| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Miranda Ricsko
Gallente
Federal Navy Academy
   |
Posted - 2009.06.26 22:18:00 -
[1]
 Originally by: Shiangti
Originally by: Tesal
There isn't an in game mechanic that can adequately defend against it. This is risk free isk topped off with mountains of emo rage for the people who do it.
Right now no, but actually there was talk of removing the insurance payout from those people who are killed by concord a couple of patches/expansions ago. If insurance was removed (from those concordokkened) that would make the financial aspect much more perilous for the ganker because it would cost them the full amount for their ship loss and get no insurance back. (only from what ever drops from the gankee) I can just imagine the emo rage/quit from C+P if CCP were to actually implement it. It would not stop ganking entirely, but would make it as not profitable or at least MUCH more costly to the ganker.
I think that would be a great system, and it's actually more realistic. If your ship gets trashed by the authorities while you're engaged in criminal activity, an insurance company should in no way pay out. |
Miranda Ricsko
Gallente
Federal Navy Academy
|
Posted - 2009.06.26 23:18:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Mavolio
This is a game for fun tho not real life. How much fun would it be if some 4-5 month old char who had just spent their last isk on a ship accidentaly got it concorded. So in my opinion no payout isn't rly a good solution. At the most it should just be a reduction in the payout to make it less profitable.
Like was stated, there's a popup box warning before you do something illegal. A newbie making a mistake and learning from it is a lot less costly than people being able to gank Hulks with practically no loss in highsec space due to the ******ed insurance company blindly funding their criminal (and idiotic, since it doesn't make sense) activities. Going after a target in highsec should be costly enough where you only do it if you have a very good reason, or if you just want to eat the cost and grief. Deciding to live in the criminal element should involve giving up the luxury of insurance in highsec.
|
Miranda Ricsko
Gallente
Federal Navy Academy
|
Posted - 2009.06.27 01:21:00 -
[3]
Originally by: RedSplat
Originally by: Nuzzy Futs
Originally by: Shiangti
..... I can just imagine the emo rage/quit from C+P if CCP were to actually implement it. It would not stop ganking entirely, but would make it as not profitable or at least MUCH more costly to the ganker.
Emo-rage fake gangster tears are the best tears - That would be hilarious to see the forum **** that would create.
Well for a start most of us would actually make a point of introducing risk into Highsec in retaliation, rather than as the hobby it is for most of us.
I can guarantee you that after a week the tears would be flowing profusely everywhere but C&P. 
I'd prefer that and gankers just throw money away if that's their choice, rather than griefing like babies under the umbrella of insurance claims. |
Miranda Ricsko
Gallente
Federal Navy Academy
|
Posted - 2009.06.27 06:59:00 -
[4]
Has nothing to do with "carebears" (hate that term, so f'ing stupid), it's just a discussion on how to make idiot tactics have some kind of consequence for those that undertake them. Not really any skill or consequence for jumping a Hulk in highsec with a BS. If it weren't for insurance then there'd be no reason to at all except just wanting to gank, which is the only reason there should be. |
Miranda Ricsko
Gallente
Federal Navy Academy
|
Posted - 2009.06.27 18:40:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Future Mutant
Let me clear up a few misconceptions-
I never said that you must "play the game my way"
If you are playing the game- PLAY THE GAME
If you fly a t2 expensive ship- realize that you are flying a mostly uninsurable ship. Im sorry if game mechanics prevent you from doing whatever you want, how you want, when you want.
The answer to game mechanics is to ADAPT. Instead i see endless forum posts about how its not fair.
The discussion was how there's basically zero risk for griefers and no good way to adapt to the ganking with the way Exhumers currently operate. There should always be risk no matter what you're doing, and steps to take to try and alleviate said risks. Therefore something in this situation needs to change on both sides.
|
Miranda Ricsko
Gallente
Federal Navy Academy
|
Posted - 2009.06.27 23:00:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Future Mutant
Originally by: Miranda Ricsko
The discussion was how there's basically zero risk for griefers and no good way to adapt to the ganking with the way Exhumers currently operate. There should always be risk no matter what you're doing, and steps to take to try and alleviate said risks. Therefore something in this situation needs to change on both sides.
Suicide gankers have zero risk? THEY LOSE THEIR SHIP! how much more risk do you want? The fact that they use a t1 insurable ship and miners use a t2 ship is besides the point. No ones stopping miners from using a t1 ship now are they? And besides that check out the whole security status issue they have to deal with.
Almost full insurance claim back + knowing that the target ship has no realistic way to defend against the attack = no real risk.
|
| |
|