| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 .. 15 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Aleis
Playboy Enterprises
Dark Taboo
   |
Posted - 2008.05.22 22:47:00 -
[31]
Edited by: Aleis on 22/05/2008 22:47:25
i support the idea because there needs to be far more consaquence for people that are "bad guys" the current locked out of empire isn't enough (to easy to get back in and they just alt in anyway.
Gang Assist Guide |
Scatim Helicon
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 22:57:00 -
[32]
Edited by: Scatim Helicon on 22/05/2008 22:59:05
 Originally by: Why'dyou HitMe
Agree, they should pay a wardec fee to gank in empire like we do.
How does one go about wardeccing State War Academy, exactly? (Seriously, if we could do that it'd be the most fun ever).
Removing insurance for gankers benefits nobody except the 4-year NPC corp players running level 4s in their Navy Ravens 23/7, as it protects them from all but the wealthiest or most determined attackers and allows them to carry on happily isk-farming in even greater safety. Any solution to the suicide ganking 'problem' lies in repairing the bounty hunting and kill rights system to encourage the white knight/anti-pirate career option. This would give those players actually prepared to interact with other human beings the tools to retaliate against the gankers, rather than handing extra protection to those who treat EVE as a single player shoot em up game with their wallet standing in for the high score table.
So: making the game itself harder for suicide gankers? No. Enabling players so that they have the opportunity to defend themselves from pirates and suicide attacks if they are smart and organised? Hell yes.
-----------
|
Professor Leech
Southern Light Entertainment
Black Scope Project
|
Posted - 2008.05.23 01:40:00 -
[33]
What a bunch of crybabies.
If you don't take any measures to protect yourself then you deserve what you get.
I don't support protecting lazy and incompetent players. Let Darwin sort them out.
Originally by: Crawe DeRaven
this thread is obviously going places
|
Jasqar
|
Posted - 2008.05.23 01:50:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Scatim Helicon
Edited by: Scatim Helicon on 22/05/2008 22:59:05
Originally by: Why'dyou HitMe
Agree, they should pay a wardec fee to gank in empire like we do.
How does one go about wardeccing State War Academy, exactly? (Seriously, if we could do that it'd be the most fun ever).
Removing insurance for gankers benefits nobody except the 4-year NPC corp players running level 4s in their Navy Ravens 23/7, as it protects them from all but the wealthiest or most determined attackers and allows them to carry on happily isk-farming in even greater safety. Any solution to the suicide ganking 'problem' lies in repairing the bounty hunting and kill rights system to encourage the white knight/anti-pirate career option. This would give those players actually prepared to interact with other human beings the tools to retaliate against the gankers, rather than handing extra protection to those who treat EVE as a single player shoot em up game with their wallet standing in for the high score table.
So: making the game itself harder for suicide gankers? No. Enabling players so that they have the opportunity to defend themselves from pirates and suicide attacks if they are smart and organised? Hell yes.
Retaliation helps the ganked person how? Still out their ship/mods, the gankers still has insurance for the gank kill's, and if they get killed later by a bounty hunter they ALSO have insurance. Net loss for gankers is what? Now compare that to the 100's of millions if not billions the ganked person is out.
Best option i can think of in all this mess is to let us insure both ships and mods. Then if we want to fly a 2 billion dollar ship we can get most of it back. It will be a loss, but not a loss that would drive people that like to play that way out of game. The gankers get their targets, the pimp-mobile drivers get to play their way too. Add in trade able kill rights now on top of almost full insurance and you have a net addition of more PVP to a PVP game.
|
Kinkie Yuuki
|
Posted - 2008.05.23 01:57:00 -
[35]
|
Raymond Sterns
Utopian Research I.E.L.
The ENTITY.
|
Posted - 2008.05.23 02:11:00 -
[36]
I support the above statement
_
|
Efdi
Brannigan's Law
|
Posted - 2008.05.23 02:13:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Divad Ginleek
first from the loot and then from the insurance payout that makes their "losses" more like that of an unfitted BC, not a BS fitted with cheap low-meta T1 modules
FYP
_______________________________
Yes, I am an alt. No, I can't post with my main; he's forum banned. Yes, I will be happy to smack you with my main when I'm unbanned. |
Breha Organa
|
Posted - 2008.05.23 03:09:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Leandro Salazar
When you are killed by concord, you do not receive any insurance payout if you actually killed someone with your criminal act.
The sentiment and the solution have my approval.
|
Saori Rei
Garoun Investment Bank
|
Posted - 2008.05.23 03:21:00 -
[39]
I agree completely.
|
Wolf Soldier
Neh'bu Kau Beh'Hude
Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2008.05.23 04:04:00 -
[40]
signed
|
Bunyip
Center for Advanced Studies
|
Posted - 2008.05.23 04:43:00 -
[41]
Agree
-Bunyip
"May all your hits be crits." - Knights of the Dinner Table.
A candidate for the Council of Stellar Management. View my website here. |
Vaal Erit
Science and Trade Institute
|
Posted - 2008.05.23 05:07:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Leandro Salazar
Paper indies with billions in cargo would remain the gank targets for caracals they are supposed to be
I find this very interesting. How is solo-suiciding a hauler with a caracal A-OK but using a team to group-suicide a mission runner not ok?
You are simply stating that it is ok for one playstyle but not ok for another. Hypocrisy at its finest.
No I oppose this a lot (need a thumbs down option) If it is ok to suicide one playstyle aka suiciding against afk haulers with billions in their cargo. Then it follows that it is ok to suicide against mission runners equipped with billions of isk on their ship.
Fighting over resources and high value items should be encouraged. You can easily fly around in a faction fit BS and mission without harm using common sense. The idiots who do not need no special protection.
This is the big difference between EVE and other MMORPGs. In other games, you mission run forever until you get a faction set of whatever and parade around like you are god. In EVE, faction fit items makes you a gleaming target. I fully believe this is intended (as stated by the Devs many, many times) and that any change to make suicide ganking anymore rare than it actually is (yes my forum trolls, suicide ganking is very, very rare!) would be against the spirit of EVE and be a detriment to the gameplay that is the main reason why so many people play.
Originally by: CCP Casqade
Please refrain from making assumptions on game mechanics and then presenting them as facts before testing them yourself.
|
Locin WeEda
Red Frog Investments
Blue Sky Consortium
|
Posted - 2008.05.23 05:19:00 -
[43]
Edited by: Locin WeEda on 23/05/2008 05:26:38
I support this idea, because there need to be more consequenses to people that behave "bad" in high sec. There should still be possible to do it, but there should be more consequenses.
Red Frog Freight Service
|
Leandro Salazar
The Blackguard Wolves
|
Posted - 2008.05.23 07:12:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Vaal Erit
Originally by: Leandro Salazar
Paper indies with billions in cargo would remain the gank targets for caracals they are supposed to be
I find this very interesting. How is solo-suiciding a hauler with a caracal A-OK but using a team to group-suicide a mission runner not ok?
You are simply stating that it is ok for one playstyle but not ok for another. Hypocrisy at its finest.
I just think that the mission running ship pimping progression way is a valid playstyle. Even if you hate it, that is how many people (yes gankman, this playstyle is very very popular) enjoy the game.
While hauling a billion in a T1 indie is not a playstyle but simple stupidity.
I see a big difference between putting the best gear available onto the best ships available, and putting the most valuabe cargo available onto the worst ship available. The latter should make you an easy and juicy target, the former should not (well unless you exaggerate with all Estamel or something).
The indie hauler could avoid his fate usually by simply not being AFK, or by using a better ship. Does the mission runner have these options? No. He can only avoid it by using a WORSE ship, or by metagaming with alts. And I think this is simply wrong.
Make suicide ganking more difficult!
|
Mia Den
|
Posted - 2008.05.23 07:19:00 -
[45]
agree
|
JVol
|
Posted - 2008.05.23 07:25:00 -
[46]
Its not going to mmake it any more difficult, to get rid of the insurance. How about giving the insurance to the guy who got ganked?
|
Rawr Cristina
Naqam
Project Alice.
|
Posted - 2008.05.23 07:34:00 -
[47]
Edited by: Rawr Cristina on 23/05/2008 07:35:07
It's 0.5 for a reason. I would like to think an element of risk still exists there.
Do not support in current format. needs more compromise.
...
|
Heroldyn
|
Posted - 2008.05.23 08:18:00 -
[48]
/signed
suicide ganking is too easy/cheap right now.
|
steejans nix
0beron Construct
|
Posted - 2008.05.23 08:46:00 -
[49]
Umm. why should a mission runner's pimped out ship get more protection than someone hauling stuff, ones fitted their ship with a bil or more of faction mods when t2 is good enough, the other sticks same amount of isk in hold, the only diference i can see is it only takes one ship to pop the hauler but half a dozen to pop the CNR or whatever.
Surely 6 bs's ganked to hell and back is a fair price to pop one bs in a 0.5 before concord shows, it's the insurance payment that's the only problem with the system as far as i can see.
You start giving them more protection and you are getting closer to the flagging for pvp which would be the end of EVE in my opinion.
Just take away insurance payout's for anyone killed by concord and give tradeable killrights to make a bounty hunter proffesion viable.
|
gordon861
PROGENITOR CORPORATION
Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2008.05.23 10:19:00 -
[50]
Keep the insurance valid, but if you get Concord BBQ'd for shooting another player, the victim gets the insurance payout.
If the ship isn't insured, pay them the basic payout that you get when you loose a ship.
This would mean the gankers would actually need to plan how much firepower to use instead of just thinking we'll drop 10 ships on it and loose very little due to them being insured.
This doesn't fiddle with th game mechanics by making ships harder to kill so T1 haulers will still get ganked by cruisers for their cargos etc, but there should be less overkill else you'll eat into your profits too much.
This also protects the newbi (or vet) that makes a mistake and shoots his mate as they can return the insurance to the person making the mistake afterwards.
If Concorded for shooting an NPC just keep the payment the same as it is now.
Originally by: CCP Arkanon
I frown on employees being power players to the extent that their gameplay results in any sort of domination over others. I donĘt believe CCP employees should run the EVE universe. |
Eelyen Dalamar
|
Posted - 2008.05.23 11:49:00 -
[51]
Signed
|
JiJiCle
COLSUP
Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2008.05.23 11:53:00 -
[52]
Originally by: Tusko Hopkins
Edited by: Tusko Hopkins on 22/05/2008 15:28:27
I support the idea, no insurance payout for high sec gankers, no matter if the gank is successful or not. When a ship is killed by CONCORD, the owner should not receive any kind of insurance payout. It might be interesting to consider returning the insurance fee if there was any, so that it doesnt look like a big SCC ripoff.
agree
and
/signed
|
Skogen Gump
|
Posted - 2008.05.23 13:44:00 -
[53]
Sorry to put it s o harshly, but I believe that suicide ganking is an effective stupidity tax.
EVE is a sandbox, It's simply not realistic to say, yeah it's a sandbox but only for traders and carebears, anyone interested in PvP can't be free to do what they want.
|
Maor Raor
|
Posted - 2008.05.23 13:45:00 -
[54]
The mechanic is broken.
I support a reassessment of the Suiside gank
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.05.23 13:47:00 -
[55]
I can support removing insurance from concord-related kills.
I also think that tradeable kill rights will help ALOT.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Stakhanov
Metafarmers
|
Posted - 2008.05.23 14:54:00 -
[56]
So much for being the candidate of pvpers , eh.
|
Esmenet
|
Posted - 2008.05.23 15:14:00 -
[57]
High sec needs more risk, not less. Its already way too safe considering the ease of making isk there. If you make it even safer the rewards needs a huge nerf.
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.05.23 15:17:00 -
[58]
Originally by: Stakhanov
So much for being the candidate of pvpers , eh.
Removing insurance from suicide ganking has nothing to do with being a candidate of pvpers and a lot to do with presenting a reasonable risk/reward environment. Sorry but its ridiculous that you can effectively bypass concord protection for free with a tech1 fitted fully insured (and payed out) battleship. The game should not be paying out insurance on these actions. Factor the additional expense into your target selection is my advise.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Stakhanov
Metafarmers
|
Posted - 2008.05.23 15:36:00 -
[59]
Why should the game pay insurance on self-destruct then ?
Suicide ganking is balanced when you consider the current conditions. It is the most costly way of attacking another player. Engaging in 0.0 is free , engaging in lowsec costs cap boosters at best , and highsec offers options ranging from free (can baiting) to expensive (alliance wardec) but none as expensive and restricting as suicide ganking. Loss of ship + loss of sec status + crim flag that prevents you from doing anything for 15 minutes + killrights that allow the target to fight back later on. No other form of pvp cumulates those penalties.
The increase in suicide ganking only highlights a different risk/reward imbalance. Highsec being way too profitable compared to lowsec and even 0.0 , giving players the option to avoid interacting with others entirely - run level 4 missions in Motsu , stay in NPC corp , don't talk with anyone , only loot your own wrecks and watch the ISK pile up. Besides suicide ganking , there is no way of impacting them. And they do impact us by flooding the economy with ISK , modules and high end minerals in effect mass produced in highsec.
|
agent apple
Spartan Industries
Cruel Intentions
|
Posted - 2008.05.23 15:44:00 -
[60]
Removing insurance is great, as it means finding worth while targets = effort which means more spoils for those of us that are good at it.
However tradable killrights is a complete waste of programmers time.
Suicide gankers (at least all I know) live in 0.0 and only come to empire for free stuffs.
While we're there people shooting us would be a plus point. If its no, considering the ease with which this is done SP wise all that will happen is a wave of alts specifically for doing it.
Most victims are sadly****gots who have such little interest in getting involved in the game past pimping their cnr they dont read local let alone forums and thus advanced game dynamics are wasted on them.
So to sum up, nerfing insurance: hurts noobs as they get to grips with the game decreasing new player numbers, dosen't and wont stop suicide ganking but will reduce the number of people who read about it on teh forums and thought it looked cool.
yep def time well spent
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 .. 15 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |