EVE Search - possible suicide gank fix (now with 75% less nerf)

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

possible suicide gank fix (now with 75% less nerf)

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Kia Rash	Posted - 2008.03.13 15:29:00 - [1] first of all, i know most people have already discussed this to death, but i still think i have something to add, also if this idea has been posted before, then my apologies, but i couldn't find anything. disclaimer: all percentages and numbers i put in here are basicly just after a quick think trough, im not an very good economist or eve knowledgebase, and as such, if you think its should have different %-tages, please say so also, my english has been know to suck from time to time, especially in writing english, so basicly: (sp?) for this whole post basic premise: if concord is too late to save a suicide gankee, then the gankee should recieve 25% of the incurance payback of the suicide ganker and the remaining 75% should still be given to the ganker. what this would solve is that peopple losing the ship to the gank will still get something, making that act have less impact on them, they will still loose out ofcourse, but less. the ganker would lose a bit more money than he does now, but with high value targets it would still be worthwile to SG, this would still leave it as a proffesion in eve. this also wouldnt save any idiots that fly 5b cargo freighters around, nor would it make it worthless to gank that gist x setup raven. but then the only bad part i see..... macro miners but this is something i think that we cant fix too much, all things you do that benefits normal players, will benefit macro-ers. also i know that implementing this would be hard, as the ships ganking are for the client not really in any way bound to the gankee, but you could implement that: (ill give an example, as trying to explain it in words turned out to be hard) -ship A starts attacking ship B -no wardec, no killright ... concord flag! -ship A kills ship B -concord kills ship A ship A now always just gets 75% as per new rules. ship B now also gets its full insurance(if insured), and now from the momment that the concord flag goes in, you check any kill mails ship A gets, till ship A gets killed by concord. any kills that were made get the remaining 25% insurannce of ship A(if multiple ships you will get a even split), rince and repeat for all ships(if multiple) that were ganked and all the ships of the gankers(if multiple). personally i dont really see an exploitability, as theres no creation of "free" money anywhere(nothing more that insurance gives out atm anyway), but if you see an exploitability, just point it out. discuss!
Guillome Renard	Posted - 2008.03.13 15:53:00 - [2] Gankees shouldn't get paid. That just encourages people to try and be victims. no. If you're going to tweak insurance payouts for criminals? CONCORD should seize all insurance payouts on ships they destroy. I mean, they're already seizing the ship in a way, seisure of the insurance payout to compensate CONCORD for the deployment (think of it like a speeding ticket) of assets (their insta-port methods probably burn a lot of ice fuel) is perfectly consistent with enforcement politics.
Plave Okice	Posted - 2008.03.13 15:54:00 - [3] "Fix?" It works as CCP intended as they have stated, it doesn't need a fix. What needs a fix is the mindset of the "victims". CEORed Vs Blue
Bloody Rabbit	Posted - 2008.03.13 16:06:00 - [4] No your "fix" doesn't work at all and still won't protect the stupid ones who auto travel with 2+ billion in their bays.
Kia Rash	Posted - 2008.03.13 16:18:00 - [5] Originally by: Bloody Rabbit No your "fix" doesn't work at all and still won't protect the stupid ones who auto travel with 2+ billion in their bays. that is because i dont want to protect them, they should be viable targets still, i in no way want to sugest to remove suicide ganking. Originally by: Plave Okice "Fix?" It works as CCP intended as they have stated, it doesn't need a fix. What needs a fix is the mindset of the "victims". /agree, but its still beign used to great affect to grief, this way the grief part can be a bit less. i understand fully that eve is supposed to be harsh, and i love it that way, and ive used that to my advantage a few times sofar, but i think that griefing doesnt have any added value to eve beign harsh. if a target is worth it, it still will be a good way to make money. Originally by: Guillome Renard Gankees shouldn't get paid. That just encourages people to try and be victims... .... the 4 mill you will get if you get killed by a brutix or the 25 mill you will get from a raven wont make you want to go out and get ganked i would imagine, also the ganker wont do it if its not worthwile, so the gankee always still will lose out.
Imperator Jora'h	Posted - 2008.03.13 16:21:00 - [6] Originally by: Plave Okice "Fix?" It works as CCP intended as they have stated, it doesn't need a fix. What needs a fix is the mindset of the "victims". That suicide ganks are allowable/possible I agree. That does not mean the balancing is not skewed and could use adjustment. Almost all people I see in these discussions tend to agree getting blown up by CONCORD then having a full insurance payout is absurd. I agree that ganks should occur and be part of the game. I disagree with the balance when you can drop a billion ISK ship for around 400 million (and that is just the hulls...nevermind the cargo). The OP is just trying a different spin on change the ISK balance on the spreadsheet once the deed is done. I have not thought through the implications but not sure it is necessary to do it that way. There are many ways to change-up the balance sheet. Make freighters/haulers cheaper, make combat ships more expensive, nerf insurance payouts if CONCORDED...lots of ways to go about it (or combinations of ways). What I would REALLY prefer to see are some reliable and doable (as a practical matter) ways to appropriately guard a hauler. As it is hauler guards are ham strung and can do little to nothing to stop a determined gank and that is bogus. -------------------------------------------------- "Of course," said my grandfather, pulling a gun from his belt as he stepped from the Time Machine, "there's no paradox if I shoot you!" ------
Del Narveux	Posted - 2008.03.13 16:22:00 - [7] 75% insurance is good, as we all know the main problem with ganking is certain ships can be sucided for a loss of <5% loss, but 25% to the victim seems a bit rich. _________________ [IMAGE REMOVED] -- aka Cpt Bogus -- Is that my torped sig cloaking your base?
Freya Runestone	Posted - 2008.03.13 16:47:00 - [8] Why do people keep insisting that a fix is needed? geez, stop auto-piloting to jita
Tank CEO	Posted - 2008.03.13 16:50:00 - [9] Yo I GOT THE GREATEST IDEA, ITS TOTALLY INSANELY IMPOSSIBLY CRAZY BUT ITS GOOD WANNA HEAR IT?? YOU SURE?? DONT GO AFK! OMFG ------------- Jita is mine.
Rathawk	Posted - 2008.03.13 16:57:00 - [10] I don't any insurance payments should go out to any of those those ships that are Concorded. Its as if I have burned my house down to collect the insurance money. If the pirates want to use the suicide gank technique, they should, by all means, do so, but the act should not be subsized by the insurance company. -Rathawk
Kia Rash	Posted - 2008.03.13 17:43:00 - [11] Originally by: Freya Runestone Why do people keep insisting that a fix is needed? geez, stop auto-piloting to jita because currently a few groups(not anly the goons btw) are using suicide ganking, not to make isk, but just for destruction(i understand there may be secondary or tertiary objectives, like pushing up price(and making profit that way) or having pre knowledge and buying in before, and selling after in the affected regions. but most smaller groups doing that couldnt possibly make enough to make it worthwile) also, believe it or not, im not an industrialist nor much of a carebear, most of the time i bounce around lowsec, im not really a pirate either though(but i wont pass up a target of opportunity). this idea still wont save idiots that carry 1 bill cargo in a badger, but it will raise the treshhold neaeded to make a return on SG, and in turn, and as an example, if a freighter gets ganked in highsec(with worthwile value to do so) by say 14 domi's, the freighter pilot will get about (domi insuranse is about 55mill right?, sorry for not looking it up) 55m0.25=13.75m, 15=206m. even if that freighter was insured, it would only be a target at about 2.6+ mill so the freighter will still loose out allot. but the treshold would be raised from 2bill, and the freighter pilot gets a tiny bit of isk. from rp this could be explained as the attacker paying a type of fine to the gankee.
Kia Rash	Posted - 2008.03.13 17:48:00 - [12] Edited by: Kia Rash on 13/03/2008 17:49:09 Originally by: Tank CEO Yo I GOT THE GREATEST IDEA, ITS TOTALLY INSANELY IMPOSSIBLY CRAZY BUT ITS GOOD WANNA HEAR IT?? YOU SURE?? DONT GO AFK! OMFG wish everyone would, but expecting everyone to wisen up is in my oppinion right up there on the list with "world peace" or "free energy". also even if you are a very smart pilot, sometimes the adversaries will be just as determined as you. Originally by: Plave Okice What I would REALLY prefer to see are some reliable and doable (as a practical matter) ways to appropriately guard a hauler. As it is hauler guards are ham strung and can do little to nothing to stop a determined gank and that is bogus. this would be my favourite aswell, but most ideas that have been submitted sofar contain some exploitability.
Lyria Skydancer	Posted - 2008.03.13 17:50:00 - [13] Edited by: Lyria Skydancer on 13/03/2008 17:50:40 Edited by: Lyria Skydancer on 13/03/2008 17:50:28 Originally by: Plave Okice What needs a fix is the mindset of the "victims". QFT. If you cant manage to not get griefed/killed/robbed or whatever you want to call it in high sec space, YOU SUCK. There are no ifs of buts. YOU SUCK. -------------------------------------- [Video]Skirmish Warfare
Pantaloon McPants	Posted - 2008.03.13 18:32:00 - [14] Originally by: Lyria Skydancer QFT. If you cant manage to not get griefed/killed/robbed or whatever you want to call it in high sec space, YOU SUCK. There are no ifs of buts. YOU SUCK. The only thing that sucks is your posting. No ifs or buttes or donges or shlongs or candy coated bongs about it!
Lyria Skydancer	Posted - 2008.03.14 01:26:00 - [15] Originally by: Pantaloon McPants Originally by: Lyria Skydancer QFT. If you cant manage to not get griefed/killed/robbed or whatever you want to call it in high sec space, YOU SUCK. There are no ifs of buts. YOU SUCK. The only thing that sucks is your posting. No ifs or buttes or donges or shlongs or candy coated bongs about it! Seriously you do suck if you cant fly around in high sec without breaking a nail. -------------------------------------- [Video]Skirmish Warfare
Celot	Posted - 2008.03.14 01:45:00 - [16] yeah we should totally reward people for being too dumb to take minimal precautions to protect themselves
Kia Rash	Posted - 2008.03.14 02:03:00 - [17] sometimes i wish i could troll a bit, but my corp would hate me for it, but anyway, i would just like to add this(and notice how i say i believe) i believe that this would not in anyway benefit the gankee, as they will always loose more than they gain, or its a very stupid ganker. removing insurance payout would kill SGing and that would be bad, its a very nice added risk to high sec. also i agree that if youre stupid enough to loose WAY too much to a gank that you deserve it. but the treshold for SGing is in my oppinion too low, raising it a bit will in my eyes make it a real proffesion, and the isk towards the gankee can be in both rp and game mechanics way a good way to not have newer players ruined by SG's
Malcanis	Posted - 2008.03.14 02:15:00 - [18] Originally by: Tank CEO Yo I GOT THE GREATEST IDEA, ITS TOTALLY INSANELY IMPOSSIBLY CRAZY BUT ITS GOOD WANNA HEAR IT?? YOU SURE?? DONT GO AFK! OMFG Crazy talk! CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that.
KillinVillin	Posted - 2008.03.14 06:22:00 - [19] Edited by: KillinVillin on 14/03/2008 06:24:40 Here's my fix, No insurance payout for somone that kills anothers ship in Concord Empire. Answer me this, Whens the last time you accidently shot somone... Noob's and expert's alike can have accident's(insurance payout). Now whens the last time you "accidently" blew up someone's ship. That's a fix, not saying i agree with it but hey you should loose something when greifing. Loosing sec status is not that bad. KillinVillin
Zarin	Posted - 2008.03.14 07:12:00 - [20] You don't want to remove it, you want to add some risk for the reward. At the moment the insurance means that you can pretty much gank for free, if your insurance is running out and you haven't died anyway, it's a great thing to do, all you need is some reward, any, and you're ahead. If you removed insurance payout from the ganking party it would still be quite possible, but they would have to think first, how much loot they will get out of it, instead of thinking that even if it drops nothing they are not very far behind.
Primnproper Imperial Academy	Posted - 2008.03.14 12:11:00 - [21] Or you could just adapt to it, for instance don't carry enough to make it profitable to gank you... Or even better take an in corp alt with you and if you do get ganked use him to pop your wreck meaning that the pirates get nothing and in fact if this became standard practice then suicide ganking would stop because it would no longer be profitable, but of course this might require some teamwork for instance...
Seine State War Academy	Posted - 2008.03.14 12:34:00 - [22] Cutting insurance payout on a 3 million isk ship is meaningless. A better idea is to have CONCORD enforce a fine system as they do with contraband materials. When someone shoots someone else in high sec (outside of wardec) and CONCORD must respond the shooter is fined. If these people really want to suicide gank make it cost a couple hundred million isk.
Baasmaell Fondation Yggdrass	Posted - 2008.03.14 13:04:00 - [23] IRL, if you gank someone with your car and break it, i don't think your insurrance will pay for your car destruction. You're acting as an outlaw, so assume it. and of course... pilot afk at your own risk and don't cry if you get gank
Baasmaell Fondation Yggdrass	Posted - 2008.03.14 13:05:00 - [24] Edited by: Baasmaell on 14/03/2008 13:05:36 removed double posting
solace honored ShockTroopers	Posted - 2008.03.14 13:13:00 - [25] I think SGing is a legitimate trade but at the moment is absolutely unfair to the victim,an experienced sg has no risk involved in his trade at the moment , which makes it all a bit sad realy, if you gank with the right ships and fits you know what you will lose and for what.a few suggestions :make haulers defendable by corp members ,at the moment it is ridiculous that the only way to come to a buddies aid is to rep him,and i agree there should be no insurance payout for any concordable act.i actualy think if you add the eliment of risk to the trade, it will become a trade rather than another method to greif.another method may be to add ewar sentries to gates ? if ships are jammed they run the risk of failure at the moment there is no real risk of that. just suggestions and yes im a noob yes im a dumbass so feel free to tear my suggestions to peices :P
Merfio School of Applied Knowledge	Posted - 2008.03.14 13:24:00 - [26] Arrr you ppl are so funny. This morning a friend in my corp was hauling fittings in high sec and not using the AP. Decloaked, locked, ganked in 10 sec. And no it wasnt 2 bill, it was just 70 mill. Hes the bad guy isnt he?
Buyerr Hedion University	Posted - 2008.03.14 13:31:00 - [27] you on purpose do something illegal and thereby get destroyid by the guys you have made a insurence with, you should get NOTHING !!! not a single ISK!!!.. it is so pethetically stupid that you get anything.. really ******* I declare war on stupidity
Kia Rash The Phalanx Expeditionary Conglomerate Blue Sky Consortium	Posted - 2008.03.14 14:22:00 - [28] ok, i see most peopple seem not to have read the actual op, if im wrong, then my apologies and let me just reittirate my views on fully taking insurance away, I disagree fully, totally and absolutely with that suicide ganking is a great addition to this game, but(theres always a but isnt there), i think the treshold is too low, raising the threshold a little would still keep it happening, but not at these volumes(also i add, that i dont know how high the volume actually is. but in my views, its too high.) also, try to keep a little on topic, im not trying to discuss the pros and cons of suicide ganking, but the viability of my little idea sorry for venting, but hey, im annonymously using the interwebs anyway
Thuraya Salairs Macrocosm Advanced Industries	Posted - 2008.03.14 23:36:00 - [29] deturing high-sec ganking SHOULD be done I agree that they should not get any insurance pay out but would like to see it taken even a step more to that any ship destroyed by concord does NOT yield salvage or have any items survice the wreck.
Gamesguy D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.03.14 23:40:00 - [30] Originally by: Merfio Arrr you ppl are so funny. This morning a friend in my corp was hauling fittings in high sec and not using the AP. Decloaked, locked, ganked in 10 sec. And no it wasnt 2 bill, it was just 70 mill. Hes the bad guy isnt he? Liar.
Rob Buie VIRTUAL LIFE VANGUARD Ka-Tet	Posted - 2008.03.14 23:48:00 - [31] Edited by: Rob Buie on 14/03/2008 23:48:27 insurance and concord are or if they arent should be two seperate corporations police in rl should not have control over insurance, only investigation of arson which doesnt seem to be a priority of concord. suicide ganking should not be deterred by anything than the current sec status system. If you suicide gank your an outlaw, a corporation providing insurance doesnt care about your moral status just your wallet.
Merfio School of Applied Knowledge	Posted - 2008.03.15 01:07:00 - [32] Originally by: Gamesguy Originally by: Merfio Arrr you ppl are so funny. This morning a friend in my corp was hauling fittings in high sec and not using the AP. Decloaked, locked, ganked in 10 sec. And no it wasnt 2 bill, it was just 70 mill. Hes the bad guy isnt he? Liar. Its the damn truth you dont want to admit.

Pages: 1 2 :: [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.