EVE Search - Suicide pirates in high sec space...simple fix

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Suicide pirates in high sec space...simple fix

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Steppa	Posted - 2005.09.28 19:01:00 - [1] As I reside primarily in 0.0 space, I've only recently heard about the growing trend in high-security suicide pirate attacks. I'm sure they've been going on for a long time, but it seems recently that they are growing in either number or reported incidents (on the forums or in chat). The most disturbing trend seems to be the flock of suicide frigate attacks on haulers. It strikes me that there is a simple fix, at least in concept. I have no idea how difficult the programming would be to implement. 1) Allow Concord to podkill pvp attackers in high-sec space. As far as I know, they just destroy your ship. 2) Flag the cans resulting from destroyed haulers so that only the hauler pilot or members of his corp or alliance can open the cans without Concord attack. 3) Or, failing #2, have Concord "confiscate" all items in cans resulting from the attack, both attacker and attacked, and put them in the nearest NPC station. Concord then notifies the pilot where the items are located and possibly even charges a fee to get the items out of impound. 4) Allow reprisal attacks by the member/corp/alliance against the attacker/attacker corp for 24 hours from the instigation of the attack, applicable in any .5+ system. This is only one way, from the victim to the attacker. This would NOT allow the attacker or his corp to open fire first. Only the victim and his corp/alliance would be able to openly attack the initiator and his corp. This last one, I believe, would go a long way toward ending these low-cost, high-yield motive behind these attacks. On the other hand...CCP may simply do nothing for two reasons. First, after the mass exodus to high-sec space after Exodus (lol), CCP may view this as a way to obliquely encourage people back out into less populated low-sec space. Second, with the increasing number of subscribers (GO GO EVE COMMUNITY!), and the increasing lag at the commercial hubs, CCP may again allow this to continue to encourage people to leave Empire for the nethers.
Extremely Sticky	Posted - 2005.09.28 19:03:00 - [2] Fix? How is this broken?
Rod Blaine	Posted - 2005.09.28 19:04:00 - [3] Edited by: Rod Blaine on 28/09/2005 19:04:32 There is no need for a fix. And if there is, the best fix by far is for everyone to finally get that CCP does NOT want you to be perfectly safe. Concord punishes, but does not prevent. edit: something of your alst suggestion is in the plannage tho. See the "eye for an eye" thing elsewhere on this page. _______________________________________________ Yes yes, blogging is passÚ I know. Rod's Ramblingz on Eve-Online Solutions to your issues.
Quanteeri	Posted - 2005.09.28 19:07:00 - [4] In the time it took you to post this thread, you could have russled up a gang of about 50 locals to rid yourselves of this menace. Go Fred! <- Working real hard for [24]
qrac	Posted - 2005.09.28 19:08:00 - [5] Edited by: qrac on 28/09/2005 19:09:40 it used to be worse when u could use alts with skills enough to fly kestrels packing cruise missiles. there is NO need for a fix except for the "eye for an eye"-concept which sounds pretty good to me. ------------------------------------------- Insanes numquam moriuntur!
babyblue	Posted - 2005.09.28 19:09:00 - [6] Originally by: Extremely Sticky Fix? How is this broken? If you want to know how it's broken, just think about it for 2 milli-seconds (no witty quips about being so clever it'll only take 1). Either this is done with Suicide Alts or characters in n00b corps, or it's done with characters who can just head back to 0.0 to chain some battleship NPC's for a while to get standing back up before returning to repeat the process. Either way, your loss and your risk are miniscule, if not non-existent compared to the person who is attacked and whose loss is generally very large.
Bhaal	Posted - 2005.09.28 19:10:00 - [7] Originally by: Quanteeri In the time it took you to post this thread, you could have russled up a gang of about 50 locals to rid yourselves of this menace. Not sure I can agree with this. ------------------------------------------------ Current Hobby other than EVE
Extremely Sticky	Posted - 2005.09.28 19:11:00 - [8] Currrently the one I have been hearing about is not done in a suicide alt but by someone who uses an apoc. So this person is taking some losses. Just cause they can afford the loss doesn't mean the system is broken.
Grimpak	Posted - 2005.09.28 19:16:00 - [9] Originally by: Quanteeri In the time it took you to post this thread, you could have russled up a gang of about 50 locals to rid yourselves of this menace. omg the link in the sig = teh funneh ------------------- Celestial Horizon: we go zerg on you
Liu Kaskakka	Posted - 2005.09.28 19:27:00 - [10] buhu2u Maybe you should "fix" your tactics rather than ask CCP to babysit you.
Dark Shikari	Posted - 2005.09.28 19:33:00 - [11] The "fix" is not carrying things worth 10s of times more than the value of your ship in your cargo hold. -- Proud member of the [23].
infused	Posted - 2005.09.28 19:33:00 - [12] It's not broken. These guys should be tanking their haulers. No space is safe.
Chinsor	Posted - 2005.09.28 19:38:00 - [13] Edited by: Chinsor on 28/09/2005 19:39:15 you are joking right? its a shame more attacks arent going on.
Bhaal	Posted - 2005.09.28 19:43:00 - [14] Quote: An iteron mkV can get a couple thousand armor quite easily, and a badger mk2 can get over a thousand shield without much in skills. But then you can't carry as much... I kinda like Concord siezing some of the cargo idea... Depending on sec status of the system in where this happens. ------------------------------------------------ Current Hobby other than EVE
Galk	Posted - 2005.09.28 19:48:00 - [15] Alt ganking needs fixing, thats all... in the current enviroment. Be acountable for your actions ect... tbh im suprised nobody has mentioned that yet, it's a plain problem, and a few of the above posters are long detracters of alts, and yet this issue is one of their primary uses. If i were to say use alt's on my accounts to blow up and steal from ripe ships in the empire, it realy wouldn't matter if concord blew me up or not...... there is NO punishment for my actions. Kinda negates everything, im suprised thats not been pointed out. To throw it in the mix, IF ships are blown up in high sec 'illegaly' it's my opinion that the authority should impound the jetisoned cargo.... Thats a true reflection on what should happen, do you realy think that when such a crime is commited in dirrect view of the authority, they would allow random looters... I don't think so ----------- "Heh believe me, theres never enough cheese to go round" Helpfull profesional support staff responce in times of trouble.
Liu Kaskakka	Posted - 2005.09.28 19:48:00 - [16] Originally by: Bhaal Quote: An iteron mkV can get a couple thousand armor quite easily, and a badger mk2 can get over a thousand shield without much in skills. But then you can't carry as much... Ah, damn. You mean, there's a reward for risk? Less cargo, less risk, less reward? Meh, that sounds bollox, off with it! Quote: I kinda like Concord siezing some of the cargo idea... Depending on sec status of the system in where this happens. I'd like concord seizing your cargo if you try to haul too greedily.
Quanteeri	Posted - 2005.09.28 19:48:00 - [17] Edited by: Quanteeri on 28/09/2005 19:48:10 Originally by: Bhaal Originally by: Quanteeri In the time it took you to post this thread, you could have russled up a gang of about 50 locals to rid yourselves of this menace. Not sure I can agree with this. Ok. Well, maybe 10. But still. Fight fire with fire. They've all got at least 3 usable chars like everyone else. Go Fred! <- Working real hard for [24]
Quanteeri	Posted - 2005.09.28 19:50:00 - [18] Quote: Alt ganking needs fixing, thats all... in the current enviroment. Though I do agree with this. As it stands though, we're all on pretty level footing. Go Fred! <- Working real hard for [24]
Dark Shikari	Posted - 2005.09.28 19:52:00 - [19] Originally by: Bhaal Quote: An iteron mkV can get a couple thousand armor quite easily, and a badger mk2 can get over a thousand shield without much in skills. But then you can't carry as much... Zomg you're sacrificing reward for risk... IMPOSSIBLE! I mean, there's nothing like that in EVE already, is there? -- Proud member of the [23].
Bhaal	Posted - 2005.09.28 20:01:00 - [20] Edited by: Bhaal on 28/09/2005 20:03:38 Originally by: Dark Shikari Originally by: Bhaal Quote: An iteron mkV can get a couple thousand armor quite easily, and a badger mk2 can get over a thousand shield without much in skills. But then you can't carry as much... Zomg you're sacrificing reward for risk... IMPOSSIBLE! I mean, there's nothing like that in EVE already, is there? Why should there be any risk of hauling a full boat load of stuff in 1.0-0.8 space? I don't think there should be... The mechanic itself is busted, that's proven by the fact that CCP has been ****ering with this issue for some time... Avialability of throw away alts has been the main breeding ground of this griefing tactic. I think CCP should simply inform all subscribers that alts will be disabled 1 year from now... If 100% of ppl were forced to haul/suicide gank with their mains, this would not be as widspread a problem as it has become. ------------------------------------------------ Current Hobby other than EVE
babyblue	Posted - 2005.09.28 20:09:00 - [21] Excuse me Dark, I agree with a lot of things you say on the forums but on this I think a lot of you are wrong. This "Risk v Reward" rubbish doesn't make sense. It's one sided and only addresses one form of gameplay. It's one sided because the risk is all on the hauler and not on the attacker. Why? Because the attacker chooses his character (alt or genuine), he chooses the place and time of the attack and he chooses the target. The victim is taking all of the risk. The attacker just goes down a rung on sec status but he doesn't care because he can set it up again in a relatively short timespan. He also doesn't care about losing his ship because he has already done the calculation so that he profits. Also, he might not care about his character reputation because it's an Alt or in a n00b corp. So before you spout Risk v Reward, remember that the risk is very low for one player and vey high for the other. That isn't balanced. Also remember that a proper risk v reward equation, if balanced, would make the loss proportional to the risk, not all or nothing which is presently the case.
Kyle Chimko	Posted - 2005.09.28 20:28:00 - [22] Originally by: Bhaal Edited by: Bhaal on 28/09/2005 20:03:38 Originally by: Dark Shikari Originally by: Bhaal Quote: An iteron mkV can get a couple thousand armor quite easily, and a badger mk2 can get over a thousand shield without much in skills. But then you can't carry as much... Zomg you're sacrificing reward for risk... IMPOSSIBLE! I mean, there's nothing like that in EVE already, is there? Why should there be any risk of hauling a full boat load of stuff in 1.0-0.8 space? I don't think there should be... The mechanic itself is busted, that's proven by the fact that CCP has been ****ering with this issue for some time... Avialability of throw away alts has been the main breeding ground of this griefing tactic. I think CCP should simply inform all subscribers that alts will be disabled 1 year from now... If 100% of ppl were forced to haul/suicide gank with their mains, this would not be as widspread a problem as it has become. Bhaal i dont think that many people would be happy if in an years time their characters would be deleted. --
Deka Kador	Posted - 2005.09.28 20:37:00 - [23] I wonder how many of the people saying, "There's nothing to be fixed" are also saying, "If you don't want to get ganked, stay above 0.4" in other threads. The irony is cutting. ______________________________________________ Note\| This character is for forum posting purposes only.
Deka Kador	Posted - 2005.09.28 20:41:00 - [24] Originally by: babyblue Excuse me Dark, I agree with a lot of things you say on the forums but on this I think a lot of you are wrong. This "Risk v Reward" rubbish doesn't make sense. It's one sided and only addresses one form of gameplay. It's one sided because the risk is all on the hauler and not on the attacker. Why? Because the attacker chooses his character (alt or genuine), he chooses the place and time of the attack and he chooses the target. The victim is taking all of the risk. The attacker just goes down a rung on sec status but he doesn't care because he can set it up again in a relatively short timespan. He also doesn't care about losing his ship because he has already done the calculation so that he profits. Also, he might not care about his character reputation because it's an Alt or in a n00b corp. So before you spout Risk v Reward, remember that the risk is very low for one player and vey high for the other. That isn't balanced. Also remember that a proper risk v reward equation, if balanced, would make the loss proportional to the risk, not all or nothing which is presently the case. I agree. Many people quoting "risk vs reward" in this thread are actually mistaking risk for consequence. The alt faces no risk of retribution other than the insignificant security hit and the loss of a frigate and some mods and that risk NEVER changes regardless of how big his reward is (i.e, the worth of the cargo he is ganking). Suicide 1.0 ganking is consequence vs reward whereby consequence is a fixed value and reward is an thoroughly pre-meditated value. ______________________________________________ Note\| This character is for forum posting purposes only.
Quanteeri	Posted - 2005.09.28 20:48:00 - [25] Originally by: Deka Kador I wonder how many of the people saying, "There's nothing to be fixed" are also saying, "If you don't want to get ganked, stay above 0.4" in other threads. The irony is cutting. Not me. From my experience, the further out you go, the safer it gets, for the most part. Choke points and major by-ways set aside, ofc. Go Fred! <- Working real hard for [24]
Yslath	Posted - 2005.09.28 20:49:00 - [26] I agree that it isn't right for this to be happening. In the higher security areas maybe Concord should start carrying shiled and armor transporters to help those who are being attacked. Or maybe target jammers. I don't see a problem with it unless it's alts doing it. Why not add a ten minute timer on logging onto another alt if you attacked someone in high security?
fairimear	Posted - 2005.09.28 20:50:00 - [27] Originally by: Deka Kador Originally by: babyblue Excuse me Dark, I agree with a lot of things you say on the forums but on this I think a lot of you are wrong. This "Risk v Reward" rubbish doesn't make sense. It's one sided and only addresses one form of gameplay. It's one sided because the risk is all on the hauler and not on the attacker. Why? Because the attacker chooses his character (alt or genuine), he chooses the place and time of the attack and he chooses the target. The victim is taking all of the risk. The attacker just goes down a rung on sec status but he doesn't care because he can set it up again in a relatively short timespan. He also doesn't care about losing his ship because he has already done the calculation so that he profits. Also, he might not care about his character reputation because it's an Alt or in a n00b corp. So before you spout Risk v Reward, remember that the risk is very low for one player and vey high for the other. That isn't balanced. Also remember that a proper risk v reward equation, if balanced, would make the loss proportional to the risk, not all or nothing which is presently the case. I agree. Many people quoting "risk vs reward" in this thread are actually mistaking risk for consequence. The alt faces no risk of retribution other than the insignificant security hit and the loss of a frigate and some mods and that risk NEVER changes regardless of how big his reward is (i.e, the worth of the cargo he is ganking). Suicide 1.0 ganking is consequence vs reward whereby consequence is a fixed value and reward is an thoroughly pre-meditated value. But the chance's it happens to you are low if you pay atention so that makes up the other end of the balance, so infact they are fine and add a little spice to life. LIVE WITH IT.
Deka Kador	Posted - 2005.09.28 20:54:00 - [28] A simple way to explain it is: Risk = what might happen BEFORE your action (i.e, what could happen to the alt ganker before he presses F1, F2, F3, F4 - in this case, it is always nothing. Nothing will happen before the action because he is in an NPC corporation and holds nothing of value in his cargo). Consequence = what happens AFTER your action (i.e, what happens after I press F1, F2, F3, F4? For the ganker, he will always lose a fixed and predictable figure in isk and security status). His gains are completely measurable because he will only go after a target which contains sufficient value to more than cover his fixed losses. In summary, risk and reward has absolutely nothing to do with suicide ganking. That is why people feel hard done by. ______________________________________________ Note\| This character is for forum posting purposes only.
VossKarr	Posted - 2005.09.28 20:54:00 - [29] The penalty for killing (and I don't mean just destroying their ships) someone who's not at war with you in +0.5 should be death, imho. Hence, it would be nice if Concord had the ability to podkill (without them being able to select new clones nearby) those -5 and lower characters who manage to sneak up into +0.5 systems and use battleships with smartbombs (<insta death to the t1 haulers, frigates and the pods contained therein) to (pod)kill unsuspecting people (usually just for sh*ts and giggles)...
Deka Kador	Posted - 2005.09.28 20:56:00 - [30] Edited by: Deka Kador on 28/09/2005 20:56:37 Originally by: fairimear Originally by: Deka Kador Originally by: babyblue Excuse me Dark, I agree with a lot of things you say on the forums but on this I think a lot of you are wrong. This "Risk v Reward" rubbish doesn't make sense. It's one sided and only addresses one form of gameplay. It's one sided because the risk is all on the hauler and not on the attacker. Why? Because the attacker chooses his character (alt or genuine), he chooses the place and time of the attack and he chooses the target. The victim is taking all of the risk. The attacker just goes down a rung on sec status but he doesn't care because he can set it up again in a relatively short timespan. He also doesn't care about losing his ship because he has already done the calculation so that he profits. Also, he might not care about his character reputation because it's an Alt or in a n00b corp. So before you spout Risk v Reward, remember that the risk is very low for one player and vey high for the other. That isn't balanced. Also remember that a proper risk v reward equation, if balanced, would make the loss proportional to the risk, not all or nothing which is presently the case. I agree. Many people quoting "risk vs reward" in this thread are actually mistaking risk for consequence. The alt faces no risk of retribution other than the insignificant security hit and the loss of a frigate and some mods and that risk NEVER changes regardless of how big his reward is (i.e, the worth of the cargo he is ganking). Suicide 1.0 ganking is consequence vs reward whereby consequence is a fixed value and reward is an thoroughly pre-meditated value. But the chance's it happens to you are low if you pay atention so that makes up the other end of the balance, so infact they are fine and add a little spice to life. LIVE WITH IT. So you are again using risk versus reward (the risks of it happening are low and your reward is safe travel of cargo) but when it actually happens, the situation has totally nothing to do with risk because the only risk is from the victim. The criminal only pays the consequences. He is not at risk for the reasons I explained in my above post. ______________________________________________ Note\| This character is for forum posting purposes only.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

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