EVE Search - Suicide piracy

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Suicide piracy

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Sharcy	Posted - 2006.02.03 11:06:00 - [1] CCP, there have been a couple of threads recently on suicide tactics in 1.0; pirates knowingly sacrificing Ravens to blow up haulers while a buddy collects the loot. Despicable as those tactics may be, there is one thing I really don't understand, and that is the fact that insurance is still paid to these pirates for losing their ship. In the real world, such an illegal act would void any insurance in an instant (suicide clauses in life insurance for example). I propose that insurance on ships is not returned when someone has been killed by CONCORD. -- Sonnema is recruiting!
Za Po	Posted - 2006.02.03 11:13:00 - [2] Agreed. Suicide tactics shouldn't be disallowed, but they shouldn't be supported by insurance either. Being killed by CONCORD should void insurance. -------------------- This solution to BM-related server resource usage can reduce lag with the same interface.
Awox	Posted - 2006.02.03 11:49:00 - [3] I like this idea! /signed
Rod Blaine	Posted - 2006.02.03 11:51:00 - [4] Edited by: Rod Blaine on 03/02/2006 11:51:02 A quick bet on why CCP won't and hasn't implemented insurance defaulting for players that incur security status loss in 0.5+ before getting killed by concord as yet. People that make a honest mistake, or lock and fire the wrong target due to lag in their overview, or fire a smartbomb with a cloaked ship nearby, or any other variation on the : "yeah that was your own fault, but we got this cushion called insurance that makes it reasonable to let you sort the consequences yourself" theme. These people now lose a bit of isk, and would then lose a ****load of isk. Now, what do you think would be the rough numbers of suicide ravens versus the numbers of 'honest mistakes' ? Sure, ideally you wouldnt pay those guys insurance. But that wouldn't stop them either, they'd just use cheaper ships instead and accept the occasional failure. It's not like finding an indy transporting more then 120m worth of goods is hard in Jita is it ? Power to the players !
Sharcy	Posted - 2006.02.03 12:04:00 - [5] Originally by: Rod Blaine Edited by: Rod Blaine on 03/02/2006 11:51:02Now, what do you think would be the rough numbers of suicide ravens versus the numbers of 'honest mistakes' ? Have you ever known a RL insurance company to say "Oh sure Mr. Blaine, we'll refund you in full for your car even though your insurance only covers 3rd parties and you hit that lamppost yourself, as it was an honest mistake"? It's besides the point. Illegal activities should void insurance, whether in mistake or intended. -- Sonnema is recruiting!
Wendat Huron	Posted - 2006.02.03 13:01:00 - [6] Make them lose a ****load more in standings while doing this and make it harder to regain said standings, that'll send a message.
Jhonen Senraedi	Posted - 2006.02.03 14:34:00 - [7] well..ok there's a couple of things that can be done here...or more. 1/ Have any aggressive act in 1.0 and possibly 0.9 systems result in Concord scrambling/holding the aggressor while they have time to consider their options...i.e they target someone..they get webbed/scrambled and get a countdown to disengage. 2/Have any aggressive acts in 1.0 and 0.9 result,as stated ina bigger sec hit.Not sure how big this should be...-1 to -2.5 per act I'd say..thus they can profit a little from their tactics..but not too much thus representing heightened vigilance against such acts. 3/Have any persons with -5.0 or lower sec status be subjec to either revoked or greatly increased insurance cover cost...to represent like irl..that they are in pursuit of danger and thus more likely to incur a loss of ship..thus many insurance companies would not touch them. 4/Have it so that..immediately a person hits -5.0 sec status(and possibly each -1.0 thereafter?)Their insurance is voided and has to be renewed at higher rate...eg..Someone ganks in 1.0..they take their status down to -5.0 and suddenly they have no cover for ship they lost.
Halet Cu	Posted - 2006.02.03 14:53:00 - [8] The last time I even mentioned the topic of insurance I could feel the flames from where I was sitting Anyway I think the way to get around this particular issue would be to allow everyone one mistake. The first time you screw up with Concord, you get the insurance payout. If you screw up again--no insurance. Not perfect, but hopefully would stop the repeat offenders.
Chaoskeeper	Posted - 2006.02.03 15:04:00 - [9] Edited by: Chaoskeeper on 03/02/2006 15:04:01 double ppost... damnit
Chaoskeeper	Posted - 2006.02.03 15:04:00 - [10] Originally by: Sharcy Originally by: Rod Blaine Edited by: Rod Blaine on 03/02/2006 11:51:02Now, what do you think would be the rough numbers of suicide ravens versus the numbers of 'honest mistakes' ? Have you ever known a RL insurance company to say "Oh sure Mr. Blaine, we'll refund you in full for your car even though your insurance only covers 3rd parties and you hit that lamppost yourself, as it was an honest mistake"? It's besides the point. Illegal activities should void insurance, whether in mistake or intended. sorry... but do you know any RL insurance that insures any war vehicles? if you do, change it as soon as possible

dmaul raven	Posted - 2006.02.03 16:05:00 - [11] Signed -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CaptainSeafort	Posted - 2006.02.03 16:43:00 - [12] heres an idea: in .5+ space, concord webs and scrambles the dude, but the INSTANT an offensive module is activated, a "CONCORD Support Ship" warps in, and starts uber shield transfer/armor rep on whoever the target is, if there is a target. from then on, the engagement proceeds as normal =) "Planets and moons no longer hitch rides on player ships. Their towel privileges have been revoked." HHGG Lives on in EVE!
Za Po	Posted - 2006.02.03 16:51:00 - [13] I don't think there is need for direct protection in the form of instant undefeatable shield transfer. We don't want people in empire to be utterly immune to other PCs. If one is willing to lose a half billion in ships to take down a basic hauler, I think he should manage it. But getting insurance on those ravens, that's just weird. As for people making a mistake... tough luck. Mistakes are bad, especially with weapons. I bet next time he'll pay more attention. -------------------- This solution to BM-related server resource usage can reduce lag with the same interface.
Ergo Morte	Posted - 2006.02.03 21:56:00 - [14] Only the math impaired would think that insurance payouts matter in suicide gank piracy. 120mil is still less than 4bil. This whole topic is about percieved revenge agianst someone that could have easily been discouraged from attacking if the "victims" had bothered to use some foresight. NEWS FLASH, if I'm sitting on a 4bil haul from ganking your ship no insurance isn't gonna bother me in the least. Another point your overlooking is something called a "Letter of Marque" that endows it's holder as a privateer. So any loss by the enemy of whomever issued the letter is a legitimate bussiness loss. thus getting insurance from someone would still be possible. Assuming of course you want to keep it like R/L . However I this latest round of protests by the lazy that got taken by the motivated is just anither waste of time. The system is working as intended.
bearak	Posted - 2006.02.03 22:15:00 - [15] wow, thank you for the thread. I had a false sence of security until I read this. I frequently transport expensive items through sec space, why not? Now I know why not. Jees, the real issue here is the fact that this game was created by people and as such is not perfect. Players will find a way around the rules and regulations to get what they want. "Where there's a will, there's a way." So you're either dead in 0.0 space, or dead in sec space. Just stay out of a hauler, or cloak it. I'd move out to 0.0 space if I thought I could handle it. But the trueth is since the game is so old, the players are so old. And I'd have to have 12 million sp just to feel safe out there. I don't have any suggestions to fix it, I just wanted to say thank you for letting us "newbs" know about the potential danger.
Jhonen Senraedi	Posted - 2006.02.03 22:19:00 - [16] Funny how in any ofthese sort of threads...the long time players etc. always say everything is ok....probably because they have 100's of millions of isk etc.Too many damned elitists here who think because they've been around longer then they are more important... NEWSFLASH Those of us in for a month or two are just as important...we pay exactly the same amount per month as you do.....! Anyways part of the point of this thread is that ..in supposedly safe space the security forces should act quicker to deter such actions....it might happen once or twice...but more than that no...there'd be a public outcry at repeated muggings in such a high populace..and secure area..People would be suing the government for compensation and irl..you would be able to insure cargo. Also....very low sec rated people...and blatant criminals should find it hard to insure their vessels and even then at a greatly enhanced premium(if it can be insured at all) IRL..you do a dangerous job..insurance is near unobtainable or the premiums are very high...same should be true here seeing as a lot of the vets say "hey it's like rl" As far as lazy goes...are we..no...wouldn't matter what we put on a hauler against a Raven...and also you expect to be pretty safe in 1.0.Basically....kudos to the pirate for thinkng this up...but realistically ..just how many times could he do it before he was wanted Dead or Alive by the Authorities....or how many times would an insurance company pay out on a ship?
Ultim8Evil	Posted - 2006.02.03 22:56:00 - [17] Edited by: Ultim8Evil on 03/02/2006 22:57:44 I love it when people compare EVE to RL. When you have built space going warships that you pilot from within a capsule that fires lasers, warps faster than the speed of light across star systems and docks at space stations.... be sure to tell N.A.S.A. Until then, EVE is EVE and RL is RL. STFU The only thing this game has connecting it to RL is the players.
Nashime	Posted - 2006.02.03 23:14:00 - [18] Originally by: Ultim8Evil Edited by: Ultim8Evil on 03/02/2006 22:57:44 I love it when people compare EVE to RL. When you have built space going warships that you pilot from within a capsule that fires lasers, warps faster than the speed of light across star systems and docks at space stations.... be sure to tell N.A.S.A. Until then, EVE is EVE and RL is RL. STFU The only thing this game has connecting it to RL is the players. Yes, and unfortunately we only have real life to call upon for analogies. So at the very least it would be better to try and offer a better analogy than flame individuals who use what they know to illustrate their point. 01100110 01101110 01101111 01110010 01100100
Ergo Morte	Posted - 2006.02.03 23:43:00 - [19] Originally by: Jhonen Senraedi Edited by: Jhonen Senraedi on 03/02/2006 22:50:10 As far as lazy goes...are we..no...wouldn't matter what we put on a hauler against a Raven...and also you expect to be pretty safe in 1.0.Basically....kudos to the pirate for thinkng this up...but realistically ..just how many times could he do it before he was wanted Dead or Alive by the Authorities....or how many times would an insurance company pay out on a ship? Well, that's the problem right there. You expect to be safe. If your carrying anything of sufficent value you should expect someone to want it at your expense. Then a player can prepare. the player that most famously got ganked recently was a 2 year vet and should have known better. She was and is completely capable of taking the precations neccessary to discourage this type of behavior or prevent that particular style of gank. she got complacent and paid the price. Not exactly a case of the big bad rat beating up on a poor little nub. This is a game. There are rules. All players should become thoroughly familiar with the rules. What happenned was within those rules. Ergo, everything is working as intended. New players wanting the game changed so they're not so painfully low on the totem pole happens in every MMO. One day you'll be on the side of "she should have known better", or you'll quit and if you do quit can I have your stuff?
Tarminic	Posted - 2006.02.04 02:22:00 - [20] Unfortunately, it would be difficult for an automated system to differentiate between an "accidental" attack and an intentional attack via pirates, making denial of insurance money an unlikely solution. The idea that CONCORD would jam/scramble you if you locked on to someone in 1.0 is interesting...it would be a good way to keep pirating in high security space down. I think that since NPCs can now do the same that it wouldn't be difficult to adapt CONCORDs AI to do the same.

Deja Thoris	Posted - 2006.02.04 02:31:00 - [21] And is it realistic to have insurance on a war vessel in the first place? No. You are only trying to tweak a compromise feature (insurance) to suit your needs. I mean, who in their right mind would insure a warship that is going out to face 10 serpantis battleships in a mission? Nobody right? To paraphrase you, "in the real world such a silly act would lead to voiding the insurance"
Deja Thoris	Posted - 2006.02.04 02:36:00 - [22] Originally by: Jhonen Senraedi Anyways part of the point of this thread is that ..in supposedly safe space . From the player guide (quoted) "Don't expect CONCORD to keep you immune to attacks or ship losses. Like in the real world, law enforcers often arrive too late at the scene of the crime, and even though they able to punish the criminal, they can't always prevent the crime. " So in short, it's there in the player guide. It's just your misguided impression that "safe" space exists.
Zarch AlDain	Posted - 2006.02.04 07:50:00 - [23] Originally by: bearak wow, thank you for the thread. I had a false sence of security until I read this. I frequently transport expensive items through sec space, why not? Now I know why not. Jees, the real issue here is the fact that this game was created by people and as such is not perfect. Players will find a way around the rules and regulations to get what they want. "Where there's a will, there's a way." So you're either dead in 0.0 space, or dead in sec space. Just stay out of a hauler, or cloak it. I'd move out to 0.0 space if I thought I could handle it. But the trueth is since the game is so old, the players are so old. And I'd have to have 12 million sp just to feel safe out there. I don't have any suggestions to fix it, I just wanted to say thank you for letting us "newbs" know about the potential danger. I am currently based out of and working in 0.0 space. I don't feel completely safe but apart from a few near misses I haven't lost a ship out here yet and am a contributing and useful member of my corporation. I couldn't do it solo, but with corp backing it's more than possible, and a lot of fun. I am less than 2 months old. Newbies don't need to worry about the ganking raven, even if he only had fairly basic modules his ship would have had getting on for 100k worth of modules fitted. On top of that there is the time spent waiting and scanning. That strategy is only useful against people who have a lot of valuable items in their ship - which is unlikely to be newbies!
Rorix Whitecloud	Posted - 2006.02.04 11:35:00 - [24] In response to whoever said the police come to late in real life and whatever, you have to remember, IRL, you die only once. in EVE, you just get another clone, and you're back in business. No body IRL would rob a bank in broad day light if they KNOW they dont even have a chance of living through it. in EVE, the worst that CONCORD can do to you is make you lose your ship, and there's no such thing as permenant death. What might work to prevent these things might be if you disallowed the use of ship/cargo scanners in high sec space, so that the player pirates would not know if their target is empty or not, thus preventing them from making random shootings. I highly doubt that they would shoot a random industrial if they didnt know if it was carrying expensive loot/modules or not. Just my 2 cents...
Joerd Toastius	Posted - 2006.02.04 13:16:00 - [25] Originally by: Nashime Originally by: Ultim8Evil Edited by: Ultim8Evil on 03/02/2006 22:57:44 I love it when people compare EVE to RL. When you have built space going warships that you pilot from within a capsule that fires lasers, warps faster than the speed of light across star systems and docks at space stations.... be sure to tell N.A.S.A. Until then, EVE is EVE and RL is RL. STFU The only thing this game has connecting it to RL is the players. Yes, and unfortunately we only have real life to call upon for analogies. So at the very least it would be better to try and offer a better analogy than flame individuals who use what they know to illustrate their point. Or you could stop relying on analogy and use some actual reasoning instead.
Drizit	Posted - 2006.02.04 21:24:00 - [26] What Concord should do is not the point, it's the insurance that's at issue here. I have just bought a 96m BS (0% below regional average) and the platinum insurance gives me over 130m which pays for the BS, the insurance premium and about 4 million over the top. In effect, it would pay me to have it ganked. So I put a couple of cheapo turrets on it and go pop an indy. Result = Bang and I'm immediately in pocket to the tune of 4 million isk. Get my buddy to scoop the cargo dropped from the hauler and we're really in the money. Rinse and repeat. Now isn't that an open invite to go suicide pirating in high sec? I just can't lose, even if there was no cargo, we have 2m each from the insurance alone. Ganking haulers just for fun could potentially earn over 8m per hour plus the cargo we'd get from it. Luckily for noobs, I'm not a pirate and as a miner/trader, I'm outraged that people can profit from the insurance alone like that. Insurance should be made available to everyone but deliberate, unprovoked acts of agression against someone in high sec should void any insurance payments (accidents included since you get a popup warning first). This should be implemented down to 0.5 but below that, anything goes since it's almost totally pvp down there and anyone daft enough to run a hauler through there without an escort is asking for trouble. As you go down lower, the risk is lower that Concord will catch the rat who did it and gank them. That way, 1.0 and 0.9 is safest and <0.8 carries more risk of getting ganked for your cargo just as it always has been. An easy way to do this is if Concord ganked you, it's tough luck - no payout! If it was a mistake, you're probably a noob who hasn't lost a big expensive ship anyway. anyone who lost a BS or such should have been playing long enough to opt out when the popup informs them it's an unprovoked act of agression. -- My idea of an OS is one that Operates the System, not a complete package of every piece of software ever written. Computers created "The Paperless Office". But some stupid fool invented a printer
Kittamaru	Posted - 2006.02.04 22:31:00 - [27] what about the people with faction equipment that can not only TANK concord, but can take them OUT?
Rod Blaine	Posted - 2006.02.04 23:36:00 - [28] Edited by: Rod Blaine on 04/02/2006 23:39:32 Originally by: Kittamaru what about the people with faction equipment that can not only TANK concord, but can take them OUT? Nonexistant. Sure, they can tank concord for 30 seconds, but die they will anyway. As soon as they don't, a friendly GM will come along and informt hem they broke the rules and destroy the ship anyway. As for the arguments regarding "safe" space needing to dissalow all forms of (suicide or other) non-war killing. That's a false argument. 1.0 isn't 'safe', it's 'safer'. That fact is explained nicely in new player guides and the game info on this very website. Now, the question posed here isn't wether or not that should change, and 1.0 should be safe. The question posed is wether removing insurance payout from concord-killed player ships is a good way to dissalow non-war killing to a greater extent. As far as I understand, that question simply ignores the earlier one and assumes CCP wants to change the sagety in 1.0. They don't as far as I am aware. But even if they would, this would not be the way in which they'd do it because of the argument I made earlier. Relating that to real-life analogies has no effect on the argument at all. Insurance in Eve isn't there because there's insurance in real life. Insruance is here to serve as a game mechanic that cushions shiplosses to a variable extent. It has more consequences that are part of its design, but that would be the main one. If CCP had not intended that insurance would also cushion shiploss due to error in high sec, there would be nothing stopping its removal in cases described here. But CCP did intent it to do that, something they've already explained once in teh past in a thread similar to this one (which ofc i cba to lok up for you since it might jsut as well have been in 2003 for all I know). Power to the players !
Blind Man	Posted - 2006.02.05 00:57:00 - [29] just dont carry your crap in haulers. use a bs or blockage running indy. its not that hard, and i feel sorry for idiots who carry billions in a badger. you deserve to die. thank you
Jhonen Senraedi	Posted - 2006.02.05 04:12:00 - [30] What has been suggested here though does not intend to stop suicide piracy....Merely make it so that one with the intent of piracy would have to carefully choose targets.. By making a deliberate aggressive act in 1.0/0.9 void insurance payout for thye aggressor....it gives the smaller haulers more of a chance.Also would make it a more realistic and dynamic multiverse....with only the legendary or very foolhardy attaempting such hijackings.... It's pk for people to say haul your gear in a blockade-runner or a battleship...but what about the people who don't yet have the skills for that...or if people wish to move a couple of frigates etc? Now ..I agree..no area should be technically free from risk..but...in 0.9 and 1.0 there are no npc rats thus player rats should also be virtually non-existent..and one or two acts of such piracy should be all that would be tolerated for a certain period...i.e the authorities would be put on public trial and pressure brought to make them act. Thus...perhaps a security hit equivalent to the systems security status for any ganks in high sec...sort of limiting the activities of notorious pirates...and Insurance rights should either be nullified or perhaps unobtainable by the pirate/aggressor for a certain time period? Also there should be maybe a limited local insurance..where one could insure their cargo...but only per run....say once again equivalent percentage payout per level of system security..e.g 0.9 you could pay a fee(10% of cargo value..with 9/10)returnable on journeys completion..to cover possible losses. Maybe there should also be a way of contacting and interacting with the authorities and making law-suits etc against the authorities(i.e Concord/local government etc)..for any such losses...would make some interesting rp...something I may have done had there been a mechanism for it.



Pages: [1] 2 3 :: 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.