Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
ArcticFox
|
Posted - 2006.06.02 23:20:00 -
[1]
In order to have any interest in this thread you'd have to agree high sec suicide ganking is a problem. I beleive it is, as it's one of the most profitable forms of pirating and basically makes a mockery of the current sec level system. My problem isn't that it's possible, I agree that you should be able to kamikazee on someone. The problem I have is that it's so profitable, it just doesn't make sense.
I came up with a system last night to vastly reduce high sec suicide ganking for profit. The idea is not to increase direct punishment (as most threads propose), but to make the potential rewards much more difficult to get at. This way you don't penalize the guy who accidentally turned on his jammer on his out of corp buddy, but you still discourage high sec suicide ganks.
I call it cargo impound. Here's the idea: if the cops see a guy jump out of an alley and start beating up an old lady they go and arrest the guy, of course, but when the guy's buddy comes out of the alley a few seconds later and grabs the purse she dropped on the ground they don't just wave and let him go. This is essentially what concord is doing, punishing the aggressor and ignoring the guy who moves in to claim someone else's property.
So my idea is simple: when a ship leaves cargo in a jettissoned can as a result of criminal actions in high security space, CONCORD moves in, takes that cargo, and impounds it at a nearby station until the original owner can claim it.
On top of this, someone attempting to take the cargo has a chance of being criminally flagged to CONCORD and destroyed if they succeed in getting to it first. Those items taken from the original victim's can that survive will be impounded normally.
Now, to reflect the varying efficiency of CONCORD response in varying security level systems, this can take a certain amount of time: 1.0 - Pretty much instant. CONCORD is really on the ball here and they don't want to look bad by letting property be so easily stolen in a system they rate highest security possible, so they grab the stuff and keep it safe right away. 100% chance of criminal flagging if you use super-ninja skills to grab the stuff somehow anyway. 0.9 - CONCORD is slightly slower here, but still pretty much on the ball. Takes them an average of 5 seconds to impound the remaining cargo, so if you're a really really quick lil ninja, you could still grab it. 75% chance of criminal flagging if you grab it within 5 seconds. 0.8 - CONCORD takes an average of 10 seconds to impound the cargo. This is almost a reasonable amount of time for the accomplice to grab it. 50% chance of criminal flagging if you grab it in those 10 seconds. 0.7 - CONCORD takes an average 20 seconds to impound cargo. 40% chance of criminal flagging. 0.6 - CONCORD takes an average 30 seconds to impound cargo. 30% chance of criminal flagging. 0.5 - CONCORD takes an average 60 seconds to impound cargo. 20% chance of criminal flagging. -------------------------- What to do about High Sec Suicide piracy... |
Humpalot
|
Posted - 2006.06.02 23:37:00 -
[2]
Not a bad idea overall although I can see a way around some of it. Loot grabber nabs loot and if he gets flagged just jettison the cargo and have another buddy pick that up.
Thing is with cargo scanners they know full well which ships are worth ganking so won't be deterred easily.
|
Lacero Callrisian
|
Posted - 2006.06.02 23:43:00 -
[3]
Could the criminal flagness survive though? so that anything jettisoned or dropped due to death by the newly flagged hauler is also kept by concord? and they kill anyone who tries to take it? I don't think this is exploitable, although if the thieving hauler is carrying lots of things they get given to the victim. I don't think that's so bad...
|
Kaell Meynn
|
Posted - 2006.06.03 00:19:00 -
[4]
Excellent idea.
|
Drizit
|
Posted - 2006.06.03 01:26:00 -
[5]
I think the insurance payout is out of order as well. Anyone losing their ship to Concord as a result of criminal action should not receive insurance on that ship. That includes the hauler if it gets flagged and ganked while taking the can as well.
The bonus when added to your system means that if they don't get flagged and get away with the loot, they still make isk but it's a risk that they have to be willing to take. It has to pay back the cost of the suicide ship and make a profit as well. Also, the risk of not getting anything because you got flagged makes it more reasonable considering the potential for profit.
ATM, there is no risk, I gank someone in highsec and get ganked in return by Concord, I have a buddy haul off thier loot and get my insurance payout as well. In some cases, the insurance payout is worth more than the original cost of the ship I lost anyway. So even a paltry 2 million in loot is worthwhile.
With single items like Transport Ships skillbooks worth well over 20 million, it makes sense that some risk would have to be taken by the suicide pirate to try to take it from the owner.
--
|
Raskor
|
Posted - 2006.06.03 01:27:00 -
[6]
I've never been suicide ganked before but I am pretty sure my hauler has been scanned before.
Simpler solution.
Make scanning another player's ship a criminal action? Why is it only criminal if they do damage?
In real life if you peek in your neighbor's windows...
|
Drizit
|
Posted - 2006.06.03 02:28:00 -
[7]
You already do get flagged for it. There is a 15 minute aggro countdown timer after you scan someone's ship. Although I'm not sure if this shows up on the victims screen as well. I'm also not sure what would happen if the victim took advantage of that timer and fired on the ship scanning them. Would Concord gank them for it since it's done because there is an aggro timer? Technically that timer should allow the victim to retalliate the same as they would against a thief.
--
|
Galifardeua
|
Posted - 2006.06.03 07:06:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Drizit I think the insurance payout is out of order as well. Anyone losing their ship to Concord as a result of criminal action should not receive insurance on that ship. That includes the hauler if it gets flagged and ganked while taking the can as well.
But the problem of this is separating "real" criminal action from the noob with his new BS that errs and mistakenly shoots a gangmate not in the same corp (or a turret, or a not gangmate).
|
ArcticFox
|
Posted - 2006.06.03 08:44:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Galifardeua
Originally by: Drizit I think the insurance payout is out of order as well. Anyone losing their ship to Concord as a result of criminal action should not receive insurance on that ship. That includes the hauler if it gets flagged and ganked while taking the can as well.
But the problem of this is separating "real" criminal action from the noob with his new BS that errs and mistakenly shoots a gangmate not in the same corp (or a turret, or a not gangmate).
Exactly. While I do agree insurance payout for suicide gankers just doesn't make sense, there's no way to differentiate from forgetting your buddy is out of corp and putting a jammer on him while messing around.
The only way to discourage suicide ganking without screwing over people who make simple mistakes (and be assured, there are a lot more of them than their are suicide gankers) is to make suicide ganking for profit harder and/or less profitable.
I don't know if the code is in place for flagging of items to survive through multiple can changes. However, I am fairly sure each item has a unique ID, so it might be just one more database entry, which is set to clear only once CONCORD has the items in impound (or on the chance that they 'don't notice'). -------------------------- What to do about High Sec Suicide piracy... |
Mahavy Seth
|
Posted - 2006.06.03 16:09:00 -
[10]
If they want suicide, let them suicide. Eve must not have zones where you are totally secure. So, for me it is good as it is.
|
|
Adunh Slavy
|
Posted - 2006.06.04 03:12:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Mahavy Seth If they want suicide, let them suicide. Eve must not have zones where you are totally secure. So, for me it is good as it is.
I agree with this for the most part, it should never be 100% safe. However I also agree that a global criminal flag should negate insurance payments. That is a reasonable idea.
-AS |
BoinKlasik
|
Posted - 2006.06.04 03:39:00 -
[12]
I dont think that concord should impound the items, leave the option there for in empire suicide ganking, take away insurance payouts (RL insureance companys surely wont pay you if you lost your car purpousely crashing into another car.
Instead simply lock down that can against anybody but the owner/his corp from picking it up for a set duration, if he doesnt manage to get his stuff back in x ammount of time in empire space, then the can is unlocked to all and people can actually steal from it. Its the same as the impound but in reverse order, after CONCORD shows up the can is completely locked down, meaning u can get the can a) before the concord standard arrival time b) after the timer expires in a decreasing fasion based on sec status.
just an alternate idea. This way you arent ASSURED your items, and suicide ganking remains an okish profession :)
*doh, I broke my edited sig :/* *cries* this signature was lacking pink, I'll provide it for you. There. Looks better doesn't it? -Eris Fixed it for you. Oh, btw, yarr! ~kieron Didn't I tell you? The damsel moved in with me, we're having a great time. - Wrangler The damsel may not be distressed any more, but how many times does the informant have to be silenced before he gets the message? - Cortes
|
Audri Fisher
|
Posted - 2006.06.04 04:33:00 -
[13]
Pods should be flagged. Only time I have been concorded was when someone tried to suicide gank me and missed, and then i tried to pod them. WTF can I not seek retaliation for aggression?
|
fuze
|
Posted - 2006.06.04 12:20:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Mahavy Seth If they want suicide, let them suicide. Eve must not have zones where you are totally secure. So, for me it is good as it is.
Its called high-secure for a reason. Besides the suggested fix is not avoiding suicide gankage but to avoid abuse of people loosing their valuables to people deliberately attacking you when there is a penalty for it. And have a 3rd person get away with the loot then absolutely makes no sense at all besides being abusive to intended rules. You still can suicide if you want to. But there is only some wierd sick type of fun to be gained here.
We ain't got balls, but plenty of nuts. |
Berrik Radhok
|
Posted - 2006.06.04 12:51:00 -
[15]
Solution: stop hauling BPOs in shuttles and haulers and instead haul them in something tougher.
Do you haul money in a cheap panel truck? No, you use an armored car. Sig removed, lacks Eve-related content - Cortes |
Drizit
|
Posted - 2006.06.04 20:11:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Berrik Radhok Solution: stop hauling BPOs in shuttles and haulers and instead haul them in something tougher.
Do you haul money in a cheap panel truck? No, you use an armored car.
So those who empty coins from Gas meters at homes use an armoured car, seems the Ford Orion has come a long way since I drove one last.
We are talking penny-ante stuff here to many players but still expensive for a noob. This is pretty much similar to mugging someone for their wallet on the street. The problem here is that it desn't have to be particularly valuable to be worthwhile suicide ganking them for it since insurance means you get your ship back and anything else is sheer profit.
What is being proposed here is not complete protection but added risk to make the ganker think more carefully about their targets and calculate their profit v risk in a less casual way. Any action should have possible consequences, if I went into 0.0 and ganked an alliance member carrying supplies and stole them, I would soon have a fair few alliance members after my corpse. Question: Are the supplies worth it? This is the question that is required of the suicide gankers.
As for insurance: Concord action results in no payout. It may be harsh and mistakes can happen but it makes the player who made that mistake a little more careful in future. If not, they join your corp and fly a support ship, instead of hitting the remote armour repper, thy hit the guns by mistake and completet the job the enemy started. I'm sure you'd pat them on the back and say never mind, mistakes happen.
--
|
ArcticFox
|
Posted - 2006.06.04 20:45:00 -
[17]
Edited by: ArcticFox on 04/06/2006 20:50:14
Originally by: BoinKlasik just an alternate idea. This way you arent ASSURED your items, and suicide ganking remains an okish profession :)
Boin, you're only assured your items in my idea if ganked in 1.0. Anything lower and there is a chance (in the range around 0.5 a very good chance) that the ganker will get his cargo and get away.
Quote: If they want suicide, let them suicide. Eve must not have zones where you are totally secure. So, for me it is good as it is.
I said nothing about not letting them suicide, but it's ridiculous that this is such a highly profitable form of piracy. I am totally in favor of a CONCORD that does not prevent suicide ganking. But lets be honest, when a newer player gets ganked in what they have been told is the safest space in the game and due to a loophole loses anything that might have survived and gets nothing but killrights on some noob hauler alt, it's not good for the game as a whole. Indeed, it could easily cost the game new players.
Obviously I know suicide ganking for profit will not kill Eve, but that doesn't mean I think it's a good part of the game.
Like I said, if you get mugged on the street and the police intervene they don't let someone else take your stuff just because you "should have carried it in something safer."
Originally by: Berrik Radhok Solution: stop hauling BPOs in shuttles and haulers and instead haul them in something tougher.
Do you haul money in a cheap panel truck? No, you use an armored car.
Contrary to popular beleif it's not just BPOs that get stolen through suicide ganking.
In any case, there's no mechanism for warning people relatively new to the game that this takes place. All they are told is that 0.5 and above is mostly 'secure space' and these nice industrial ships are great for moving stuff. There's no "oh by the way, if you carry something valuable enough in one of those there's also a very good chance someone will suicide on you for the cargo."
At the very least there needs to be a way for new people to figure this out other than whoring the forums endlessly or getting ganked with everything they own in an indy.
I don't have a problem with the fact that even high sec is not totally secure. I have a problem with the fact that new players are made to beleive it is mostly secure and that they don't really have to worry until they go into lowsec. -------------------------- What to do about High Sec Suicide piracy... |
ArcticFox
|
Posted - 2006.06.04 20:45:00 -
[18]
Edited by: ArcticFox on 04/06/2006 20:45:11 EDIT: Double post. -------------------------- What to do about High Sec Suicide piracy... |
Berrik Radhok
|
Posted - 2006.06.04 22:11:00 -
[19]
If something is more valuable than a battleship that would be lost destroying your ship to get it, then it shouldn't be hauled in something fragile. Sig removed, lacks Eve-related content - Cortes |
Ganiaxxir Anferdanni
|
Posted - 2006.06.04 22:18:00 -
[20]
I like the original post and especially like the followup suggestion that a can be flagged for X amount of time and inaccessable to anyone but the original owner. After that time the can becomes available to anyone who wants to take it.
|
|
Viktor Fyretracker
|
Posted - 2006.06.04 23:31:00 -
[21]
load a hauler up with 50k Bookmarks and a ****load of Megacyte. enjoy the hate tells from the ganker.
|
Chopkias
|
Posted - 2006.06.05 02:04:00 -
[22]
groovey idea but with the new factional warfare ... could b alot more war in high sec systems ... dunno how that would work out with this
|
Roddic
|
Posted - 2006.06.05 05:13:00 -
[23]
maybe CCP can be convinced to put smuggler holds within the cargo hold, say no bigger than a shuttles hold, but when scaned shows up as an empty space. if they cant see it, would they take the risk?
|
Jhonen Senraedi
|
Posted - 2006.06.05 06:08:00 -
[24]
agree with much of this...yes there should be suicide ganking...yesI have been ganked in past....but
There should be some mechanism where forfeiture of insurance by the ganker comes into play.Should be some form of penalty for the looter/alt frined..a sec hit perhaps?
Also CCP,in relation to this,need to address the wardec gang/high sec piracy borderline exploit...make ganging default to not accepted if you ignore/hit enter while typing in a convo.
|
Gabby05
|
Posted - 2006.06.05 06:27:00 -
[25]
Think the solution to this is fairly simple and thats not to carry alot of expensive mods etc in a 1 million isk industrial, train for transport ships or freighters.
You could even try fitting a medium named shield extender if your lows are full of expanders it might offset the lack of armor you have.
|
Reggie Stoneloader
|
Posted - 2006.06.05 06:52:00 -
[26]
Or you could make a form of secure can than auto-anchors and password protects itself when the ship that's carrying it is destroyed. Make it susceptible to hacking modules, so you can break its encryption and get the goods if you're skilled and clever. Just make suicide ganking a profession, with skills to train and tricks to learn, and the morons that do it now will be replaced with competent practitioners of the art.
Same thing with piracy, now that I think about it.
|
Ganiaxxir Anferdanni
|
Posted - 2006.06.05 08:04:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Viktor Fyretracker load a hauler up with 50k Bookmarks and a ****load of Megacyte. enjoy the hate tells from the ganker.
OMG that's pure unadulterated evil... pour me some.. ROFL...
|
Dhin Xar
|
Posted - 2006.06.05 08:04:00 -
[28]
If they make suicide-ganking harder (read: if its no longer profitable it stops) then something else needs to take its place in terms of high sec risk. Should people be hauling hundreds of millions of ISK with their noob corp alt in a ship cheaper than a cruiser and not have anything bad happen? High sec should not be a risk-free zone. |
Itura Kuranawa
|
Posted - 2006.06.05 08:06:00 -
[29]
Edited by: Itura Kuranawa on 05/06/2006 08:06:38
Originally by: Roddic maybe CCP can be convinced to put smuggler holds within the cargo hold, say no bigger than a shuttles hold, but when scaned shows up as an empty space. if they cant see it, would they take the risk?
Put a secure can in the hold, anything in it IS invisible to everyone. If you want to check it put a mission target item in it when you go to the agent. He won't be able to see it and will tell you the mission objectives are not all done.
|
Ashraaf
|
Posted - 2006.06.05 08:47:00 -
[30]
Edited by: Ashraaf on 05/06/2006 08:48:57 Not all player could train for transport ship and by one
When you start the game, it's time consuming to train learning and basic skill. To transfer their asset new player have the right to use indus. It's stupid to force the new player to train TII ship to move his assets Solution is not train for a long time skill and buy an expensive ship to defend yourself for something close to an exploit
Atm suicide gank in high sec it's no risk and big reward. And for some player it's ruining the game people. New player leaving ...
I agree that someone could suicide himself on a indus if there's reward. But with the alt system, that someone out of gang could loot the can without risk of retalation, the insurance system that make the suicide really interessting cause your lose only insurance and some crappy module there's a hole in the game
Edit
Quote:
If something is more valuable than a battleship that would be lost destroying your ship to get it, then it shouldn't be hauled in something fragile.
If something is more valuable than a battleship insurance (30M) and not a battleship (100M) that the problem
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |