Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Commander Spectre
The Funkstars Guild
|
Posted - 2008.01.23 09:07:00 -
[1]
I'm sure it's been said before, but something really needs to be done about suicide high-sec ganking. Concord is proving to be totally ineffective in protecting players in systems that are supposed to be relitivly safe. It's too easy to insure a ship, get together with some buddies and gank everything coming through the gate and get most of the money from you ship loss replaced. Ganking should be much more limited to low-sec or 0.0 where people don't expect to be safe. Since the game mechanics have changed to allow scanning of containers in your cargohold this has encouraged and promoted high-sec ganking to the point that every market hub is camped continuously and piracy there has become very lucrative.
So when you kill someone in high-sec there should be no insurance payment and your sec status should drop to -5. This means you don't get the money back from your crimnal action and you are not welcome in high-sec by the police to continue performing criminal acts. This is the way law enforcement is supposed to work. You can't rob a bank and expect to stroll by the police 15 minutes later and have nothing happen. Why should EVE be any different from the "Old West"? You commit a crime and you are hunted down and either killed (with no clones to fall back on) or you loose your freedom for a very long time.
Yes I know the people doing it won't like the idea, but they shouldn't. EVE is a harsh game and so the law enforcement should be harsh as well. If you aren't brave enough to do it in low-sec where the victim at least has some chance to fight back himself or with friends then your not a pirate, your a griefer and you are exploiting the game mechanics to get away with it.
I'm sure alot of people will dissagree, but tbh I don't really care. Eventually even they will get ganked going to buy something in high-sec and I'm sure there will be alot of crying.
This is just my opinion and it will probably be ignored by the devs anyways, but there it is.
|
Bahlabihot
|
Posted - 2008.01.23 09:49:00 -
[2]
Wardec mechanics still need some work.
/signed |
Ellaine TashMurkon
CBC Interstellar The Unseen Company
|
Posted - 2008.01.23 10:22:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Ellaine TashMurkon on 23/01/2008 10:25:49 Concord perfectly and surely protects people in highsec. In fact, its not possible to get away alive. In fact, its insanly overpowered.
Whats wrong IMHO is the fact that after sec status loss, You can be back in highsec camp in a matter of days of 0.0 ratting. I think it should not only (or not at all) require killing rats, but also take time, maybe even months.
Killing pirates with no clones is just bad. Perma death is insane punishment and would make piracy a profession of newbie alts only, witch is stupid.
They may have clones in corporations that don't care at all about concord - like some corps of Intaki Syndicate or Thukker Tribe or Sisters of Eve, or ORE or Guristas and other NPC pirates.
Also, giving -5 for highsec kill is too harsh for newbies who did this because they didn't realise then shuldn't.
|
Commander Spectre
The Funkstars Guild
|
Posted - 2008.01.23 10:55:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Commander Spectre on 23/01/2008 10:55:24 Well the newbies get a warning when they try to shoot someone the first time and, untill they turn it off, they most likely get several warnings that it is a criminal act. If they ignore them then they would find out real fast that it is a criminal act...good learning exerience IMO.
As for the clones, I didn't mean people in EVE would get no clones...It was a comparason to real life where there weren't any clones in the wild west days in American history.
I mean they would not get insurance on thier ship they lost to a suicide gank. Not that Concord would accually pod kill them.
And by giving a -5 sec hit, they would not be welcome back in empire till they got thier standing up from -5. At -4.9 you can enter 0.5 systems and at -1.9 you can enter 1.0 systems so it would probably take them at least couple weeks to get back into a 1.0 system so in effect it does keep them out of empire like you suggested.
I really don't see that as really being all that harsh, just inconvenient. Inconvenient like it was for the pilot who was carrying some valuable cargo that he now has to replace, for example, cuz he did a favor for someone that could not enter high-sec. Or the guy carrying much needed modules for his corp mates out in 0.0.
The idea is to make it less profitable, and less appealing to gank in high-sec where the police only have a 15 min. memory. But if anyone can think of a better deterent that's cool too. I just think the punishment would fit the crime better if they are not allowed to come back in 15 min. flying a new ship that the insurance paid for to do it over and over.
|
Shaemell Buttleson
Darwin With Attitude oooh Shiny
|
Posted - 2008.01.23 11:20:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Shaemell Buttleson on 23/01/2008 11:20:24 I think it's very silly that....
1] Insurance pays anything for hi-sec ganking.
2] Sec loss is the same as killing something in low-sec.
But tbh it suits myself and many of my alliance mates as it is.
Until the mechanics change we will be doing it often because of insurance, the amount of kills we can make before being stopped going into Hi-sec and slow concord response time (particularly in lower hi-sec).
WE DO NOT DO THIS But if you think concord isn't slow I can assure you it is possible to avoid getting ganked and escaping them totaly for no loss. IT IS AN EXPLOIT SO DON'T ATTEMPT IT!
|
Ellaine TashMurkon
CBC Interstellar The Unseen Company
|
Posted - 2008.01.23 11:28:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Ellaine TashMurkon on 23/01/2008 11:28:49 Its not possible because its a bannable explit and if You happen to run from concord somehow, GMs do You bad things (as I've heard).
Sec loss proportional to sec status is a very good idea tho. It creates real difference in safety between 0.5 and 1.0 or 0.4 and 0.1. Double current sec hit and then multiply it by sec status - so podding people in 0.1 would cost onlu 20% of current sec loss and killing ships in 0.9 - 180% of current hit.
Insurance system is not logical from the start and I see people who get concorded by accident all the time (they turn off warnings when fighting in lowsec).
|
Commander Spectre
The Funkstars Guild
|
Posted - 2008.01.23 11:55:00 -
[7]
Yeah, I'm not agaisnt ganking, don't get me wrong. I have enjoyed my share of loot from poor souls as do many other players. It's part of the fun of EVE. But I do it in low sec or 0.0 where PVP is to be expected. And it's not that I have been high sec ganked either cuz tbh it's never happened to me as I take precautions.
It's just that I have noticed the camps on the market hub gates seem to be increasing. I seem to be hearing other players say how they got ganked , (one I know who will be nameless..lol...lost 5 bil worth of stuff..oww). The EVE devs keep saying how they want more players to leave high-sec but when you can make so much ganking at a market hub (or so I've heard) then why leave?
I may have it wrong, but I allways thought of high-sec for newbies and carebears while the PVP part was in low-sec and 0.0. And if you want to fight in high-sec you use a wardec.
Anyways, it was just a thought so hate it if you will. I just think there's no sport in picking off a newbie in a hauler in high-sec and market hubs should be a bit safer for everyone.
|
Matthew
Caldari BloodStar Technologies
|
Posted - 2008.01.23 12:54:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Commander Spectre It's just that I have noticed the camps on the market hub gates seem to be increasing. I seem to be hearing other players say how they got ganked , (one I know who will be nameless..lol...lost 5 bil worth of stuff..oww). The EVE devs keep saying how they want more players to leave high-sec but when you can make so much ganking at a market hub (or so I've heard) then why leave?
CCP really have very limited control over how profitable suicide ganking is, because ultimately it depends on how much people decide to put in their ships. If CCP push up the costs of performing a suicide gank, haulers will tend to just cram even more value into their ships because they feel safer.
If everyone visiting a market hub took the decision to not put more in their cargo hold than it would cost to suicide gank them, then those camps would disappear very quickly as there would be no profitable targets. But people are greedy and will take the risk because it's worth it to get those extra volumes shifted in one trip. If suicide ganking got out of control, no-one would dare undock in anything worth ganking, and ganking would be horribly unprofitable. Where we are right now sounds like a good balance between those two extremes.
Originally by: Commander Spectre I may have it wrong, but I allways thought of high-sec for newbies and carebears while the PVP part was in low-sec and 0.0. And if you want to fight in high-sec you use a wardec.
High-sec is as much a PvP zone as low-sec or 0.0, it's just that high-sec has measures to encourage non-combat PvP to be the dominant (but not the only) form. High-sec is safe, as long as you don't go outside of the thresholds implicit in the security system. Of course, with Eve being competitive, people tend to sail as far over the line as they think they can get away with.
Newbies are unlikely to have sufficient wealth to make attractive suicide gank targets in the first place, and older carebears that have enough to be worth ganking should also have enough to protect their assets. The presence of concord should not remove a carebear's obligation to use the right tools for the job (an expanded iteron V not being the right tool for hauling 20k m3 of megacyte, for example).
Originally by: Commander Spectre I just think the punishment would fit the crime better if they are not allowed to come back in 15 min. flying a new ship that the insurance paid for to do it over and over.
I can see what you're getting at here. A straight -5 sec status for a single ship kill would be too harsh though, especially considering that genuine accidents do happen.
One idea may be a probation-style system, where the system will look back in your sec status transaction log for a number of hours or days (duration up for debate), and count up how many previous offences occured within that period. You would be considered to be on probation for those offences.
If you were not on probation for any offences, you would get the current penalties. Subsequent offences would attract an increased penalty, proportional to the number of offences you are still on probation for. In this way, crazed killing sprees would be significantly penalised without being unreasonable on the guy that shot the wrong target by accident. ------- There is no magic Wand of Fixing, and it is not powered by forum whines. |
Ellaine TashMurkon
CBC Interstellar The Unseen Company
|
Posted - 2008.01.23 12:55:00 -
[9]
Camps on highsec gates are increasing because people in empire become richer and richer and totally careless.
Eve should be a game about people choosing safe but low income highsec life or taking great risk going to low, to get great rewards.
But it slowly becomes a game about very rich people making totally safe money in highsec; some can ocasionally go to lowsec to loose their money on manhunting sports, because they are bored.
Highsec is too profitable with no risk. Highsec ganks magically work towards balancing that by creating risk where it was not intended to exist. Its easily avoidable by not hauling 5 billion assets in an industrial.
|
Kerfira
University of Caille
|
Posted - 2008.01.23 13:21:00 -
[10]
I have no beef as such with high-sec gankings, but anyone killed by concord shouldn't get insurance money.
Since mineral prices are dropping, insurance almost pays for a new ship PLUS the insurance on the new ship (I did a calc on a Raven the other day and it came out at just above 8m ISK), and the dropping prices on all T1 gear makes suicide gankings too cheap.
Correct insurance, either by not paying it to concord kills, or by linking it directly to the market price instead of the current fixed way-too-high price.
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
|
Conrad Rock
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2008.01.23 14:19:00 -
[11]
Basically, just not paying insurance on suicide would diminish, but not eliminate the problem.
The issue isn't something that needs to be eliminated, but diminished, yes.
Right now, someone people will gank a hauler carrying a cargo of only 100m, that's just not healthy for newbies who transport all their assets to move to a different area.
Killing ships and hitting newbies for everything to grinded so hard are two different styles of griefing*.
*Spelled wrong?
|
Reggie Stoneloader
Teikoku Trade Conglomerate Visions of Warfare
|
Posted - 2008.01.23 18:24:00 -
[12]
Killing insurance payouts from Concord killings would be a big help. The problem there, of course, is that accidentally gett Concorded for messing up a mission with a buddy would mean you get no insurance on your mission Raven. So how about if insurance is invalidated only if you destroyed a ship in high-sec within two minutes, and in those cases, the killed player can choose to reinstate your insurance payout?
Crusades: Security Status |
Infomad
|
Posted - 2008.01.23 20:05:00 -
[13]
I guess the penalty for ganking in hi-sec could be penalized with a temporary security change to below -5. That won't return to normal for 7 days. But only for the person that actually destroyed the ship.
I mean it is hi-sec for a reason. If it is not going to have a measure of protection for the players it might as well all be low sec.
I also posted about how there should be a module that could hide your cargo contents.
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |