all, I made this suggestion for CCP, as some point they seemed to care to reduce favorability of the ganking. If CCP rejects this suggestion then they reject it and life goes on like before. I didn't make this suggestion for your sake, I made it for sake of all the miners Danika Princip wrote: There are steps you can take to make yourself a less attractive target, how about you try those before you demand the game be changed to suit your whims? I have lost mining ship only once and that was back in 2009 so I would hardly say I am "DEMANDING the game to be changed to suit my whims", and I have "few steps" how not to be target for gankers. Doubt you would be interested in those anyway since you already know all about it Tippia wrote: You're trying to kill legitimate gameplay through (1) meta-gaming punishments. This is (2) completely nonsensical, (3) ridiculously excessive, solves nothing, and serves no purpose whatsoever. (1) I suppose its matter of perspective. You might see it as "meta-gaming" as it ruins ganker-player's fun to ruin someone else's fun, while I see it as "IC action, IC punishment (2) How come "completely nonsensical"? If you burn someone's home or totally destroy their vehicle intentionally, don't you have to pay compensation or don't you go to jail for it? If you don't tell me where you live, because I wanna go there as well (3) Again, matter of perspective. You think its excessive, solves nothing, and serves no purpose. I can say by same right as you that THAT is totally nonsensical. As title says, real crime real consequence, not just pat in the back "You wouldn't do that again, right Johny?"
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 6104	Posted - 2012.04.15 23:55:00 - [11] - Quote Crystalis Tadaruwa wrote: Tippia wrote: You're trying to kill legitimate gameplay through (1) meta-gaming punishments. This is (2) completely nonsensical, (3) ridiculously excessive, solves nothing, and serves no purpose whatsoever. (1) I suppose its matter of perspective. You might see it as "meta-gaming" as it ruins ganker-player's fun to ruin someone else's fun, while I see it as "IC action, IC punishment It's not a matter of perspective. You're affecting the account for something that is done in-game. That is pretty much the definition of meta-gaming. Quote: (2) How come "completely nonsensical"? If you burn someone's home or totally destroy their vehicle intentionally, don't you have to pay compensation or don't you go to jail for it? It's completely nonsensical because it punishes legitimate gameplay for no good reason. It's nonsensical because it punishes the account for that legitimate gameplay. It's nonsensical because it automates something that you are supposed to do on your own. It's made even more nonsensical by your real-world parallels because they are completely irrelevant. Quote: (3) Again, matter of perspective. You think its excessive, solves nothing, and serves no purpose. I can say by same right as you that THAT is totally nonsensical. It's excessive because (again) you are punishing the account for legitimate gameplay. Unless you also want all gank victims to lose SP for losing their ships (no, not pod GÇö ship, and no clone will help you) then the punishment is completely out of proportion to the supposed GÇ£crimeGÇ¥, because you're removing the one thing from the player that has any value in the game: time. It serves no purpose because (again) you're punishing legitimate gameplay, and there is absolutely no reason to do so since the action already carries a full set of punishments. It also serves no purpose because it doesn't address any kind of problem. 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¥ Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants.
Ganthrithor GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 231	Posted - 2012.04.16 00:44:00 - [12] - Quote Dear OP, Please stop posting, please stop signing your posts.
Corina Jarr Spazzoid Enterprises Purpose Built 670	Posted - 2012.04.16 02:08:00 - [13] - Quote Crystalis Tadaruwa wrote: First of all, I made this suggestion for CCP... Then why did you put it in here? Mild joking aside, the only reason to post anything on the forums is to get player reviewed. If you want CCP only to see it, you send them an Email. As for you suggestion, it is way over the top.
Diken Buht Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 0	Posted - 2012.04.16 05:37:00 - [14] - Quote I agree with OP fully. Good on you m8 for posting on these forums with your suggestion, I salute you. o7 EVE online way too hard for simple empire dwellers. For too long have the imperial fatcats come and killed our mining ships with no consequence other than losing everything involved with the gank! it's EMPIRE! I shouldnt be forced to fit tank on my Covetor just to mine! THAT AFFECTS IT's MINING ISK PER HOUR! CCP Is incompetent just like CONCORD. If they cant keep me safe than what am I doing!?!?!?!?!?!? If CCP Wont fix this so called "Concord" and make empire safe like it should be, I'm going back to my old toonies on Warcrack. You should all come with me!
Wolodymyr Breaking Ambitions Solid Foundation 118	Posted - 2012.04.16 06:29:00 - [15] - Quote Diken Buht wrote: For too long have the imperial fatcats come and killed our mining ships Not every misfortune that befalls you in pubbie space can be blamed on distant nullsec empires that honestly don't care if you exist. Diken Buht wrote: it's EMPIRE! I shouldnt be forced to fit tank on my Covetor just to mine! THAT AFFECTS IT's MINING ISK PER HOUR! Wow risk vs reward actually exists in highsec, I am honestly surprised. Fit a tank and don't die as much, or fit mining mods and get a better yield but risk ganks. Diken Buht wrote: I'm going back to my old toonies on Warcrack. You should all come with me! I was about to ask if I can have your stuff..... but I get the impression that you are space-poor.
Sphit Ker Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 92	Posted - 2012.04.16 06:31:00 - [16] - Quote Very little short of smartbombing a dozen capsules at once sports problematic consequences. I agree ganking is rather easy and the consequences are easily shrugged off for the most part. Maybe there is room for improvements here? However, stop calling the adults for help when you can't deal with the world by yourself. It's a big universe; you can be somewhere else, you are not alone and there is plenty of guns to play with so shut up, stand up and dance.
Wow'you're Goonie Eighty Joule Brewery Goonswarm Federation 0	Posted - 2012.04.16 06:38:00 - [17] - Quote Posting in a troll thread.
Barbie D0ll Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 50	Posted - 2012.04.16 06:42:00 - [18] - Quote there is in fact very little you can do to defend against suicide ganks or to GET EVEN. gankers tend to have either nothing or very little to take, the most valuable thing they usually have on that account is the ship they just ganked you with. and if you do decide to "exercise" your kill rights, you get to spend a significant amount of time and energy (as well as a massive opportunity cost, you could have made 100 mil isk during that time) to track them down to some remote area on the other side of the universe with him in some cheap ass ship worth 10% of the ship you currently have. you decide to engage. usually either two things happen ship goes pop, and you wasted your time/isk on popping their **** ass ship, and they move on like NOTHING HAPPENED. or Suddenly not-so-neutral-RR comes flying out of nowhere to lend their assistance as well as a various other friends of the enemy come to bump you to prevent you from escaping while your "prey" comes back in a much bigger ship and hands your ass too you, they ransom your ship, you pay, they pop you anyways. and to add insult to injury, they had a smartbombing ship nearby to suicide gank your pod. either you get your satisfaction by destroying a **** ass ship OR you get your ass handed to you by an untouchable alliance of friends and alts
Gerrick Palivorn Caldari Provisions Caldari State 233	Posted - 2012.04.16 06:49:00 - [19] - Quote Mmmm... Nothing like Trolls getting Flamed in the morning :)
Crystalis Tadaruwa State War Academy Caldari State 0	Posted - 2012.04.16 08:40:00 - [20] - Quote Also, all of those who are concerned with 'meta-game' issue and 'only precious thing in game: time' please take a look at "small" print between "So here are my suggestions what Concord could do to make it more disfavor for the gankers:" "1. Training Time Freeze" What does it say? Can you please read it out loud to yourself so you might understand it?
Gerrick Palivorn Caldari Provisions Caldari State 234	Posted - 2012.04.16 09:24:00 - [21] - Quote So what you want to do is force suicide ganking to be more of an alt activity than it was before. Because thats all that training time freeze is going to do. People are going to train the suicide alt to whatever skills they want it at, and never train another skill again on that character. There I've effectively defeated you idea with no effort. If you want the freeze to be account wide, no that is meta-gaming and will not help anyone.
Krzhk The Arrow Project CORE. 0	Posted - 2012.04.16 09:41:00 - [22] - Quote Wolodymyr wrote: Diken Buht wrote: For too long have the imperial fatcats come and killed our mining ships Not every misfortune that befalls you in pubbie space can be blamed on distant nullsec empires that honestly don't care if you exist. Diken Buht wrote: it's EMPIRE! I shouldnt be forced to fit tank on my Covetor just to mine! THAT AFFECTS IT's MINING ISK PER HOUR! Wow risk vs reward actually exists in highsec, I am honestly surprised. Fit a tank and don't die as much, or fit mining mods and get a better yield but risk ganks. Diken Buht wrote: I'm going back to my old toonies on Warcrack. You should all come with me! I was about to ask if I can have your stuff..... but I get the impression that you are space-poor. You sir, have been successfully trolled.Diken Buht, nice move.
bornaa GRiD. 210	Posted - 2012.04.16 10:20:00 - [23] - Quote About sec status penalty. I would like that there is progression in sec status loss. If you gank one ship in the last year or so you loose like now. If you gank two, you loose 50% more of sec status. And every other gank the next one will cost you 50% more of sec status. This way you can gank, but you cant grief. That Ain't Right
Zalifer Esepula Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 5	Posted - 2012.04.16 11:08:00 - [24] - Quote Your premise is wrong. Ganking is allowed. The removal of insurance was fair enough, I suppose, but whatever. If you don't like ganking, don't do it, and play safe.
Mag's the united Negative Ten. 7398	Posted - 2012.04.16 11:32:00 - [25] - Quote Zalifer Esepula wrote: Your premise is wrong. Ganking is allowed. The removal of insurance was fair enough, I suppose, but whatever. If you don't like ganking, don't do it, and play safe. This. We all knew the insurance removal wouldn't be enough. How about you make a post listing all the things you can do to avoid being ganked, instead of trying to force meta gaming on people who are already punishing the lazy? CCP Zulu..... Forcing players to dock at the captain's quarters is a form of what we actually wanted to get through, which is making Incarna a seamless part of the EVE Online experience.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 6110	Posted - 2012.04.16 12:24:00 - [26] - Quote Crystalis Tadaruwa wrote: Also, all of those who are concerned with 'meta-game' issue and 'only precious thing in game: time' please take a look at "small" print between "So here are my suggestions what Concord could do to make it more disfavor for the gankers:" "1. Training Time Freeze" What does it say? Can you please read it out loud to yourself so you might understand it? Counter-tip: read the first of those sentences and then ask yourself why on earth that should happen. Then read what you wrote under points 1. and 2. out loud so you might understand why neither of them makes sense because it's completely over the top in terms of punishment for legitimate gameplay, and downright ridiculous effects for coming out as the winner of a fight. Your GÇ£small printGÇ¥ doesn't change the excessive nature of what you're asking for because it doesn't include the sensible option GÇ£neitherGÇ¥. 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¥ Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants.
Quade Warren Urban Mining Corp Rising Phoenix Alliance 16	Posted - 2012.04.16 13:12:00 - [27] - Quote Story-wise, any of your solutions could be implemented. CONCORD regulates the communications networks and may have a deal with entities who have a large stake in Empire. There are several ways to avoid the meta-game aspect by twisting it into a storyline solution by CONCORD. Here's my biggest problem, though. I sympathize with your plight. The risk vs reward ratio for a ganker is not very high. Hell, it's probably not even one and that is the problem. Why is this not very high, though? The gankee doesn't make it high. You have recognized that you are easy prey because your mining ship cannot defend itself. It was never intended to. I believe, wholeheartedly, that what CCP would rather have happen would be that you and other players fight fire with fire. Get a group of players for PVP support, organize and plan with some frigs and destroyers, fit some EWAR mods and give your miners some time to escape before CONCORD shows up and takes you both out. Do it in alts just like them. This IS a pain, but if neither CCP nor CONCORD can defend you, you MUST defend yourself. Don't solo mine, but plan mining excursions with large groups and make yourselves unattractive. Have logi support. This can be overcome, it just requires some in game wheeling and dealing. If you can do this and prove to CCP that you cannot even defend yourself because of game mechanics, then they will have more reason to listen.
Jorma Morkkis State War Academy Caldari State 17	Posted - 2012.04.16 13:28:00 - [28] - Quote Wolodymyr wrote: You shouldn't be safe, even in highsec. My covert ops frigate would like to have word with you.
Nikk Narrel Infinite Improbability Inc Mordus Angels 225	Posted - 2012.04.16 13:49:00 - [29] - Quote I dunno, ganking should happen, it's legitimate in the game. That being said, Concord is not an effective deterrent towards this, not currently. If you want to balance it, make the gank a status change that makes the player an instant target to the authorities, not just after repeated offenses. They want to be acknowledged as law enforcement? Give them power to enforce. The price to restore security status is clearly written on the killmail, under total value. Hop in that pod, and visit a Concord station to pay your fine, instant status restoration. If they don't want to pay the price, they are free to remain outlaws to Concord. (The insurance company lobbyists pushed this in order to cut losses in ships in high security space)
Verity Sovereign Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic 157	Posted - 2012.04.16 14:17:00 - [30] - Quote #1) Make players with low sec status shootable by other players without concord intervention, at higher (but still negative) sec status. ie, if your sec status means that NPCs will chase you in 1.0 and 0.9 systems, let other players shoot at you without consequence in 1.0 to 0.7 systems. #2) Make ganker's pods valid targets for other players and NPC police (perhaps not concord, but faction navies that show up a bit after concord?) #3) Don't allow people with low sec status to dock in stations in high sec - if they get shot at in 0.8 and higher, don't allow them to dock in 0.7 and higher - perhaps have this modified by faction standings (ie if the Gallente really like you, you can dock in some Gallente stations even if you are an outlaw that isn't that wanted by the law). #4) Don't allow people with very very low sec status (-10.0) to use gates into 1.0 space. You'd still be vulnerable to suicide gankers, but repeat offenders would find themselves locked out of the "secure" systems - as the gates won't activate for them. - perhaps allow cynos to be lit in high sec space, but it is a concordable offense - now you'd need someone to suicide just to get the -10.0 pirates into the system *any capital that enters via a cyno gets concorded, I doubt anyone has the ISK to waste to try suicide ganks in capital ships.

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.