|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.05.02 20:51:00 -
[1]
Its more a question of whether or not there should be that isk faucet than whether or not its worth the risk/reward. The main risk in security status as you suicide gank your status goes down and you will be unable to continue the activity. This means its impossible to continually suicide gank without partaking in activities that keep your sec up. And if you are doing that you can easily supply the isk for the ships.
I don't think there is much of a problem with with suicide gankers. Especially since, unlike 0.0, there are easy ways to make yourself safe, either by pre-loading concord, via logistics[a single lrar or lst will keep a miner with a resist based passive tank pretty much protected against a gank which means two logistics ships can keep 8-12 miners reasonably well protected and can do it when afk so long as there are no active war-decs], or simply by being alert. Its the same for freighters, a few logistics ships following a freighter means that its much harder to suicide gank. |
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.05.02 20:59:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Dierdra Vaal
I think no insurance should be paid when a person loses their ship to concord. It does not make sense to pay insurance to someone who did something criminal to apply for the insurance. People should not be rewarded for breaking the law.
How do you differentiate the accidents when the real aggression? I know I've lost a ship in high-sec before because i accidentally aggressed a gang member who was not in my corp[in an RR gang, was going to stick drones on him and one of my guns activated].
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.05.02 21:14:00 -
[3]
Originally by: LT Stryker This sounds like you want to debate the issue amongst yourselves. My understanding was that the CSM was suppose to listen to what the player community debated (in-game and in the forums), and then present the best option to CCP.
Can any Candidates summarize what has been already debated in the forums and explain why they think one fix would be better/fairer than the others?
There hasn't been a consensus on the forums. But remember, its also the CSMs job to apply judgment to decide what is valid and what isn't valid. |
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.05.02 21:31:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Ethaet
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Dierdra Vaal
I think no insurance should be paid when a person loses their ship to concord. It does not make sense to pay insurance to someone who did something criminal to apply for the insurance. People should not be rewarded for breaking the law.
How do you differentiate the accidents when the real aggression? I know I've lost a ship in high-sec before because i accidentally aggressed a gang member who was not in my corp[in an RR gang, was going to stick drones on him and one of my guns activated].
Turn warnings on. If a warning says 'CONCORD will wtfpwn your ship', don't click yes.
Warning aren't a really good way to make it work since it poping up in the middle of a fight is not very conducive to shooting at your enemy. |
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.05.02 23:11:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Leandro Salazar
Easy way around that is to only lose insurance when your target actually dies. And as stated in my thread, I am totally in favor of removing insurance for suiciders in this manner.
That does indeed work. Kinda. My friend died even if my one heavy pulse laser activation didn't kill him. |
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.05.02 23:12:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Arithron Can you expand a little on what you mean by tradeable kill rights?
Are you suggesting, as it seems to me, that if Pilot X gets nailed at a gate by a Gank Squad, s/he could assign someone else (eg, 'Bounty hunter' or 'Merc') their killright, so Gank Squad member Y can be killed?
Sounds an interesting idea to explore further, especially if insurance is invalidated on the ship of Gank Squad member Y by his first act of killing Pilot X.
Take care, Bruce Hansen
That is exactly what they mean. There are also ideas for bounty hunting regarding bounty hunters "barganing down" a contract. Though the contract system isn't robust enough for that yet. |
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.05.06 14:20:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Goumindong on 06/05/2008 14:21:12
Originally by: Ma Zhiqiang There's a another issue here about suicide gankings - Concord tankers. I have heard about incidents where pirates/players in high sec has organised themselves to attack people in high sec, such as ganking Freighters coming out of stations, by having multiple fleet members engaged by Concord, and quite so, being able to tank them for a good while.
I wanted to chime in here and say that this is not possible. Concord spawns for each individual attacker and cannot be tanked by any ship in the game short of capitals which are not allowed in high-sec]. You're all going to die and the time it takes for you to die is independent of the number of other attackers.
Vote Goumindong for CSM |
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.05.10 07:15:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Dianeces
Originally by: Ma Zhiqiang
One problem is many uses alts to do their mains "dirty work", often hiding them within NPC corps. So they take no real consequences. Changing PVP in general, by adding more hitpoints to ships, could be one solution, especially for industrial ships, as mentioned above.
No, they don't. However, since I'm lazy I won't explain (again) why people do not suicide gank with throwaway alts.
I am not lazy, so I will.
Using a throw-away alt to suicide gank is an exploit. As such it is a bannable offense. Characters are tied to accounts even after they are destroyed. Such anyone doing this that you petition[because say a guy in a noob corp suicide ganks you then disappears from your buddy list 2 weeks later is clearly a throw-away-alt] will be caught and banned if they are partaking in this activity.
Vote Goumindong for CSM |
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.05.12 20:00:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON
2) They make me angry v0v. This is part of why NPC corps annoy me. I don't really have an acceptable solution to counter it though atm. Farmers certainly impact my views. In 0.0 they bribe people to let them into corps with standings instead of NPC corps. Wherever there's a system someone will try to game it.
This can be largely achieved via standings based sales. If you for instance get everyone one to not sell equipment that can be farmed to state war academy via either mechanic[sell only to blues, or not sell to reds], then you will force many of the older players out of NPC corps. Since they can stay in there if they want, but wont have access to higher quality ships. Forcing them into player corps which can be war-deced.
That is a big if, because it requires players as a whole to really take a stand against the practices[an organized effort to not sell minerals and high quality ships/weapons/mining equipment to NPC corps] and then to enforce against those that do not.
But it would be a good start[and enable other very cool things in the game]
Vote Goumindong for CSM |
|
|
|