Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |

DXYOC
|
Posted - 2010.05.07 21:42:00 -
[121]
Scaning just gives intel just as scoting the gate before....
|

Party Scout
|
Posted - 2010.05.07 21:54:00 -
[122]
Originally by: DXYOC Scaning just gives intel just as scoting the gate before....
I've already addressed that about 2 pages back. Too tired already to backtrack though.
Anyways, yes I know CCP probably will not change anything, and still allow this, and a plethora of other things. And I can't even imagine what new stuff will come in with PI :P
But I hope CCP does read this (but probably not) and at least give it some thought. Personally, I've never been ganked actually, and I'm training for an Orca anyways, but risk/reward is quite a bit off with this.
|

DXYOC
|
Posted - 2010.05.07 21:59:00 -
[123]
I don't think they do , bet they ignore every thread wich adreses to "issues" like Suicide Ganking and Ninja Slavaging.I don't blame them for that.
|

Party Scout
|
Posted - 2010.05.07 22:04:00 -
[124]
Originally by: DXYOC I don't think they do , bet they ignore every thread wich adreses to "issues" like Suicide Ganking and Ninja Slavaging.I don't blame them for that.
Too much crying "wolf" I guess... I'll name my next thread:
Conundrum: Destroying your opponent with little regard to your own welfare, but still reaping great rewards.
... I probably would not read anything with a title like that myself :(
|

DuKackBoon
|
Posted - 2010.05.07 22:18:00 -
[125]
You still don't get it, do you? There actually is no issue, so don't try to fix it, the T1 insurance nerf/T2 insurance buff should be enought.
And even without insurance, suicide ganking would continue as normal.
|

Party Scout
|
Posted - 2010.05.07 22:33:00 -
[126]
Originally by: DuKackBoon You still don't get it, do you? There actually is no issue, so don't try to fix it, the T1 insurance nerf/T2 insurance buff should be enought.
And even without insurance, suicide ganking would continue as normal.
Haha, and you don't get it do you? It's your opinion against mine. Both are worth squat.
Only CCPs opinion is the one that matters here. I'm just coming to the suggestion forum to... well... suggest something. Nothing will probably happen though :P
I know, I know, exercise in futility, but I have fun doing this while at work. Good distraction.
|

DuKackBoon
|
Posted - 2010.05.07 23:00:00 -
[127]
CCP's opinion is that Suicide ganking is a intended game mechanic, one that works. In the eyes of CCP, there is no issue, else they'd do something about it, beside nerfing insurance.
The game rewards those who put themselves at risk, and loosing the ship + fit is putting oneself at risk, wether the insurance covers it or not. It is less rewarding for lazy miners.
|

Aratuss Thelbane
|
Posted - 2010.05.08 01:42:00 -
[128]
Edited by: Aratuss Thelbane on 08/05/2010 01:43:01
Originally by: DuKackBoon CCP's opinion is that Suicide ganking is a intended game mechanic, one that works. In the eyes of CCP, there is no issue, else they'd do something about it, beside nerfing insurance.
The game rewards those who put themselves at risk, and loosing the ship + fit is putting oneself at risk, wether the insurance covers it or not. It is less rewarding for lazy miners.
Actually, you are both right and wrong. While CCP doesnt have anything against suicide ganking persay, suicide gankers are not supposed to be making the enormous profits that they are with little to no risk to themselves. The CSMs have bought the issue up with CCP and guess what, they are talking about measures to make it LESS profitable and much more costly. This post here should clear it up: HERE
|

Bud Johnson
Rapscallions
|
Posted - 2010.05.08 02:17:00 -
[129]
Originally by: Aratuss Thelbane enormous profits that they are with little to no risk
So you support nerfing level 4's too? Last time i checked those were more profitable AND less risky then suiciding.
|

Ranka Mei
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.05.08 08:47:00 -
[130]
Originally by: Aratuss Thelbane
Actually, you are both right and wrong. While CCP doesnt have anything against suicide ganking persay, suicide gankers are not supposed to be making the enormous profits that they are with little to no risk to themselves. The CSMs have bought the issue up with CCP and guess what, they are talking about measures to make it LESS profitable and much more costly. This post here should clear it up: HERE
Applause to you and the CSM! :)
-- "Gorgeous, delicious, deculture!" |
|

DXYOC
|
Posted - 2010.05.08 09:05:00 -
[131]
Originally by: Aratuss Thelbane
Actually, you are both right and wrong. While CCP doesnt have anything against suicide ganking persay, suicide gankers are not supposed to be making the enormous profits that they are with little to no risk to themselves. The CSMs have bought the issue up with CCP and guess what, they are talking about measures to make it LESS profitable and much more costly. This post here should clear it up: HERE
How do you know what ccp si "supposed" to do? Serusly forum is full of crappy threads abaut suicide ganking and ninja salvaging , do you think hasen't noticed you but cares?
|

Ranka Mei
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.05.08 09:10:00 -
[132]
Originally by: DXYOC , do you think hasen't noticed you but cares?
Reply again when you're sober.
-- "Gorgeous, delicious, deculture!" |

Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
|
Posted - 2010.05.08 09:26:00 -
[133]
Top Contributors For This Page
Why am I not surprised. 
|

Party Scout
|
Posted - 2010.05.08 13:04:00 -
[134]
Originally by: Aratuss Thelbane Edited by: Aratuss Thelbane on 08/05/2010 01:43:01
Originally by: DuKackBoon CCP's opinion is that Suicide ganking is a intended game mechanic, one that works. In the eyes of CCP, there is no issue, else they'd do something about it, beside nerfing insurance.
The game rewards those who put themselves at risk, and loosing the ship + fit is putting oneself at risk, wether the insurance covers it or not. It is less rewarding for lazy miners.
Actually, you are both right and wrong. While CCP doesnt have anything against suicide ganking persay, suicide gankers are not supposed to be making the enormous profits that they are with little to no risk to themselves. The CSMs have bought the issue up with CCP and guess what, they are talking about measures to make it LESS profitable and much more costly. This post here should clear it up: HERE
Good to hear. At least it is under discussion. Good enough for me.
Cheers.
|

Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
|
Posted - 2010.05.08 13:26:00 -
[135]
Originally by: Party Scout Good to hear. At least it is under discussion. Good enough for me.
Cheers.
Originally by: CSM Summit Minutes The CSM brought up the issue of suicide ganking and feels it is too easy. The main problem is that this is in effect subsidized by insurance. CCP is aware of the issue and has discussed it at great length in-house. CCP feels it absolutely needs to compensate newbies that attack players by mistake in high-sec. This may get changed in the future but not in the summer expansion. It was made clear that suicide ganking is an accepted game mechanic.
Sorry to burst your bubble. 
|

Party Scout
|
Posted - 2010.05.08 13:39:00 -
[136]
Originally by: Mag's
Originally by: Party Scout Good to hear. At least it is under discussion. Good enough for me.
Cheers.
Originally by: CSM Summit Minutes The CSM brought up the issue of suicide ganking and feels it is too easy. The main problem is that this is in effect subsidized by insurance. CCP is aware of the issue and has discussed it at great length in-house. CCP feels it absolutely needs to compensate newbies that attack players by mistake in high-sec. This may get changed in the future but not in the summer expansion. It was made clear that suicide ganking is an accepted game mechanic.
Sorry to burst your bubble. 
That's cool too :P As long as they are aware of it. It says they cannot fix it now, but are aware of it. Good enough for me.
|

Kazuo Ishiguro
House of Marbles
|
Posted - 2010.05.08 13:49:00 -
[137]
Originally by: Arom Wraelt
Originally by: N0N
Originally by: Arom Wraelt There should be a mod that negates cargo scanning!
Yea cause lets face it, there's nothing out there like that now. 
Fake edit: Oh apart from the covert cloak on a BR.
Second fake edit: oh and using the corp hanger and ship maintenance bay in an Orca.
LOL
There are ways around it... but it seems like thinking is overrated, and whining for the Game Designers to "fix" stuff (that is not broken) for you is the way to go... 
Before people complain, they really ought to take advantage of the countermeasures available to them:
http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Avoiding_cargo_scans --- 34.4:1 mineral compression |

Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
|
Posted - 2010.05.08 15:28:00 -
[138]
Originally by: Party Scout
That's cool too :P As long as they are aware of it. It says they cannot fix it now, but are aware of it. Good enough for me.
What do you think they cannot fix now? Just asking as I'm not sure you've read that post well.
|

Thoraxe Rig
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.05.09 06:13:00 -
[139]
Originally by: Aratuss Thelbane
Originally by: FISHANDCHIPS Or you become smarter quit crying yourself and don't get ganked in the first place.
Not going AFK on gates
Don't use auto-pilot
Warping to 0
When trailing fitting I-Stabs and nanos so you get into warp some time this century(Im going to guess your crying about getting your hauler ganked just because its got a billion cargo expanders doesn't mean its a good hauler)
Fitting a buffer tank (on a normal ship you will prolly survive on indys it'll buy you some time)
At least fit a damage control
Fit a clock if you do go AFK and when you do first warp to a planet or moon
So there's a few dozen good things you could do instead but no doubt you will just cry and whine about me obviously being another ganker.
Ahh...a suicide ganker appears. Im not quitting, Ive never been suicide ganked, but, they shouldnt be getting away with it at all in High Sec and profiting from it.
He disagrees with you. Therefore he must be a ganker. 
I disagree with you. I'm a trader. Wait till Tyranis' insurance changes kick in, then come back and suggest something.
|

Space Pinata
Amarr Discount Napkin Industries
|
Posted - 2010.05.09 11:11:00 -
[140]
Originally by: Bud Johnson
Originally by: Aratuss Thelbane enormous profits that they are with little to no risk
So you support nerfing level 4's too? Last time i checked those were more profitable AND less risky then suiciding.
And they even BOOST your sec status.
Silly carebears don't understand 'safer, not safe'. Don't treat any area like it's -actually- highsec, and you'll never go wrong. |
|

Boshell
|
Posted - 2010.05.09 11:28:00 -
[141]
Edited by: Boshell on 09/05/2010 11:28:44 Drop insurance for CONCORD kills and make scanning put you on a 15 minute timer with the fleet/corp of the hauler you just scanned (similar to stealing from a wreck).
No insurance: Will DETER (not stop, but slow down slightly) the griefing of miners. It will still happen, but the folks who suicide mining boats knowing there is no insurance deserve that kill. >_>
15 minute scan timer: Will actually add some form of risk to the suicider. Without insurance, two BSs attacking a hauler filled will junk could still come out on top. So that won't deter attacks. By doing this, you add PVP to suicide griefing (which, up until now, does not count as pvp. Only griefing). Suiciders will run the risk of having to fight the hauler's escort or whatever is running with it. If the suiciders attack first: same as always: concord pwns em and they run off the loot. If the escorts attack them first, they are defending themselves meaning that if they win they can pop the hauler and get the loot without CONCORD intervention. They will be rewarded for REAL pvp, which is something I'd like to see suicide griefers get a taste of.
|

lookatzebirdie
|
Posted - 2010.05.10 08:15:00 -
[142]
Originally by: Aratuss Thelbane an escalating slider scale where each claim you make is twice as expensive as the previously taken claim. Now, this price can go down over a certain amount of time, but on the whole, each claim is twice that of the previous one thus taking away the profits of the suicide gankers, making suicide ganking a total loss.
So speaks the pilot who has never pvp'd in his life. Congratulations on just ruining pvp for everyone. d*ck _____________________________________________ fsuicgks (this is not gibberish, it is deeply profound
|

Name'is'unavailable
|
Posted - 2010.05.10 10:07:00 -
[143]
Sucide ganking should not be removed, but just balanced/fixed. First of all we need a fix against Smartbomb BS, since they allow people with -10 sec status to instantly attack people in hisec (no locking time) and also avoid CONCORD EW. a solution could be to prevent SB activation when you are in the grid of hisec gates/stations. Second, insurance price has to be fixed (we'll see what will happen with Tyrannis) cause people can actually make money by self-destructing BS, and that's just stupid; a suicide ganked can make profits even with a cheap cargo
|

GetAwayCar
|
Posted - 2010.05.12 17:52:00 -
[144]
They are already changing insurance to kill insurance fraud. It won't matter one bit. I ganked a hauler with 250million worth of cargo last night. If there were no insurance payout, I would still have made approximately 75 million on the gank. Better money than mining for sure. Its not the first one I ganked with that much in it either. All that will change is the profitability threshold. Its a safe bet though that some numbskull with 250 million or more will come along to make it worthwhile. |

Abaddon Zen
|
Posted - 2010.05.13 21:52:00 -
[145]
Since haulers and indy ships appear to be the prime targets discussed here perhaps a solution would be in increasing the power grid and cpu capacity of indy ships so that they can fit an effective tank. If the gankers have to risk almost as much as they may gain then just maybe ganking would become far more risky in terms of risk vs. return.
|

N0N
|
Posted - 2010.05.13 21:58:00 -
[146]
Originally by: Abaddon Zen Since haulers and indy ships appear to be the prime targets discussed here perhaps a solution would be in increasing the power grid and cpu capacity of indy ships so that they can fit an effective tank. If the gankers have to risk almost as much as they may gain then just maybe ganking would become far more risky in terms of risk vs. return.
CCP have given you the tools to avoid being ganked, stop being lazy and train/use them.
|

Abaddon Zen
|
Posted - 2010.05.13 22:42:00 -
[147]
Originally by: N0N
Originally by: Abaddon Zen Since haulers and indy ships appear to be the prime targets discussed here perhaps a solution would be in increasing the power grid and cpu capacity of indy ships so that they can fit an effective tank. If the gankers have to risk almost as much as they may gain then just maybe ganking would become far more risky in terms of risk vs. return.
CCP have given you the tools to avoid being ganked, stop being lazy and train/use them.
Which I do already. Perhaps I missed the point of the origional post, how to make ganking less profitable. I simply offered an idea. |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |