Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Saxon Briggs
|
Posted - 2009.12.11 19:37:00 -
[1]
So i'm flying around doing some hauling, and following the various chat chanells to help pass the time, when I here someone in empire talking about sitting off a gate looking for someone to gank. Well this is a part of eve. and one of the things that makes eve interesting, is that some places are safer then others, but no where is compleatly safe.
But, then said person goes on to explain how he can one shot t1 industrials, frigs, destroyers, and even take out bc before concord arives to help. Ass long as the ship has enough assets to cover his ships fittings.
Why? Because hes sitting in a Battle Ship, and when he does get concorded, it is compleatly covered by the insurance.
For me this is somthing that realy needs to be addressed, where is the element of risk? The loss of the ship should be part of the price of ganking, people would have to be more cautious, ships used would be more in line for a sucide run, and targets picked with more care. I dont think any one should be sitting 40km off a gate in a battle ship looking to snipe small targets for a little profit because they realy dont loos there ship at all. its an ileagle act, so lets treat it as an ileagle act, and stop paying for those ships. My fealing is that any actions that causes concord to get involved should result in the emediate loss of any insurance policys for said ship. Or am i being un reasonable in my thinking here?
I'd like to know what others out there think of this. Thanks and fly safe all.
|
Captain Pompous
Is Right Even When He's Wrong So Deal With It
|
Posted - 2009.12.11 19:38:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Saxon Briggs I'd like to know what others out there think of this. Thanks and fly safe all.
I think that this topic has been done to death, personally. ---
Even though you might disagree with what I say, that doesn't automatically make me a troll. |
Boomershoot
Caldari Suddenly Ninjas
|
Posted - 2009.12.11 19:41:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Saxon Briggs where is the element of risk?
you're hauling stuff that costs more than your ship.
there it is ^ ________________________________________ i'd gladly abuse [hr] if CCP implemented it ________________________________________
|
Joe Skellington
Minmatar JOKAS Industries
|
Posted - 2009.12.11 19:42:00 -
[4]
Personally I think Concord should pod you too if you are a repeat offender. Up the stakes *****
|
000Hunter000
Gallente Missiles 'R' Us
|
Posted - 2009.12.11 19:44:00 -
[5]
Done to death yes, but personally i still think he's right, ur doing something criminal (aka u get concordokkened) u should NOT deserve the insurance policy.
U get the popup stating u will be omgwtfpwnbbqed when u do this action, so there is really no excuse why it should not also state u will lose any insurance on ur ship. ________________________________________________
|
randomname4me
|
Posted - 2009.12.11 19:45:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Saxon Briggs I'd like to know what others out there think of this.
then you should have read the other 5436278675432 threads on this same subject.
EVE Online: Rated RRR- For Explicit Breakfast Piercing Bullets. |
Vysnaite
Caldari Science and Trade Institute
|
Posted - 2009.12.11 19:45:00 -
[7]
There should be no insurance. Its an excuse for carebears to call themselves pvpers....
|
Tippia
Reikoku IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.12.11 19:45:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Saxon Briggs For me this is somthing that realy needs to be addressed, where is the element of risk?
In the hands of the other players. Unfortunately, they're more than happy to remove the risks for him – something the game can't really change. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Dennmoth Ferdier
|
Posted - 2009.12.11 19:46:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Captain Pompous
Originally by: Saxon Briggs I'd like to know what others out there think of this. Thanks and fly safe all.
I think that this topic has been done to death, personally.
That it may be, but the fact that it keeps raising up means something. Also, to stop talking about would mean that everything was fine. It may be working as intended, but the first point might change that some day.
Anyhow, I actually think the OP idea of concord interaction voiding insurance is a very good one within 0.5-1.0. It would surely hurt suicide ganking but I personally think that wouldn't stop but the greediest gankers (as you need battleships to gank a freighter and other ships are just way cheaper).
I'm not entirely sure but I think all other instances outside suicide gank for valuable loot are just plain wanting to see the world burn that really benefits no one on any other than some twisted personal level. As such, there's no harm voiding their insurance. ------ Dare to challenge me? |
Abrazzar
|
Posted - 2009.12.11 19:49:00 -
[10]
With the artillery buff, the next consequence will be removal of insurance payout for CONCORD targets. They only have to add a tutorial that explains new players the concept of CONCORD and suicide ganking by giving them a tutorial mission out to suicide gank some NPC shuttle with a "enemy of the state" or something.
But cry just not yet, gankbear, you will have at least three months ganking galore in highsec before that happens. --------
|
|
Taedrin
Gallente It's a mission running corp
|
Posted - 2009.12.11 19:50:00 -
[11]
I *highly* doubt that he can one shot a frigate, unless it is sitting still at the gate.
There are also other things you can do to protect yourself from suicide ganks - such as not flying AFK when you are hauling valuable cargo, tanking your ship instead of fitting a full rack of expanded cargo holds, or using a heavily tanked battlecruiser to haul those valuable BPOs or officer modules.
---------- There is always a choice. The choice might not be easy, nor simple, nor the options be what you desire - but, nevertheless, the choice is there to be made. |
Captain Pompous
Is Right Even When He's Wrong So Deal With It
|
Posted - 2009.12.11 19:50:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Dennmoth Ferdier
Originally by: Captain Pompous
Originally by: Saxon Briggs I'd like to know what others out there think of this. Thanks and fly safe all.
I think that this topic has been done to death, personally.
That it may be, but the fact that it keeps raising up means something. Also, to stop talking about would mean that everything was fine. It may be working as intended, but the first point might change that some day.
Anyhow, I actually think the OP idea of concord interaction voiding insurance is a very good one within 0.5-1.0. It would surely hurt suicide ganking but I personally think that wouldn't stop but the greediest gankers (as you need battleships to gank a freighter and other ships are just way cheaper).
I'm not entirely sure but I think all other instances outside suicide gank for valuable loot are just plain wanting to see the world burn that really benefits no one on any other than some twisted personal level. As such, there's no harm voiding their insurance.
Indeed.
However, of more pressing concern is that of your avatar. What's it all about, oh-hypercharged puncutation mark? :D ---
Even though you might disagree with what I say, that doesn't automatically make me a troll. |
KaarBaak
Minmatar Mindstar Technology
|
Posted - 2009.12.11 19:56:00 -
[13]
Or insurance should work like regular insurance and your premium should be based on your flying record.
Basing the insurance premium purely on the type of ship and equal for everyone is not logical.
KB
My blogs: Tastes Like Chicken EvE Meta-Gaming |
Tippia
Reikoku IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.12.11 19:56:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Dennmoth Ferdier
Originally by: Captain Pompous I think that this topic has been done to death, personally.
That it may be, but the fact that it keeps raising up means something.
Yes, it means that people never learn and complain that someone else's faces no risk when it is they themselves who removed all the risk.
Do you think gankers have it too easy? So make it harder for them. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Skex Relbore
|
Posted - 2009.12.11 20:02:00 -
[15]
Edited by: Skex Relbore on 11/12/2009 20:04:55 I agree with the OP that suicide attacks should void insurance payouts. Of course nothing is likely to change since this is a problem that has existed for years and CCP seems to have no interest in addressing it.
Isn't Cocords purpose to provide consequence for illegal actions? Where is the consequence when your insurance paymet covers the entirety of the loss?
Of course this sort of thread will always bring out that segment of the player base who believe that the risks of this cold harsh universe should only apply to their victims.
|
Tippia
Reikoku IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.12.11 20:06:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Skex Relbore Isn't Cocords purpose to provide consequence for illegal actions? Where is the consequence when your insurance paymet covers the entirety of the loss?
It doesn't. It only covers the ship. If it covers more, then it's once again other players who reduces the risk by selling the ships they make at a loss. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2009.12.11 20:07:00 -
[17]
Originally by: KaarBaak
Or insurance should work like regular insurance and your premium should be based on your flying record.
Basing the insurance premium purely on the type of ship and equal for everyone is not logical.
Yes you're right - 0.0 does need another huge economic nerf.
|
Soomin'Phar
|
Posted - 2009.12.11 20:09:00 -
[18]
I had a 5 day old destroyer player the other day try to get my Iteron on a gate the other day. Did'nt even get me to armour before the gateguns popped him.
He had some cargo that paid rather well, lol newb...
|
Destination SkillQueue
Are We There Yet
|
Posted - 2009.12.11 20:13:00 -
[19]
I want a nerf to CONCORD if this goes through. Their reaction time was buffed as a reaction to rampant suicide ganks and security hits were increased, so their reaction time should now be brought down again or the sec hit reduced to balance things. A healthy amount of suicide ganking should always be happening, to remind people not to AFK haul cargo worth hundreds of millions on a ship that is worth a percent or two of that.
|
Danton Marcellus
Nebula Rasa Holdings
|
Posted - 2009.12.11 20:20:00 -
[20]
Killed by Concord you get no insurance payout, no matter what. Problem solved.
Should/would/could have, HAVE you chav!
Also Known As |
|
Boomershoot
Caldari Suddenly Ninjas
|
Posted - 2009.12.11 20:25:00 -
[21]
THE SAME ****ING THING EVERY WEEK
no, CCP won't remove insurance. no, Insurance won't be based on who kills you. no, CCP will not hear your whines this time.
NOW, THINK HARDER FOR A BETTER COMPROMISE
need an help, you little re-re? HERE YOU ARE
INSURANCE PAYOUT BASED ON SS. 5.0 ADDS A 10%, -5.0 Removes 25%, -10 HALVES IT.
TO THE ASSEMBLY HALL, BATMAN ________________________________________ i'd gladly abuse [hr] if CCP implemented it ________________________________________
|
Tippia
Reikoku IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.12.11 20:26:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Danton Marcellus Killed by Concord you get no insurance payout, no matter what. Problem solved.
What problem? ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
James Tritanius
|
Posted - 2009.12.11 20:27:00 -
[23]
There are risks and consequences of suicide ganking, you just don't perceive it if you are coming from the hauler's perspective.
Risks: - Valuable items are destroyed during the explosion - Does not pop hauler before Concord arrives - Loot is stolen by passer-bys
Consequences: - Security Status - ISK (Insurance doesn't cover everything) - Time (Time it takes for you to purchase another ship)
Costs: - ISK - Time (Sitting on the gate and waiting for potential targets)
The risks can be minimized by sufficient experience, intelligence and skill, but some risk will still be present regardless.
|
Bud Johnson
Broski Enterprises
|
Posted - 2009.12.11 20:47:00 -
[24]
The risk is in the loot system, you can pop 1+bil of cargo and get a drop worth 500k.
|
Harkwyth Mist
Caldari Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2009.12.11 20:50:00 -
[25]
You'll find lots of people, who support gate-camping and/or hi-sec ganking, will very rapidly start quoting Eve's "Risk vs Reward" mantra.
What they are not telling you is that the mantra really means
Quote:
YOU take all the risks with no reward THEY receive all the rewards with no risk
|
Jhagiti Tyran
Mortis Angelus
|
Posted - 2009.12.11 20:56:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Vysnaite There should be no insurance. Its an excuse for carebears to call themselves pvpers....
Rubbish most suicide ganking is done purely for profit and quite a decent profit to, as long as people are stupid or inatentive enough to cram 100s of millions into fragile ships people will try to make money from it.
|
Cambarus
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2009.12.11 20:58:00 -
[27]
There're many ways in which you can make yourself immune to all but the most dedicated and targeted/well planned attacks. It SHOULD be virtually risk free to gank something as small/insignificant as a t1 hauler or cruiser. You take a sec hit from it, and if the cost of losing a BS is practically nothing, than surely the cost of losing something so small (which costs but a fraction of a BSs price tag) should be even less of a loss?
If you're hauling stuff around in a 900k hauler, with no protection (not even a local tank) then yes, it should be a very real danger that people should be able to kill it pretty easily, and arguing that there should be more risk involved in ganking when your motive is obviously reducing risk to an already low-risk task is hilarious. |
AlleyKat
The Unwanted.
|
Posted - 2009.12.11 21:02:00 -
[28]
I think they should ECM dampen 'targets' on gates, and they should charge people gate fees for travel, not much, but enough to add up to something for travelling in high-security space. This also relates to an idea I had for the choke points in low sec for the gates which border high sec and low sec. This excludes Orvolle of course, as that is a different matter.
Another option would be to disallow the pickup of 'hot property', or, property that has been gained through non-concord sanctioned means. Any attempts to do so gets a concord response (as they are probably in the area at this point, it kinda, just kinda, makes sense). Of course, there should be a time limit, so then it would become 'null' and anyone can pick up and the current rules apply.
It is a difficult one and perhaps there is never going to be a solution, and certainly the balanced argument should be that high-sec should not be 100% safe and I would be that way inclined. I do not think the security is the issue that people have an issue with, it is the lack of risk versus reward and overall balance that the players have an issue with.
I personally feel that if you were to draw a circle with Jita in the middle and 0.0 at the edge, in my mind the highest amount of potential isk should be at the farthest point away from the centre, as it has the greatest risk. However, it does seem to be the opposite as the potential to be rich with the lowest amount of risk seems to be currently right in the middle.
I do sympathise with CCP on this, as they want to have the baddest most evil game in the world for hardcore players, but at the same time, they like all of the real world money that high-sec players offer them. These two viewpoints are in conflict with one another.
They need to increase isk sinks in high-sec through taxation, gate fees and anything else they can think of - lower them the further away from 1.0 you get, spread the players outward.
Before you know it, the medium term players are in 0.5 systems and that's just 1 jump away from low sec...
Once this has happened, move the lvl4 missions to low sec, in conjunction with making the interconnecting gates safer. This doesn't just allow for mission running people to feel safer about moving into low sec (I would probably imagine they would not be there 100% of the time, but would be a bit more nomadic about how they conduct their business) what it will also do is get the industry to move into low sec as well, as that is where the trade will be - and the taxes would be lower, remember?
On a related note, I do also think that the ability to have an entire system like Jita to run is an amazing achievement of coding and planning by CCP, but the work is done now, lets not look to see if we can increase to total amount of connections and glorify ourselves - lets see if through a little bit of game balancing, we can move people away from Jita and get them to trade elsewhere instead, that would be a more impressive feat for any game company.
That is what I think of this, Saxon. But am I just shooting from the hip...
AK EVE-ONLINE VIDEO-MAKING TUTORIALS |
Mr Epeen
|
Posted - 2009.12.11 21:20:00 -
[29]
First off.
I firmly believe that EVE should remove all insurance. It's supposed to be a cold, harsh universe, but what we get is the next best thing to a respawn button.
Now that I have that off my chest, here's how to have some fun and savor ganktard tears.
Gankers always come in twos. There will be the gank ship and then a hauler alt to pick up the pieces. They will normally be parked right up next to each other.
First thing go over to C&P, read up on a good gank fit for blowing up indies and fit out a ship. Then park your ass at one of the many high sec bottlenecks where the most gankers hang out. Sit and watch for a pair of ships sitting elbow to elbow and blow up the hauler part of the team. Or, if you are patient, and for more satisfation, wait for the gank ship to get Concorded and then blow up the hauler.
Local will come alive with the righteous indignation of the ganker that got ganked and you will be called many not nice things.
Relish that moment. It will be the first of many.
Then simply buy a new ship with the insurance payout and come back and gank him again. And again. And again.
Mr Epeen
|
Psiri
|
Posted - 2009.12.11 23:14:00 -
[30]
Edited by: Psiri on 11/12/2009 23:14:04 I really do get tired of the EVE population's need to throw out their raging e-peens at every given opportunity.
Whenever someone points out a problem in the game, taken from the standpoint of a carebear, these people will side against him nomatter what is actually being said. It's important to be hardcore, that's why WoW is **** and we pretend never having played it.
Suicide ganking doesn't make sense, even though EVE is not a game where realism holds a firm grip, it still doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
It sadly often more profitable than actual piracy, you know, the kind of PvP that has some risk to it aswell for the evil doers.
The mechanics revolving it are flawed, security status penalties aren't always given as they should be and it strikes carebears very hard. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for making carebears bleed but I don't see why they couldn't keep at least one ball once the deed is done. Take both and there won't be more to follow.
The only justification for suicide ganking is the skewed risk vs reward factor in highsec, then again haulers aren't exactly the ones reaping the biggest profits.
Nerf suicide ganking into oblivion, nerf highsec lvl IV and mining profits. Boost lowsec belts and rat bounties, make empire into a place for beginners, RnD, trade and logistics.
That way you solve so many problems.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |