The cost of suicide ganking is too low

[Salvos_Rhoska]

@Ima_Wreckyou

@Salvos_Rhoska

I find the AG angle interesting and want to explore whether EVE systemically offers a more efficient method for them to fight gankers. My hypothesis is that if HS mechanics enable ganking, they should also enable a cheaper reaction on the part of a 3rd party associated/aiding the gank target.

So what is your goal here? If the gank fleet has 30 people and 500mil ISK (which will be lost no matter if the gank succeeds or not) in ships on the line then what amount of people and assets would AG have to field?

Im not certain, as I dont completely understand all that is involved yet.

Ideally, rationally, it would be substantially less on the part of AG, as CONCORD will clean out the entire gank fleet anyways, thus rendering their investment a lost cost/cause anyways (regardless of what they take off the target wreck on alts).

Ganking is, after all, a criminal act in HS. It should be cheaper/more efficient for escorts to support a target, than it is to destroy it on the part of the gankers,

The cost to gankers is not material, and is foregone, as the entire participating fleet will be wiped out by CONCORD no matter what. They flush that expenditure down the drain the second the initiate the gank, whether its 30 players for a total 500mil, or any fraction/multiple of that.

Im interested in finding the cheapest option possible so as to swing a gank in favor of the target, such as by a web frigate aiding initiation of warp by a bump target, or logi/ecm to either support the targets EHP or deny dps on it, until CONCORD can reduce the dps of the gank fleet sufficiently for the escorted target to survive the engagement.

TLDR: Destroying the gank fleet is not practical, or necessary. CONCORD will do that anyways, no matter how many players are in it or at what cost to them. Thus the impetus is instead on supporting the gank target either to escape, or survive the engagement until CONCORD wrecks the aggressing gank fleet till their dps is no longer sufficient to destroy the target.

TLDR 2: AG doesnt need to destroy the gank fleet. They only need to keep the target alive long enough for CONCORD to finish the job.

[Dom_Arkaral]

@Jenn_aSide

They can’t adapt to smart players.

Well, they tried but failed

[Sasha_Nemtsov]

@Dom_Arkaral

EVE is a submarine simulation game

…a point-and-click submarine simulation game…

[Fabulous_Rod]

I went through the thread to highlight the more relevant posts and questions posed. Notice how none of these posters are spamming the thread? These are the sensible people. Quality > quantity.

@Mesacc

I agree with OP. EVE is supposed to be all about risk vs reward. Miners risk expensive ships. Gankers risk absolutely nothing. You pop them and they come right back with another disposable ship, only this time you have a war dec on you. Sec status hit is meaningless. EVE needs ganking to a point but there needs to be balance and gankers need to have skin in the game. Something to lose. Something that hurts of they fail.

@Jehle

Yeah its getting them back thats hard. They are often in alts who only gank in cheap ships, they are already constantly running from faction police so are hard to catch, and they rightly wont accept a fleet fight.

@Mesacc

Planned and calculated? i doubt that. Gankers are known to gank empty freighters just for the lols and padding kill boards.

@Divad_Mahdits

It’s not even about monetary gain. Look at CODE for example. They gank so they can just make you lose your assets, to hinder you from getting your own progress; basically they suicide gank for the sake of it. They loose nothing and their victims lose probably everything.

@Abyss_Azizora

While suicide ganking is very much an important mechanic in eve, I do admit he has a point that it’s really damn cheap to do it. It used to cost a lot more to do pre-dessy dps mega-buff, and pre-attack battlecruisers. CCP did a little to help counter this with tanking buffs on the weak freightors, and by removing insurance scams on concord suicides, but it’s still really cheap to do, with almost guaranteed profit.

Honestly though, the only thing that really ticks me off is that you can fix a completely borked security status by throwing isk at it now. Back when you had to grind that crap back up for each suicide alt (Or get banned by biomassing.) it was a lot more work. Bring that back, and the low isk cost to replace suicide ships becomes fairly mute.

@Shallanna_Yassavi

No dedicated suicide ganker alt is going to fly a freighter with a kill right around. Or anything bigger than a cat or a steath bomber, for that matter. Some “I’ll just try it for giggles” types have made that mistake, but none of the usual suspects would.

No, if you want revenge, you have to somehow find a toon the ganker doesn’t want you to find.

@Piugattuk

I agree with the fact that it is so cheap and too easy, one of my Corp mates had a guy with 6 accounts all named in numerical orders gank him, so one guy controlling 6 accounts going around ganking, so we have 2 things going on, either 1, he pays for all 6 accounts (not likely), or 2 he plexs his 6 accounts, more likely, this means that it is so cheap to do his activities that he can afford to run those accounts.

@Rivr_Luzade

I am not aiming at the gankers themselves, I aim at the totally secure assets they hold in NPC stations. What you suggest is a workaround but I wonder how often you’d want to do that? Also, if you remained in space in your pod, I would also already have achieved something because now you cannot hide in a totally save NPC station for the duration of your criminal timer. This would give anti-ganking a chance to probe your pods, or your Bowhead, and wait for you. Tedious, but still possible gameplay. There are also no rookie ships in citadels, which means pulling concord off-grid becomes a tiny bit more costly because now you have to use shuttles or frigates. And if you know the citadels they use for safety of their bumpers or as docking station for their medical clones, you can just send wardecers after these corps. If medical clones die in a citadel, they would get auto assigned to the nearest low sec station. All in all more interaction, which is everything James wants.

@Sasha_Nemtsov My suggestion is not “anti-eve”. Quite the contrary, my suggestion is totally pro-EVE. It forces non-consensual PVPers out of their save harbors and forces them to PVP. The suggestion also does not prevent any form of ganking. You are kill on sight, but you are never in sight. You hide in your NPC stations all the time until a gank arrives, then travel to the gank, gank, die to concord and are back in your NPC station. There is no way to use your kill on sight status before a gank or while you travel (if you travel at all). You make PVP go away, not my suggestion. With my suggestion, the devs can even expand on the PVP nature of EVE because currently safely hidden away PVP assets become available to the failing wardec system, more people now hold the means to actually PVP/have people PVP on their behalf. Furthermore, attacking ganker assets is a reason to log in and cooperate, as well as defending your assets is also a reason to log in for the gankers. And you can still continue to gank.

@Vokan_Narkar

Also, it is happening because industrial ships are riddiculously squishy and the damage output of t1 destroyers is riddiculously high. Projectile weapons as if were designed for suicide ganking entirely…

I agree with you that suicide ganking is super easy to do and take no risk. However, as you noticed already there is a strong suicdeganker propaganda and so you will never win this “fight”.

If you want to change this you have to start doing this too. We need more players suicide ganking t1 industrials, shuttles and capsules. This won’t be adressed by CCP if only few players will do this.

If you can’t beat them, join them. I already did.

Send me a mail if you want to learn how to do this, to kill capsule all you need is a alpha clone character with 2 weeks of training or 1 skill injector used. The fit costs about 4milion - as you said yourself it costs nothing…

@Dinsdale_Pirannha

While I believe the majority of the high sec griefers are alts of null sec players, CCP will certainly never ever release that information, as they protect the griefers at all costs. Bizarrely, CCP still believes that griefing high sec players at a ridiculously easy skill level and cost should be a cornerstone of Eve. Until that viewpoint changes, this entire thread is pointless.

@Vokan_Narkar

I love how everyone defending statements going against suicide-ganking is that person’s alt.

You guys are pathetic. Everytime a thread against suicide ganking pops up you start spamming your James123 and miner bumping nonsenses, and you bring OP’s killboard “oh hey this noob got killed in retriever while he should be using procurer” or “oh hey this guy was autopiloting in capsule he deserved it” as that is suppose to be a valid argument. And if someone agrees with OP or support his statement you call him “fake” or alt. Just lol.

There is no denial that only those not using proper fits/ships, not using instadock/undocks, not using pirat intels, not using scouts, well those who are greedy or who are not taking care are the targets of suicide ganking but how does that changes anything? It is a one-sided activity - only the ganker is having fun not his target (which is basically whats called griefing in other games but this is eve right). And, because of how it works, the victim has next to zero chance to avenge. Gankers are in 99% time alts with one purpose - to gank in highsec. They never fly anything else than ganking ships and the only time one could attack them is when they arrive on gate to gank someone - and that is already too late.

Because of this, gankers always wins. They take only one risk - failing the gank (which means the ganker made a mistake in choosing a target or during gank). Even then, unless the target is Freigher failing a gank is still not costing anything other than time. The expenses for suicide-ganking are almost neglectible (maybe except Tornado ganking but while that is expensive for me, it is probably not expensive for those doing it).

I am not OP’s alt, if you compare his posts and mine you will clearly see it. I am suicide ganking with several alts - alts specifically purposes for that activity only. I do however fix my security status. Imo the biggest problem here is that majority of the gankers are not doing this. In my opinion, you should not be able to live in highec with -10 sec status. If you want sucide gank, use the options to raise your security status - options that balances this activity out, you ither pay lots of ISKs or you take your time to raise it via ratting. What CODE is doing is essentially exploiting the system…

@Dinsdale_Pirannha

PCU today: 37,917

PCU 13 months ago, Sunday Oct 16: 35,231

Wow, Eve has had an uptick…oh wait, that was ALL paying subs 13 months ago.

Yeah, all these decisions CCP have made have been a smashing success.

Like allowing high sec griefing to continue unabated has been a smashing success.

@Lienzo

The cost of using anonymous alts for logistics is also very low.

From the other side, the loss to the playerbase in emergent content is quite high. How much more interesting it would be to have seamy dealings, protection rackets and players alternately collaborating and conniving, we have this boring and stale situation.

It would be incrementally better if every ship larger than a frigate had to pay a mass based docking fee with a multiplier affected by their corporate standing to that station’s owner. Players in NPC corps would have a much more trying time of it and be at a general competitive disadvantage versus those players who conduct their business in the light of day.

With omnipresent alts plying the freight lanes, all you have are these impersonal dealings, and the need for duck taped solutions to maintain the veneer of interaction between players.

@Kieron_VonDeux

That is BS.

I’ve started several new characters out of boredom to try NPE or mine and everyone one of them had a CODE. alt attempt to gank them within the first 30 days of playing the game, most within a week or two.

And more to the point, it depends on which characters are considered.

All new characters including alts of veteran players, or only first time players. Half of my alts have never undocked.

@Charley_Varrick

I used to get a lot of lols out of their ramblings and justifications for their dooshbaggary. Now I just scroll past them. They refuse to see the imbalance. Actually, they see the imbalance just fine they just don’t want to lose the advantage. EVE is risk vs reward. We take the risk. They take none. If they succeed they get the reward. If we succeed we get nothing. They hide behind game mechanics until the last second and leave us no way to effectively fight back. We must gimp our ships for a small chance to survive and end the end we are still at the mercy of their mood. Instead of understanding this they play forum wars and spew babble to corrupt and dilute the problem. Meanwhile EVEs population continues to decline.

@Charley_Varrick

Some of us just like to kick back, mine rocks, run missions and enjoy our Internet space ships. Some of you are hell bent on ruining it for us.

As for why take such risk… I call BS because gankers take none. It was said earlier in this thread (may have been you) that gankers don’t care about sec. status or ship losses. You can scroll up if you want and find it. I don’t play the quote tree game and I don’t feel like looking. So what exactly are YOU risking? Ships you have endless funding for and meaningless security status obviously don’t matter.

Black Pedro,The Antichrist666 diablo13, dracvlad had many good posts as well that are worth reading. I will attach this to the OP for easy reading.

[Dom_Arkaral]

I love how all of those failed to adapt, like you

Thanks for making the obvious even more so

[Fabulous_Rod]

@Dom_Arkaral

I love how all of those failed to adapt, like you

Thanks for making the obvious even more so

thanks for embarrassing yourself with inane and baseless posts like this, and making my position seem even more valid.

[Dom_Arkaral]

Like @Tora_Bushido said many times

Adapt or Die

That’s the EVE way, and there is no other way.

[Ramona_McCandless]

Dinsdale is one of his primary sources of unbiased information… BWA HAHAHAHHA

sorry

BWA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Jonah_Gravenstein]

@Fabulous_Rod

Patti is just the most obvious example of the rabid and irrational pushback against the OP.

Yet Patti appears to be amongst the groups that suicide gankers target, as am I. Neither of us appears to gets targetted, I wonder why that is?

Could it possibly be that we do something that you’re completely unfamiliar with, namely practicing what we preach?

None of these posters are addressing the ideas put forth in the OP and relevant subtopics.

We have addressed the ideas put forth in the OP, you’ve chosen to ignore that because it doesn’t agree with your view of the game, which is based on a false premise and a gross misunderstanding of the nature of Eve.

Other posters who are being too obnoxious and inane for any intelligent person to take seriously:

Ramona McCandles, Yellow parasol, Teckos_pech, Jenn_aside, Sasha Nemtsov, Jonah gravestien, Aurelius vicci, ima wreckyou

We’re not the people insulting others and acting like a spoilt little brat throwing a tantrum because they can’t get their own way.

Grow up.

[Salvos_Rhoska]

@Dom_Arkaral

That’s the EVE way, and there is no other way.

If CCP nerfed ganking, Im pretty sure you would be among the first whining and refusing to adapt.

[Ramona_McCandless]

@Jonah_Gravenstein

McCandles

I havent heard that version of my name since the bygone days of Joe Phoenix

Now there was a… pod I never got tired of seeing.

[Jonah_Gravenstein]

'Tis OK, he butchered my name too.

[Dom_Arkaral]

CCP nerfed ganking à lot of times
And gankers have adapted

I wouldn’t cry because I’m no ganker, I’m a wardeccer

Edit: I have to admit that I love the reputation that people gave me based on what they think I do.
Makes my heart warm

[Salvos_Rhoska]

@Dom_Arkaral

CCP nerfed ganking à lot of times

How exactly?

PS: I never said you are a ganker.

[Dom_Arkaral]

A quick google-fu gives all the answers
Google-fu

You can do the research yourself, but here’s a few
-insurance denied
-hull resists added
-hyperdunking deadified
And many more…

[Salvos_Rhoska]

@Dom_Arkaral

A quick google-fu gives all the answers
Google-fu

You can do the research yourself, but here’s a few
-insurance denied
-hull resists added
-hyperdunking deadified
And many more…

None of those are nerfs.

Just rationalising the game.

[Dom_Arkaral]

In video gaming, a nerf is a change to a game that reduces the power of a weapon or skill in order to maintain game balance. The term is also used as a verb for the act of making such a change. The opposite of nerf is buff (in either of that term’s two usages)

From Wikipedia

But it wasn’t a nerf

[Salvos_Rhoska]

It was irrational that a criminal exploded by CONCORD would be eligible for insurance.
Hull resists have nothing to do with ganking. They affect everyone.
Hyperdunking led to violation of CONCORD mechanics.

Did you have any more?

[Dom_Arkaral]

Tell me, did freighters have hull resists before that particular buff to hull hp?

[Salvos_Rhoska]

@Dom_Arkaral

Tell me, did freighters have hull resists before that particular buff to hull hp?

Tell me what makes you think that was implemented specifically to curtail HS ganking?
Freighter resists are the same in HS and elsewhere.

PS: Resists dont change hull hp. They only mitigate damage of a particular type to the base hull hp.