Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
James Duar
|
Posted - 2006.07.05 08:03:00 -
[31]
Originally by: TuRtLe HeAd You've kinda missed the point.
I dont have a problem with it at all, using secure containers and instas certainly do help. but thats not the point, It shouldn't be happening in the first place.
But that's just the point - it SHOULD be happening. If you're so negligent as to put T2 BPO's in haulers and then AFK through high traffic systems, you deserve to lose them. The EVEverse would die a little if this weren't possible. The rate of ganks in Jita is not indicative of the problem you think - it is indicative of people continually failing to take even the most basic precautions when moving valuable cargo. And so the only way they learn is when someone takes it away. If they stopped doing it tomorrow, suicide ganks would end then.
Originally by: TuRtLe HeAd Make Shipment scanning either an act of aggression (concordokken) or a global criminal Flag, meaning anyone can shoot you.
...whhhyyy? It IS harmless, and from an RP sense makes perfect sense as a harmless activity. See above.
Originally by: TuRtLe HeAd The problem lies in knowing what cargo they have and who to isolate without any repercussions. Not in the people doing the firing.
As I said above, the problem is people putting millions of ISK in their cargo hold and not thinking what that's going to look like to someone who wants ISK at the gates/undocking queue.
High-sec suicide ganking is an awesome feature of the EVE universe and I never ever want it to go away.
Before you accuse me of anything, I can pre-emptively tell you you're wrong too.
--- Encrypted Client Side Bookmarks! Raise YOUR voice to CCP. Let's end slow copy times and bookmark lag for good! |
TuRtLe HeAd
|
Posted - 2006.07.05 09:19:00 -
[32]
breaking a post apart with quotes doesn't make you look anymore intelligent.
Yes people deserve to lose a Tech II BPO if its put in a hauler. Thats not the point in question.
there is no risk involved when suiciding, As you know that you make more money from the gank than from not doing it.
Hence why there needs to be more risk involved, in not knowing what the target carries.
Making it a Criminal Flag Like cargo containers is the best way to go about it.
|
Logan Feynman
|
Posted - 2006.07.05 09:40:00 -
[33]
People have said it time and time again:
No insurance if you are killed by CONCORD.
The simplest way, the most elegant way, the makes sense the most way, you name it.
People cannot do it for long, anyway, sometimes the valuable part of the shipment gets destroyed, and sometimes they just fail to gank in time. There are already risks involved.
No insurance if you self-destruct or get killed by CONCORD should be a no-brainer even without the suicide gankers, and this way, it becomes a little less feasible tactic, but still potentially profitable.
Originally by: Marvin the Paranoid Android You live and learn. At any rate, you live.
Your signature is too large. Please see the Forum Rules for the limits - Serathu ([email protected]) |
TuRtLe HeAd
|
Posted - 2006.07.05 10:43:00 -
[34]
The insurance one is good. The only flaw I see is in the odd accidental concordookken, But then I suppose that would be up to the user to Be more vigialant and wise up.
Would you include Police/Sentry barred insurance as well ? because sentry tanking pilots wouldn't like that I feel.
Maybe keeping it to no insurance from Concord ONLY would be a good solution.
(Coupled with Criminal flagging for shipment/tactical analysis scanning)
|
Prestis
|
Posted - 2006.07.05 15:31:00 -
[35]
Edited by: Prestis on 05/07/2006 15:33:27 No insurance payout only raises the profit threashold a fairly small amount. 90 million lost instead of 30 vs billion isk haulers.
Making cargo scanning a criminal act just means another alt in a rookie ship. The rookie ship is replaced free so you could still scan everything.
You might as well push for stopping player locks in high-sec..
|
Tarron Sarek
|
Posted - 2006.07.05 17:03:00 -
[36]
Edited by: Tarron Sarek on 05/07/2006 17:04:07 Without some intelligent Concord tweaking, an insurance loss for being killed by Concord is too big a drawback. It will annoy and scare of a lot of players, while the gain is only marginal.
If insurance is voided by a Concord kill, then Concord should instantly destroy only player ships who themselves already just destroyed a ship. Otherwise, like for accidental shots, Concord should intervene, heavily fine, and if the aggressor doesn't stop shooting at once, or refuses to pay, or can't pay, destroy his ship.
That way Concord still stops gankers who don't kill fast enough, gankers will lose their insurance, but the occasional accidental shooter won't be totally screwed.
Such an 'inteligence-boost' for Concord might not be the worst thing which could happen. For example losing a ship due to annoying bugs or bad implementation of features (logistic ships..) wouldn't happen nearly as often.
|
allmus
|
Posted - 2006.07.07 16:12:00 -
[37]
i still think if CCP changes the way they work concord in high sec space it would wipe out these ganking system.
every time concord blow's your ship away, you automatically get put to -5.1 sec status until the next DT happens. this makes the idiot gankers only able to try and kill 1 ship per day.
if you try and exit with more than -5.1 sec status in a high sec system, the local's are free to blow your ship up anyway so it would cut down the ganking ALOT. -------------------------------- this post was funded by Quafe now available in minmatar red. -------------------------------- |
James Duar
|
Posted - 2006.07.07 16:17:00 -
[38]
Originally by: allmus i still think if CCP changes the way they work concord in high sec space it would wipe out these ganking system.
every time concord blow's your ship away, you automatically get put to -5.1 sec status until the next DT happens. this makes the idiot gankers only able to try and kill 1 ship per day.
if you try and exit with more than -5.1 sec status in a high sec system, the local's are free to blow your ship up anyway so it would cut down the ganking ALOT.
If you wanted to stop suicide ganks, you would make it so that in .5 and up, you couldn't lock another player's ship - problem solved. This is patently not what should ever be done.
--- Encrypted Client Side Bookmarks! Raise YOUR voice to CCP. Let's end slow copy times and bookmark lag for good! |
Reggie Stoneloader
|
Posted - 2006.07.07 16:48:00 -
[39]
Edited by: Reggie Stoneloader on 07/07/2006 16:50:10 If insurance is not paid for Concorded ships, it should still be paid for ships that die to gate guns. It's no good to make it impossible to tank gate guns, since that's often the only way to get a kill in lowsec PvP.
Ditching insurance will be good, since it takes several battleships to kill a T2 hauler or tanked BS before Concord polishes you all off. Five battleships, each worth 200M with their setup taken into account, is a high price to pay.
|
Benny Hill
|
Posted - 2006.07.07 17:20:00 -
[40]
Edited by: Benny Hill on 07/07/2006 17:24:59 Passive cargo scanning is the main problem, and the speed in which the user gets the results. Cargo scanning should take far longer than it does now - and should not return any stacks below a certain m3. Passive scanning should make the results take even longer.
Concord should return loot and destroyed items to the owner for illegal acts of agression.
The Other issue is that this sort of ganking is not done just to make isk - its doen just for fun. CCP has allowed macro miners to take over the game, the resulting drop in mineral prices has made the insurance payout on a t1 battleship more than the cost of a battleship.
The day my insurance runs out on my Raven, I will load it up with t1 gear - and go gank someone - I can take the standings hit and earn 8 mil and buy new t2 modules. More fun than self destructing it. THERE IS A PROBLEM WHEN THIS IS A WAY TO MAKE ISK!
|
|
Mihail d'Amour
|
Posted - 2006.07.07 18:12:00 -
[41]
No insurance is not going to fix the issue. Even preventing cloning would not fix the issue (though I think not allowing criminals to buy new clones isn't a terrible idea). The problem is that there is no negative impact for criminal actions whatsoever in high sec. Players use alts, they get to reap the rewards of doing something with no risk. It is a very small cost to the attacker with no recourse for the victim at all. Ian used the argument that real life isn't safe, but in real life we can lock up anti-social types for the rest of their lives. In eve, the repercussions available are a minor inconvenience at best to someone willing to abuse trial accounts, game mechanics, etc. This is the problem that needs fixing. Some kind of long-term, relevant accountability for committing acts of agression in high-sec. More immediate and lethal responses from Concord, security hits that are meaningful, and kill rights that are transferable and never expire until cashed-in are a start.
---------------------------------------------- In nomine Domine, quod erat malum |
Reggie Stoneloader
|
Posted - 2006.07.07 19:45:00 -
[42]
I don't think high-sec should be as safe as that would make it. All the current "safety" features are already being exploited by pirates, who use gate guns, CONCORD and can flagging to make their lives easier and abuse the weak. Rules that let advanced players hide behind Concord's skirt and thumb their noses at the ones who want to hurt them make for more smacktalk and less justice.
If the hubs are too dangerous, find another market for your goods. Stop hauling precious cargo in fragile ships. If it's worth losing five battleships to get it, then you can probably stand to put it in five transport ships to haul it.
It's been said above, but brains are the solution to this problem. Instead of packing all your Megacyte into one Bustard and strolling into Jita on the weekend, take a little at a time, or have four other guys help you haul it, or put it in a Badger Mk.II and fly it alongside eight other decoy Badger Mk.IIs filled with bookmarks. Bring 125 units of Mexallon along, in 125 individual stacks of 1.
If suicide gankers could find victims, they couldn't make money, and if they couldn't make money, they'd go somewhere else, or quit playing EvE. It works on pirates, too. Just be in station whenever they come through, and they'll stop coming through.
|
allmus
|
Posted - 2006.07.07 22:05:00 -
[43]
my idea's aren't aimed at stoping player attacks in general. if someone want's to try and kill a ship in a 1.0 system they should be allowed to try and stuff.
my idea was an attempt to stop the exploit of new player alt's getting all the sec hit's and then the experenced player just deleting that char and making a new one up to repeat the ganking.
for an example for real life, this would be like a person getting a fake passport, going to a country and killing and mugging 10-20 people over 14 days outside a police station, getting arrested then just disappearing from jail and appearing in there own country with no criminal record but with all the cash and items they have stolen, then repeating it all the time.
there needs to be a way to stop people from using alt's for ganking purposes in empire space. and the only way i can think of is a 1 day securty status hit that would stop them from ganking more than 1 person a day on that alt. having a -5.1 sec status means they are open to attack by everyone in the system if they undock. -------------------------------- this post was funded by Quafe now available in minmatar red. -------------------------------- |
Mihail d'Amour
|
Posted - 2006.07.07 23:34:00 -
[44]
Increase the security hit and, given we can restrict new accounts from training certain skills, restrict them from attacking non-agressor/non-wartarget players period.
---------------------------------------------- In nomine Domine, quod erat malum |
James Duar
|
Posted - 2006.07.08 03:48:00 -
[45]
Originally by: allmus my idea's aren't aimed at stoping player attacks in general. if someone want's to try and kill a ship in a 1.0 system they should be allowed to try and stuff.
my idea was an attempt to stop the exploit of new player alt's getting all the sec hit's and then the experenced player just deleting that char and making a new one up to repeat the ganking.
for an example for real life, this would be like a person getting a fake passport, going to a country and killing and mugging 10-20 people over 14 days outside a police station, getting arrested then just disappearing from jail and appearing in there own country with no criminal record but with all the cash and items they have stolen, then repeating it all the time.
there needs to be a way to stop people from using alt's for ganking purposes in empire space. and the only way i can think of is a 1 day securty status hit that would stop them from ganking more than 1 person a day on that alt. having a -5.1 sec status means they are open to attack by everyone in the system if they undock.
No one uses alt to gank in high sec. You can't gank in high sec with an alt - the alt is used for the pickup. You still need a battleship or a cruiser, and you don't just throw these away. People gank in high sec and rebuild their security ratting in low sec.
There is no problem here - the problem is those who can't understand why billions of ISK in a ship with no tank is not an inviting target.
--- Encrypted Client Side Bookmarks! Raise YOUR voice to CCP. Let's end slow copy times and bookmark lag for good! |
Mihail d'Amour
|
Posted - 2006.07.08 05:15:00 -
[46]
James, then the problem is still the same. Sec hits meaning nothing because they are too easy to work off and don't really mean anything above -5 anyways. My recommendation for solving that is 1. make having a low sec rating actually mean you are giving up empire-style life. For example, make a point where your sec rating won't allow in above .2. So your alt bringing you stuff from empire has to spend time in low sec. And add a stacking penalty to sec status gain for each criminal act so that each time you do something negative, your gains are reduced by 20%. Reputations should be more permanent in the eyes of what limited law we have.
As a short-term solution to this problem, a module that prevents scanning the cargo hold is a thought.
---------------------------------------------- In nomine Domine, quod erat malum |
Avon
|
Posted - 2006.07.08 10:39:00 -
[47]
Originally by: TuRtLe HeAd The insurance one is good. The only flaw I see is in the odd accidental concordookken, But then I suppose that would be up to the user to Be more vigialant and wise up.
Sorry, but this made me laugh. How about the people moving their stuff around try to be 'more vigialant and wise up' instead of forcing the rest of Eve to accept that burden so they don't have to? It is their stuff after all.
The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur |
cant spell
|
Posted - 2006.07.08 23:47:00 -
[48]
People keep saying "you should be more aware" and "its your own fault" and various other 'deal with it' replies trying to put down the idea of 'changing the mechanic's of the game' .... well get a clue guys, the game mechanic's have been changed, you got more specialized skills and more efficent production which makes pirating in empire loads easier and cheaper than it was - people are asking that things are balanced out again more like it was before so that there isn't people just camping empire gates all the time for the easy life.
|
allmus
|
Posted - 2006.07.08 23:51:00 -
[49]
Originally by: James Duar
No one uses alt to gank in high sec. You can't gank in high sec with an alt - the alt is used for the pickup. You still need a battleship or a cruiser, and you don't just throw these away. People gank in high sec and rebuild their security ratting in low sec.
There is no problem here - the problem is those who can't understand why billions of ISK in a ship with no tank is not an inviting target.
if you believe that then i think you should hang around a few major 1.0 systems then. i have seen(and fallen foul) to a team of 5 noobie alts, less than 3 days old all flying calardi missile ships for the sole purpose of killing tech1 indy ships with values of more than 40 mill in there hold. if you are moving a shipment of iso for sale at a good market like jita, you WILL be ganked and the left over iso will be collected by the main char's who are usually standing by in a indy ship ready to pickup their loot.
i have seen this happen to alot of people, tech1 ships are gone after 2 or 3 rounds from a missile cruiser ship, and it only takes 2 days to get the skils upto a level to fly cruiser thanks to the char setup letting you get lvl4 frig skill on startup.
-------------------------------- this post was funded by Quafe now available in minmatar red. -------------------------------- |
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2006.07.09 00:07:00 -
[50]
Then get in a T2 hauler. They're quite reasonable to train for.
canp spell, and defending against them is easier than ever too!
|
|
Zarch AlDain
|
Posted - 2006.07.09 00:49:00 -
[51]
Originally by: Maya Rkell Then get in a T2 hauler. They're quite reasonable to train for.
canp spell, and defending against them is easier than ever too!
Actually he does have a point here - if it really is that easy.
T2 haulers are a lot of work to get for a relative newbie, and 40 million isn't an unreasonable amount to have in a T1 hauler.
I'm not sure what the solution is - and while I don't like suicide ganks I can see the reason for wanting it to be possible - but if that really is possible then there is a problem here.
The main problem being that the attackers are risking nothing in order to attack relatively new players in areas where they are supposed to be protected. It's not like we are talking haulers full of BPOs vs Battleships here.
Zarch AlDain The Blackwater Brigade Huzzah Federation
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |