EVE Search - Make sucide ganking more difficult

All Channels

Assembly Hall

Make sucide ganking more difficult

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Farrqua Turbo Mining Inc.	Posted - 2008.05.22 16:54:00 - [1] Unfortunately it would not make it "expensive", it would just force them to change the tactics and end up netting the same result. And you have to understand the impact it would have on the n00b starting out. Being n00bs they will make mistakes and it would hurt them far more than it would hurt the suicide gankers. In this case we should focus on the act and access the penalties based on that type of action. The penalty should be directed to the character committing the act not creating a global penalty that would affect the innocent noobs that would essentially cripple them in their progression. The denial of the insurance is too much of knee jerk solution and has no consideration of the global affect to others that do not suicide gank. I do not support the insurance solution, but I do support the continue discussion.
Farrqua Turbo Mining Inc.	Posted - 2008.05.22 17:28:00 - [2] Originally by: Leandro Salazar Originally by: Farrqua Unfortunately it would not make it "expensive", it would just force them to change the tactics and end up netting the same result. And you have to understand the impact it would have on the n00b starting out. Being n00bs they will make mistakes and it would hurt them far more than it would hurt the suicide gankers. In this case we should focus on the act and access the penalties based on that type of action. The penalty should be directed to the character committing the act not creating a global penalty that would affect the innocent noobs that would essentially cripple them in their progression. The denial of the insurance is too much of knee jerk solution and has no consideration of the global affect to others that do not suicide gank. I do not support the insurance solution, but I do support the continue discussion. How would it hurt a newbie though? The newbie consideration is the main reason behind only losing insurance when your target is killed, not when you shoot something wrong. Newbie as well as unsuccessful ganker would still get his insurance. Only the successful ganker would not. (Unless the newbie actually one-shots something wrong, which is very very unlikely). I was actually responding to the misconception of "make it expensive" or "any one killed by concord" type posts. Hence the reason I support the continuing discussion of this topic, but hopefully on a focused path. I think we need to make it simple and directed at the aggressor not a global punishment that will hurt innocent n00bs. Just sit in a n00b channel for a bit, and you will be surprised how often it happens. It is also a tactic to bait the n00b into getting con-corded. It has been done since the day EvE went on line. Whether or not the criminal act was successful,the penalties should be the same. We just need to find a simple method. With not a lot of conditional results.
Farrqua Turbo Mining Inc.	Posted - 2008.05.27 18:18:00 - [3] You know a lot of these threads and this one in particular seems to be created out of a passionate personal crusade rather than an analytical proposal of change. There is a lot of "Should" statements but the reasoning is on based on personal bias and finger pointing on both sides. Everyone is so bent out of shape there seems to be no actual reasoning or meeting in the middle. Its either "this" or gtfo. If this is the tone and the CSM is on the same line of bias thinking we are never to reach any sort of compromise to better our situation. As I had mentioned before in previous posts most of this garbage posts are from players that can not separate themselves from the game and really look at the game in an analytical manner.
Farrqua Turbo Mining Inc.	Posted - 2008.05.28 17:14:00 - [4] Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah Agreed that the consequences to suicide ganking is not in proportion now, and definately not fitting a CRIMINAL act. The game mechanics as they stand now are too much in favor of the attacker, who can hide behind concord until a suitable target comes along. There isn't really a way to deal with them pre-emptively besides suicide ganking them first, but that's not the way to go, in my opinion. That, and it's frustrating that there is hardly any way to take revenge as well, but maybe tradable killrights will adjust that balance a bit. I'll bring this issue to discussion in the next CSM meeting. I like the tradable kill rights, that sounds cool. However reading your past posts and you thoughts on this it is a concern about the involvement of concord and preemptive actions to "suspected" suicide gankers based on the player perception. By having CONCORD acting before a criminal act happens is like me giving you a citation for speeding before you even get in the car. Pushing "suspected" gankers off the gate is another one that can affect someones game play because your perception of the 6 battle ships on the gate is a suicide gang. Case in point: The other night I hopped into a system with my cargo full of goodies and 5 BS's (3 ravens, apoc and a mega) on the gate I thought oh crap I am dead if I don't do this right. I align as fast as possible (Istabs and nanofibers do help a bit, low friction nozzles are also nice) and warp to a planet drop a bm and safe up and cloak up. Yea I am a little paranoid, but I made the effort to keep safe. I then proceeded on to my destination without to much hassle and jumped in my covops and went back to see whats up. I showed up and they were still sitting there and hauler after hauler was just cruising by. No gank. I am thinking is everyone hauling rubber dog crap? Why aren't they doing anything. The suddenly 2 falcons, 2 rapiers and arazu uncloak above the gate and some ships of various types jump in, 4 or 5 bs's, cruisers, bc's, destroyers and various other ships. They started to throw down and a battle ensued. Short but a battle none the less with "WAR TARGETS"! So if you blew them off the gate with the perception you have you would have interfered with their game play. Now I do not think that's too fair. I think the solution is to actually help the hauler secure his load by giving hi/her some tools. Perhaps fixing the Haulers a bit, giving them a quicker align time, Built in WCS points, a better availability to tank the ship. Give the hauler the tools to better his/her own situation. Also it would help if the player actually focuses on what they are doing if the cargo is worth that much. Look if I have a very precious cargo to me I am going to be a hugging that monitor and god help any one trying to distract me at home while I am doing this. The fam damly knows not to buggy Dad while he is on a "Beer Run".
Farrqua Turbo Mining Inc.	Posted - 2008.05.30 00:34:00 - [5] Edited by: Farrqua on 30/05/2008 00:35:41 Originally by: Le Skunk Originally by: Jaabaa Prime Yes, Concordokkened ships should get a 0 payout from their insurance because they were involved in an illegal aggressive act. Say NO to insurance on ships that are Concordokkened If you do this 0.0ers should recieve no insurance for their ships as obviously no insurance would ever be paid for ships in lawless warzones. SKUNK And also Lo-Sec pirates, because by his statement "involved in an illegal aggressive act" Which shows that there is no real cohesion of one thought on this issue. This thread is all over the place and I do not see how this could be brought to the CSm if everyone supporting this issue has a completely different spin on it. Leave the damn insurance alone. Pilots need to focus on their own game play to stay safe not relying on some mechanic that may or may not have any real influence of getting suicide ganked. Suicide gankers are already prepared to loose there ships anyway and you might possibly see an increase and different tactics just to make up the difference. This is the wrong approach. And you are not identifying the real motivation.
Farrqua Turbo Mining Inc.	Posted - 2008.06.03 21:30:00 - [6] Originally by: Tomo Yamaoka I'll repost the ideas I put into a similar thread in C&P earlier. Insurance isn't so much the issue as much as there is no punishment to fit the crime. The 4 main empires, the most powerful known governing bodies in New Eden (excluding the Jove of course) would be less lenient about this I would imagine, so if people want to be outlaws and pirates, why not let the empires treat them as one. The following would apply to any acts of piracy in high sec Empire space: 1. Impounding of ships and goods stored in empire stations until a hefty fine is paid. 2. Seizure of bank personal bank funds. 3. No admittance to Empire stations. 4. No admittance to Empire jump gates. 5. Removal and destruction of clones in Empire clone bays. 6. Offending characters actions effect their corp standings and open the possibility of siezure of corp assets in Empire space. These seem a bit extreme, but it would open up business opportunities for corps that own POS's and outposts, as well as PC run banking outfits. There are ways around it still, but it would make it a lot less appealing. /signed either way This suggestion is a veiled attempt to removing it all together. And that wont happen as you know. It does not balance the risk award factor. the balance factor is slowly coming about but this kind of over aggressive stance does not contribute to anything really. No there has to be something else. We have to be able to give the haulers, miners more options to fit there ships better to give them a chance. Give them better tools to help them to fend for them selves and make it harder for the suicide gankers to succeed. As far as ratters/mission runners that is another issue. They have to think beyond the the mission and fit them selves for a possible attack against gankers yet still allowing them to finish there mission. Maybe make them harder to find due to some kind of interference to spacial anomaly. Making the aggressor to work harder or have better skills and equipment to to be able to get a better chance of finding the target. We have to find a balance between the two. One extreme or another does not solve anything.
Farrqua Turbo Mining Inc.	Posted - 2008.06.04 01:06:00 - [7] Originally by: Tomo Yamaoka its not a veiled attempt at anything. It is a solution in line with standard and fairly universal methods of curbing crime. It removes nothing but instead adds to the challenge. Eve thus far is a game that caters more to piracy than to those that wish to peacefully co exist with other players and build and mine and sell....the people that make up the core of New Eden's economy. Capsuleers are valuable assets to the Empires, as well as costly investments, why wouldn't they protect those assets from pirates in their own sovereign space? I have no probelm with piracy in the game, but with crime should come consequence. Universal methods of curbing crime? What do you mean by that? I did not realize eve had a universal crime fighting organization. On the average risk in empire is fairly low any way. Except for the zealots slamming there ships into others trying to get a kill mail or loot. What you are essentially proposing is to basically kill all forms of risk in empire. No one in their right mind or even a warped one will try anything in empire unless they are quitting anyway, and looking to go out with a bang so to speak. Hey I don't like the idea of floating in a pod in empire while harvesting a roid or hauling my goodies to make some isk. But this kind of thing pretty much all but kills any sense of what Eve is. So now where is the risk vs. reward? The "carebear" does not even have to think anymore. Just munch on a hoho, watch cartoons and play the game on auto-pilot.
Farrqua Turbo Mining Inc.	Posted - 2008.06.05 22:16:00 - [8] Edited by: Farrqua on 05/06/2008 22:18:23 Originally by: Lumen Atra THEN TREAT IT AS SUCH INSTEAD OF SAYING "I FEEL." I think this sums up most of the posts for change in this forum. There is very little supportive numbers on anything. No one has ever stated how wide spread this is and how often it actually occurs. Majority of all posts and or responses is based of an emotional protest rather than logging out of their respective character and really look at it logically rather than emotionally. Unfortunately I see this in some sense on the CSM board and that concerns me as to the true objectivity of the decisions being made or if some one takes up the cause to write up a proposal to CCP, how much of that CSM's bias is injected into that proposal. And how much of the responding player base is ignored because they do not feel it is right. Ank has taken this on to present to CCP, and we all know her stance on the issue and how much she wants to wipe out this kind of play. She has stated it in her video. SO will CCP also see the objections from the player base that do not want to see the change in an issue like this or will it ignored because it does not support the current proposal to make the change? There has been and always will be player groups that want nothing to do with PvP or anything of the like. And that same player base will do what they can to change the landscape of EvE to mirror other MMO's that have no fight zones stating that if CCP wants more of the market share this has to happen. Well hate to break it to all you players that think this way but suicide ganking has been going on a very, very long time and with much more veracity than what you see now. And ragequit post after ragequit post was thrown in C&P and yet, the sub base grew. Now why do you think that happened.
Farrqua Turbo Mining Inc.	Posted - 2008.06.06 18:37:00 - [9] Originally by: Tesseract d'Urberville All true. And I would love to see those statistics, and if indeed suicide ganking is relatively rare, or if it does not noticeably affect the economy, then I will happily surrender the point. From the anecdotal evidence available to me, though, I think the statistics side with the carebears on this one - but if you can prove me wrong, I'm all ears. No, it is your burden of proof to show how rampant the crime is and how much it does impact the economy. If you want to propose change you have to show some sort of solid data. Otherwise this is nothing more than emotional unqualified protest. Originally by: Tesseract d'Urberville We are advocating that in hi-sec punishment generally be sufficient to deter crime. Unless you're at war, no pilot in hi-sec is a legitimate target. That's the way the game works. What you are advocating is a WOW type of flag able safe zone. You are pushing for absolutely no combat what so ever except for consensual flagged style. Show me where it states that a pilot in high sec is not a "legitimate target". And show me where it says this is the way the game works. Look I agree that something should be done to make it a little more difficult. My view is to give the prospective targets the tools to deal with it. What they are might be another thread. Removing insurance is not going to work. You are not identifying the true motivation of why they do it. They do it because they have fun doing it. And its easy. $$ has little to do with it and is a bonus if they get it. High sec is not safe. It is just safer. And turning it into some copy of WOW will hurt the game.
Farrqua Turbo Mining Inc.	Posted - 2008.06.07 17:26:00 - [10] Edited by: Farrqua on 07/06/2008 17:29:30 Edited by: Farrqua on 07/06/2008 17:26:47 So what are the chances of a certain Module to drop when the ship is destroyed? Is there information somewhere we can actually see what CCP has used to determine how they determine what modules drop and what don't? And if it is based on a random generator of some kind we can probably find out what the real chance of loot being dropped. It would help to understand what is the real risk/reward currently and what would be the projected risk/reward based on the proposal. And hey maybe we can find a middle ground? It wont make everyone happy because it is not what every one wants, and does not satisfy their "feelings" on the matter, but maybe able to live with it and accept that it was a balanced proposal?
Farrqua Turbo Mining Inc.	Posted - 2008.06.08 16:27:00 - [11] Originally by: Leandro Salazar Originally by: lecrotta Your point about "Make suicide ganking more difficult!" is really "make suicide ganking pointless" unless a ship is fitted with several high value isk items (500 mil - 1 bil+) or its not worth it. As any ship with the standard caldari navy stuff fitted will not be worth going after at all without insurance. Think of ganking like ratting, sometimes you get a normal drop that covers your costs and maybe makes you a few mil each but now and again a high value faction rat comes along and actually drops a module that gives you a nice payday say 200 or so million each. You got that right at least. I think it wrong that people should be subject to others pretty much destroying their entire gaming experience (ab)using unreasonable game mechanics, unless these people REALLY beg for it (like with 2 bil + setups). And your comparing ratting to suiciding shows how you really think. To you, highsec players are merely content, no different from NPCs. And the ONLY reason you fight for suiciding, spewing forth tons of failures at math and at understanding the game (or intentional lies) is so you can keep on harvesting this 'content'. Personally I find that disposition disgusting, but I guess it is fairly common in EVE. But while EVE is supposed to be fairly harsh compared to other games, this particular harshness should not be promoted imho. The huge difference between earning money missioning any earning money suiciding is that the latter destroys other peoples fun while the former does not. So yes, imho the former should be a lot more viable than the latter at least in highsec. I am one of the targets that these gankers target. I do not relish the idea of being that "special" target, but I do employ measures to make sure that I do not end up on some gankers kill mail. I am not thrilled about this. What you are pushing is the removal of the edgy part of Eve that makes it what is I believe. I have been trying to get the core of what the true risk vs. reward and wanting to prove one way or another if the proposal is fair and balanced, or what the suicide gankers is doing has any real risk at all. I looked at the kill mails on Battleclinic. Random kill mails and found it ranged every where from 18% to 50%. No rhyme or reason for any one module nor did I see any apparent special consideration for any Faction type loot that would be what the gankers are after. I perused through about 40 mails excluding the rigs, and just looking a what modules were fit at the time of destruction. And from what I have found is that it is hit and miss at best. But now reading your reply you have basically came out and said you are not after numbers nor really care. You are not looking at balance. You are looking for a one sided solution for a particular player base, yours. That is too bad really.
Farrqua Turbo Mining Inc.	Posted - 2008.06.13 22:04:00 - [12] Edited by: Farrqua on 13/06/2008 22:06:55 Originally by: Hank Cousteau If your partner isn't scanning in the system before, you're doing it wrong. That reasoning is pretty artificial. Support some kind of insurance penalty, even if is minor such as adding +1% of cost per full minus one sec rating (so maxes out at 43% cost). Also advocate the doubling of sec loss per attack/kill/podding, it's absurd you can kill over a dozen people before forced out of high-sec. Increasing the cost for Sec hits kind of hurts that anti-pirates in the game. They get a sec hit when attacking a pirate in Lo-Sec with a rating higher than the -5.0 level (ie -4.9 to +5.0). And it hits the Pirates that do not High Sec Suicide gank. So penalizing folks that have nothing really to do with Suicide ganking. Maybe if you get popped by concord you receive a special multiplier from the Insurance agency that increases the cost of insuring future ships.
Farrqua Turbo Mining Inc.	Posted - 2008.06.17 16:04:00 - [13] Edited by: Farrqua on 17/06/2008 16:05:28 Edited by: Farrqua on 17/06/2008 16:05:15 Originally by: Buzz Boulderbrains (1) "Criminals" seem to have it made. Criminals have all of 0.0 space to themselves. Criminals have all of "low-sec" space to themselves. Criminals now want all of "hi-sec" space to themselves and believe PvE players are just like NPCs. What criminals are these that occupy ALL of 0.0? Could you give a list of criminals? And what constitutes these guys being criminals anyway? There are a few large Alliances and individual corps that do not allow piracy or any form of it. And as far as lo-sec I am sure Jade might argue with you about SF being a criminal organization. I am not sure if there are or they are not really but I am sure he can comment about it. I do believe if you read about who they are and how they present themselves criminal activity os not one of there main pursuits. Its more of a political RP thing. And yes Pirates (and Anti-Pirates) inhabit Lo-sec but very few of these guy venture into 0.0. I understand you did read the entire thread, That is more than some will do to really try to understand the issue. However from you statements like the one above it does show your experience of is less than worldly. There is nothing wrong with feeling the way you do, but it sounds like what you are saying is "they have their area to play I want my area off limits." Am I close? The insurance bit is true. But look at the other proposals about the insurance. They are pushing to get rid of it all together. Not only for the removal from being Concorded, but actually remove it from the game.

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.