EVE Search - We the undersigned protest suicide ganking and request changes.

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

We the undersigned protest suicide ganking and request changes.

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 25 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Nicho Void Gallente Hyper-Nova	Posted - 2007.08.30 16:26:00 - [271] I'll say it one more time. Suicide ganking is broken because of the possibility of alts. Gank with your main, and I'm fine with it. Otherwise, kindly stfu. ---------------
Yagyu Retsudo Yagyu Holdings	Posted - 2007.08.30 16:48:00 - [272] Originally by: frihetskjemper Originally by: MotherMoon I say make a suicide gank implies suicide implying that you lose everything you came with, not you get paid back as much as your brought with insurance. I pay insurance so I get isk no matter what. Yay - look , an alt with an unintelligible name! Typical of these gangs. The obvious fix - and the one CCP should be contemplating, is removing insurance payouts for death by CONCORD. Also, requiring a credit card to create a trial account would be nice, as they are rampantly used as disposable scouts / bait.
Corpal Ghost	Posted - 2007.09.19 22:03:00 - [273] I have an idea that I would like you guys to explore...it may be dumb or not realistic for some oversight i have not thunk of; but it's an idea so lets look at it: If Concord is trying to portray highsec space safe, wouldn't they not want ship wreckage floating around in thier beloved high sec space...My point is: For PVP which happens in high sec without a WarDec concord should immediatly clean up the wreckage upon arrival/killing agressor ... This would be good for 2 reasons: it would still make it possible to go in and kill someone in high sec and take thier loot.thus not eliminating risk or severly hurting PVP , provided you were able to get out of there before concord showed up And it would eliminate the exploit of being able to go in there with an alt to go claim the wreckage in the case of a suicide gank as by the time you got there concord will have already "cleaned up the wreckage" as you go into lower sec systems concord takes a longer time to show up therefore making it more possible to loot and this will help maintain the graduated structure in the security system This way PVP isn't nerfed , and people who still want to be safe in high sec are alot safer then they would be in a lower sec system I contemplated the idea of giving the loot back to the killed after the clean-up bu decided this wouldn't be very smart becuase it would make highsec risk free...this way the risk is still there and the PVP possibility but the motive to use an exploit disapears
Erotic Irony 0bsession	Posted - 2007.09.19 22:13:00 - [274] Creed Richards Minmatar Dark Centuri Inc. Firmus Ixion lulz God Bless, E I ___ Eve Players are not very smart. Support Killmail Overhaul
Ridley Scot Caldari	Posted - 2007.09.20 01:38:00 - [275] /signed
port22 The Scope	Posted - 2007.09.20 02:20:00 - [276] The way I look at it, its valid. CCP designed the system so suicide ganks were possible. If CCP didnt want it happening, it would be declared an exploit and people would be getting banned. No offence to anyone, but if you dont like it, tough. Its how the game is. Imo its how the game should be and its how the game should stay, period. The only thing I could see changing would be voiding insurance on high sec non war target kills. Dont agree with my opinion, thats fine, but dont flame me cause you cant discuss an issue. Originally by: Temp Boi Port FTMFW Period.
34534bobalt3244	Posted - 2007.09.20 02:33:00 - [277] Reduce insurance. The rest remains the same.
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2007.09.20 02:33:00 - [278] this is a necro - mods shut it down SKUNK Originally by: Jeximo I also like how your cat only managed to hit the enter button when he/she jumped on your keyboard.
Mirarj	Posted - 2007.09.20 02:44:00 - [279] ffs eve-o forums you never cease to amaze me at your stupidity (directed at the op and their supporters). 0.5 space and above IS safe. people breaking the law (ie. agressing) are punished with the destruction of their ship. end of story. thats how it works. taking away insurance payouts for concordokkened ships ruins the risk of freighter ***s flying their ISK-cow because it drastically kills the pirates sacrifice-return ratio. and if an alliance puts time and effort into sniffing out enemy frieghter pilots in newb corps then they should have that option to greif them. this game IS player vesus player. i dont beleive carebears should be completely safe. and lets face it, they arent going broke from losses. man up and act like youve got a pair. what sort of **** flys a freighter with their entire fortune inside its hull. if you have billions in a single load, chances are youve got plenty more where that came from anyway. the first rule of eve is dont fly what you cant afford to lose. the second rule of eve is dont fly what you cant afford to lose.
Arron S Gallente Rampage Eternal Ka-Tet	Posted - 2007.09.20 02:56:00 - [280] I say we bring mines back into the game, that can be store in cargo holds. So when the ship is destroyed the mines go boom.
Mr Crowley Minmatar Rome SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2007.09.20 03:38:00 - [281] I was suicided over a year ago and lost half a billion. Does this hit CCP pocket book? Yes it does. I just returned to eve, only because it is the only game like it and I am stuck with it till another makes a game like it. 12 X 15 = 180 bucks, and I am just one person. No discussion of moderation in signatures please - email us if you have any questions - Jacques([email protected])
Mirarj	Posted - 2007.09.20 03:46:00 - [282] errrr you have 12 accounts subbed??
Krazy Bitsch	Posted - 2007.09.20 04:15:00 - [283] Originally by: Mr Crowley I was suicided over a year ago and lost half a billion. Does this hit CCP pocket book? Yes it does. I just returned to eve, only because it is the only game like it and I am stuck with it till another makes a game like it. 12 X 15 = 180 bucks, and I am just one person. are u saying you have 12 accounts??? no willpower? or no life? or maybe both??? seriously man, quit your whining, go outside and get some air.
Dred'Pirate Jesus Amarr Ministry of War	Posted - 2007.09.20 04:20:00 - [284] I'm thinking he's talking about a years sub.. 12 accounts would be a bit overboard for anyone unless you own a macro shop.. I have three and can't for the life of me think of any reason to get a fourth.. Originally by: David Hackworth ò If you find yourself in a fair fight, you didn't plan your mission properly.
Amarria Black Clan Anthraxx	Posted - 2007.09.20 04:29:00 - [285] Originally by: Mr Crowley I was suicided over a year ago and lost half a billion. Does this hit CCP pocket book? Yes it does. I just returned to eve, only because it is the only game like it and I am stuck with it till another makes a game like it. 12 X 15 = 180 bucks, and I am just one person. Or you could... wait for it... not play it. Read a book. Play a console game. Play a different genre of MMO. Take up needlepoint. Go for a walk. The world doesn't end if you stop pew-pewing with spaceships.
Araya Meiteselle Gallente Ore Liberation Front	Posted - 2007.09.20 04:32:00 - [286] To the OP: ok, first off... can I have your stuff ? 2ndly, the Devs gave us an open sandbox to play in. Think of this sandbox as raising a child, whatever we put in it is what the child will become. We have fed EvE death, war, piracy, theft, ransoming, The privateers, BoB, The goons, RA, all warring factions. EvE is dangerous... She gave birth to Titans, Dreads, and carriers. Since birth she was fed danger, she thrives on danger, and she will bite you if you are not really REALLY careful. Its the way we as the player base raised her. Again to the OP, if this is the type of kid you don't want to play with in the sandbox .... GTFO !
Zephlin Abath Core Element	Posted - 2007.09.20 04:35:00 - [287] Edited by: Zephlin Abath on 20/09/2007 04:35:00 Outside is dangerous! Stay safe docked up in your station. That way you don't lose your sitting duck. Or at least get people who know what they are doing to make your duck do less sitting and more moving. Where there is a way for pirates to yaar at you and make ISK off you when you think it is safe, there is always a way to get around it and make those yaar aweful pirates think twice. Though this is my opinion, and in many cases my opinion doesn't count, this very well could be one of those cases.
riprjak Hermits Rest	Posted - 2007.09.20 05:22:00 - [288] Originally by: Nyabinghi Edited by: Nyabinghi on 27/03/2007 19:36:54 Yeah I think the best solution here is essentially tanking the haulers up and if they are rather gimped for tank then perhaps CCP should do something about that. Essentially you need to stay alive till the cops show up. Or you could flag the wreck of the gankee so that the concordokken commeth to they who loot it :) Sorta like an eve "accesories after the fact" law...
Tortun Nahme Minmatar Heimatar Services Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.09.20 05:28:00 - [289] we the undersigned, encourage the suicide ganking of this thread 1987.08.31 00:29:09 Combat Your Smooth Criminal perfectly strikes Annie, wrecking for A Crescendo.
Amaron Ghant Caldari b00's Crew	Posted - 2007.09.20 06:08:00 - [290] Bleh. Suicide ganking isn't a broken mechanic. What IS broken is insurance payouts for ships killed by concorde. Removing insurance for ships killed by concorde won't stop suicide ganking completely but it will make it a more risky proposition (isk wise) for those indulging in it.
Ranger 1 Amarr Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2007.09.20 07:02:00 - [291] Um hmmm, and just like the issues with can flagging it won't be a week after this new "no insurance for Concord kills" patch hits before people start screaming about it. I can hear it now: "I just started this cursed game, and I accidentally shot someones can. The LAW blew me up and now I have no isk. I quit this sucky game." Or "I was tricked into agressing someone and now I've lost everything. Sure, I turned off the warning, but he swore to me it was okay if we were in the same gang. Now I'm broke and I quit this sucky game." Followed closely by "This new insurance non-payout patch unfairly punishes the most vulnerable of our community, the noobie. Who thought this was a good idea? Way to go CCP, you've made EVE a sucky game." Don't believe me? Go review what happened after can flagging came into effect. To put it simply, if you "only want to live in peace in high sec space", you are taking the game waaaaay to seriously. It's a game, it's supposed to have challenges and dangers. Thats what makes it what we call in the real world "FUN".
Fester Addams Minmatar	Posted - 2007.09.20 11:21:00 - [292] One of the problems with high sec suiciding is that there is no way to get at the hauler. The ship that attacks you is dead, concord saw to that but the way they make their isk is to have an alt or buddy in a hauler at the gate that flies forth and loots the wreck as soon as the target is dead and there is no way to get at that ship as he/she was actually not involved in the kill. So how about solving it with ownership of the wreck? Lets use an example: Individuals involved are the pirates, player 1 and 2. 1 is in a suicide ship and 2 is in a hauler. The victims are player A and B, player A is the hauler and player B is a corp/gang mate that is escorting. There is also a player C, he is also hauling and witnesses the event, we will come back to player C later. Player 1 targets and pops player A in 5 sc flat only to himself be popped by concord 8 sec later, 1 and A are out of the picture being eggs. As is now this would happen next: Player 2 now procedes upp to the can and loots it and warps to a station to unload his ill gotten booty, cacling with glee. Player B the escort sits there unable to do anything. This is how I would propose it should go: Player 2 now flies upp to the wreck and loots it, this flaggs him as aggro vs Player A, his corp and gang (like with a can). This was the thing player B was waiting for, he locks the hauler, scrams him and blows him upp for trying to steal what is not his, this ability to protect the can gives player A, B or one of their friends a chance to get there with a new hauler and salvage what is left. Naturally the wreck should have dual ownership. This would meen that if player 1 and 2, now angry for loosing out on their hauler, come back in new ships spots player C the aforementioned witness turned opportunist looting the wreck, this should light player C upp as a target for them allowing them to "protect" their "libirated" stuff as well as lighting upp player C as a target for player A and B if they are still there. In short, the wrecks should be owned both by the winner and the looser in a PvP conflict as this would allow for escorts.
Constance Noring	Posted - 2007.09.20 11:38:00 - [293] Place an upper limit of around 5M to the insurance payout in case of concordokken. Almost as good as nothing when you lose a battleship, but enough of a safety net for noobs doing silly things in their shiny new cruisers.
Sendraks Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2007.09.20 11:48:00 - [294] How.....don't transport expensive goods in a tech 1 ship with a paper thin hull? Use scouts to check for trouble? Avoid systems where suicide bombers are known to operate. I dunno, but all the mechanisms to do this seem to be in game already and that wouldn't need to change anything in Eve.
SgtDeaux	Posted - 2007.09.20 12:03:00 - [295] I agree.. People should gank more of the AFK haulers thru empire.. For instance people should park themselves near the AMARR system and gank any of the afk haulers that come thru there all day long. /signed
William Alex Viscosity	Posted - 2007.09.20 12:29:00 - [296] What is the necessary firepower to take down a freighter? I was told that it would be 19 t1 battleships, and you'd have to be carrying at least a bil to make it worth all those pilots time preferably 2bil+ is this true?
N1fty Amarr Galactic Shipyards Inc HUZZAH FEDERATION	Posted - 2007.09.20 12:34:00 - [297] Please remove concord so all these carebears go back to WoW. ============================================
34534bobalt3244	Posted - 2007.09.20 14:29:00 - [298] Edited by: 34534bobalt3244 on 20/09/2007 14:29:32 Originally by: Ranger 1 Um hmmm, and just like the issues with can flagging it won't be a week after this new "no insurance for Concord kills" patch hits before people start screaming about it. I can hear it now: "I just started this cursed game, and I accidentally shot someones can. The LAW blew me up and now I have no isk. I quit this sucky game." Or "I was tricked into agressing someone and now I've lost everything. Sure, I turned off the warning, but he swore to me it was okay if we were in the same gang. Now I'm broke and I quit this sucky game." Followed closely by "This new insurance non-payout patch unfairly punishes the most vulnerable of our community, the noobie. Who thought this was a good idea? Way to go CCP, you've made EVE a sucky game." Don't believe me? Go review what happened after can flagging came into effect. To put it simply, if you "only want to live in peace in high sec space", you are taking the game waaaaay to seriously. It's a game, it's supposed to have challenges and dangers. Thats what makes it what we call in the real world "FUN". You are right. The people that have their entire belongings in one ships cargohold are learning a very big lesson. And to have that amount of wealth in their ship only means they can attain it again and even faster with their current skills and experience.
Platinum Dragon	Posted - 2007.09.20 15:05:00 - [299] Welcome to eve Bring friends
Timotheus Siberius Gallente	Posted - 2007.09.20 15:33:00 - [300] Originally by: Creed Richards But what of people, who willingly sacrifice their own ships to get a reward, and use alts or non agressors to gather the loot? Maybe this could be a point to be addressed - only people in the gang of the attacker should be able to loot. In return, the gang of the transporter should be able to attack the looter (and aggressor) gang as a whole. Originally by: Creed Richards Is high security (.5-1.0) space supposed to be safe or not? It is not. But it takes some dedication to violate the security, which is fine. The only safe space should be docked and not being online. Originally by: Creed Richards You can have freighter drop loot, but you MUST counteract it with greater protections in high sec. These protections must also affect those that choose to work in security. You can achieve greater protection if you don't fly alone. If you choose to transport billions, it is a dangerous endeavour if you try it alone. It's a multiplayer game after all. I know it may be hard to organize things, especially for more casual gamers, but you are supposed to organize yourself, it is a vital part of the game. Originally by: Creed Richards Those who wish to work predominantly in high security space, where they hope for security, have just as much a right to play they game as they desire as pirates in low sec. Do not allow suicide gankers or greifers destroy that security, or you might as well set every system's security status to 0.4 or below. It is pretty safe, although that safety can be circumvented. I appreciate that part of the game and I think it adds a lot, even if I am one of those casual gamers who have been and will be on the receiving end of those acts of violence. I have learned from it. * See you in space!

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 25 :: 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.