Very naughty
2 Likes
Wrong. Only capsuleers who are 30 days or less. Anybody else is fair game.
5 Likes
All that wasted time
1 Like
Unless they are part of a corp that is at war, then they’re a viable target anywhere and at any time including day 1 in a career system. This includes FW.
2 Likes
Do you not have any counter arguments for the points raised?
Gankers always get to choose the time and place of the engagement. Even if they only get to shoot once, once is usually enough to kill the target before it can shoot back, so its disingenuous to think there is any kind of counterplay to an alpha strike.
Longer term, the loss of security status is so slow and so easy to mitigate with ISK, that it is trivially easy for an established player to continuously harass another. CCP rules put the onus on the victim to move at least five jumps before this behaviour will be recognised as harassment via a ticket, though again only an established player will know those rules and the player doing the harassment can simply use a different account to purse the victim further.
Its not a question of if this behaviour is happening, its a question of how much…
1 Like
This is the crux of the matter. Whatever opinions are held by players, the Company has decided that suicide-ganking is supported (in terms of mechanics) in Highsec.
I have seen many comments about the unfairness of it all, especially those that assert that ganking does not attract sufficiently harsh punishments.
However, CCP clearly does not wish to discourage ganking - which would be the effect of more severe punishments - but rather to balance the activity by giving targets a slew of means to avoid being ganked.
I think someone else arrived at a figure of 0.1% of kills in Highsec, but since I don’t know who or how they arrived at the figure, I leave it at that. No doubt, if it were seriously disruptive, CCP would act in its own best interests.
There is clearly something about ganking and/or gankers that you don’t like. But we all have to live with things we dislike, don’t we?
1 Like
not really useful.
Since suicide gankers then die and can pull concord.
Yes, I was necessarily vague there. I think it was either Syzygium or Uriel the Flame - who appear to me to be level-headed, diligent people - but, in any case, I think my point stands: If the incidence of suicide-ganking in Highsec was a problem for CCP, we might expect it to attract the Company’s urgent attention.
That the activity appears to be a problem for some commentators here (who are rarely the actual victims, I note), is just as unlikely to sway my own opinion as theirs is, mine. (Sorry for the tortuous syntax).
1 Like
But nobody said that the suicide ganking is not allowed.
Your point is either off topic, or plainly wrong.
My point was an explanation on how a part of the current state of the game is toxic, and encourages toxicity since the begining of the game.
And this is, by having people with more alts able to by pass the “high security” space, in a way that the victim can’t do anything about and without any meaningful cost.
And the next answers to my post actually are very good examples of that generated toxicity, with victim blaming, stupid comparisons, etc.
CCP having been accepting that is not the point.
I’m not even saying that suicide ganking should disappear. I’m saying, how it is balanced (it’s not), allowed, performed in many cases is a source of toxicity.
Just go terran, noob. Kayaks can’t spawn in terran space, and xens are quickly dispatched.
Or use L miners and place defense stations at the gates.
There are things you can do. In Eve you can’t increase your squad size. Also the carriers suck.
It is certainly off-topic, Stefnia, but perhaps a moderator or the OP is best placed to decide whether it contributes to the discussion at hand.
As to its being ‘wrong’, I merely made the point that the punishments meted out for suicide-ganking reflect the disposition of the game’s designers and not the various moral positions adopted by some of the comments I’ve read.
Of course they didn’t. My usual point is that some people have expressed the view that suicide ganking should be heavily penalised. The reason they often cite is its alleged ‘toxicity’. The effect of such a move might be to drive suicide gankers out of the game. That is, it would be ‘allowed’, but so heavily circumscribed as to be unattractive to the average gamer.
In the past, when people weren’t so chary about expressing their sincerely held views, it was not uncommon to read statements like ‘ganking needs to be banned in Highsec’.
It is my opinion that new players suffer less at the hands of gankers than they do when they encounter the daunting journey facing them in EVE as a whole.
Simply scattering the word ‘toxic’ around in an effort to cancel your detractors, is as desperate as it is futile. Ah well…
So you say you can’t fix your own errors yourself ?
Otherwise it would be a bug.
This is not addressing any point made.
Indeed if you change things to make them less imbalanced, people are going to suffer from that change, namely the ones abusing the imbalances.
That they decide to leave the game because they can’t be spoon fed an imbalance activity, or decide to make a more balance activity, is their choice . “Choice”, a word that they misuse a lot to justify the maintain of the statu quo.
You are dodging the topic.
Which is, that the imbalance of suicide ganking leads to toxicity.
You are dodging it with personal attacks and slippery slopes.
Even if I am “so chary about expressing their sincerely held views”, does not make my argument invalid. (personal attack)
Even if people leave the game because their imbalanced activity has been nerfed, would not change that this activity is currently imbalanced.(slippery slope)
If you claim that the effect of suicide ganking on the perception of the game as toxic is irrelevant, what evidence do you have ?
I stand by my expressed and sincerely held views, Stefnia. I appreciate the time you’ve taken to respond, but I’m afraid I find many of your remarks impenetrable.
2 Likes
Its conditionally sanctioned.
Its is not that the punishment is not sufficiently harsh, its that the punishment lacks a meaningful consequence.
There was a CCP study that propertied to show ganking increased player engagement, however as its methodology lacked transparency at a bare minimum that assertion fails the classic fallacy of survivor bias. First time I lost a ship to ganking I did not even know that is what it was called, so it is not like I could put that down as a reason for unsubbing.
Valkerie. Gunjack. Direct purchase of ships for money. NFT and pursuit of blockchain with EVE Frontiers. Blackout.
Remove ISK purchasable security status tags. Safety settings other than green in high sec instantly flag as suspect. Non consensual PVP always resets a positive security status to zero, rather than decrementing it.
That does not preclude one from advocating for them to change, as it did with war declarations when CSM asked CCP to pull data showing 5 corporation were doing over %50 of the wars with a 100 to 1 win|loss ratio.
1 Like
This is where it becomes problematic.
When people want rules and regulations that encroach on others for no reason, that annoys people.
A suspect flag for merely having a setting set to something you don’t like is unacceptable to me. I fly with safety off all the time and have zero plans to change that. my cold dead hands etc.
I am against additional rules and punishments for gankers on the basis that your insane dragnet will catch me and many other players who aren’t even the target of your blunt instrument; just passersby getting ■■■■■■ because there are froots nearby.
No. Stop it.
4 Likes
How do you alpha strike a ship that isn’t there? Oh wait, that is counterplay.
Would you like some cheese with your whine?
2 Likes
You aren’t making an ‘argument’ in the first place. You’re just whining about something that has been an established part of the game for years. Have you considered playing Farmville instead ?
No they don’t. I’ve been a ganker and the process is generally very much opportunistic. For most gank fleets there is no ’ we are going to gank player X at 14.53 on Saturday afternoon '. Only the really large ganks involving maybe 20-25 gankers are planned out, often with advance knowledge of cargo and route. And those large fleets are not ganking noobs in Ventures but billions of ISK hauls or ships.
That is just nonsense. The average security loss for a gank is around 0.17 points, which means 3 ganks and you’ve lost 0.5 points. Recovering those 0.5 points costs around 40m ISK in clone soldier tags plus a 6m ISK fee. This is actually more than the cost of the Catalysts that did the ganking and means the average gank costs the ganker around 23m ISK per gank. Every fleet of 4 Catalysts is costing around 100m ISK. Gankers can use cheaper fits…but then those are less effective at ganking.
You can thus see that anyone who’s just ganking even the more expensive 4m ISK noob Ventures ( you can in fact have a Venture up and running for just 400K ISK ) would be losing ISK at a prodigious rate. And in fact, given that a larger mining ship may be 80-90m ISK you can see that the 3 or 4 gankers required to gank it are barely making any profit even if the loot fairy is kind.
Gankers are only really making profit on stuff worth over 100m ISK or so…the larger mining ships and valuable hauls. Any gank group that targeted only noobs in Ventures or cheaper T2 mining ships would go broke pretty fast.
You don’t know what you are talking about. I was ganked once, at the very start of my Eve 3 years ago…and have never been ganked since. And that’s despite me regularly flying ships like a pretty much unarmed Guardian ( 450m ISK worth and easily gankable ) through Uedama numerous times. It really isn’t actually all that hard to avoid being ganked.
What’s more…the cat and mouse of avoiding being ganked is FUN, not ‘harassment’. It is precisely the risk that makes the game worth playing.
3 Likes
How many times over the years does it have to be repeated ? You consent to PvP by the act of undocking. That is your consent. If you don’t like that, then please do go play Farmville instead as you will clearly be much more at home there, and leave Eve for the grown ups.
4 Likes
This. Most of these claims are either outright lies (“the ganked one can do nothing”) or complete exaggerations (“toxic culture”).
The realitiy is: The ganked one has all the cards and mechanics work FOR HIM in Highsec. He can see exactly who is with him in the system, he can use the DScan to see who is nearby and the overview to see who is very close. He can use a fit and ship that makes him an extremly uninteresting target. He can pay attention to the environment, use various tools to spot ganking activity on his route. He can warp out any time. He can be a fast, moving target, almost impossile to get a good warpin to. He can cooperate with other players to make sure he isn’t at an inherit disadvantage against a whole fleet of hostiles. He can move to an area where rarely a ganker is seen in years.
The reality also is: ganking is totally insignificant compared to all the destruction, trade, industry and other player interaction going on in this game. Most people are never ganked even while playing for years. Thousands of ppl travel even through the most camped hotspots of Uedama and Sivala and are not ganked. Thousands are undocking from Jita or Amarr and are never ganked. You could completely forbid ganking or tweak ganking or buff ganking and for the overhwhelming majority of the players exactly nothing would change. The “problem” is completely blown out of proportion.
4 Likes
It’s meaningful to me, for it bears costs which are not insignificant. Beware of generalising when your point is actually personal and specific.
Are you suggesting that low security status should be permanent, irreparable? Or perhaps you favour a return to the earlier system, where status could only be repaired by ratting? Please explain.
This won’t affect gankers but may have consequences for other players, as mentioned above.
Again, this will have no effect on gankers, who often operate at this level or just/far below it.
In short, your suggestions betray an unfamiliarity with the realities of the ganking play style and, perhaps, with Highsec mechanics overall. If I’m wrong, I apologise.
No, Eloken, it does not. But one really ought to think about one’s game-changing suggestions before one seeks to foist them upon the weary denizens of GD. It will save time - and words.
1 Like
Safety settings exist to protect yourself from taking dangerous actions.
They should not have any impact on gameplay aside from stopping you from taking actions that lead to suspect or criminal flags.
Flying with safeties green or red should not be treated any different for how other people see you, it’s just a toggle to help yourself not get blown up by CONCORD accidentally.
6 Likes