| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Karno
   |
Posted - 2006.11.08 13:36:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Karno on 08/11/2006 13:36:43
Lots of people seem to comlain about High-sec suicide killings? well to me that is an accepted game play method BUT perhaps some balancing? How about a greater chance of modules/cargo being lost when the ship is destroyed in high-sec space? this means that it will no longer be worth doing it in Ravens so much as there will be less loot but it also means that an attack squad from one industrial corp which wanted to disrupt another industrial corp will still work (And quite well)
I'm not saying nerf high-sec killings, no way but maybe an idea like this will make everyone happier?
anyway, it's just an idea.. sorry..
|
Sendraks
TOHA Heavy Industries
|
Posted - 2006.11.08 13:46:00 -
[2]
 Originally by: Karno
Edited by: Karno on 08/11/2006 13:36:43
Lots of people seem to comlain about High-sec suicide killings? well to me that is an accepted game play method BUT perhaps some balancing? How about a greater chance of modules/cargo being lost when the ship is destroyed in high-sec space? this means that it will no longer be worth doing it in Ravens so much as there will be less loot but it also means that an attack squad from one industrial corp which wanted to disrupt another industrial corp will still work (And quite well)
I'm not saying nerf high-sec killings, no way but maybe an idea like this will make everyone happier?
I doubt it, as it punishes the victims as well. Plus the game code would have to differentiate between those losing a ship to missions in high sec and those to player piracy. Furthermore, depending on the cargo being carried, the pay out for the pirate could still be considerable.
A far easier solution, as I've put in the other thread, is as follows:
1) Contents of stolen cans is flagged as contraband for a period of time. At least 24hours, probably longer.
2) As exists with contraband at the moment, Customs vessels can sieze contraband cargo and issue a fine to the pilot in question.
3) Ships destroyed by Concord vessels do not get an insurance payout.
While it doesn't make the act of piracy harder (which is the responsibility of hauler pilots to achieve by fitting their ships properly or flying tougher ships commensurate with the cargo carried), it does make the act if profitiering from the stolen goods harder for the pirate.
Those two things in combination will make piracy less commonplace, as only those player pirates who can be bothered to do the research to avoid local Customs, will profit from their attacks. Whereas an idiot suicide bombing T1 haulers in a kestrel at a gate where customs officials are present will not get anything at all for their efforts and get no insurance payout to boot.
|
Pestillence
Chav-Scum
|
Posted - 2006.11.08 13:48:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Karno
no way but maybe an idea like this will make everyone happier?
anyway, it's just an idea.. sorry..
I'm sure it wont please mission runners when they die.
|
Xsag
Caldari
School of Applied Knowledge
|
Posted - 2006.11.08 13:55:00 -
[4]
yes im 100% in agreement with the no insurance payout suggestion - if your driving your car about randomly running ppl over and the police run u off the road and take u down your insurance aint gonna pay out....
QED
~n00b of all trades~
~~Airkio~~
~if im posting on here its cos im in work~ |
Chavtastic
|
Posted - 2006.11.08 14:14:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Xsag
yes im 100% in agreement with the no insurance payout suggestion - if your driving your car about randomly running ppl over and the police run u off the road and take u down your insurance aint gonna pay out....
QED
Yes, whereas any RL insurance company would obviously insure a warship going to fight enemy armadas (npcs)
RL comparisions are dumb.
|
|
Chribba
Otherworld Enterprises
Otherworld Empire
|
Posted - 2006.11.08 14:28:00 -
[6]
Waaaa?! EVE isn't for real?!!11 omgwtfh4xveld
the suicide killings is ok by me, after all I can protect myself a bit, but I understand the opinions and I favor the no insurance payout line.
EVE-Files | EVE-Search | Monitor this Thread |
|
Mort Sinious
|
Posted - 2006.11.08 14:35:00 -
[7]
And you will allways find someone who can think of a comparison that counters any idea you like...
No, I like both suggestions but there are some consequences.
The insurance thing seems very logical for me. You are willingly destroying your ship and should live with the consequences for that. So you are still able to suicide gank, but you have to consider if it's realy worth it. This would essentialy stop ganking noobs, because they won't be worth your suicide BS.
The contrabant thing is not that easy, because it would stop suicide ganking as you would no longer be able to loot your price. As much as I hate this playstyle, it should be possible but hard/expensive. The problem with todays method is, that it has no risk and extreme reward.
|
Sendraks
TOHA Heavy Industries
|
Posted - 2006.11.08 14:40:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Mort Sinious
The contrabant thing is not that easy, because it would stop suicide ganking as you would no longer be able to loot your price. As much as I hate this playstyle, it should be possible but hard/expensive. The problem with todays method is, that it has no risk and extreme reward.
I don't think it would stop suicide pirates, because it is hard/possible/expensive. You don't get customs officials outside every gate or station. The suicide pirates just have to to their research as to where the customs vessels are and plan to avoid them. So if you attack someone at a gate where customs officials are present, you get nothing, as is right and proper.
If you attack someone where there are no Customs vessels (only Concord), then you can take the loot and get away. Where you take the loot to will depend very much on how well you know the customs patrols in the area. I also think the timer for the stolen loot should be on an in-game timer, so the pirate can't take the items and then log out until the items are deemed "clean."
|
Mort Sinious
|
Posted - 2006.11.08 14:47:00 -
[9]
Is the presence of those Customs ships dynamic? Meaning, do they travel from gate to gate or are they in fixed positions? If dynamic, that would be a nice idea then.
|
Sendraks
TOHA Heavy Industries
|
Posted - 2006.11.08 14:51:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Mort Sinious
Is the presence of those Customs ships dynamic? Meaning, do they travel from gate to gate or are they in fixed positions? If dynamic, that would be a nice idea then.
I'm pretty sure their presence outside stations is dynamic. Not sure about gates, though I do recall reading somewhere that they effectively have a "patrol route" which means they appear at certain locations at certain times during the course of a day.
|
Nicholai Pestot
Gallente
Havoc Inc
|
Posted - 2006.11.08 14:53:00 -
[11]
Edited by: Nicholai Pestot on 08/11/2006 14:54:16
And heres me thinking higher base HP's + warp to 0 would be enough to deter most suicide gankers.
Is it really going to be that hard to fit shield extenders/plates and bounce along landing 0km from gates?
The simple formula
Value of goods held - cost of ships required to gank != positive
As long as you stick to this, you will remain pretty **** safe.With the aforementioned changes..well...if your carrying enough in an industrial to make it worth a battleships time suiciding on it then more fool you.
________________
What you do is you store up the rage, let it fester while you gain strength, then use it to gank those weaker than you... and so the circle of life is complete |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |