EVE Search - [ISSUE] Suicide ganks.

All Channels

Assembly Hall

[ISSUE] Suicide ganks.

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Vaal Erit Science and Trade Institute	Posted - 2010.05.04 10:02:00 - [61] Originally by: Bagehi First, throw away suicide ganks (against something cheap) are done by alts that are trained up and disposed of, using a brutix (or similar), not a battleship. Second, suicide smart bombs are done rarely. Usually as part of some type of event or out of rage against shuttle hauler macros. This will happen regardless of insurance reimbursement. Third, people mistake failed ganks in low sec as suicide ganks. Usually it is a noob pirate or drunk pirate who made a mistake. Tyrannis will likely not put a dent in true suicide ganks. Unlikely that there will be some kind of spree right before Tyrannis because people will continue doing them post Tyrannis. What Tyrannis will end, however, is the "build a Rokh, SD a Rokh, make profit" thing that has been going on for some time now. No, the real newb here is you. Recycling alts is definitely against the rules and every suicide ganker knows this. I certainly know this, but you do not, gee that's telling. The recently boosted artillery make a perfect suicide ganking weapon. A tempest can one shot any mack and most hulks. Checkout Hulkageddon, tons of the kills were made by solo BS. SB attacks happen often in highsec by -10 players since they don't have time to wait for targets, then need to smartbomb whatever is there. I am not sure what you are smoking, but no one is going to throw 3+ BS to suicide shuttles if the BS costs you 20m or more each to suicide. I'm not even sure what a macro shuttle hauler is. Have you played this game? You haul stuff in shuttles with a macro? Right. There are a few groups that do suicide in groups of t1 cruisers and t1 destroyers and the like and they will be the cheapest to operate and they will not be affected much. But don't kid yourself, a lot of the suicide gankers are t1 BS and t1 BC right now and the cost for suicide ganking in those is going way up. This is really basic logic, but if the cost goes up people are either: going to stop, do it less, be more choosy about their targets. All of these result in less frequency of suicide attack. Thanks for playing, but I know far more about this subject than you, I've done it all baby Originally by: Jim Raynor EVE needs danger, EVE needs risks, EVE needs combat, even piracy, without these things, the game stagnates to a trivial game centering around bloating your wallet with no purpose.
Tore Smith Science and Trade Institute	Posted - 2010.05.04 10:58:00 - [62] Originally by: Vaal Erit Thanks for playing, but I know far more about this subject than you, I've done it all baby I had to laugh. On subject: Less payout for bs may reduce them being used for baby-ganks on barges and such stuff. But you donÆt need them for this anyway. Still it matters little for freighter and mission runner ganks. As it has been said a few posts before, if a bs costs you 15-20 mil you might think twice before popping a 50 mil industrial but it makes virtually not difference on the bigger stuff. ThatÆs why I too, support the simply ôwith concord no insuranceö proposal. Thereby its still lucrative to gank the juicy targets but at least the loot fairy has a say in it. Also still no one is save in highsec, but the possibility, that there is a real reason behind a suicide gank other than the laughs and 100% chance to make profit hopefully increases.
Cpt Branko Retired Pirate Club	Posted - 2010.05.04 12:09:00 - [63] Originally by: Tore Smith Still it matters little for freighter and mission runner ganks. As it has been said a few posts before, if a bs costs you 15-20 mil you might think twice before popping a 50 mil industrial but it makes virtually not difference on the bigger stuff. Virtually no difference? Cool story bro. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Tore Smith Science and Trade Institute	Posted - 2010.05.04 13:21:00 - [64] Originally by: Cpt Branko Virtually no difference? Cool story bro. elaborate? but let me do it for you with one example: one corp with at most 10 bs gank another bs (overkill scenario, mostly 5 are sufficient). Their last 12 s-kills executed in the last 2 weeks made between 14 and 4840mil with an average of 1bil per kill (values according to battleclinic). investment per char after insurance now: 5mil after: 20mil +-return through loot per char and kill 1000mil that translates into a decrease of profit from 995mil to 980mil per kill, wow. what im saying with virt. no difference is, thats its still a no-brainer. Come to think of it, now that I actually did the math for the first time. Anyone willing to pair up and suicide a bit?
Anna Lifera Gallente Imperial Legion of Amarr	Posted - 2010.05.04 14:30:00 - [65] Originally by: Cpt Branko For the reading disabled: " So ship insurance will be marked to market? Yes, ship insurance will now revalue itself periodically based on a trimmed mean of the ship's manufacturing materials global market weighted average prices. This means the insurance quote when you are buying insurance will be now estimated and may change if the payout occurs during the next insurance period" Meaning no more payouts which are larger then the market cost of the minerals, which is why some T1 ships are close to "free". Currently you have the situation where insurance payout-insurance cost is roughly the same to the market price of the ship which makes the ship free, which will no longer be the case. Throwing BS around will now definitely cost some ISK, most likely around 15M per BS or 20M per BS. it just simply means that ppl won't be making a profit from buying a ship, insuring it, then self-destructing it for a profit. and no matter how that ship was gonna get blown up, the net cost, even with a reduced payout, will be the same because in that case, it was already cheaper to begin with anyway. but hey, way to talk out of your ass (especially with your imaginary numbers) just like another tool who also tried that same exact crap. --- LOLOLOL If anything, lvl4s require LESS effort then Mining!... At least in mining you have to check every 4 minutes to move the ore to the can. You're an idiot. - Jerid Verges
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2010.05.04 22:14:00 - [66] Would have to see the killmail on this one, I note the OP has disapeared from the thread and has only made 4 or 5 posts ever and dosent know the name of his alliance mate? I would like to see this out of interest as a JF has more structure, shield and armor to start off with then a normal freighter and geta a 10% bonus to HP per jump freighter level. This makes it a very tough hitter in highsec I would like to see how many BS were used to kill it. When he claims that his mate lost "a billion isk in credits" the split between the amount of pilots needed to kill the ship would be penuts. SKUNK (o)
Aratuss Thelbane	Posted - 2010.05.04 22:51:00 - [67] I like how you all are saying that concord isnt meant to protect its meant to punish...that wasnt always the case. Concord are the police, were the police and would turn up lightening fast and protect. However, even if there has been this change in roles, concord arent punishing anyone. There is no major loss for the pirates doing the ganking. They get their insurance, go by more ships and do it all again. I think that a insurance contract should be null and void if the ship is destroyed by Concord. IE, the contract expires, but pays nothing back to the player if it was concord that blew them up. Its not unreasonable to say or do that. You think if someone gets in a high speed chase with the police and is forced to run your car off the road thus totaling it, do you really think the insurance company pays for the car to be replaced in that instance? No, of course not.
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2010.05.04 23:42:00 - [68] Originally by: Aratuss Thelbane I like how you all are saying that concord isnt meant to protect its meant to punish...that wasnt always the case. Concord are the police, were the police and would turn up lightening fast and protect. However, even if there has been this change in roles, concord arent punishing anyone. There is no major loss for the pirates doing the ganking. They get their insurance, go by more ships and do it all again. I think that a insurance contract should be null and void if the ship is destroyed by Concord. IE, the contract expires, but pays nothing back to the player if it was concord that blew them up. Its not unreasonable to say or do that. You think if someone gets in a high speed chase with the police and is forced to run your car off the road thus totaling it, do you really think the insurance company pays for the car to be replaced in that instance? No, of course not. Troll SKUNK (o)
Cpt Branko Retired Pirate Club	Posted - 2010.05.05 00:00:00 - [69] Originally by: Tore Smith with an average of 1bil per kill So ratting in ultra-pimped BS should have no risk at all? Really! Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
churrros	Posted - 2010.05.05 01:57:00 - [70] If this gets implemented, changes should also be made so we chould fight against concord, and ecm/neut concord or blob them(ofc with a sec hit)
Tore Smith Science and Trade Institute	Posted - 2010.05.05 07:01:00 - [71] Originally by: Cpt Branko Originally by: Tore Smith with an average of 1bil per kill So ratting in ultra-pimped BS should have no risk at all? Really! are you capable of more than platitudes? tell me about this no risk thing. im interested, because i dont see it.
Anna Lifera Gallente Imperial Legion of Amarr	Posted - 2010.05.05 07:02:00 - [72] Originally by: Aratuss Thelbane I like how you all are saying that concord isnt meant to protect its meant to punish...that wasnt always the case. Concord are the police, were the police and would turn up lightening fast and protect. However, even if there has been this change in roles, concord arent punishing anyone. There is no major loss for the pirates doing the ganking. They get their insurance, go by more ships and do it all again. just like low sec and 0.0, where there is no major loss for the pirates doing the ganking and when everyone gets their insurance, buys more ships and do it all over again. Originally by: Aratuss Thelbane I think that a insurance contract should be null and void if the ship is destroyed by Concord. IE, the contract expires, but pays nothing back to the player if it was concord that blew them up. Its not unreasonable to say or do that. You think if someone gets in a high speed chase with the police and is forced to run your car off the road thus totaling it, do you really think the insurance company pays for the car to be replaced in that instance? No, of course not. u think u can take a vehicle into any war zone, lose it, and expect the insurance company to pay for that too? no, of course not. otherwise, they would void all losses in low sec and 0.0 as well. way to not think at all. --- LOLOLOL If anything, lvl4s require LESS effort then Mining!... At least in mining you have to check every 4 minutes to move the ore to the can. You're an idiot. - Jerid Verges
WaringAndWhoring Gallente FEDERATION DEFENCE TECHNOLOGIES	Posted - 2010.05.05 18:51:00 - [73] Edited by: WaringAndWhoring on 05/05/2010 18:52:10 I Think they should just remove insurance, I was in a .5 sec caldari system running some missions for standing and in local someone was yelling as he was getting ganked in his golem by 8 "Against ALL Authorities" guys, all in battleships. They scanned him out in his mission and saw he had an A or B type sheild booster. Wish I had saved the link for the kill as I can't find it now. Anyway so this mission runner lost like 2 billion isk for ship and mods vs they're over insured ships that they lost really no isk as the sheild booster alone was enough for them to all make isk. I find this sad and really takes any fun away from the game. What I really get a kick at is these pro "Against ALL Authorities" guys call him a noob and a carebear when really they are the sad noobs in this case calling themselves such pro pvp people by hunting down some mission runner in high sec only to gank his PVE fit 1 to 8. I mean wow the skill I can't handle the skill involved in such an operation. I am humbled by the skill. hahahahahahaha, I love to pvp, but I would never do something like that even if it meant fast isk. Its just lame and no real fun in my opinion. I rather join an alliance that fought for a reason such as expanding ones null or low sec space or defending vs invaders. Even piracy I think is fine as it's a legit risk vs reward that also takes some actual skill and intel. - kill the insurance system plz!
Bagehi Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Gentlemen's Club	Posted - 2010.05.05 19:02:00 - [74] Edited by: Bagehi on 05/05/2010 19:05:43 Originally by: darius mclever Originally by: Bagehi First, throw away suicide ganks (against something cheap) are done by alts that are trained up and disposed of, using a brutix (or similar), not a battleship. Dont want to burst your bubble. but you have missed all 2 weeks old alts in tempests/maelstroms in uedama/sivala lately? Yes, but those are usually fit with heavy missiles. Sad? Yes. Travesty? Yes. Potentially used as a suicide gank ship? No. Originally by: WaringAndWhoring I Think they should just remove insurance, I was in a .5 sec caldari system running some missions for standing and in local someone was yelling as he was getting ganked in his golem by 8 "Against ALL Authorities" guys, all in battleships. They scanned him out in his mission and saw he had an A or B type sheild booster. Wish I had saved the link for the kill as I can't find it now. Anyway so this mission runner lost like 2 billion isk for ship and mods vs they're over insured ships that they lost really no isk as the sheild booster alone was enough for them to all make isk. I find this sad and really takes any fun away from the game. What I really get a kick at is these pro "Against ALL Authorities" guys call him a noob and a carebear when really they are the sad noobs in this case calling themselves such pro pvp people by hunting down some mission runner in high sec only to gank his PVE fit 1 to 8. I mean wow the skill I can't handle the skill involved in such an operation. I am humbled by the skill. hahahahahahaha, Yes, but that noob was in NC, and ratting while his alliance was at war. He deserved to die and be laughed at in local. This signature is useless, but it is red.
WaringAndWhoring Gallente FEDERATION DEFENCE TECHNOLOGIES	Posted - 2010.05.05 21:23:00 - [75] Edited by: WaringAndWhoring on 05/05/2010 21:24:01 Found the KillMail of the person getting ganked in local while missioning. This is why insurance should be removed.
Bagehi Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Gentlemen's Club	Posted - 2010.05.05 21:51:00 - [76] Originally by: WaringAndWhoring Edited by: WaringAndWhoring on 05/05/2010 21:24:01 Found the KillMail of the person getting ganked in local while missioning. This is why insurance should be removed. Legion of xXDEATHXx =/= Against All Authorities. Also, I'm extremely impressed that the gang was able to identify a ship that had all that expensive gear on it and assemble a gang to attack it without the mission runner getting suspicious. I mean, if I had a boat that expensive, I'd be a lot more careful about flying it. He wasn't in a huge mission hub, so he had to notice someone scout him, then 10 guys show up in local a bit later. Here's an API verified KM. He was tanking NPCs for a while before they killed him. Also, they got very lucky on the loot drop. This signature is useless, but it is red.
WaringAndWhoring Gallente FEDERATION DEFENCE TECHNOLOGIES	Posted - 2010.05.05 23:24:00 - [77] Sorry about the Against All Authorities I thought it was them as there was a group of them flagged and in pods, but when I saw the mail I saw it was someone else and at the time that this happen there were 143 people in system. I think he warped out of the mission after one of the guys was harassing him from what I gather from watching local as he was flaming big time. Then he went back thinking he left then when he got to the acceleration gate they were all waiting for him. Yes this guy was noob and made a lot of mistakes but I still think ganking is wrong.
Mimiru Minahiro	Posted - 2010.05.06 00:52:00 - [78] Edited by: Mimiru Minahiro on 06/05/2010 00:54:53 So if I get this right, you think the fact that this smack talker got suicide ganked by 10 ships is bad because he dropped roughly 420mil (434mil by BC standards) So: 420mil/10=42mil. Each ganker got (and only because they were way lucky on the drop) 42mil for thier efforts. It would have been much less if the 300mil mod didnt drop. If they bought the boats off sell orders they would already be in the whole by a couple mil (according to the numbers i just saw in jita at least) before fittings; so they didnt even get the 42mil. If they bought the boats off buy orders (and so they could profit from the ship going boom regardless of the drop) then some stupid sod sold them the boats for less than the IER. The likelyhood that they got more than 50mil total(drop+insurance) is slim. Again if the a-type booster had not dropped they would have been looking at 12mil each, so if they buy boats from sell orders they make close to nothing. If they bought it off buy orders then who knows what they would have made...but probably not more than 17-18mil. PLUS they have the sec loss (which effects different people to varying degrees.... if you have access to "safe" 0.0 to rat in its negligable. If you do not it can be much more of an issue.) edit:spelling

Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.