| 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
|
|
|
Rod Blaine
|
Posted - 2006.06.05 09:02:00 -
[31]
Edited by: Rod Blaine on 05/06/2006 09:07:25
If nerfing the profitability is what you want then nerfing insurance payout to concord-destroyed ships would be far simpler and more effective, without the bias implied in the original post here.
But you don't want balance do you ? You want safety...
Removing the reason to suicide in high sec will remove the suiciding, and end up gettign you what you want: safety.
So under the guise of "balance", you propose something that doesn't balance but removes the feature rather effectively.
Tbh, that's what one calls being full of crap.
If you want better balance, remove insurance payout from ship lost to illegal acts in high sec space. Then the cost of suiciding goes up sufficiently to make it less effective yet still a very real possibility.
The only downside is noobish mistakes. They happen, and they get punished alot harder without insurance. Yet they are hard to seperate fom willful acts.
Old blog |
ArcticFox
|
Posted - 2006.06.05 10:48:00 -
[32]
Edited by: ArcticFox on 05/06/2006 10:53:12
Originally by: Rod Blaine
Edited by: Rod Blaine on 05/06/2006 09:07:25
If nerfing the profitability is what you want then nerfing insurance payout to concord-destroyed ships would be far simpler and more effective, without the bias implied in the original post here.
But you don't want balance do you ? You want safety...
Removing the reason to suicide in high sec will remove the suiciding, and end up gettign you what you want: safety.
So under the guise of "balance", you propose something that doesn't balance but removes the feature rather effectively.
Tbh, that's what one calls being full of crap.
If you want better balance, remove insurance payout from ship lost to illegal acts in high sec space. Then the cost of suiciding goes up sufficiently to make it less effective yet still a very real possibility.
The only downside is noobish mistakes. They happen, and they get punished alot harder without insurance. Yet they are hard to seperate fom willful acts.
Rod, lose the self-righteous attitude. It makes you look like a jackass.
First, I already stated this is not a personal issue for me and not about what I want. I spend almost zero time in Empire, even with alts, and my income sources are in no way effected by suicide ganking.
Second, I didn't mention "balance" anywhere. You inserted "balance" yourself out of nowhere, presumably to make it easier to paint me as some kind of cowering, biased, empire dweller.
I came up with this idea because many people including the devs themselves (can't point to a specific post, it's just something I vaguely remember so I might be wrong) have pointed out the problems with simply removing insurance payment on CONCORD actions. If you don't agree with the solution I've posted then tell me what's wrong with it. Don't just say "you're full of crap" and rehash the same old rejected solution.
In addition, the solution I've posed does not in any way completely eliminate suicide ganking (except in 1.0 systems). It would still be possible and, in the lower security systems fairly easy to still recover cargo (percentages and impound times are fully tweakable to reflect this better).
But let me guess, basing the reward level for suicide ganking on a system that actually has something to do with the security level system already in place doesn't make sense does it? It's just my bias because I want complete safety, and it's unbalanced too.
--------------------------
What to do about High Sec Suicide piracy... |
Adunh Slavy
|
Posted - 2006.06.05 15:00:00 -
[33]
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?
You can always put your cargo in a secure container and put a password on it. No one, except concord (and maybe faction customs) can scan the contents.
-AS |
Jon Engel
|
Posted - 2006.06.05 20:50:00 -
[34]
Just have Concord destroye everyone in the Suiciders Gang and allow other players to pod them after theyve done it. Everyone likes a free pod kill, which will discourage suicide ganking in High sec space.
Or alternatively, dont fly around with 400 million isk worth of tech 2 bpos and faction modules in a hualer.
|
ArcticFox
|
Posted - 2006.06.05 21:44:00 -
[35]
Originally by: Adunh Slavy
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?
You can always put your cargo in a secure container and put a password on it. No one, except concord (and maybe faction customs) can scan the contents.
Secure cans need to be anchored for the pw to mean anything, and last I checked cargo scanners go right through secure containers (they do show the contents). As far as I know the only thing that actually is un-scannable is shrink-wrapped items (as in from player-created courier missions).
Quote:
Just have Concord destroye everyone in the Suiciders Gang and allow other players to pod them after theyve done it. Everyone likes a free pod kill, which will discourage suicide ganking in High sec space.
And what do the suiciders even need a gang for? The hauler can easily seem completely un-affiliated by all ingame detection methods until they scoop the can. As for the podding, I don't really think that would discourage it at all since most of the characters we're talking about are likely alts with quite cheap clones.
--------------------------
What to do about High Sec Suicide piracy... |
Humpalot
|
Posted - 2006.06.05 23:16:00 -
[36]
Originally by: ArcticFox
Secure cans need to be anchored for the pw to mean anything, and last I checked cargo scanners go right through secure containers (they do show the contents). As far as I know the only thing that actually is un-scannable is shrink-wrapped items (as in from player-created courier missions).
Nah...secure cans keep their password even when in cargoholds. Just repackage the secure can once back at base and the goodies spit out into your hangar (at least I think that is how it works....never tied it myself, just what I have been told/read).
You are correct on cargo scanners. They see through everything except bubblewrap (courier mission stuff).
|
Viktor Fyretracker
|
Posted - 2006.06.06 01:31:00 -
[37]
but scanners seeing through cans infact gives you an advantage. load a can up with 50k bookmarks and hope the scanner screen fills with BMs and not your cargo.
|
Drizit
|
Posted - 2006.06.06 18:36:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Dhin Xar
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.
Someone is not reading the OPs post.
It doesn't make it non profitable per-se, the risk is increased that you won't get the cargo. If the insurance payout stays, you still have not lost anything except a bit of time. On a % risk basis, you may or may not get the cargo.
You are asking why highsec should be risk free. I could ask you why you think suicide piracy in highsec should be risk free. As it stands, highsec isn't risk free but suicide piracy is. You get the insurance and the goodies so you can always win. Add an element of risk so that you may lose now and then. In effect, you still won't lose because you get paid out on insurance, you just don't get the bonus goodie bag. If you win, who pays the insurance on the victims loss?
Unless they balance it even by a reduced insurance payout for Concord ganks, the pirates will always be the winners, even if there's a chance that they may not get the loot they wanted. It's a pity the same can't be said about the victim.
So the OP made a suggestion that still favours the pirate but the pirates remain insistant on crying injustice.
Why not make it even easier for you and have concord gank them so you don't even have to lose a ship for it?
--
|
Rhamnousia
|
Posted - 2006.06.28 05:52:00 -
[39]
to be perfectly honest here,
suicidal ganking haulers in high-sec is nothing but pickin on the right moments, calculating the risk, and executing the actions.
this is a lose-win situation, and we know pretty f-ing well which side is winning big. i suggest if we make it a win-win situation, it's a fair fight.
how do we do this?
i think we should allow the industrial pilot to insure the cargo at 100% payout for a low cost. the pirates still get their loot, but the chance the unfortunate hauler that get ganked to lose over 2 billions isk is eliminated. it's a win-win situation. well, not a perfect win-win, but it's not a lose-win situation under this type of system.
otherwise, i would agree with the OP and others' suggestion of taking away the insurance payout of aggression acts in high-sec or aggresstion acts that involve concord. reduce the amount of isk gain would reduce the amount of crime committed. why? because EVE is, in fact, to a certain degree realistic. and no insurance in their right mind would pay for a damage done to insured property willingly.
and sum1 did mentioned that sec rating should mean sumthing other than:
1.0-0.5 = authority will protect you but not ur asset that get jettisoned upon the event of destroying of your ship.
0.4-0.1 = high-risk areas that infested with pirates. gate guns and station guns will protect anyone and not limited to above -5.0
0.0 = conquerable space, mostly owned by an alliance that will kill you on sight willingly.
- the game mechanic isn't broken when it allow pirate to make profit right under the "authority" nose.
- the game mechanic isn't broken when it allow a player getting killed and lose their valuable cargo.
- the game mechanic isn't broken when it allow other ppl to take advantages, and make profit on others' hard-work.
BUT
- the game mechanic IS broken when you can destroy ur ship willingly with the knowledge of doing so, and will lose nothing due to insurance.
- the game mechanic IS broken when it allow criminals to operate AND protected by the "authority".
- the game mechanic IS broken when it give the criminal to commit crime in the presence of the "authority" with no cost. (u'd hav to bribe the cops for that irl)
based on these points, i think....no, KNOW that suicidal ganking for profit in high sec is a problm and should be dealt with.
lemme tell ya a bit bout myself if u hav jumped to conclusion after reading my post.
im an anti-pirate who operate mostly in low-sec, not 0.0, but low sec, i do haul expensive cargo into high-sec to make profit times after times. i look where i step, i learn to adapt, and i hav never been ganked (but sure as hell been scanned) in my indy with over 300mils isk worth of cargo.
i would suggest my personal experiences for hauler with expensive cargo...
- look at the map
- do it only RIGHT before or after downtime.
- no wcs, 3 nanofibers/inertia stabs on lows will do u better good.
- no cargo expanders, carry 6km3 and make it all the way is better than carry 9km3 and lose it all.
if a final word is allowed, /signed
---------------------------------------
- yes, im a noob
- yes, im a nut job
- no, i dont give a .... about what u think of my noobness
- now, tell me sumtime i dont know |
Tarron Sarek
|
Posted - 2006.06.28 13:03:00 -
[40]
Edited by: Tarron Sarek on 28/06/2006 13:06:20
Hmm, this thread actually got me to some new ideas, almost a concept, which might help solve those problems, especially new players accidentally shooting others, which seems to be the biggest obstacle for easy solutions.
1. Let Concord intervene on criminal acts, instead of instant gankage.
- if someone starts shooting another player, Concord stops by and orders you to stop shooting (like when they found contraband - non modal window or whatever it's called)
- they fine you (heavily). Dunno whether they should keep the isk or hand it over to the victim.
- they destroy your ship only when you destroyed some other ship or refuse to pay. That way the newbie-mistakes are taken care of and will be non-lethal.
2. Void insurances on criminal acts which lead to your ship's destruction.
(3). Flag can thieves for everyone. So the hauler picking up the stuff might get blown away himself. (not sure about this one)
I guess these points wouldn't be that hard to implement (Concord's reaction for contraband is already in place).
|
|
|
LlamaOfPoon
|
Posted - 2006.10.04 17:07:00 -
[41]
Edited by: LlamaOfPoon on 04/10/2006 17:12:11
After being suicide ganked in high sec today (Sirppala) by two Caracals I have to agree. This is my first experience of it, however it is most distressing to sit in your pod and see all the police sitting on the gate while someone makes off with your cargo.
This was a serious setback to my character and I hope that a solution to this lowly behaviour can be found. :(
EDIT: The only good part about the experience was that all of my cargo was destroyed and they only made off with 2xType D cargo expanders (cost me about 12mil).
|
Novan Leon
|
Posted - 2006.10.04 19:37:00 -
[42]
Criminal acts in empire space should negate insurance payouts.
Nuff said.
|
Taedrin
Gallente
Mercatoris Technologies
|
Posted - 2006.10.04 23:54:00 -
[43]
Edited by: Taedrin on 04/10/2006 23:55:00
The problem isn't suicide ganking, in it of itself. The problem (at least IMO) is that EVE lacks any sort of decent documentation. There is no manual or instructions that a new player can look at whenever they want. I mean, the only way for a new player to find out about EVE is either by word of mouth, or by through experience. And a single suicide gank can lose a newb all of his/her significant assets because they were not told how TRULY significant the danger is in even the most secure space, nor are they told to avoid Jita or other high-traffic while hauling anything of significant value.
And what's worse is that when a new player complains about it, the new player is laughed at, for not having the ISK nor skills necessary to fly a freighter or transport ship. Older players fail to remember the actual costs involved in getting these ships and fitting them properly. You can't pull a transport/freightor pilot out of thin air. It takes a lot of time and ISK to get a T2 indy, or a freighter, neither of which a newbie has.
[EDIT]
Whoops, I just realised that this thread is undead...
[/EDIT]
|
Kyuzo
|
Posted - 2006.10.05 02:45:00 -
[44]
I like the fact that your not 100% secure in high sec space... plain and simple... I like to be able to suicide into macro miners as well and make them pay for there dodginess....
I think risk and loss and neccesary... and its not like the suicide gank is out of control.... and happening all the time...
I do not think you need to change this game mechanic to deal with this.. but more so, you need to change your playing style first....
You gotta remember, the people who suicide you need to fit a ship that will be able to tank long and kill you fast enough ... which they will definately lose irregardless of whether they kill you or not...
I have been suicided in high sec a few times.... the first couple times were successful... but after that i decided to put a few small/medium shield extenders on my industrials... with a few rechargers... and i found that my the tank was usually enough to hold off most 'cheaper' threats..... like cruisers, frigates and even BCs... till they got popped by concorde...
Obviously if a raven jumped in and decided that it was my time to meet the fluffy lord himself.. then... well.. game over... but then again.. that raven is gonna get taken down in high sec....
i really dont see a problem with the current system... if you fit for maximum efficiency in one area.. expect another to be compromised...
|
Zarch AlDain
Friends of Everyone
|
Posted - 2006.10.05 09:58:00 -
[45]
The trouble is that people don't get warned, and can conceivably lose massive amounts of time and energy.
I liked the idea of a concord 'cease and desist warning' If you press ok on the box then you pay a fine and all your weapons deactivate.
If you don't cease and desist within 10 seconds concorde opens fire and you don't get insurance.
Another option would be to allow insurance payouts if you fire on someone - but not if you actually destroy them.
i.e. an accidental scramble/single missile/etc on someone gets you blown up - but you still get the insurance.
(Yes, I noticed the thread is necromanced but the discussion is still relevant and new ideas are coming in.)
Zarch AlDain
|
Major Stormer
Caldari
Demon Womb
Xelas Alliance
|
Posted - 2006.10.05 10:48:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Viktor Fyretracker
but scanners seeing through cans infact gives you an advantage. load a can up with 50k bookmarks and hope the scanner screen fills with BMs and not your cargo.
what is it with you and these damn bms? you should note that trying to lag someone out with massive amounts of bms is a bannable offense.
--------------------------
Above post is my opinion only and does not represent my corp/alliance. |
Mordrake
MetaForge
Knights Of the Southerncross
|
Posted - 2006.10.05 11:30:00 -
[47]
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?
Or one of the upcomming Rigs for ships could do this... would be nice if it was not detectable by faction ships so you could smuggle Illegal goods in empire as well.
"Arte et Marte" |
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |