| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Gin G
Halls Of Valhalla
   |
Posted - 2009.06.30 11:44:00 -
[31]
 Originally by: Syndicus
Originally by: Armoured C
if you want to stop people suicide ganking you
DONT PUT ANYTHING IN YOUR SHIP THAT WORTH MORE THAN THE SHIP <<<<<<<<<DIGEST<<<<<<<<<
if you foolish to caryy 1 bills worth in a t1 hauler you deserve to loose it to teach you a lesson you wont forget for the forseeable future
You obviously don't understand what I'm trying to say.
yes we do you want eve to be a safer more wow like palce
good luck with it as you dont seem to understand there is nothing wrong with suicide ganking
Please refrain from editing a moderator's warning. Zymurgist |
Morgan Bernhardt
|
Posted - 2009.06.30 12:08:00 -
[32]
To topic starter
Stop whinning ang go back to WOW. 
EVE not a carebears paradise and its very good.
|
Jade Mitch
The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.06.30 12:41:00 -
[33]
Edited by: Jade Mitch on 30/06/2009 12:43:06
Suicide ganking in empire space without a war dec is basically pirating. Of course they should get slammed. But suicide ganking usually involves large ships attacking small ships and the cost of insuring small ships is hardly a slap on the wrist for anyone who can afford to sacrifice big ships.
I would rather the aggressor's wallet be deducted what would be the platinum level insurance payout on their own ship AND they should loose whatever insurance they might have. That would do the trick.
|
Space Pinata
Amarr
Discount Napkin Industries
|
Posted - 2009.06.30 14:04:00 -
[34]
None of you nerf whiners have given a single legitimate reason for suicide ganking to be nerfed, other than "I don't want to be suicide ganked.  ".
Does this mean I can start asking CCP to change the fact that Space Pinata does not have 20 billion isk, by giving 10% of all insurance payouts to me?
Or maybe I could just become immune to all attacks. That'd be wonderful, too.
@ The OP: It's quite ironic how you provide no content and insult anyone who disagrees with you, only to accuse them of being the ones who make no argument.
If you think suicide ganking should be nerfed, answer this: Why? If the answer is "I don't want to lose a ship", then you're not concerned about game balance, you're just trying to have CCP responsible for your safety.
If you have a legitimate reason it's detrimental to gameplay in it's current form, on the other hand... |
Tranka Verrane
Public Venture Enterprises
|
Posted - 2009.06.30 15:55:00 -
[35]
Removing insurance payouts from ships killed by Concord is a suggestion that I and many others put forward before CCP decided to look again at the response times for Concord as their response to suicide ganking. They thought long and hard about it and have succeeded in making suicide ganking a fraction of what it once was without removing it altogether, despite this being easily within their grasp.
Since that was the case it is logical to assume that given the amount of time that has passed since they consider the matter dealt with and the status quo acceptable. Suggesting the same thing yet again when there is no evedince that this is even still an issue is a hiding to nothing.
I live in what was at one point the suicide gank capital of the game and chose my ship of choice deliberately to take that into account. I have seen very little of it going on since compared to at its peak just before the changes. Working as intended, I'd say.
Player Since 2005
Over 4000 hours logged
|
Durzel
The Xenodus Initiative.
|
Posted - 2009.06.30 16:20:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Tranka Verrane
Removing insurance payouts from ships killed by Concord is a suggestion that I and many others put forward before CCP decided to look again at the response times for Concord as their response to suicide ganking. They thought long and hard about it and have succeeded in making suicide ganking a fraction of what it once was without removing it altogether, despite this being easily within their grasp.
Since that was the case it is logical to assume that given the amount of time that has passed since they consider the matter dealt with and the status quo acceptable. Suggesting the same thing yet again when there is no evedince that this is even still an issue is a hiding to nothing.
I live in what was at one point the suicide gank capital of the game and chose my ship of choice deliberately to take that into account. I have seen very little of it going on since compared to at its peak just before the changes. Working as intended, I'd say.
You make a good point there. On the other hand I don't imagine CCP are necessarily too thrilled with the extent of the current hulk ganks when the cost of operations (after insurance) only runs into several million.
Suicide ganking should imo be something noteworthy. Suiciding a hulk literally "just for the lulz" (i.e. where there is no expectation or reliance on profit from it) is imo a bit out of balance.
|
Ausser
Cybertech Industrials Agency
|
Posted - 2009.06.30 17:32:00 -
[37]
Edited by: Ausser on 30/06/2009 17:33:14
Maybe we should add the option to lodge a complaint at court. Victims and outlaws lawyers can then deal with it till out of courts.
When they dont get rid of it in the court of ultimate resort, concord spawns and both opponents and their lawyers get the one month wardec for free and deal with it using the traditionaly way of eve. 
/sarcasm
|
Walton Kildare
Caldari
NSO Enterprises
Unitary Enterprises
|
Posted - 2009.06.30 17:53:00 -
[38]
Edited by: Walton Kildare on 30/06/2009 17:52:57
Originally by: Durzel
Suicide ganking should imo be something noteworthy. Suiciding a hulk literally "just for the lulz" (i.e. where there is no expectation or reliance on profit from it) is imo a bit out of balance.
I've seen this phrase tied to bannable griefing offenses before. It see no reason why it shouldn't be applied to suicide griefing as well (as opposed to suicide pirating where the intent IS to make a profit).
On the insurance note, to me, it seems outside of the realm of realism or feasibility for an insurance payout to be made on a ship that was used in an illegal activity. All it really does is contribute to the profit. In my opinion, if you're going to go to the effort of killing someone in highsec, it should be worth the loss of your ship, and the cost to replace it in its entirety..
What is it the pirates are ALWAYS saying? Risk vs Reward? Well, it works both ways too. Your reward is profit... what is your risk?
Justin
º
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |