strong text I was ganked my first day back. I was on my new toon moving all my old stuff from my old main and my atls to Jita. got popped by a Tornado/Scorpion combo. how do they manage to avoid Cent guns and Concord? I remember a day back in 03 when CCP jumped into Concord Battleships and chased m0o corp all over EvE in a running battle…mOo got the message and stopped ganking in empire space. Maybe that should happen again till they figure out a more permanent solution?
1 Like
They didn’t evade CONCORD - they did the math on your ship being worth more than theirs and accepted the guaranteed loss of their ship to CONCORD as the price of stealing your stuff. They killed your ship before CONCORD arrived and 1-shot their ship into oblivion. Knowing game mechanics lets them plan their attacks effectively.
1 Like
" before CONCORD arrived" CONCORD was already there, The Tornado was right under the gate with the scorp. Concord all around them. but yeah one shot me…while I was in warp…didn’t see what the after math was.
People use tornados when they want to one-volley you.
Well when I left EvE in 09 this was only happening in low sec or null sec space. As I have been playing solidly now since 09 of last month I have seen the Scorpion boosting Tornado combo all over Empire space. So what you guys are saying is this:
1 Scorp sensor boosts Tornado at gate.
2 Target hauler is prescanned prior to gate camp determined to be target
3 The Tornado pops target hauler…alts pick up loot…Tornado gets popped by CONCORD alts pick up can and rinse repeat!
Emergent gameplay. Pretty neat, huh?
Me thinks it’s time to go old school EvE for a solution.
In old school Eve, you would put something juicy in your ship, let them scan it - then dock up and refit with a brick tank and an empty cargohold - then hope they take the bait. If they do, they will get killed by Concord, plus you will get a killright* so you can come back and kill them again later.
*I’m not sure if killrights are working right now.
Yeah they are. I have 5 days left on mine.
Utter nonsense. Highsec ganking has been happening in EVE since day one.
Garbage. Try it in a starter system and see how long before CCP permanently bans you.
It needs a nerf because the ganker always chooses the engagement, safe in knowing the numbers on their likelihood of coming out on top. It also needs a nerf because the punishment is a mere slap on the wrist without meaningful consequence.
Not true. Things do die in Eve due to causes other than PvP.
Triglavian space anyone?
Wars were not a problem in CCP’s opinion either for over 15 years.
CCP ran the numbers on it ages ago and the result was some BS that it improved player retention. The problem here is metrics. It is hard to trust CCP metrics, when it takes 15 years to realise war declarations are broken. Its hard to trust that when a player was ganked, they were able to communicate this succinctly to CCP in a way that ensured it was recorded as such. Its hard to trust CCP, who have acknowledge that the DBS and the Mining rebalance is extremely unpopular, but are going to do it anyway,
When I got ganked the first time I’d already payed for 90 days of sub time, I did not loose that much, but it wasn’t enough to quit, or submit a ticket to CCP to say 'Hey, this mechanic is terrible, do something." and no doubt, there are many more who just did the same thing, ignorantly allowing the status quo to continue.
It should not be up to the players to get CCP to do something when CCP have access to all the data required.
Bullies and braggarts. This is where ganking needs a nerf. Either increase the effort required, or increase the consequence, as it stands extremely antisocial players ( that prat in a thrasher, “Aaaarg” for example ) that are repeat offenders operate with impunity. It is interesting to see that in the new Triglavian space, those with poor standings aren’t able to move around and are actively targeted by Triglavian forces. If only CONCORD got a clue and prevented low security status players from navigating high security gates, or actively shot them, there would be actual consequences.
EHP is down thanks to the resistance changes earlier in the year… The route between Amarr and Jita got a serious extension and when a Sansha Incursion showed up along that new chokepoint in a 0.5 system, it did not take long before the delinquents to show up and start ganking stuff.
Hopefully there will be some elaboration on that later.
Require yellow safety to target those outside of the fleet. Yellow safety in high security space is instant suspect. Problem solved, and there is a benefit of more PvP.
One of the CCP dev’s did a presentation before Fozzisov. To paraphrase “Some in the game figured out the rules and have been able to ‘win’ the game, so now, we are changing the rules.”.
Here we go, this guy gets it.
Ding! After concord shows up and creates a brand new wreckage, killrights are the only means of redress after, and at that, they are a one-time only affair without a garuntee that the person will actually loose anything of value.
Perhaps killirights would be a lot more useful, if instead of a suspect flag, it simply triggered concord to blow the offender up again?
Yeah, but that’s like Gulliver having banana’s and kiwi fruit thrown at him by the Lilliputians.
Want to shoot stuff? Isn’t low security space full of miners now?
There is a big area called Null, or Wormhole space if you like places where the monsters that hide in closets come from.
Took CCP that long to figure out wars. Even if it takes 32 years to fix ganking, it’ll be worth the wait.
There’s an idea. Ganking causes an account to stop training, or if its an alpha and already not training, loose SP? Too much? That’s how T3 cruisers work though?
So was mining, until it got turbo industrialised to the point of breaking the game. Ganking is moving along the same path, its almost reduced to a mathematical formula of punching a cargo scan into eveprasial and checking if the EHP from the ship-scan in pyfa is low enough for the gank-squad to push over.
Look at the blockade runners. Cargo expanders go in the lows, leaving only mids for tank. A sigil has two mids, where the caldari has like 5. CCP might as well just remove all the transport ships that suck and stick the good ones under ORE industrials.
Ever watch “Yes minister?” and it would become apparent that a survey can say anything you want it to say, with the right questions.
An impel has two mids and 7 lows. Is it better for moving stuff than the other DST’s? Hell no.
Incarceration or Exile must be the punishments then, neither of which the current mechanics do.
Actually that isn’t too bad a compromise.
Non-Consensual PvP in starters systems gets a ban. You consent to that when you log in too.
It would be nice if there was a punishment longer that 15 minutes in the very least.
Another mechanic that needs to be thrown out.
How about both?
Oh really? Starter systems. Shoot rookie ships at random. Wait for GM.
Jita 4-4 doing project discovery. Come at me bro.
Clerks 2 quote, Its not beastiality, its “Interspecies Erotica”. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
This should be a bannable offence.
This is EVE. There was a vocal crowd falling over themselves for blackout while the rest of us logged of and waited for CCP to get a clue.
Botting is bad, even botters admit it is bad. 
I call this the ‘trash doctrine’. Trash ships scale DPS better than expensive ships for the very reasons you highlight.
It takes a long time for 50 alts to mine themselves into profit, a lot of work. To bot 50 accounts with the old ‘ISKBoxer’ to kill one ship with input broadcasting? Instant profit.
controlling 25 ships via input broadcasting violates the EULA, but having 25 people and telling them to fire at the same time over discord is not.
Is it a violation to have 25 Mac computers on voice activation and shout through a megaphone “Siri, lock target and push F1” ? How do you even tell if I am doing that?
Doesn’t the EULA violations include acts that degrade server performance? If I run 100 accounts at a time by myself, surely the load on the node is non-trivial?
Sad but true.
“Siri, keep mining that ice while I do a poo poo.”
Is it though, when PLEX prices are affected and the rorqual changes tanked the prices of ships to the point that were are now in this ‘scarcity’ phase of economic redistribution?
Freighters came into the game because stuff started to get too big to move in a battleship.
Back to Rokh’s filled with cargo expanders?
Thieves and looters are probably busy doing things other than petitioning for criminal justice reforms.
Ding! Like companies that dump toxic waste into the waterways, because the fine is less than having to deal with the problem properly.
So those T1 ships that just hang out along the trade route chokepoints locking ships up at random and just, what? Looking for kill marks?
Its like talking to St Peter at the pearly gates after you get robbed and you get asked “How did you die?” and you say “Piss off, this game sucks, I don’t want to talk about it” and he writes down “other”.
One poor retriever surrounded by catalysts and they can’t even dial 911 until the first bullet passes through their cranium. Requiring yellow safety and suspect status to target entities outside of a fleet would at least allow a defensive fleet the opportunity to shoot first as well.
Probably not, no.
Sad but true.
Which is why the punishments need to change, so that the consequence is exponential.
If they have -10.0 security status, and keep doing what they are doing, where’s the consequence?
Just like when that Pokemon game came out and the gangs started robbing people with their fancy phones at the monuments.
If you’ve had a killright with 5 days left on the clock, that means nobody shot you and killed your sorry ass for the past 25, right?
Doesn’t sound like they are working to me…
I was aware of the prohibition against attacking newbros in and around starter systems when I made the assertion, and I stand by it still. Vets can’t target newbros in starter systems, but (1) other newbros can, and do, fight on occasion and (2) newbros can still lose ships to PvE dangers (especially to things like difficult event sites spawns and getting sent into trigliavian occupied systems). In short, not even rookie systems are safe. They are SAFER, but not safe.
Wut? All hunters chose the engagement. By that logic, all hunting needs a nerf.
I say that you should try ganking in order to gain greater insight into the issue, and you respond by asserting something wrong about ganking. Yeah… so anyway… this is false. Profit minded gankers will try to attack targets when they think that they can succeed, but there is never a guarantee. They will sometimes take on targets where the outcome is uncertain, and things can go wrong even when they think the kill is in the bag (i.e. white knight interferes, someone DC’s, poor execution, SOMEONE STEALS THE LOOT -WHICH IS SOMETHING THAT GANKER HATERS NEVER SEEM TO CONSIDER). Honestly, it’s not any different than what most players tend to do. Most players tend to avoid engagements that they think that they will lose most of the time, and take engagements that they think they can win. I mean, most of us try not to regularly throw our ships away.
I could keep discussing this with you, but I’m losing interest. You can’t even be arsed to learn about the thing you’re trying to discuss, and you seem intent on advocating for balance changes based on a bad logic and a flawed and incomplete understanding of ganking. The truth of the matter is that the bulk of player base has nothing to fear from ganking most of the time (naturally, events that increase loot drop rates will greatly widen a ganker’s engagement profile). Profitable ganking relies on people making stupid decisions. It requires some combination of greed, laziness, impatience, and ignorance. Yes, those are qualities that other PvP’ers will try to exploit as well, but they are not necessary for other such hunters to succeed. You think ganking needs to be nerfed, but it doesn’t. The only thing you have to do in order to protect yourself from ganks is to stop being an idiot. Moreover, further nerfs will achieve nothing save for make HS safer and safer even for the idiots.
Ugh, I have wasted too much time on this reply, and your combination of aggressiveness, bad logic, and willful ignorance rubs me the wrong way.
I guess that’s one way to restart a thread, responding to everyone at once.
4 Likes
Does anybody read posts like that? It is like reading somebody’s to-do list.
1 Like
That wasn’t a survey. It was a statistic about if players actual player behavior. You know, CCP can actually see what you do in their game, they don’t have to rely on some carebear lies on the forums.
There are hundreds of different ships for various different tasks, which can even be fitted for more specialization. If you can’t build something out of that rich toolbox that allows you to survive easily in highsec of all places, something like 99.999% of all players probably have zero issue with… then you are probably just too dumb for this game.
It’s absolutely fine to gank people in starter system and I absolutely do so when I’m near one. Just not the brand new players that do the tutorial.
I don’t consider someone playing a game for more than two weeks a “new player” and CCP probably doesn’t either.
Yeah, not going to bother replying to cherry-picked arguments out of a comprehensive reply. Especially not in a massive wall-of-text post where you can’t even be bothered to group related components together.
1 Like
So what you are saying is that CCP has a clearly defined area with specific rules where you are not allowed to gank.
ahem that would suggest that ganking is therefore legal in systems without such a ban.
Only because the defender is typically an oblivious idiot, flying their expensive loot crate right into the attacker’s preferred ganking system. The defender has tools of their own for avoiding the attack, if they bother to use them.
It also needs a nerf because the punishment is a mere slap on the wrist without meaningful consequence.
The attacker is already 100% guaranteed to lose all of the ships the use for the attack. What more meaningful consequences do you want?
Things do die in Eve due to causes other than PvP.
Very rarely. Once you get out of your clueless newbie stage and learn how the game works PvE losses are negligible and almost always due to out-of-game factors (network disconnects, playing while drunk, etc). EVE’s PvE content just isn’t that challenging, and without PvP losses EVE’s economy would grind to a halt.
It is hard to trust CCP metrics, when it takes 15 years to realise war declarations are broken.
Wars were not broken. CCP just decided to prioritize pandering to F2P cash shop whales over good game design. The “problems” with wars were 100% player created and the solution was terrible. Instead CCP should have told the whiners to STFU and learn how to deal with wars, as they had done for 15 years.
Its hard to trust that when a player was ganked, they were able to communicate this succinctly to CCP in a way that ensured it was recorded as such.
There is no communication required. CCP did this analysis based on server logs of PvP ship losses, not players talking to CCP.
When I got ganked the first time I’d already payed for 90 days of sub time, I did not loose that much, but it wasn’t enough to quit, or submit a ticket to CCP to say 'Hey, this mechanic is terrible, do something." and no doubt, there are many more who just did the same thing, ignorantly allowing the status quo to continue.
So you experienced a loss and continued playing. What’s your point? Why do you think that this demonstrates that there is a problem that needs to be fixed?
Here’s your problem. Stop fitting maximum cargo fits that sacrifice EHP to make your ship more valuable. You’re just like all of the other whiny highsec farmers, doing the dumbest possible things and then demanding more nerfs to PvP so you don’t have to learn how to succeed.
1 Like
Starter Systems
-
Amarr
- Chaven
- Sehmy
- Emrayur
-
Caldari
- Kisogo
- Todaki
- Amsen
-
Gallente
- Duripant
- Bourynes
- Cistuvaert
-
Minmatar
- Ammold
- Ryddinjorn
- Hulm
Career Agent systems
-
Amarr
- Deepari
- Pasha
- Conoban
-
Caldari
- Uitra
- Jouvulen
- Akiainavas
-
Gallente
- Couster
- Clellinon
- Trossere
-
Minmatar
- Hadaugago
- Malukker
- Embod
Sisters of EVE Epic Arc
Given the variety of systems this arc can take place in, players are asked to refrain from any form of griefing to rookie players (30 days old or less) in mission sites and systems associated with the arc. Such griefing involves but is not limited to; destroying, stealing or ransoming mission critical items.
This Epic Arc mainly leads rookies to the following systems:
- Arnon
- Manarq
- Tar
- Harerget
- Hatakani
- Chainelant
- Hek
- Lustrevik
- Tanoo
- Lisudeh
- Sosh
as long as you are ganking anywhere but there, then yes you can gank anywhere… those areas are all off limits.
As seen above, Yes players at two weeks are still considered “new”. 30 days old or less.
1 Like
Think of it as a forum AoE weapon. Threads I find interesting I read all the way though, I learn more than way.
If only I was an ISD, I might actually get something for doing it.
There was nice little video CCP did about how every month an entire village of people try eve, and quit. No doubt the real fear is if the rules change even a little away from the status quo, then the demographics of the player base start to change, which may create a feedback loop of more changes, where this kind toxicity is far less tolerated than it is at present.