Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Saxon Briggs
|
Posted - 2009.12.11 19:37:00 -
[1]
So i'm flying around doing some hauling, and following the various chat chanells to help pass the time, when I here someone in empire talking about sitting off a gate looking for someone to gank. Well this is a part of eve. and one of the things that makes eve interesting, is that some places are safer then others, but no where is compleatly safe.
But, then said person goes on to explain how he can one shot t1 industrials, frigs, destroyers, and even take out bc before concord arives to help. Ass long as the ship has enough assets to cover his ships fittings.
Why? Because hes sitting in a Battle Ship, and when he does get concorded, it is compleatly covered by the insurance.
For me this is somthing that realy needs to be addressed, where is the element of risk? The loss of the ship should be part of the price of ganking, people would have to be more cautious, ships used would be more in line for a sucide run, and targets picked with more care. I dont think any one should be sitting 40km off a gate in a battle ship looking to snipe small targets for a little profit because they realy dont loos there ship at all. its an ileagle act, so lets treat it as an ileagle act, and stop paying for those ships. My fealing is that any actions that causes concord to get involved should result in the emediate loss of any insurance policys for said ship. Or am i being un reasonable in my thinking here?
I'd like to know what others out there think of this. Thanks and fly safe all.
|
Captain Pompous
Is Right Even When He's Wrong So Deal With It
|
Posted - 2009.12.11 19:38:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Saxon Briggs I'd like to know what others out there think of this. Thanks and fly safe all.
I think that this topic has been done to death, personally. ---
Even though you might disagree with what I say, that doesn't automatically make me a troll. |
Boomershoot
Caldari Suddenly Ninjas
|
Posted - 2009.12.11 19:41:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Saxon Briggs where is the element of risk?
you're hauling stuff that costs more than your ship.
there it is ^ ________________________________________ i'd gladly abuse [hr] if CCP implemented it ________________________________________
|
Joe Skellington
Minmatar JOKAS Industries
|
Posted - 2009.12.11 19:42:00 -
[4]
Personally I think Concord should pod you too if you are a repeat offender. Up the stakes *****
|
000Hunter000
Gallente Missiles 'R' Us
|
Posted - 2009.12.11 19:44:00 -
[5]
Done to death yes, but personally i still think he's right, ur doing something criminal (aka u get concordokkened) u should NOT deserve the insurance policy.
U get the popup stating u will be omgwtfpwnbbqed when u do this action, so there is really no excuse why it should not also state u will lose any insurance on ur ship. ________________________________________________
|
randomname4me
|
Posted - 2009.12.11 19:45:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Saxon Briggs I'd like to know what others out there think of this.
then you should have read the other 5436278675432 threads on this same subject.
EVE Online: Rated RRR- For Explicit Breakfast Piercing Bullets. |
Vysnaite
Caldari Science and Trade Institute
|
Posted - 2009.12.11 19:45:00 -
[7]
There should be no insurance. Its an excuse for carebears to call themselves pvpers....
|
Tippia
Reikoku IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.12.11 19:45:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Saxon Briggs For me this is somthing that realy needs to be addressed, where is the element of risk?
In the hands of the other players. Unfortunately, they're more than happy to remove the risks for him – something the game can't really change. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Dennmoth Ferdier
|
Posted - 2009.12.11 19:46:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Captain Pompous
Originally by: Saxon Briggs I'd like to know what others out there think of this. Thanks and fly safe all.
I think that this topic has been done to death, personally.
That it may be, but the fact that it keeps raising up means something. Also, to stop talking about would mean that everything was fine. It may be working as intended, but the first point might change that some day.
Anyhow, I actually think the OP idea of concord interaction voiding insurance is a very good one within 0.5-1.0. It would surely hurt suicide ganking but I personally think that wouldn't stop but the greediest gankers (as you need battleships to gank a freighter and other ships are just way cheaper).
I'm not entirely sure but I think all other instances outside suicide gank for valuable loot are just plain wanting to see the world burn that really benefits no one on any other than some twisted personal level. As such, there's no harm voiding their insurance. ------ Dare to challenge me? |
Abrazzar
|
Posted - 2009.12.11 19:49:00 -
[10]
With the artillery buff, the next consequence will be removal of insurance payout for CONCORD targets. They only have to add a tutorial that explains new players the concept of CONCORD and suicide ganking by giving them a tutorial mission out to suicide gank some NPC shuttle with a "enemy of the state" or something.
But cry just not yet, gankbear, you will have at least three months ganking galore in highsec before that happens. --------
|
|
Taedrin
Gallente It's a mission running corp
|
Posted - 2009.12.11 19:50:00 -
[11]
I *highly* doubt that he can one shot a frigate, unless it is sitting still at the gate.
There are also other things you can do to protect yourself from suicide ganks - such as not flying AFK when you are hauling valuable cargo, tanking your ship instead of fitting a full rack of expanded cargo holds, or using a heavily tanked battlecruiser to haul those valuable BPOs or officer modules.
---------- There is always a choice. The choice might not be easy, nor simple, nor the options be what you desire - but, nevertheless, the choice is there to be made. |
Captain Pompous
Is Right Even When He's Wrong So Deal With It
|
Posted - 2009.12.11 19:50:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Dennmoth Ferdier
Originally by: Captain Pompous
Originally by: Saxon Briggs I'd like to know what others out there think of this. Thanks and fly safe all.
I think that this topic has been done to death, personally.
That it may be, but the fact that it keeps raising up means something. Also, to stop talking about would mean that everything was fine. It may be working as intended, but the first point might change that some day.
Anyhow, I actually think the OP idea of concord interaction voiding insurance is a very good one within 0.5-1.0. It would surely hurt suicide ganking but I personally think that wouldn't stop but the greediest gankers (as you need battleships to gank a freighter and other ships are just way cheaper).
I'm not entirely sure but I think all other instances outside suicide gank for valuable loot are just plain wanting to see the world burn that really benefits no one on any other than some twisted personal level. As such, there's no harm voiding their insurance.
Indeed.
However, of more pressing concern is that of your avatar. What's it all about, oh-hypercharged puncutation mark? :D ---
Even though you might disagree with what I say, that doesn't automatically make me a troll. |
KaarBaak
Minmatar Mindstar Technology
|
Posted - 2009.12.11 19:56:00 -
[13]
Or insurance should work like regular insurance and your premium should be based on your flying record.
Basing the insurance premium purely on the type of ship and equal for everyone is not logical.
KB
My blogs: Tastes Like Chicken EvE Meta-Gaming |
Tippia
Reikoku IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.12.11 19:56:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Dennmoth Ferdier
Originally by: Captain Pompous I think that this topic has been done to death, personally.
That it may be, but the fact that it keeps raising up means something.
Yes, it means that people never learn and complain that someone else's faces no risk when it is they themselves who removed all the risk.
Do you think gankers have it too easy? So make it harder for them. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Skex Relbore
|
Posted - 2009.12.11 20:02:00 -
[15]
Edited by: Skex Relbore on 11/12/2009 20:04:55 I agree with the OP that suicide attacks should void insurance payouts. Of course nothing is likely to change since this is a problem that has existed for years and CCP seems to have no interest in addressing it.
Isn't Cocords purpose to provide consequence for illegal actions? Where is the consequence when your insurance paymet covers the entirety of the loss?
Of course this sort of thread will always bring out that segment of the player base who believe that the risks of this cold harsh universe should only apply to their victims.
|
Tippia
Reikoku IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.12.11 20:06:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Skex Relbore Isn't Cocords purpose to provide consequence for illegal actions? Where is the consequence when your insurance paymet covers the entirety of the loss?
It doesn't. It only covers the ship. If it covers more, then it's once again other players who reduces the risk by selling the ships they make at a loss. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2009.12.11 20:07:00 -
[17]
Originally by: KaarBaak
Or insurance should work like regular insurance and your premium should be based on your flying record.
Basing the insurance premium purely on the type of ship and equal for everyone is not logical.
Yes you're right - 0.0 does need another huge economic nerf.
|
Soomin'Phar
|
Posted - 2009.12.11 20:09:00 -
[18]
I had a 5 day old destroyer player the other day try to get my Iteron on a gate the other day. Did'nt even get me to armour before the gateguns popped him.
He had some cargo that paid rather well, lol newb...
|
Destination SkillQueue
Are We There Yet
|
Posted - 2009.12.11 20:13:00 -
[19]
I want a nerf to CONCORD if this goes through. Their reaction time was buffed as a reaction to rampant suicide ganks and security hits were increased, so their reaction time should now be brought down again or the sec hit reduced to balance things. A healthy amount of suicide ganking should always be happening, to remind people not to AFK haul cargo worth hundreds of millions on a ship that is worth a percent or two of that.
|
Danton Marcellus
Nebula Rasa Holdings
|
Posted - 2009.12.11 20:20:00 -
[20]
Killed by Concord you get no insurance payout, no matter what. Problem solved.
Should/would/could have, HAVE you chav!
Also Known As |
|
Boomershoot
Caldari Suddenly Ninjas
|
Posted - 2009.12.11 20:25:00 -
[21]
THE SAME ****ING THING EVERY WEEK
no, CCP won't remove insurance. no, Insurance won't be based on who kills you. no, CCP will not hear your whines this time.
NOW, THINK HARDER FOR A BETTER COMPROMISE
need an help, you little re-re? HERE YOU ARE
INSURANCE PAYOUT BASED ON SS. 5.0 ADDS A 10%, -5.0 Removes 25%, -10 HALVES IT.
TO THE ASSEMBLY HALL, BATMAN ________________________________________ i'd gladly abuse [hr] if CCP implemented it ________________________________________
|
Tippia
Reikoku IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.12.11 20:26:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Danton Marcellus Killed by Concord you get no insurance payout, no matter what. Problem solved.
What problem? ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
James Tritanius
|
Posted - 2009.12.11 20:27:00 -
[23]
There are risks and consequences of suicide ganking, you just don't perceive it if you are coming from the hauler's perspective.
Risks: - Valuable items are destroyed during the explosion - Does not pop hauler before Concord arrives - Loot is stolen by passer-bys
Consequences: - Security Status - ISK (Insurance doesn't cover everything) - Time (Time it takes for you to purchase another ship)
Costs: - ISK - Time (Sitting on the gate and waiting for potential targets)
The risks can be minimized by sufficient experience, intelligence and skill, but some risk will still be present regardless.
|
Bud Johnson
Broski Enterprises
|
Posted - 2009.12.11 20:47:00 -
[24]
The risk is in the loot system, you can pop 1+bil of cargo and get a drop worth 500k.
|
Harkwyth Mist
Caldari Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2009.12.11 20:50:00 -
[25]
You'll find lots of people, who support gate-camping and/or hi-sec ganking, will very rapidly start quoting Eve's "Risk vs Reward" mantra.
What they are not telling you is that the mantra really means
Quote:
YOU take all the risks with no reward THEY receive all the rewards with no risk
|
Jhagiti Tyran
Mortis Angelus
|
Posted - 2009.12.11 20:56:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Vysnaite There should be no insurance. Its an excuse for carebears to call themselves pvpers....
Rubbish most suicide ganking is done purely for profit and quite a decent profit to, as long as people are stupid or inatentive enough to cram 100s of millions into fragile ships people will try to make money from it.
|
Cambarus
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2009.12.11 20:58:00 -
[27]
There're many ways in which you can make yourself immune to all but the most dedicated and targeted/well planned attacks. It SHOULD be virtually risk free to gank something as small/insignificant as a t1 hauler or cruiser. You take a sec hit from it, and if the cost of losing a BS is practically nothing, than surely the cost of losing something so small (which costs but a fraction of a BSs price tag) should be even less of a loss?
If you're hauling stuff around in a 900k hauler, with no protection (not even a local tank) then yes, it should be a very real danger that people should be able to kill it pretty easily, and arguing that there should be more risk involved in ganking when your motive is obviously reducing risk to an already low-risk task is hilarious. |
AlleyKat
The Unwanted.
|
Posted - 2009.12.11 21:02:00 -
[28]
I think they should ECM dampen 'targets' on gates, and they should charge people gate fees for travel, not much, but enough to add up to something for travelling in high-security space. This also relates to an idea I had for the choke points in low sec for the gates which border high sec and low sec. This excludes Orvolle of course, as that is a different matter.
Another option would be to disallow the pickup of 'hot property', or, property that has been gained through non-concord sanctioned means. Any attempts to do so gets a concord response (as they are probably in the area at this point, it kinda, just kinda, makes sense). Of course, there should be a time limit, so then it would become 'null' and anyone can pick up and the current rules apply.
It is a difficult one and perhaps there is never going to be a solution, and certainly the balanced argument should be that high-sec should not be 100% safe and I would be that way inclined. I do not think the security is the issue that people have an issue with, it is the lack of risk versus reward and overall balance that the players have an issue with.
I personally feel that if you were to draw a circle with Jita in the middle and 0.0 at the edge, in my mind the highest amount of potential isk should be at the farthest point away from the centre, as it has the greatest risk. However, it does seem to be the opposite as the potential to be rich with the lowest amount of risk seems to be currently right in the middle.
I do sympathise with CCP on this, as they want to have the baddest most evil game in the world for hardcore players, but at the same time, they like all of the real world money that high-sec players offer them. These two viewpoints are in conflict with one another.
They need to increase isk sinks in high-sec through taxation, gate fees and anything else they can think of - lower them the further away from 1.0 you get, spread the players outward.
Before you know it, the medium term players are in 0.5 systems and that's just 1 jump away from low sec...
Once this has happened, move the lvl4 missions to low sec, in conjunction with making the interconnecting gates safer. This doesn't just allow for mission running people to feel safer about moving into low sec (I would probably imagine they would not be there 100% of the time, but would be a bit more nomadic about how they conduct their business) what it will also do is get the industry to move into low sec as well, as that is where the trade will be - and the taxes would be lower, remember?
On a related note, I do also think that the ability to have an entire system like Jita to run is an amazing achievement of coding and planning by CCP, but the work is done now, lets not look to see if we can increase to total amount of connections and glorify ourselves - lets see if through a little bit of game balancing, we can move people away from Jita and get them to trade elsewhere instead, that would be a more impressive feat for any game company.
That is what I think of this, Saxon. But am I just shooting from the hip...
AK EVE-ONLINE VIDEO-MAKING TUTORIALS |
Mr Epeen
|
Posted - 2009.12.11 21:20:00 -
[29]
First off.
I firmly believe that EVE should remove all insurance. It's supposed to be a cold, harsh universe, but what we get is the next best thing to a respawn button.
Now that I have that off my chest, here's how to have some fun and savor ganktard tears.
Gankers always come in twos. There will be the gank ship and then a hauler alt to pick up the pieces. They will normally be parked right up next to each other.
First thing go over to C&P, read up on a good gank fit for blowing up indies and fit out a ship. Then park your ass at one of the many high sec bottlenecks where the most gankers hang out. Sit and watch for a pair of ships sitting elbow to elbow and blow up the hauler part of the team. Or, if you are patient, and for more satisfation, wait for the gank ship to get Concorded and then blow up the hauler.
Local will come alive with the righteous indignation of the ganker that got ganked and you will be called many not nice things.
Relish that moment. It will be the first of many.
Then simply buy a new ship with the insurance payout and come back and gank him again. And again. And again.
Mr Epeen
|
Psiri
|
Posted - 2009.12.11 23:14:00 -
[30]
Edited by: Psiri on 11/12/2009 23:14:04 I really do get tired of the EVE population's need to throw out their raging e-peens at every given opportunity.
Whenever someone points out a problem in the game, taken from the standpoint of a carebear, these people will side against him nomatter what is actually being said. It's important to be hardcore, that's why WoW is **** and we pretend never having played it.
Suicide ganking doesn't make sense, even though EVE is not a game where realism holds a firm grip, it still doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
It sadly often more profitable than actual piracy, you know, the kind of PvP that has some risk to it aswell for the evil doers.
The mechanics revolving it are flawed, security status penalties aren't always given as they should be and it strikes carebears very hard. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for making carebears bleed but I don't see why they couldn't keep at least one ball once the deed is done. Take both and there won't be more to follow.
The only justification for suicide ganking is the skewed risk vs reward factor in highsec, then again haulers aren't exactly the ones reaping the biggest profits.
Nerf suicide ganking into oblivion, nerf highsec lvl IV and mining profits. Boost lowsec belts and rat bounties, make empire into a place for beginners, RnD, trade and logistics.
That way you solve so many problems.
|
|
Dennmoth Ferdier
|
Posted - 2009.12.11 23:28:00 -
[31]
Edited by: Dennmoth Ferdier on 11/12/2009 23:28:37
Originally by: Captain Pompous
Indeed.
However, of more pressing concern is that of your avatar. What's it all about, oh-hypercharged puncutation mark? :D
You're seeing my avatar as the infamous alt puncuation mark? Strange as this is my main char of 2-2+ years
------ Dare to challenge me? |
Ard UnjiiGo
The Bastards The Bastards.
|
Posted - 2009.12.11 23:40:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Psiri Edited by: Psiri on 11/12/2009 23:14:04 It's important to be hardcore, that's why WoW is **** and we pretend never having played it.
I'm not pretending.
Regarding the topic: Yep, it's a dead horse.
If you remove insurance for ships blown up by concord then the same logic calls for removing insurance from self-destructed ships.
I could live with that.
|
Mocam
|
Posted - 2009.12.11 23:43:00 -
[33]
Originally by: KaarBaak
Or insurance should work like regular insurance and your premium should be based on your flying record.
Basing the insurance premium purely on the type of ship and equal for everyone is not logical.
That would be counter to PvP and hold back a hell of a lot of players in higsec. "If I go do PvP early, I'll lose ships and I won't be able to afford insurance when I get better..."
Instead I'd go with other means of controlling it: Concord gets you, voided insurance. Self destruct? voided insurance.
The above or something other than raising premiums should be implemented vs anything like your suggestion. Most really don't want to discourage folks from getting into the PvP part of the game where they will lose ships early on.
|
Wet Ferret
|
Posted - 2009.12.11 23:45:00 -
[34]
Many of us would have preferred insurance removal for CONCORD kills over the buffing of CONCORD they did recently.
Suicide ganking didn't need to be made harder, it just needed to be more costly for the ganker. As it is, hauling light cargo still makes you a viable target because you can make money off of ganking just about anything due to insurance.
But, yeah. These forums seriously need some indicator that the post has ended and the sig has started. EVE has devs that care about sound? (Ha ha ha! Gotcha. It actually doesn't!) |
Emperor Cheney
Celebrity Sex Tape
|
Posted - 2009.12.11 23:57:00 -
[35]
insurance is bogus. In this so called "harsh cold universe" based on ruthless capitalism, why is there this company that is so eager to take losses over and over with no end in sight?
|
Barakkus
Caelestis Iudicium
|
Posted - 2009.12.12 00:20:00 -
[36]
You can actually make suiciding proffitable sorta.
Get yourself minerals, get a BPC of your gank ship of choice, build it, insure it, instant money for pretty much very little cost. You can get most of the minerals to make a BS from running a few level 4 drone missions and buying a few more of the refinables at very little cost. BS BPC costs ~1-3 million for a multi run copy. Insurance cost ~40million, payout ~100mil. ~30-50mil proffit just for getting blown up + lulz.
I just cranked out 5 dominix the other day for ~5 million investment and some time mining (not specifically for minerals for a BS, just general mining spoils from the last 5 or 6 months). I still have plenty of minerals to make more. Sold most of them for an easy 150mil, with very little investment or time invested. Keeping one around for something special ;)
I could have easily cranked out 4 or 5 suicide Maelstroms, Typhoons, Apocs etc and made about the same in suicide insurance proffits and had lulz to go with it.
|
Awesome Possum
Imperium Signal Corps
|
Posted - 2009.12.12 00:31:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Saxon Briggs So i'm flying around doing some hauling, and following the various chat chanells to help pass the time, when I here someone in empire talking about sitting off a gate looking for someone to gank.
fail ♥
Wreck Disposal Services |
Sillas Cov
|
Posted - 2009.12.12 00:39:00 -
[38]
Criminals are flagged via sec loss in Eve.
Why then are not criminal actions flagged and penalized accordingly?? Why insure pay outs to concord policing action of this type??
Immersion to the game is instantly compromised when payouts are handed to high sec gangkers.
Sillas
|
James Tritanius
|
Posted - 2009.12.12 00:40:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Barakkus You can actually make suiciding proffitable sorta.
Get yourself minerals, get a BPC of your gank ship of choice, build it, insure it, instant money for pretty much very little cost. You can get most of the minerals to make a BS from running a few level 4 drone missions and buying a few more of the refinables at very little cost. BS BPC costs ~1-3 million for a multi run copy. Insurance cost ~40million, payout ~100mil. ~30-50mil proffit just for getting blown up + lulz.
I just cranked out 5 dominix the other day for ~5 million investment and some time mining (not specifically for minerals for a BS, just general mining spoils from the last 5 or 6 months). I still have plenty of minerals to make more. Sold most of them for an easy 150mil, with very little investment or time invested. Keeping one around for something special ;)
I could have easily cranked out 4 or 5 suicide Maelstroms, Typhoons, Apocs etc and made about the same in suicide insurance proffits and had lulz to go with it.
That has to be the weakest argument that I've ever heard.I bet if you had sold the ships at market price, you'd get more money. If not, then insurance scams are viable and it would not even matter if you built those ships or bought them.
|
5pinDizzy
Amarr Pillow Fighters Inc
|
Posted - 2009.12.12 00:40:00 -
[40]
Edited by: 5pinDizzy on 12/12/2009 00:44:28
The same old rubbish replies in this thread.
Going around in the same old circles, I'm suspicious someo of you have just takena reply from one of the 3943209584390 old threads and pasted it as your response.
Let's go over a few of the main things shall we?
1. There should be no insurance for people that are killed by concord.
So say if you lost a tier 3 battleship, you go from a 150 million odd isk payout to nothing.
Balance is like a seesaw, this suggeston is like taking two feathers off one side o the scales and putting a brick on the other side.
2. There should be no insurance whatsoever
If this happened on its own, battleships would near enough drop out of common use and people would just swap for HACS and battlecruisers.
There's a 40% insurance payout for all tech one ships no matter what.
When you're buying a battleship your practically only ever really paying just over half what you brought it for unless you're dumb enough to get it scammed off you or hijacked in space.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What I'd rather have for now
Remove all insurance, remove the base payout, Reduce the mineral build requirement of all tech 1 ships by;
frigates - unchanged cruisers - 10% battlecruisers - 20% battleships - 40%
|
|
Emperor Cheney
Celebrity Sex Tape
|
Posted - 2009.12.12 03:41:00 -
[41]
Originally by: 5pinDizzy
2. There should be no insurance whatsoever[/b]
If this happened on its own, battleships would near enough drop out of common use and people would just swap for HACS and battlecruisers.
Great! Why should massive and crew-intensive battleships be one of the most common weapons wielded by players in battle?
|
Manu Hermanus
FaDoyToy
|
Posted - 2009.12.12 04:00:00 -
[42]
poor ill eagles, I hope they have some medicine for them and they get better soon You're posting again!? Has it really been 5 mins?
|
Napro
Caldari The New Eden Syndicate IMPERIUM.
|
Posted - 2009.12.12 07:10:00 -
[43]
The sec hit ensures this wont be abused.. I think if someone maintains their sec rating by killing rats enough.. they earn a gank or two every month. Thats how real life works anyway. You snitch on some criminals, you get off with a light sentence or none at all
|
AlleyKat
The Unwanted.
|
Posted - 2009.12.12 10:37:00 -
[44]
Originally by: 5pinDizzy The same old rubbish replies in this thread.
Going around in the same old circles, I'm suspicious some of you have just taken reply from one of the 3943209584390 old threads and pasted it as your response.
Did you read my post in this thread?
AK EVE-ONLINE VIDEO-MAKING TUTORIALS |
Herr Wilkus
|
Posted - 2009.12.12 11:30:00 -
[45]
Actually, avoiding the majority of the sec-status hit is quite easy, within legal game mechanics.
When you suicide attack a player you get a small roughly -'0.08' sec status hit for 'aggression'. THEN, if you succeed in killing the target, you generally will get a much larger '-0.4' sec status penalty for 'ship kill'. (This is in 0.5 space)
For reference, it takes about 5 hours of ratting battleships to wipe out that 'ship kill' penalty, and about 1 hour of ratting to neutralize an 'aggression' hit.
Story: Some friends and I were out taking turns instapopping miner Hulks, (and even a T2 rigged jetcan Orca), getting loads of tears in local with the new 1400MM Arty Tempests. The fact that they are nearly free due to insurance, makes it even a bit profitable with a few good mods and T2 salvage.
as an aside **(Yes, I think that insurance should be removed entirely - if only for economic reasons. Right now it keeps the price of minerals artificially high. But if insurance stays, I think suicide gankers should still get insurance, just like everyone else. Insurance for suicide attacks is no more illogical than insurance for any ship entering a potential battlefield, 0.0 or otherwise.)
Anyway, back to the story: I noticed that Hulks (and the Orca) that aggressed me with their defensive drones - ended up getting a KM on my suicide Tempest, even though it was Concord that killed me 20 seconds after they were dead. At first, I was kind of irritated - but then I realized that I had taken NO SHIP KILL penalty! As an added bonus, the victim got no kill rights. (not that a miner poses a threat, but there you have it.)
So, that means you can pop 160+M ISK Hulks repeatedly, all evening - and only take small sec status hits, closer to the old 'pre-gank-nerf' sec status penalty. Which means less ratting and more ganking and more miner tears - as long as you only target Hulks with drones set up.
But wait, what if your target doesn't have drones, what then?
Discovered also, quite by accident - that if a 3rd party (a random interloper - or say, a trial account in a Reaper) attacks the suicide gank boat while the 'concord attack' is imminent/occurring, the 3rd party somehow snags the KM - and once again - the suicide ganker takes NO SHIP KILL penalty, and no killrights are conferred.
Of course I don't believe this to be a problem - its probably just related to the funky KM mechanics that CCP hasn't bothered to fix....well, ever. So, working as intended, in my book.
And the upside - extended Hulk ganking sessions with very little ratting required to stay in empire - is just how EVE was meant to be, especially when I'm selling them new Hulks at a 25% markup.
Have others noticed this as well? Just sharing so more people get out there and instapopping more miners/haulers/mission runners in Empire, especially if they are 'sec status repair ratting' adverse. The quarterly Economic report said that HULKS are the most common ship flown in EVE. Isn't that sad? Lets work together and try to change that, one crying miner at a time.
|
Boink'urr
Minmatar Wasserette De Tarthorst
|
Posted - 2009.12.12 11:43:00 -
[46]
Edited by: Boink''urr on 12/12/2009 11:43:30 LMAO. Subject is ******ed. It's a non subject - its where eve design fails, but 'lets call it dark cold place' XD
|
gallchecker
|
Posted - 2009.12.12 12:00:00 -
[47]
I'm astonished to see ccp so wholeheartedly supporting such carebears as the suicide ship dudes obviously are :o
Even more surprised at how much support these no risk carebears that suicide in empire get from supposed pvp'ers.
I'm beginning to realise eve isnt so much a pvp game as a game where those who were bullied try to hide away and talk big.
