| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
EdTeach
   |
Posted - 2010.05.08 17:14:00 -
[1]
I have been looking at various threads dealing with ganking/griefing/etc and possible solutions/improvements. Some seemed promising. Some seemed like buckets of tears from people who got ganked. Others seemed to be just unworkable and unpopular.
Let me start by stating I don't have a horse in this race. I haven't been griefed, ganked or abused. I don't gank, grief, etc. This is just an idea I had, and wanted to see what would come from some informed discussion. I make no claims to all the knowledge and experience required to know if this is workable. That is why I am putting it up... for input.
---------------------------------
Proposal ....
Any HISEC attack that does damage and triggers a CONCORD response to a player will result in the attacking player's pod being tractored into a CONCORD ship and taken to the nearest station and thrown in EVE Jail.
This is NOT a ban.
The player's pod is in a hanger with limited access to player GUI. Player may send and receive mail, que any skills currently injected, chat in all chats.
Player may not clone jump or access any items.
36 hours for 1st offense.
72 hours for 2nd offense within 30 days of first offense.
96 hours for 3rd and all subsequent offenses.
30 days with no offenses resets the clock.
Any other characters in that account may be accessed during this period.
Personally I would give the 'inmate' access to a way to write graphitti on the walls of his 'cell' hanger for the next schlub that gets locked up to read.
----------------------------------------
Tyrannis is fixing insurance, so no need to void that for attacks.
Banning is just meh in my book, unless it is an actual hack/etc..
Charging real money(one proposal) to griefers is just wayyy out there.
I can see why some like to go after macrominers and other afkers, but the current system also allows large gangs to suicide gank mission runners as they undock, along with other gang related suicides. If every player in that gang got tossed in the brig, then we may have the ganking go back to more 1v1 anti-macro ganking.
This idea changes no other mechanic, it just makes for more of a decision on the part of the ganker(s).
Do the crime... do the time. Is that ship full of BPCs worth it? If yes, then fire away.
The largest impact I can see on 'legal' players is to the niche group that sits near known suiciders to kill their pods after CONCORD kills their ships. No more of that if the pod is in custody of the cops.
I would welcome informed and sane debate and discussion. Flames, and replies like "go play hello kitty' will not impress anyone. Like I said, I don't have a dog in this hunt... it's just an idea and I couldn't care less if it is implemented or not.
--------------------------
|
Ethos777
|
Posted - 2010.05.08 17:34:00 -
[2]
Wut?
Ganking/griefing/etc is working as intended as stated by ccp
I could see no insurance working but anything limiting peoples ability to play the game is a bad idea.
All further ganking/etc would be dependant on people having specialized alts and the time loss probly wouldnt mean much once people who already gank had time to compensate for the change.
|
Orree
Dynaverse Corporation
Sodalitas XX
|
Posted - 2010.05.08 18:14:00 -
[3]
Not supported. :thumbsdown:
----------
"How much easier it is to be critical than to be correct." ---Benjamin Disraeli |
dtyk
|
Posted - 2010.05.08 18:16:00 -
[4]
Yea... NO!
This would make suicide ganking a completely pointless thing, which would mean removing something good form the game.
|
Ranka Mei
|
Posted - 2010.05.08 18:20:00 -
[5]
 Originally by: dtyk
This would make suicide ganking a completely pointless thing, which would mean removing something good form the game.
Which is why I wholeheartedly endorse his proposal. :)
--
"Gorgeous, delicious, deculture!" |
darius mclever
|
Posted - 2010.05.08 18:25:00 -
[6]
not supported. learn how to haul without dying.
|
Uronksur Suth
|
Posted - 2010.05.08 18:54:00 -
[7]
Originally by: darius mclever
not supported. learn how to haul without dying.
|
Qoi
New Eden Warriors
|
Posted - 2010.05.08 19:16:00 -
[8]
I think that suicide ganking is a very important game mechanic and should not be nerfed. I've never suicide ganked, but it would surely make hauling through high sec even more boring.
Why do you think that it needs to be nerfed and punished with one of the hardest game mechanic punishments that you can think of? There will be thousands of players hating this mechanic, what is the gain for eve online? Remember that it is supposed to be a dark, harsh universe.
|
Vaal Erit
Science and Trade Institute
|
Posted - 2010.05.08 19:28:00 -
[9]
I am confused as to why you are trying to destroy a feature of the game in which the CCP devs put in by design.
Wanting to ban players (guess what a temporary ban is still a ban) for doing something that the developers of EVE encourage borders on lunacy.
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. |
Naomi Knight
|
Posted - 2010.05.08 19:37:00 -
[10]
:P this is a must to have, btw those suice gankers should try to learn to play with risks too.
You want that loot you can get it but with consequences.
Wannabe "pirates" always want easy kills.
|
|
|
chatgris
Quantum Cats Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.05.08 19:55:00 -
[11]
Not supported - the attacker already has to wait out the 15 minute gcc timer.
All that needs to change is that the attacker doesn't get any insurance payout.
|
I SoStoned
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.05.08 22:06:00 -
[12]
Originally by: chatgris
Not supported - the attacker already has to wait out the 15 minute gcc timer.
All that needs to change is that the attacker doesn't get any insurance payout.
^^^ this, already in place.
I just vote that the aggression timer be extended per attack by 15 extra minutes, or a multiple of their negative security status, whichever is greater, to keep them bottled up in a station for a little longer after each attack. And/Or provide CONCORD with remote logistics support to the stricken vessel, boosting their shields by as much as they're DPS'ing the criminal.
And perhaps an age/SP limit on any attempt to suicide in highsec to lower the number of disposable alts used for such attacks.
---
Dreamer: My dream, Freddy! MY RULES.
Freddy Kruger: *groans* Awwwww, f**k.
---
Never give up! |
Cpt Branko
Retired Pirate Club
|
Posted - 2010.05.08 22:13:00 -
[13]
Edited by: Cpt Branko on 08/05/2010 22:16:43
You must have gotten lost on your way to Hello Kitty Online forums.
I'll support it with the following, for GREAT REALISM:
- Concord takes about 10+ minutes to respond on average
- Concord can be killed
- Concord can be tanked
- Avoiding Concord is no longer a bannable offense.
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Tasatia
Sileo In Pacis
THE SPACE P0LICE
|
Posted - 2010.05.08 23:13:00 -
[14]
this is stupid
|
Random MonDistinct
Alternative Innovations
|
Posted - 2010.05.08 23:22:00 -
[15]
Edited by: Random MonDistinct on 08/05/2010 23:22:45
Supported with one addition which i think will work against macro.
Quote:
Any HISEC attack that does damage and triggers a CONCORD response to a player will result in the attacking player's pod being tractor-ed into a CONCORD ship and taken to the nearest station and thrown in EVE Jail.
IF pilot who lost the ship reports incident during next 5 minutes.
It is logical to end up in jail if police got you.
I think developers support suicide ganking moslty as a tool against macro-miners.
If we're alone in the universe, it's an awful waste of space.
Faivorite FanSite |
Pankas Carter
Photon Technologies
Obsidian Order.
|
Posted - 2010.05.08 23:40:00 -
[16]
Edited by: Pankas Carter on 08/05/2010 23:43:51
I say yes, if the victim elects to it (within say, 15 minutes).
That, and shave the times down SEVERELY.
My suggestions just off the top of my head with little real thought. This makes it an inconvenience, but not a crippler like your original suggestions. Note of course that this won't happen unless the victim elects it, so not being a d-bag etc can prevent it.
The player's pod is in a hanger with full access to player GUI. Player may not undock, excepting: pods, special purpose ships like the zephyr, newbie frigates, etc
Player may clone jump or whatever, but the undock restriction follows them. Note that they MAY enter a ship from a pod once undocked (say, ejected by a fiend) but once docked, the same restriction continues to apply.
10 minutes for 1st offense.
20 minutes for 2nd offense within 1 days of first offense.
30 minutes for 3rd and all subsequent offenses. Continued attacks beyond this begin to sap skill points... think about it, you are overstressing your clone by transferring out before CONCORD can step in and do something of actual impact to you.
3 days with no offenses resets the clock.
Any other characters in that account may be accessed as normal during this period.
-- (start sig) --
Quote:
A great city is not to be confounded with a populous one.
- Aristotle
|
Lt Forge
Pilots From Honour
Aeternus.
|
Posted - 2010.05.08 23:50:00 -
[17]
Go directly to jail - Do not pass go, do not collect $200.
_______________________________________________________________________
|
De'Veldrin
Minmatar
Special Projects Executive
The Obsidian Legion
|
Posted - 2010.05.08 23:56:00 -
[18]
Originally by: darius mclever
not supported. learn how to haul without dying.
QFT
--Vel
Originally by: Jiseinoku
Mining is the path to enlightement.
|
Adiu Tor
|
Posted - 2010.05.09 01:19:00 -
[19]
Edited by: Adiu Tor on 09/05/2010 01:19:24
Whatever as long as the ganker has as much damage as he caused - in particular time damage. Ganking hulks i.e. should be fined with "average hulk price devided by an average mining income in highsec per day in 3 hrs" which are needed for a normal player without alts to re-finance a lost hulk i.e. 14-21 days.
Loosing insurance doesnt make a big difference as long the gank-bear has not to pay an equal price for it.
|
Ephemeron
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2010.05.09 04:11:00 -
[20]
Such policy is called "dumbing down the game". It is protection for the stupid, those not smart enough to figure out how to use game mechanics to their advantage.
As a result, less stupid people will quit the game. Average IQ of the player base will go down. More trash posts on the forums. More smack talk in local. More mouths shouting at CCP for additional stupid game changes.
This game originally aimed to be hardcore, it should stay that way.
|
|
|
Crumplecorn
Gallente
Eve Cluster Explorations
|
Posted - 2010.05.09 04:26:00 -
[21]
Originally by: darius mclever
not supported. learn how to haul without dying.
QFT
Also, the idea of a jail is ******ed.
-
DesuSigs - Now with ThreadAssignÖ and SigSelectÖ |
Uronksur Suth
|
Posted - 2010.05.09 05:37:00 -
[22]
I think people who suggest such idiocy in Assembly Hall should simply be summarily banned from the forum. 
|
Dirk Mortice
|
Posted - 2010.05.09 11:08:00 -
[23]
Edited by: Dirk Mortice on 09/05/2010 11:09:07
http://i203.photobucket.com/albums/aa96/shotbydalonewolf/1177313659911.jpg
Changed to hotlink, don't ban me 
|
Verys
Burning Technologies
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2010.05.09 11:59:00 -
[24]
No...
Add Fleet Subscriptions to the fleet menu |
Ranta Knallente
|
Posted - 2010.05.09 12:15:00 -
[25]
Not supported.
Pretty stupid idea.
|
Adiu Tor
|
Posted - 2010.05.09 12:44:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Uronksur Suth
I think people who suggest such idiocy in Assembly Hall should simply be summarily banned from the forum.
I'd say all the just "no'ers" should be the first to be banned as you violate the assembly hall rules.
Originally by: mazzilliu
If you want to give feedback on an issue, try to make your feedback as constructive as possible. Don't say "your idea is stupid". Tell them WHY their idea is stupid. The Assembly Hall is more then just a complaint box. We can use this forum to make the game better for everybody, so let's try to keep discussion as constructive as possible.
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1178661
IMHO those who raise the "major" argument that EVE was intended to be hardcore or whatever have to realize that the game has evolved (undermined you would call it). The fact that there is a special industrial expansion is coming up shows that CCP concedes that the game has evolved and is no longer a pure PVP game.
Concerning the topic. Nobody can deny that ganking is less effort to regain standing and value vs. somebody who has only one char and is mining with a hulk and lost it. Especially after high sec ores where made less in value. I dont oppose the game mechanic of ganking in its main idea. Its just that if you do it in high sec you should have the same effort to get back where you where like the victim.
|
Helmh0ltz
Blue is the New Red
|
Posted - 2010.05.09 13:43:00 -
[27]
This idea is just beyond stupid.
======
Your signature is freakishly huge for this forum. Please resize according to the forum rules, thanks. Shadow. |
Zilberfrid
|
Posted - 2010.05.09 14:13:00 -
[28]
not supported
|
Don Pellegrino
The Tuskers
|
Posted - 2010.05.09 14:24:00 -
[29]
9/10
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.05.09 15:30:00 -
[30]
Counter-proposal: CONCORD stop rescuing people for free. It's unrealistic as hell (amirite?) and it is hugely unfair that the player merc corps should have their livelihoods WRECKED by unfair NPC competition. How could miners make a living if NPCs gave a million units of free minerals to anyone who asked? That's how unfair it is.
I propose that people should have to buy their protection from CONCORD like everything else. If you dont pay, they wont lift a finger to help. Fees should be roughly equivalent to what player mercs charge, with corp and alliance contracts available. 100 mill a week for an individual, or 500m for a corp or 2.5 bill for an alliance sounds about right - perhaps someone from REPO or NOIR could comment here?
Of course, there would be no obvious way to tell if someone was protected or not, but what the hey, sometimes you have to take risks, and hugely increasing the costs and penalties of playstyles we dont like are what whinethreads in the Assembly are all about right...?
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |