EVE Search - Suicide ganking is FINE. It's YOU who's broken.

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Suicide ganking is FINE. It's YOU who's broken.

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2008.03.27 02:04:00 - [1] Let's see... SCENARIO ONE: You are a brand new character. You just bought an industrial and fit it, and you spent half a mil ISK doing it. You load it with 50 mil worth of goods and you go on your way to sell them 10-20 minutes later for 55 mil ISK. In a suicide-gank free world, you just made 5 mil with minimal effort. Would you have bought a mining frigate, it would have taken you the better part of THREE TO FIVE HOURS do do this. Would you have bought a combat craft, pretty much the same, maybe say TWO hours. Does that sound normal ? Well, this is where the SUICIDE GANKERS come in. Your 50+ mil cargo almost guarantees them a 10-15 mil ISK income. But since you fly a crappy ship, even a cheaply-fit 5 mil ISK cruiser can do it, so, why SHOULDN'T they blow you up ? You were greedy, you risked, you lost. All is fine. SCENARIO TWO: You are a slightly older character. You still haven't bothered upgrading your industrial's protection, and instead of buying tanking, shielding and plating for it, you chose to make it able to carry much more goods. It does cost you a lot more, but the ship is just as flimsy as ever. You carry up to 150 or even 200 mil in your hold. You freaking deserve to get ganked! SCENARIO THREE: You got a bit smarter this time. Lo and behold, you tanked your hauler to a serious degree. You might not be able to carry much more as originally, heck, you might even carry less. But then again, you're much harder to catch, and much harder to destroy. Nobody bothers suicide-ganking you, or they FAIL to do it before CONCORD shows up, heavily underestimating you, thinking you're the guy from scenario one or two. GOOD FOR YOU ! You deserve to survive ! SCENARIO FOUR: You're an older character now. Would you have gone the mining route, you would be pulling in up to 5 mil ISK per hour in a cheapish Covetor. Or you could be easily running L3 missions in a decently-fit battlecruiser for about the same income. But, you decided to go the hauler way. You are not THAT stupid anymore, so you bought a transport ship. Sadly, you are not smart enough, and you make the same mistake as scenario two. You carry a lot of goods, you might be a bit harder to destroy, but then again, you're worth killing. You die. Sorry bub, maybe next time ? SCENARIO FIVE: Learning from scenario four, you got a blockade runner this time. You might carry less, but fit for speed and agility, nobody catches you. You might make less cash per run, but at least you're reasonably safe. GOOD FOR YOU ! SCENARIO SIX: Now you got much bigger plans and a much larger wallet. Would you have been a mission-runner, you might be flying a half-decent battleship or a very specialized battlecruiser, raking in 15 mil per hour running L4s leisurely. Or you could be making up to 15 mil per hour mining with your buddies in a Hulk. But no, you're a hauler/trader... so you buy a freighter. Since, well, you can't fit it at all, you decide that carrying most of your wordly possesions in it for trading purposes might be a good idea, since it also moves so hard, you're not patient enough to make more than just one trip. BANG down you go in a blaze of glory eventually... I mean, come on, moving 3 bil worth of goods for a potential 100 mil profit at arrival one hour later COULDN'T have been a good idea, now could it ? You again DESERVE to die. SCENARIO SEVEN: Well, apparently you're not flat broke and you learned your lesson. This time, you only fly with max 1 bil worth of goods in your freighter. You pick your goods more carefully, you spend more time prospecting the markets and sit at the keyboard to actually MAKE the jumps. You arrive at your destination within 40 minutes, and make a wuick 15 mil on the sales. GOOD FOR YOU, YOU FINALLY GOT THE HANG OF IT ! ____ Translation ? Suicide ganking is FINE ! It is you, the hauler, who's either GREEDY, stupid, or both. Or just VERY unlucky. 1\|2\|3\|4\|5.
1717 A Dark Cloud Unaffiliated	Posted - 2008.03.27 02:10:00 - [2] Pretty much. Although this issue has been posted on way too many times in general the past few days/weeks w/e, the op lays it out nicely. eve-online.com
Johli AWE Corporation Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2008.03.27 02:11:00 - [3] Are you available?
Cpt Fina Mutually Assured Distraction	Posted - 2008.03.27 02:12:00 - [4] Originally by: Akita T SCENARIO SIX: Freighters are borked tbqh. It's not suiciders fault, it's not the traders fault. The ship is borked.
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2008.03.27 02:14:00 - [5] Originally by: Cpt Fina Freighters are borked tbqh. It's not suiciders fault, it's not the traders fault. The ship is borked. Scenario seven 1\|2\|3\|4\|5.
Cpt Fina Mutually Assured Distraction	Posted - 2008.03.27 02:19:00 - [6] Originally by: Akita T Originally by: Cpt Fina Freighters are borked tbqh. It's not suiciders fault, it's not the traders fault. The ship is borked. Scenario seven The freighter can't haul anything worth more than 1,000 ISK/m3 at full load. The freighter can only haul 1,05 times its own worth. The freighterpilot can do next to nothing on his own to modify his ship to counter a percieved threat unlike any other ship in the game bar shuttles. Escorts are often not financially viable. Multiple runs are often not financially viable.
Mogren CCCP INC	Posted - 2008.03.27 02:20:00 - [7] Agreed. It is people who go AFK and move around millions in shuttles, frigs, or untanked ships who complain. The only people that die to suicide gankers are those who leave themselves open to be ganked. The game provides enough countermeasures for the smart player to avoid it. The ones who do die are the equivalent of people walking around outside a police station waving 24k solid gold bars in the air. Of course someone will come to their aid if they get mugged, but that wont stop them from getting mugged in the first place. Be discreet. Protect your investments. Stop complaining. Everything in this game is risk versus reward, even in high sec.
Lance Fighter Safe Haven North Star Confederation	Posted - 2008.03.27 02:28:00 - [8] Err... In my game, I quit after scenario 2 and moved onto missions. Much better income, much less thought Ive noticed that 99.9% of people on these forums have a signature. If you are one of the 0.1% that doesnot have a sig, copy this into your sig, and display your defiance towards people with sigs.
Franga NQX Innovations	Posted - 2008.03.27 02:34:00 - [9] Originally by: Cpt Fina Originally by: Akita T SCENARIO SIX: Freighters are borked tbqh. It's not suiciders fault, it's not the traders fault. The ship is borked. Care to detail why? Or is this just a massive sweeping generalisation of some type? Originally by: Rachel Vend ... with 100% reliability in most cases ...
Franga NQX Innovations	Posted - 2008.03.27 02:35:00 - [10] Originally by: Cpt Fina Originally by: Akita T Originally by: Cpt Fina Freighters are borked tbqh. It's not suiciders fault, it's not the traders fault. The ship is borked. Scenario seven The freighter can't haul anything worth more than 1,000 ISK/m3 at full load. The freighter can only haul 1,05 times its own worth. The freighterpilot can do next to nothing on his own to modify his ship to counter a percieved threat unlike any other ship in the game bar shuttles. Escorts are often not financially viable. Multiple runs are often not financially viable. I see it was a massive sweeping generalisation. Because everyone must use freighters this way. Good job. Originally by: Rachel Vend ... with 100% reliability in most cases ...
Barek Ironfist eXceed Inc. eXceed.	Posted - 2008.03.27 02:43:00 - [11] you missed scenario eight After making a few freightor runs, and then snuffing it you decide to upgrade to a jump freightor and become immune to anything but a vast number of suicide ganking battleships. Barek
Cpt Fina Mutually Assured Distraction	Posted - 2008.03.27 02:48:00 - [12] Edited by: Cpt Fina on 27/03/2008 02:48:32 Originally by: Franga I see it was a massive sweeping generalisation. Because everyone must use freighters this way. Good job. What would be the point of bringing up any complaint about any ship in this game if the fact that everyone don't use the ships in the same way obsoletes the argument? Good job.
Oftherocks Of The Rocks Corp	Posted - 2008.03.27 02:55:00 - [13] lol, great post! only real problem I have is hictors can always get your blockade runner, but then it is very rare that a hictor is involved in a suicide gank.
Ankhesentapemkah Aliastra	Posted - 2008.03.27 03:27:00 - [14] Originally by: Akita T SCENARIO ONE: ... You load it with 50 mil worth of goods and you go on your way to sell them 10-20 minutes later for 55 mil ISK. In a suicide-gank free world, you just made 5 mil with minimal effort. Would you have bought a mining frigate, it would have taken you the better part of THREE TO FIVE HOURS do do this. Would you have bought a combat craft, pretty much the same, maybe say TWO hours. Does that sound normal ? ... Ever heard of market PVP? There is plenty of risk in trading. Originally by: Akita T SCENARIO TWO: You are a slightly older character. You still haven't bothered upgrading your industrial's protection, and instead of buying tanking, shielding and plating for it, you chose to make it able to carry much more goods. Ban cargo expanders, the only valid modules are tanking modules! Oh and ban officer fittings too. If you fit those, you deserve to be suicide ganked too as your ship potentially drops more than it costs to kill it! Originally by: Akita T SCENARIO THREE: Lo and behold, you tanked your hauler to a serious degree. ... heavily underestimating you, thinking you're the guy from scenario one or two. ... Until everyone 'gets smart' and they do not get underestimated anymore. The gankers adapt and put in a little bit more effort, and the victims are back to square 1. Originally by: Akita T SCENARIO FOUR: Sadly, you are not smart enough, and you make the same mistake as scenario two. You carry a lot of goods, you might be a bit harder to destroy, but then again, you're worth killing. Translation: forget about using more than a fraction of your freighters cargo capacity, because stuffing any more in it and you deserve to get blown up! Originally by: Akita T SCENARIO FIVE: Learning from scenario four, you got a blockade runner this time. You might carry less, but fit for speed and agility, nobody catches you. You might make less cash per run, but at least you're reasonably safe. GOOD FOR YOU ! Yeah ban those freighters and industrialist good-for-nothing ships, blockade runners are the only valid strategy. Originally by: Akita T SCENARIO SIX: You again DESERVE to die. Agreed in this scenario. Originally by: Akita T SCENARIO SEVEN: Well, apparently you're not flat broke and you learned your lesson. This time, you only fly with max 1 bil worth of goods in your freighter. You pick your goods more carefully, you spend more time prospecting the markets and sit at the keyboard to actually MAKE the jumps. You arrive at your destination within 40 minutes, and make a wuick 15 mil on the sales. GOOD FOR YOU, YOU FINALLY GOT THE HANG OF IT ! And then you find that someone has undercut your prices and you lose a lot of time and/or money. Originally by: Akita T Translation ? Suicide ganking should be possible, but there should be more consequences to it. Suicide ganking is too easy to accomplish, has too little consequence, and is profitable too quickly. For every ounce of effort the gankers put in it, it takes ten to 'defend' against their actions. Most annoying of all, there hardly is a way to pre-emptively undertake action against them, unless you count concord pre-summon tactics, as even wardecs are not always possible/an option. Also, people often forget that haulers take a risk already when they purchase the goods. --- Take Care is the CSM party for the free and independant players! Contact us and let us relay your ideas to CCP! Visit our Campaign Website
Ava Santiago AAC	Posted - 2008.03.27 03:29:00 - [15] Let's see... SCENARIO ONE: I buy materials on the market to make ships to sell. Moving the materials to my factory I get blown up. I stop making ships or add the loss to the amount I charge. SCENARIO TWO: I buy salvage materials to make rigs. Moving the materials to my factory I get blown up. I stop making rigs or add the loss to the amount I charge. SCENARIO THREE: .. I stop making X or add the loss to the amount I charge. ALL and I mean ALL of my incurred costs will be passed on to my customers. If my costs exceed current market prices I cease production and wait for prices to rise. Suicide ganking looks profitable - and it is short term - but it's a really bad idea as the potential long term risks are things like vanishing markets, lower supply levels, and needing to personally go mine the minerals to build your replacement ship. I can't force you to stop being an idiot. But I can make you pay through the nose for the privilege.
Arian Serpintus Auroran PeaceKeepers Northern Regions Alliance	Posted - 2008.03.27 03:44:00 - [16] There are plenty of strategies in this game that are legit and smart. Setting up a gank ship with T1 crap and insuring it is not one of them, regardless of the argument. The ganker profits, even though they were "caught" and Concorded, while committing a crime are ridiculous. Why is CCP subsidizing gank ships? That is the primary easy question. Without making this more then what it is, why does CCP pay gank pilots for their loss?
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2008.03.27 03:47:00 - [17] Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah Suicide ganking should be possible, but there should be more consequences to it. And what would be your ESTIMATES of how much it SHOULD cost to suicide-gank each of the mentioned fits in the OP ? Quote: Suicide ganking is too easy to accomplish, has too little consequence, and is profitable too quickly. ONLY when the one being ganked carries too much value in his cargo comparative to the firepower it takes to take him out. Quote: For every ounce of effort the gankers put in it, it takes ten to 'defend' against their actions. Most annoying of all, there hardly is a way to pre-emptively undertake action against them, unless you count concord pre-summon tactics, as even wardecs are not always possible/an option. Hey, here's a novel idea : carry less value per trip, and make your ship harder to destroy. Quote: Also, people often forget that haulers take a risk already when they purchase the goods. I trade. I almost never haul. One does not necessarily imply the other. Originally by: Ava Santiago ALL and I mean ALL of my incurred costs will be passed on to my customers. If my costs exceed current market prices I cease production and wait for prices to rise. And that's why YOU will not be making a sale, while the one that took precautions NOT to lose goods to suicide-gankers will, because he'll always be undercutting you. Quote: Suicide ganking looks profitable - and it is short term - but it's a really bad idea as the potential long term risks are things like vanishing markets, lower supply levels, and needing to personally go mine the minerals to build your replacement ship. I see no "dwindling supply". Heck, even with the massive fuss about the Goons and highsec miners, mineral prices didn't even spike to the levels back when "cheap trit from reprocessing coupling arrays" was removed. Quote: I can't force you to stop being an idiot. But I can make you pay through the nose for the privilege. I can't stop you from losing money because you're greedy and want to haul it all in one trip, I can only just refuse to buy your overpriced goods. Somebody else that's less careless WILL be selling it cheaper soon enough. 1\|2\|3\|4\|5.
Arian Serpintus Auroran PeaceKeepers Northern Regions Alliance	Posted - 2008.03.27 03:47:00 - [18] Edited by: Arian Serpintus on 27/03/2008 03:49:09 And to those that reply that not insuring such losses would chase new players away, give me a ***** break. New players aren't setting up gank squads, and if they are, ** em, we don't need em... The one's setting up gank squads are using throw away alts or free trials. That in and of itself should end this discussion.
Spacy Tracy Science and Trade Institute	Posted - 2008.03.27 03:48:00 - [19] Edited by: Spacy Tracy on 27/03/2008 03:49:11 Originally by: Akita T drivel You know, I think I've finally placed you. You're the Big Lebowski. Lots of bluster, lots of self-importance, no real substance - it's all a facade. Deep down inside, you would admit to yourself that the real reason you're saying all this crap is because your particular gameplay style is not vulnerable to suicide ganking. Or is so removed from it as to make the odds vanishingly small. As such, you can point out to those who are ridiculously vulnerable and say "I am better than you", and congratulate yourself on being part of the in crowd that gets it. But that's all it is. If you were a miner and got repeatedly ganked by Goons, you'd be singing a different tune.
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2008.03.27 03:50:00 - [20] Edited by: Akita T on 27/03/2008 03:54:41 Originally by: Arian Serpintus There are plenty of strategies in this game that are legit and smart. Setting up a gank ship with T1 crap and insuring it is not one of them, regardless of the argument. The ganker profits, even though they were "caught" and Concorded, while committing a crime are ridiculous. Why is CCP subsidizing gank ships? That is the primary easy question. Without making this more then what it is, why does CCP pay gank pilots for their loss? The game is structured in such a way that (supposedly) your potential revenue through "manual labor" (hauling being one of them) should be dependant on your investment (in this case, the ship doing the hauling), assumingyou know what you're doing. The "checks and balances" are there to STOP you from acquiring too much of a profit for too little of an effort, either mentally or as sheer time spent. The PRICE the suicide-gankers have to pay for your kill have to be balanced with the amount of risk you take in that ship. Make suicide-ganking too cheap, everybody will be shooting down freighters carrying next to nothing left and right. This is not happening yet, so sucide ganking is NOT too cheap. Make it too expensive, and everybody will be carrying hundreds of millions worth of goods in untanked T1 haulers. Which is definetely NOT good, you don't want a handfull of people monopolizing ALL what's left of the "transport industry" in EVE. Yes, there is such a thing. Originally by: Spacy Tracy If you were a miner and got repeatedly ganked by Goons, you'd be singing a different tune. If I was a miner (I hate mining because it's boring, but let's say I would have been one), I would have gotten ganked by goons at most ONCE, if not at all. Quote: Deep down inside, you would admit to yourself that the real reason you're saying all this crap is because your particular gameplay style is not vulnerable to suicide ganking. I HAVE hauled valuable cargo through "dangerous" highsec, I HAVE been the target of ATTEMPTED sucide ganks, yet so far I never lost a single hauler in HIGHSEC. So yeah, I admit it. "My particular gameplay style is not vulnerable to suicide ganking". It's called "not greedy, and smart". 1\|2\|3\|4\|5.
El'Niaga Republic Military School	Posted - 2008.03.27 03:55:00 - [21] The only problem I have is there is no risk to the kamikaze pilot in current game terms. Time and time again we've heard this is a risk vs reward game but when insurance pays the criminal enough to get another ship and refit it for his actions there is no risk. Therefore the simple solution is to remove insurance payouts generated while the pilot has a criminal flag. This would not prevent someone from suiciding but would make it such that there is some risk. It means that you'd have to pick your targets more carefully if you want to make a profit. In addition baiting concord should be labeled an exploit or regardless of how many times concord is called in a system have them instantly respond. This would help to reestablish the game balance intended by risk vs reward, while still allowing suicide attacks.
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2008.03.27 03:57:00 - [22] Originally by: El'Niaga The only problem I have is there is no risk to the kamikaze pilot in current game terms. Why does the GANKER have to have an even "risk vs reward" ratio ? What's wrong if ONLY the victim's risk-vs-rewards ratio is "just right" ? For all you know, the suicide-gankers are merely performing a public service, keeping greedy, careless people in line by spanking them hard. The "risk" of the suicide-ganker is that he gets bloody bored to death because no worthy suicide-gank target comes along. There's your balance. 1\|2\|3\|4\|5.
Terminus adacai Auroran PeaceKeepers Northern Regions Alliance	Posted - 2008.03.27 03:59:00 - [23] This is an age old argument. If you were to remove insurance from the argument, I would agree that some of the ganked deserved it. But consider their risk in moving a lot of isk in minerals or goods. They may not be smart about it, but does that give the green light to toss away alts and trial accounts to gank and profit? They have little to no risk in ganking. You might as well say that the lady wearing a high skirt in a red light district deserved to be raped. Gankers and griefers are nothing less then pond scum. The majority of em use a throw away alt or a free trial account, as to avoid standings drop to their main. This is a game mechanic fault that needs to be addressed. Not everyone playing this game is looking for a fight. Opinions reflected on my posts are just that, my opinions. They do not reflect views held by my corp or alliance.
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2008.03.27 04:00:00 - [24] Originally by: Terminus adacai But consider their risk in moving a lot of isk in minerals or goods. They may not be smart about it, but does that give the green light to toss away alts and trial accounts to gank and profit? They have little to no risk in ganking. The risk is called "permaban". If you even SUSPECT somebody does this, report and have him eliminated from the game. For good. 1\|2\|3\|4\|5.
Terminus adacai Auroran PeaceKeepers Northern Regions Alliance	Posted - 2008.03.27 04:03:00 - [25] Originally by: Akita T Originally by: El'Niaga The only problem I have is there is no risk to the kamikaze pilot in current game terms. Why does the GANKER have to have an even "risk vs reward" ratio ? What's wrong if ONLY the victim's risk-vs-rewards ratio is "just right" ? For all you know, the suicide-gankers are merely performing a public service, keeping greedy, careless people in line by spanking them hard. The "risk" of the suicide-ganker is that he gets bloody bored to death because no worthy suicide-gank target comes along. There's your balance. So the ganker that uses a toss away alt or free trial to avoid security hits to their main and attacks and takes someone else's earnings are not greedy? Public service my ass..... Opinions reflected on my posts are just that, my opinions. They do not reflect views held by my corp or alliance.
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2008.03.27 04:04:00 - [26] Originally by: Terminus adacai So the ganker that uses a toss away alt or free trial to avoid security hits to their main Rubbish. 1\|2\|3\|4\|5.
Aindrias Labteck Corporation LTD. Libertas Fidelitas	Posted - 2008.03.27 04:04:00 - [27] I love the "She dressed hot, she deserved it..." mentality, whoa guys, stop being psychotic ;-) it's just ISK ;-) Suiciding should be doable, just don't get rewarded for it ;-).
Cpt Branko Surge. Night's Dawn	Posted - 2008.03.27 04:05:00 - [28] I regularly carry anywhere from about 40 to a max of 350M of loot from low-sec to high-sec in a T1 frigate on a 800K SP alt. Just not AFK... WTZ, jump, WTZ, jump. And not to Jita. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
El'Niaga Republic Military School	Posted - 2008.03.27 04:08:00 - [29] Originally by: Terminus adacai So the ganker that uses a toss away alt or free trial to avoid security hits to their main and attacks and takes someone else's earnings are not greedy? Public service my ass..... Of course they are being greedy. Alts is a major problem with eve, but you probably could not fix it without losing a good number of subscriptions at this point. I think the simplest and best solution is removal of insurance while criminally flagged. Then also a change in how Concord responds to ensure the concord baiting doesn't work to save the criminals and all is good.
Roid Hunter Perkone	Posted - 2008.03.27 04:11:00 - [30] Originally by: El'Niaga Originally by: Terminus adacai So the ganker that uses a toss away alt or free trial to avoid security hits to their main and attacks and takes someone else's earnings are not greedy? Public service my ass..... Of course they are being greedy. Alts is a major problem with eve, but you probably could not fix it without losing a good number of subscriptions at this point. I think the simplest and best solution is removal of insurance while criminally flagged. Then also a change in how Concord responds to ensure the concord baiting doesn't work to save the criminals and all is good. Amen!!! What a simple fix! If we ***** as much as the Amar pilots do, maybe we'll see a fix... ;p
Cpt Branko Surge. Night's Dawn	Posted - 2008.03.27 04:12:00 - [31] Originally by: El'Niaga I think the simplest and best solution is removal of insurance while criminally flagged. Then also a change in how Concord responds to ensure the concord baiting doesn't work to save the criminals and all is good. No, it is NOT. Insurance is fine as it is. Otherwise, remove insurance for everyone with combat ships. You should NOT have insurance if you go to combat 231312 pirate ships in a mission either ;) Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Julius Romanus Fatalix Inc. Phalanx Alliance	Posted - 2008.03.27 04:13:00 - [32] Originally by: Arian Serpintus Edited by: Arian Serpintus on 27/03/2008 03:49:09 And to those that reply that not insuring such losses would chase new players away, give me a ***** break. New players aren't setting up gank squads, and if they are, ** em, we don't need em... The one's setting up gank squads are using throw away alts or free trials. That in and of itself should end this discussion. I got concorded 3 times in a row when i first came back to eve. There's even a forum post from me asking if it would ever stop. Myself and a friend wanted to test our "named" guns :) I dont personally think a half afk mission drake/raven should get insurance payouts if by some twist of eve it somehow pops. But it does. And thats not going to change. Insurance is how it is. Besides, the language of the contract is clear "i pay you x, if my ship blows up before y you pay me z". No stipulations on how or why the ship pops. ------------------ For Medicinal Use Only.
Terminus adacai Auroran PeaceKeepers Northern Regions Alliance	Posted - 2008.03.27 04:14:00 - [33] Originally by: Cpt Branko Originally by: El'Niaga I think the simplest and best solution is removal of insurance while criminally flagged. Then also a change in how Concord responds to ensure the concord baiting doesn't work to save the criminals and all is good. No, it is NOT. Insurance is fine as it is. Otherwise, remove insurance for everyone with combat ships. You should NOT have insurance if you go to combat 231312 pirate ships in a mission either ;) Please explain how insurance is fine as it is when a criminal gets a pay out for a flagged act? Their boat was smashed while breaking the laws, why should they receive an insurance check? Opinions reflected on my posts are just that, my opinions. They do not reflect views held by my corp or alliance.
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2008.03.27 04:15:00 - [34] Originally by: Terminus adacai Considering that anyone can start a free trial account with a simple email address, your advice is worthless. You said they do it to make a profit for their main, right ? Reporting the "throw-away" alt, in case it's confirmed to be a throw-away alt, following the cashflow you get to the main. BAMF, main gone. Of course, unless you make a trial alt just to inflict damage but make no profit from it. In case you don't know, CCP stores not only your IP address but also your windows product hash key, so they can tell ith's the same Windows install playing several accounts or not. While you might have access to a good deal of proxies, and even if some false positives might result from that, rest assured, the guy doing something like this WILL eventually wind up without his precious "main account" he's trying to protect. 1\|2\|3\|4\|5.
Roid Hunter Perkone	Posted - 2008.03.27 04:15:00 - [35] Originally by: Julius Romanus Originally by: Arian Serpintus Edited by: Arian Serpintus on 27/03/2008 03:49:09 And to those that reply that not insuring such losses would chase new players away, give me a ***** break. New players aren't setting up gank squads, and if they are, ** em, we don't need em... The one's setting up gank squads are using throw away alts or free trials. That in and of itself should end this discussion. I got concorded 3 times in a row when i first came back to eve. There's even a forum post from me asking if it would ever stop. Myself and a friend wanted to test our "named" guns :) I dont personally think a half afk mission drake/raven should get insurance payouts if by some twist of eve it somehow pops. But it does. And thats not going to change. Insurance is how it is. Besides, the language of the contract is clear "i pay you x, if my ship blows up before y you pay me z". No stipulations on how or why the ship pops. That could be fixed with a simple sentence or two....
Ava Santiago AAC	Posted - 2008.03.27 04:16:00 - [36] Most of the gates in the high sec systems I operate in are now camped by suicide gankers 24/7. I now fly reapers. Nobody ganks an empty noob ship. I contract all of the goods I want moved. BUT the cost of those transports are added to every single line of production I make. I factor it in as a cost. I make a fair chunk of profit off of courier contracts that never reach my factories. In the long run this means higher transport costs - which means further base increases in costs. I sell things at a 10% markup. At some point the market will ***** and I won't be able to get the materials moved so nothing will be sold. My risk is low. My profits - short term - reflect the higher systemic risk and have larger margins. I don't like systemic problems caused by distorted incentives.
Terminus adacai Auroran PeaceKeepers Northern Regions Alliance	Posted - 2008.03.27 04:18:00 - [37] Originally by: Akita T Originally by: Terminus adacai Considering that anyone can start a free trial account with a simple email address, your advice is worthless. You said they do it to make a profit for their main, right ? Reporting the "throw-away" alt, in case it's confirmed to be a throw-away alt, following the cashflow you get to the main. BAMF, main gone. Of course, unless you make a trial alt just to inflict damage but make no profit from it. In case you don't know, CCP stores not only your IP address but also your windows product hash key, so they can tell ith's the same Windows install playing several accounts or not. While you might have access to a good deal of proxies, and even if some false positives might result from that, rest assured, the guy doing something like this WILL eventually wind up without his precious "main account" he's trying to protect. You just made a lot of people shiver....... I understand you mean well, but rahter then TRUST CCP or rely on investigations (BOB ring a bell?), just get rid of flagged insurance pay outs... Opinions reflected on my posts are just that, my opinions. They do not reflect views held by my corp or alliance.
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2008.03.27 04:20:00 - [38] Edited by: Akita T on 27/03/2008 04:22:00 Originally by: Ava Santiago At some point the market will *** and I won't be able to get the materials moved so nothing will be sold. At some point, the only people moving goods will be those that can properly balance their ship's "resistance" with the value of the cargo. You unload your risk to them, they get paid, you get paid, everybody's happy. Except the suicide-gankers that is, they start getting too bored because nothing worthwhile comes along often. Stupid people that haul milions in an untanked Badger I will always die, then whine. Smart people know how to mitigate their risks. Originally by:** Terminus adacai I understand you mean well, but rahter then TRUST CCP or rely on investigations (BOB ring a bell?), just get rid of flagged insurance pay outs... And then you end up with a highsec that's TOO secure, especially for those in NPC corps. There are enough incentives to NOT leave the NPC corp, we don't need another good reason not to join a player corp. 1\|2\|3\|4\|5.
Terminus adacai Auroran PeaceKeepers Northern Regions Alliance	Posted - 2008.03.27 04:23:00 - [39] Edited by: Terminus adacai on 27/03/2008 04:24:27 Originally by: Akita T Edited by: Akita T on 27/03/2008 04:22:00 Originally by: Ava Santiago At some point the market will *** and I won't be able to get the materials moved so nothing will be sold. At some point, the only people moving goods will be those that can properly balance their ship's "resistance" with the value of the cargo. You unload your risk to them, they get paid, you get paid, everybody's happy. Except the suicide-gankers that is, they start getting too bored because nothing worthwhile comes along often. Stupid people that haul milions in an untanked Badger I will always die, then whine. Smart people know how to mitigate their risks. Originally by:** Terminus adacai I understand you mean well, but rahter then TRUST CCP or rely on investigations (BOB ring a bell?), just get rid of flagged insurance pay outs... And then you end up with a highsec that's TOO secure, especially for those in NPC corps. There are enough incentives to NOT leave the NPC corp, we don't need another good reason not to join a player corp. You make another good point. Problem is, not all gankers are after haulers and goods.... And what do insurance pay outs to flagged criminals have to do with getting people out of NPC corps? Opinions reflected on my posts are just that, my opinions. They do not reflect views held by my corp or alliance.
Kylar Renpurs Dusk Blade	Posted - 2008.03.27 04:26:00 - [40] Quote: Setting up a gank ship with T1 crap and insuring it is not one of them, regardless of the argument. And loading up a paper-thin ship with many many many times more than it's worth in cargo, regardless of security status, is not one of them either A while back I used to haul through low sec, even punched through a few 10 man gatecamps in my time. It was difficult, nothing too arduous though. If I can get away so easily in low sec where there's no threat from concord to the gankers, why can't people do it in hi sec? I'll tell you why. Because they don't play the game properly. I'm usually proactive in my hauling protection in hi sec, nothing too extreme, I can still cuddle the girlfriend, cook lunch, do the washing, play the Xbox, surf the net, do work, talk to relax in the lounge for a bit, all while hauling. One day I got lazy, complacent and wanted to get it done quick with minimal effort. Enter one shuttle containing a BPC worth 300 mil. 12 Jump trip, going to take about 15 minutes on Autopilot. Fine. I check back in 10 minutes, my shuttle is popped, and the BPC along with it (heheh). Had I not been complacent, it wouldn't have happened. Lesson learnt. Shame others can't. Improve Market Competition!
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2008.03.27 04:30:00 - [41] Edited by: Akita T on 27/03/2008 04:31:45 Originally by: Terminus adacai Problem is, not all gankers are after haulers and goods. 2++ bil ISK mission-boats are just another symptom of what's wrong. You only need such a killing machine if you want to do solo-work. AGAIN, we don't need yet another reason to discourage teamwork. A small group of dirt-cheap battlecruisers can easily tackle L4 missions... hell, that's what OUR corp is for. Sure, some do solo work, but everybody's welcome to cooperate. T2-stripminer, cargo-expanded Hulks in highsec ? Solo guys. Heck, MULTIPLE accounts run by the same person, several barges or exhumers, a hauler or two maybe. Teamwork ? Minimal or not existant. Want a teamwork mining op ? Covetors with T1 stripminers and T1 mining laser upgrades, a battlecruiser with the mining amount link (-% cycle time for lasers = + amount/sec), a hauler or two, all run by separate people. Have a chat, enjoy, somebody watches local, everybody can respond instantly not switch 2-3-8 windows or machines to "get out". We need more incentives FOR teamwork, not against. Suicide ganking is one of the BETTER methods to promote it. How ? Like I said... keep your ship cheap, your cargo value low. If you do that, you won't be a target. In order to be competitive in a cheap-ish ship, teamwork helps. Case closed. 1\|2\|3\|4\|5.
Roid Hunter Perkone	Posted - 2008.03.27 04:31:00 - [42] Edited by: Roid Hunter on 27/03/2008 04:33:25 Originally by: Kylar Renpurs Quote: Setting up a gank ship with T1 crap and insuring it is not one of them, regardless of the argument. And loading up a paper-thin ship with many many many times more than it's worth in cargo, regardless of security status, is not one of them either A while back I used to haul through low sec, even punched through a few 10 man gatecamps in my time. It was difficult, nothing too arduous though. If I can get away so easily in low sec where there's no threat from concord to the gankers, why can't people do it in hi sec? I'll tell you why. Because they don't play the game properly. I'm usually proactive in my hauling protection in hi sec, nothing too extreme, I can still cuddle the girlfriend, cook lunch, do the washing, play the Xbox, surf the net, do work, talk to relax in the lounge for a bit, all while hauling. One day I got lazy, complacent and wanted to get it done quick with minimal effort. Enter one shuttle containing a BPC worth 300 mil. 12 Jump trip, going to take about 15 minutes on Autopilot. Fine. I check back in 10 minutes, my shuttle is popped, and the BPC along with it (heheh). Had I not been complacent, it wouldn't have happened. Lesson learnt. Shame others can't. Good points. But where is the risk for throw away alts ganking in empire? Their buddies are salvaging your carcass and picking up the loot. the Alt that layed the final blow will be dead forever in a short time, and a new one born. In the end, they profited from a criminal act and got a CCP payout.
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2008.03.27 04:34:00 - [43] Originally by: Roid Hunter Good points. But where is the risk for throw away alts ganking in empire? Their buddies are salvaging your carcass and picking up the loot. the Alt that layed the final blow will be dead forever in a short time, and a new one born. For the Nth time, the risk for THROW-AWAY alts is that if they get reported, eventually their "main" WILL die quoted an EULA violation. The risk for suicide-ganker "mains" ? Boredom waiting for a target (no boredom if too many greedy stupid people around). Boredom while grinding secstatus up again. 1\|2\|3\|4\|5.
Cpt Fina Mutually Assured Distraction	Posted - 2008.03.27 04:37:00 - [44] Edited by: Cpt Fina on 27/03/2008 04:36:53 Originally by: Akita T We need more incentives FOR teamwork, not against. Remove alts. Increase and enforce market/production entrybarriers. Increase skillrequirements for... like everything. Agreed btw
Imperator Jora'h Hedion University	Posted - 2008.03.27 04:37:00 - [45] Originally by: Akita T At some point, the only people moving goods will be those that can properly balance their ship's "resistance" with the value of the cargo. It is pathetically easy to fill a cargo ship past its "resist" value. Besides, I have maintained many times that a suicide gank should be pegged to hull values. A freighter costs 1 billion ISK. A gank on the freighter costs ~350 million ISK (ships + mods). Just spend 350 mil and boom...freighter gone. You can find similar disconnects in lesser cargo ships. A suicide gank is a special case of "PvP". It is fine that ganks can exist in game...indeed they should. But they should make the ganker think harder about it than they do today. Ideally I would rather see actual escort mechanics introduced into the game. A way to reliably protect a hauler versus a suicide gank or opportune gate camper. If the hauler pilot chooses to fly without them then the gankers have a much stronger case in pointing the finger back at it being the hauler's own fault for not taking possible precautions. As it is what precautions the hauler can take today are minimal at best and highly impractical at worst to the point it makes no sense to try even with the potential risk (would cost them far more to protect themselves then they stand to lose). -------------------------------------------------- "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!"
Lurana Jade State War Academy	Posted - 2008.03.27 04:45:00 - [46] SCENARIO 1-6/7: Suicide ganker gets rewarded by an insurance company over and over and over and over for breaking the law and getting Concordokened. Quote: Suiciding should be doable, just don't get rewarded for it ;-). Basically this but I'll rephrase: Suiciding should be doable and if they hit the right target get rewarded by whatever drops, just don't give them insurance payouts for it. So you gotta be a little more selective about your ganks, bf-deal.
Ava Santiago AAC	Posted - 2008.03.27 04:55:00 - [47] Originally by: Akita T Edited by: Akita T on 27/03/2008 04:22:00 Originally by: Ava Santiago At some point the market will ***** and I won't be able to get the materials moved so nothing will be sold. At some point, the only people moving goods will be those that can properly balance their ship's "resistance" with the value of the cargo. You unload your risk to them, they get paid, you get paid, everybody's happy. Except the suicide-gankers that is, they start getting too bored because nothing worthwhile comes along often. Stupid people that haul milions in an untanked Badger I will always die, then whine. Smart people know how to mitigate their risks. Wait... see you just added extra cost to the system. Industrial ships DO NOT HAVE the ability get resists to a point where they cannot be suicide ganked without severely limiting their cargo space. The volume/time these slow, weak ships take is the largely determinant cost of shipping goods. Making more trips in a ship with reduced cargo space increases the "cost" to move goods. Putting shield relays in the low slots as opposed to cargo expanders deceases the amount a ship carries.. and INCREASES the cost of moving large volumes. Meanwhile, the ganker (and buddies) get some salvage, a bunch of modules, insurance, and random loot drops. They risked nothing. They incur ZERO risk. They can scan a ship and know in advance if they will be able to blow it up before concord arrives. All reward, no risk for the ganker. Increases in costs of goods for everyone in Eve. Reduced availability of goods for everyone in Eve. Hmm. Way to socialize costs and individualize returns. Are you an investment banker by chance?
duckmonster GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.03.27 04:58:00 - [48] WAAH WAHH WAHH MOTHER! -----------
Pithecanthropus Republic University	Posted - 2008.03.27 05:02:00 - [49] Didn't even read the post.. .TOO LONG... its sad the lengths some people go to just to try and make a point. you fail... in more ways then one.
Marcus TheMartin Tuxedo.	Posted - 2008.03.27 05:03:00 - [50] Originally by: Pithecanthropus Didn't even read the post.. .TOO LONG... its sad the lengths some people go to just to try and make a point. you fail... in more ways then one. Isn't it you who has failed as they have not read the op but felt the need to call them sad?
Terminus adacai Auroran PeaceKeepers Northern Regions Alliance	Posted - 2008.03.27 05:14:00 - [51] Originally by: Pithecanthropus Didn't even read the post.. .TOO LONG... its sad the lengths some people go to just to try and make a point. you fail... in more ways then one. You failed for inserting your opinion in a thread that you didn't bother to read.... Opinions reflected on my posts are just that, my opinions. They do not reflect views held by my corp or alliance.
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2008.03.27 05:29:00 - [52] Originally by: Pithecanthropus Didn't even read the post.. .TOO LONG... its sad the lengths some people go to just to try and make a point. you fail... in more ways then one. Too short, didn't read 1\|2\|3\|4\|5.
Terminus adacai Auroran PeaceKeepers Northern Regions Alliance	Posted - 2008.03.27 05:33:00 - [53] LOL, look, 4 of 5 top threads regard ganking. Houston, we have a problem... Opinions reflected on my posts are just that, my opinions. They do not reflect views held by my corp or alliance.
Big Fuzz ACCORD Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2008.03.27 05:42:00 - [54] Edited by: Big Fuzz on 27/03/2008 05:43:12 Why don't you guys just go spend half as much time camping out at high suicide risk gates and stealing loot as you do arguing on forums? If you're right that suicide ganking is way too common and wah wah , etc. etc., you'll make a lot of isk while denying gankers their loot. Oh wait, you won't do that because... hell I don't know why, but you probably won't. edit: Btw Akita is, as usual, 100% correct.
Letouk Mernel Blue Shell Corporation	Posted - 2008.03.27 05:44:00 - [55] I think CCP needs to save us, by borrowing a concept from Vista. It goes like this: Pop-up: We notice that you've put over 100 million ISK worth of goods in that poorly fitted industrial of yours. I mean, seriously, with your fittings, a cruiser can destroy it in one shot. You could get suicide ganked. Are you sure you want to do this? Yes/No. Pop-up 2: Are you absolutely sure? Your autopilot indicates you're going to use the pipeline to Jita, and system X has 200 ships destroyed in the last 30 minutes. The chances of you losing 100 million are high. Are you sure? Yes/No. Pop-up 3: The insurance on your ship is NOT going to be sufficient to cover your 100 million ISK loss. It's not recommended that you undock. Are you sure you want to? Yes/No. Pop-up 4: CCP will not reimburse ships / items lost to PVP fights, even if the fight was a suicide attack. EVE is a PVP game. You will lose your ship. Do you still want to proceed? Yes/No. Pop-up 5: In order to reduce lag by helping the client software pre-load the environment faster, a message of your future arrival has been broadcasted to everyone in the vicinity of Gate X in System Y in your route, so that they can pre-load your industrial with its 100 million ISK cargo faster. Good luck on your journey. (Ok)
Ava Santiago AAC	Posted - 2008.03.27 05:54:00 - [56] What we need is a better hauler class. Something with about 250,000 shields, 4 Million or so armor and about 50,000 M3 cargo space. Then maybe the gankers would have a point. Frankly, the current transport ships/industrials are flying milk cartons. They lack defenses and can't be fitted with the ability to withstand 3 destroyers with basic cheap fittings. The net cost of ganking after insurance payout - even assuming failure - is next to zero.
Marcus TheMartin Tuxedo.	Posted - 2008.03.27 05:56:00 - [57] Originally by: Ava Santiago What we need is a better hauler class. Something with about 250,000 shields, 4 Million or so armor and about 50,000 M3 cargo space. Then maybe the gankers would have a point. Frankly, the current transport ships/industrials are flying milk cartons. They lack defenses and can't be fitted with the ability to withstand 3 destroyers with basic cheap fittings. The net cost of ganking after insurance payout - even assuming failure - is next to zero. keep talking out of your ass please what 4 destroyers can kill a transport before instapopping from sentry guns?
Terminus adacai Auroran PeaceKeepers Northern Regions Alliance	Posted - 2008.03.27 06:03:00 - [58] Again, not all ganked ships are haulers. Yes, someone carrying a billion in isk goods with an industrial flying solo in a hub is not a good idea. We get that. The problem lies in the gankers risk vs reward. Plain and simple. What assurances do we have that throw away alts aren't profiting from a game mechanic? None that i can see. This discussion is old, yes, but ganking seems to have become more common not only at gates, but in belts. Anyone defending such a mechanic has a motive for doing so. As has been mentioned many times in numerous threads, take away the insurance pay out on criminally flagged kills. Seems pretty simple to me. This would actually take care of the risk vs reward debate. Opinions reflected on my posts are just that, my opinions. They do not reflect views held by my corp or alliance.
Marcus TheMartin Tuxedo.	Posted - 2008.03.27 06:06:00 - [59] Originally by: Terminus adacai Anyone defending such a mechanic has a motive for doing so. I believe in a thing called devils advocate
Terminus adacai Auroran PeaceKeepers Northern Regions Alliance	Posted - 2008.03.27 06:09:00 - [60] Originally by: Marcus TheMartin Originally by: Terminus adacai Anyone defending such a mechanic has a motive for doing so. I believe in a thing called devils advocate LOL, in a world of free trials and alt accounts, I call it BS. Opinions reflected on my posts are just that, my opinions. They do not reflect views held by my corp or alliance.
Marcus TheMartin Tuxedo.	Posted - 2008.03.27 06:10:00 - [61] Originally by: Terminus adacai Originally by: Marcus TheMartin Originally by: Terminus adacai Anyone defending such a mechanic has a motive for doing so. I believe in a thing called devils advocate LOL, in a world of free trials and alt accounts, I call it BS. good thing you aren't a judge
Terminus adacai Auroran PeaceKeepers Northern Regions Alliance	Posted - 2008.03.27 06:17:00 - [62] Maybe, but I can see what is going on. Again, what suggestions or ideas do you have to contribute regarding ganking? Opinions reflected on my posts are just that, my opinions. They do not reflect views held by my corp or alliance.
Roid Hunter Perkone	Posted - 2008.03.27 06:22:00 - [63] It is only a matter of time before CCP realizes that gank squads that are Concorded should not receive insurance payouts. I have yet to see a strong argument for paying insurance on criminal flagged losses other then the old argument that new players will leave. Please try again....
Marlona Sky D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.03.27 06:23:00 - [64] quote] I can't stop you from losing money because you're greedy and want to haul it all in one trip, I can only just refuse to buy your overpriced goods. Somebody else that's less careless WILL be selling it cheaper soon enough. So if I spent months working on putting together a collection of items and decide to put it all in my truck to move across town instead of one piece at a time, I am being greedy and deserve to be robbed? You can't seriously expect anyone to buy that right?
Marlona Sky D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.03.27 06:25:00 - [65] You scared the might nerf bat is coming and you might have to actually earn your paycheck?
Big Fuzz ACCORD Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2008.03.27 06:26:00 - [66] Originally by: Terminus adacai Anyone defending such a mechanic has a motive for doing so. Yep. Mine is that as more and more lazy and/or stupid people die, I make more isk because I'm neither lazy nor stupid. The bottom line is that it is SO easy not to get ganked it's ridiculous. People just keep loading up their iteron 3's with 100m of stuff, banging their heads into the same old wall and wondering why they keep getting the same crappy result time & again. Rather than take a few extra minutes to go around the wall they're spending hours upon hours whining for CCP to remove the wall.
Marcus TheMartin Tuxedo.	Posted - 2008.03.27 06:26:00 - [67] Originally by: Terminus adacai Maybe, but I can see what is going on. Again, what suggestions or ideas do you have to contribute regarding ganking? remove insurance for every one who has been playing for more than 3 months let people die in death they learn
Hekilo Tetsatz Crimson Rebellion Cold Star Alliance	Posted - 2008.03.27 06:34:00 - [68] Originally by: Akita T Why does the GANKER have to have an even "risk vs reward" ratio ? What's wrong if ONLY the victim's risk-vs-rewards ratio is "just right" ? If the Ganker shouldn't have to have risk to go with his reward why should the victim? The Gankers are the first to ** about EVE being a PVP game and rant about 'risk vs. reward', but as evidenced by the alts, and trial accounts, and NPC corpers a good number of the gankers are a great deal more risk averse than the much derided 'carebears'. Quote: The "risk" of the suicide-ganker is that he gets bloody bored to death** because no worthy suicide-gank target comes along. There's your balance. I'm going to assume that was a joke, otherwise you should support the banning of suicide ganking, hauling and mining are after all boring activities therefore 'carebears' are taking all the risk they need to warrant the reward.
Reem Fairchild Shadow Forces Inc.	Posted - 2008.03.27 06:38:00 - [69] Originally by: Cpt Branko Edited by: Cpt Branko on 27/03/2008 04:05:57 I regularly carry anywhere from about 40 to a max of 350M of loot from low-sec to high-sec in a T1 frigate on a 800K SP alt. Just not AFK... WTZ, jump, WTZ, jump. And not to Jita. AFK hauling is risky, it's supposed to be risky, damnit. I used to carry stuff worth a hell of a lot more than that. In a tech 1 frigate. In and out of Jita. 2-3 times a day for weeks on end. I've never been suicide-ganked, ever.
Terminus adacai Auroran PeaceKeepers Northern Regions Alliance	Posted - 2008.03.27 06:40:00 - [70] Originally by: Big Fuzz Originally by: Terminus adacai Anyone defending such a mechanic has a motive for doing so. Yep. Mine is that as more and more lazy and/or stupid people die, I make more isk because I'm neither lazy nor stupid. The bottom line is that it is SO easy not to get ganked it's ridiculous. People just keep loading up their iteron 3's with 100m of stuff, banging their heads into the same old wall and wondering why they keep getting the same crappy result time & again. Rather than take a few extra minutes to go around the wall they're spending hours upon hours whining for CCP to remove the wall. Again, we are not just discussing gate camps. There are those that are engaging in ganking in belts as well. The problem is the current game mechanic that allows gankers to recover losses through insurance. A hauler that has no protection and uses auto pilot hauling lots of iskies deserves what they get. Just increase the risk to the gank squad. Unfortunately, most gankers are trial and alt toons that could care less about the current risk, standings. Opinions reflected on my posts are just that, my opinions. They do not reflect views held by my corp or alliance.
Big Fuzz ACCORD Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2008.03.27 06:45:00 - [71] Originally by: Hekilo Tetsatz The Gankers are the first to **** about EVE being a PVP game and rant about 'risk vs. reward', but as evidenced by the alts, and trial accounts, and NPC corpers a good number of the gankers are a great deal more risk averse than the much derided 'carebears'. This whole alt argument is irrelevant. If you know someone is recycling alts for this you need to petition it. It's bannable. Alt argument dismissed. BTW: if you're getting popped by noob alts with no skill points you really deserve to die because you put exactly zero effort into avoiding it AND you're on autopilot. Guys, just spend 2 seconds covering your ass and you won't die. Hell, you can even fly a fully expanded t1 hauler with a ton of value in it with reasonable safety as long as you are at the keys using WTZ. Is that REALLY so much to ask? Really worth all the time spent complaining? Really?
AKULA UrQuan STK Scientific Black-Out	Posted - 2008.03.27 06:50:00 - [72] It's the little things that'll keep you safe. -picking out the sound of a cargo scanner running. -The rifter that locked you may not be a moron. -Fly manualy useing WTZ. -Run a shuttle along the flightpath first. -Have a trusted corpmate (with a clue) fly 1-2 jumps ahead. -Take the longer, less traveled, path. -Nanofiber & I-Stabs too much trouble? Somewhere along the line I apparently missed the memo where effort was nolonger needed in eve.
Marcus TheMartin Tuxedo.	Posted - 2008.03.27 06:50:00 - [73] Originally by: Terminus adacai Originally by: Big Fuzz Unfortunately, most gankers are trial and alt toons that could care less about the current risk, standings. provide numbers
Big Fuzz ACCORD Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2008.03.27 06:55:00 - [74] Originally by: Terminus adacai Again, we are not just discussing gate camps. There are those that are engaging in ganking in belts as well. The problem is the current game mechanic that allows gankers to recover losses through insurance. Hulk, allow me to introduce you to Basilisk. Basilisk, Hulk. Fleet of hulks are then gankproofed by one nice pilot hanging out in a belt with them. If you complain about how it sucks so bad that you can't do it solo, etc. etc. Either 1) get some friends and suck it up; 2) train a logistics alt; 3) accept the increased risk of a gank; 4) fly a covetor that isn't worth ganking & make a bit less isk/second. None of this is too much to ask. All denying insurance payouts to gankers does is raise gankable threshold. We'll be having this SAME argument in a month when people find it suddenly outrageous that it's worth it for an uninsured brutix to gank their (insert whatever current value being used is + 20m) ship.
Bellum Eternus Death of Virtue Sex Panthers	Posted - 2008.03.27 06:56:00 - [75] Originally by: Cpt Fina Originally by: Akita T Originally by: Cpt Fina Freighters are borked tbqh. It's not suiciders fault, it's not the traders fault. The ship is borked. Scenario seven The freighter can't haul anything worth more than 1,000 ISK/m3 at full load. The freighter can only haul 1,05 times its own worth. The freighterpilot can do next to nothing on his own to modify his ship to counter a percieved threat unlike any other ship in the game bar shuttles. Escorts are often not financially viable. Multiple runs are often not financially viable. By using two people (freighter pilot and one gangmate), you can render a freighter nearly invulnerable. Particularly in highsec. Bellum Eternus [Vid] L E G E N D A R Y [Vid] L E G E N D A R Y I I
Terminus adacai Auroran PeaceKeepers Northern Regions Alliance	Posted - 2008.03.27 06:56:00 - [76] Originally by: Big Fuzz Originally by: Hekilo Tetsatz The Gankers are the first to **** about EVE being a PVP game and rant about 'risk vs. reward', but as evidenced by the alts, and trial accounts, and NPC corpers a good number of the gankers are a great deal more risk averse than the much derided 'carebears'. This whole alt argument is irrelevant. If you know someone is recycling alts for this you need to petition it. It's bannable. Alt argument dismissed. BTW: if you're getting popped by noob alts with no skill points you really deserve to die because you put exactly zero effort into avoiding it AND you're on autopilot. Guys, just spend 2 seconds covering your ass and you won't die. Hell, you can even fly a fully expanded t1 hauler with a ton of value in it with reasonable safety as long as you are at the keys using WTZ. Is that REALLY so much to ask? Really worth all the time spent complaining? Really? Rather then requiring an honest hard working pilot to investigate disposable alts or trials, just remove insurance pay outs. As for new pilots not being able to kill an industrial, do you not realize that alt toons with configurable skills and insurance are common place? Again, why should victim prove he was attacked by throw away alts? Just remove the insurance pay out.... How simple can it be? Opinions reflected on my posts are just that, my opinions. They do not reflect views held by my corp or alliance.
Roid Hunter Perkone	Posted - 2008.03.27 06:58:00 - [77] Originally by: AKULA UrQuan It's the little things that'll keep you safe. Somewhere along the line I apparently missed the memo where effort was nolonger needed in eve. You missed the "gankers are us" news letter then. How much effort do they put into hunting prey? Where is their risk?
Imperator Jora'h Hedion University	Posted - 2008.03.27 06:58:00 - [78] Edited by: Imperator Jora''h on 27/03/2008 07:01:22 Originally by: Shakuul There are plenty of ways to avoid suicide ganking. Funny...I see people say stuff like this all the time in threads like this but they never actually mention how it is done. Some claim it is a super sekkrit only they are privvy to and not willing to give up their advantage but really they have no clue. Bottom line is if a suicider wants to kill you they will kill you. Guards cannot do near enough to save you in time, you can tank all you want and it will not help if the gankers have a smidgen of a clue. THAT is what is bogus about this. Give haulers a legitimate means to protect themselves (or with others guarding them). Make ganks a less certain "I Win" button. As a game mechanic the current system stinks. 1) I have X-ship worth Y-ISK 1a) I know X-ship can output Z-Damage in 20 seconds 2) See hauler 2a) Scan hauler (which he can do nothing to prevent) 2b) If hauler defense < Z-Damage proceed to step 2c else abort 2c) If mods + cargo / 2 > Y-ISK proceed to step 3 else abort 3) Target hauler 3a) Press F1-F?, web and scram, bump for good measure if you are bored 3b) Wait for hauler to pop, wait for you to pop 4) Collect loot with ALT 5) Rinse and Repeat as necessary EDIT: I am NOT suggesting making haulers immune. Indeed AFK types should drop as easily under whatever system. But if a hauler makes the effort to protect themself then it should bear real results...not they die in 18 seconds instead of 15 seconds. -------------------------------------------------- "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!"
Marcus TheMartin Tuxedo.	Posted - 2008.03.27 07:03:00 - [79] Originally by: Terminus adacai [ Rather then requiring an honest hard working pilot to investigate disposable alts or trials, just remove insurance pay outs. As for new pilots not being able to kill an industrial, do you not realize that alt toons with configurable skills and insurance are common place? Again, why should victim prove he was attacked by throw away alts? Just remove the insurance pay out.... How simple can it be? Ravens and t's must be hard work jeeze just put in that simple battleship + skill investment and read a few guides on exactly what you need to do and just let it roll in
Reem Fairchild Shadow Forces Inc.	Posted - 2008.03.27 07:12:00 - [80] Originally by: Imperator Jora'h 2) See hauler 2a) Scan hauler (which he can do nothing to prevent) 2b) If hauler defense < Z-Damage proceed to step 2c else abort 2c) If mods + cargo / 2 > Y-ISK proceed to step 3 else abort 3) Target hauler 3a) Press F1-F?, web and scram, bump for good measure if you are bored 3b) Wait for hauler to pop, wait for you to pop If you haven't warped long before those steps can be taken, you're probably on auto-pilot.
Big Fuzz ACCORD Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2008.03.27 07:21:00 - [81] Originally by: Imperator Jora'h Edited by: Imperator Jora''h on 27/03/2008 07:01:22 Originally by: Shakuul There are plenty of ways to avoid suicide ganking. Funny...I see people say stuff like this all the time in threads like this but they never actually mention how it is done... ...2b) If hauler defense < Z-Damage proceed to step 2c else abort 2c) If mods + cargo / 2 > Y-ISK proceed to step 3 else abort Any other questions you have that I can point out how you answer a few sentences later? The 100% secure method: Make it so all the stupid people are better targets than me. Lord knows eve is in no short supply of them. Yep, that means don't put a billion isk in a badger. Put a billion isk in a freighter instead. The 99% secure method: SIT AT THE KEYS AND WARP TO ZERO. Almost everyone who gets suicided is afk.
Marcus TheMartin Tuxedo.	Posted - 2008.03.27 07:21:00 - [82] every one stop pulling numbers out of your ass
Roid Hunter Perkone	Posted - 2008.03.27 07:21:00 - [83] Originally by: Reem Fairchild Originally by: Imperator Jora'h 2) See hauler 2a) Scan hauler (which he can do nothing to prevent) 2b) If hauler defense < Z-Damage proceed to step 2c else abort 2c) If mods + cargo / 2 > Y-ISK proceed to step 3 else abort 3) Target hauler 3a) Press F1-F?, web and scram, bump for good measure if you are bored 3b) Wait for hauler to pop, wait for you to pop If you haven't warped long before those steps can be taken, you're probably on auto-pilot. Or in a hauler........
Reem Fairchild Shadow Forces Inc.	Posted - 2008.03.27 07:25:00 - [84] Originally by: Roid Hunter Originally by: Reem Fairchild Originally by: Imperator Jora'h 2) See hauler 2a) Scan hauler (which he can do nothing to prevent) 2b) If hauler defense < Z-Damage proceed to step 2c else abort 2c) If mods + cargo / 2 > Y-ISK proceed to step 3 else abort 3) Target hauler 3a) Press F1-F?, web and scram, bump for good measure if you are bored 3b) Wait for hauler to pop, wait for you to pop If you haven't warped long before those steps can be taken, you're probably on auto-pilot. Or in a hauler........ ...filled with cargo expanders and with nearly no agility skills trained... ...or on auto pilot.
Xyn Rhais Tessaract	Posted - 2008.03.27 07:45:00 - [85] And yet you made no mention of the risk for the person who does the ganking when you say "suicide ganking is fine"... because there isn't any maybe ?. There is no such thing as people who "provide the risk for others". That's just the BS of gankbears, your risk/reward should be comparable to that of your intended victims. You make it sound like only trading chars get suicide ganked. Also I laughed at the "tanked hauler". Comedy . Fact is: - if you fly a freighter or a transport, people can suicide gank you just to ** you off. Because their loss is lower then your empty** ship. Suicide ganking isn't fine right now (in terms of cost/difficulty) and you just made a big failpost.
Marcus TheMartin Tuxedo.	Posted - 2008.03.27 08:15:00 - [86] Originally by: Xyn Rhais Fact is: - if you fly a freighter or a transport, people can suicide gank you just to ** you off. Because their loss is lower then your empty ship. I can just smart bomb your pod just to ** you off but does that mean it happens?
Willow Whisp Sadist Faction	Posted - 2008.03.27 08:22:00 - [87] Originally by: Xyn Rhais And yet you made no mention of the risk for the person who does the ganking when you say "suicide ganking is fine"... because there isn't any maybe ?. Risk: The good loot will pop. Risk: The target will be on it's toes and gets away Risk: Ship Loss - Insurance + Modules + Dropped loot may not be enough Risk: Some other noob in a hauler steals the dropped loot before my alt can scoop it... Quote: There is no such thing as people who "provide the risk for others". That's just the BS of gankbears, your risk/reward should be comparable to that of your intended victims. Read above. The "Gankbears" do all they can to minimize their risk. They fly cheap t1 fit ships to minimize their risk and losses. By the same measure, taking steps to protect yourself, minimizes your own risk. Quote: Fact is: - if you fly a freighter or a transport, people can suicide gank you just to ** you off. Because their loss is lower then your empty ship. Suicide ganking isn't fine right now (in terms of cost/difficulty) and you just made a big failpost. They would have to catch my transport first. A t1 freighter can also be insured, thus if the insurance on the suicide gankers covers their losses, then so does the insurance on your freighter cover your loss. (by your logic) To those that continue to bring up the "Recycled Trial Account" arguement. The most used Suicide Gank ship is the battlecruiser. Relevant bit bolded: BATTLECRUISERS Battlecruisers Skill at operating Battlecruisers. Can not be trained on Trial Accounts.** -- My Sig got pwnt by Cortes :(
techzer0 IDLE GUNS	Posted - 2008.03.27 08:25:00 - [88] Originally by: Barek Ironfist you missed scenario eight After making a few freightor runs, and then snuffing it you decide to upgrade to a jump freightor and become immune to anything but a vast number of suicide ganking battleships. Barek I saw one cyno to a highsec gate in lowsec. I was 80k off so I didn't make it in time to bump him... but someone is going to teach that guy a very expensive lesson one day. ------------ Originally by: CCP Mitnal It's great being a puppetmaster
Lara Renquist The Phoenix Confederacy Raging Phoenix Alliance	Posted - 2008.03.27 08:51:00 - [89] Edited by: Lara Renquist on 27/03/2008 08:52:54 Originally by: Akita T Edited by: Akita T on 27/03/2008 04:31:45 Originally by: Terminus adacai Problem is, not all gankers are after haulers and goods. 2++ bil ISK mission-boats are just another symptom of what's wrong. You only need such a killing machine if you want to do solo-work. AGAIN, we don't need yet another reason to discourage teamwork. A small group of dirt-cheap battlecruisers can easily tackle L4 missions... hell, that's what OUR corp is for. Sure, some do solo work, but everybody's welcome to cooperate. I may be a complete idiot on this point but why are +2 billion mission runners wrong? I fly a 4.5 billion one and my mate well he is even way over that, you have any idea how long it took to get that amount of isk on missions? True indeed there is almost zero risk in missions, and this should be changed. then again the numbskull's who say that mission running is sooo lucrative... get a bc go rat in 0.0 for a while, and you will know what i mean. Thing is you are not in a position to say what is right and what is wrong, this is a sandbox mmo and i play it the way I want, true we need to adapt and yes i only haul stuff in phoon's these days, this does not mean thata anyone else's playstyle is wrong. Imo all these people who keep on going into this subject on the forum's and making new post's about it, are completely cluelles. So basicly, yes i have a dapted to the playstyle of others, especially gankers, but NO i will not play like you want me to simply cause you find yourself so important to make posts about it on the forum.
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2008.03.27 09:06:00 - [90] Originally by: Lara Renquist I may be a complete idiot on this point but why are +2 billion mission runners wrong? I fly a 4.5 billion one and my mate well he is even way over that, you have any idea how long it took to get that amount of isk on missions? The "wrong" part comes when they DO get suicide-ganked, then come here complaining about "how the hell else am I supposed to make money" or other somesuch nonsense. Want to fly solo ? FINE. Just don't complain when your expensive toy gets popped. You knew the risks. Or if you didn't, now you do. Quote: Thing is you are not in a position to say what is right and what is wrong, this is a sandbox mmo and i play it the way I want, true we need to adapt and yes i only haul stuff in phoon's these days, this does not mean thata anyone else's playstyle is wrong. I don't have to say that, the devs already made it pretty clear from day one. They don't want people to succeed in "solo ops" unless they're either insanely skilled or fly insanely expensive ships, and even in that case, they have to be pretty lucky too, to compete against a team of cheaply fit, moderately skilled pilots. It's now what I'm saying, it's what the core game design is SCREAMING : teamwork is essential, and highly desirable. You're free to swim against the current if that's your choice though. Quote: Imo all these people who keep on going into this subject on the forum's and making new post's about it, are completely cluelles. So basicly, yes i have a dapted to the playstyle of others, especially gankers, but NO i will not play like you want me to simply cause you find yourself so important to make posts about it on the forum. You can play any way you like. You CAN'T go ahead whining every couple of days that the game is broken because it doesn't fit YOUR vision, and ask for a major change. Well, not "you", you... the generic "you", the "suicide ganking is imbalanced" crowd. See ? A simple matter of perspective. Matter of fact, the official CCP developement team perspective. It's not a secret, and if it isn't common knowledge to "you guys and gals" yet, not my fault. 1\|2\|3\|4\|5.
Lara Renquist The Phoenix Confederacy Raging Phoenix Alliance	Posted - 2008.03.27 09:21:00 - [91] The "wrong" part comes when they DO get suicide-ganked, then come here complaining about "how the hell else am I supposed to make money" or other somesuch nonsense. Want to fly solo ? FINE. Just don't complain when your expensive toy gets popped. You knew the risks. Or if you didn't, now you do. Mission runners who get popped by suicide gankers deserve it. What bug's me to hell is the fact that IF the suicide gankers are stupid enough to engage me, it is ME who get's the whines, and no you won't see this on the boards. The thing is, suicide ganking exists, and it will stay here for quite some time, however, what is wrong on this part is the fact that people who have acumulated quite some isk, are able to pop any miner, any hauler, no matter how you are fitted in almost no time with a small gang. I'm not interrested in suicide ganks myself, but if i was i would trow 1000 ravens away just to get some kill's.... those 1000 ravens would mean a whole lot of destroyed hulks and haulers, and i would probably even benefit from the suiciding. how can this not be wrong?
Oftherocks Of The Rocks Corp	Posted - 2008.03.27 09:23:00 - [92] Wow, I am a total carebear, and even I thought this was a humorous post. Do you people really want all risk removed from the game? If I am hauling valuable goods, I want, no I demand, that my pulse races and I get very nervous. Come on people, it is a game, and part of the fun in this game is taking real risks... without those risks it would be a pretty boring game imho.
Matthew BloodStar Technologies	Posted - 2008.03.27 10:06:00 - [93] Originally by: Akita T You are a brand new character. You just bought an industrial and fit it, and you spent half a mil ISK doing it. You load it with 50 mil worth of goods and you go on your way to sell them 10-20 minutes later for 55 mil ISK. If you're a brand new character, where did you get 50mill isk of goods from in the first place? If a corp-mate gave it to you to haul, then get a better corp, as the corp-mate clearly doesn't know what they're doing either. Originally by: Akita T In a suicide-gank free world, you just made 5 mil with minimal effort. Would you have bought a mining frigate, it would have taken you the better part of THREE TO FIVE HOURS do do this. A mining frigate is the wrong comparison here. If you have enough isk for an industrial and 50mill worth of cargo, then you could easily get yourself into a mining cruiser instead for negligable extra training and considerably less isk investment. Originally by: Akita T Learning from scenario four, you got a blockade runner this time. You might carry less, but fit for speed and agility, nobody catches you. Well, in the warp-to-zero world (and as we're talking high-sec ganking, there's no bubbles to worry about), speed is irrelevant, it's all about the agility - well, actually it's inertial mass which is a combination of the agility and mass attributes. Interesting fitting debate to be had here. While the blockade runners built-in warp stabs are nice, an agility fitted transport ship is surprisingly nimble, and far more flexible when you deal in a variety of goods with varying value densities, as it's easier to refit for what you're carrying at the time. Of course the best option for flexibility is to have a blockade runner, transport ship and freighter, and pick your ship and fittings to match the job at hand. Originally by: Akita T Suicide ganking is FINE ! Suicide ganking for profit is fine. However you have done nothing to address the question of suicide ganking for fun. People can and do blow others up for the sheer joy of doing it, or the joy they derive from the other players angry reactions. Should they be able to do this? Yes, of course. Should they be able to do this as cheaply as they do now? Probably not. To demonstrate what I'm talking about, lets take a different version of scenario one: You are a brand new character. You just bought an industrial and fit it, and you spent half a mil ISK doing it. Your corp-mate warns you of the dangers of suicide ganking, and to not put too much in your cargo at once. You load it with 5 mil worth of goods and you go on your way to sell them 10-20 minutes later for 5.5 mil ISK. It's no longer profitable to gank you, but the guy in the 5 million isk cruiser does it anyway, because it makes him laugh. You did everything right, but you still lost. The ganker lost less isk than he'll earn recovering his sec status. While some people might consider just having to mission or rat to recover sec-status a punishment, many do it by choice. Under the current system, a player who enjoys suicide ganking and ratting is exceptionally well-catered for. The problem is that recovery of sec status is currently a side-effect of what is a viable occupation in it's own right. Not only does insurance mean that you get paid for getting your ship blown up by police, but the bounty/loot system means you get paid to recover your sec status too. ------- There is no magic Wand of Fixing, and it is not powered by forum whines.
Matthew BloodStar Technologies	Posted - 2008.03.27 10:08:00 - [94] Being forced to choose between bounty/loot and sec status bonus (rebalancing sec status bonuses to achieve a reasonable isk per bonus ratio) would make the sec status hit more meaningful, and more of a real punishment. Like insurance removal, it would increase the cost of the gank, but in a different way - it would be a fixed cost rather than a cost that scales with the size of the gank. As such it would have minimal impact on the profitability of ganking experienced players who should know better anyway, but offer an appreciable discouragement of the "just for fun" ganking of newbies in crappy ships. Originally by: Cpt Fina The freighter can't haul anything worth more than 1,000 ISK/m3 at full load. The freighter can only haul 1,05 times its own worth. Sounds pretty much in line with the design brief of the ship to be honest. Freighters were designed for bulk transport of bulky (i.e. low isk/m3) goods. They were not designed to be a super-hauler suitable for moving an empire's worth of megacyte at a time. Freighters are also still more efficient than other (empire) hauling options even when partially loaded. In terms of time per m3 the breakeven point is at about 1/3 full compared to a fully expanded occator IIRC, and the freighter is still more resilient in a gank than the transport ship. ------- There is no magic Wand of Fixing, and it is not powered by forum whines.
agent apple Spartan Industries Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.03.27 10:36:00 - [95] You see the problem isn't with how well you tank your ship, or how much insurance I get. It's called being AFK or thinking high security applies to your estamel fit golem. A long time ago you'd have been told to stfu and adapt or die. Now CCP will happily dumb the game down to cope with your stupidity. TBH I really don't care, because I will always be there to kill your ****, even if it costs me isk. I will make damn sure there is never anywhere 'safe' for multi billion isk ships flown by idiots.
Priest Amarr Imperial Academy	Posted - 2008.03.27 12:00:00 - [96] Edited by: Priest Amarr on 27/03/2008 12:02:30 There is another scenario. The guy waits at the gate scans random ships. He finds a good cargo, but he has no prior plan, no friends, no thought invested in it. Just goes straight to suicide gank while rushing his second account to collect loot. Most people are not angry because of the nature of suicide attacks, they are usually not against team work, good planning and execution and effort. People feel cheated because they know other party will always metagame, will always abuse game mechanics, and they have got no chance against it without doing the same. So they respond to this in the same matter , but their own style. They say, fine CCP keep multiple accounts in game, and make your money but give us a safe space to live away from it. Keep disposable alts in game but ban suicide ganking. They say let people abuse every game mechanic but make us immune to it. Maybe one day, a mining corp will declare war on another and their small group of fighters will target the other corp. And other corp will see they have a chance against this company, and they will form a small fighter group too, and they will lose some and they will gain some and they will feel like they have a chance protecting themselves or gaining an advantage over other corporation. That day, you will see people dont feel like victims anymore. That day they will be happy to be part of it. Until then, as long as attackers motto is "if its a fair fight, you are doing something wrong" , the victim will also adapt this motto , but use it in his own style, and pressure CCP anyway he can to stop attacker entering his own little space. People, you call whining, are not doing anything different than other party, They are also trying to use out of game methods for gaining an advantage. Maybe one day, a new star will shine , somewhere in this universe, give people hope and their dreams back. May Blessings Be With You Priest Amarr
Jack Jombardo The Last Samurais	Posted - 2008.03.27 12:13:00 - [97] Suizid ganging might be fine .. IF (and that the most important part) you do not make profit just from ensurence as it is now! Suizide ganging might be fine .. IF (second important part) the victim can do somethink to counter the ganging trough fitting WICH IS IMPOSIBLE for Firghters atm! Even a T2-Transport can't be fittet to survive a full DPS blaster BS. But yea, we all got that you (this sucking suizder) don't care about "fairplay" and that you (selfish highsec Pirate) will whine at the forum to prevent any changes that will help your victims. Absolut normal reaction to protect your assotial doings.
Malcanis R.E.C.O.N. Black-Out	Posted - 2008.03.27 12:21:00 - [98] Originally by: Priest Amarr Edited by: Priest Amarr on 27/03/2008 12:02:30 There is another scenario. The guy waits at the gate scans random ships. He finds a good cargo, but he has no prior plan, no friends, no thought invested in it. Just goes straight to suicide gank while rushing his second account to collect loot. Most people are not angry because of the nature of suicide attacks, they are usually not against team work, good planning and execution and effort. People feel cheated because they know other party will always metagame, will always abuse game mechanics, and they have got no chance against it without doing the same. So they respond to this in the same matter , but their own style. They say, fine CCP keep multiple accounts in game, and make your money but give us a safe space to live away from it. Keep disposable alts in game but ban suicide ganking. They say let people abuse every game mechanic but make us immune to it. Maybe one day, a mining corp will declare war on another and their small group of fighters will target the other corp. And other corp will see they have a chance against this company, and they will form a small fighter group too, and they will lose some and they will gain some and they will feel like they have a chance protecting themselves or gaining an advantage over other corporation. That day, you will see people dont feel like victims anymore. That day they will be happy to be part of it. Until then, as long as attackers motto is "if its a fair fight, you are doing something wrong" , the victim will also adapt this motto , but use it in his own style, and pressure CCP anyway he can to stop attacker entering his own little space. People, you call whining, are not doing anything different than other party, They are also trying to use out of game methods for gaining an advantage. Maybe one day, a new star will shine , somewhere in this universe, give people hope and their dreams back. May Blessings Be With You Priest Amarr What an enormous load of bad logic and dishonesty. By your argument, DDoSing people so they can't log in is "just the same" as being better at tactics and strategy. oh noes! Some people cheat by maximising their chances of success when engaging in PvP! Crying like a little girl to get the rules changed is an appropriate response! tl;dr: You are contemptible. CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that.
nossler The Stench Corp	Posted - 2008.03.27 12:37:00 - [99] Holy "There's 10 ravens on that gate!" Batman. Easy fix to this problem. All industrialist stop working! You probably sold that raven/tempest/megathron or whatever that popped your Azz in the first place. Want the ganking to stop? Easy don't make ships for them to use! They will get bored and go back to 0.0 or onto the next craze. This is just a fad, CCP can't afford to have the core of the game players screaming for change and not respond. These gankers are a small portion. Most likely limp, bored out of their little mind kids, using Daddy's Credit Card to play the game. Seriously get a life and learn to play smart! You slow boat your Azz across the system, Hell I'd pop ya just because your being stupid! Fly smart! Don't set auto pilot and then walk away! Don't fly the same route eveyone else is. Don't go into Jita with a billion worth of crap and expect to be safe. Go to another system and use a hauler to bring it in smaller amounts. You worked hard and used your brain to make ISK in the game now use that brain to keep it! just please and I am begging here stop posting about it! We all know whats happening out there, kinda hard not to when almost every sector has a butt load of Concord on the gate! I gotta say my hats off to the gankers you have added that extra bit to the game. Now if you could just put that tallent into something more constructive, like, "How to make billions of isk with little or no money of my own!", well I may just buy that info! LOL My Name is Nossler and I endorse this Message
Malcanis R.E.C.O.N. Black-Out	Posted - 2008.03.27 12:43:00 - [100] "CCP can't afford to have the core of the game players screaming for change and not respond." CCP can afford to ignore a dozen or so whorumers who are making noise all out of proportion to the issue. CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that.
Nephiam Quantum Industries Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2008.03.27 13:13:00 - [101] Originally by: Akita T Originally by: Terminus adacai Considering that anyone can start a free trial account with a simple email address, your advice is worthless. You said they do it to make a profit for their main, right ? Reporting the "throw-away" alt, in case it's confirmed to be a throw-away alt, following the cashflow you get to the main. BAMF, main gone. Yes and it is also against the EULA that u have Macro Miners and ISK sellers and a whole bunch of other things - POINT IS - the effort to prove this is just not worth it. I liked the remove insurance if u have a low-sec status or criminally flagged - That is great. Many countries these days have FICA laws stating that u do not do business with criminals - Know Your Client. so yeah - u want to gank - no insurance - That has my Vote Of course, unless you make a trial alt just to inflict damage but make no profit from it. In case you don't know, CCP stores not only your IP address but also your windows product hash key, so they can tell ith's the same Windows install playing several accounts or not. While you might have access to a good deal of proxies, and even if some false positives might result from that, rest assured, the guy doing something like this WILL eventually wind up without his precious "main account" he's trying to protect.
Dathias CHON Aphelion.	Posted - 2008.03.27 13:18:00 - [102] Worst thing in EVE is alt character. Perfectly anonymous for gank, scam etc. Recyclable, reusable. Thats why there is too many scams, ganking, stealing etc.
Ryoji Tanakama Daikoku Fleet Shipyards	Posted - 2008.03.27 13:23:00 - [103] Originally by: Akita T Edited by: Akita T on 27/03/2008 04:22:00 Originally by: Ava Santiago At some point the market will *** and I won't be able to get the materials moved so nothing will be sold. At some point, the only people moving goods will be those that can properly balance their ship's "resistance" with the value of the cargo. You unload your risk to them, they get paid, you get paid, everybody's happy. Except the suicide-gankers that is, they start getting too bored because nothing worthwhile comes along often. Stupid people that haul milions in an untanked Badger I will always die, then whine. Smart people know how to mitigate their risks. Originally by:** Terminus adacai I understand you mean well, but rahter then TRUST CCP or rely on investigations (BOB ring a bell?), just get rid of flagged insurance pay outs... And then you end up with a highsec that's TOO secure, especially for those in NPC corps. There are enough incentives to NOT leave the NPC corp, we don't need another good reason not to join a player corp. Look, now just stop making wholly subjective and unreasoned statements as if they are some kind of fundamental truth. TOO secure? How so? Why is your opinion more valid than everyone elses if you cant actually provide reasoning to support it? You haven't actually undermined a single counterpoint so far this whole thread and you're making some fairly arbitrary predictions on how the eve economy works without seemingly having any kind of demonstrable evidence to support your case. If suicide gankers dont get their insurance payout (some punk who stole my car wouldn't get to claim insurance - someone who charged their truck into it with intention to kill isn't going to get a cheque to replace or repair it). Stop defending mechanics that unreasonably support a playstyle that any sane person can see is an unintended design oversight. The change in no way alters the benefits of being in an NPC corp, being in an NPC corp has no baring on insurance payouts. ~Ryoji Tanakama Daikoku Fleet Shipyards
Nephiam Quantum Industries Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2008.03.27 13:24:00 - [104] Here is another twist for u all: The big thing about suicide ganking is that the loot is picked up by an unassociated second account ie STEALING, but as he is 'with' the gankers it does not matter. If he is IN the gang the loot is his to take - so he can take it. SO Let Concord and Gate guns - shoot the 2nd account for STEALING the loot (as he was not in the killing gang). Oh and btw he normally steals it in a crappy fitted T1 hauler . At least nw - he wil have to ensure he is uber tanked in his hauler
Farham AWE Corporation Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2008.03.27 13:25:00 - [105] "CONCORD provide consequences" I believe the main argument from those being suicide ganked is that there really isn't real consequences. No one logically argues (or can argue) that high sec should be carebear heaven but on the same them the consequences from Concord should match or at least come closer to the consequences of the gankee. Suicide ganking is fine but there definately needs to be more pain in doing it so that people have to really decide "is this worth it?". Intrepid Crossing Diplomat and Forum Operating N00b IRC - 2008 Award Winning Worst PVP Alliance in EVE
Ryoji Tanakama Daikoku Fleet Shipyards	Posted - 2008.03.27 13:26:00 - [106] Originally by: Oftherocks Wow, I am a total carebear, and even I thought this was a humorous post. Do you people really want all risk removed from the game? If I am hauling valuable goods, I want, no I demand, that my pulse races and I get very nervous. Come on people, it is a game, and part of the fun in this game is taking real risks... without those risks it would be a pretty boring game imho. I'ts not about removing all risk, it's about removing an illogical reward from what is supposed to be a criminal action. If anything it adds risk for the suicide ganker, who currently suffers no risk for his rewards as all his costs are covered. ~Ryoji Tanakama Daikoku Fleet Shipyards
cRazYf1St CrAzyF1sTs	Posted - 2008.03.27 13:29:00 - [107] just fix the insurance tbh. .
Willow Whisp Sadist Faction	Posted - 2008.03.27 13:42:00 - [108] Originally by: Nephiam STEALING, but as he is 'with' the gankers it does not matter. If he is IN the gang the loot is his to take - so he can take it. Uhh, no, he can't. The loot belongs to the owner of the ship that got destroyed. Wreck ownership in PvP =/= wreck ownership in PvE - the "Thief" gets aggroed to the gankee and his corporation. Also, are you seriously proposing making stealing from a wreck/can a concordable offense? -- My Sig got pwnt by Cortes :(
Nephiam Quantum Industries Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2008.03.27 13:51:00 - [109] Uhh, no, he can't. The loot belongs to the owner of the ship that got destroyed. Wreck ownership in PvP =/= wreck ownership in PvE - the "Thief" gets aggroed to the gankee and his corporation. Also, are you seriously proposing making stealing from a wreck/can a concordable offense? Yes - at least for the gates. I like taking out Ore thieves - so let them steal and not let concord get the fun of killing them
Imperator Jora'h Hedion University	Posted - 2008.03.27 13:55:00 - [110] Originally by: Reem Fairchild Edited by: Reem Fairchild on 27/03/2008 07:34:53 Originally by: Roid Hunter Originally by: Reem Fairchild Originally by: Imperator Jora'h 2) See hauler 2a) Scan hauler (which he can do nothing to prevent) 2b) If hauler defense < Z-Damage proceed to step 2c else abort 2c) If mods + cargo / 2 > Y-ISK proceed to step 3 else abort 3) Target hauler 3a) Press F1-F?, web and scram, bump for good measure if you are bored 3b) Wait for hauler to pop, wait for you to pop If you haven't warped long before those steps can be taken, you're probably on auto-pilot. Or in a hauler........ ...with nearly no agility skills trained... ...or on auto pilot. Edit: Actually scratch that. On auto pilot. It should not take that much for any ship to get into warp. And if it does, you can always simply put on a mwd and pulse it, to sharply reduce the time it takes. You know the untruth in this because auto-haulers DO get ganked. Additionally the gankers are not doing everything I listed in one go. They have a scanning ship up the line somewhere to spot targets. When the target hauler jumps in it is all over. Align to warp? They will scram you and bump you. Mid slots dedicated to scrams and increased targeting speed. In short if you are identified as a target chances are excellent they will get you. Originally by: Willow Whisp Risk: The good loot will pop. Risk: The target will be on it's toes and gets away Risk: Ship Loss - Insurance + Modules + Dropped loot may not be enough to offset losses Risk: Some other noob in a hauler steals the dropped loot before their alt can scoop it... - Good Loot will pop? Maybe but only a stupid ganker goes for a ship where the chances are they may lose money on a random dice roll. Ships are chosen that will be profitable no matter what drops. - Target on its toes and escapes? Not likely at all if the suicide ganker has a clue of what they are about (they have already ship scanned and know the target's tank and possible stabs or speed mods). - Ship loss > loot? Only if the ganker is stupid and ganks at random which pretty much never happens. The ganker knows full well what they stand to gain and only do it if the money balance is in their favor. - Other noob steals loot drop? Well...maybe. At least the ganker is ready for it and prepared to swoop in to nab the stuff giving them a distinct advantage here. There are many things they could do to ensure the loot remains theirs. I seriously doubt many gankers lose much to this at all. -------------------------------------------------- "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!"
NeoTheo Dark Materials	Posted - 2008.03.27 14:46:00 - [111] Edited by: NeoTheo on 27/03/2008 14:46:06 I have been ganked, and i have also been the ganker. i would have no problem with CCP taking away insurance on any kill where concord got the killing blow. (or for that matter gateguns in 0.5 and above). most people that get ganked are unfortuantly stupid. sometimes however you take all the sensible precautions and still get ganked, well you know what, some times i cook food in exactly the same way as i did the first time and it turns out crap. thats life, even in eve a game, sometimes life and eve life just sux. i am getting a bit sick of people screaming "high sec is supposed to be 100% safe", these people need to READ about the game and not make assumptions (then carrying them assumptions for years cause they have been lucky enough to not getganked or wardec'ed). Linkage
fivetide humidyear The Scope	Posted - 2008.03.27 15:27:00 - [112] SCENARIO 9 or is it 10? Buy jump freighter, think your invulnerable (again) die to a slightly larger suicide squad, losing all your stuff and an expensive freighter, moan on forums, threaten to quit your (n+1) accounts. suicide ganking is fine, it makes hauling fun and exciting.....
Priest Amarr Imperial Academy	Posted - 2008.03.27 16:10:00 - [113] Originally by: Malcanis What an enormous load of bad logic and dishonesty. By your argument, DDoSing people so they can't log in is "just the same" as being better at tactics and strategy. .... Temple never gets involved into arguments, only states the current situation. I can see it is not possible for you without meta gaming, but its ok, its not our place to judge you. If playing one character is too difficult , you must be accepted for who you are. And as for everyone else, you all can make your own choices. There is a room for everybody in the Temple Priest Amarr
Julius Romanus Fatalix Inc. Phalanx Alliance	Posted - 2008.03.27 16:27:00 - [114] Originally by: Roid Hunter Originally by: Julius Romanus Originally by: Arian Serpintus Edited by: Arian Serpintus on 27/03/2008 03:49:09 And to those that reply that not insuring such losses would chase new players away, give me a ***** break. New players aren't setting up gank squads, and if they are, ** em, we don't need em... The one's setting up gank squads are using throw away alts or free trials. That in and of itself should end this discussion. No, it could be broken with a single sentence or two =P I got concorded 3 times in a row when i first came back to eve. There's even a forum post from me asking if it would ever stop. Myself and a friend wanted to test our "named" guns :) I dont personally think a half afk mission drake/raven should get insurance payouts if by some twist of eve it somehow pops. But it does. And thats not going to change. Insurance is how it is. Besides, the language of the contract is clear "i pay you x, if my ship blows up before y you pay me z". No stipulations on how or why the ship pops. That could be fixed with a simple sentence or two.... ------------------ For Medicinal Use Only.
TechnoTits Federal Navy Academy	Posted - 2008.03.27 17:37:00 - [115] Originally by: Cpt Fina Escorts are often not financially viable. This is where you fail. You need an escort. If it's not financially viable, you are in the wrong business.
Tzar'rim Reckless Corsairs	Posted - 2008.03.27 18:05:00 - [116] - Everyone is a target, always - if you're stupid, ignorant or just unwilling to put in effort you become a bigger (and easier) target - more idiots, more kills - idiots who learn get killed less - idiots who don't learn whine on the forum while getting killed frequently, apart from that they send you hatemail. I don't see the problem in this pvp game. I'm looking for a home
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2008.03.27 19:59:00 - [117] Originally by: Ryoji Tanakama Look, now just stop making wholly subjective and unreasoned statements as if they are some kind of fundamental truth. TOO secure? How so? Why is your opinion more valid than everyone elses if you cant actually provide reasoning to support it? You haven't actually undermined a single counterpoint so far this whole thread and you're making some fairly arbitrary predictions on how the eve economy works without seemingly having any kind of demonstrable evidence to support your case. Hmm, let's see... my "arbitrary predictions" have been always right so far, I HAVE provided reasoning, and please point out the so-called "counterpoints I have not undermined" yet. The "risk-vs-reward" thing ? IF the ones getting ganked would stop being greedy/lazy/stupid/whatever and cease trying to move too much value in one trip, the risk-vs-reward for the gankers themselves would be quite peachy too ! Since the ones getting ganked are NOT carrying appropriate loads, sure, the gankers DO get less risk and more reward. But, is it the system's fault ? The ganker's fault ? NO ! It's the ganked people's fault 100% ! The "it doesn't make sense" argument ? Well, let's see, we "live" in a game where internet spaceships handle like submarines flying through space soup, guns hit better the farther the target is, shots go through rocks and other ships hitting the intended target, missile have an explosion radius but hurt nobody else in it except the one who's getting shot and so on and so forth. It's a game. It's supposed to resemble something believable, but not be completely believable if it means sacrificing gameplay. The "recycled alts omfg" craze ? Somebody, somewhere, somehow cheats at <gameX>. Ban <valid thing> in <gameX> because a lot of players cheat using that as base for their cheating. REPORT the damn alts and let CCP sort it out. If you don't trust them to handle anything properly, why do you even bother asking for a change in sucicide gank mechanics ? I mean, you can't trust they'll do it anyway, so why bother ? No, seriously, WHAT other so-called "counterpoint" wasn't "addressed" yet ? Quote: If suicide gankers dont get their insurance payout (some punk who stole my car wouldn't get to claim insurance - someone who charged their truck into it with intention to kill isn't going to get a cheque to replace or repair it). Stop defending mechanics that unreasonably support a playstyle that any sane person can see is an unintended design oversight. To be quite honest, IF you are to change anything about insurance, then I would fully support either a complete removal of insurance, or a complete revamp of insurance premiums to take into account previous COLLECTED insurances. Doesn't matter you lost your ship to CONCORD, to a badly aggroed mission, to another player or you self-destructed it. Either NOBODY gets insurance, or EVERYBODY gets insurance depending on individual previous insurance collection history. Or... you might as well just leave it the way it is now. 1\|2\|3\|4\|5.
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2008.03.27 20:12:00 - [118] Edited by: Akita T on 27/03/2008 20:12:45 *char limit reached, continuing post here* You see, CONCORD might just as well arrive at the scene in seconds after you start shooting. You might need several battleships to take down an industrial, since you might have to do it on alpha-strike alone. Heck, there's PLENTY of other ways to change the "risk-vs-rewards" for the gankers, but CCP intentionally CHOOSES NOT TO IMPLEMENT THEM. Like I said... suicide-ganking is (mostly) fine. It's either you who's greedy, lazy, stupid or several of the previously mentioned attributes. That, or just plain unlucky, in a minor set of circumstances (where the ganker deosn't do it for profit, but for "fun"). Contrary to what you might think, there's not many of the "seeking fun" category, but plenty of "seeking ISK" ones. 1\|2\|3\|4\|5.
Hekilo Tetsatz Crimson Rebellion Cold Star Alliance	Posted - 2008.03.27 20:27:00 - [119] Edited by: Hekilo Tetsatz on 27/03/2008 20:29:19 Originally by: Akita T The "risk-vs-reward" thing ? IF the ones getting ganked would stop being greedy/lazy/stupid/whatever and cease trying to move too much value in one trip, the risk-vs-reward for the gankers themselves would be quite peachy too ! You seem to be missing the point. The only effort required to suicide gank is to put together a throwaway T1 ship and sit on a gate until something you want to kill shows up. And with Concord kills still paying insurance, the absolute worst case scenario for a ganker is that they come out a few thousand ISK down for the mods not covered by insurance. Meanwhile, the Haulers/Miners are told that they need to fly T2 ships, give up massive amounts of cargo space to fit a full tank, take long ass detours to avoid heavy traffic systems, fly with full escorts etc.. and the absolute best case scenario for them after going through all of that? They keep what they had to begin with. Quote: The ganker's fault ? NO ! It's the ganked people's fault 100% ! See above. If the gankers actually had to carry any load you might have a point, but claiming it's perfectly balanced that they don't have to because if other players would give up hours of play time and millions of ISK they could avoid ganking is absurd. Quote: Either NOBODY gets insurance, or EVERYBODY gets insurance depending on individual previous insurance collection history. Why? Your whole argument has been that everybody is responsible for their own actions and CCP shouldn't intervene. So why when it comes to something that might cut into a gankers profit margin is it suddenly absolutely necessary that CCP enforce profits for them via game mechanics? Carebears choose not to take precautions and they get ganked, gankers choose to suicide in high sec and they don't get paid for it. Balance. Quote: Heck, there's PLENTY of other ways to change the "risk-vs-rewards" for the gankers, but CCP intentionally CHOOSES NOT TO IMPLEMENT THEM. That's what they said about NOS, and Wardecs. It really amazes me that people continue to use the argument that if CCP hasn't gotten around to changing something yet, it must be working exactly as they always intended it to.
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2008.03.27 21:26:00 - [120] Edited by: Akita T on 27/03/2008 21:29:55 Originally by: Hekilo Tetsatz Originally by: Akita T The "risk-vs-reward" thing ? IF the ones getting ganked would stop being greedy/lazy/stupid/whatever and cease trying to move too much value in one trip, the risk-vs-reward for the gankers themselves would be quite peachy too ! You seem to be missing the point. The only effort required to suicide gank is to put together a throwaway T1 ship and sit on a gate until something you want to kill shows up. Sorry, no, it's YOU who's missing the point. You just can't separate the "risk and reward" of haulers from the "risk and reward" of suicide gankers. One's risk is the other's reward. The only thing that changes is the VALUE of goods that can be carried for the "breakeven" point. You just want a MUCH higher breakeven point. I say the breakeven point is almost fine where it is now. Could stand to get a bit higher, but not MUCH higher. Originally by: Hekilo Tetsatz That's what they said about NOS, and Wardecs. It really amazes me that people continue to use the argument that if CCP hasn't gotten around to changing something yet, it must be working exactly as they always intended it to. The point was that slight changes to "combat" the over-spread of suicide-ganking have happened, as mentioned before (including the latest "anti-drone-user" changes). The "quality" of CONCORD response has always increased gradually, therefore providing a slowly increasing "cost of suicide". Removing insurance payouts would be a HUGE jump in comparison, almost one order of magnitude higher. So, no, it's not that they didn't get around to changing that, it has been the policy to SLOWLY change it, when necessary, then look at the results. Of course it may not work out EXACTLY as intended, but removing payouts JUST for CONCORD attacks would cause it to work CONTRARY to what was intended. Say it probably takes 20-25 decently-skilled and moderately well fited battleships to take down a freighter in highsec before (even more to be on the safe side). You get a net loss of maybe 15-25 mil per battleship right now, maybe more (difference between purchase+premium - payout, on top of CONCORD-destroyed modules, drones and whatnot). So, 375-625 for the kill, at around 1/3 "survival chance" of the freighter's load, that's 1-2 bil worth of goods before it BEGINS to be probably profitable (and there's still a gamble). Now, remove the insurance payouts. Suddendly, it's 70-90 mil lost per attacking battleship, if not more. Even assuming a whooping 50% cargo survival chance, that's still 3.5 to 4.5 bil worth of cargo you could easily be transporting before the suicide-gankers even get a DECENT CHANCE of breaking even. Realistically speaking, you would have to carry probably well over 6 bil worth of cargo in this case before any ganksquad would even consider you a decent target. In other words, freighter pilot in NPC corp ? Damn near invulnerable. Of course, you can still destroy it, at a LOSS. Any of you remember that once upon a time, destroyed freighters NEVER dropped their load, but it was always destroyed instead ? The choice to make freighters drop loot when destroyed, guess who made it. Not me, not you, CCP. They WANTED to make freighters valid suicide-gank targets. I mean come on, what other supporting evidence do you want ? Would you NEED a dev coming in here and SAY "yes, we like that people suicide-gank others in highsec, and no, we don't plan on anything that would reduce the occurence drastically" ? Seriously ? 1\|2\|3\|4\|5.
Sabrina Treadehugger Science and Trade Institute	Posted - 2008.03.27 22:38:00 - [121] Edited by: Sabrina Treadehugger on 27/03/2008 22:39:09 "They WANTED to make freighters valid suicide-gank targets." conspiracy theories ftl lol get the hell out of high sec freighters were getting killed all over the place and it was annoying and unfair that no loot dropped when one died. This just shows how obsessed and beyond reason you are and probably defending an alt the suicides for fun.
Roid Hunter Perkone	Posted - 2008.03.27 23:25:00 - [122] Guess it is time to place 10k BM's in a can and carry that along with the cargo to spam the scanner with a long list.
Cassandra Beckinsale Ministry of War	Posted - 2008.03.28 02:07:00 - [123] SCENARIO EIGHT I am a hard worker and i work nearly 10 hours day I play eve only during weekend cause i have a social life and a wife I do not want to be involved in PvP, Corp Affair, similar stuff. I just like THIS scifict game and i play it with a friend of mine. I have no time to deal with losses cause it take agees to me to get equipent, cause i play 2 hours / week This is a game and I pay for it. If you want reality go in iraq and fight.
Aeo IV Xomic OmniCorporation	Posted - 2008.03.28 02:53:00 - [124] But Haulers aren't the only ships being ganked in high sec, the problem, in my mind, is more to do with players who spend half a billion to fit a mining ship for mining, only to have it blown up by goons or such. You even say in your post (the op that is) that around 5 or 6 you could be flying a BS or BC, which is true, but a good mining setup, at least for high sec, does not involve the use of armor reps or shield boosters, or what have you. Which brings me to my next point, unless CCP introduces a mini Freighter or somehow altering how transport/indies use cargo space, the use of cargo expanders is a must. Besides, Hauling is a crappy profession as it is, no one offers good money for contracts or anything.
Gamesguy D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.03.28 03:18:00 - [125] Originally by: Imperator Jora'h Edited by: Imperator Jora''h on 27/03/2008 07:01:22 Originally by: Shakuul There are plenty of ways to avoid suicide ganking. Funny...I see people say stuff like this all the time in threads like this but they never actually mention how it is done. Some claim it is a super sekkrit only they are privvy to and not willing to give up their advantage but really they have no clue. Bottom line is if a suicider wants to kill you they will kill you. Guards cannot do near enough to save you in time, you can tank all you want and it will not help if the gankers have a smidgen of a clue. THAT is what is bogus about this. Give haulers a legitimate means to protect themselves (or with others guarding them). Make ganks a less certain "I Win" button. As a game mechanic the current system stinks. 1) I have X-ship worth Y-ISK 1a) I know X-ship can output Z-Damage in 20 seconds 2) See hauler 2a) Scan hauler (which he can do nothing to prevent) 2b) If hauler defense < Z-Damage proceed to step 2c else abort 2c) If mods + cargo / 2 > Y-ISK proceed to step 3 else abort 3) Target hauler 3a) Press F1-F?, web and scram, bump for good measure if you are bored 3b) Wait for hauler to pop, wait for you to pop 4) Collect loot with ALT 5) Rinse and Repeat as necessary EDIT: I am NOT suggesting making haulers immune. Indeed AFK types should drop as easily under whatever system. But if a hauler makes the effort to protect themself then it should bear real results...not they die in 18 seconds instead of 15 seconds. Liar, a simple search through the suicide gank threads will find you plenty of ways to avoid suicide ganking. I'll list them here, but I know you're not gonna read it and a week from now you will make this same lie in some other suicide gank thread. 1. Use a blockade runner. For cargo sub 4k m3, a nanoed blockade runner is effectively invulnerable. Its literally impossible to scan them due to cargo scan cycle time(3 seconds with best named). 2. Divide up your cargo. I do this all the time for freighters. When I dont feel like having a scout and a webber for my freighter, I just split up the cargo till about a bil-1.5b a trip. Never had any problems. 3. For small cargo, use an inty or a covops. The above mentioned blockade runner will work as well. 4. For medium sized(like say 20k m3) but high value cargo, use a freighter. Again, you can use a freighter to haul up to about 1.5b with little risk of suicide gank. No one is gonna put together a 20 man gank squad so they can have a chance to get 40mil/man. 5. For jita lag, either haul in off hours or dock 1 jump from jita, then test the lag with a shuttle. If the lag is bad, divide your cargo into small pieces and use either a freighter or a battleship/cmd ship to haul the pieces in. I personally use a plated megathron with trimarks and shield extenders.
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2008.03.28 04:54:00 - [126] Originally by: Sabrina Treadehugger Quote: They WANTED to make freighters valid suicide-gank targets. conspiracy theories ftl lol get the hell out of high sec freighters were getting killed all over the place and it was annoying and unfair that no loot dropped when one died. This just shows how obsessed and beyond reason you are and probably defending an alt the suicides for fun. Excuse me ? Didn't I just say that ? Ok, I didn't say exactly that, and I apologize for the confusion. "They watted to make freighters PROFITABLE suicide-gank targets." There, better ? The only reason freighters were getting killed before the change was as retaliation, usually when there was good reason to believe the freighter belongs to a rival. I have a hard time believing someboy would have ever bothered suicide-ganking a freighter for FUN before they started dropping any loot. P.S. This shows that you should actually read a thread from start to end, comprehend it, then reply... not just reply to a single line out of hundreds written. 1\|2\|3\|4\|5.
Gamesguy D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.03.28 05:01:00 - [127] Originally by: Akita T Originally by: Sabrina Treadehugger Quote: They WANTED to make freighters valid suicide-gank targets. conspiracy theories ftl lol get the hell out of high sec freighters were getting killed all over the place and it was annoying and unfair that no loot dropped when one died. This just shows how obsessed and beyond reason you are and probably defending an alt the suicides for fun. Excuse me ? Didn't I just say that ? Ok, I didn't say exactly that, and I apologize for the confusion. "They watted to make freighters PROFITABLE suicide-gank targets." There, better ? The only reason freighters were getting killed before the change was as retaliation, usually when there was good reason to believe the freighter belongs to a rival. I have a hard time believing someboy would have ever bothered suicide-ganking a freighter for FUN before they started dropping any loot. P.S. This shows that you should actually read a thread from start to end, comprehend it, then reply... not just reply to a single line out of hundreds written. Remember when freighters were made to drop loot? How all the same whiners called it the "end of trade in eve". They predicted that the sky would fall and the economy of eve would grind to a halt? Ya...
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2008.03.28 05:26:00 - [128] Originally by: Gamesguy Remember when freighters were made to drop loot? How all the same whiners called it the "end of trade in eve". They predicted that the sky would fall and the economy of eve would grind to a halt? Ya... Heh, this reminds me of a signature... Eve is dead * *:again 1\|2\|3\|4\|5.
Sabrina Treadehugger Science and Trade Institute	Posted - 2008.03.28 09:21:00 - [129] My bad on the freighters thing , you meant it as a bring in line not with suicide ganking as a goal. Well me i'm not too worried about suicide ganking as i take my precautions. But i believe the cost should be higher to promote trade and economy growth.It's hard enough trying to start or mantain a trade hub with 1 bill load freighters. Now i know that from a cost point of view removing insurance seems a lot.And it's only natural becouse this situation is made by the players and the ship prices. So yes once again the stupid people (the minerals i mine are free people)mess up the game for all of us. so if we take the the insurance idea than it should get a 20% decrease when concorded.I know it seems unfair but make it lower for everything and we're back where we started. Also I'd be happy with a boost to freighters .
Avon Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.03.28 09:36:00 - [130] Originally by: Cassandra Beckinsale SCENARIO EIGHT I am a hard worker and i work nearly 10 hours day I play eve only during weekend cause i have a social life and a wife I do not want to be involved in PvP, Corp Affair, similar stuff. I just like THIS scifict game and i play it with a friend of mine. I have no time to deal with losses cause it take agees to me to get equipent, cause i play 2 hours / week This is a game and I pay for it. If you want reality go in iraq and fight. You pay to play the game - it is your choice. If you do not like the product, or it does not suit your lifestyle you are perfectly welcome to not play it. Your payment does not mean the game should be changed to suit your personal requirements. I work full time too. I have kids I don't get to play many hours a week. And yet I do manage to replace losses, and partake in high-end PvP where those losses can be quite substantial. You being bad at the game is not a good reason to have it made easier. If you want a nice, easy, safe game - go find one. How hard is that? Eve-Online: The Text Adventure
Avon Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.03.28 09:37:00 - [131] Originally by: Sabrina Treadehugger So yes once again the stupid people (the minerals i mine are free people)mess up the game for all of us. Those people are funny. Eve-Online: The Text Adventure
Sabrina Treadehugger Science and Trade Institute	Posted - 2008.03.28 09:48:00 - [132] Originally by: Avon Originally by: Cassandra Beckinsale SCENARIO EIGHT I am a hard worker and i work nearly 10 hours day I play eve only during weekend cause i have a social life and a wife I do not want to be involved in PvP, Corp Affair, similar stuff. I just like THIS scifict game and i play it with a friend of mine. I have no time to deal with losses cause it take agees to me to get equipent, cause i play 2 hours / week This is a game and I pay for it. If you want reality go in iraq and fight. You pay to play the game - it is your choice. If you do not like the product, or it does not suit your lifestyle you are perfectly welcome to not play it. Your payment does not mean the game should be changed to suit your personal requirements. I work full time too. I have kids I don't get to play many hours a week. And yet I do manage to replace losses, and partake in high-end PvP where those losses can be quite substantial. You being bad at the game is not a good reason to have it made easier. If you want a nice, easy, safe game - go find one. How hard is that? Get over yourself ok Paying custuomers have a right to post their oppinnions and beliefs here and sometimes change the game.(remember the carrier nerf ) If you don't like it maybe you should go play another game .
Avon Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.03.28 09:52:00 - [133] Originally by: Sabrina Treadehugger If you don't like it maybe you should go play another game . Yeah, maybe I should. I mean, I just beta tested this one, played since release, and am still here generally loving it. Whereas you don't like the game and want it changed to a game you do like so that you will stay. So in conclusion I should leave because I like the game, and you should stay because you don't? Gotchya.. Eve-Online: The Text Adventure
Sabrina Treadehugger Science and Trade Institute	Posted - 2008.03.28 10:01:00 - [134] Originally by: Avon Originally by: Sabrina Treadehugger If you don't like it maybe you should go play another game . Yeah, maybe I should. I mean, I just beta tested this one, played since release, and am still here generally loving it. Whereas you don't like the game and want it changed to a game you do like so that you will stay. So in conclusion I should leave because I like the game, and you should stay because you don't? Gotchya.. No no you confuse me . Learn to read pls. I am not Cassandra Beckinsale and i want the game tweaked not changed just like you do. Btw wtb modesty lessons.
Avon Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.03.28 10:26:00 - [135] Originally by: Sabrina Treadehugger No no you confuse me . Learn to read pls. I am not Cassandra Beckinsale I'm sorry, I lost track of which one of your alts I was replying to. Eve-Online: The Text Adventure
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2008.03.28 10:42:00 - [136] Kids, kids, play nice, all those "whose alt who is" games are tiresome... for fairness' sake, let's just assume everybody's nobody's alt right now 1\|2\|3\|4\|5.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 :: [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.