Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Laia Odo
|
Posted - 2011.05.20 03:05:00 -
[1]
I've always thought that having game mechanics which enable profitabe "suicide ganking" was idiotic. Two seemingly obvious solutions:
1. Raise the insurance rate on high risk pilots. If you total your car over and over your insurance company raises your rates or drops coverage. The Pend Insurance company should respond similarly to repeated losses (at least if they are all to concord in jita).
2. While the godlike concord ship is already there blowing the **** out of your attacker, why not grab your loot. From a realism pov, this is a more effective policing tactic for concord, as it would prevent crimes rather than simply avenge them. Losing a couple ruptures is not a deterrent to the suiciders it's an operating cost.
|
Propaganda Kitten
|
Posted - 2011.05.20 03:32:00 -
[2]
Your stuff I can haz?
|
Seventies P0rn Star
|
Posted - 2011.05.20 03:35:00 -
[3]
Oh look, another 'I want to mine without risk' thread.
Never gets old.
|
Surfin's PlunderBunny
Minmatar The Python Cartel. The Defenders of Pen Island
|
Posted - 2011.05.20 03:37:00 -
[4]
Fit a tank?
Originally by: Jada Maroo Many legitimate news stories over the past few years would not have been brought to the forefront if not for Fox News.
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
|
Posted - 2011.05.20 03:37:00 -
[5]
I will fully support entirely removing insurance payouts for suicide-gankers if the security rating loss is also removed, or at the very least decreased by at least a factor of ten.
Also, only the victim makes suicide-ganking profitable. If the punishment for one gank was the removal of one billion ISK from my wallet, I would still gank your hauler if you carry three billion ISK worth of stuff.
|
Morganta
|
Posted - 2011.05.20 03:53:00 -
[6]
lol, only suckers insure
seriously, insurance is a pure scam
|
The Crushah
Gallente Stimulus Rote Kapelle
|
Posted - 2011.05.20 04:02:00 -
[7]
Your mom wants you to go back to WoW.
|
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2011.05.20 04:37:00 -
[8]
posting to say that suicide ganking has been around since ever in this game, it's a legitimate tactic. CCP isn't going to touch it to appease some pubbie miners and others who really don't want any risk when they're hauling their Estamel's Modified Invulnerability Field to Jita in their Vexor.
|
Istvaan Shogaatsu
Caldari Guiding Hand Social Club
|
Posted - 2011.05.20 04:42:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Laia Odo 2. While the godlike concord ship is already there blowing the **** out of your attacker, why not grab your loot. From a realism pov, this is a more effective policing tactic for concord, as it would prevent crimes rather than simply avenge them. Losing a couple ruptures is not a deterrent to the suiciders it's an operating cost.
Concord isn't meant to prevent crimes, merely provide a consequence for committing them.
Hah, that's cute, you actually thought the cops care about protecting you...
|
Feligast
Minmatar GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2011.05.20 04:57:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Laia Odo 1. Raise the insurance rate on high risk pilots. If you total your car over and over your insurance company raises your rates or drops coverage. The Pend Insurance company should respond similarly to repeated losses (at least if they are all to concord in jita).
Counterpoint: Insurance should not pay out if you don't take proper precautions to defend yourself, such as fitting a standard tank to your hulk, or attempting to defend yourself by attacking your attackers.
|
|
Bud Johnson
Broski Enterprises
|
Posted - 2011.05.20 05:29:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Laia Odo I've always thought that having game mechanics which enable profitabe "suicide ganking" was idiotic. Two seemingly obvious solutions:
1. Raise the insurance rate on high risk pilots. If you total your car over and over your insurance company raises your rates or drops coverage. The Pend Insurance company should respond similarly to repeated losses (at least if they are all to concord in jita).
2. While the godlike concord ship is already there blowing the **** out of your attacker, why not grab your loot. From a realism pov, this is a more effective policing tactic for concord, as it would prevent crimes rather than simply avenge them. Losing a couple ruptures is not a deterrent to the suiciders it's an operating cost.
So you are for a system that would allow someone to suicide someone else with disposable alts until they are unable to insure ships on their main?
|
Surfin's PlunderBunny
Minmatar The Python Cartel. The Defenders of Pen Island
|
Posted - 2011.05.20 05:37:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Feligast
Originally by: Laia Odo 1. Raise the insurance rate on high risk pilots. If you total your car over and over your insurance company raises your rates or drops coverage. The Pend Insurance company should respond similarly to repeated losses (at least if they are all to concord in jita).
Counterpoint: Insurance should not pay out if you don't take proper precautions to defend yourself, such as fitting a standard tank to your hulk, or attempting to defend yourself by attacking your attackers.
Who insures a Hulk?
Originally by: Jada Maroo Many legitimate news stories over the past few years would not have been brought to the forefront if not for Fox News.
|
Feligast
Minmatar GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2011.05.20 05:42:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Surfin's PlunderBunny
Originally by: Feligast
Originally by: Laia Odo 1. Raise the insurance rate on high risk pilots. If you total your car over and over your insurance company raises your rates or drops coverage. The Pend Insurance company should respond similarly to repeated losses (at least if they are all to concord in jita).
Counterpoint: Insurance should not pay out if you don't take proper precautions to defend yourself, such as fitting a standard tank to your hulk, or attempting to defend yourself by attacking your attackers.
Who insures a Hulk?
Pubbies.
|
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2011.05.20 05:48:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Surfin's PlunderBunny
Originally by: Feligast
Originally by: Laia Odo 1. Raise the insurance rate on high risk pilots. If you total your car over and over your insurance company raises your rates or drops coverage. The Pend Insurance company should respond similarly to repeated losses (at least if they are all to concord in jita).
Counterpoint: Insurance should not pay out if you don't take proper precautions to defend yourself, such as fitting a standard tank to your hulk, or attempting to defend yourself by attacking your attackers.
Who insures a Hulk?
That 32M payout is a big deal to veldspar miners, yo
|
Laia Odo
|
Posted - 2011.05.20 07:10:00 -
[15]
Ah I feel like a moron!!! What did I do? I don't even mine
|
Laia Odo
|
Posted - 2011.05.20 07:16:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Feligast
Originally by: Laia Odo 1. Raise the insurance rate on high risk pilots. If you total your car over and over your insurance company raises your rates or drops coverage. The Pend Insurance company should respond similarly to repeated losses (at least if they are all to concord in jita).
Counterpoint: Insurance should not pay out if you don't take proper precautions to defend yourself, such as fitting a standard tank to your hulk, or attempting to defend yourself by attacking your attackers.[/quote
I agree, I was picturing some way to rate an insuree, which is probably too tricky to implement.
Also like the other poster pointed out it would be pointless because of alts, I didn't think of that
|
Millie Clode
Amarr Insert Cool Name Here
|
Posted - 2011.05.20 07:30:00 -
[17]
Make mining lasers require input every 30 seconds. It would mean fewer AFK targets and thus reduce suicide ganking. ---------- Who, me? |
Surfin's PlunderBunny
Minmatar The Python Cartel. The Defenders of Pen Island
|
Posted - 2011.05.20 08:01:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Millie Clode Make mining lasers require input every 30 seconds. It would mean fewer AFK targets and thus reduce suicide ganking.
That wouldn't work, I never suicide gank while afk
Originally by: Jada Maroo Many legitimate news stories over the past few years would not have been brought to the forefront if not for Fox News.
|
Darius III
Caldari Interstellar eXodus BricK sQuAD.
|
Posted - 2011.05.20 10:14:00 -
[19]
Actually OP you have the ability to stop suicide ganking. Anyone in this game, right now-can prevent 90% of ganks-at least the ones for profit in trade hubs.
Of course I won't tell you how-but I swear it is doable. And before any of you lamers talk about "Pre-spawning Concord" that doesnt even help if you are ganking properly.
I would sell my idea and put an end to ganking as we know it-but no one wants to pay me the ISK. Rest assured the technique has been proven. I did it exactly one time to validate the efficacy of the method-never got more tears/threats/hate, ever in my life.
|
Fi1ippo
|
Posted - 2011.05.20 11:03:00 -
[20]
My solution:
1) dont attract attention
2) dont carry expensive crap in a crappy ship
3) tank your ship, and avoid running on auto pilot if you have precious cargo.
Im not even a few months into this game and i already know how to use common sense. Correct me if im wrong but if you are suicide ganked you are either in a mining ship, or you advertised yourself in local and a group of gankers made you pay for it. Am i missing something?
|
|
MMXMMX
Caldari Bendebeukers Green Rhino
|
Posted - 2011.05.20 11:23:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Fi1ippo My solution:
1) dont attract attention
2) dont carry expensive crap in a crappy ship
3) tank your ship, and avoid running on auto pilot if you have precious cargo.
Im not even a few months into this game and i already know how to use common sense. Correct me if im wrong but if you are suicide ganked you are either in a mining ship, or you advertised yourself in local and a group of gankers made you pay for it. Am i missing something?
Wijsneus
|
Zelda Wei
Caldari New Horizon Trade Exchange
|
Posted - 2011.05.20 12:37:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Laia Odo I've always thought that having game mechanics which enable profitabe "suicide ganking" was idiotic. Two seemingly obvious solutions:
Or ... fit a tank and smack them in local when they fail.
|
Victoria Wolfe
Caldari
|
Posted - 2011.05.20 13:45:00 -
[23]
Insurance shouldn't be paid out to people who lose their ship to CONCORD. It's like an insurance company paying to fix the dents in your car caused by the guy you ran over bouncing off your hood. I would also suggest giving any insurance money that would have been payed out to the victim but then gankers would just stop insuring their ships altogether.
I do like the idea of wreckage loot being deliver to the victim. The attackers own wreckage should become police property.
Anyway regardless of all that you'll never completely prevent high sec ganking. The best bet is to tank your ship, stay alert and don't afk. If you're moving a small number of extremely high value items it might be best to move them one at a time to make yourself a less tempting target and to minimize loss should the worst happen. ___
"Speak for yourself sir, I intend to live forever" - Commander William Riker |
Lady Spank
Amarr Trillionaire High-Rollers Suicidal Bassoon Orkesta
|
Posted - 2011.05.20 14:32:00 -
[24]
There are several easy methods to ensure that you avoid almost all chances of being ganked. Some are very easy, some require a portion of your attention span when out in space. All are based on common sense and are what people would do as a matter of course in low/null sec.
Unfortunately for the lazy, this is too much to ask so it seems dying and crying is preferable.
At the rate that exhumers die in the last few years I am surprised not to see a significant rise in the number of high sec miners in battleships.
|
Dracoliche
Damage Unlimited Inc AN EYE F0R AN EYE
|
Posted - 2011.05.20 15:22:00 -
[25]
Edited by: Dracoliche on 20/05/2011 15:24:20 Concord only cares about their killboard. Edit: Holy **** fail color
|
Mighty Dread
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2011.05.20 17:48:00 -
[26]
Edited by: Mighty Dread on 20/05/2011 17:49:59
Suicide ganking should be a rare, last resort effort made against a target. Meaning that the penalty for suicide ganking should be high enough that pilots only use it if they have no other recourse in thwarting their enemy's advance or victory. It should be a tactic of war, amongst corps and/or alliances at war. Suicide ganking a target in Empire space that is not a WT should have the highest penalty of all.
Solo or even small gang suicide ganking should not be a viable tactic due to penalty/cost. However, under the current game dynamics suicide ganking is bordering on an exploit. In fact you can hardly call it a "suicide" as more often than not the "suicide" ganker is not really sacrificing anything significant whilst potentially costing other players hundreds of millions of isk + in game time. You can train up an alt, fund the alt with ships and modules, then use the alt to suicide gank other ships/players with no ill effects to your main aside from the isk spent (if you are already rich or earn a high amount of isk per day with your main then spending on your suicide ganking alt means nothing). You can then opt to raise the sec status of your alt (post gank and sec status drop) via ratting/missions, which is profitable in itself, or opt to destroy the alt and start another suicide ganking alt. Rinse and repeat.
Suicide ganking non WT in Empire space should essentially "kill" the perpetrating character. At the very least, banish the character to null sec with the highest possible sec hit Concord can dish out. Additionally I'd make locking a non WT player in high security space worthy of a Concord warning that if such lock is not removed within 5-10 seconds the perpetrating ship will be fired upon and destroyed.
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
|
Posted - 2011.05.21 00:26:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Mighty Dread Suicide ganking should be a rare, last resort effort made against a target. Meaning that the penalty for suicide ganking should be high enough that pilots only use it if they have no other recourse in thwarting their enemy's advance or victory. It should be a tactic of war, amongst corps and/or alliances at war.
How exactly is it "suicide" ganking if hostile actions during war do not summon CONCORD?
Originally by: Mighty Dread Solo or even small gang suicide ganking should not be a viable tactic due to penalty/cost. However, under the current game dynamics suicide ganking is bordering on an exploit. In fact you can hardly call it a "suicide" as more often than not the "suicide" ganker is not really sacrificing anything significant whilst potentially costing other players hundreds of millions of isk + in game time.
The victim only has himself to blame. If you put a billion ISK into an untanked hauler, I will sacrifice 35 million for a battleship to destroy it. Hell, I would do so even if I did not get an insurance payout. You have ways of getting around this, however. Tech II haulers can carry more since they have higher EHP values, pushing the ganking cost up. Freighters and Orcas take this even further; you can safely carry at least a billion ISK worth of stuff in those without having to worry about ganks, and it is very doubtful that anyone will try to take down 180,000+ EHP for a net payout of less than two-three billion. Half of the loot usually dies in the explosion, so go ahead and do the math.
Originally by: Mighty Dread You can train up an alt, fund the alt with ships and modules, then use the alt to suicide gank other ships/players with no ill effects to your main aside from the isk spent (if you are already rich or earn a high amount of isk per day with your main then spending on your suicide ganking alt means nothing)....whilst potentially costing other players hundreds of millions of isk + in game time.
I can turn that argument around on you and say that I can only afford one ship for a single gank before I am entirely out of funds, while the target is a wealthy carebear who is hauling only a fraction of his total net worth. It can even be said that by making me suicide-gank him, that carebear is griefing me because my loss proportionally exceeds his, and that carebear should therefore be hit with the highest possible penalties.
Originally by: Mighty Dread ...or opt to destroy the alt and start another suicide ganking alt. Rinse and repeat.
This is considered an exploit according to the EULA.
Originally by: Mighty Dread Suicide ganking non WT in Empire space should essentially "kill" the perpetrating character. At the very least, banish the character to null sec with the highest possible sec hit Concord can dish out.
I fully agree with this proposition, as long as the act of actually being caught for committing a crime is based on random chance. Furthermore, like in real life, good criminals should be able to mitigate that chance with gameplay mechanics and/or new skills.
Originally by: Mighty Dread Additionally I'd make locking a non WT player in high security space worthy of a Concord warning that if such lock is not removed within 5-10 seconds the perpetrating ship will be fired upon and destroyed.
That's a bit silly. What if I want to repair you?
7/10 overall, by the way.
|
Grot Bags
|
Posted - 2011.05.21 01:28:00 -
[28]
Don't like game mechanics, Don't play.
|
Mighty Dread
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2011.05.21 14:32:00 -
[29]
Edited by: Mighty Dread on 21/05/2011 14:32:33
Originally by: Destiny Corrupted As you said...
Well yes, against a WT a Kamikaze run is not really a "suicide gank" as we commonly know it (act that incurs Concorddoken event). I stand corrected that acts within a Concord sanctioned war cannot include "suicide ganking" and such should alternatively be considered a "Kamikaze run" or other more appropriate term.
I also do not see how blaming the victim is acceptable. The "Oh she was dressed like such and such and so deserved to be assaulted" attitude is bull****. As well new/younger players do not have the luxury of jumping into a T2 industrial ship. Furthermore many suicide gankers do what they do not for profit but for "lolz" and killboard ranking.
Quote: I can turn that argument around on you and say that I can only afford one ship for a single gank before I am entirely out of funds, while the target is a wealthy carebear who is hauling only a fraction of his total net worth. It can even be said that by making me suicide-gank him, that carebear is griefing me because my loss proportionally exceeds his, and that carebear should therefore be hit with the highest possible penalties.
Huh? How is the "carebear" hauling goods forcing you to suicide gank him/her? How do you even know if the pilot of the ship actually owns the cargo or is merely hauling it for someone else? Again, attempts at blaming the industrialist for their mere existence in game is fail.
As to the locking neutral, non-aggressive target in high sec being worthy of a 5-10 second Concord warning to desist before being fired upon, obviously there would be an exception as in player only has remote reps fitted and is attempting to rep member of fleet or something to that effect. It makes no sense if someone pulls a gun and starts waving it around at people threatening to shoot them that the cops should just stand there staring dumbly until an actual bullet is fired.
Seriously, I don't think when CCP first started to put EVE together that they imagined 30 ships with skull tags sitting right on top of Jita 4-4 undock with another 30 or so in nearby proximity, all waiting for a chance to commit suicide in order to pad their killboards.
|
Myrdin Potter
Diplomatic Disruption Chain of Chaos
|
Posted - 2011.05.21 14:58:00 -
[30]
For all the people saying that dying to Concord = no insurance, please remember that lots of new players mess up and get killed by Concord. If you remove insurance payouts, then you lose players as new players often have their entire net worth in 1 ship.
CCP nerfed insurance and that made the risk of suicide ganking higher. If you greatly increase the reward (carry lots of high value items) or greatly reduce the risk (bad tank on the ship or auto-pilot), then why should a feature of the game that has been there forever be removed because you were careless?
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |