EVE Search - A useful suicide ganking change?

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

A useful suicide ganking change?

» 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)
F'nog Celestial Horizon Corp. Valainaloce	Posted - 2008.03.26 04:29:00 - [1] I'm all for suicide ganking, it's a legitimate tactic as along as it isn't with disposable alts, so bear that in mind, though I don't partake in it (I've been tempted to with some of the rewards and stupid setups I've seen). In the old days, maybe in Beta, sec status was supposed to mean something. Back then, positive sec was supposed to make a difference. Currently, there's no difference between 0 and 5 other than a number on the screen. So what about if the victim's sec affected how fast Concord responds? So if you have a higher sec, Concord responds faster than a lower, depending on the sec of the system? Thus people with high standing with Concord get responded to faster? This could add certain variables to the equation other than just the system's sec. I'm just throwing this out there. Feel free to rip it apart (with evidence). It would be nice if there were something to show for having a positive standing, and this is one possible way to do it. Originally by: Kazuma Saruwatari F'nog for Amarr Emperor. Nuff said
Drizit FREEDOM FIRST Black Sun Alliance	Posted - 2008.03.26 04:45:00 - [2] I actually agree with you there. If you have a really bad negative standing, it means you can't enter highsec. Even slightly bad means you can't go to certain systems. However, having a high sec rating means nothing at all. I'd say it's a great idea because it actually gives you a good reason to have a high sec rating. --
Roen Dunaer School of Applied Knowledge	Posted - 2008.03.26 11:29:00 - [3] I like this idea, however, currently it is too easy to build up or recover a positive standing. Therefore, I suggest instituting a "repeat offender" policy to security status. Meaning the more often a character commits a Concord-able offense their maximum attainable Security Status drops not only their current Security Status. For example, currently the maximum attainable Security Status is 5.0 and everyone currently starts at that. As a character commits a Concord-able act their maximum attainable Security Status drops so many points along with their current Security Status. If they commit enough Concord-able offenses the character will end up with a maximum attainable Security Status of -5.0 making them a "permanent criminal." This way characters cannot gank repeatedly, then disappear into low-sec/0.0 for a while to build up their Security Status, and then come back into high-sec to gank all over again. ***** "Live as if you were to die tomorrow. Learn as if you were to live forever." ~Gandhi
Malken Celestial Apocalypse Insurgency	Posted - 2008.03.26 11:37:00 - [4] i think a decaying sec status should be implemented. as in lets say a person havent comitted any crimes in a long time then his sec status should slowly start returning at a very small rate. lets say if no crimes have been done in a month by this person his sec status starts to grow back up at 0.001 a week or something and yeah suicide stuff is fun, all ppl who whine about it are way to much in the hellokitty state of mind tbh.
Avon Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.03.26 11:37:00 - [5] I think higher security status should be rewarded, seems perfectly fair. I'm not sure about linking it to Concord response time though; here is my reasoning: People with higher security status have usually obtained it by grinding missions. Grinding missions earns lots of ISK. Thus, people who have a higher sec status probably have a larger financial buffer than those who do not; and do not need faster Concord response than those who would lose a larger proportion of their wealth in the same attack. That said, I'm not sure what reward you could offer to players with a higher security status which would be fair and balanced - afterall, I kill people all the time, and my sec status is pretty good. Eve-Online: The Text Adventure
Avon Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.03.26 11:38:00 - [6] Originally by: Malken i think a decaying sec status should be implemented. as in lets say a person havent comitted any crimes in a long time then his sec status should slowly start returning at a very small rate. lets say if no crimes have been done in a month by this person his sec status starts to grow back up at 0.001 a week or something and yeah suicide stuff is fun, all ppl who whine about it are way to much in the hellokitty state of mind tbh. That is how the system used to work, along with Concord agents you could bribe or do missions for to increase it more quickly. Eve-Online: The Text Adventure
LaVista Vista Conservative Shenanigans Party	Posted - 2008.03.26 11:43:00 - [7] Well, a start would be to remove insurance from suicide-ganking. But doesnt sec-status already affect you? If you have a good sec-status you can get jump-clones and less tax on market orders.
gfldex Kabelkopp	Posted - 2008.03.26 11:43:00 - [8] Originally by: F'nog In the old days, maybe in Beta, sec status was supposed to mean something. Back then, positive sec was supposed to make a difference. Currently, there's no difference between 0 and 5 other than a number on the screen. In beta and until a few month after release there where no sentries and no CONCORD. The sec status of a player was a label and meant to be one. CCP got the impression that ganking noobs in 1.0 systems was slowing the growth of EVE down so they give up with the player policed space idea. (If that move was successful will ever stay a mystery.) Before I can agree to any change to the sec status system you have to show me that there is a problem. You have to provide numbers like barges destroyed by wars vs. suiciding or number of suicides compared to growth of the player base. All those mindless post in the past few weeks didn't show any evidence that there is a problem but will finally get goons what they want. -- There are countless games in the world. There are at least as many ppl that dont like one or more rules of said games. That never stopped smart game designers from creating good games.
gfldex Kabelkopp	Posted - 2008.03.26 11:45:00 - [9] Originally by: LaVista Vista Well, a start would be to remove insurance from suicide-ganking. But doesnt sec-status already affect you? If you have a good sec-status you can get jump-clones and less tax on market orders. You can't get a sec status of 8.0 anymore. -- There are countless games in the world. There are at least as many ppl that dont like one or more rules of said games. That never stopped smart game designers from creating good games.
Tuberider Pothouse Cartel	Posted - 2008.03.26 11:45:00 - [10] Because i'm bad do i get free Pirate implants ? works both ways Can't afford the ransom ? We do accept poems in local for those short on isky, Subject of our choice
Avon Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.03.26 11:46:00 - [11] Originally by: LaVista Vista Well, a start would be to remove insurance from suicide-ganking. I still don't understand why people keep suggesting this. It will do nothing other than raise the break-even point on a gank, whilst penalising players who lost their ship through a genuine mistake (such as people working together on a mission in a laggy situation, or just misclicking). Eve-Online: The Text Adventure
Tamia Clant New Dawn Corp New Eden Research	Posted - 2008.03.26 11:47:00 - [12] Originally by: LaVista Vista But doesnt sec-status already affect you? If you have a good sec-status you can get jump-clones and less tax on market orders. Not really, it's corp/faction standings that give you the ability to install jump clones and have less tax on market orders. Security status is completely irrelevant in these situations. Looking for queue-free research slots? Click here!
Roen Dunaer School of Applied Knowledge	Posted - 2008.03.26 11:48:00 - [13] Originally by: LaVista Vista Well, a start would be to remove insurance from suicide-ganking. But doesnt sec-status already affect you? If you have a good sec-status you can get jump-clones and less tax on market orders. You're thinking of corp standing not sec-status. You can be -5.0 sec-status and still have 9.95 standing with any given NPC corp. ***** "Live as if you were to die tomorrow. Learn as if you were to live forever." ~Gandhi
gfldex Kabelkopp	Posted - 2008.03.26 11:50:00 - [14] Originally by: Avon I think higher security status should be rewarded, seems perfectly fair. It is already rewarded by giving you the ability to destroy ships and even pods in empire space. If you don't stretch it you can even fly in CONCORD patrolled space 15 minutes after podding somebody as long as you got your sec status up in advance. If that reward is reasonable is a different question. But being able to hurt somebody in a NPC corp (corp thief, mindless smack, etc.) is also a good option to have. What I don't understand is that you lose the same sec status for ganking a hauler in a 1.0 system then you lose by destroying a (semi) pirate in 0.1. -- There are countless games in the world. There are at least as many ppl that dont like one or more rules of said games. That never stopped smart game designers from creating good games.
Jakke Logan State War Academy	Posted - 2008.03.26 11:54:00 - [15] Edited by: Jakke Logan on 26/03/2008 11:56:48 I think the best suicide ganking changes should be as follows: 1. No insurance payouts at all for a death as a result of CONCORD. What real life insurance company in the world is going to issue a policy without a clause exempting them from, for example, paying you if you set fire to your house? This is the same thing, INTENTIONALLY losing your ship to a deliberate suicide attack is deliberate destruction of your own ship. 2. CONCORD PODS people with negative sec standing. Enough of CONCORD ignoring pods after killing the ship. Finish the job. I'd let pods of lowsec people still fly through Empire space, but only if they ENTERED in a pod, not in a ship that was destroyed by CONCORD. This way there are consequences for suicide ganking. Currently there really are none, it's done in T1 ships that are fully insured. There really isn't any risk/reward because the gankers know going in what is going to happen. This would force the gankers to at least take the full LOSS for their ships they used, as well as lose any implants if they don't maintain a positive sec status.
Riho Mercenary Forces	Posted - 2008.03.26 11:57:00 - [16] i like the iea that OP presented... this would mean that positive sec acctually means something ---------------------------------- MY VIEW ARE MY OWN, I DON'T REPRESENT MY CORPORATIONS VIEWS HERE... stop mailing me.. plz
gfldex Kabelkopp	Posted - 2008.03.26 11:57:00 - [17] Originally by: Avon Originally by: LaVista Vista Well, a start would be to remove insurance from suicide-ganking. I still don't understand why people keep suggesting this. Because ppl tend to substitute proper solutions with knee-jerking. Esp. if they are on an election campaign. -- There are countless games in the world. There are at least as many ppl that dont like one or more rules of said games. That never stopped smart game designers from creating good games.
gfldex Kabelkopp	Posted - 2008.03.26 11:58:00 - [18] Originally by: Riho i like the iea that OP presented... this would mean that positive sec acctually means something And how would a miner get a positive sec status? Don't you think that's a bit unfair? -- There are countless games in the world. There are at least as many ppl that dont like one or more rules of said games. That never stopped smart game designers from creating good games.
N'irrti Reach Fuileach	Posted - 2008.03.26 12:08:00 - [19] Originally by: Tuberider Because i'm bad do i get free Pirate implants ? works both ways Supportin this
Rodj Blake PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris	Posted - 2008.03.26 12:10:00 - [20] To those people suggesting that you shouldn't get an insurance payout when killed by CONCORD: have you never accidentally targeted the wrong person whilst lagged out and suffering from a screwy overview? Dulce et decorum est pro imperium mori.
LaVista Vista Conservative Shenanigans Party	Posted - 2008.03.26 12:24:00 - [21] Originally by: Avon Originally by: LaVista Vista Well, a start would be to remove insurance from suicide-ganking. I still don't understand why people keep suggesting this. It will do nothing other than raise the break-even point on a gank, whilst penalising players who lost their ship through a genuine mistake (such as people working together on a mission in a laggy situation, or just misclicking). Thats the whole point of it. If you remove insurance the frequency of suicide ganking will decrease. IF you run around in a Itty V that is dead slow with 20 freighter bpo's its your own fault. But Joe with 50mill worth of stuff shouldnt get ganked.
Lag Hon Lag Hon Security	Posted - 2008.03.26 12:24:00 - [22] No insurance payouts on ships lost by Concord Once Concord has had call to destroy your ship they should pay closer attention to you thus resulting in a faster response time to any illegal actions perfomed by you. All infractions are accumulative to a point where Concord basically is there as soon as you show up even if your in a shuttle. Hi Sec status should be rewarded with a certain degree of leniency from Concord (If you have a Kill record already with Concord you are classified at one sec stat category lower) High Standings +5 and up 1)First illegal shot, Concord issues a warning to cease fire. 2)Continue and Concord wil issue a fine, payable withing 28 days before autodeduct from your wallet. 3)Destroy the ship and u get stomped 4)Non destructive hostile acts (Webbing, ECM, NOS etc) initial warning then a fine for continuance. Moderate standings 0 - +5 1)First illegal Shot or non destructive hostile act you get fined outright, no warning. 2)Destroy a ship u get stomped Negative standings any -5 - 0 Same as Moderate standings except Fines are steeper Negative standings -5 and below You even sneeze wrong and Concord stomps you. While it is not hard to recover standings any Kills you make that are Concordable are never erased from your record and Accumulate to a point where as soon as you jump into a Concord protected system 2-3 Concord ships will "Escort" you everywhere you go, just waiting for a chance to pop you. 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
J'Mkarr Soban Proxenetae Invicti	Posted - 2008.03.26 12:26:00 - [23] Originally by: Roen Dunaer For example, currently the maximum attainable Security Status is 5.0 and everyone currently starts at that. You been smoking *****? You start at 0. You get more by doing things against non-CONCORD friend (i.e. shoot rats). The maximum you can get by doing missions is 5. Go into 0.0 and shoot to your hearts content to get higher. I like this idea, and it has been proposed many, many, many, many, many times. ----------------------------- "Oh, we're sorry, you had the 'NakedAmarrChicks' bit flagged in your account somehow." "Wait, why was there even a flag for that to begin with?" "..."
J'Mkarr Soban Proxenetae Invicti	Posted - 2008.03.26 12:27:00 - [24] Originally by: gfldex Originally by: Riho i like the iea that OP presented... this would mean that positive sec acctually means something And how would a miner get a positive sec status? Don't you think that's a bit unfair? They aren't exactly doing anything to warrant it, tbh. They get sec status for shooting they rats that come their way, but they don't go out of there way to increase their sec status, so why should they get something for sitting on their arse doing nothing? ----------------------------- "Oh, we're sorry, you had the 'NakedAmarrChicks' bit flagged in your account somehow." "Wait, why was there even a flag for that to begin with?" "..."
000Hunter000 Missiles 'R' Us	Posted - 2008.03.26 12:27:00 - [25] Sadly it's way too easy to recover from a negative sec status, personally i still think, if u did the crime u should do the time, so upping ur negative standing should not be so easy. _______________________________________________________ CCP, let us pay the online shop with Direct Debit!!!
Malcanis R.E.C.O.N. Black-Out	Posted - 2008.03.26 12:28:00 - [26] Originally by: F'nog I'm all for suicide ganking, it's a legitimate tactic as along as it isn't with disposable alts, so bear that in mind, though I don't partake in it (I've been tempted to with some of the rewards and stupid setups I've seen). In the old days, maybe in Beta, sec status was supposed to mean something. Back then, positive sec was supposed to make a difference. Currently, there's no difference between 0 and 5 other than a number on the screen. So what about if the victim's sec affected how fast Concord responds? So if you have a higher sec, Concord responds faster than a lower, depending on the sec of the system? Thus people with high standing with Concord get responded to faster? This could add certain variables to the equation other than just the system's sec. I'm just throwing this out there. Feel free to rip it apart (with evidence). It would be nice if there were something to show for having a positive standing, and this is one possible way to do it. That's a pretty good idea. I like it. CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that.
Avon Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.03.26 12:32:00 - [27] Edited by: Avon on 26/03/2008 12:32:44 Originally by: LaVista Vista Thats the whole point of it. If you remove insurance the frequency of suicide ganking will decrease. I wouldn't, seriously. There are ways to address this situation, but this is not a solution, no matter how much people want to think it is. On the surface it seems fairer, but really it would only serve to punish genuine mistakes, whilst making no difference to the people who choose to suicide gank. It may make a great election pledge, but it is ultimately hollow and pointless. Worse, it would probably do more harm than good, and mostly to the people you are trying to sell it to. Eve-Online: The Text Adventure
Malcanis R.E.C.O.N. Black-Out	Posted - 2008.03.26 12:32:00 - [28] Originally by: Jakke Logan Edited by: Jakke Logan on 26/03/2008 11:56:48 I think the best suicide ganking changes should be as follows: 1. No insurance payouts at all for a death as a result of CONCORD. What real life insurance company in the world is going to issue a policy without a clause exempting them from, for example, paying you if you set fire to your house? This is the same thing, INTENTIONALLY losing your ship to a deliberate suicide attack is deliberate destruction of your own ship. 2. CONCORD PODS people with negative sec standing. Enough of CONCORD ignoring pods after killing the ship. Finish the job. I'd let pods of lowsec people still fly through Empire space, but only if they ENTERED in a pod, not in a ship that was destroyed by CONCORD. This way there are consequences for suicide ganking. Currently there really are none, it's done in T1 ships that are fully insured. There really isn't any risk/reward because the gankers know going in what is going to happen. This would force the gankers to at least take the full LOSS for their ships they used, as well as lose any implants if they don't maintain a positive sec status. Why stop there? Why not have concord pod the offending player, then make him unable to get new clones, then ban him, then send someone round to his house to break his fingers and kill his dog? CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that.
gfldex Kabelkopp	Posted - 2008.03.26 12:55:00 - [29] Originally by: LaVista Vista Thats the whole point of it. If you remove insurance the frequency of suicide ganking will decrease. Are goons suiciding hulks for profit? -- There are countless games in the world. There are at least as many ppl that dont like one or more rules of said games. That never stopped smart game designers from creating good games.
Matthew BloodStar Technologies	Posted - 2008.03.26 13:10:00 - [30] Originally by: Avon People with higher security status have usually obtained it by grinding missions. Grinding missions earns lots of ISK. Thus, people who have a higher sec status probably have a larger financial buffer than those who do not; and do not need faster Concord response than those who would lose a larger proportion of their wealth in the same attack. Which is one of my main gripes with the sec-status system. Gaining sec-status isn't valued highly because you effectively get paid to gain it. I'd like to see things changed so you can choose to receive the bounty or the sec-status increase, but not both. That would make earning sec-status a goal in it's own right, rather than a happy side-effect of an already profitable activity. It would make sec-status hits a real punishment, and justify meaningful rewards, such as faster concord response, for those who forgo the bounties to build up high sec-status. As with all ideas, there are some flaws that would need to be worked though. Loot can be a significant secondary income from ratting, and rogue drones are a special case of this. Could possibly be handled by suppressing loot drops (excluding mission completion requirements) when you have the sec-status option selected. There's also the question of the existing playerbase who have built up both isk and sec-status. Not sure there's really any way of rolling this back, would just have to live with it and let the effects fade with time. Originally by: gfldex It is already rewarded by giving you the ability to destroy ships and even pods in empire space. If you don't stretch it you can even fly in CONCORD patrolled space 15 minutes after podding somebody as long as you got your sec status up in advance. You can still do that starting from 0 sec status. The only thing a higher sec status gives you is a larger margin before you have to stop ganking and start ratting. And thanks to the diminishing returns mechanism applied to sec-status gains, oscillating from +2 to 0 is less efficient than between 0 and -2, yet has exactly the same effect in practice. ------- There is no magic Wand of Fixing, and it is not powered by forum whines.

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.