EVE Search - Don't end Suicide Ganking- Improve it. Good Samaritans

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Don't end Suicide Ganking- Improve it. Good Samaritans

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Ganagati Perkone Caldari State 27	Posted - 2012.01.27 01:41:00 - [1] - Quote The reason, as a PvP player, that I dislike suicide ganking is that there are no risks involved that are not calculated for the attackers. They know how much they will lose, how much they will gain, and what will be involved along the way. I don't want to see suiciding removed... far from it. I want to... spice it up a bit for other players, and maybe open a new line of work. A good Samaritan rule with CONCORD. If a player is under attack by a suicide group, that suicide group becomes KOS for everyone around until their ship is destroyed. As it stands, if a freighter gets attacked by a group of pirates and I step in to help, the "police" will say "lol, idiot. You attacked someone without provocation". 0_o Really? I'm trying to save some hauler from his definite demise and I'm getting told I'm a criminal? Highsec PvP is too limited because CONCORD gets in the way of actively participating to protect others. People in the same group as a freighter, hired to protect it, cannot do anything when a suicide group attacks because they would just get blown up themselves. This change would allow a new line of work in highsec- escorts. =D Got a freighter you want to see moved from point A to point B? We'll help take down any suiciders that cause you problems! I dunno, seemed fun to me.
Eternus8lux8lucis Whack-A-Mole 53	Posted - 2012.01.27 01:46:00 - [2] - Quote Well basically they ARE KOS as soon as they start breaking the law so you can shoot them all you want to ***** on the killmails cuz they are going to die anyway. The only way that what your proposing will work is by effectively ganking the ganker, which is fine and dandy, youll just die in the attempt. Due to the prevalence of alpha style DPS ships the target is usually dead long before anyone can react, and in the case of destroyers on gates or stations is long dead before you can even instalock them to fire off a shot. CCP wont change that mechanic anytime in the future imo. Strength isnt measured in numbers but in force of will. For if one motived willful individual stands many will fall around him that are weak. http://tinyurl.com/YarrFace
Elessa Enaka State War Academy Caldari State 54	Posted - 2012.01.27 01:46:00 - [3] - Quote Ganagati wrote: The reason, as a PvP player, that I dislike suicide ganking is that there are no risks involved that are not calculated for the attackers. They know how much they will lose, how much they will gain, and what will be involved along the way. I don't want to see suiciding removed... far from it. I want to... spice it up a bit for other players, and maybe open a new line of work. A good Samaritan rule with CONCORD. If a player is under attack by a suicide group, that suicide group becomes KOS for everyone around until their ship is destroyed. As it stands, if a freighter gets attacked by a group of pirates and I step in to help, the "police" will say "lol, idiot. You attacked someone without provocation". 0_o Really? I'm trying to save some hauler from his definite demise and I'm getting told I'm a criminal? Highsec PvP is too limited because CONCORD gets in the way of actively participating to protect others. People in the same group as a freighter, hired to protect it, cannot do anything when a suicide group attacks because they would just get blown up themselves. This change would allow a new line of work in highsec- escorts. =D Got a freighter you want to see moved from point A to point B? We'll help take down any suiciders that cause you problems! I dunno, seemed fun to me. I'd say no unless the gankers pod were to be a viable target. As it is the way that you describe it, all it does is give the gankers more pew targets, now if there was a very good chance that they would lose their pod as well as any implants they might've had in that clone, then I'd be all for it. Devour to survive, so it is, so it's always been Eve is a great game if you can get past all of the asshats....
Morganta Peripheral Madness The Midget Mafia 919	Posted - 2012.01.27 01:50:00 - [4] - Quote I'll gank someone if given a decent juicy target I'll also shoot anyone that pops GCC in empire, they're dead anyhow, might as well not waste the KM once they go flashy red, shoot all you want The American public's reaction to the change was poor and the new cola was a major marketing failure. The subsequent reintroduction of Coke's original formula, re-branded as "Coca-Cola Classic", resulted in a significant gain in sales, leading to speculation that the introduction of the New Coke formula was just a marketing ploy
Brock Nelson 317	Posted - 2012.01.27 01:58:00 - [5] - Quote Ganagati wrote: The reason, as a PvP player, that I dislike suicide ganking is that there are no risks involved that are not calculated for the attackers. They know how much they will lose, how much they will gain, and what will be involved along the way. I don't want to see suiciding removed... far from it. I want to... spice it up a bit for other players, and maybe open a new line of work. A good Samaritan rule with CONCORD. If a player is under attack by a suicide group, that suicide group becomes KOS for everyone around until their ship is destroyed. As it stands, if a freighter gets attacked by a group of pirates and I step in to help, the "police" will say "lol, idiot. You attacked someone without provocation". 0_o Really? I'm trying to save some hauler from his definite demise and I'm getting told I'm a criminal? Highsec PvP is too limited because CONCORD gets in the way of actively participating to protect others. People in the same group as a freighter, hired to protect it, cannot do anything when a suicide group attacks because they would just get blown up themselves. This change would allow a new line of work in highsec- escorts. =D Got a freighter you want to see moved from point A to point B? We'll help take down any suiciders that cause you problems! I dunno, seemed fun to me. What could you possibly do in the 5 seconds before Concord shows up? Repping the victim won't do **. Attacking the attacker won't do ** except get you on a km. I don't always like to modify my sell order but when I do, I like to spin my mouse wheel
Vyl Vit Cambio Enterprises 268	Posted - 2012.01.27 02:00:00 - [6] - Quote Suicide ganking is as PvP as tying rocks on kittens tails and tossing them into the deep end of the pool is giving swimming lessons. The entire POINT to suicide ganking is to NOT FIGHT. Geez. Try again. I hate to see that much text go to waste. Anyone with any sense has already left town.
Ganagati Perkone Caldari State 28	Posted - 2012.01.27 02:03:00 - [7] - Quote Vyl Vit wrote: Suicide ganking is as PvP as tying rocks on kittens tails and tossing them into the deep end of the pool is giving swimming lessons. The entire POINT to suicide ganking is to NOT FIGHT. Geez. Try again. I hate to see that much text go to waste. The text isn't wasted, my entire point of the post is because I believe 100% what you are saying and want to see that changed. What I'm aiming for is to try to make it PvP- to add risk that isn't calculated to the equation so that the gankers suddenly have a chance for everything to blow up in their face and them walk away as hurt as their target would be. THAT is what PvP is about- a chance that either party could be ruined, and you never know which. Suicide ganking removes that entirely and guarantees that you know exactly what will happen.
gfldex 300	Posted - 2012.01.27 03:18:00 - [8] - Quote Ganagati wrote: If a player is under attack by a suicide group, that suicide group becomes KOS for everyone around until their ship is destroyed. You are asking for a game mechanics that is already in place (for years). In case you actually tried what you describe (highly unlikely) and got a global yourself, please file a bug report and petition your loss. The game has a tutorial that gives you a mining laser and a railgun and tells you to go shoot rocks and red crosses. It teaches you nothing else. It's been that way for 8 years, so are you really surprised that there are people who aren't aware that this is a pvp game? --Jafit McJafitson
Herping yourDerp Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 379	Posted - 2012.01.27 03:22:00 - [9] - Quote no insurance to people who are concorded ships with good cargo will be suicide ganked and looted as before suicide ganking random ships and newbie players will always be detrimental. atm if you gank a hulk you lose a very small amount of isk if you loot yourself+ the dead guy. this should never happen. no i wasn't ganked, i dont even mine, but its stupid that i can use a cheap ship and kill and expensive ship with almost 0 penalty.
Ioci Space Mermaids 62	Posted - 2012.01.27 03:23:00 - [10] - Quote I have a better idea. Put fake Plex in the game. Hull tank Baddon with 4 or 5 of those, I can cost them a billion or 2 before they find out it was all a scam.
Arctur Vallfar Knights Adamant 71	Posted - 2012.01.27 03:35:00 - [11] - Quote Ioci wrote: I have a better idea. Put fake Plex in the game. Hull tank Baddon with 4 or 5 of those, I can cost them a billion or 2 before they find out it was all a scam. Might not even have to be that elaborate. All you need to do is bait with a ship and leak that it's supposedly loaded with high isk cargo in the correct manner. You might not get many biters, but any fool can be piloting an expensive gank fit.
Ganagati Perkone Caldari State 40	Posted - 2012.01.27 03:43:00 - [12] - Quote Ioci wrote: I have a better idea. Put fake Plex in the game. Hull tank Baddon with 4 or 5 of those, I can cost them a billion or 2 before they find out it was all a scam. I cannot express how much I love this idea
Brock Nelson 317	Posted - 2012.01.27 03:45:00 - [13] - Quote Herping yourDerp wrote: no insurance to people who are concorded You know that it will make no differences to gankers as to how much insurance isk they can get back I don't always like to modify my sell order but when I do, I like to spin my mouse wheel
Thomas Abernathy Viziam Amarr Empire 52	Posted - 2012.01.27 04:03:00 - [14] - Quote Brock Nelson wrote: Ganagati wrote: The reason, as a PvP player, that I dislike suicide ganking is that there are no risks involved that are not calculated for the attackers. They know how much they will lose, how much they will gain, and what will be involved along the way. I don't want to see suiciding removed... far from it. I want to... spice it up a bit for other players, and maybe open a new line of work. A good Samaritan rule with CONCORD. If a player is under attack by a suicide group, that suicide group becomes KOS for everyone around until their ship is destroyed. As it stands, if a freighter gets attacked by a group of pirates and I step in to help, the "police" will say "lol, idiot. You attacked someone without provocation". 0_o Really? I'm trying to save some hauler from his definite demise and I'm getting told I'm a criminal? Highsec PvP is too limited because CONCORD gets in the way of actively participating to protect others. People in the same group as a freighter, hired to protect it, cannot do anything when a suicide group attacks because they would just get blown up themselves. This change would allow a new line of work in highsec- escorts. =D Got a freighter you want to see moved from point A to point B? We'll help take down any suiciders that cause you problems! I dunno, seemed fun to me. What could you possibly do in the 5 seconds before Concord shows up? Repping the victim won't do **. Attacking the attacker won't do ** except get you on a km. I've popped a number of would be gankers before Concord showed...it's not that hard...they generally don't tank... "Fighting CCD since 2139"
Thorn Galen Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Sanctuary Pact 375	Posted - 2012.01.27 04:15:00 - [15] - Quote It's this stupid topic yet again. Same crap, different day. The universe is an ancient desert, a vast wasteland with only occasional habitable planets as oases. We Fremen, comfortable with deserts, shall now venture into another. - STILGAR, From the Sietch to the Stars.
Skydell Space Mermaids 120	Posted - 2012.01.27 04:18:00 - [16] - Quote Thorn Galen wrote: It's this stupid topic yet again. Same crap, different day. It's this stupid reply yet again? Same crap, different day
Thorn Galen Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Sanctuary Pact 375	Posted - 2012.01.27 04:53:00 - [17] - Quote Skydell wrote: Thorn Galen wrote: It's this stupid topic yet again. Same crap, different day. It's this stupid reply yet again? Same crap, different day Ok my bad, sorry. Same crap, different thread. Endless vomit and rehash, Pvp, Ganking, Ganking, Pvp, Pvp, Ganking, Ganking, Pvp. Rinse and repeat. EvE is more than this. The universe is an ancient desert, a vast wasteland with only occasional habitable planets as oases. We Fremen, comfortable with deserts, shall now venture into another. - STILGAR, From the Sietch to the Stars.
Wot I Think State War Academy Caldari State 254	Posted - 2012.01.27 04:54:00 - [18] - Quote Vyl Vit wrote: POINT W E B !
Asuka Solo Stark Fujikawa Stark Enterprises 1137	Posted - 2012.01.27 05:22:00 - [19] - Quote Have concord sue the ganker for the isk value of the victims destroyed stuff, if he haz the isk or not, if he ganked outside of a wardec in hisec. Negative wallets will solve this problem.
Thorn Galen Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Sanctuary Pact 376	Posted - 2012.01.27 05:27:00 - [20] - Quote Asuka Solo wrote: Have concord sue the ganker for the isk value of the victims destroyed stuff, if he haz the isk or not, if he ganked outside of a wardec in hisec. Negative wallets will solve this problem. That gave me a good laugh The universe is an ancient desert, a vast wasteland with only occasional habitable planets as oases. We Fremen, comfortable with deserts, shall now venture into another. - STILGAR, From the Sietch to the Stars.
Ai Shun 189	Posted - 2012.01.27 05:36:00 - [21] - Quote Ioci wrote: I have a better idea. Put fake Plex in the game. Hull tank Baddon with 4 or 5 of those, I can cost them a billion or 2 before they find out it was all a scam. I like this. I really like this.
ASadOldGit School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 118	Posted - 2012.01.27 06:08:00 - [22] - Quote Brock Nelson wrote: Ganagati wrote: [Good Samaritan stuff] What could you possibly do in the 5 seconds before Concord shows up? Repping the victim won't do **. Attacking the attacker won't do ** except get you on a km. Actually, this is something I'd quite like some clarification on. I understand that I could try attacking the ganker, as he'd be red, but is it possible to try repping the victim without being in fleet, or not being in the same corp, without getting a GCC? (even if I aggressed the ganker?) Or does Concord just not understand your intent? And from the other point of view, if someone was repping the ganker, they'd get warned about GCC now, right, and Concord takes them out too (or is that just aggression?) My container is NOT imploding! It's just a bit upset that it only sees cheap crap.
Emiko Luan Ekchuah's Shrine Comporium 27	Posted - 2012.01.27 07:16:00 - [23] - Quote every industrial really needs more mids... +welcome to my world+ http://venomzer0.deviantart.com
RubyPorto Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion 1294	Posted - 2012.01.27 07:56:00 - [24] - Quote ASadOldGit wrote: Brock Nelson wrote: Ganagati wrote: [Good Samaritan stuff] What could you possibly do in the 5 seconds before Concord shows up? Repping the victim won't do **. Attacking the attacker won't do ** except get you on a km. Actually, this is something I'd quite like some clarification on. I understand that I could try attacking the ganker, as he'd be red, but is it possible to try repping the victim without being in fleet, or not being in the same corp, without getting a GCC? (even if I aggressed the ganker?) Or does Concord just not understand your intent? And from the other point of view, if someone was repping the ganker, they'd get warned about GCC now, right, and Concord takes them out too (or is that just aggression?) As soon as the gankers activate an offensive module, you can fire on them at will. CONCORD will be shooting them when they arrive, but you will be fine, as you shot someone with GCC (which means they're KOS). Repping someone only makes you a legal target if the rep target is legal for someone to shoot (Suicide Gank target is not a legal target for the attackers). Repping someone (so long as they're not GCC or [I believe, not quite sure] Outlaw) will never get you CONCORDed. If you're repping someone before they go GCC, the repper will quit it's cycle and ask if you want to keep repping (showing the CONCORD warning) Single-Shard, Player Driven Sandbox. 5 words. That's what makes it special in my eyes.
ASadOldGit School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 118	Posted - 2012.01.27 08:07:00 - [25] - Quote Ok, thanks for that, Ruby. My container is NOT imploding! It's just a bit upset that it only sees cheap crap.
RubyPorto Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion 1294	Posted - 2012.01.27 08:20:00 - [26] - Quote ASadOldGit wrote: Ok, thanks for that, Ruby. Anytime. Hisec Aggression and CONCORD mechanics are a little opaque. Though there is one constant. You will ALWAYS get a CONCORD warning before taking an action that can result in being CONCORDED (there was a great story about getting some guy to sit at a safespot and run smartbombs, then warping Dozens of pods in on him) Single-Shard, Player Driven Sandbox. 5 words. That's what makes it special in my eyes.
Rel'k Bloodlor Mecha Enterprises Fleet 99	Posted - 2012.01.27 08:46:00 - [27] - Quote Well if they go GCC you can fight them any were. What you need is a fast locking ECM, TD, or Heavy damping ship. They go red you insta lock and ECM, you save the victim, they get CONCORDed. I am in Factional Warfare. Have been from day one.-á-áI will never work for a mega corp in null-sec. Do not make FW like null-sec.-áMake FW worth our time. Reword us for what we already do.Give us some more activities to do.
DeMichael Crimson Republic University Minmatar Republic 1009	Posted - 2012.01.27 11:16:00 - [28] - Quote Asuka Solo wrote: Have concord sue the ganker for the isk value of the victims destroyed stuff, if he haz the isk or not, if he ganked outside of a wardec in hisec. Negative wallets will solve this problem. Not too bad of an idea. Have Concord also confiscate the attackers surviving cargo to help fund the Policeman's Ball and also impound the victims surviving cargo which is returned to the victim at the nearest Concord/DED station. Now that would solve the problem.
Rel'k Bloodlor Mecha Enterprises Fleet 103	Posted - 2012.01.27 11:28:00 - [29] - Quote why rewards? I kill pies and GCC's in hi sec for the lolz and the KM And hell it hapens to me too, some times am a little to piratey or forget I can't be in amarr space. You just have to learn to be swift to catch the fly, grasshopper. I am in Factional Warfare. Have been from day one.-á-áI will never work for a mega corp in null-sec. Do not make FW like null-sec.-áMake FW worth our time. Reword us for what we already do.Give us some more activities to do.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 4567	Posted - 2012.01.27 11:38:00 - [30] - Quote It took eight posts to point out what should have been said in the very first answerGÇª I wonder how many complaints about ganking would disappear if more people took the time to educate themselves about the options already available to them. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ If not, contact Miss DSA to shed your wardecs.
Ten Bulls Sons of Olsagard 70	Posted - 2012.01.27 11:45:00 - [31] - Quote Make the suicide gankers pods kill on site by any players too.
DeMichael Crimson Republic University Minmatar Republic 1009	Posted - 2012.01.27 11:49:00 - [32] - Quote Ten Bulls wrote: Make the suicide gankers pods kill on site by any players too. Well, Concord is against pod killing. However, if the attackers were to do a pod kill, then their pods become eligible.
Ganagati Perkone Caldari State 50	Posted - 2012.01.27 12:22:00 - [33] - Quote DeMichael Crimson wrote: Ten Bulls wrote: Make the suicide gankers pods kill on site by any players too. Well, Concord is against pod killing. However, if the attackers were to do a pod kill, then their pods become eligible. I still like the fake PLEX idea... or at least a way to trick scanners =D
J'as Salarkin Ministry of War Amarr Empire 5	Posted - 2012.01.27 14:00:00 - [34] - Quote Its none of my business as I am not a suicide ganker and I do not haul as a business, but an obvious "solution" (if there is need for one) to making the whole ganking more in line with the rest of eve came to mind: The "problem" seems to be that it is to easy for the suicide gankers to make a calculable profit. Of course the loot can be destroyed but that is a 50-50 deal and easily to account for. Why not add a chameleon device that can be fitted to your ship. It lets you fake the fitting you have. You can pick what you want the ship scanner to show so that you can try and fool them into using the wrong ammo, or forcing them to use double the amount of ships normally necessary to gank you just to get a sure kill! The ship scanner should see the chameleon device and have a small chance, say in the range of 5% to scan the right modules you have fitted. A clever ganker will re-scan the ship over and over again, eventually getting a hint of what the real fitting is. The drawback for the hauler is of course that he/she needs to give up one slot for fitting the device to begin with. For a freighter this is obviously not an option, but I am personally of the opinion that if you can gank a freighter and make a profit, you deserved it!
Zimmy Zeta Battle Force Industries Tactical Invader Syndicate 765	Posted - 2012.01.27 14:25:00 - [35] - Quote How about some epic justice? Ganked Miners can put a bounty on their perpetrators...but a bounty in ore, not in isk. The Ganker will now be a valid target to anyone until he has mined the according amount of ore and handed it out to conocord to pay off his debt to society -.-
RubyPorto Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion 1307	Posted - 2012.01.28 02:35:00 - [36] - Quote J'as Salarkin wrote: Its none of my business as I am not a suicide ganker and I do not haul as a business, but an obvious "solution" (if there is need for one) to making the whole ganking more in line with the rest of eve came to mind: The "problem" seems to be that it is to easy for the suicide gankers to make a calculable profit. Of course the loot can be destroyed but that is a 50-50 deal and easily to account for. Why not add a chameleon device that can be fitted to your ship. It lets you fake the fitting you have. You can pick what you want the ship scanner to show so that you can try and fool them into using the wrong ammo, or forcing them to use double the amount of ships normally necessary to gank you just to get a sure kill! The ship scanner should see the chameleon device and have a small chance, say in the range of 5% to scan the right modules you have fitted. A clever ganker will re-scan the ship over and over again, eventually getting a hint of what the real fitting is. The drawback for the hauler is of course that he/she needs to give up one slot for fitting the device to begin with. For a freighter this is obviously not an option, but I am personally of the opinion that if you can gank a freighter and make a profit, you deserved it! Ok, so all my haulers are fit with Estamel's gear (and if I want to actually travel with one Estamel's inuln, I'll pop it in a t1 indy's mid slot). tl;dr No. Single-Shard, Player Driven Sandbox. 5 words. That's what makes it special in my eyes.
met worst Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 103	Posted - 2012.01.28 02:55:00 - [37] - Quote Much easier to just remove Concord, wardecs and standings. Make NIPS/NAPS illegal. Put guns and tank on indys and freighters, remove all gate guns and just let it be a total free-for-all. **** it. Why not?
met worst Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 103	Posted - 2012.01.28 02:57:00 - [38] - Quote Zimmy Zeta wrote: How about some epic justice? Ganked Miners can put a bounty on their perpetrators...but a bounty in ore, not in isk. The Ganker will now be a valid target to anyone until he has mined the according amount of ore and handed it out to conocord to pay off his debt to society That is soooo cruel man. Picture it - Mittens in a Mackinaw. Helicity in Hulk. ~~CCP in Retrievers.~~ Perish the thought.
RubyPorto Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion 1307	Posted - 2012.01.28 03:04:00 - [39] - Quote met worst wrote: Much easier to just remove Concord, wardecs and standings. Make NIPS/NAPS illegal. Put guns and tank on indys and freighters, remove all gate guns and just let it be a total free-for-all. **** it. Why not? Ok. How do you enforce the ban on NAPS? Surely you're not suggesting we be forced to shoot a target we don't want to shoot. Single-Shard, Player Driven Sandbox. 5 words. That's what makes it special in my eyes.
met worst Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 107	Posted - 2012.01.28 05:53:00 - [40] - Quote RubyPorto wrote: met worst wrote: Much easier to just remove Concord, wardecs and standings. Make NIPS/NAPS illegal. Put guns and tank on indys and freighters, remove all gate guns and just let it be a total free-for-all. **** it. Why not? Ok. How do you enforce the ban on NAPS? Surely you're not suggesting we be forced to shoot a target we don't want to shoot. Remove the standings tools. Then just follow Rule N B S I Harden up a little.
RubyPorto Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion 1427	Posted - 2012.01.28 06:03:00 - [41] - Quote met worst wrote: RubyPorto wrote: met worst wrote: Much easier to just remove Concord, wardecs and standings. Make NIPS/NAPS illegal. Put guns and tank on indys and freighters, remove all gate guns and just let it be a total free-for-all. **** it. Why not? Ok. How do you enforce the ban on NAPS? Surely you're not suggesting we be forced to shoot a target we don't want to shoot. Remove the standings tools. Then just follow Rule N B S I Harden up a little. 1) I fly in fleets that fight alongside groups with whom my alliance has no or neutral standings pretty regularly. 2) In a social game, why would you want to punish people for wanting to socialize? Single-Shard, Player Driven Sandbox. 5 words. That's what makes it special in my eyes.
Voreldrix Egivand Homeworld Republic United Homeworlds 0	Posted - 2012.02.14 14:37:00 - [42] - Quote This whole topic makes me laugh to be honest with you xD All the high sec carebears whining about being killed by suicide gankers, well its your fault for A) Being a bot or B) being sad enough to stare at a rock all day and shoot lasers at it. The whole point of EVE that it is a FREE universe. As soon as you start punishing people (more than having their ships destroyed) for high sec ganking / other piracy it takes away that freedom. In fact it does take quite alot of though / effort to suicide gank. You have to get a fairly decent fit and skills to be able to down a hulk / mackinaw, you have to locate the right system, and then co-ordinate an attack (if you aren't doing it solo). To be honest with you it is pretty fun :D and one of the main reason people suicide gank is purely to troll people, and threads like this just keep it going :) There is already alot of punishment in place anyway. Such as your ship getting blown up, global criminal cool down, alot of sec status loss. Peace out, carebears!
Shazzam Vokanavom Hedion University Amarr Empire 145	Posted - 2012.02.14 15:02:00 - [43] - Quote Voreldrix Egivand wrote: There is already alot of punishment in place anyway. Such as your ship getting blown up, global criminal cool down, alot of sec status loss. Peace out, carebears! Of course the other ship isnt blown up? How does GCC actually help when your point about your ship being blown up is relevant? Security loss is a joke, and is more than manageble by fast ratting techniques. When a person can plex in an afternoon at suicide ganking multiple targets it really seems like a deterant to me. And I always love the way how people have this expectation that criminal activities should be without issue or a need to face consequence, it really does suggest the level of complacancy given to them due to the lack of an effective player policing system. "Please, don't let the soft industrial have a way to fight back, it means I might get shot at." and then you argue about promoting PvP and risk aversion. Your actually more whiney and hypocritical than any of the extreme carebear attitudes we occasionally get to see. I'll reset my crystals to tear collection.
kla samon Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 15	Posted - 2012.02.14 15:27:00 - [44] - Quote Being able to haul decoy cargo would make the suicide ganking equation alot more interesting and fun. I'd love to be able to bait people into taking shots at my ships filled with decoy cargo.
Florence Cesaille The Kurian Order 0	Posted - 2012.02.14 15:59:00 - [45] - Quote Ganagati wrote: The reason, as a PvP player, that I dislike suicide ganking is that there are no risks involved that are not calculated for the attackers. They know how much they will lose, how much they will gain, and what will be involved along the way. I don't want to see suiciding removed... far from it. I want to... spice it up a bit for other players, and maybe open a new line of work. A good Samaritan rule with CONCORD. If a player is under attack by a suicide group, that suicide group becomes KOS for everyone around until their ship is destroyed. As it stands, if a freighter gets attacked by a group of pirates and I step in to help, the "police" will say "lol, idiot. You attacked someone without provocation". 0_o Really? I'm trying to save some hauler from his definite demise and I'm getting told I'm a criminal? Highsec PvP is too limited because CONCORD gets in the way of actively participating to protect others. People in the same group as a freighter, hired to protect it, cannot do anything when a suicide group attacks because they would just get blown up themselves. This change would allow a new line of work in highsec- escorts. =D Got a freighter you want to see moved from point A to point B? We'll help take down any suiciders that cause you problems! I dunno, seemed fun to me. Eliminate Concord as it is. Have Concord be player run with lots of resources...like someone calls for help and they can warp to them quickly. To make sure the player police is not outnumbered (if you must) then have Concord as backup but to a much lesser extent than now. The Player Concord LP store should have great stuff. I do not understand why CCP didn't design it this way in a PvP game while instead putting in NPC police.
bartos100 DARK ADAMA 6	Posted - 2012.02.14 16:15:00 - [46] - Quote I would love some decoy cargo That would makethe gankers think twice
Sabren Bel 7th Division 0	Posted - 2012.02.14 16:23:00 - [47] - Quote Give the victim a Concord kill mail showing that the ganker was killed by Concord. And let this kill mail be postable to kill boards by the victim. Should deter some when their kill stats show a 1:1 kill ratio.
Zag'mar Jurkar QC Steel Industries 9	Posted - 2012.02.14 17:03:00 - [48] - Quote Having fake items in cargo would be a nice idea. Give the gankers a chance to see if it is fake or not depending on their scanning skills, giving some time dedication to do their "job" more effectively.
Ranger 1 Ranger Corp 981	Posted - 2012.02.14 17:18:00 - [49] - Quote If you want to make things interesting, at least as far as ganks on cargo ships is concerned, two things come to mind. 1: A module that can mask the contents of your cargo hold. 2: Introduce a skill that allows you to shave off 1km from the 15km autopilot warp in per skill level. Advantages (to all concerned): 1: Cargo pilots can feel good that the pirate must take a gamble as to whether they are a worthwhile target or not. 2: Cargo pilots reduce the time spent hauling goods. 3: Because of the previous two points, cargo pilots will be feel quite confident and encouraged to haul expensive cargo via autopilot in much larger volume than they currently are. It would be a cornucopia of easily gankable wealth flowing like never before. If the hauler has this module fitted (detectable by scanning his fittings) you will know he tends to haul more expensive items than he should... the only question is whether is is empty or full when you target him. Edit: This would also encourage and play into any fleshing out of the smuggler profession in EVE. By the way, sucide ganks are not a problem to be "solved". However there is always room to consider making the mechanics of it more interesting for both sides. When I check troll in the dictionary, it has a photo shopped picture of you standing somewhere in the vicinity of a point. Also, I can kill you with my brain.
Ioci Space Mermaids Somethin Awfull Forums 75	Posted - 2012.02.14 17:23:00 - [50] - Quote The trouble with giving Concord to player is, EVE is a meta game. You won't kill me for ganking you, my alt will.
Ranger 1 Ranger Corp 981	Posted - 2012.02.14 17:28:00 - [51] - Quote Ioci wrote: The trouble with giving Concord to player is, EVE is a meta game. You won't kill me for ganking you, my alt will. That, and response time. You will never, ever, be able to beat Concord to a gank if you have to enter warp to get there. The only way you could hope to intervene is if you are already on location, which turns it into more of a body guard situation than a Concord like patrol. When I check troll in the dictionary, it has a photo shopped picture of you standing somewhere in the vicinity of a point. Also, I can kill you with my brain.
J3ssica Alba Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 110	Posted - 2012.02.14 17:49:00 - [52] - Quote Voreldrix Egivand wrote: This whole topic makes me laugh to be honest with you xD All the high sec carebears whining about being killed by suicide gankers, well its your fault for A) Being a bot or B) being sad enough to stare at a rock all day and shoot lasers at it. The whole point of EVE that it is a FREE universe. As soon as you start punishing people (more than having their ships destroyed) for high sec ganking / other piracy it takes away that freedom. In fact it does take quite alot of though / effort to suicide gank. You have to get a fairly decent fit and skills to be able to down a hulk / mackinaw, you have to locate the right system, and then co-ordinate an attack (if you aren't doing it solo). To be honest with you it is pretty fun :D and one of the main reason people suicide gank is purely to troll people, and threads like this just keep it going :) There is already alot of punishment in place anyway. Such as your ship getting blown up, global criminal cool down, alot of sec status loss. Peace out, carebears! The rest of the thread was pretty much about freighters/indies getting ganked on gates but you saw miners and mining everywhere. You must be a miner at heart.
Alistair Cononach The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance 120	Posted - 2012.02.14 18:29:00 - [53] - Quote The answer is simple. If you are killed by CONCORD in High Sec, you get a 24 hour Universal Killrights status. Anyone can shoot and kill you anywhere in EVE for the next 24 hours, CONCORD and Gate Gun free. YOu can, of course, defend yourself CONCORD and Gategun Free as well if attacked. Seems fair, and logical, that a High-Sec lawbreaker would not just get popped by the spcae cops, but have a bounty on his head for a wee bit afterwards. Would restore some balance to Suicide Ganking, some danger and potential cost, whilst opening up the "Bounty Hunter" profession some (players coudl roam around, or even perhaps get a listing, or high-sec "Wanted men" to go chanse after). But it leaves in place the risk of being killed anywhere at any time, something IMO vital to EVE. I think it's a win/win. Bears still die, Gankers still gank, and now Pirate/Ganker Hunters have a brand new profession, and more fights will happen. A win all round.
Shazzam Vokanavom Hedion University Amarr Empire 148	Posted - 2012.02.14 19:22:00 - [54] - Quote Pretty much as detailed in this thread: Bounty Hunting for CSM 7 The view you mention is very much supported in the proposal presented by Malcanis therein.
Ganagati Perkone Caldari State 78	Posted - 2012.02.14 19:49:00 - [55] - Quote I'm not looking for CONCORD to do anything more than they do now... in fact, I don't mind if CONCORD does LESS than it does now. What I want is introduce risks that aren't calculated for the suicide ganker. Gankers are by no means PvPers. Nullsec players, highsec carebears, WH players- none of them view them as such. Only other suiciders make such claims. I'd like to see that changed. I'd like for suicidebears to have an opportunity to see what PvP actually is in EVE, and get to experience the loss of their ship like any other PvP player. And I don't want CONCORD to do it for me. I guess the simplest solution would be to remove highsec entirely. But since that won't happen, I'd like for a solution to make combat a little more open when it comes to suicide gankers. Proof Titans are rare (just another null battle): http://i.imgur.com/CY6x4.jpg-áBattles in EVE can look kinda silly sometimes, huh?
Eternus8lux8lucis Whack-A-Mole 66	Posted - 2012.02.15 06:12:00 - [56] - Quote Voreldrix Egivand wrote: This whole topic makes me laugh to be honest with you xD All the high sec carebears whining about being killed by suicide gankers, well its your fault for A) Being a bot or B) being sad enough to stare at a rock all day and shoot lasers at it. The whole point of EVE that it is a FREE universe. As soon as you start punishing people (more than having their ships destroyed) for high sec ganking / other piracy it takes away that freedom. In fact it does take quite alot of though / effort to suicide gank. You have to get a fairly decent fit and skills to be able to down a hulk / mackinaw, you have to locate the right system, and then co-ordinate an attack (if you aren't doing it solo). To be honest with you it is pretty fun :D and one of the main reason people suicide gank is purely to troll people, and threads like this just keep it going :) There is already alot of punishment in place anyway. Such as your ship getting blown up, global criminal cool down, alot of sec status loss. Peace out, carebears! So why can I, within a trial account, skill up a toon and go ganking away then? If its oh so difficult to do as you say? Its NOT difficult at all. Consistently getting really GOOD kills like this guy does all the time IS hard http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=12431357 But ganking a hulk or a mack takes literally EVEN less brain power and skill than suiciding someone hauling stuff. I know this because Ive been on both sides of the coin in this game and know how hard or easy it all is. Stop talking out your ass about it. Strength isnt measured in numbers but in force of will. For if one motived willful individual stands many will fall around him that are weak. http://tinyurl.com/YarrFace
Abyss Azizora Yuengling Technologies 1	Posted - 2012.02.15 08:06:00 - [57] - Quote Zimmy Zeta wrote: How about some epic justice? Ganked Miners can put a bounty on their perpetrators...but a bounty in ore, not in isk. The Ganker will now be a valid target to anyone until he has mined the according amount of ore and handed it out to conocord to pay off his debt to society You almost had me rolling on the floor. I so support this, and demand it be made a mechanic asap. Watching gankers(aka wannabe carebear pirates) try and mine away their permanent GCC in lowsec with a frigate/ibss while being constantly preyed upon by "real" pirates would be absolutely priceless.
tiberiusric Comply Or Die 8	Posted - 2012.02.15 08:33:00 - [58] - Quote the only way anything like this can be stopped is by bringing in 'consensual combat only' in highsec. However if that happens then i think they should vastly reduce the number of highsec systems, and hopefully make low sec more busy. So this way everyone wins, the real highsec carebears get to live in peace, however with reduced systems, comes reduced resources etc, comes saturation, comes eventual frustration. So hopefully many will venture to live in low sec, thus giving the 'pvpers' more targets to shoot. So win win all around
Jacob Holland Weyland-Vulcan Industries Alliance not Found 15	Posted - 2012.02.15 08:56:00 - [59] - Quote A point which interests me is that, long ago, suicide gankers would fit plates and extenders and massively buffer their ganking ships because CONCORD did damage like everyone else and buffer gave them time for perhaps another volley or two. When CONCORD became "Heal=0" it of course increased the hull costs involved in a gank because there was no chance of getting an extra volley off and so more ships are required to gank a large target. A (probably) unintended consequence of the change though was to free up slots for the ganker and the fits can now load up more heavily on gank modules, SeBos and so forth. Now, with the Alpha available from 1400mm 'nadoes and Apocs, returning CONCORD to their previous form would do little to change the environment except making tougher ships (combat ships, Freighters and Orcas primarily) more vulnerable but (as I don't recall having seen any explanation) I do wonder what the thinking was behind the change.
Andski GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 2067	Posted - 2012.02.15 09:00:00 - [60] - Quote this thread sure is full of whining stop being targets yeah no i'm not actually running for csm7 got you lol!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one 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.