So any good pvp games coming out soon?
|
Henk IV
|
Posted - 2009.12.12 13:01:00 -
[48]
Lolz at the ganking bears... And more lolz at the 'don't wanna hear it' g**** piwat above... Doesn't sound like he's playing a game as much as being a private bug tester or something... To each his own i guess...
|
Psiri
|
Posted - 2009.12.12 13:45:00 -
[49]
Originally by: gallchecker So any good pvp games coming out soon?
Nope.
|
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
|
Posted - 2009.12.12 13:58:00 -
[50]
Blockade runner with cloak and warp to 0 = no risk
|
|
Junko Togawa
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.12.12 14:12:00 -
[51]
Originally by: Mr Epeen First off.
I firmly believe that EVE should remove all insurance. It's supposed to be a cold, harsh universe, but what we get is the next best thing to a respawn button.
Now that I have that off my chest, here's how to have some fun and savor ganktard tears.
Gankers always come in twos. There will be the gank ship and then a hauler alt to pick up the pieces. They will normally be parked right up next to each other.
First thing go over to C&P, read up on a good gank fit for blowing up indies and fit out a ship. Then park your ass at one of the many high sec bottlenecks where the most gankers hang out. Sit and watch for a pair of ships sitting elbow to elbow and blow up the hauler part of the team. Or, if you are patient, and for more satisfation, wait for the gank ship to get Concorded and then blow up the hauler.
Local will come alive with the righteous indignation of the ganker that got ganked and you will be called many not nice things.
Relish that moment. It will be the first of many.
Then simply buy a new ship with the insurance payout and come back and gank him again. And again. And again.
Mr Epeen
This. Posting to confirm that the griefer of my griefer is my brosef.
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2009.12.12 14:36:00 -
[52]
Originally by: Mag's Blockade runner with cloak and warp to 0 = no risk
Why people refuse to recognise this...
Oh well.
|
Boink'urr
Minmatar Wasserette De Tarthorst
|
Posted - 2009.12.12 15:28:00 -
[53]
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Mag's Blockade runner with cloak and warp to 0 = no risk
Why people refuse to recognise this...
Oh well.
They do?
|
Droog 1
Black Rise Inbreds
|
Posted - 2009.12.12 17:37:00 -
[54]
Originally by: Mr Epeen First off.
I firmly believe that EVE should remove all insurance. It's supposed to be a cold, harsh universe, but what we get is the next best thing to a respawn button.
Now that I have that off my chest, here's how to have some fun and savor ganktard tears.
Gankers always come in twos. There will be the gank ship and then a hauler alt to pick up the pieces. They will normally be parked right up next to each other.
First thing go over to C&P, read up on a good gank fit for blowing up indies and fit out a ship. Then park your ass at one of the many high sec bottlenecks where the most gankers hang out. Sit and watch for a pair of ships sitting elbow to elbow and blow up the hauler part of the team. Or, if you are patient, and for more satisfation, wait for the gank ship to get Concorded and then blow up the hauler.
Local will come alive with the righteous indignation of the ganker that got ganked and you will be called many not nice things.
Mr Epeen
....or you could just shoot the can before the hauler gets to it. |
nakKEDK
Gallente tr0pa de elite Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2009.12.12 18:21:00 -
[55]
Well tbh dominix cost like 1-2 mill after full insurance and death. All the ******ed pirates crying about carebears must risk stuff. I've sucided alot, and will continue it, but that doesn't make it a less ******ed system.
I kill a hauler in uemon ofc - Concord kills me - Concord pays me 66 mill for my domi
k
|
Tippia
Reikoku IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.12.12 18:40:00 -
[56]
Edited by: Tippia on 12/12/2009 18:46:23
Originally by: Psiri It sadly often more profitable than actual piracy, you know, the kind of PvP that has some risk to it aswell for the evil doers.
Yes? And? The profitability is directly related to people's willingness to carry far too expensive stuff in far too flimsy ships and at the same time making themselves easy targets. The whole "where's the risk?" argument conveniently forgets that there are two parties involved, and more often the not the risk is completely and willingly removed by the victim. As long as they do that, the whole "zero risk" complaint is void and null – there is no risk because the target wanted it that way. Since they wanted it that way, they have sfa reason to complain about it.
Quote: The mechanics revolving it are flawed, security status penalties aren't always given as they should be and it strikes carebears very hard.
As mentioned previously, this is once again because the target chooses to reduce the penalties for the ganker.
Quote: Nerf suicide ganking into oblivion, nerf highsec lvl IV and mining profits. Boost lowsec belts and rat bounties, make empire into a place for beginners, RnD, trade and logistics.
No. Beginners already have protected systems, and shielding RnD, trade and logistics even more is a bad idea – they need to be possible to disrupt, and it should be far easier than it is right now. Boost ganking and reinforce the notion that highsec isn't safe – it's just a place where aggression costs.
In short: I don't see why CCP should curb gameplay that players have made possible – if anything, they should loosen the reigns on it and let that the system balance itself. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Boink'urr
Minmatar Wasserette De Tarthorst
|
Posted - 2009.12.12 19:31:00 -
[57]
Lol Tippa. As usual you twist your brain into impossible angles to defend silly stuff.
'Disrupting logistics' by suicide ganking might be cool when you're young, Japanese and in a ww2 fighter at the end of a world war, in a futuristic space game it's simply a failed piece of gamedesign.
|
Tippia
Reikoku IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.12.12 19:48:00 -
[58]
Originally by: Boink'urr 'Disrupting logistics' by suicide ganking might be cool when you're young, Japanese and in a ww2 fighter at the end of a world war, in a futuristic space game it's simply a failed piece of gamedesign.
So you're saying we should remove NPC corps and CONCORD entirely? ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Elena Laskova
|
Posted - 2009.12.12 20:12:00 -
[59]
Edited by: Elena Laskova on 12/12/2009 20:12:20
Originally by: Tippia So you're saying we should remove NPC corps and CONCORD entirely?
So you're saying suicide gankers should be given Loyalty Points, a Standings buff, and three free day's play?
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2009.12.12 20:13:00 -
[60]
Originally by: Boink'urr
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Mag's Blockade runner with cloak and warp to 0 = no risk
Why people refuse to recognise this...
Oh well.
They do?
They do. Using T1 haulers fitted with nothing more than Expanded Cargo Hold II to move relatively valuable cargos - often while AFK - is still appallingly common.
People who want hi-sec made "starter area safe" need to admit that hi-sec is not a starter area. No place where you can make multiple billions of ISK is just a starter area. The people who whine about suicide ganking are not poor new players, they are rich old players who want to get even richer.
Remember Malcanis' Law: Whenever someone propose a change "to help the new players" it is always overwhelmingly to the benefit of older players.
Just like in real life when some politician proposes a new law to "protect the chldren".
|
|
Tippia
Reikoku IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.12.12 20:16:00 -
[61]
Originally by: Elena Laskova
Originally by: Tippia So you're saying we should remove NPC corps and CONCORD entirely?
So you're saying suicide gankers should be given Loyalty Points, a Standings buff, and three free day's play?
In a way, yes. It would be brilliant if missions were subject to that kind of competition: multiple agents sending out multiple MRs to the same spot – last man standing gets the prize. Granted, then they'd no longer be suicide gankers, but rather honest workers…
…but that's what FW is for, I suppose. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Herr Wilkus
|
Posted - 2009.12.12 20:53:00 -
[62]
LOL. Suicide ganking is 'failed game design?' Give me a break.
Failed game design is the bounty system.
Failed game design is spending millions to wardec a rival industrial corporation - only to have all the strategic targets (miners/industrials) flipped into an NPC corp, making them untouchable - and business goes on as if the wardec never happened.
Well - not COMPLETELY untouchable, thanks to suicide ganking. Oh, but OP wants that done away with too.
|
Psiri
|
Posted - 2009.12.12 21:25:00 -
[63]
Originally by: Herr Wilkus LOL. Suicide ganking is 'failed game design?' Give me a break.
Failed game design is the bounty system.
Failed game design is spending millions to wardec a rival industrial corporation - only to have all the strategic targets (miners/industrials) flipped into an NPC corp, making them untouchable - and business goes on as if the wardec never happened.
Well - not COMPLETELY untouchable, thanks to suicide ganking. Oh, but OP wants that done away with too.
I don't feel that suicide ganking in itself is due to a failure in game design, rather I feel that the current need of suicide ganking is a result of this.
Empire is too safe, actual PvP isn't profitable enough (shortage of targets in lowsec, T2 prices and whatnot) and the wardec system never has worked well (much like the bounty system).
I don't expect CCP to man up and nerf highsec and making lowsec worthwhile.
|
Mad templar
|
Posted - 2009.12.12 21:51:00 -
[64]
Saxon, you'll never understand, what's hisec ganking, untill you try it yourself. Just fit any frig with cargo scanner and try to scan all haulers passing by. 99,99% of all haulers have some scrap inside, worth 30-50mil, somitimes 100mil. And 100mil isn't a sum worth ganking, it doesn't cover expences, lost time and concord standing. Cause you need at least three people (accounts) for hisec ganking - ganker, scaner, indus to pick up loot. Imagine three people on alert for many hours waiting for some hauler worth ganking to see that their loot was picked up by someone else, and you'll have some idea of hisec ganking))).
|
Spectre80
Caldari The Knights Templar R.A.G.E
|
Posted - 2009.12.12 22:00:00 -
[65]
suicide gankers should be killed and podded and no insurance should be given.
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |