Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Fitser Pullman
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 15:54:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Fitser Pullman on 26/03/2008 15:55:47 Ok, well obviously something needs to be done about the suicide ganking. First off, I've never suicide ganked, and I've never been suicide ganked. So I don't lean one way or the other because of my habits. I just thought since this seems to be the most prevalanet, and annoying, topic on the forums now adays, that I would throw in my opinion for a fix. Ofcourse all those infavor of suicide ganking are going to flame me, but I hope that people can actually consider this an option, and provide some interesting input on both sides of the fence.
First off I am proposing this assuming a number of things:
1. Not everyone likes to PVP 2. Empire space (.5 and greater) is supposed to be semi-safe, save war declaration. 3. Suicide gankers can kill a ship and gain much more than they lose at the expense of someone else with almost no risk or loss
Well after all this my fix is rather simple. Just have concord confiscate all or most items dropped by a ship destroyed in any engagement that requires concord to intervene. Concord is there for a reason. This fix would elminate or severly curb the absurd profit ratio that suicide gankers enjoy. PVP should be enjoyed by parties that both want a part of it, or in low sec or 0.0. This fix wouldn't make Empire completely safe, but it would certainly make suicide ganking less profitable.
I'll repeat once again that I've never suicide ganked or been suicide-ganked. I have however low-sec and 0.0 ganked miners and still do so. This idea is purely motivated by the front page of general discussion being covered by 50% whine pro gank/ anti gank posts. I just want it to stop.
Please, say whatever you like about this idea. But for the mindless drones with nothing constructive to say, you fail. |
Threv Echandari
Dragons Of Redemption Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 16:00:00 -
[2]
Ok, Concord "Confiscates" the items. What does the legitimate owner of the property do to Collect? Does the user have to file a petition? Pay a Fee? Or does he still lose his stuff?
If user doesn't collect does concord get to auction off the Goods at an abandoned property auction?
Happiness is a Wet Pod
|
Dirk Magnum
Spearhead Endeavors
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 16:02:00 -
[3]
Goons are suiciding in ships that cost 5-7 million isk when fitted. Being able to recover their modules is hardly a priority. They do however receive 5-6 million isk back from insurance, so clearly insurance is what needs fixing.
|
Winterblink
Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 16:04:00 -
[4]
You want to post this here instead, dude. :)
|
Fitser Pullman
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 16:06:00 -
[5]
All items are gone, most likely, they simply dissapear. And I'm not talking about the Goons modules. Im talking about the gankers victims the profitable stuff. The stuff they are after, and everything in their cargohold. All items from both parties ships and cargoholds would be confiscated and destroyed, unless another idea is proposed. |
Amarth Thargan
Brutor tribe
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 16:06:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Threv Echandari
If user doesn't collect does concord get to auction off the Goods at an abandoned property auction?
Would be nice idea
|
Boomershoot
Insurgent New Eden Tribe Deus Ex.
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 16:07:00 -
[7]
Quote: 1. Not everyone likes to PVP 2. Empire space (.5 and greater) is supposed to be semi-safe, save war declaration. 3. Suicide gankers can kill a ship and gain much more than they lose at the expense of someone else with almost no risk or loss
1. not a problem, you know how to get to hello kitty, right? it's that way, for those who forgot ======>
2. there's no place where you're safe, save NPC station, inside. you know that, there is PVP everywhere. you cannot do anything for it, it's how EVE works.
3. riskful > riskless. so you have to risk your ship (in the hope of the target ship to explode) to gain something. now, you're doing riskful mining, because goons are around, suicide gankers are around. and most of the hopeless carebears are quitting because of that, while others try to fight out.
well, know what? if you don't like pvp just go 0.9-1.0 you have less chances to get ganked, eh? :P __________________________________________________ Not A Signature. Will be Replaced by A Signature Soon(tm) |
Doonoo Boonoo
Hedion University
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 16:09:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Fitser Pullman All items are gone, most likely, they simply dissapear. And I'm not talking about the Goons modules. Im talking about the gankers victims the profitable stuff. The stuff they are after, and everything in their cargohold. All items from both parties ships and cargoholds would be confiscated and destroyed, unless another idea is proposed.
I have an idea.Stop posting ill conceived badly thought out proposals to the problem and come up with something viable.
|
Fitser Pullman
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 16:10:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Fitser Pullman on 26/03/2008 16:10:42
Originally by: Doonoo Boonoo
Originally by: Fitser Pullman All items are gone, most likely, they simply dissapear. And I'm not talking about the Goons modules. Im talking about the gankers victims the profitable stuff. The stuff they are after, and everything in their cargohold. All items from both parties ships and cargoholds would be confiscated and destroyed, unless another idea is proposed.
I have an idea.Stop posting ill conceived badly thought out proposals to the problem and come up with something viable.
umm....ditto?
|
Inconstant Moon
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 16:12:00 -
[10]
Interesting idea with roleplay validity.
In real life when the police intervene, they lock down the scene and take everything away. Makes sense!
|
|
An Anarchyyt
Battlestars GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 16:15:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Fitser Pullman 1. Not everyone likes to PVP
So then they probably shouldn't play a PvP game.
Originally by: CCP Wrangler Second, a gentile is a non jewish person
|
Quelque Chose
University of Caille
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 16:17:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Fitser Pullman Just have concord confiscate all or most items dropped by a ship destroyed in any engagement that requires concord to intervene.
That's just awful IMO.
Suicide ganking for profit seems like an important part of the criminal career path, and it makes sense within the context of the game. It's also self- regulating in that shippers can reduce their risk by making their shipments unprofitable targets. Legitimate criminals (heh) don't need to be penalized.
On the other hand, your solution does absolutely nothing to people who suicide gank just for the sake of being obnoxious since profit doesn't ever enter into the equation for them. ______________________________
"Eve Online is a massively multiplayer game about trolling in outer space." |
RaTTuS
BIG Ka-Tet
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 16:26:00 -
[13]
this -- BIG Lottery, BIG Deal, InEve & Portrait Server
|
Zignar
Loyalty projects Sempiternus
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 16:50:00 -
[14]
I woudden ban / remove that type of ganking, just do so if you concord have shot on your ship /killed it you can not get the insurance money. That will stop alot of it, unless pll transport for like 100mill in a T1 transpoerter on auto pilot. Zignar Diractor Loyalty Projects |
Chelone
Stone Shadow Syndicate deadspace society
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 22:39:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Boomershoot
Quote: 1. Not everyone likes to PVP
1. not a problem, you know how to get to hello kitty, right? it's that way, for those who forgot ======>
If Concord didn't exist, such that you couldn't even undock without instantly being podded by a group of 24/7 campers, I'd like to see your reaction to that. I'm sure it would be an enthusiastic reaction, and you would be happy about 24/7 PvP! After all, according to you, wanting any amount of safety, anywhere in the galaxy (other than being docked which somehow you exclude) is tantamount to wanting Hello Kitty Online!
And of course if ambulation comes in, and other people get the ability to stab you in the face inside the station while you are casually looking at the in-game map, well, be a man about it! This is a PvP game! Safety isn't allowed. Ever.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 22:40:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Fitser Pullman Ok, well obviously something needs to be done about the suicide ganking.
Stopped reading right there.
1|2|3|4|5. |
Zex Maxwell
Black Watch Legionnaires
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 22:43:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Fitser Pullman
Well after all this my fix is rather simple. Just have concord confiscate all or most items dropped by a ship destroyed in any engagement that requires concord to intervene. Concord is there for a reason.
Sounds like a good fix to me.
|
Clinically
ANZAC ALLIANCE Southern Cross Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 22:53:00 -
[18]
Edited by: Clinically on 26/03/2008 22:53:44 The perfect fix is make all space null-sec ________________
Originally by: Evil Thug I wear pink panties.
|
El Mauru
Nexus Analytics Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 22:57:00 -
[19]
I still believe suicide ganking is not a problem :-P
You wanna fly multi-million hulks :-P fly them in lowsec with protection. -
|
gimboled
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 23:03:00 -
[20]
besides, suicide ganking is fun :)
|
|
Cpt Fina
Mutually Assured Distraction
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 23:06:00 -
[21]
I'd condone a major nerf to high-sec suicide ganks (not complete removal) if corporations suffered more from wardecs and weren't able to "run" from them and if severe drawbacks to NPCcorp-players were implemented.
|
Billy Sastard
Life. Universe. Everything. Rejuvenate
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 23:15:00 -
[22]
Originally by: gimboled besides, suicide ganking is fun :)
This -=^=-
|
Acidictadpole
Spartan Industries Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 23:18:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Dirk Magnum Goons are suiciding in ships that cost 5-7 million isk when fitted. Being able to recover their modules is hardly a priority. They do however receive 5-6 million isk back from insurance, so clearly insurance is what needs fixing.
Ships that are in the engagement include the target.. Therefore the gankers won't gain any loot from their target.
Although posted in the wrong area, I think this will help but I don't think CCP will go for it since EVE is a PVP game. PVP is enabled and you're always at risk, that's one of EVE's really defined points.
I don't know if it works with regards to scanning people, but if you have stuff in containers tthen you can't pick that up in scans.
|
Johli
AWE Corporation Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 23:24:00 -
[24]
The op is forgetting that suicide ganking has been around forever, and the fact the goons are now taking advantage of it doesn't mean it should be nerfed. I mean, if it wasn't nerfed before jihadswarm, it would be ridiculous to mess with it now just because an alliance decides to do it.
|
Kahega Amielden
Legacy Syndicate space weaponry and trade
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 23:41:00 -
[25]
Until mining/missionrunning in hisec is removed, any and all *****ing about suicide gankers profiting without risk/loss has no meaning.
|
Chelone
Stone Shadow Syndicate deadspace society
|
Posted - 2008.03.27 00:02:00 -
[26]
Edited by: Chelone on 27/03/2008 00:04:38
Originally by: Johli suicide ganking has been around forever, and the fact the goons are now taking advantage of it doesn't mean it should be nerfed. I mean, if it wasn't nerfed before jihadswarm, it would be ridiculous to mess with it now just because an alliance decides to do it.
The ability to kill Concord used to be in the game, it wasn't fixed until someone decided to exploit it. Next came the ability to tank Concord using friends with remote rep/boosting. Wasn't changed till someone exploited that. Now the goons (and a lot of people in general) are pushing the limits of highsec ganking - essentially to ignore Concord. Expect a similar result.
CCP has made it clear that they want highsec to be "relatively safe." When people can't even haul goods in highsec without practically EXPECTING to be attacked, that is a problem. The easiest and most obvious adjustment that WILL be made is the removal of insurance payments for criminals. If that isn't enough to DETER (not eliminate) the rashes of suicide ganking, then the changes will go further.
|
Ki An
Filiolus Of Bellum
|
Posted - 2008.03.27 00:07:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Chelone
The ability to kill Concord used to be in the game, it wasn't fixed until someone decided to exploit it. Next came the ability to tank Concord using friends with remote rep/boosting. Wasn't changed till someone exploited that. Now the goons (and a lot of people in general) are pushing the limits of highsec ganking - essentially to ignore Concord. Expect a similar result.
CCP has made it clear that they want highsec to be "relatively safe." When people can't even haul goods in highsec without practically EXPECTING to be attacked, that is a problem. The easiest and most obvious adjustment that WILL be made is the removal of insurance payments for criminals. If that isn't enough to DETER (not eliminate) the rashes of suicide ganking, then the changes will go further.
You speak like you can read the minds of the Devs. Good thing you can't and that nothing will get changed.
Also, you should ALWAYS expect to be attacked whatever the sec status of the system you are in. This is where the whiners fail. CCP has made this clear too.
Filiolus of Bellum is recruiting
|
Chelone
Stone Shadow Syndicate deadspace society
|
Posted - 2008.03.27 00:54:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Ki An You speak like you can read the minds of the Devs. Good thing you can't and that nothing will get changed.
Use arrogant sarcasm all you want - you still fail. Concord exists for a reason. CCP has continually made that clear, even going so far as to declare any attempt to get around Concord an "exploit." I don't have to read minds to examine the history of Eve, CCP and Concord.
The function of Concord is to make certain areas of space "relatively safe" by providing timely, unavoidable consequences to criminal actions. This is balanced - the "carebears" (which apparently in terms of the opponents of change consist of anyone who has ever flown through highsec with anything of value) know that criminals must pay a price to attack them, otherwise highsec would be like lowsec or 0.0. Likewise, the criminals get SOME opportunity to take advantage of criminal activity. CCP has consistently made it clear (through actions) that they want to maintain the existence of highsec for "risk-averse" players - though in reality, MOST players utilize the safety of highsec for one benefit or another, whether or not they will admit to it while "YARR"ing hypocritically about 24/7 PvP.
The problem isn't in the highsec ganking, it's in the degree. Highsec ganking has expanded to the point that Concord is almost superfluous - it is merely a small "cost" in the suicide gankers' profit formula, and is being ignored across highsec on a daily basis to the point that ANY hauler, on any given run through populous "high-security space" can not simply expect that they might possibly be attacked, they can expect that they will be attacked. This demonstrates that the current unavoidable consequences of Concord are insufficient.
The simplest way to raise the cost of highsec crime would be to remove insurance payouts for criminals. It will happen. End of story.
|
duckmonster
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.03.27 00:57:00 -
[29]
Oh hey, I was wondering when someone would start a suicide ganking thread. -----------
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2008.03.27 01:03:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Chelone Highsec ganking has expanded to the point that Concord is almost superfluous - it is merely a small "cost" in the suicide gankers' profit formula, and is being ignored across highsec on a daily basis to the point that ANY hauler, on any given run through populous "high-security space" can not simply expect that they might possibly be attacked, they can expect that they will be attacked. This demonstrates that the current unavoidable consequences of Concord are insufficient.
The simplest way to raise the cost of highsec crime would be to remove insurance payouts for criminals. It will happen. End of story.
A few simple questions for you... how much does it cost to suicide-gank a : * a barebones T1 hauler * a properly fit T1 hauler * a barebones transport ship * a properly fit transport ship * a freighter ...and how much do YOU think it should cost in each of those cases, if not "as much as it costs now" ?
1|2|3|4|5. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |