| Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Nanobotter Mk2
   |
Posted - 2007.06.02 22:39:00 -
[1]
That is right I think people who transport deserve some defense and suicide gankers deserve some risk. CCP needs to add a mod that prevents cargo from being scanned, so transporter have some defense, and then gankers have some risk.
IT is silly that people can scan your ship ( which is actually a hostile action in the first place ) and you have NO way to stop them. This way gankers could still gank but it would finally be risky provided they remove insurance from gankers in empire.
That way you can still suicide gank but hey you are taking a real risk, and the people who traonsport can have some protection being you are ganking blindly...hell I could travel with 2 friends using haulers as empty decoys etc....
Time to step up and add some balance to suicide ganking CCP.
|
Nyabi
Caldari
State War Academy
|
Posted - 2007.06.02 22:42:00 -
[2]
Cargo Rigs perhaps? Meaning something to screw up the chance of scanning to happen. Whatever skill used for cargo scanning changed to increase the chance of penetrating said rig.
Just offering an idea because I see this in your view as well.
|
mechtech
Entropy Industries
|
Posted - 2007.06.02 22:44:00 -
[3]
Cargo shielding rigs are a GREAT idea to me, CCP should look into that.
|
The Pointless
Gallente
Plastic Toys
|
Posted - 2007.06.02 22:44:00 -
[4]
Edited by: The Pointless on 02/06/2007 22:43:59
Cargo scanning isn't a hostile action. Sure, it may be an invasion of privacy, but being nosey isn't the same as opening fire or punching someone in the schnozz. 
Regardless, your idea sounds good.
-----------------------------------------------
"Breaking News! The Pointless hates GIFs!" |
Max Godsnottlingson
Amarr
Freelancing Corp
Confederation of Independent Corporations
|
Posted - 2007.06.02 22:46:00 -
[5]
There already is a method. Giant cans, well for Industrials and smaller for other ships, and you get the bonus of extra cargo space too
|
The Pointless
Gallente
Plastic Toys
|
Posted - 2007.06.02 22:47:00 -
[6]
 Originally by: Max Godsnottlingson
There already is a method. Giant cans, well for Industrials and smaller for other ships, and you get the bonus of extra cargo space too
Oh yeah, forgot about them. 
-----------------------------------------------
"Breaking News! The Pointless hates GIFs!" |
Anopheli
Pillowsoft
|
Posted - 2007.06.02 22:47:00 -
[7]
I haven't tested this myself, but a corp member claims you can issue yourself a courier mission, and when scanned all that shows up is the courier package.
|
Pwn4ge P4nts
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2007.06.02 22:48:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Anopheli
I haven't tested this myself, but a corp member claims you can issue yourself a courier mission, and when scanned all that shows up is the courier package.
This is correct.
|
Nox Solaris
|
Posted - 2007.06.02 23:16:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Pwn4ge P4nts
Originally by: Anopheli
I haven't tested this myself, but a corp member claims you can issue yourself a courier mission, and when scanned all that shows up is the courier package.
This is correct.
Also, recovery of this courier item if the ship is destroyed requires a ship capable of holding the entire package whole, as individual parts won't be accessable.
Conversely, if the courier package goes pop with the ship you loose everything completely.
And, so far as I've ever seen, the contents of cans show up on a cargo scan.
A scan-scrambling rig would be useful, however, to be sure. Randomly pulls object tags from the local regional market, reliability dependant on the scanner's skill & the rig increasing the disruption probability dependant on the pilot's whatever-rigging skill.
|
Major Stormer
Caldari
Infinitus Odium
|
Posted - 2007.06.02 23:22:00 -
[10]
Ok, if you can pan the camera down on certain portraits but have it be a GCC action to make it..you know...balanced... 
Its just a game. Get over yourselfs. |
|
|
Ki Tarra
|
Posted - 2007.06.03 01:15:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Nanobotter Mk2
CCP needs to add a mod that prevents cargo from being scanned, so transporter have some defense, and then gankers have some risk.
Frieghters can't fit any mods/rigs at all, so it would do nothing to affect this recent change in the balance. As for other ships, I don't see as much imbalance. There are lots of more useful mods to fit that will protect your ship.
Even if you made scanning a hostile act, it only means that the gankers need to field an extra couple of people. You could still easily break even fitting a frigate with a single scanner, and popping it on every frieghter that goes by.
Originally by: Jeffrey R. Holland
No misfortune is so bad that whining about it won't make it worse
|
Tortun Nahme
Minmatar
Heimatar Services Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.06.03 01:29:00 -
[12]
for 2.2% of your cargos value I will sell you a cargo protection plan, in the event of an unavoidable loss we will reimburse you and take it out of the pilots hide...
of course you have to file a claim and go through our rigorous evaluation and investigation
Real turtles tank armor.
Real men fly Pink.
|
Nick Curso
Black Nova Corp
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.06.03 01:49:00 -
[13]
i may not be a genius but isnt committing suicide a risk?
Your signature was inappropriate, email us at [email protected] to find out why (and don't forget to include a link to it) -Sahwoolo |
Nanobotter Mk2
|
Posted - 2007.06.03 07:22:00 -
[14]
Quote:
i may not be a genius but isnt committing suicide a risk?
NOt when your using a t1 fitted and insured ship, and the target has a few million ISk worth of good on board....the risk is all but ignorable, unless you call a couple million ISK risk.......so ya your not a genius good call 
|
Nanobotter Mk2
|
Posted - 2007.06.03 07:25:00 -
[15]
Quote:
Cargo scanning isn't a hostile action. Sure, it may be an invasion of privacy, but being nosey isn't the same as opening fire or punching someone in the schnozz.
Mush your face up against the window of my house or car peering inside for something of value to steal...I am pretty sure 99% of people will consider it a hostile action, I know my wife will beat you silly if you start snooping through her purse...Sorry any way you cut it scanning really should be considered a hostile action.
|
Amarria Black
Clan Anthraxx
|
Posted - 2007.06.03 07:34:00 -
[16]
As someone who has done more than his share of hauling:
Enh. I'm up in the air about this one. Are you talking hostile act as in "Here comes CONCORD, grab the lube"? If so, that's a little... extreme. Perhaps just flag them for kill rights? To draw a real life parallel, the cops won't arrest you for peeking in shop windows at night, but if you catch someone peeking in your car, you'd be more than justified in pounding his face in.
And cargo scrambler rigs seem interesting, but won't affect the real high-risk target: freighters.
|
annoing
Amarr
MisFunk Inc.
Frontline.
|
Posted - 2007.06.03 08:35:00 -
[17]
secure cans ftw?
Correct me if im wrong (and I usually am) -- It doesnt matter if they CAN see inside a container when scanning a ship because if its secure they cant get at it (password) and they cant take it from the wreckage (message along the lines of "thats not yours"). However, I wasnt aware that they could see into a secure can anyway, ive tried it on a corpie and it didnt work for me.
-----------------------------------------------
perhaps you confused me with someone who actually gives a funk?
|
Amarria Black
Clan Anthraxx
|
Posted - 2007.06.03 08:36:00 -
[18]
Originally by: annoing
secure cans ftw?
Correct me if im wrong (and I usually am) -- It doesnt matter if they CAN see inside a container when scanning a ship because if its secure they cant get at it (password) and they cant take it from the wreckage (message along the lines of "thats not yours"). However, I wasnt aware that they could see into a secure can anyway, ive tried it on a corpie and it didnt work for me.
Pretty sure they can pick up the can in entirem, take it to a nearby station, and repack, dumping all the goods out nicely. All without a password.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
|
Lag Hon
Minmatar
Lag Hon Security
|
Posted - 2007.06.03 08:53:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Pwn4ge P4nts
Originally by: Anopheli
I haven't tested this myself, but a corp member claims you can issue yourself a courier mission, and when scanned all that shows up is the courier package.
This is correct.
If this is true then the theory im looking at is, if you make a courier package so large that only a freighter can fit it, then only a freighter will be able to collect the loot.
As freighters cannot loot from space it would make you a target not worth shooting unless they are just out to grief. So the question remains, how many of these ganksquads will pop a freighter just for the thrill of watching lots of ships explode.
Quote:
There is no greater power in the universe than the need for freedom. Against that power governments, and tyrants, and armies can not stand.
G'Kar
|
Moraguth
Amarr
Rangers
|
Posted - 2007.06.03 08:56:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Amarria Black
Originally by: annoing
secure cans ftw?
Correct me if im wrong (and I usually am) -- It doesnt matter if they CAN see inside a container when scanning a ship because if its secure they cant get at it (password) and they cant take it from the wreckage (message along the lines of "thats not yours"). However, I wasnt aware that they could see into a secure can anyway, ive tried it on a corpie and it didnt work for me.
Pretty sure they can pick up the can in entirem, take it to a nearby station, and repack, dumping all the goods out nicely. All without a password.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
You are correct
good game |
|
|
Moraguth
Amarr
Rangers
|
Posted - 2007.06.03 08:56:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Lag Hon
Originally by: Pwn4ge P4nts
Originally by: Anopheli
I haven't tested this myself, but a corp member claims you can issue yourself a courier mission, and when scanned all that shows up is the courier package.
This is correct.
If this is true then the theory im looking at is, if you make a courier package so large that only a freighter can fit it, then only a freighter will be able to collect the loot.
As freighters cannot loot from space it would make you a target not worth shooting unless they are just out to grief. So the question remains, how many of these ganksquads will pop a freighter just for the thrill of watching lots of ships explode.
You are incorrect. Freighters can now loot the wrecks of other freighters from space. They can also do stuff with POSs.
good game |
Amarria Black
Clan Anthraxx
|
Posted - 2007.06.03 08:57:00 -
[22]
Edited by: Amarria Black on 03/06/2007 08:56:15
Originally by: Lag Hon
Originally by: Pwn4ge P4nts
Originally by: Anopheli
I haven't tested this myself, but a corp member claims you can issue yourself a courier mission, and when scanned all that shows up is the courier package.
This is correct.
If this is true then the theory im looking at is, if you make a courier package so large that only a freighter can fit it, then only a freighter will be able to collect the loot.
As freighters cannot loot from space it would make you a target not worth shooting unless they are just out to grief. So the question remains, how many of these ganksquads will pop a freighter just for the thrill of watching lots of ships explode.
Enh... there will always be SOMEONE dedicated enough to pour money down the drain just to watch a freighter go boom. It can be inferred that most are in it for the money, though.
|
Roy Batty68
Caldari
Immortal Dead
|
Posted - 2007.06.03 11:17:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Amarria Black
Enh... there will always be SOMEONE dedicated enough to pour money down the drain just to watch a freighter go boom. It can be inferred that most are in it for the money, though.
I think you are just trying to sensationalize the situation. I doubt very much that anyone would kill a frieghter just to watch it blow up. Consider even the outbreak frieghter kill was motivated by revenge. Not "teehee pretty explosions".
Another thing to keep in mind is that there are many alliances that use freighter alts in NPC corps as a logistic backbone. Crap imo. NPC corps shouldn't be allowed to fly anything that trial accounts can't. But another topic, I suppose. The point being, without the video, the outbreak freighter kill would have looked like just a mindless gank (I don't believe freither looting was in yet). But there are many reasons behind the scenes people don't consider that could motivate killing a freighter. Even an innocent looking one in a NPC corp.
As to the OP's suggestion. Sure, why not. I think it should be a low slot module that scrambles scan results by a percentage. Gives haulers a tradeoff choice between extenders or cargo stealth.
-------------------
Say What? |
Patch86
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
Sparta Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.06.03 11:27:00 -
[24]
I'd be all for scanning being a flaggable action. The big problem with suicide ganking isn't that it exists, but that the victim can't do much about it- even having an escort.
If scanning a ship raise a combat flag, then any ship with an escort could react with some pew. Which is in line with the two core principles of EVE- that PvP should be counterable with PvP, an that team work shoul pay.
Another decent idea would be a scan-blocker module. If a hauler was paranoid (sensible) enough to want to give up a module slot to a scan blocker, they should be allowed. The fact that 99% of haulers refuse to fit anything other than hauling modules as it is (DARE even suggest they try to tank) should mean that most still won't use it, but atleast the option will be there.
--------
|
Amarria Black
Clan Anthraxx
|
Posted - 2007.06.03 11:28:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Roy Batty68
Originally by: Amarria Black
Enh... there will always be SOMEONE dedicated enough to pour money down the drain just to watch a freighter go boom. It can be inferred that most are in it for the money, though.
I think you are just trying to sensationalize the situation. I doubt very much that anyone would kill a frieghter just to watch it blow up. Consider even the outbreak frieghter kill was motivated by revenge. Not "teehee pretty explosions".
Another thing to keep in mind is that there are many alliances that use freighter alts in NPC corps as a logistic backbone. Crap imo. NPC corps shouldn't be allowed to fly anything that trial accounts can't. But another topic, I suppose. The point being, without the video, the outbreak freighter kill would have looked like just a mindless gank (I don't believe freither looting was in yet). But there are many reasons behind the scenes people don't consider that could motivate killing a freighter. Even an innocent looking one in a NPC corp.
Umm... if I had a good dozen friends with trained alts and a few hundred mil to blow on throwaway BSs, I'd do it just for the pretty kabang. Doubly so if it was making me money. One of my goals in this game is to watch, in-person, at least one of everything spectacularly explode.
But we're straying off topic here...
|
Kieranda
Weyland-Yutani Future Technologies Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.06.03 11:32:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Nanobotter Mk2
Quote:
Cargo scanning isn't a hostile action. Sure, it may be an invasion of privacy, but being nosey isn't the same as opening fire or punching someone in the schnozz.
Mush your face up against the window of my house or car peering inside for something of value to steal...I am pretty sure 99% of people will consider it a hostile action, I know my wife will beat you silly if you start snooping through her purse...Sorry any way you cut it scanning really should be considered a hostile action.
I've seen a lot of SciFi shows and movies that make me an expert on the scanner issue and I can tell you...in all of them, scanning the other ship was a standard procedure that 99% of time wasn't considered as hostile action
|
Shinris
|
Posted - 2007.06.03 11:38:00 -
[27]
scanning should just be a hostile act.
insurance should not be payid if you get killed by concord.
issue and problem solved
|
i take
|
Posted - 2007.06.03 11:40:00 -
[28]
cargo scanning is as much a hostile act as any EW used.
so make it so. and STOP protecting "your" kind of people¿s play style, at least be a bit fair.. sigh damn .....
Originally by: Kieranda
Originally by: Nanobotter Mk2
Quote:
Cargo scanning isn't a hostile action. Sure, it may be an invasion of privacy, but being nosey isn't the same as opening fire or punching someone in the schnozz.
Mush your face up against the window of my house or car peering inside for something of value to steal...I am pretty sure 99% of people will consider it a hostile action, I know my wife will beat you silly if you start snooping through her purse...Sorry any way you cut it scanning really should be considered a hostile action.
I've seen a lot of SciFi shows and movies that make me an expert on the scanner issue and I can tell you...in all of them, scanning the other ship was a standard procedure that 99% of time wasn't considered as hostile action
|
Detrol
Caldari
|
Posted - 2007.06.03 11:55:00 -
[29]
Originally by: annoing
... However, I wasnt aware that they could see into a secure can anyway, ive tried it on a corpie and it didnt work for me.
You are correct, you cannot see inside a container with a cargo scanner.
For some reason, people don't read important info like that. They want to believe the worst: "OMG they can scan me... OMG some people say containers don't hide it... OMG CCP need to do something"... sigh
A cargo scanner cannot scan inside a container anymore. It was possible at some time but not anymore. TRY IT OUT!!! really... TRY IT OUT!!! Not even the container shows up, it just seems to be an empty ship. And if you want to avoid suspision, just put some cheap mods in there which will show up.
|
Lucai
|
Posted - 2007.06.03 12:11:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Detrol
Originally by: annoing
... However, I wasnt aware that they could see into a secure can anyway, ive tried it on a corpie and it didnt work for me.
You are correct, you cannot see inside a container with a cargo scanner.
For some reason, people don't read important info like that. They want to believe the worst: "OMG they can scan me... OMG some people say containers don't hide it... OMG CCP need to do something"... sigh
A cargo scanner cannot scan inside a container anymore. It was possible at some time but not anymore. TRY IT OUT!!! really... TRY IT OUT!!! Not even the container shows up, it just seems to be an empty ship. And if you want to avoid suspision, just put some cheap mods in there which will show up.
I can only second that.
Little known fact is that, probably when ccp changed that objects in containers are not loaded in space as part of the "need for speed" initiative, scanners stopped being able to look into containers, or even see that there is a container onboard.
Maybe its meant to be like that nowadays, maybe its the price for the "need for speed" change, could be hard to code it otherwise, no idea, nobody knows but the devs, but its a fact.
|
|
|
Herring
Pimpology
Free Trade Zone.
|
Posted - 2007.06.03 12:32:00 -
[31]
Originally by: Nyabi
Cargo Rigs perhaps? Meaning something to screw up the chance of scanning to happen. Whatever skill used for cargo scanning changed to increase the chance of penetrating said rig.
Just offering an idea because I see this in your view as well.
That's a good idea, but I still think a lowslot for freighters is also needed 
*snip* Don't troll -Eldo |
Cipher7
Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2007.06.03 14:05:00 -
[32]
Ppl shouldn't be able to fly Freighters unless they're in a corp so you can wardec them.
Something political about "Concord does not allow unregistered freighters to fly about in highsec."
I know what Nanobotter is about, he wants to be able to fly around afk in his freighter making trade runs, buy 300m worth of stuff here, sell it for 400m there. He wants to be able to make money while watching The Simpsons.
|
Syris Anu
Evolutionary Pressure
|
Posted - 2007.06.03 14:37:00 -
[33]
LIke probes, scanning should be a *standard* ship feature requiring no mods. It would make PvP a lot more of a mind game than it is because currently you have no idea what the other ships are fitted like before and, to some extend during, engagement. If you knew and they knew, it would become quite interesting tactically as each side would have to adjust their attack and defend style to best exploit the weaknesses of the other group's fittings.
As for cargo scanning specifically, a modification that prevent cargo scanning would be interesting. However, anyone that had protected cargo would be a high priority target. Multiple haulers all with cargo shielding could serve as decoys, though.
|
Detrol
Caldari
|
Posted - 2007.06.03 14:46:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Syris Anu
As for cargo scanning specifically, a modification that prevent cargo scanning would be interesting. However, anyone that had protected cargo would be a high priority target. Multiple haulers all with cargo shielding could serve as decoys, though.
It already exists and is called a container.
|
Detrol
Caldari
|
Posted - 2007.06.03 14:48:00 -
[35]
Originally by: Cipher7
Ppl shouldn't be able to fly Freighters unless they're in a corp so you can wardec them.
Something political about "Concord does not allow unregistered freighters to fly about in highsec."
I know what Nanobotter is about, he wants to be able to fly around afk in his freighter making trade runs, buy 300m worth of stuff here, sell it for 400m there. He wants to be able to make money while watching The Simpsons.
As long as his corp isn't wardecced, wouldn't make much difference would it?
|
Tazerz2
Gallente
Information Science Security
|
Posted - 2007.06.03 17:02:00 -
[36]
Edited by: Tazerz2 on 03/06/2007 17:03:08
Just something that came to me about 5 seconds ago when reeling through the responses:
Hypothetically speaking, if you were to scan the cargohold of a ship while at a gate, CONCORD's actions would be to web + scram you for, say, a minute so you can't really go anywhere. ANYTHING you do within X time (including scanning again/another ship) will cause them to open fire. The analogy of punching someone in the shnozz here would be CONCORD clocking (remove the "L") back its hand ready to punch you if you speak another word 
Think of it as a kinda probation or nbersurveillance, giving the potential victim to be on their way (providing they aren't autopiloting), if you will :P
It has flaws, so it's open to scrutiny.
EDIT: i can't say "co cking" ?
|
SiJira
|
Posted - 2007.06.03 17:23:00 -
[37]
NO
this is in line with making the entire eve game bland and boring
guess what you carebears will do when the pvpers leave for another game? thats right
you will sell cargo expanders to each other so that you can build bigger ships and haul bigger minerals for ... bigger freighters so that you can oh wait no one will be there to buy your stuff cause every carebear builds their own stuff 
stop trying to make the game boring for pvpers
____ __ ________
_sig below_
the jet cans are made so that people that dont mine can get free ore
miners ritually donate the ore to anyone wishing to take some |
Sergeant Spot
Black Eclipse Corp
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.06.03 18:08:00 -
[38]
Unless things have changed in the last few months, Cans and Escrow wrapping do NOT hide cargo.
I have more than one account. I ran some tests a few months ago, and found that no matter what I did, there was no way to hide cargo.
Quote:
Originally by: CCP kieron
If a member of the EVE community finds he or she cannot accept our current level of transparency, we bid you good luck in finding a company that meets your needs. |
Sebesto
Minmatar
Destination Unknown
|
Posted - 2007.06.03 18:15:00 -
[39]
If there are people who are willing to suicide against your freighter/hauler/whatever in high sec, then if you would put something that prevents scanning it would happen more often. Because if they scanned and it came back with, Scanners fail to inspect <Person> then they would most likely think you were hauling a ton of good loot. Even if you had no cargo seeing this they would have no idea that you were hauling nothing and still pop you on the premise that you have something good to hide.
|
Nanobotter Mk2
|
Posted - 2007.06.03 18:59:00 -
[40]
Quote:
I know what Nanobotter is about, he wants to be able to fly around afk in his freighter making trade runs, buy 300m worth of stuff here, sell it for 400m there. He wants to be able to make money while watching The Simpsons.
LOL you seem to have no clue what I am about. I cannot fly frieghters, I absolutely DO NOT TRANSPORT, I am not a trader nothing close, none of my characters do it. I live in 0.0 and simply see this entire stupid low risk extreme reward suicide ganking as a broken gameplay mechanic just like borked spawns in complexes were. you want what amounts to open pvp get your arse out to 0.0 chump  Hell I don;t even watch the simpsons or anything while I play lol.
Again for the record something as devious as suicide ganking should be VERY HIGH RISK, as opposed to what it is right now which is almost zero risk. I never been suicded on, I am never in empire I do not trade or transport jack squat. I see something wack in this game I simply want it fixed. You empire hugging carebear wanna be "eve is harsh" people who suicide need to get your weak chicken butts out where YOU can be exposed to the harshness of eve for once, at the very least if CCP won;t force you out to me, you sdhould have SERIOUS risk for suicide ganking.
|
|
|
Nanobotter Mk2
|
Posted - 2007.06.03 19:15:00 -
[41]
Quote:
NO
this is in line with making the entire eve game bland and boring
guess what you carebears will do when the pvpers leave for another game?
Nice try but it would make the game more exciting and intense. right now it is bland and boring, scan cargo estimate value and know FOR SURE if it's worth suiciding on, make it so you cannot see the cargo and suddenly it is exciting. You suicide but have no idea if you are going to make or loose money.....they way it must be. The question is what the empire hugging carebear suicide gankers are going to do if this cheap little exploit gets closed up on them...
Please don;t even bother trying to pass off empire suicide gankers as pvp player mkay? PVP players live in 0.0 not empire kk hugger?
|
Lucai
|
Posted - 2007.06.03 20:51:00 -
[42]
Edited by: Lucai on 03/06/2007 20:52:59
Originally by: Sergeant Spot
Unless things have changed in the last few months, Cans and Escrow wrapping do NOT hide cargo.
I have more than one account. I ran some tests a few months ago, and found that no matter what I did, there was no way to hide cargo.
Youre a bit on the slow side side or what?
Dindnt i just say that when they changed loading of container items in space 6-12 weeks ago* (cant remember exactly when) they broke or switched off scanning of containers?
* Probably a part of the server-side optimizations of the need for speed initiative.
So thanks for stating your findings, but they are outdated, but the mantra really seems to be strong. You¦re of course free to test again, myself, im checking every time i undock my freighter(every 2-3 days).
|
Roy Batty68
Caldari
Immortal Dead
|
Posted - 2007.06.03 22:59:00 -
[43]
Originally by: Nanobotter Mk2
Quote:
I know what Nanobotter is about, he wants to be able to fly around afk in his freighter making trade runs, buy 300m worth of stuff here, sell it for 400m there. He wants to be able to make money while watching The Simpsons.
LOL you seem to have no clue what I am about. I cannot fly frieghters, I absolutely DO NOT TRANSPORT, I am not a trader nothing close, none of my characters do it. I live in 0.0 and simply see this entire stupid low risk extreme reward suicide ganking as a broken gameplay mechanic just like borked spawns in complexes were. you want what amounts to open pvp get your arse out to 0.0 chump Hell I don;t even watch the simpsons or anything while I play lol.
Again for the record something as devious as suicide ganking should be VERY HIGH RISK, as opposed to what it is right now which is almost zero risk. I never been suicded on, I am never in empire I do not trade or transport jack squat. I see something wack in this game I simply want it fixed. You empire hugging carebear wanna be "eve is harsh" people who suicide need to get your weak chicken butts out where YOU can be exposed to the harshness of eve for once, at the very least if CCP won;t force you out to me, you sdhould have SERIOUS risk for suicide ganking.
So you don't fly freighters.
You might fly industrials but not in empire.
You've never been suicide ganked.
You've never suicide ganked anyone in empire.
You don't even live in empire.
And apparently the only way you know whether something is screwed up about the situation is by reading it on the forums. Where, of course, reporting is always fair and balanced and never overstated.
...
Do you have any first hand experience with the subject matter that seems to get you so worked up?
Or are we to just take it on faith that your forum reading skills can save the day?
Oh, and post with your main.
-------------------
Say What? |
space hobo
Gallente
DIE WITH HONOUR
|
Posted - 2007.06.03 23:04:00 -
[44]
I OWN >:(
-------------------
400x120@24000 bytes Maximum please. - Acario Vito
its not my fault that noobs PC's cant handle small image's - space hobo |
raven415
Caldari
Special Projects Corp
|
Posted - 2007.06.03 23:05:00 -
[45]
if ccp does that then customs agents will get nailed by concord
|
Nanobotter Mk2
|
Posted - 2007.06.03 23:31:00 -
[46]
Quote:
So you don't fly freighters.
You might fly industrials but not in empire.
You've never been suicide ganked.
You've never suicide ganked anyone in empire.
You don't even live in empire.
And apparently the only way you know whether something is screwed up about the situation is by reading it on the forums. Where, of course, reporting is always fair and balanced and never overstated.
...
Do you have any first hand experience with the subject matter that seems to get you so worked up?
Or are we to just take it on faith that your forum reading skills can save the day?
Oh, and post with your main.
You do not need to be a hauler or have been suicided on before to be able to see something is CLEARLY BROKEN with it. Nice job avoiding pretty much everything about it because as we all know once you to discuss the tangibles you can easily see there is a big problem. People with insured ships, creating situation where there is little loss for them, no chance for their target to initiate upon them, nor defend itself....and those same cowards abusing the game mechanics having the nerve to call other people carebears..... You actually think jumping in a hauler and filling with with 50 +3 implants to loose to a ganker would allow me to understand the problem better?
the problem is simple and well documented. All angles have been covered, there is no defense to it. My point of view is that if we want to allow suicide ganking should'nt it be an EXTREMELY risky activity? And your response is post with my main.... way to adress the issue!
PS If i wanted you to know my main I would use it.....spend more time in 0.0 you might get to meet my main 
|
Le Skunk
Low Sec Liberators
|
Posted - 2007.06.04 01:07:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Roy Batty68
Crap imo. NPC corps shouldn't be allowed to fly anything that trial accounts can't.
CCP give this man a job
SKUNK
|
ghosttr
Amarr
ARK-CORP
FREGE Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.06.04 01:22:00 -
[48]
How about a set of containers that cannot be scanned. They will give a cargo penalty, but make it so that the contents cannot be scanned. Also you can make it so that if you get scanned you can attack him freely just as if he looted a jet can of yours.
Make Mining Better |
Ares Lightfeather
Gallente
|
Posted - 2007.06.04 10:16:00 -
[49]
For me, the very fact of making cargo unscannable actually flags the ship for destruction...
Why hide something not valuable ?
|
|
lickspittle
|
Posted - 2007.06.04 11:36:00 -
[50]
Originally by: Lucai
Dindnt i just say that when they changed loading of container items in space 6-12 weeks ago* (cant remember exactly when) they broke or switched off scanning of containers?
* Probably a part of the server-side optimizations of the need for speed initiative.
Completely unrelated.
My scanning code would only return results from inside containers if the scanning action was falloff based; it only handled non-falloff based scanning as a side-effect. Sometime before December last year someone removed the falloff usage for cargo scanning and since then cargo scanning hasn't been returning those results. I have checked in a fix internally and do not know if it will make it out in the upcoming patch.
-- Richard
CCP Pro-grammar. Anything said above is not the official line, but my own take or opinion. I am more likely to post in response to posts written using proper grammar. |
|
|
|
Phrixus Zephyr
D00M.
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.06.04 11:49:00 -
[51]
Originally by: Nanobotter Mk2
Quote:
So you don't fly freighters.
You might fly industrials but not in empire.
You've never been suicide ganked.
You've never suicide ganked anyone in empire.
You don't even live in empire.
And apparently the only way you know whether something is screwed up about the situation is by reading it on the forums. Where, of course, reporting is always fair and balanced and never overstated.
...
Do you have any first hand experience with the subject matter that seems to get you so worked up?
Or are we to just take it on faith that your forum reading skills can save the day?
Oh, and post with your main.
You do not need to be a hauler or have been suicided on before to be able to see something is CLEARLY BROKEN with it. Nice job avoiding pretty much everything about it because as we all know once you to discuss the tangibles you can easily see there is a big problem. People with insured ships, creating situation where there is little loss for them, no chance for their target to initiate upon them, nor defend itself....and those same cowards abusing the game mechanics having the nerve to call other people carebears..... You actually think jumping in a hauler and filling with with 50 +3 implants to loose to a ganker would allow me to understand the problem better?
the problem is simple and well documented. All angles have been covered, there is no defense to it. My point of view is that if we want to allow suicide ganking should'nt it be an EXTREMELY risky activity? And your response is post with my main.... way to adress the issue!
PS If i wanted you to know my main I would use it.....spend more time in 0.0 you might get to meet my main
Dont afk travel then.
Originally by: Benglada
And whos going to tackle for them? Jesus?
|
Matthew
Caldari
BloodStar Technologies
|
Posted - 2007.06.04 12:15:00 -
[52]
Originally by: Nanobotter Mk2
Time to step up and add some balance to suicide ganking CCP.
Well, here's the rub. The hauler has 100%, complete, absolute control of the risk vs reward balance of suicide ganking him.
The hauler decides how hard it is to kill him with his choice of ship and fittings.
The hauler decides how much potential reward there is in ganking him by what and how much he puts in his hold.
Cargo and ship scanners can be used by the ganker to assess the balance on offer, but they have no choice in what balance the hauler chooses to offer. And the results of the scanners by no means offer certainty of the outcome, there's still the risk of the random loot pop to contend with.
The main misconceptions I usually see in this topic are:
1) Because you can haul something in a given ship/setup, it should be a good idea to do so.
2) CONCORD should protect you from all hostile consequences of your choices within empire.
Neither of which are the case, and nor should they be. Cramming a fully expanded Iteron V with megacyte should never be a good idea.
Every ship and fitting has a cost to gank - the cost of ganking it in ships/modules etc lost to CONCORD. Every cargo has a likely drop value - the most likely value of surviving items when put through the random loot popper. Whenever the second value exceeds the first, you will be an attractive gank target.
There is nothing fundamentally wrong with this mechanic. Measures like removing ship insurance for ships lost to CONCORD doesn't really change that mechanic, it just changes the break-even value. This break-even value is key to balance for the whole system, so you would need to demonstrate why the current values are not appropriate.
Nerfing cargo scanning would also nerf the smart haulers who use the correct ship and fitting for the correct cargo. Now, the gankers can see he's made the smart decision and hold off. If you nerf cargo scanning, they'll have to try the gank just to find out, which defeats the point of fitting sensibly. You would be increasing protection to those that do not deserve it, at the cost of those that do.
-------
There is no magic Wand of Fixing, and it is not powered by forum whines. |
Matthew
Caldari
BloodStar Technologies
|
Posted - 2007.06.04 12:27:00 -
[53]
Originally by: Nanobotter Mk2
You actually think jumping in a hauler and filling with with 50 +3 implants to loose to a ganker would allow me to understand the problem better?
You see, this is exactly the sort of thing I was referring to. What makes you think that putting 50 +3 implants in to a dirt cheap little tin-can of a hauler should be a good idea?
Of course, anyone able to check the item properties would see that 50 +3 implants take up just 50m3. Anyone with any experience of hauling could tell you that an industrial ship is a supremely bad choice for hauling cargoes of that size. With cargo that small you could use pretty much any ship you liked, and there are many ships that have advantages over an industrial.
Put it in a fast frigate or interceptor, fit for speed, and you'll never be in one place long enough for potential gankers to even scan you. You'll also get to your destination a lot faster.
Put it in a covert ops, and they'll never even see you to know you're there to gank.
You could even try a heavily tanked battleship and just push their cost to gank up massively (though this isn't my prefered option).
-------
There is no magic Wand of Fixing, and it is not powered by forum whines. |
Ladyah Liandri
VMF-214 Blacksheep
|
Posted - 2007.06.04 12:53:00 -
[54]
Originally by: i take
cargo scanning is as much a hostile act as any EW used.
so make it so. and STOP protecting "your" kind of people¿s play style, at least be a bit fair.. sigh damn .....
Come again?
Scanning distrupts, disables, jams which module exactly?
Does it prevent you from flying off?
And btw. do you shoot customs IRL if they scan your bags?
|
Fafnir Drake
Gallente
Boob Heads
Haud Terminus
|
Posted - 2007.06.04 13:13:00 -
[55]
imo being scanned should set off the agression timer that ya get when say, taking a can or w/e. Not summon concord instant I.W.I.N. Someone wants to snoop, fine. But my escort can open a can of whoop ass on em then. Course, this would be reserved for when ya can win. It's better imo then concord b/c he nice pretty killmails.
------
"A wise man once told me never to argue with an idiot. They will bring you down to their level, and then beat you with experience." |
Roy Batty68
Caldari
Immortal Dead
|
Posted - 2007.06.04 13:14:00 -
[56]
Originally by: Nanobotter Mk2
You do not need to be a hauler or have been suicided on before to be able to see something is CLEARLY BROKEN with it. Nice job avoiding pretty much everything about it because as we all know once you to discuss the tangibles you can easily see there is a big problem.
It's not "clearly broken" at all. It's clearly "just fine".
If people fit their haulers worth a crap and didn't put billion+ of goods in a ship not worth even a 10th of that, if they actually play the game instead of putting their ships on autopilot and going off to nuke a burrito, guess what... their odds of getting ganked plummet drastically.
So saying, "there is no defense to it" is just plain wrong.
Originally by: Nanobotter Mk2
And your response is post with my main.... way to adress the issue!
I say post with your main because I think you're full of ****. I wouldn't be surprised at all if you weren't some isk seller just trying to protect your hisec farming crew. All your talk about "I'm a big 0.0 nut buster" while jumping on every single "make empire safer" thread you can with your foaming at the mouth approach, calling people chumps and pirates carebears...
Right. Post with your main.
-------------------
Say What? |
Ogul
Caldari
ZiTek Deepspace Explorations
Prime Orbital Systems
|
Posted - 2007.06.04 13:26:00 -
[57]
Screw the cargo hiding, give me a mid slot module that lets me ensure that all of my cargo gets destroyed with the ship.
The deliberate destruction of your own ship (read: suicide attack) should not make you ISK.
|
Clambake
|
Posted - 2007.06.04 17:17:00 -
[58]
Originally by: Ogul
Screw the cargo hiding, give me a mid slot module that lets me ensure that all of my cargo gets destroyed with the ship.
The deliberate destruction of your own ship (read: suicide attack) should not make you ISK.
psst put your cargo up for contract and then cancel it, stuff in bubble wrap always blows up.
|
SN3263827
The Black Rabbits
|
Posted - 2007.06.04 17:42:00 -
[59]
Originally by: Clambake
psst put your cargo up for contract and then cancel it, stuff in bubble wrap always blows up.
Pish-tosh.
_____________________________________________
Free the Oimmo One! |
FireFoxx80
Caldari
E X O D U S
Imperial Republic Of the North
|
Posted - 2007.06.04 18:38:00 -
[60]
Originally by: Ogul
Screw the cargo hiding, give me a mid slot module that lets me ensure that all of my cargo gets destroyed with the ship.
The deliberate destruction of your own ship (read: suicide attack) should not make you ISK.
Warp Core Destabilisr 4tw!
What I do the rest of the time - Vote for a Jita bypass! |
|
|
Nanobotter Mk2
|
Posted - 2007.06.04 19:03:00 -
[61]
Quote:
Ppl shouldn't be able to fly Freighters unless they're in a corp so you can wardec them.
That would certainly be a reasonable part of the trade off.
|
Rigsta
Gallente
Raddick Explorations
Executive Outcomes
|
Posted - 2007.06.04 19:12:00 -
[62]
If nothing else, ship scanning should be a hostile act. I've always found it stupid that you can use an alt to find out your opponent's setup (and thus weaknesses) with impunity.
Originally by: Jim McGregor
I felt the disturbance... it was like a million voices suddenly stopped whining for a second. Unfortunantly it then continued.
|
Nanobotter Mk2
|
Posted - 2007.06.04 19:12:00 -
[63]
Quote:
It's not "clearly broken" at all. It's clearly "just fine".
If people fit their haulers worth a crap and didn't put billion+ of goods in a ship not worth even a 10th of that, if they actually play the game instead of putting their ships on autopilot and going off to nuke a burrito, guess what... their odds of getting ganked plummet drastically.
So saying, "there is no defense to it" is just plain wrong.
I think it has been made obvious by CCP that the abilty to make billions with no risk is not part of their vision for EVE. Pretty easy to see suiciding is broken. Another way is I hardly think CCP vision including people sitting around trying to kill themselmes repeatedly to make money in this game either.
All of your absurd scenario's of why a person should not use a hauler to do just that haul don;t change anything about risk reward, and it isn;t a defense. A defense would mean something people could do if they CHOOSE to use a paper cargo ship to tranfer valuables. Telling people okay you cannot move xxx stuff of value because there is NO SHIP in eve that requires expensive enough gank ships to allow it, is simply ********.
Do not know why you are arguing, beyond you want suicide ganking to be cheap and easy way to earn fast large ISK. Sorry I beleive CCP needs to change that, and I hope they do. I beleive something so simple and risk free like suicide ganking should be of extreme risk, not all but fail proof. that is all I am asking for. I understand you want to preserve easy mode but it just isn't inline with the rest of EVE imho. We shall see what the developers do because in the end it is their game to decide what and how they want the game to play like. I am fairly certain they do not realize how easily suicide ganking has become to exploit.
|
Nanobotter Mk2
|
Posted - 2007.06.04 19:15:00 -
[64]
Quote:
Come again?
Scanning distrupts, disables, jams which module exactly?
Does it prevent you from flying off?
No but by scanning my ship you can dtermine my strangths and weakness which are EXTREMELY important in eve. Knowibng I have zero resistance to explosive dmg, knowing which EW mods I have equipped etc are huge advantage.
|
Einheriar Ulrich
Minmatar
FATAL REVELATIONS
FATAL Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.06.04 19:50:00 -
[65]
Edited by: Einheriar Ulrich on 04/06/2007 19:50:26
Originally by: Nanobotter Mk2
Quote:
Come again?
Scanning distrupts, disables, jams which module exactly?
Does it prevent you from flying off?
No but by scanning my ship you can determine my strangths and weakness which are EXTREMELY important in eve. Knowibng I have zero resistance to explosive dmg, knowing which EW mods I have equipped etc are huge advantage.
it only shows, that the module is working fine...i am sorry nano.....their will always be suicede attacks, setting passive scans to a hostile act will not change that...in fact suicede gank squads will just aim at any freigther they encounter....One thing it should show is this, do not travel alone in a ship worth a billion or more, or something like this is bound to happen.
BTW, your also able to scan your opponent, so its perfectly ballanced.
Originally by: Jiekon/CCP
If you are sitting with a guy and he says "ok, i'm logging off now" and you shoot him, that is fine.
|
Roy Batty68
Caldari
Immortal Dead
|
Posted - 2007.06.04 20:04:00 -
[66]
meh, I'm not going to argue with you anymore.
There's a middle ground.
I think you exagerate the situation. Sure, there should be risk to everything in eve. And, unlike you, I believe there are risks to suicide ganking. We can agree to disagree on that one.
But your arguement goes against you as well. Hisec is already a bit too profitable considering the severe lack of risks there. And frankly I don't see the need to make it any safer than it already is on any front, not just this specific topic. There are many examples of people churning out rediculous amounts of isk without a care in the world.
The situation just isn't that dire. It is very possible to avoid the gankers with a little planning. Treat every trip as if you had advanced warning and it really becomes a no risk thing.
And it's not obvious I wish to keep "easy mode". I've agreed to the no insurance thing in other threads and stated my opinion that frieghters should have mod slots (with exception of expanders maybe) as well.
Bottom line:
- I think people making bad fitting and risk analysis decisions is the only thing that keeps the suicide gankers fed. People making bad decisions doesn't equate to the game needing a change. People need to play smarter or suffer.
- I think hisec is safe enough. If anything too safe. With NPC corps protection, people already get away with far too much. And players who take exception to the macro'ers, scammers, and other filth are powerless to do anything about it. Except... suicide gank them.
And with that, I'll leave it alone.
-------------------
Say What? |
Maxpie
Cross Roads
|
Posted - 2007.06.04 20:08:00 -
[67]
Just change things so that jamming is not a hostile act either.
Of course, the real answer to this and many other issues is to get rid of alts, but I won't rant on about that right now.
He put... creatures... in our bodies... to control our minds. He made us... say lies... do things. |
Lucai
|
Posted - 2007.06.04 20:32:00 -
[68]
Originally by: lickspittle
Originally by: Lucai
My stuff.
Completely unrelated.
My scanning code would only return results from inside containers if the scanning action was falloff based; it only handled non-falloff based scanning as a side-effect. Sometime before December last year someone removed the falloff usage for cargo scanning and since then cargo scanning hasn't been returning those results. I have checked in a fix internally and do not know if it will make it out in the upcoming patch.
Best and many thanks for that info *jumps around in joy*
I can always only guess, having only limited information, but obviously "provoking" the right answer makes more than up for being proven wrong
|
Thesas
Gallente
Center for Advanced Studies
|
Posted - 2007.06.04 21:31:00 -
[69]
Originally by: lickspittle
Originally by: Lucai
Dindnt i just say that when they changed loading of container items in space 6-12 weeks ago* (cant remember exactly when) they broke or switched off scanning of containers?
* Probably a part of the server-side optimizations of the need for speed initiative.
Completely unrelated.
My scanning code would only return results from inside containers if the scanning action was falloff based; it only handled non-falloff based scanning as a side-effect. Sometime before December last year someone removed the falloff usage for cargo scanning and since then cargo scanning hasn't been returning those results. I have checked in a fix internally and do not know if it will make it out in the upcoming patch.
So.. you are saying that container contents do not display on a scan?
Does the container itself display on the scan?
I just want to be clear on this.
|
Jinx Barker
GFB Scientific
|
Posted - 2007.06.04 21:48:00 -
[70]
Originally by: lickspittle
My scanning code would only return results from inside containers if the scanning action was falloff based; it only handled non-falloff based scanning as a side-effect. Sometime before December last year someone removed the falloff usage for cargo scanning and since then cargo scanning hasn't been returning those results. I have checked in a fix internally and do not know if it will make it out in the upcoming patch.
I had some stupid juice this morning, could someone elaborate on this please.......  .. sorry this confused me a bit.
|
|
|
Alexoin
|
Posted - 2007.06.04 21:56:00 -
[71]
Originally by: Jinx Barker
Originally by: lickspittle
My scanning code would only return results from inside containers if the scanning action was falloff based; it only handled non-falloff based scanning as a side-effect. Sometime before December last year someone removed the falloff usage for cargo scanning and since then cargo scanning hasn't been returning those results. I have checked in a fix internally and do not know if it will make it out in the upcoming patch.
I had some stupid juice this morning, could someone elaborate on this please....... .. sorry this confused me a bit.
ook what I read this as :)
My scanning code would only return results from inside containers if the scanning action was falloff based; it only handled non-falloff based scanning as a side-effect.
Not sure, but originally the scanning code returned everything. (I think by fall-off he means containers within containers, eg a container within a ship(with the ship being classed as a container))
Sometime before December last year someone removed the falloff usage for cargo scanning and since then cargo scanning hasn't been returning those results.
Someone broke it (probably tied up with the fix that you can no longer scan hacking and archaeology containers to find their contents)
I have checked in a fix internally and do not know if it will make it out in the upcoming patch.
There's a fix coming to allow you to scan in containers again
|
pyrofox
|
Posted - 2007.06.05 02:13:00 -
[72]
Stop flying afk. |
Nanobotter Mk2
|
Posted - 2007.06.05 08:23:00 -
[73]
Quote:
it only shows, that the module is working fine...i am sorry nano.....their will always be suicede attacks, setting passive scans to a hostile act will not change that...in fact suicede gank squads will just aim at any freigther they encounter....One thing it should show is this, do not travel alone in a ship worth a billion or more, or something like this is bound to happen.
BTW, your also able to scan your opponent, so its perfectly ballanced.
Hey you got me confused with someone demanding you CANNOT suicide, my point is simply it should be a very risky business. setting passive scans to be a hostile act simply means suiciders goto roll the dice, no longer can they calculate the math abd pick and choose to only suicide when there is solid profit. I see nothing wrong with something as weak as suiciding having some significant uncertainty, tag on no insurance for concorded and suicide ganking is something that ends up being somewhat balanced for once. I mean dropping 12 BS that you get no insurance for on a suicide gank of an empty frieghter when you are hoping it will have billions is good for the game imho. right now suiciders and pretty much immune to risk or being ganked themselves, something needs to change.
BTW you know people use alts in this game, so when I can scanned down by an alt No I really cannot scan my opponent for intel....
There are more application for scanning which make it senseful to be an act of aggression, like if a player runs a trade route and someone wants to move in on it scanning to see what he is moving would be a hostile action.
Put it this way explain to me the scenario that scanning is not part of a hostile action? Pretty much every activity where you would scan another ship leads to the reason a future hostile act.
|
Nito Musashi
|
Posted - 2007.06.05 12:53:00 -
[74]
I am happy ccp supports suicide ganking and bob, since they go out of their way not to fix bending or abusing the game mechanics so a few asshats can get their jollies.
What is wrong with suicide ganking is you get cheap ships, cheap mods, insure your crap ship for the max then purposely go out and blow a target up that is worth 10 or 100s of millions and you lose maybe 10% of your ships value and a few mil in mods, and take a bit a of a sector hit.
Risk vs reward there is none in suicide ganks, then again thats the way you people like it, god forbid people could mask their cargos truely and make you not know for sure if they got something good in there or if they are bone empty when you scan them.
mr ccp dev why should a scan not only tell you what mods are in a ship what items they have in cargo, but also if they carrying cargo containers what is inside those also . thats like 3 layers of penetration on one crappy scan fitting.
If that is truely boken in your view give haulers shielded cargo containers that could not be scanned, less cargo capacity but shielded vs scanning.
Make hi sec security violations void all insurance contracts. Make concord not only destroy ships but the pods of people that are brain dead enough to commit crimes at gates. Makes can stealing at gates concord actionable that way the gank squad can not have an alt out of the fray that flies up loots and zips off, they go boom to. Then castrate em all.
|
Silsi Tolen
|
Posted - 2007.06.05 14:13:00 -
[75]
Well, since this is the most suitable thread on the forums today, I will add to it..
I have just suffered my first suicide gank in Jita today... Woot!
In all fairness, I am not that fussed, my ship was a covert-ops ship, with a cool faction CPU, but since the prices have fallen for the Cloaks its not that much.
However, I do think this suicide ganking is getting out of hand. I was killed by a Brutix no less.
I assume in a sense they *exploit* - used roughly, the Lag in Jita to get a kill before they get jammed. The brutix, T1 fitted ofcourse cost the player no more than 10m?
So, I wasn't really AFK, I was at work, so only having partial play moments. Yes, AFK in a sense, but still.
I am sure your all interested what Mr Ganker did it for... I had 107 Datacores, Mechanical engineering. A months worth, and about 250m at current prices. I guess that would have been worth it, even if the guy earned no insurance form the Brutix.
I think what bothers me most is that he looses practically nothing.
Next time I wont AFK into Jita, but instead one near-by and finish the trip when I get online properly. Or, maybe I should AKF transport my Datacores one by one.
In my opinion this is risk free income for them, its cowardly and pretty lame. I understand when the targets are select and the purpose more meaningful, but sitting on the Jita gate, waiting for someone with more then 30m in cargo to pop to me just seems a little cowardly.
Each to their own ofcourse. And, if I wasn't just a lowly miner, I would go hunt the guy down and pop him again with my kill rights.
I hope CCP does something to curb it a little. I don't believe it should be stopped completely, but Brutix suiciding in Jita is a little silly...
|
Adaris
Dark and Light inc.
|
Posted - 2007.06.05 14:21:00 -
[76]
Originally by: mechtech
Cargo shielding rigs are a GREAT idea to me, CCP should look into that.
Wow, a rig that people need! Bring it in!
Please Help me, YOU could be next!
|
Exlegion
Caldari
KnightRaven Research
|
Posted - 2007.06.05 14:46:00 -
[77]
Originally by: Nox Solaris
Originally by: Pwn4ge P4nts
Originally by: Anopheli
I haven't tested this myself, but a corp member claims you can issue yourself a courier mission, and when scanned all that shows up is the courier package.
This is correct.
Also, recovery of this courier item if the ship is destroyed requires a ship capable of holding the entire package whole, as individual parts won't be accessable.
Conversely, if the courier package goes pop with the ship you loose everything completely.
And, so far as I've ever seen, the contents of cans show up on a cargo scan.
A scan-scrambling rig would be useful, however, to be sure. Randomly pulls object tags from the local regional market, reliability dependant on the scanner's skill & the rig increasing the disruption probability dependant on the pilot's whatever-rigging skill.
I have an off-topic (kind of) question on this:
Can the courier item, once picked up, be taken to a station and unwrapped to reveal its contents?
One of us equals many of us. Disrespect one of us, you'll see plenty of us. - Guru |
Ethaet
Gallente
|
Posted - 2007.06.05 14:52:00 -
[78]
Yes.
Scanning should be hostile, getting concorded/sentrygunned/killed when attacking someone should void insurance.
Originally by: Phoenixhawk
Patching.......... Oh wow look the servers didnt all shut down. Hi-Five another successful patch....Durrrwomp....Hey who turned out the lights, oh look there's light outside the wi |
Nanobotter Mk2
|
Posted - 2007.06.05 18:20:00 -
[79]
Quote:
However, I do think this suicide ganking is getting out of hand. I was killed by a Brutix no less.
I assume in a sense they *exploit* - used roughly, the Lag in Jita to get a kill before they get jammed. The brutix, T1 fitted ofcourse cost the player no more than 10m?
Oddly enough it is only a total net loss of about 4 million when using a brutix... the only slots used are the highs, and then drones. It defenitely has gotten out of hand, and the peopel who exploit it to make money are VERY VOCAL on these boards. There really is no reason that a few changes shouldn't be made to make suicide ganking much more risky for the suicider.
|
Happster
Polaris Project
|
Posted - 2007.06.05 21:28:00 -
[80]
Originally by: lickspittle
Originally by: Lucai
Dindnt i just say that when they changed loading of container items in space 6-12 weeks ago* (cant remember exactly when) they broke or switched off scanning of containers?
* Probably a part of the server-side optimizations of the need for speed initiative.
Completely unrelated.
My scanning code would only return results from inside containers if the scanning action was falloff based; it only handled non-falloff based scanning as a side-effect. Sometime before December last year someone removed the falloff usage for cargo scanning and since then cargo scanning hasn't been returning those results. I have checked in a fix internally and do not know if it will make it out in the upcoming patch.
So will this mean the Secure Cargo Contaer will show but not whats inside?
Or does it mean it will show it all again?
|
|
|
Matthew
Caldari
BloodStar Technologies
|
Posted - 2007.06.06 08:18:00 -
[81]
Originally by: Nanobotter Mk2
Hey you got me confused with someone demanding you CANNOT suicide, my point is simply it should be a very risky business. setting passive scans to be a hostile act simply means suiciders goto roll the dice, no longer can they calculate the math abd pick and choose to only suicide when there is solid profit.
The trouble is that that forces the haulers to "roll the dice" more as well. Right now it is easy for a hauler to ensure that ganking them can never be profitable. As the gankers can see this via the scanners, that hauler gets rewarded for their choice (which will have cost them speed/capacity in return for their reduced risk factor). If you prevent the gankers from being able to see, and gank randomly, then you remove the incentive for haulers to use the more robust hauling options.
Preventing the gankers from seeing the cargo/fitting of their targets actually gives the haulers less options. From the hauler's perspective, the gank becomes a random, unstoppable act of god, rather than a risk they can mitigate through their choices of what to haul in which ship and fitting.
The effect you seem to want with this suggestion is to reduce the gankers average income by making them gank targets that don't pay. All this really does is increase the break-even balance point for ganking, but does it in an indirect way that also penalises haulers who specifically fit against being ganked.
Reducing/removing insurance payouts on ships killed by concord would achieve exactly the same effect of raising the break-even point, and would retain the advantage for haulers who intentionally fit themselves below that break-even value.
But if you want to really get the dev's attention on the idea, I suggest you start providing examples of ship/fitting/cargo combinations and their current costs to gank, and demonstrate that there are perfectly reasonable combinations (i.e. not things lie expanded iterons full of megacyte) that are currently profitable to gank.
Originally by: Silsi Tolen
my ship was a covert-ops ship,.....I was killed by a Brutix no less.
covert-ops ships (I assume you're talking the frigate here) are fragile. The fact that a Brutix can suicide one is hardly surprising. The strength of the covert-ops frigate is entirely in it's cloak, not it's HP, and requires care and constant attention to use the cloak properly to avoid danger. If you're afk'ing, you are presumably not using the cloak, so you may as well be in a normal T1 frigate.
Originally by: Silsi Tolen
I think what bothers me most is that he looses practically nothing
But on the other side, he cannot force anyone to fly past him in a combination of ship and cargo that is worth suicide ganking for. You're choosing to hand him that "risk-free" oppourtunity, he can't make you do it.
-------
There is no magic Wand of Fixing, and it is not powered by forum whines. |
Ethaet
Gallente
|
Posted - 2007.06.06 08:38:00 -
[82]
Getting concorded should void insurance.
Originally by: Phoenixhawk
Patching.......... Oh wow look the servers didnt all shut down. Hi-Five another successful patch....Durrrwomp....Hey who turned out the lights, oh look there's light outside the wi |
Ziggy Sebastien
|
Posted - 2007.06.06 10:32:00 -
[83]
Someone mentioned earlier in the thread that secure cans can still be accessed in station through repackaging - this strikes me as nonsense. A secure can, password protected, should be exactly that - secure. If secure cans were genuinely secure then haulers would have a game mechanic to protect their cargo.
If an absolutely no-risk secure can is an unreasonable imbalance, then apply the Hacking skill to can security. Use the owners skill level to set a "password encryption level", then anyone trying to open it needs to roll against it using their skill level using a codebreaker. Perhaps even apply some sort of destruct option after so many failed hacking attempts. This creates a logical and legitimate game mechanic - the victims have an option to protect their cargo, the aggressors have to work for their isk with no guarantee of successs.
If you really wanted to jack up the risk versus reward, throw in the insurance nerf when Concorded - again arguably a logical game mechanic.
The whole suicide ganking profession suddenly becomes more time consuming, costly, and riskier. Kinda like all the other ways to make isk in Eve...
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |