EVE Search - Simple Solution To High Sec Gank-Tards

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Simple Solution To High Sec Gank-Tards

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 4 post(s)
B1FF	Posted - 2008.04.21 21:13:00 - [121] Originally by: Keyser Sozie Noobs have it hard enough trying to learn how to play EVE without having to contend with lazy "Pirate" who are not man enough to pirate in low sec. Noobs have it hard enough trying to learn how to play EVE without having to contend with overly harsh penalties for making mistakes. Why do you want to punish newbs who sink all their isk into a shiney new BC and then get it popped for making a newb mistake? You realize that your proposed change would hurt newbs more than it would the suicide gankers right?
Xaen Caldari Caritas.	Posted - 2008.04.21 21:54:00 - [122] Originally by: Anaalys Fluuterby It has nothing to do with risk-adversity, it has to do with that phrase "Risk vs Rewards" that the PvP crowd are always screaming about when something happens they think makes it harder to kill someone. Where is the "risk" in knowing you need 5 BS worth 55M in insurance and fittings to take down a ship you KNOW is carrying 10x that? 2 hours ratting in 0.0 to fix your minimal security rating loss? If your freighter is hauling 2.75B without an escort you deserve the gank you get. I'm not going to tell you what that escort should be either. I'd much rather take advantage of fools with lots of money than help them figure out how to keep it. Welcome to EVE. - Support fixing the UI\|Suggest Jita fixes\|Compact logs
Nobues Gallente Nomadic Wayfarer Syndicate Carpe Universitas	Posted - 2008.04.21 22:30:00 - [123] This is a few ideas I had in mind. If a player ganks someone in high sec space, then he gets a 50% cut (or something really high cut in sec status) and the person getting ganked gets a 50% cut in any insurance payout and on top of that a 1000% increase in times for kill rights. may it 1 or 2 years for the kill rights will do, that way even a noob in 2 years will be able to get there skills up to go back and get some payback. Making the sec status hit very high, means even if something didn't mean to they can still .. not be a total loss. Cutting the insurance in 1/2 means its not a total loss but still not to much of a loss that even if the guy didn't mean to well your not left with nothing. There are up sides and down sides to each but I think all three are good changes. Webhosting, teamspeak and Killboard for you, your corp, and your Alliance Click me for more info
Malcanis R.E.C.O.N. Insurgency	Posted - 2008.04.21 23:18:00 - [124] Originally by: Nobues This is a few ideas I had in mind. If a player ganks someone in high sec space, then he gets a 50% cut (or something really high cut in sec status) and the person getting ganked gets a 50% cut in any insurance payout and on top of that a 1000% increase in times for kill rights. may it 1 or 2 years for the kill rights will do, that way even a noob in 2 years will be able to get there skills up to go back and get some payback. Making the sec status hit very high, means even if something didn't mean to they can still .. not be a total loss. Cutting the insurance in 1/2 means its not a total loss but still not to much of a loss that even if the guy didn't mean to well your not left with nothing. There are up sides and down sides to each but I think all three are good changes. Doesn't go far enough. Suicide gankers should: be set to -10 Reduced to 250 SP (Racial frigate 1) banned forced to kiss a dog receive 2 ***-twisters give the gank victim their lunch money And finally, they should not be allowed to use the swings or the climbing frame during lunchbreak for a whole week**. This may seem hash, but it's the only way that CCP will be able to get 7 year olds to play EvE. CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that.
DigitalCommunist Obsidian Core	Posted - 2008.04.21 23:27:00 - [125] Suicide ganking needs a fix? Since when? _______________________________ http://epicwords.net/
Cutie Chaser Gallente Federal Navy Academy	Posted - 2008.04.22 03:58:00 - [126] Originally by: CCP Prism X Again, an alternative we've discussed. Along with X many insurable criminal acts before no further payouts. Security status dictating whether you get insurance payout. Player Age dictating insurance payout. Etc. Etc. Etc. All I can tell you is that we've discussed it ad infinitum. If someone here manages to bring up an idea we've not covered over coffee breaks, smoke breaks, during lunch, at the bar or on the plethora of different places were we discuss EVE.. then you really should be working here. You've discussed the possibility of getting your resident econ guy to help you devise an insurance system that doesn't hemorrhage ISK into the economy like a severed aorta? You could still give newbies their first 5 ship losses (due to concord) 100% payout. If they haven't learned after 5 times that asteroids and smartbombs don't play nicely together then I doubt they will make it long anyways.
Philopoemen Locke Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.04.22 04:22:00 - [127] Here is the major issue I have with no insurance payouts to concordings ect. I am sometimes drunk/an idiot and fling a ship into high sec with global criminal counter. Now with most proposals I wouldn't get insurance. Next no insurance to people with negative sec or a graduating scale. What about anti pirates or just low sec regulars who get negative status fighting people off their turf. Another issue with freighters It takes what 13-20 people to kill one in high sec. You can avoid a freighter ganking with a good scout. Maybe use 2 to make sure. As for transport ganks t2 haulers can be setup to be very hard to catch, regular haulers moving value able goods should be scouted. As even a regular hauler theres probably at least 2 gankers involved. The rash of hulk ganks yeah that sucks, fit whatever kind of buffer tank you can maybe stabs. Sit as far away from the warp in point to that asteroid belt. Align to an object, and when a noobship/shuttle/frig warps in stays like 3 seconds then warps out you should gtfo to be on the safe side. Also at the OP suicide ganking something worthwhile takes more planning than gate camping sometimes.
Malcanis R.E.C.O.N. Insurgency	Posted - 2008.04.22 07:50:00 - [128] Originally by: DigitalCommunist Suicide ganking needs a fix? Since when? People are whining about it so it must be a problem. That's logic, you see. CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that.
Ankhesentapemkah Gallente	Posted - 2008.04.22 08:13:00 - [129] Edited by: Ankhesentapemkah on 22/04/2008 08:13:51 Originally by: CCP Prism X It's not that the people here at CCP believe that insurances should be payed out to criminals. It's more a factor of our newbies. Just think about how often you accidentally aggro'd CONCORD one way or the other as a newbie. Like never? Noone I know had it happen either, thanks to the big "YOU'RE COMMITING A CRIMINAL ACT IF YOU CONTINUE"-warning that pops up. If it pleases you, I can actually research it how often this occurs amongst legitimate players (maybe you should factor out the criminal recycled alts and trial account abuse when you count newbie ships destroyed). On the other hand, we're apparantly having one day old newbies suicide ganked for people's perverted enjoyment. Here's your drastic solution that you might not have considered during your lunch breaks: Make all characters less than two weeks old unable to commit criminal acts. Solves the trial account abuse too. Hell, if it's too drastic for you and you're still worried so much about newbies, make it checkable in the tutorial settings, so that by default characters are unable, and they have to uncheck it and accept the risks if they want to enable the option for criminal acts. --- Consider voting for me in the CSM elections. I invite you to take a look at the campaign website for issues and further information. Visit our Campaign Website
Zifrian Gallente Gallente Federal Bank Interstellar Corporate Alliance	Posted - 2008.04.22 08:25:00 - [130] Edited by: Zifrian on 22/04/2008 08:28:09

Sparkinator	Posted - 2008.04.22 08:37:00 - [131] I don't understand the opposition to this idea. As many defenders of the current system will go, "once you undock you will risk dieing, because EVE isn't nice. I wholeheartedly agree. You shouldn't get insurance for murder. The "tough" aspect should go both ways. I don't see hwy people must do this to make ISK even though it inherently isn't as profitable as other means, it's just hurting the system to favor abnormality.
Doonoo Boonoo Amarr Hedion University	Posted - 2008.04.22 08:57:00 - [132] Edited by: Doonoo Boonoo on 22/04/2008 09:05:15 Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah Edited by: Ankhesentapemkah on 22/04/2008 08:17:01 Originally by: CCP Prism X It's not that the people here at CCP believe that insurances should be payed out to criminals. It's more a factor of our newbies. Just think about how often you accidentally aggro'd CONCORD one way or the other as a newbie. Like never? Noone I know had it happen either, thanks to the big "YOU'RE COMMITING A CRIMINAL ACT IF YOU CONTINUE"-warning that pops up. If it pleases you, I can actually research it how often this occurs amongst legitimate players (maybe you should factor out the criminal recycled alts and trial account abuse when you count newbie ships destroyed). Utter rubbish.Newbies make mistakes all the time.It's a fact.How do you propose to measure this yourself? Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah [ On the other hand, we're apparantly having one day old newbies suicide ganked for people's perverted enjoyment. Oh noes 1 newbie got suicide ganked yesterday.How many lost a ship down to a mistake.Everybody panic.(I would dispute that story anyway.) Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah Here's your drastic solution that you might not have considered during your lunch breaks: Make all characters less than two weeks old unable to commit criminal acts. Solves the trial account abuse too. Hell, if it's too drastic for you and you're still worried so much about newbies, make it checkable in the tutorial settings, so that by default characters are unable, and they have to uncheck it and accept the risks if they want to enable the option for criminal acts. Way to mess up a lot of newer players experience Ank.No stealing,no shooting etc.Ticking a box that says 'enable criminal acts' is no different to the warning sign that appears when you are about to commit a criminal act.Come up with something that doesn't penalise new players. Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah That, and I find it funny that you guys justified salvage theft by saying that the mechanics immitate real life salvaging laws, and then allow this stain on the game to persist by saying that Eve insurance should not immitate real life laws in any way. Yeah,and I find it funny that you are using a smokescreen of helping newbies and being anti suicide ganking because You want to be able to mine afk
Cordarone IVP	Posted - 2008.04.22 09:12:00 - [133] I'm still a noob, but I also adhere to a rule that I don't see mentioned much here and that is: Don't fly anything you can't afford to lose.
Inertial The Python Cartel	Posted - 2008.04.22 09:17:00 - [134] If insurance doesn't pay out for people who have commited criminal acts, then the following acts should also invalidate insurance: Everything except sitting in station! Whenever you undock, you are putting your ship at risk. Wether it is ratting (against NPCs who want to destroy you) or mining (huge astroids that can easily crush your ship), you are willingly going into a situation where your ship, modules and cargo are at risk.
Ankhesentapemkah Gallente	Posted - 2008.04.22 09:20:00 - [135] Originally by: Doonoo Boonoo Yeah,and I find it funny that you are using a smokescreen of helping newbies and being anti suicide ganking because You want to be able to mine afk Given the fact that you made the statement in the link above I'm surprised you are'nt in favour of BACON.But then again that wouldn't get you many votes would it? Nowhere there does it say that I want to be A-F-K, you dumb troll. Have you EVER interpreted a statement of mine correctly? No. Then I'm not going to waste any more time replying to your nonsense. For those that aren't familiar with Doonoo Boonoo yet, he/she is just a **** that trolls every single thread I post in, posting factual errors, out-of-context statements, and blatant lies, hoping that the thread decends in another pathetic 10+ page flamefest. I'm not going to fall for this again. pats Doonoo on the head, feeds her a cookie and walks off --- Consider voting for me in the CSM elections. I invite you to take a look at the campaign website for issues and further information. Visit our Campaign Website
Zarch AlDain Hematite Rose Bionic Dawn	Posted - 2008.04.22 09:56:00 - [136] Edited by: Zarch AlDain on 22/04/2008 10:00:07 Problem: Suicide ganking Why is it a problem? Because it breaks risk vs reward - risk is zero for a suicide ganker as they go in planning to lose their ship and sec status. Reward is 50% of the victims mods/cargo so by choosing the right victim at least some reward is guaranteed too. Because it is too easy. The threshold for a suicide gank to be profitable is far too low. I've never been suicide ganked but then I can use assault frigates/inties/blockade runners/deep space transports/freighters to move things. Newer players do not have that option and can get the values that are worth ganking very quickly. Potential solution: Classify concordokkan offences into two groups - offences vs players and offences vs NPCs. vs NPCs things work as currently. vs players I suggest 2 changes: 1. When a concord response is triggered a popup appears on the victims screen saying 'concord is responding to an attack on your ship or assets.' with buttons 'call off concord' and 'proceed'. This will allow people to prevent accidental concordokkens from gangs. Edit to add: Of course concord would proceed anyway while the popup is up - the proceed button will actually do nothing except close the window. 2. When a player is destroyed by concord then the insurance payout will be split between the attacker and the person being attacked. The ratio of the payouts will be based on what % of the targets total hit points was lost in the attack. For example a newish player in a badger 2 is pootling along. He gets jumped by a pair of battlecruisers (40 mill insurance). Each battlecruiser does 50% of the badgers hit points in damage. Each battlecruiser gets 10 mill insurance, the badger 2 pilot gets 20 mill insurance + his own industrial's insurance. This could potentially even be made non-linear in a way that means that more attackers = more insurance paid to victim (atm 3 attackers would give 1/3rd of their insurance each). If a noob accidentally smartbombs a battleship then he will only scratch its shields - he will get 98% of his insurance payout but the battleship pilot will only get 2%. If a miner in a belt super-tanks his hulk and a battlecruiser tries to jump it but only gets it down to 50% hit points then the miner in the belt gets 10 mill payout (cos he lost 50%) and the attacker gets 10 mill. Just an idea :) Zarch AlDain ---- My corp is recruiting. See the recruitment thread here.
Ki An Gallente Filiolus Of Bellum	Posted - 2008.04.22 10:45:00 - [137] Originally by: Zarch AlDain Why is it a problem? Because it breaks risk vs reward - risk is zero for a suicide ganker as they go in planning to lose their ship and sec status. Reward is 50% of the victims mods/cargo so by choosing the right victim at least some reward is guaranteed too. Interesting post, but like all others trying to describe the 'problem', it fails. A trader is planning on selling their cargo for a profit. There is no risk to them. They go from point A to point B and make a profit. Enter the suicide ganker. Now the trader has a risk to compete with. Let's turn it around. The suicide ganker calculates what value of cargo he needs to hit to make a profit. During the 20-30 seconds (average, might be a bit high actually) that the hauler slow boats to the gate, the ganker has to do the calculations based on market value. Risk 1: Miscalculation. The profit is in fact far less than he calculated. Happened to me lots of time. End result: Net loss. Risk 2: Not enough time. The target gets away. End result: No gain, no loss except time. Risk 3: Tanked target. The ganker doesn't manage to kill the target before he gets popped. End result: No gain, only loss. Risk 4: Popped cargo. The cargo that drops is far less than the total amount. End result: Net loss, break even or small gain. Originally by: Zarch AlDain Because it is too easy. The threshold for a suicide gank to be profitable is far too low. I've never been suicide ganked but then I can use assault frigates/inties/blockade runners/deep space transports/freighters to move things. Newer players do not have that option and can get the values that are worth ganking very quickly. This paragraph is entirelly subjective. YOU think it's too easy. YOU think the threshold is too low. Also, newer players don't have enough in their cargo to make them worth suiciding, at least generally speaking.
Zcorm Narwarr	Posted - 2008.04.22 10:53:00 - [138] Suicice attacks don't need a game change to be fixed. The players themselves are the ones that can "fix" suicide ganking. That means being smart while carrying valuable cargo. Unfortunately for the victims most fail at protecting their cargo because they are too lazy to prepare for any attacks.
Malcanis R.E.C.O.N. Insurgency	Posted - 2008.04.22 11:01:00 - [139] Edited by: Malcanis on 22/04/2008 11:01:44 Originally by: Zcorm Narwarr Suicice attacks don't need a game change to be fixed. The players themselves are the ones that can "fix" suicide ganking. That means being smart while carrying valuable cargo. Unfortunately for the victims most fail at protecting their cargo because they are too lazy to prepare for any attacks. Wait, are you saying that smart, alert players who work in teams with properly fitted ships and sensible tactics somehow "deserve" to be more successful? That doesn't sound very fair to lazy, greedy, careless players, now does it? 4-week mandatory Political Correctness Awareness Workshop for you, mister.
Thamuzz Minmatar Nexus Consortium	Posted - 2008.04.22 11:59:00 - [140] Originally by: Malcanis Edited by: Malcanis on 22/04/2008 11:01:44 Originally by: Zcorm Narwarr Suicice attacks don't need a game change to be fixed. The players themselves are the ones that can "fix" suicide ganking. That means being smart while carrying valuable cargo. Unfortunately for the victims most fail at protecting their cargo because they are too lazy to prepare for any attacks. Wait, are you saying that smart, alert players who work in teams with properly fitted ships and sensible tactics somehow "deserve" to be more successful? That doesn't sound very fair to lazy, greedy, careless players, now does it? 4-week mandatory Political Correctness Awareness Workshop for you, mister. This sarcasm is exemplary! classic.

Doonoo Boonoo Amarr Hedion University	Posted - 2008.04.22 12:04:00 - [141] Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah Originally by: Doonoo Boonoo Yeah,and I find it funny that you are using a smokescreen of helping newbies and being anti suicide ganking because You want to be able to mine afk Given the fact that you made the statement in the link above I'm surprised you are'nt in favour of BACON.But then again that wouldn't get you many votes would it? Nowhere there does it say that I want to be A-F-K, you dumb troll. Have you EVER interpreted a statement of mine correctly? No. Then I'm not going to waste any more time replying to your nonsense. I suggest you read the OP in the topic I linked to.It quite clearly states that people are complaining about Eve because they play semi afk and you are agreeing with them! Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah For those that aren't familiar with Doonoo Boonoo yet, he/she is just a **** that trolls every single thread I post in, posting factual errors, out-of-context statements, and blatant lies, hoping that the thread decends in another pathetic 10+ page flamefest. I'm not going to fall for this again. Lies.I don't troll every thread you post in.I point out inconsistencies with your posting and provide a link so others can make up their own minds if I'm posting factual errors, out-of-context statements, and blatant lies. Start making posts which are consistent and take some responsibility for your earlier outbursts instead of claiming to be misunderstood all the time eh.
Sine Lege	Posted - 2008.04.22 12:07:00 - [142] A new (?) idea: How about doing what RL insurances do. Don't stop the insurance payout for 'repeat offenders', but increase the insurance bills exponentially - based on a player standing towards the insurance company. So when you gank you get a security hit AND an insurance standing hit. The lower your standing towards the insurance the more expensive the next insurance will be (payout stays the same). The standing could regenerate over long periods of time (in absence fresh claims). Yes I know that EVE-Online is not equal to RL, but as the EVE-Devs apparently have not yet closed the topic (as far as internal discussion is concerned), I wanted to offer my 2 cents
Inertial The Python Cartel	Posted - 2008.04.22 12:28:00 - [143] Originally by: Zarch AlDain Edited by: Zarch AlDain on 22/04/2008 10:00:07 Problem: Suicide ganking Why is it a problem? Because it breaks risk vs reward - risk is zero for a suicide ganker as they go in planning to lose their ship and sec status. Reward is 50% of the victims mods/cargo so by choosing the right victim at least some reward is guaranteed too. Because it is too easy. The threshold for a suicide gank to be profitable is far too low. I've never been suicide ganked but then I can use assault frigates/inties/blockade runners/deep space transports/freighters to move things. Newer players do not have that option and can get the values that are worth ganking very quickly. Problem: High Sec Why is it a problem? It breaks risk vs. rewards - risk is zero for a carebar basing in high-sec, as they are protected by concord. Solution: Remove High-sec we are recruiting!
Cheap Dude	Posted - 2008.04.22 12:53:00 - [144] Why shouldn't a pirate get insurance money? This is a game where everybody can do and can be everything they want. Removing insurance from pirates removes the 'bad side' in EVE. If you don't like the bad side and what they are doing, then do something about it or join them. Basicly, don't fly what you can't affort to lose!
Xaen Caldari Caritas.	Posted - 2008.04.22 13:12:00 - [145] Originally by: Nobues This is a few ideas I had in mind. If a player ganks someone in high sec space, then he gets a 50% cut (or something really high cut in sec status) and the person getting ganked gets a 50% cut in any insurance payout and on top of that a 1000% increase in times for kill rights. may it 1 or 2 years for the kill rights will do, that way even a noob in 2 years will be able to get there skills up to go back and get some payback. Making the sec status hit very high, means even if something didn't mean to they can still .. not be a total loss. Cutting the insurance in 1/2 means its not a total loss but still not to much of a loss that even if the guy didn't mean to well your not left with nothing. There are up sides and down sides to each but I think all three are good changes. CCP isn't going to touch insurance. It would be devastating to newbies. Your sec status idea is hilariously full of nerd rage. I have no problem with extending kill rights. Maybe not by 1000% cause they already last a month, but 3 months seems reasonable. Problem is it's not like your hauler alt is going to go take on a HAC pilot. Even within 3 months.
Xaen Caldari Caritas.	Posted - 2008.04.22 13:15:00 - [146] Just make kill rights sellable. I gank some foolish hauler, he sells rights to a merc, I get more pvp fun. I think the kill right owner should be flashy red or stand out in some way if the rights are transferred.
Malcanis R.E.C.O.N. Insurgency	Posted - 2008.04.22 14:15:00 - [147] Originally by: Xaen Just make kill rights sellable. I gank some foolish hauler, he sells rights to a merc, I get more pvp fun. I think the kill right owner should be flashy red or stand out in some way if the rights are transferred. This. Then the market can take care of things as it should, and provide a player-based solution. 10,000x better than asking CCP to take the nasty piwat's toys away. I don't even know that the kill-right owner needs to stand out - maybe just an eve-mail CONCORD notification that the guy you ganked a few hours ago has sold his killrights which will expire in x number of days. Commit a crime in empire? Fine, now you never now which way punishment is going to come from or when. After a few ganks, the paranoia will start to build up..
Matrixcvd Caldari Rionnag Alba Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.04.22 14:23:00 - [148] Originally by: Keyser Sozie Noobs have it hard enough trying to learn how to play EVE without having to contend with lazy "Pirate" who are not man enough to pirate in low sec. nobody is gonna waste 15 mil difference on killing noobs, thats not what high sec ganking is about, noobs dont fly around officer fit in a expensive ships, you are missing the point
Shaia Devine Caldari Joint Espionage and Defence Industries	Posted - 2008.04.22 14:33:00 - [149] IMO the best way to deal with suicide gankers is to give players a better chance to enact justice....make the length of time req'd to get sec status back to neutral a lot longer. Maybe 1 point can be regained every 24 hours, the current system is a joke which i think most ppl will acknowledge. Personally iv got no problems with ppl getting insurance back,or suicide ganking per se..but the time doesnt fit the crime. Perhaps look at ways to utilize the bounty hunter system more effectively to deal with them. Currently the entire system favors the criminal.
Tippia Caldari School of Applied Knowledge	Posted - 2008.04.22 14:41:00 - [150] Edited by: Tippia on 22/04/2008 14:45:23 Originally by: Xaen CCP isn't going to touch insurance. It would be devastating to newbies. No it wouldn't. I should know - I am one. Such a change would only be remotely devastating to people who go through a lot of expensive ships and equipment in a short period of time – us n00bs, almost by very definition, do not fall into that category. A n00b that accidentally gets himself killed will do so once, and will then learn. While it may not seem like that first time, the loss will be insignificant, with or without insurance.



Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

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