Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 .. 17 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Windjammer
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.04.16 22:57:00 -
[391]
Originally by: Corina's Bodyguard Am I a bad person for thinking they should remove insurance in general?
No, but as Malconis has aptly pointed out, it would be a hard row for new players unless theyÆre supported by more experienced and richer players.
This proposal only touches suicide ganking and if I understand it correctly only suicide ganking occurring in high sec, since Concord is not present anywhere else. It does not touch other forms of PvP such as war, fighting in 0.0 or wormholes (lawless space) and presumably would not affect activities in low sec.
The proposal would have minimal impact even on new players, but would introduce an element of cost analysis for those that wish to suicide gank in high sec. Would it eliminate suicide ganking? Of course not. Would it make a suicide ganker pick and choose his/her targets more carefully instead of wailing away on whatever? ThatÆs the hope.
-Windjammer
|
Merissa Servan
|
Posted - 2011.05.04 03:07:00 -
[392]
I don't know if it's possible to clear the acrimony here. The concept of suicide ganking being essential to the EVE economy... is lulz. Trying to call removing insurance on concorded ships anything but a nerf on suicide ganking, is equally lulz.
The point is this: a suicide gank gang kills my T2 fitted Hulk with 3 T1 fitted destroyers. They use a covops pilot in an NPC corp to provide a warpin point. By the time I realize anything is up, my ship is dead. The 4th dessie takes out my pod, full set of +4's and mining yield implant toast. Covops pilot scoops the wrecks and runs.
Their loss: around 1.5 million isk, 2 million tops. One strip miner II costs more than that. To add insult to injury, their hulls are insured. Insurance on a T2 mining barge? lol
Mining in high sec on medium ores with a Hulk and an Orca I'm using two accounts to generate 15M isk an hour, if I'm lucky. It takes me 20 hours of play time to replace the loss.
The gankers, on the other hand, only need one T2 module to drop to turn a profit. And if they care about their sec status, it takes them maybe 5 hours in a stealth bomber to fix it. Most of them don't care, they just use an NPC alt to drop a fitted ship in system for the -10 guy to pick up.
And of course, the gankers are adamant that there is absolutely nothing wrong with this risk/reward ratio. And why wouldn't they? Everything is in their favor. In their view of the universe, anybody not playing the game the way they think it should be played is a loot pinata.
We won't even get into the arena of the us vs. them "carebear" name calling schoolyard bully attitude that seems to have pervaded the game over the past couple of years. What everybody knows, and what nobody will say, is that most suicide ganking is not RP piracy but mildly tolerated random "carebear" griefing. And just because it doesn't meet CCPs EULA definition of "griefing" doesn't mean that's not what it is. Alpha popping the dumbass carrying a cap parts BPO in a shuttle in Niarja is one thing. Using the same mechanic to inflict grevious loss on some unsuspecting pilot minding their own business "because you can" is something else again.
We know the situation will never get "fixed". Fixed would be: 1) Transferrable kill rights. Gank my industrial player, my "bounty hunter" of choice is coming after you. Hopefully, when you are flying something expensive. Things would be a little different if pilots could have some reasonable fear of having the shoe on the other foot, hmmm? Since most gankers are purpose built alts this has less utility than it might seem, but player justice is the best kind and the current system is lopsided against pilots not specialized in combat. 2) Make security status something meaningful. Less than -7? You can't even pass through a highsec gate anymore. Lower yourself to less than -7 inside a highsec system? Better hope your medical clone is in lowsec so you can destruct your pod back home, or get ready to do a lot of belt ratting. This will solve the issue of -10's flying around in pods until it's time to do the dirty deed, and jump into a ship handed off from a "safe" npc corp alt or kicked out of an Orca. Oh and CCP supposedly doesn't condone killing pods in Empire, so killing a pod is an automatic -10. No matter where you started. 3) Make security status harder to earn back. System hopping in a stealth bomber killing one battleship rat in each nullsec system for a few hours is not even a fair trade for the dirty deeds being done. Introduce a metric that reduces the positive status gained for every NPC kill, for each negative "incident" the pilot has in the past 90 days. What? Unfair? You want to be a pirate, then go live in lowsec. 4) Fix the bounty system. How does it serve anyone to have a game mechanic that's a joke?
Since we know none of these things are going to happen, all we want is to remove the insult from the injury. No insurance payouts for gankers. |
Antadark
|
Posted - 2011.05.04 04:48:00 -
[393]
/support for logic
|
Malcanis
Caldari Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2011.05.04 09:45:00 -
[394]
Originally by: lilol' me This is why new players leave the game!! Cos high sec is not safe! People need a real safe area or as stated remOve insurance!
It's a joke!
There is not, should never be, and I hope never will be any "safe space" in EVE.
Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players. |
Kaelie Onren
|
Posted - 2011.05.04 10:14:00 -
[395]
Edited by: Kaelie Onren on 04/05/2011 10:15:22 Agreed. About as logical as the DEA paying you for your henchman's life insurance and health bills from injuries sustained from their drug raid on your heroien operation. (yeah, had to spell it funny to pass the child filter)
|
Karren M
|
Posted - 2011.05.09 22:45:00 -
[396]
I started in the CSM discussion on this topic. It seems to me the easiest fix that makes sense is setting fines up for gankers.
Suicide ganker pays 50% base value of target. Paid to concord.
Each aggressor on the KM has to pay the same amount.
Insurance is paid at 50% of insurance level -(platinum insurance X 50%)
Standings hit stays the same.
Negative isk(owed fines) activate Concord Bounty-hunters!! -forcing you to eject from current ship if fines aren't paid within a set amount of time.
Don't lie, you love the idea.
|
Malcanis
Caldari Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2011.05.10 14:14:00 -
[397]
Originally by: Karren M I started in the CSM discussion on this topic. It seems to me the easiest fix that makes sense is setting fines up for gankers.
"Fix" for what? Remember that suicide ganking is intended gameplay. CCP have explicitly confirmed this on several occasions.
Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players. |
Kaelie Onren
|
Posted - 2011.05.13 19:03:00 -
[398]
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Karren M I started in the CSM discussion on this topic. It seems to me the easiest fix that makes sense is setting fines up for gankers.
"Fix" for what? Remember that suicide ganking is intended gameplay. CCP have explicitly confirmed this on several occasions.
'fix' is not the right word. I think rebalance is better. And fines isn't the way to achieve this. (not the least of reasons being the difficulty in determining what a 'gank' is vs a regular aggro) Just add a mechanic that would either make it less attractive for gankers to take out a hauler which also costs the hauler some utility in order to improve such mechanic. Or a mechanic which gives haulers more of a fighting chance (subject to skill, again) or a incentive for there to be more haulers, so that haulers get safety in numbers.
penalizing the gankers directly is not going work.
|
Goodluvins
|
Posted - 2011.06.05 08:39:00 -
[399]
This change is supported by me.
|
Malcanis
Caldari Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2011.06.05 10:49:00 -
[400]
Originally by: Kaelie Onren
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Karren M I started in the CSM discussion on this topic. It seems to me the easiest fix that makes sense is setting fines up for gankers.
"Fix" for what? Remember that suicide ganking is intended gameplay. CCP have explicitly confirmed this on several occasions.
'fix' is not the right word. I think rebalance is better. And fines isn't the way to achieve this. (not the least of reasons being the difficulty in determining what a 'gank' is vs a regular aggro) Just add a mechanic that would either make it less attractive for gankers to take out a hauler which also costs the hauler some utility in order to improve such mechanic. Or a mechanic which gives haulers more of a fighting chance (subject to skill, again) or a incentive for there to be more haulers, so that haulers get safety in numbers.
penalizing the gankers directly is not going work.
What's your basis for saying that such a rebalance is required. Justifications that begin with "I feel that" and "It seems to me" are not sufficient. Based on what hard evidence does suicide ganking need a rebalance? I'd like to see some numbers showing that actively piloted* ships are in danger disproportionate to the rewards that they can gain.
For instance, I've used Faction/T3 ships to mission in hi-sec for 4 years, and I have never even had an attempt to gank me. Likewise, I frequently move valuables through high sec, and have never had an issue. The high frequency of expensive, expensively fitted ships in mission systems is circumstantial evidence that the danger of ganks is not high enough to make these ships not worth using.
*I think we can all agree that people who are AFK do not deserve any special consideration.
Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players. |
|
Dopesick
Ice Hogz
|
Posted - 2011.06.05 13:30:00 -
[401]
I say make insurance more realistic.
You have platinum insurance, you lose a ship (no matter who is at "fault") and your individual insurance premium goes up.
As stated before; You lose your ship in a war or null sec environment, no payout.
|
Ranka Mei
Caldari
|
Posted - 2011.06.05 15:17:00 -
[402]
Originally by: Merissa Servan I don't know if it's possible to clear the acrimony here. The concept of suicide ganking being essential to the EVE economy... is lulz. Trying to call removing insurance on concorded ships anything but a nerf on suicide ganking, is equally lulz.
The point is this: a suicide gank gang kills my T2 fitted Hulk with 3 T1 fitted destroyers. They use a covops pilot in an NPC corp to provide a warpin point. By the time I realize anything is up, my ship is dead. The 4th dessie takes out my pod, full set of +4's and mining yield implant toast. Covops pilot scoops the wrecks and runs.
Their loss: around 1.5 million isk, 2 million tops. One strip miner II costs more than that. To add insult to injury, their hulls are insured. Insurance on a T2 mining barge? lol
Mining in high sec on medium ores with a Hulk and an Orca I'm using two accounts to generate 15M isk an hour, if I'm lucky. It takes me 20 hours of play time to replace the loss.
The gankers, on the other hand, only need one T2 module to drop to turn a profit. And if they care about their sec status, it takes them maybe 5 hours in a stealth bomber to fix it. Most of them don't care, they just use an NPC alt to drop a fitted ship in system for the -10 guy to pick up.
And of course, the gankers are adamant that there is absolutely nothing wrong with this risk/reward ratio. And why wouldn't they? Everything is in their favor. In their view of the universe, anybody not playing the game the way they think it should be played is a loot pinata.
We won't even get into the arena of the us vs. them "carebear" name calling schoolyard bully attitude that seems to have pervaded the game over the past couple of years. What everybody knows, and what nobody will say, is that most suicide ganking is not RP piracy but mildly tolerated random "carebear" griefing. And just because it doesn't meet CCPs EULA definition of "griefing" doesn't mean that's not what it is. Alpha popping the dumbass carrying a cap parts BPO in a shuttle in Niarja is one thing. Using the same mechanic to inflict grevious loss on some unsuspecting pilot minding their own business "because you can" is something else again.
Very well put! --
|
AFK Master
AFK Chartered System Management
|
Posted - 2011.06.05 15:54:00 -
[403]
Originally by: Ranka Mei
Originally by: Merissa Servan Whine about a hulk loss.
Very well put!
How was the hulk fit? Could another fit have made a difference? Do you honestly think removal of insurance would stop this? Didn't you find that post funny?
|
Mars Theran
Caldari EVE Rogues EVE Rogues Alliance
|
Posted - 2011.06.07 01:26:00 -
[404]
In real life, most of EVE would be considered Frontier territory, going back to the days when people took the law into their own hands without being punished for it. The exceptions would be 0.7 and higher security space, where it would either be the law, or those supported by the law. We would have marshals; players enjoying the benefit of high security status who worked for DED and Concord.
Criminals would be criminals, and they would be shot on sight, or lose their possessions and belongings prior to being escorted out of high security space and into the badlands. Player Lawmen would track down criminals for rewards, and never suffer a loss to security status for doing so, save maybe in 1.0 space, and they would never be fired on by gateguns, Concord, or station guns.
Criminals would not be able to redeem themselves without quitting what they are about and taking up the honest life, so their past would follow them until they fixed it. Even then, it would not be forgotten. Once you have a skull, you always have a skull, blue or not.
|
Ranka Mei
Caldari
|
Posted - 2011.06.07 09:39:00 -
[405]
Originally by: AFK Master How was the hulk fit? Could another fit have made a difference? Do you honestly think removal of insurance would stop this?
I think you'll find few people so delusional that they believe removing insurance will actually stop suicide ganking: for one, if the cargo is too valuable, insurance doesn't matter any more. It's more the principal of it, really: even the staunchest pirates often admit that Concord-subsidized piracy is a bit too much.
Also, suicide ganking in general is way too consequence free. That's another major thorn in people's eye. You ought to get no insurance payout, for starters. Next to that, it should come with stuff security penalties. I mean, like -0.5 per incident, per offender.
The consequence free ganking is compounded by CCP being surprisingly lax about it. Even though it's verboten, people recycle accounts all the time, and CCP doesn't lift a finger. And their argument against removing insurance is always the poor noob, who would otherwise no longer be able to buy himself a new ship. Here 'lax' turns to 'downright lazy,' as insurance payout could easily be tied to security status. Much like in real life, btw: good luck getting insurance with a criminal record. Oh, you probably still can, but at a premium price. Bad security status? Premium goes thru the roof; or go too low, and Pendant simply notifies you they have terminated the insurance on your vessels altogether. Anyway, you get my drift: it could easily be made a lot more equitable.
After two years of playing EVE, it's my understanding that there are elements within CCP that simply think EVE as a whole should just be one huge, ruleless PvP zone. It certainly explains their rather relaxed attitude towards highsec suicide ganking (and a few other things). Don't get me wrong: I'm not against suicide ganking. If it's truly profitable to them, let them have a go at it. But the simple Empire lolz-gank, costing the victim hundreds of millions, while the aggressors walk away scott free, that really needs to stop. --
|
Eperor
|
Posted - 2011.06.07 12:36:00 -
[406]
fully suport thios and that wil not bereak economic, just somer ppl will not gank for lulz only. High sec supostobe safe not suicide ganker paradise.
|
Dutarro
Matari Munitions
|
Posted - 2011.06.07 13:43:00 -
[407]
This is a sensible idea.
|
Dr Pitkanen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2011.06.07 15:19:00 -
[408]
Edited by: Dr Pitkanen on 07/06/2011 15:19:43 Not a bad idea
|
El 1974
|
Posted - 2011.06.07 16:03:00 -
[409]
This is a good idea as it makes sense imo. Arguments that ganking keeps the economy going are weak. CCP has much better ways to influence market prices.
|
Darryl Ward
|
Posted - 2011.06.07 19:23:00 -
[410]
|
|
Takseen
|
Posted - 2011.06.09 13:59:00 -
[411]
I'm not sure about this one to be honest. If there is a problem with suicide ganking, I don't think its with insurance.
-Insurance for suicide gankers is unrealistic. Insurance for 95% of other payout situations is also unrealistic. -A cut in suicide insurance wouldn't really affect Thrasher suicide gangs which cost 600k a pop. In those cases the main costs are both getting the pilots into position for the gank, and either grinding back the security standings or training up a new throwaway suicide alt.
I'd rather this get looked at from a ship design point of view. -Do Hulks and sub-Freighter sized haulers need more durability relative to their cost? Someone else said "prevention involves not making yourself an appealing target". Is this even possible if you're flying a Hulk? Its a ship that costs 180 million+ and can only be insured for a fraction of this amount, it'd be almost pointless not to put T2 fittings on it, and its nearly impossible to get it above 22k effective health. -Do Thrashers and <whatever Battleships get used for suicide ganks> have too much alpha damage for their cost? -Are there too few defences available to the suicide gankee? Again for a hulk pilot, is he supposed to warp out every time he sees someone appear in local in crowded highsec? -Are there insufficient penalties or risks for the gankers? Even if they miscalculate and fail to pop their target, their looter will be able to strip all the wrecks long before the target can do so. And any kill rights the target gets are probably worthless if they're not tradeable. Even if they were tradeable, what if a throwaway alt was used? I suppose the removal of insurance payout would help here.
|
Moeli Nightwalker
|
Posted - 2011.06.10 01:30:00 -
[412]
The true answer to Suicide Ganking can be taken from real life.
It's all about the money. That's all. If they are doing it for the money, then let's hit their pocket book. It might be positive now, but after the Suicide Fine, only the player with deep pockets can continue to do it.
How much you ask?? Well I say it should be based on the security status of the system. In a 0.5 system, it would be only half. In a 1.0 system, that would hurt any pocket book.
Now to the amount. I'm open to suggestions. Formula of the cost of the destroyed ship vs the suicider?
Can someone start off at, say, 50 million fine for suiciding a ship?
|
Moeli Nightwalker
|
Posted - 2011.06.10 02:09:00 -
[413]
Originally by: Mars Theran In real life, most of EVE would be considered Frontier territory, going back to the days when people took the law into their own hands without being punished for it. The exceptions would be 0.7 and higher security space, where it would either be the law, or those supported by the law. We would have marshals; players enjoying the benefit of high security status who worked for DED and Concord.
Criminals would be criminals, and they would be shot on sight, or lose their possessions and belongings prior to being escorted out of high security space and into the badlands. Player Lawmen would track down criminals for rewards, and never suffer a loss to security status for doing so, save maybe in 1.0 space, and they would never be fired on by gateguns, Concord, or station guns.
Criminals would not be able to redeem themselves without quitting what they are about and taking up the honest life, so their past would follow them until they fixed it. Even then, it would not be forgotten. Once you have a skull, you always have a skull, blue or not.
You have a valid point. But CCP lives in a sandbox where it never changes. Civilizations as advanced the ones in Eve never evolve. This would be the case of Kevflavik staying like a western town of Dodge City, KS. Forever. But wait, didn't they grow up too? Evolve?
As in case with American history, law and order was established and criminals moved west. To the likes of Tombstone and Tuscon, AZ. Did crime go away completely? No. But the Constable/Sheriff/Marshall could look at you and run you out of town. There's an idea.
Eve = plenty of crime and no punishment.
|
Ghurthe
|
Posted - 2011.06.10 03:09:00 -
[414]
The only way to stop suicide ganking is to stop people from locking up ships in highsec. Otherwise all that it will do is raise the floor of value for targets of gankers.
That said, who cares? Fly a freighter for your spensive things, if not that then an armored BS, if you can't do that, set up a courier contract with redfrog.
|
Magicblue
Amarr Hunters of capsuleers
|
Posted - 2011.06.25 14:35:00 -
[415]
Why don't they use concorde to populate the low sec and 0.0 sec areas more. Everyone in high sec should automatically be charged for being there a part of their wealth. Every week, this will make jita less popular. People will make more accounts, then people will be forced to low sec where the people there can't handle the influx, this ignites massive wars and tons of sup cappies will explode into shiny bits Thus solving a bunch of issues Then suddenly one day highsec explodes and there is only low sec left. Then we will no longer have concorde and everyone will live happily in a true sandbox
|
Anna Lifera
6.... HAWK Alliance
|
Posted - 2011.06.25 16:19:00 -
[416]
Edited by: Anna Lifera on 25/06/2011 16:24:31 don't fly what u can't afford to lose.
no one forced u to choose what u fly or what u carry with u; u chose to fly that hulk and u chose to carry that valuable cargo in a flimsy hauler. so r u saying that it's the pirate's fault for blowing someone up in low sec/0.0 as well? therefore, it's your own fault for your own loss. simple as that. --- You're an asset to the community Anna. Thank you for your clear concise remarks. - Draek |
Bieber Fever
|
Posted - 2011.06.29 00:57:00 -
[417]
Carebears are ruining eve, gtfo. No support, go away.
|
eocsnesemaj
Keskerakond
|
Posted - 2011.06.29 12:08:00 -
[418]
Working as intended..... NO
http://tinyurl.com/EostSig |
Velin Dhal
Minmatar Blood Phage Syndicate Dominatus Atrum Mortis
|
Posted - 2011.07.24 17:29:00 -
[419]
Here is the thing folks. If you don't want to get ganked....don't put your haulers/hulks right next to low sec space. I guess what people fail to remember about EVE, is that the ruthless and most clever are always the ones who come out on top. This isn't World of Warcraft. There are no safe zones. If someone war decs your corp, are you going to come on here and cry about that two or just sit docked up for a week ? As for ship insurance...why wouldn't it pay out ? Insurance should be through a private company in no way based on Concord.
The guy that said, "Carebears are ruining EVE" is right. Damn straight they are. Every time I watch CCP give way to more and more of their stupid requests, I say goodbye to a little more of what EVE was. Why not just make EVE all high security space. Maybe then the qq will stop....
|
Miss Jolly
Contumacious Elevation
|
Posted - 2011.07.25 16:13:00 -
[420]
Denied, EvE needs more ships to blow up, this is a fact..
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 .. 17 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |