EVE Search - High sec ganking.

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

High sec ganking.

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Gil Warden Gallente Priory of Empire Wayfarer Stellar Initiative	Posted - 2010.05.15 18:07:00 - [1] There is something seriously broken when we can observe the same asshat suicide ganking in high sec several days in a row. The parts that are broken is that it is currently profitable to insure a T1 ship and get it blown up when ganking just a few miners. The possible solution are simple enough: * A ship can never be insured above 80% of market value. * Ships insurance is invalidated (with no payback of the premium) if the player is the aggressor on non war or kill right targets, while in high sec. * Limit the effectiveness of (or remove) anything above small smart bombs in high sec. * Block pilots from entering ships if they have too low sec status for a given high sec system, or beef up the local/faction military response time to more quickly take down criminals who enter systems they should not be in. And if all you have to say is "It's all part of the game" or "Stop weeping" or something along those lines, don't bother responding. It is not constructive.
Kiritsubo Ritual Suicide	Posted - 2010.05.15 18:10:00 - [2] Griefing is a feature. Thanks for playing.
Abbot Laarkin Order Of Mystical Mountain Monks	Posted - 2010.05.15 18:26:00 - [3] Originally by: Gil Warden There is something seriously broken when we can observe the same asshat suicide ganking in high sec several days in a row. The parts that are broken is that it is currently profitable to insure a T1 ship and get it blown up when ganking just a few miners. The possible solution are simple enough: * A ship can never be insured above 80% of market value. * Ships insurance is invalidated (with no payback of the premium) if the player is the aggressor on non war or kill right targets, while in high sec. * Limit the effectiveness of (or remove) anything above small smart bombs in high sec. * Block pilots from entering ships if they have too low sec status for a given high sec system, or beef up the local/faction military response time to more quickly take down criminals who enter systems they should not be in. And if all you have to say is "It's all part of the game" or "Stop weeping" or something along those lines, don't bother responding. It is not constructive. HINT If you don't want flames or trolls, being openly insulting in your OP is not particularly smart. Also, Insurance is changing, wait a little and see what happens. Set the "repeat offender" red and keep an eye on local? As for the rest of the post, why just smartbombs? While we're at it lets ban Large Arty, Large Beams, Torps, Ravens, Geddons, Domi's, (to save on my character limit just insert any military vessel here). In fact the only ships that should be allowed in high sec are Freighters, CNR's (but can't have more than two in any high sec system in case they gank a freighter), Barges, and newb frigs (but only with civ guns-just in case). Oh, again search tool is your friend You just had to go and make this post just as I ran out of coffee didn't you, now I look all mean And before you say it...No I have never performed a suicide gank, and the only time I would is if it was for specific revenge purposes. ---- Originally by: Sir Carnage Originally by: Marko Riva Why does that read like they're all 12 and have an IQ of 37? I was under the impression they were 37 and had an IQ of 12
Party Scout	Posted - 2010.05.15 19:46:00 - [4] Yeah, there are a lot of topics for this. All I would do to fix it, is make ship scanning an illegal act (like stealing from a can). That would help a lot without making it completely safe, or impossible to gank. Anyway, discussed to death in a buuuunch of other threads :S
Mag's the united Negative Ten.	Posted - 2010.05.15 20:31:00 - [5] CCP say they are fine with ganking and it's a part of the game, so suck it up. One thing they did say they may look at at a later time, is the insurance payout.
Veliria	Posted - 2010.05.15 20:47:00 - [6] Originally by: Mag's CCP say they are fine with ganking and it's a part of the game, so suck it up. One thing they did say they may look at at a later time, is the insurance payout. ^this Insurance for a suicide run is a bit off, but that's the only issue I see with ganking in high-sec. It's your fault if you think moving 10billion ISK in a Badger is a good idea or you simply can't pay attention to local and your surroundings.
Whitehound The Whitehound Corporation	Posted - 2010.05.15 21:44:00 - [7] Originally by: Gil Warden There is something seriously broken when we can observe the same asshat suicide ganking in high sec several days in a row. Ganking is not unique to EVE. Take a game like ANNO - an economy simulation and a strategy game. What you do in ANNO is to build villages on island, develop them into cities, and with the money you make do you finance your military and conquer other islands. In ANNO does it have events like volcano eruptions, droughts and hurricanes - events that cannot be controlled and which destroy parts of your cities and farms. These events are not fun, but make the game challenging. They ask of you to prepare for them and plan ahead, but they can also weaken your enemies. Ganking in EVE is the equivalent to the devastating events in a game like ANNO. Ganking is not a game mechanic, but it teaches one to make virtues out of necessities in the same way. Do not take ganking personal beyond the point where you swear and curse the other player, or else will you playing a good game the wrong way! A ganker plays EVE the quick'n'dirty way. Everything they do leads to a depletion of their resources and is typical for a ruinous play-style. If you plan ahead and prepare will you be playing EVE in a way they can not comprehend! It is then those who still need to understand this who fall victim to ganking. CCP has made changes in the past, to control the amount of ganking, and continues to do so. --
Ganagati Caldari Dark Ashes	Posted - 2010.05.15 22:24:00 - [8] Originally by: Whitehound Originally by: Gil Warden There is something seriously broken when we can observe the same asshat suicide ganking in high sec several days in a row. Everything they do leads to a depletion of their resources and is typical for a ruinous play-style. Everything you said I agree with COMPLETELY except for that one statement. Currently, ganking is a pretty well paying way to play EVE. If you follow the guidelines, you'll be able to use CONCORD to protect you up until the point of attack (at which point they blow you up and you retrieve the majority of your losses if not ALL of them from insurance)which, if planned properly, will pay EXTREMELY well based on the cargo dropped as long as a friend or alt picks it up. Absolutely no risk but lots of reward. Only an idiot would be out there suiciding and not making money.
Terminal Insanity Minmatar Gith Industries	Posted - 2010.05.15 23:06:00 - [9] Originally by: Gil Warden There is something seriously broken when we can observe the same asshat suicide ganking in high sec several days in a row. Yes, i completely agree. the broken part being the brains of the haulers who try to move expensive crap in t1 haulers between jita and amarr.
Rafter Man	Posted - 2010.05.16 04:05:00 - [10] Someone should learn to tank their hauler.

Hido Caldari	Posted - 2010.05.16 05:19:00 - [11] Easy solution = flag all PC's who open a wreckage/cargo can which does not belong to them, so that Concord can deal with it as "theft". After all the problem is not with the attacker who gets nailed by Concord, but the looter that follows doing it risk free Limited to high-sec though. Living the life Havin it large Welcome to the land of the rising sun
Ranka Mei Caldari	Posted - 2010.05.16 06:11:00 - [12] Edited by: Ranka Mei on 16/05/2010 06:12:45 Originally by: Ganagati Currently, ganking is a pretty well paying way to play EVE. If you follow the guidelines, you'll be able to use CONCORD to protect you up until the point of attack (at which point they blow you up and you retrieve the majority of your losses if not ALL of them from insurance) which, if planned properly, will pay EXTREMELY well based on the cargo dropped as long as a friend or alt picks it up. Absolutely no risk but lots of reward. Which is precisely why suicide ganking should be nerfed. Couldn't have listed better reasons myself. :) I know CCP is rather obsessed with seeing PvP occur everywhere (to a fault, really, IMHO); but high-sec suicide ganking has got nothing to do with PvP -- however much the would-be pirates decry the fact. It's more like PvS (Person Versus System); as in suicide gankers massively abusing the Concord protection system put in place precisely to protect people from the likes of them! And don't feed me the ever-popular "CCP has given you tools tools to prevent suicides!" line. You can't. Scouting ahead really only works when the idiots are dumb enough to actually have their 20 ships hanging around the gate. It does exactly nothing for being jumped in-mission, or raiding parties converging on you otherwise. And in their infinite wisdom CCP have even made it absolutely impossible for you to fit your freighter. So, "Someone should learn to tank their hauler" I summarily dismiss right off the bat. Taking away their insurance, though a good start, probably wouldn't make too much of a difference. I heard CCP has never beeen willing to do so, though, because they absolutely want to make sure the noobs get compensated for when they accidentally attack someone in high-sec. That logic sound totally bogged to me. I've been a noob too (who hasn't?); but never ever, as in never, have I accidentally fired at someone in high-sec! I remember doing the drones tutorial, which was kinda terse at the time. Basically, after a few words, it just said something like: "Okay, now go out and shoot something." And I recall thinking that this was actually really bad advice to give to a noob. :) Yet even then I had the wherewithal to not go blindly shoot something in high-sec, LOL. And frankly, I doubt anyone I know has ever done so, either. I also recall being targetted in Jita, in my first few days. And hanging in front of the station (in a Kestrel, I think, it was), while bewildered a bit, even then I knew better not to take the bait and start shooting. So, if CCP's real reason for paying insurance, under all circumstances, is to be able to compensate braindead, trigger-happy noobs, then it's gotta be the lamest excuse I heard so far. In the final analysis, I think the only really effective suicide ganking nerf is to make ship- and cargo scanning an aggressive act. --
0n 1	Posted - 2010.05.16 07:25:00 - [13] Originally by: Ranka Mei Waffle... Your carebear tears are delicious. Amidoinitrite?
Gil Warden Gallente Priory of Empire Wayfarer Stellar Initiative	Posted - 2010.05.16 09:18:00 - [14] Originally by: Terminal Insanity Yes, i completely agree. the broken part being the brains of the haulers who try to move expensive crap in t1 haulers between jita and amarr. I'm not just talking about haulers. I'm talking about miners as well. The scenario I've seen is, a pilot jumps in with a fast ship, starts bumping some miners closer together (who WERE sensibly spaced out) and shortly after that two Battleships jumps in and smartbombs the 4-5 miners that got bumped. The problem is, there are really no defence, except that all miners in a belt warp out the second they see a non hauler/exhumer. But then the belts would be empty all the time. The bumped miners simply do not have time to realign and warp out, nor to move out of the blob created by the suicide gankers accomplice. Who by the way is also the one swooping back in after the gank to drop all the loot into a can which is then picked up by a hauler.
Whitehound The Whitehound Corporation	Posted - 2010.05.16 09:59:00 - [15] Edited by: Whitehound on 16/05/2010 09:59:48 Originally by: Gil Warden I'm not just talking about haulers. I'm talking about miners as well. It is a problem. 0.0 and low-sec PvPers, who enter high-sec in order to play pi±ata with miners, because they are the easiest targets to hit, simply do not belong into the sandbox. If they lost all their ISKs in 0.0 and low-sec fights then they should not go picking on others just as easy as that. No one is losing tears over them, but it is wrong. It makes gankers a bunch of pathetic cowards and needs to get addressed. --
Mag's the united Negative Ten.	Posted - 2010.05.16 10:18:00 - [16] Originally by: Whitehound Edited by: Whitehound on 16/05/2010 09:59:48 Originally by: Gil Warden I'm not just talking about haulers. I'm talking about miners as well. It is a problem. 0.0 and low-sec PvPers, who enter high-sec in order to play pi±ata with miners, because they are the easiest targets to hit, simply do not belong into the sandbox. If they lost all their ISKs in 0.0 and low-sec fights then they should not go picking on others just as easy as that. No one is losing tears over them, but it is wrong. It makes gankers a bunch of pathetic cowards and needs to get addressed. That makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.
Whitehound The Whitehound Corporation	Posted - 2010.05.16 11:15:00 - [17] Edited by: Whitehound on 16/05/2010 11:23:38 Originally by: Mag's That makes me feel all warm and fuzzy. It comes with blushing. Edit: I forgot the pirate smiley. --
Mara Rinn	Posted - 2010.05.16 11:41:00 - [18] If you would take the time to read the patch notes, or research the hundreds of posts on the forums dealing with the Tyrannis expansion, you'd know that insurance is, in fact, being altered in such as way as to discourage suicide ganking. No longer will people be able to insure a ship for more than its replacement value. Sadly, you'll find that reducing insurance payouts will not prevent a large number of suicide ganks. [Aussie players: join ANZAC channel]
Mag's the united Negative Ten.	Posted - 2010.05.16 12:01:00 - [19] Originally by: Mara Rinn you'd know that insurance is, in fact, being altered in such as way as to discourage suicide ganking. Confirming that the changes being implemented will discourage suicide ganking.
Ganagati Caldari Dark Ashes	Posted - 2010.05.16 18:59:00 - [20] Originally by: Mag's Originally by: Mara Rinn you'd know that insurance is, in fact, being altered in such as way as to discourage suicide ganking. Confirming that the changes being implemented will discourage suicide ganking. It will more than likely reduce the amount of griefing. Griefing being where some pre-teen in a brutix randomly picks a hulk and pops it for the killmail and their tears while ganking usually entails the pointed killing of a ship worth money. The random griefing will not end per-say as there will always be folks with more money than sense OR folks who are about to quit and want to have a final hurrah. The gate ganking will not stop as even completely losing insurance payouts would not stop it from being profitable if they snag themselves a pretty solid T1 industrial carry.

Gil Warden Gallente Priory of Empire Wayfarer Stellar Initiative	Posted - 2010.05.20 07:45:00 - [21] Edited by: Gil Warden on 20/05/2010 07:51:23 Originally by: Mag's That makes me feel all warm and fuzzy. <sarcasm type="sorta">Well, maybe that is because you are one of the wannabe pirates (cowards) who just want to stuff his KB with easy, defenceless kills.</sarcasm> Don't troll please, the topic is apparently hot enough as it is.
Gil Warden Gallente Priory of Empire Wayfarer Stellar Initiative	Posted - 2010.05.20 07:50:00 - [22] Originally by: Ganagati ...The gate ganking will not stop as even completely losing insurance payouts would not stop it from being profitable if they snag themselves a pretty solid T1 industrial carry. Gate camping is something else, I personally hate them, but unlike suicide ganks on easy and defenceless ships in highsec, they are an intended part of the game. Of course I can just sit back and shake my head when a large gate camp take down a solo frigate. Don't they realize that maybe that frigate was scouting, and they just scared away a hauler?
Mag's the united Negative Ten.	Posted - 2010.05.20 09:21:00 - [23] Man I love this game. No trolling here, you just don't get it. CCP likes the fact that you get ganked in empire, by us wannbe pirate cowards. But the icing on the proverbial cake, are the tears and whining. You didn't read Ganagati's reply correctly, he doesn't mention gate camping. But he missed my sarcasm it seems, so..... ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Originally by: Torothanax Low population in w systems makes afk cloaking unattractive.
Marquis Zenas I.X Research	Posted - 2010.05.20 09:59:00 - [24] Originally by: Ganagati ... Griefing being where some pre-teen in a brutix randomly picks a hulk and pops it for the killmail and their tears while ganking usually entails the pointed killing of a ship worth money... Crashing a discoship into a highsec mining group != griefing, that's just random violence. Griefing = repeatadly going after and podding an individual with the intention to make them quit the game and can baiting rookies. -------------------------- The sig is empty
Whitehound The Whitehound Corporation	Posted - 2010.05.20 11:25:00 - [25] Originally by: Marquis Zenas Crashing a discoship into a highsec mining group != griefing, that's just random violence. Griefing = repeatadly going after and podding an individual with the intention to make them quit the game and can baiting rookies. No, it does not matter for what reasons something is done. Someone might gank another player again and again out of love, and it would still count as griefing. And if a player gets ganked by always different players then that is griefing, too. What matters is really just the frequency. Too much of it, and the complaints and comments on the forums get more and more. It remains a problem. Basically, what it has got to do with are the macro miners, who get ganked by other players on trips of self-justice. While the self-justice is funny, does it hit just anybody (see also: "witch hunt"), because one cannot tell who really is a macro miner and who is not. CCP will need to find a solution for the macro miner problem - and no got damn CAPTCHAs. But my head tells me that it will not end the problem, because miners are just so easy to pop. --
Marquis Zenas I.X Research	Posted - 2010.05.20 11:35:00 - [26] Edited by: Marquis Zenas on 20/05/2010 11:36:11 Originally by: Whitehound No, it does not matter for what reasons something is done. Someone might gank another player again and again out of love, and it would still count as griefing. Yep, thats griefing, repeatedly chasing someone for the sole intention of making them quit. Originally by: Whitehound And if a player gets ganked by always different players then that is griefing, too. What matters is really just the frequency. Too much of it, and the complaints and comments on the forums get more and more. Nope, that's not griefing, that's just playing eve. Everyone's a target. That's akin to complaining that you constantly get killed in Battlefield when you're trying to drive a tank. -------------------------- The sig is empty
Hanneshannes	Posted - 2010.05.20 11:48:00 - [27] Originally by: Gil Warden And if all you have to say is "It's all part of the game" or "Stop weeping" or something along those lines, don't bother responding. It is not constructive. And if all you have to say is "I want this game my way and anyone who thinks otherwise can F off!" don't bother making a topic.
Whitehound The Whitehound Corporation	Posted - 2010.05.20 11:51:00 - [28] Originally by: Marquis Zenas Yep, thats griefing, repeatedly chasing someone for the sole intention of making them quit. Quote: Nope, that's not griefing, that's just playing eve. Everyone's a target. That's akin to complaining that you constantly get killed in Battlefield when you're trying to drive a tank. One can grief you by using multiple accounts or just calling friends on the phone to make it look like it is PvP, but it stays griefing. Several players can then accidentally grief a player without knowing that they are all ganking the same player again and again. --
Marquis Zenas I.X Research	Posted - 2010.05.20 11:57:00 - [29] Originally by: Whitehound One can grief you by using multiple accounts or just calling friends on the phone to make it look like it is PvP, but it stays griefing. That sounds paranoid. Also, it'd be a bit difficult to prove Originally by: Whitehound Several players can then accidentally grief a player without knowing that they are all ganking the same player again and again. Sounds like playing eve to me. I'd also ask what this individual is doing to garner such attention. -------------------------- The sig is empty
Whitehound The Whitehound Corporation	Posted - 2010.05.20 12:17:00 - [30] Originally by: Marquis Zenas I'd also ask what this individual is doing to garner such attention. Mining among others without knowing them, for example. Ice miners get ganked on a daily basis. The 10 minute cycle times of the ice harvesters makes them look very suspicious of being not at their keyboards. --

Metalcali	Posted - 2010.05.20 15:02:00 - [31] Originally by: Whitehound Originally by: Marquis Zenas I'd also ask what this individual is doing to garner such attention. Mining among others without knowing them, for example. Ice miners get ganked on a daily basis. The 10 minute cycle times of the ice harvesters makes them look very suspicious of being not at their keyboards. Any proper miner who understands the risks of being in a mining ship while not wanting to lose it will take the necessary actions to avoid the gank before it happens. At least, its always worked that way for me --- Originally by: CCP Mitnal Locked. OP does not contain an idea.
Gil Warden Gallente Priory of Empire Wayfarer Stellar Initiative	Posted - 2010.05.21 10:52:00 - [32] Originally by: Whitehound Basically, what it has got to do with are the macro miners, who get ganked by other players on trips of self-justice. Macro miners is a completely different problem, and one I'd love to see addressed by CCP. Harshly I might add.
Gil Warden Gallente Priory of Empire Wayfarer Stellar Initiative	Posted - 2010.05.21 11:01:00 - [33] Originally by: Metalcali Any proper miner who understands the risks of being in a mining ship while not wanting to lose it will take the necessary actions to avoid the gank before it happens. At least, its always worked that way for me Most of the time you take the right precautions, and it works. But as I stated earlier, the attacks that prompted my OP had nothing to do with being proper miners, as the attackers used a third party to bump the miners closer together and keep the Mackinaw's in question out of alignment, before attacking. They had no possibility of getting away, despite being spaced apart as best as they could. I do believe the new Insurance scheme may help reduce these pointless attacks. I can only hope.
N0N	Posted - 2010.05.21 13:15:00 - [34] Originally by: Gil Warden I do believe the new Insurance scheme may help reduce these pointless attacks. I can only hope. Hope all you want, it won't.
Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2010.05.21 13:25:00 - [35] Just passing through... Originally by: Ranka Mei high-sec suicide ganking has got nothing to do with PvP -- however much the would-be pirates decry the fact So, if CCP's real reason for paying insurance, under all circumstances, is to be able to compensate braindead, trigger-happy noobs, then it's gotta be the lamest excuse I heard so far. In the final analysis, I think the only really effective suicide ganking nerf is to make ship- and cargo scanning an aggressive act. 1. You do not define what counts as PvP and what doesn't. 2. I have personally witnessed someone lose a ship to CONCORD due to a screwup when setting up a consensual fight in highsec. 3. Your 'effective suicide ganking nerf' either removes it, or makes it necessary to shoot every hauler/freighter that passes by to find the good ones, depending on how the numbers are balaned. Not very good. Originally by: Whitehound It is a problem. 0.0 and low-sec PvPers, who enter high-sec in order to play pi±ata with miners, because they are the easiest targets to hit, simply do not belong into the sandbox. You do not decide who belongs in the sandbox. And if any group is excluded, it's not much of a sandbox. Originally by: Gil Warden but unlike suicide ganks on easy and defenceless ships in highsec, they are an intended part of the game CCP could remove attacks on defenceless ships tomorrow if they wanted to. You do not decide what is intended and what is not. Originally by: Whitehound No, it does not matter for what reasons something is done. Someone might gank another player again and again out of love, and it would still count as griefing. And if a player gets ganked by always different players then that is griefing, too. What matters is really just the frequency. Too much of it, and the complaints and comments on the forums get more and more. The reasons are all that matter. In a game where harmful actions are the norm, griefing is in the intention, not in the action. - DesuSigs - Now with ThreadAssignÖ and SigSelectÖ
Skex Relbore Gallente Red Federation	Posted - 2010.05.21 15:30:00 - [36] Originally by: 0n 1 Originally by: Ranka Mei Waffle... Your carebear tears are delicious. Amidoinitrite? Gankbears accusing someone else of being a carebear is rather ironic. Gankbears posting from an anonymous alt is even more so. I got no problem with suicide ganking but by god everyone is always talking about risk and WTF is the risk to the suicide ganker? Short out right stupidity they are going to succeed. Suicide Ganking with platinum insurance is essentially a risk free activity with no real downside and no real counter. With platinum insurance even the argument about keeping your cargo cheap fails a single BS can easily pop an industrial and if the ganker shopped smart for their ship they'll break even or make a little profit from the insurance. And there is nothing you can do about. Oh you get kill rights? On a non-PVP speced character yeah that's real useful. At minimum kill rights should go to an entire corp. That way if you gank someone's freighter his corpies can hunt you down and blow up your ship in return maybe catch you in a mission in a real ship or sitting on the gate waiting for the next juicy hauler to come along. Hmm now there's an idea. Make being in a PC corporation worth something to a frieghter pilot. Make scanning an aggressive act towards the corporation as well while your at it then an escort becomes worth something. Someone scans your freighter and they go blinky for the escort to pop them. Suicide BS scans your industrial and you can take him out with your PVP fit escort ship. Then the gankers face some risk. Scan someone with an escort around and you might get a little real PVP action, The gankbear would have to decide whether it was worthwhile to cut into his profit margins by mounting a tank on his suicide ship after all you won't hold up long against a fully fit Combat craft with just guns and weapons mods. It becomes a gamble. Is that juicy freighter solo or bait? If you suicide that industrial or mining ship are you going to spend the next month dodging his corp mates who are now gleefully hunting down a valid target in high sec. Mercenaries could hire on as bounty hunters for industrial corporations with active kill right lists. Then even the single purpose suicide alts are at some risk of being hunted down if they suicide more than one ship a month. TL:DR Make kill rights go to the corporation so vengeance can be extracted, make ship scanning an aggressive act so the scouts face some risk and proactive measures can be taken to protect haulers. Hell do that and I wouldn't even care if they still got suicide payouts for concordorken.
0n 1	Posted - 2010.05.21 16:59:00 - [37] Edited by: 0n 1 on 21/05/2010 16:59:24 Originally by: Skex Relbore Originally by: 0n 1 Originally by: Ranka Mei Waffle... Your carebear tears are delicious. Amidoinitrite? Crying and butt hurt over my troll. My main actually, has never suicide ganked. Yet someone from the red v blue nubs, found the time to post tears and make me laugh.... top banana.
RatKnight1	Posted - 2010.05.21 17:15:00 - [38] This is why they made the Viator. Rat
Optical Illusion Minmatar Rionnag Alba Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2010.05.21 21:59:00 - [39] What is it you guys dont get? No where is safe in any of the Eve empire, otherthan the inside of a station. Risk Vrs. Reward. If you dont wanna get ganked, dont fly with 1bil of loot in a autopiloting badger, dont all mine in the same belt when the system has 20, Dont fit your mission raven with deadspace and faction items when the mission doesnt need you to. If you guys didnt provide us with easy kills, we wouldnt be doing this! Not only that, CCp always claim to make this a Sandbox game, and one that is as true to real life as a spaceship flying can be. A Old lady walks through a known mugging area of a city, with ú1000 pounds hanging out of her handbag and she expects to not get mugged? This is an example of a form of suicide gank. Flying through Uedama with a cargo worth a bil. TL:DR Quit making yourselves targets, the system will never change.
Gil Warden Gallente Priory of Empire Wayfarer Stellar Initiative	Posted - 2010.05.23 11:19:00 - [40] Originally by: Optical Illusion What is it you guys dont get? No where is safe in any of the Eve empire, otherthan the inside of a station. Risk Vrs. Reward. If you dont wanna get ganked, dont fly with 1bil of loot in a autopiloting badger, dont all mine in the same belt when the system has 20, Dont fit your mission raven with deadspace and faction items when the mission doesnt need you to. I wasn't talking about the multi billion isk badger kills. Anyone "brave" enough to fly that solo must count on getting caught once in a while. I'm only asking for some form of mechanism to balance the risk and rewards of high sec ganking miners, who are in fact incapable of defending them selves, as CCP opted not to give then adequate armour or even turret hard points. Some systems have 20 or more asteroid belts, which is nice enough. Ice is sadly a bit more rare, and the ones that are found in high sec are usually pretty crowded. Though a few are far less busy, but still not quite safe as it was in one of those that a Mining op lost 23 Mackinaws in a single strike (THEY were idiots though, all ships were in a very tight blob). It's on YouTube. I know there are no easy solution to this, but I'd like to see CCP at least remove the 100% risk free, guaranteed profit aspect that seem to draw in so many cowards who seem to just want to bolster their KB with a lot of kills, regardless if it's honour-less fish shot in a barrel. Another solution that doesn't touch the pirates, could be to triple the armour or structure HP of the mining barges and Exhumers, and boost belt rats DPS to compensate, they are a pathetic joke already. Of course the nerf should then be that the Miners cargo hold only can hold charges(crystals), ore and minerals, so they won't be used as "hard" haulers

Gil Warden Gallente Priory of Empire Wayfarer Stellar Initiative	Posted - 2010.05.23 11:25:00 - [41] Originally by: Skex Relbore Snip... You have a lot of really good suggestions to balance the game. I like it.
Whitehound The Whitehound Corporation	Posted - 2010.05.23 17:16:00 - [42] Originally by: Crumplecorn You do not decide who belongs in the sandbox. And if any group is excluded, it's not much of a sandbox. ... The reasons are all that matter. In a game where harmful actions are the norm, griefing is in the intention, not in the action. You are a troll. --
Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2010.05.23 17:30:00 - [43] Originally by: Whitehound You are a troll. I accept your concession of the argument. - DesuSigs - Now with ThreadAssignÖ and SigSelectÖ

CCP Adida	Posted - 2010.05.23 19:33:00 - [44] Cleared up trolling comments/ Adida Community Rep CCP Hf, EVE Online

Whitehound The Whitehound Corporation	Posted - 2010.05.23 19:43:00 - [45] Originally by: Crumplecorn You do not decide who belongs in the sandbox. And if any group is excluded, it's not much of a sandbox. No, I do not decide. I say they shall get kicked out. CCP then decides and they do kick players out. Quote: The reasons are all that matter. In a game where harmful actions are the norm, griefing is in the intention, not in the action. No. --
Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2010.05.23 19:53:00 - [46] Originally by: Whitehound No, I do not decide. We're making progress... Originally by: Whitehound I say they shall get kicked out. CCP then decides and they do kick players out. ...but not quite there yet. I don't see CCP kicking anyone out. Originally by: Whitehound No. Yes. - DesuSigs - Now with ThreadAssignÖ and SigSelectÖ
Whitehound The Whitehound Corporation	Posted - 2010.05.23 21:24:00 - [47] Originally by: Crumplecorn Originally by: Whitehound No, I do not decide. We're making progress... No. You are trolling again. Quote: ...but not quite there yet. I don't see CCP kicking anyone out. Again, trolling. CCP has banned players in the past and will continue to do so. I can only guess why you pretend to be blind, but perhaps you are desperate for a ban for trolling. Quote: Yes. No, reasons do not matter. CCP decides and they have rules. You break the rules, you get kicked out. --
Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2010.05.23 21:31:00 - [48] Originally by: Whitehound CCP has banned players in the past and will continue to do so. I can only guess why you pretend to be blind. Point out someone who got banned for killing miners, please. Originally by: Whitehound No, reasons do not matter. CCP decides and they have rules. You break the rules, you get kicked out. CCP attempt to determine, they do not decide. - DesuSigs - Now with ThreadAssignÖ and SigSelectÖ
Whitehound The Whitehound Corporation	Posted - 2010.05.23 21:45:00 - [49] Originally by: Crumplecorn Point out someone who got banned for killing miners, please. That is not what we are discussing here. We are discussing repeated griefing of a player. Quote: CCP attempt to determine, they do not decide. No. They investigate and then decide if an action is needed, and as well as what action is best. --
RatKnight1	Posted - 2010.05.23 21:58:00 - [50] Ok... I being a miner see what you are saying... I think it goes back to needing a mining Capital Ship... but that is another thread.... Basically there is a risk and reward system in place. If you don't want to get ganked while mining in hi sec, use a shield tanked Hulk. Makes it hard for anything worth the cash to nail you. In low sec and null sec you should never be without an escort anyhow. When I mine in 0.0 I have at least 2 battleships covering me (as well as a group of people I am mining with). Doesn't stop everyone, but a vigilant eye on directional, and a good safe point to jump to will almost always save you. I think that it is mainly balanced at the moment. Miners, being the "prey" have to keep their eyes open. Directional Scan usually gives me a good 10 - 15 second warning, plenty of time to align and warp (which is why I usually stay aligned.) and get the hell out of dodge. Worst case scenario, you lose a mining barge. If in nullsec, your an idiot for using a Hulk without a group covering you in the first place. If in hi sec, tank the sucker, and watch directional, if someone takes shots at you, set their standings to -10 so that if they come into local again you see them. If you are in Whiskey space, don't use a hulk, it is guaranteed to die, even when you are vigilant. I have went through about 4 covetors in WH space, and that was while we were being cautious, no local chat to give you a heads up :). Basically, I think that you just need to tank your ship to be able to take at least 2 volleys from a tech 1 cruiser or lower. That is about all they are going to get off before concord wipes up the floor with them. Either that, or use an ECM burst to get you out. Which is what our mining barges do, ECM burst, and run. Rat

Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2010.05.23 22:00:00 - [51] Originally by: Whitehound That is not what we are discussing here. We are discussing repeated griefing of a player. Originally by: Whitehound 0.0 and low-sec PvPers, who enter high-sec in order to play pi±ata with miners, because they are the easiest targets to hit, simply do not belong into the sandbox. Quote: No. They investigate and then decide if an action is needed, and as well as what action is best. They decide what action is needed, they neither can nor do decide if it was actually griefing. - DesuSigs - Now with ThreadAssignÖ and SigSelectÖ
Whitehound The Whitehound Corporation	Posted - 2010.05.23 22:11:00 - [52] Originally by: Crumplecorn They decide what action is needed, they neither can nor do decide if it was actually griefing. It is irrelevant what it is called. --
Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2010.05.23 22:34:00 - [53] Originally by: Whitehound It is irrelevant what it is called. It seemed quite relevant a few posts back. - DesuSigs - Now with ThreadAssignÖ and SigSelectÖ
Cearain Caldari The IMPERIUM of LaZy NATION	Posted - 2010.05.24 17:02:00 - [54] I am actually starting to wonder if suicide ganking should be buffed. No I am not a ôsuicide gankerö. I am a part time trader. No I'm not trolling. People who say suicide ganking is so great fail to post any sort of statistical analysis of how much isk per hour you make doing it. I mean you have to set up the Battleships or whatever your going to use. Then sit there scanning ships. So sure you may get a big catch every now and then. But you will also have times when you don't kill anything but your sec status. Eventually your sec status drops and you need to go rat to build it again. What is the long term isk/hour you can really expect to make at this when you include periodically ratting your sec status up? I haven't done suicide ganking myself but I have done high sec trading. If it weren't for suicide ganking I really wouldn't find trading fun at all. What makes trading in eve even somewhat fun? The risk! ItÆs great when you actually dock in station with that huge haul that you hope will make you filthy rich. There have been times when I have seen what appear to be groups of people following my industrial. I have docked it for a time if it had more than say 30 mill of goods. Maybe I was just paranoid. But that feeling of trying to sneak the goods to the destination was what made it fun. The problem is its starting to appear this is really just paranoia. I have had less than five suicide gank attempts out of hundreds of hauls! It seems to me that after the announced insurance changes take effect suicide gankers may go from rare to practically extinct. If there is no risk then trading will become a tedious task. IÆm afraid that the changes may indeed do this to trading. Right now I am thinking that I would prefer a bit more suicide ganking. It would make the margins at hubs larger for traders so traders would likely still make as much money. It would just increase ups and downs. But the risk and excitement of trading could only go up if we have more suicide ganking.
Skex Relbore Gallente Red Federation	Posted - 2010.05.24 17:04:00 - [55] Yet someone from the red v blue nubs, found the time to post tears and make me laugh.... top banana. Originally by: 0n 1 Edited by: 0n 1 on 21/05/2010 16:59:24 Originally by: Skex Relbore Originally by: 0n 1 Originally by: Ranka Mei Waffle... Your carebear tears are delicious. Amidoinitrite? Crying and butt hurt over my troll. My main actually, has never suicide ganked. Oh look at the coward hiding behind the alt. I've never suicide ganked and I've never been suicide ganked so no tears here you craven twit. Suicide ganking is too low risk it's all upside with no downside to the perpetrators. The poor miners have to go out with a couple hundred million isk uninsurable ship that has no guns no defense worth mentioning that's slow as a turd on top of all that. All this to make a piddling couple million per trip. Meanwhile the suicide ganker goes and picks up a fully insurable hull sticks some cheap T1 guns and a couple rounds of faction ammo loads it's lows with weapon upgrades and if they shop around and are smart can profit on the destruction of their own ship making any modules left behind by the miner pure gravy. The hulk has the PG of a frigate so you aren't getting much tank on it no matter what and spending more to beef the tank up with faction Deadspace or officer gear only increases the profit for the ganker. What I don't understand is why the peanut gallery that's always whining and crying about Risk vs Reward are always the same people who defend the most riskless activities in the game. Next will of course come the empty threat about how he's going to hunt me down and kill me with his main. Well since I'm one of those "red v blue nubs" you don't even have to use a locator agent to find me just come on over to Tourier join up with Blue and lets see if you got any skills to back up your smack talk. Or are you just another of the forum "badasses" who are only willing to engage when guaranteed victory?
0n 1	Posted - 2010.05.24 17:40:00 - [56] Originally by: Skex Relbore Originally by: 0n 1 Originally by: Skex Relbore My main actually, has never suicide ganked. Yet someone from the red v blue nubs, found the time to post tears and make me laugh.... top banana. Double wammy and I can't believe I did it..... Damn it chap, you're far too easy to troll.
Cearain Caldari The IMPERIUM of LaZy NATION	Posted - 2010.05.24 17:50:00 - [57] Originally by: Skex Relbore Edited by: Skex Relbore on 24/05/2010 17:14:20 Edited by: Skex Relbore on 24/05/2010 17:08:06Suicide ganking is too low risk it's all upside with no downside to the perpetrators. Well they lose sec status and have to go grind it up again. What are the rewards of suicide ganking? Do they make as much as high sec mission running in a raven? No one has ever posted what the rewards to suicide ganking are in any statistically significant way. So you keep saying that there is no risk when there is certain risk of losing sec status and your ship. But in the end if the rewards are not greater than other low risk activities then suicide ganking does not need a nerf.
Skex Relbore Gallente Red Federation	Posted - 2010.05.24 18:37:00 - [58] Originally by: Cearain Originally by: Skex Relbore Edited by: Skex Relbore on 24/05/2010 17:14:20 Edited by: Skex Relbore on 24/05/2010 17:08:06Suicide ganking is too low risk it's all upside with no downside to the perpetrators. Well they lose sec status and have to go grind it up again. What are the rewards of suicide ganking? Do they make as much as high sec mission running in a raven? No one has ever posted what the rewards to suicide ganking are in any statistically significant way. So you keep saying that there is no risk when there is certain risk of losing sec status and your ship. But in the end if the rewards are not greater than other low risk activities then suicide ganking does not need a nerf. There was a nice write up a while back I don't recall if it was in the C&P or W&T but it broke down how to rapidly restore security status while earning isk and bounties utilizing L4 missions so a smart suicider can maintain their security status while making all those sweet mission iskies you seem so jealous of. As far as rewards go people aren't gathering 30 man gank blobs to take out a freighter for a couple hundred million. They're going for the multi-billion isk cargoes. What I've found on these threads is that the defenders of these activities like to exaggerate the costs and ignore the benefits. How much effort does it really take to gank a industrial with a few million in cargo? Set one alt a gate off to scan incoming targets (hell you could even set that alt on the gate at 14 to catch auto-piloters, hell use an industrial for the scan alt so you only need two accounts to pop the target and scoop the loot. Set a gank BS 5k off gate and as soon as you see a decent target position to catch them at optimal and POP. Send in transport to pick up the pieces salvage both boats and profit head back to station to pick up another ship rinse/repeat. Since the majority of the cost of the gank ship is covered by insurance it's a pure profit operation limited only by ones patience and luck of the draw. As long as you don't pod the industrials pilot the security hit is minimal and easily offset by a short amount of Sec status grinding. And unlike the mission running Raven pilot you envy so much they don't even have worry about being suicide ganked in return since there is no value to the ship they're flying beyond the insurance payout. If they aren't making as much as a hisec mission runner then they should take up hisec mission running. Then again if they aren't making more than a hisec mission runner it's probably because they suck. All that said I like the fact that suicide ganking is possible. it adds spice to the game. I just want the mechanics adjusted so that the victims have a potential recourse for revenge Making kill rights apply to a corporation would encourage more participation in PC Corporations and give another avenue for PVP in high sec as bounty hunters could now join up and work for industrialists hunting down suicide gankers. Then there would be a real consequence to suicide ganking rather than the trivial ones that exist under the current system.
Goose99	Posted - 2010.05.24 20:25:00 - [59] Suicide ganking is completely OP at the moment, and HUGELY profitably like no other profession in eve, for zero risk. You just have to be organized (scanner/gankers plus haulers standing by at the gate) and pick target wisely. Countless billions of isk in a timeframe of mere seconds. I do it on occasions, at peak hours in busy systems, if competent gankers are online. The sec status hit is nothing. Just pick the worthwhile targets and not hit everything (obviously). Suicide ganking needs a gimp, in the form of limit on frequency. Like, say, ganking more than once during x hours and you get concorded every time you undock, for no reason. Otherwise gankers get far too rich compared to other professions. It needs balancing badly.
Cearain Caldari The IMPERIUM of LaZy NATION	Posted - 2010.05.24 20:50:00 - [60] Originally by: Skex Relbore Originally by: Cearain Originally by: Skex Relbore Edited by: Skex Relbore on 24/05/2010 17:14:20 Edited by: Skex Relbore on 24/05/2010 17:08:06Suicide ganking is too low risk it's all upside with no downside to the perpetrators. Well they lose sec status and have to go grind it up again. What are the rewards of suicide ganking? Do they make as much as high sec mission running in a raven? No one has ever posted what the rewards to suicide ganking are in any statistically significant way. So you keep saying that there is no risk when there is certain risk of losing sec status and your ship. But in the end if the rewards are not greater than other low risk activities then suicide ganking does not need a nerf. There was a nice write up a while back I don't recall if it was in the C&P or W&T but it broke down how to rapidly restore security status while earning isk and bounties utilizing L4 missions so a smart suicider can maintain their security status while making all those sweet mission iskies you seem so jealous of. As far as rewards go people aren't gathering 30 man gank blobs to take out a freighter for a couple hundred million. They're going for the multi-billion isk cargoes. What I've found on these threads is that the defenders of these activities like to exaggerate the costs and ignore the benefits. How much effort does it really take to gank a industrial with a few million in cargo? Set one alt a gate off to scan incoming targets (hell you could even set that alt on the gate at 14 to catch auto-piloters, hell use an industrial for the scan alt so you only need two accounts to pop the target and scoop the loot. Set a gank BS 5k off gate and as soon as you see a decent target position to catch them at optimal and POP. Send in transport to pick up the pieces salvage both boats and profit head back to station to pick up another ship rinse/repeat. Since the majority of the cost of the gank ship is covered by insurance it's a pure profit operation limited only by ones patience and luck of the draw. As long as you don't pod the industrials pilot the security hit is minimal and easily offset by a short amount of Sec status grinding. And unlike the mission running Raven pilot you envy so much they don't even have worry about being suicide ganked in return since there is no value to the ship they're flying beyond the insurance payout. If they aren't making as much as a hisec mission runner then they should take up hisec mission running. Then again if they aren't making more than a hisec mission runner it's probably because they suck. All that said I like the fact that suicide ganking is possible. it adds spice to the game. I just want the mechanics adjusted so that the victims have a potential recourse for revenge Making kill rights apply to a corporation would encourage more participation in PC Corporations and give another avenue for PVP in high sec as bounty hunters could now join up and work for industrialists hunting down suicide gankers. Then there would be a real consequence to suicide ganking rather than the trivial ones that exist under the current system.

UV RED	Posted - 2010.05.24 20:57:00 - [61] i agree the insurance system is flawed. i dont know how the rest of the world runs but here in the states, if you are committing a felony like robbing a bank, the last thing thats gonna happen is the insurance pays for the cops blowing up your get away car. and if you do have a -10 score you arent allowed in a ship in high sec.
Mag's the united Negative Ten.	Posted - 2010.05.24 20:59:00 - [62] Edited by: Mag''s on 24/05/2010 21:01:30 Originally by: Skex Relbore Stuff..... You seem to forget that CCP have actually given players a way to haul through Empire, with almost 100% immunity. So all your arguments about ganking haulers etc, are kinda mute. As far as ganking hulks etc, well that's just done for the lulz, I doubt many do it for ISK. Edit: Originally by: UV RED i agree the insurance system is flawed. i dont know how the rest of the world runs but here in the states, if you are committing a felony like robbing a bank, the last thing thats gonna happen is the insurance pays for the cops blowing up your get away car. and if you do have a -10 score you arent allowed in a ship in high sec. Another fail attempt at the RL world and Game world comparisons. If you are -10, you are allowed a ship in hi sec, infact I often take battleships through hi sec. Learn game mechanics. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally by: Torothanax Low population in w systems makes afk cloaking unattractive.
Cearain Caldari The IMPERIUM of LaZy NATION	Posted - 2010.05.24 21:11:00 - [63] Originally by: Goose99 Suicide ganking is completely OP at the moment, and HUGELY profitably like no other profession in eve, for zero risk. You just have to be organized (scanner/gankers plus haulers standing by at the gate) and pick target wisely. Countless billions of isk in a timeframe of mere seconds. .... Well then at that rate you would have "countless" trillions in a few hours! But seriously can you give us more information that you are basing this on? Are you going to try to take down freighters or industrials? Where are you doing this?
Goose99	Posted - 2010.05.25 00:14:00 - [64] Originally by: Cearain Originally by: Goose99 Suicide ganking is completely OP at the moment, and HUGELY profitably like no other profession in eve, for zero risk. You just have to be organized (scanner/gankers plus haulers standing by at the gate) and pick target wisely. Countless billions of isk in a timeframe of mere seconds. .... Well then at that rate you would have "countless" trillions in a few hours! But seriously can you give us more information that you are basing this on? Are you going to try to take down freighters or industrials? Where are you doing this? Sometimes near Jita, also high traffic chockholds for long hauls like Niarja, etc. Freighters if enough ppl and it's worth it. Afk industrials are usually hauling crap. Ppl haul the less bulky and truly valuable stuff in other ships, and leave them on autopilot, thinking they're safe. Better to not ignore them. Down to luck, but can be extremely profitable. It's unbalanced.
Cearain Caldari The IMPERIUM of LaZy NATION	Posted - 2010.05.25 01:00:00 - [65] How many people and what ships do you need to bring down a freighter? Are you randomly scanning every ship that goes through or do you look for certain types of ships? How much per hour per account do you think one would make doing this when you include the time to grind up standings again.
Goose99	Posted - 2010.05.25 02:23:00 - [66] Originally by: Cearain How many people and what ships do you need to bring down a freighter? Are you randomly scanning every ship that goes through or do you look for certain types of ships? How much per hour per account do you think one would make doing this when you include the time to grind up standings again. At least 15 BS for freighter, ideally phoons. Lower end of highsec. Normally scan all ships. Smaller ones can offer surprises, if you have a disposo-dessie around. Limited time to respond for fast ships, even on autopilot, of course. As for per hour per account, I'm not sure. Only do this once in a while. Standings didn't seem to be a problem. All a matter of only picking the worthwhile targets.
Cearain Caldari The IMPERIUM of LaZy NATION	Posted - 2010.05.25 03:30:00 - [67] Edited by: Cearain on 25/05/2010 03:32:09 Goose thanks for the responses. I don't fly with the billion isk loads so that may be why I am not gettting ganked more. But before I jump on the band wagon saying suicide ganking is overpowered I would really like to see some legit figures as opposed to anecdotal evidence. Sure we can all see the billion isk industrial killmail that 2 people snagged. But I would like to know how many hours were spent before that was found. Just out of curiousity, why don't you do more suicide ganking if its such a great way to make isk? edit: With the smaller ships do you generally try to scram them after they jump or do you just try to web them and kill them before they make it to the gate?
Goose99	Posted - 2010.05.25 03:43:00 - [68] Originally by: Cearain Edited by: Cearain on 25/05/2010 03:32:09 Goose thanks for the responses. I don't fly with the billion isk loads so that may be why I am not gettting ganked more. But before I jump on the band wagon saying suicide ganking is overpowered I would really like to see some legit figures as opposed to anecdotal evidence. Sure we can all see the billion isk industrial killmail that 2 people snagged. But I would like to know how many hours were spent before that was found. Just out of curiousity, why don't you do more suicide ganking if its such a great way to make isk? edit: With the smaller ships do you generally try to scram them after they jump or do you just try to web them and kill them before they make it to the gate? Web and gank, or just gank, for small ships dropping out of warp and running into gate on autopilot. I guess you're right, the motherloads don't happen often. It's kinda more for fun. But the potential is always there.
Mag's the united Negative Ten.	Posted - 2010.05.25 13:31:00 - [69] Originally by: Goose99 Just out I guess you're right, the motherloads don't happen often. It's kinda more for fun. But the potential is always there. I've said this myself, ganks will continue even with no insurance, simply because it's fun. But I'd like to ask you a question, how many Jump freighters and Orcas have you suicide ganked? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally by: Torothanax Low population in w systems makes afk cloaking unattractive.
Goose99	Posted - 2010.05.25 13:38:00 - [70] Originally by: Mag's Originally by: Goose99 Just out I guess you're right, the motherloads don't happen often. It's kinda more for fun. But the potential is always there. I've said this myself, ganks will continue even with no insurance, simply because it's fun. But I'd like to ask you a question, how many Jump freighters and Orcas have you suicide ganked? Not many. You need... like minded ppl for that. >_>

Mag's the united Negative Ten.	Posted - 2010.05.25 15:44:00 - [71] Originally by: Goose99 Originally by: Mag's Originally by: Goose99 Just out I guess you're right, the motherloads don't happen often. It's kinda more for fun. But the potential is always there. I've said this myself, ganks will continue even with no insurance, simply because it's fun. But I'd like to ask you a question, how many Jump freighters and Orcas have you suicide ganked? Not many. You need... like minded ppl for that. >_> Thanks for the reply. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally by: Torothanax Low population in w systems makes afk cloaking unattractive.
Skex Relbore Gallente Red Federation	Posted - 2010.05.25 16:54:00 - [72] Originally by: Mag's Originally by: Goose99 Originally by: Mag's Originally by: Goose99 Just out I guess you're right, the motherloads don't happen often. It's kinda more for fun. But the potential is always there. I've said this myself, ganks will continue even with no insurance, simply because it's fun. But I'd like to ask you a question, how many Jump freighters and Orcas have you suicide ganked? Not many. You need... like minded ppl for that. >_> Thanks for the reply. Yeah yeah we get it Orca's are the best hisec afk hauler for medium sized loads since they completely remove the financial incentive for ganking (Still not 100% safe since some will gank one just for the lulz and tears) But they aren't sufficient for the really big loads which is why you still see hundreds of freighters running around nor are they exactly fast or easy to train for which is why you still see industrials and transport ships on the trade routes. As I repeatedly said I have no problem with suicide ganking heck even the insurance isn't that big of a deal too me (particularly with the incoming changes) But I do think that kill rights should go to the corp rather than the individual pilot. I think doing so would create all sorts of wonderful conflict and opportunities for additional destruction while at the same time providing an incentive for Haulers to join PC corporations rather than remaining hidden in NPC corps for security. One could then make a freight company with a combat wing that could then recruit hauler pilots with the promise of revenge in the case of a gank. Freight companies with particularly effective PVP wings would be more attractive to cargo haulers since the reputation for effectiveness would work as an deterrent to casual ganks. The same would work for miners it would provide an reason to join a PC mining corp other than just company for ops and Orca bonuses. It would make having a PVP force in a mining corporation a viable operation. Since even if you can't defend the miners in your corporation from suicide ganks you could hunt down the ganker and extract revenge later or be able to preemptively engage in the case of repeat offenders. So in exchange for vulnerability to war decs you would gain some measure of protection against suicide ganks. Freelance bounty hunters could join corporations long enough to fulfill kill contracts on corporate targets. Such a change would finally make bounty hunting a viable profession. TLDR Kill rights should be given to the player corporation. I mean if a thief steals from a corporate jetcan they'll be agressed to the entire corp why not the same for a suicide gank?
Mag's the united Negative Ten.	Posted - 2010.05.25 17:08:00 - [73] You can stop now, your starting to sound all whiny. You have options, use them. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally by: Torothanax Low population in w systems makes afk cloaking unattractive.
Laechyd Eldgorn Caldari Cruoris Seraphim Exalted.	Posted - 2010.05.25 17:31:00 - [74] practically only thing which counts really as griefing is killing noobs in rookie ships. (okay there's irl threats etc but that's not really the point) why argue about it for 3 pages :D
Skex Relbore Gallente Red Federation	Posted - 2010.05.25 18:08:00 - [75] Edited by: Skex Relbore on 25/05/2010 18:08:45 Originally by: Mag's Edited by: Mag''s on 25/05/2010 17:41:19 You can stop now, you're starting to sound all whiny. You have options, use them. Edit: Spelling. Where exactly is the whining? Yeah I use the tools available I have Orca pilot who does all my high sec hauling. Doesn't mean that the current mechanics couldn't be improved. This is Features and Idea's. My idea is that kill rights should be granted to an entire corporation rather than simply to individual pilots. The reason I like the idea has very little to do with stopping suicide ganking. It wouldn't. There would still be plenty of haulers out there who aren't interested in joining a corporation even for limited protection from ganking not to mention that there are plenty of gankers who live in low sec so wouldn't really see a change in their situation or those who wouldn't mind having a hundred kill rights hanging over there heads. But it would create a reason for miners and haulers to consider joining a PC corporation and it would also create more opportunities for Pew Pew in high sec. It would also add some actual risk to a riskless activity. I mean mission runners have to keep an eye on the directional scan and local for potential threats why shouldn't suicide gankers? I'll never understand why so many of the supposedly hardcore PVP players are so dead set against ideas that would actually increase the amount of spaceship explosions. Then again looking at your Killboard it's pretty clear that you are extremely risk adverse. 1000+ kills to 15 losses? that's someone who doesn't believe in taking risks. So I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that you would poo poo this idea. You're another member of the "Risk v Reward means they take all the risk while I take all the reward" brigade.
Mag's the united Negative Ten.	Posted - 2010.05.25 18:21:00 - [76] Quick to BC, lets make assumptions. You're part of those Red v's Blue peeps, I should start making assumptions about how you all fail at real PvP? Nah that would be daft. I'm against change, when there are options available to avoid the reason for this thread. What you suggest has far wider reaching consequences. Oh and my stats, I'm just better than you. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally by: Torothanax Low population in w systems makes afk cloaking unattractive.
Skex Relbore Gallente Red Federation	Posted - 2010.05.25 19:48:00 - [77] Originally by: Mag's Quick to BC, lets make assumptions. You're part of those Red v's Blue peeps, I should start making assumptions about how you all fail at real PvP? Nah that would be daft. Oh please come on down and test that assumption we always welcome more targets.. Wait wait I mean oh please please don't come over to kill us mr big bad PVPer. I mean we're all obviously so afraid to fight. Quote: I'm against change, when there are options available to avoid the reason for this thread. What you suggest has far wider reaching consequences. Before I answer this did you even read what I suggested? And yeah my idea would have far wider consequences and I like them. That's why I suggested it. I assume that since you oppose change you also opposed the 10% tax on NPC corporations? Quote: Oh and my stats, I'm just better than you. Well that's real hard to determine considering what an even match your last solo kill was I mean I'm sure that Tristan gave your Astarte a really good fight.
Mag's the united Negative Ten.	Posted - 2010.05.25 22:12:00 - [78] Originally by: Skex Relbore Oh please come on down and test that assumption we always welcome more targets.. Wait wait I mean oh please please don't come over to kill us mr big bad PVPer. I mean we're all obviously so afraid to fight. You don't read very well do you, I said it would be daft for me to start making assumptions. lol at the Mr big PvP jibe. Originally by: Skex Relbore Before I answer this did you even read what I suggested? And yeah my idea would have far wider consequences and I like them. That's why I suggested it. I assume that since you oppose change you also opposed the 10% tax on NPC corporations? There you go assuming stuff again, you're still not learning are you. Nah I didn't read it, just made up my reply about your idea. (oh that was sarcasm, thought I'd tell you as you missed it in the last post) 10% Tax? Don't you mean 11%? Why would I be against that? Originally by: Skex Relbore Well that's real hard to determine considering what an even match your last solo kill was I mean I'm sure that Tristan gave your Astarte a really good fight. Ahh yea back to my stats, well it seems you are really into stats (obsessed?) what with your sig an all, good for you. I've not even looked at yours, I bet they rock. Yea that Tristan, I always fly solo in this MMO. Only ever engage targets when I'm in a smaller ship and because I'm a Mr big PvPer. Obviously not as big as you. (more sarcasm btw) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally by: Torothanax Low population in w systems makes afk cloaking unattractive.
Skex Relbore Gallente Red Federation	Posted - 2010.05.26 11:11:00 - [79] Originally by: Mag's Originally by: Skex Relbore Oh please come on down and test that assumption we always welcome more targets.. Wait wait I mean oh please please don't come over to kill us mr big bad PVPer. I mean we're all obviously so afraid to fight. You don't read very well do you, I said it would be daft for me to start making assumptions. lol at the Mr big PvP jibe. Originally by: Skex Relbore Before I answer this did you even read what I suggested? And yeah my idea would have far wider consequences and I like them. That's why I suggested it. I assume that since you oppose change you also opposed the 10% tax on NPC corporations? There you go assuming stuff again, you're still not learning are you. Nah I didn't read it, just made up my reply about your idea. (oh that was sarcasm, thought I'd tell you as you missed it in the last post) 10% Tax? Don't you mean 11%? Why would I be against that? Originally by: Skex Relbore Well that's real hard to determine considering what an even match your last solo kill was I mean I'm sure that Tristan gave your Astarte a really good fight. Ahh yea back to my stats, well it seems you are really into stats (obsessed?) what with your sig an all, good for you. I've not even looked at yours, I bet they rock. Yea that Tristan, I always fly solo in this MMO. Only ever engage targets when I'm in a smaller ship and because I'm a Mr big PvPer. Obviously not as big as you. (more sarcasm btw) It's not about stats. It's about a pattern of behavior that shows up via the statistics of your KB activity on this character. I generally find it most accurate to measure someone based on their actual quantifiable performance rather than what they claim to be about. You KB stats tell me several things about you(you being the character Mag's I know nothing about you the player other than you are a smartass with an overblown sense of your own cleverness not unique in anyway) See now some people might look at 1000 kills and 15 deaths and think wow that guy must be good. But I look and say that's a guy who only engages when he is certain of victory. To get the 72 to 1 K/D ratio you are only engaging when the situation is extremely imbalanced in your favor. I don't consider that to be a bad thing, nor am I one of these oddball e-bushido guys who thinks every fight must 1v1 or it doesn't count or that every engagement must be against a superior force. But I do find it ironic when someone as obviously risk adverse as you will try talk smack about other people needing to take risks. As to the NPC tax thing however it is ( I haven't been in a NPC corp for more than a few minute since about the first week I started playing so forgive me for not remembering the exact value). I still opposed it as a stupid idea even though I'm not affected by it in anyway. My point has to do with consistency. You are against a change that would make life for the suicide ganker a little dangerous for a change, yet you supported a change targeted to make another group unhappy. All this along with your other mostly content free posting history does paint you as exactly the sort I suspected at first. Risk to you is something your victims shoulder, you just expect the reward with nothing ventured of your own. If I'm wrong by all means correct me but the above is exactly the impression you are giving.
Mag's the united Negative Ten.	Posted - 2010.05.26 13:48:00 - [80] Originally by: Skex Relbore It's not about stats. It's about a pattern of behavior that shows up via the statistics of your KB activity on this character. I generally find it most accurate to measure someone based on their actual quantifiable performance rather than what they claim to be about. You KB stats tell me several things about you(you being the character Mag's I know nothing about you the player other than you are a smartass with an overblown sense of your own cleverness not unique in anyway) See now some people might look at 1000 kills and 15 deaths and think wow that guy must be good. But I look and say that's a guy who only engages when he is certain of victory. To get the 72 to 1 K/D ratio you are only engaging when the situation is extremely imbalanced in your favor. I don't consider that to be a bad thing, nor am I one of these oddball e-bushido guys who thinks every fight must 1v1 or it doesn't count or that every engagement must be against a superior force. But I do find it ironic when someone as obviously risk adverse as you will try talk smack about other people needing to take risks. That was awesome, still making assumptions and not even understanding the life I lead atm within the game. You've not long started, but can already tell me what type of player I am, just by looking at BC. (must be all that experience you have) The overblown cleverness I seem to possess, pails into insignificance when compared to you it seems. How ironic is that? Originally by: Skex Relbore As to the NPC tax thing however it is ( I haven't been in a NPC corp for more than a few minute since about the first week I started playing so forgive me for not remembering the exact value). I still opposed it as a stupid idea even though I'm not affected by it in anyway. My point has to do with consistency. It really made no difference to me either way, why should I care about that? Not even sure, if I ever posted anything on the subject. Originally by: Skex Relbore You are against a change that would make life for the suicide ganker a little dangerous for a change, yet you supported a change targeted to make another group unhappy. I already told you why I don't support your idea, but you make assumptions again with the latter part of that sentence. Originally by: Skex Relbore All this along with your other mostly content free posting history does paint you as exactly the sort I suspected at first. Wow you're even checking my post history, mint. (you must really love me ) Forum posts should always carry lots of content, you are correct and for that I am deeply sorry. Originally by: Skex Relbore Risk to you is something your victims shoulder, you just expect the reward with nothing ventured of your own. If I'm wrong by all means correct me but the above is exactly the impression you are giving. I must be unique, in wanting my victims to shoulder all the risk in this game. My losses have all my small mediocre stuff too, so yea I never take risks. (never fly what you can't afford to lose) As far as solo play is concerned, why should I fly solo? Because you said it's the only mark, of a true Eve Mr Big PvPer? I've been in large corps since early 2004, mainly down in 0.0. (my first 0.0 corp being Second wave inc) I do remember some solo flying in my cepter killing buzzard, pre the big EW changes, but solo stuff never really floated my boat, so to speak. I do look forward to more assumptions and Freudian examinations, you're doing so well. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally by: Torothanax Low population in w systems makes afk cloaking unattractive.

Skex Relbore Gallente Red Federation	Posted - 2010.05.26 15:40:00 - [81] Originally by: Mag's snipped for brevity anyone who wants can read it above First I have no idea what your doing in game nor do I particularly care. Obviously you're not PVPing which isn't a big deal there's plenty else to do in the game other than shoot people. I never claimed to be able know all about you. I only claimed to be able to reach a couple of conclusions based on the available data. Those conclusions being that you are risk averse and you haven't been doing the PVP thing on this character since Oct of last year. As to your posting history it didn't exactly take long to skim few one liners you've put in prior to this. You give so little to respond to in this discussion that I figured I'd look at your other posts to see where you stand on other issues (wouldn't want to make groundless assumptions after all) You're very few postings were on similar subjects to this taking the position of defending the status quo over those asking to bring some equity to the current imbalance in the mechanics. I asked you specifically about the NPC corp tax because you claimed that you opposed change when there were other methods of accomplishing something. Which is your argument against my proposal to propagate kill rights to corporations. Once you answered I simply pointed out the inconsistency of your position on these two issues. Once again you oppose change that would bring risk to the parasites of eve and support those that make victims even more vulnerable. These aren't assumptions they are conclusions based on the available evidence. If they are incorrect then by all means provide other evidence by actually stating your position then there wouldn't be any danger of anyone making any "assumptions". Of course it's much easier to attack a position than to defend it and well.. I'll let the peanut gallery come to their own conclusions about that. Finally whats this about flying solo? Did you actually read what you were replying too or did you simply skim it and make assumptions? I specifically said that I'm not one of those ebushido guys who thinks that solo fighting is the only measure of competence. The game obviously wasn't designed to be a solo fighting game it's focus is group PVP. Which is why no single ship can do everything well. That's why you need multiple ships and pilots to cover all the needed roles. I also specifically said that there's nothing wrong with the way you played when you were PVPing. It was the smart way to play. It also happens to be risk averse. That's fine I don't bash mission runners for avoiding low sec and staying in hisec running L4s. The observation wasn't meant as an attack on your character it was just an observation. You don't take risks at least in combat on that character, For all I know you take huge risks in the market or run around attacking everything you come across in an Ibis on an alt. Why get so defensive over a simple observation? As for myself I've never claimed to be any good at PVP. In fact the whole reason I joined RVB was because I sucked at PvP and I wanted to learn not suck at PvP and I don't have the time to commit to nullsec or am I ready to trash my security status in low sec so RvB is a great place for me. It's just fun to pull your chain and it appears to be working. But since you are so clever could you point out why my idea of granting kill rights to corporations is such a bad idea? I do believe that any idea worth holding should be able to stand up to rigorous and hostile debate. If it sucks that much you'd be doing me a favor by showing me it's flaws since I could then abandon that idea as a failure. So what exactly is the far reaching effect that would be so harmful to the game?
Mag's the united Negative Ten.	Posted - 2010.05.26 16:43:00 - [82] Originally by: Skex Relbore First I have no idea what your doing in game nor do I particularly care. Care enough to check up my BC stats and posting history. Originally by: Skex Relbore Finally whats this about flying solo? cough You first brought up the whole solo thing when talking about my stats, my question in that last post was rhetorical. You seem obsessed with stats. (Looks at your sig.) Originally by: Skex Relbore As for myself I've never claimed to be any good at PVP. In fact the whole reason I joined RVB was because I sucked at PvP and I wanted to learn not suck at PvP and I don't have the time to commit to nullsec or am I ready to trash my security status in low sec so RvB is a great place for me. Not sure whether I should laugh or cry. Originally by: Skex Relbore But since you are so clever could you point out why my idea of granting kill rights to corporations is such a bad idea? Are you in a bubble? You idea affects every kill, not just suicide ganks. It could be abused the other way. I can see you thought of all the angles. Originally by: Skex Relbore It's just fun to pull your chain and it appears to be working. Funny thing is, just when you think you're the one pulling the chain...... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally by: Torothanax Low population in w systems makes afk cloaking unattractive.
0n 1	Posted - 2010.05.26 16:45:00 - [83] Edited by: 0n 1 on 26/05/2010 16:46:48 ..... it turns out you're not. As I said before, too easy, but I thought I'd get some more. Edit: Thanks though, I've had a laugh.
Dae Mitry	Posted - 2010.05.26 16:55:00 - [84] Everyone is interested in protection of their property. But if items loss will be reduced a production will go down too.
Skex Relbore Gallente Red Federation	Posted - 2010.05.27 16:00:00 - [85] Originally by: Mag's Originally by: Skex Relbore First I have no idea what your doing in game nor do I particularly care. Care enough to check up my BC stats and posting history. Those 2 things were germane to the discussion after all I don't want to be making assumptions right? Quote: Originally by: Skex Relbore Finally whats this about flying solo? cough You first brought up the whole solo thing when talking about my stats, my question in that last post was rhetorical. You seem obsessed with stats. (Looks at your sig.) No I said you were risk adverse the quip about the solo kill was just to make fun of you. Quote: Originally by: Skex Relbore As for myself I've never claimed to be any good at PVP. In fact the whole reason I joined RVB was because I sucked at PvP and I wanted to learn not suck at PvP and I don't have the time to commit to nullsec or am I ready to trash my security status in low sec so RvB is a great place for me. Not sure whether I should laugh or cry. Like I care. Quote: Originally by: Skex Relbore But since you are so clever could you point out why my idea of granting kill rights to corporations is such a bad idea? Are you in a bubble? You idea affects every kill, not just suicide ganks. It could be abused the other way. I can see you thought of all the angles. I'm talking about kill rights not aggression not anything else. The only people who'd be affected are those who attack and destroy ships that don't/can't fight back. Ergo suicide gankers. Ok yeah it would probably hit low sec gate campers too but why shouldn't there be some consequence to that activity besides you do enough of that and you'll be a valid target as an outlaw anyway. Quote: Originally by: Skex Relbore It's just fun to pull your chain and it appears to be working. Funny thing is, just when you think you're the one pulling the chain...... Yes I kind of thought you'd think that.
HalfArse	Posted - 2010.05.27 16:12:00 - [86] even if ccp was going to try and stop it with the methods op mentioned, wouldnt work.....I used to gank macro miners for their expensive named mods and my friends and i used throw away characters in destroyers. Wed make a character, in about 1 hour theyd have trained all they needed to to gank....wed get a pack of about 5 of us warp right in on the target and co-ordinate our opening salvo so we all fired at once...concord would kill us and a cloaked mate scoops the cargo. When the characters had a sec status that was too low we dumped them and made a new one I cant think of a way to stop this without somehow stopping players being able to fire on each other
Mag's the united Negative Ten.	Posted - 2010.05.27 22:57:00 - [87] Originally by: Skex Relbore lol Baited with my alt troll twice. Great. Baited with my main, as you were so easy the first time. Even better. Failing to read my last alt post and grasping what I had done, then linking to a wiki page claiming my incompetence. Priceless. DunningûKruger effect indeed. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally by: Torothanax Low population in w systems makes afk cloaking unattractive.
Skex Relbore Gallente Red Federation	Posted - 2010.05.28 17:36:00 - [88] Originally by: Mag's Originally by: Skex Relbore lol Baited with my alt troll twice. Great. Baited with my main, as you were so easy the first time. Even better. Failing to read my last alt post and grasping what I had done, then linking to a wiki page claiming my incompetence. Priceless. DunningûKruger effect indeed. Indeed it is very applicable. When you tried to actually make an argument. Quote: Are you in a bubble? You idea affects every kill, not just suicide ganks. It could be abused the other way. I can see you thought of all the angles. You demonstrated your lack of competence in the discussion. Rather than admitting error you then tried to shift tactics and distract from your incompetence by falling back on the ole "I was just trolling you, lol you fail newb" Which of course turns out to be the only thing you are capable of doing (and not very well either) So lets go over what you did again. You claimed to have been trolling me (as if that's really something to brag about) You demonstrated a lack of knowledge of the subject you were discussing with your "it would affect all kills" even though I specifically stated that my idea would apply only to Kill Rights. When your lack of understanding was pointed out you point back to your troll alt post that agreed with yourself (ok Sybil). It's actually rather sad and pathetic that you can't hold your own in a discussion without providing your own peanut gallery. Actually the really pathetic thing is you can't manage hold your own even pretending to be your own supporters. I mean really with the number of pathetic wanna be griefers who play this game one would think that someone other than your own little alt would have come here giving you support. But by all means continue to show us all how clever you are.
Mag's the united Negative Ten.	Posted - 2010.05.28 17:52:00 - [89] Edited by: Mag''s on 28/05/2010 17:53:09 Oh good god, you still don't see it. You want to change kill rights because people get ganked, even though there are already methods to avoid it in-game. Your idea would basically mean if anyone killed anyone else, the kill rights would be shared throughout the killed pilots corp. (except an NPC corp) I've already pointed out to you how this could be abused the other way, but as per all your posts you told me how dumb I am but how decidedly clever you are, instead of understand the consequences of this change. (ironic) One example, I'll give as you seem unable to see it. Eve player A gets chatting to Eve player B with the intention of getting friendly and ending up with a mutual 1v1. But players A already knows about player B and the expensive fit he uses on his mission ship. The fight takes place, but player A loses to player B meaning that now player A's corp has full kill rights for player B. Player B goes out on a mission and dies horribly losing his expensive fit ship, as was intended all along. An unnecessary change which causes more issues, for something that already had avoidance measures in place. Is that simple enough for you. You've given me a lot of laughs actually, so I guess you deserved that normal post. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally by: Torothanax Low population in w systems makes afk cloaking unattractive.
Krygir Jadestar	Posted - 2010.05.28 18:24:00 - [90] A few people have nailed it on the head i believe. the issue is not to eliminate the pirating/ganking in high sec, it is a part of the game and rightly so. However, i'd love to know the name of the insurance company that will pay out for an item used to break the law on purpose. those that choose to haul hundreds of millions or billions in a cheap easy to kill hauler are gonna get hit... thats piracy and it exists. however the majority of the time the haulers are not hauling that high of a value, for those in the sub 100 million range, the loss of a 80-100 million isk ship causes it not to be worth it for the chance of a cargo drop. Simply invalidate the insurance contract on a ship that was aggressed by concord and much of the small time ganking will go away. Just to reiterate though, while i personally do not do it, i believe it to be a realistic part of the game and should be kept, i just feel the insurance payout at all is wrong for the ship committing the act. Kryg

Skex Relbore Gallente Red Federation	Posted - 2010.05.28 21:22:00 - [91] Originally by: Mag's Edited by: Mag''s on 28/05/2010 17:53:09 Oh good god, you still don't see it. You want to change kill rights because people get ganked, even though there are already methods to avoid it in-game. Your idea would basically mean if anyone killed anyone else, the kill rights would be shared throughout the killed pilots corp. (except an NPC corp) I've already pointed out to you how this could be abused the other way, but as per all your posts you told me how dumb I am but how decidedly clever you are, instead of understand the consequences of this change. (ironic) One example, I'll give as you seem unable to see it. Eve player A gets chatting to Eve player B with the intention of getting friendly and ending up with a mutual 1v1. But players A already knows about player B and the expensive fit he uses on his mission ship. The fight takes place, but player A loses to player B meaning that now player A's corp has full kill rights for player B. Player B goes out on a mission and dies horribly losing his expensive fit ship, as was intended all along. An unnecessary change which causes more issues, for something that already had avoidance measures in place. Is that simple enough for you. You've given me a lot of laughs actually, so I guess you deserved that normal post. You don't get kill rights by losing a fight. You get kill rights if you engaged and your ship killed illegally. So in your example of an agreed 1v1 the only way player A gets kill rights on player B is if player B manages to suicide him. In your example say in high sec. These two meet up somewhere and player A drops a can with a bit of crap in it. Player B then picks it up they now have agression and player A can legally engage player B because B engaged in theft. Assuming that player A shoots and player B giving player B agression then neither would end up with kill rights regardless of who wins. Once again you demonstrate your lack of understanding of basic game mechanics. Originally by: "EVE Wikipedia" An attack is illegal in Empire Space when the player you are attacking is: Not at war with you. Not flagged from stealing from you or your corporation. Not flagged for aggression towards everyone, i.e. he did not just commit an unlawful act and under a Global Criminal Countdown. Not an outlaw (with a security standing at -5.0 or lower) Not on your Kill Rights list, i.e. you do not have a Kill Right on him. If all of the above apply and you successfully destroys his ship without him defending himself (using any kind of aggressive module), he will gain a Kill Right against you. No kill rights are given against legal targets. Outlaws with a security status of -5.0 or lower, or a pilot who has performed an act of aggression are legal targets. Your Kill Right target will show up as ôblinking redö on your overview unless you have modified the overview to show legal targets in another way. I linked the Wiki earlier go read it first before making your arguments so you won't look like an idiot.
Jessica Verne	Posted - 2010.05.28 21:30:00 - [92] /me grabs the popcorn as I have nothing better to do but sit on a gate and scan haulers and troll eve-o forums...
Mag's the united Negative Ten.	Posted - 2010.05.29 06:38:00 - [93] Edited by: Mag''s on 29/05/2010 06:41:43 Originally by: "EVE Wikipedia" Kill rights info damn it I should read more. I've been in null sec and low sec too long. You win that one wags finger. Originally by: "Skex Relbore" I linked the Wiki earlier go read it first before making your arguments so you won't look like an idiot. Too late. OK now that that's clear, I guess I would support the kill rights idea. But I don't support any other changes. Note to self, don't make normal posts after trolling, without reading details on the idea first. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally by: Torothanax Low population in w systems makes afk cloaking unattractive.
HalfArse	Posted - 2010.05.31 14:48:00 - [94] Originally by: Krygir Jadestar Simply invalidate the insurance contract on a ship that was aggressed by concord and much of the small time ganking will go away. Kryg you still dont get it - high sec ganking can be done (and most effectively imo) by 1 hour characters in DESTROYERS. Do you honestly think people even actually insure those ships? a max of 2 mill lost maybe including mods? omg without insurance the pirates would be bankrupt in days!
Skex Relbore Gallente Red Federation	Posted - 2010.06.01 13:43:00 - [95] Originally by: Mag's Edited by: Mag''s on 29/05/2010 06:41:43 Originally by: "EVE Wikipedia" Kill rights info damn it I should read more. I've been in null sec and low sec too long. You win that one wags finger. Originally by: "Skex Relbore" I linked the Wiki earlier go read it first before making your arguments so you won't look like an idiot. Too late. OK now that that's clear, I guess I would support the kill rights idea. But I don't support any other changes. Note to self, don't make normal posts after trolling, without reading details on the idea first. GF It's so seldom that people will admit to making mistakes on these boards. /salute Good luck in your future trolling


Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one 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.