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) |
Leandro Salazar
The Blackguard Wolves
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 15:01:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Leandro Salazar on 22/05/2008 15:40:42 Just to be reiterate things for the uninitiated, the issue at hand is this:
A mission runner in a semi-decently fitted ship is scanned at his mission station using a passive targeter. The gankers find the fitting offers enough profit potential, and thus he makes the list of gankworthy targets or something. Now the systems the agents send people to are well known, so the ganksquad waits on the other side of one of the gates till one worthwhile targets comes by. They open up on him and there is nothing he can do to save himself. Concord takes a merry 25 secs or so before they show up in .5 sec, by that time he is dead just from the fire of about 5 ravens with overheated siege launchers and his loot goes to the gankers, who lose next to nothing thanks to insurance. Same thing happens to haulers on the highways I guess, even though there it is usually untanked industrials carrying valueable cargo on autopilot and thus just inviting disaster.
Now I find this to be very wrong, and while there are many solutions, the one I favor is this:
When you are killed by concord, you do not receive any insurance payout if you actually killed someone with your criminal act. If you did not kill anyone, you get your insurance. This would serve the following: - Higher margin of value for mission runner/T2 haulers to put on their ships to be safe from gankers out for profit. - Unsuccessful ganks would still have the same minor consequences they have now. - People can still gank for grudges or ****s/giggles, but it would cost them something now. - Paper indies with billions in cargo would remain the gank targets for caracals they are supposed to be
Ok, but I digressed. Whether this or some other solution is implemented, the question is does suicide ganking need a nerf or not?
Make suicide ganking more difficult!
|
Leandro Salazar
The Blackguard Wolves
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 15:01:00 -
[2]
And I guess I need to post again for my support...
Make suicide ganking more difficult!
|
Shenko Minara
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 15:08:00 -
[3]
This topic has been done to death. The only support for this will come from the sheltered folk that aren't interested in the majority of Eve as a game, just pimping out their Ravens to do the same grind everyday.
This forum should also have a "thumbs down" option, since this thread badly needs it. -- 99% of Eve-o posters should stop posting. This probably includes me, but definitely includes you. |
Leandro Salazar
The Blackguard Wolves
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 15:25:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Leandro Salazar on 22/05/2008 15:27:37
Originally by: Shenko Minara This topic has been done to death. The only support for this will come from the sheltered folk that aren't interested in the majority of Eve as a Shenko Minara's game, just pimping out their Ravens to do the same grind everyday.
This forum should also have a "thumbs down" option, since this thread badly needs it.
There, fixed it for you.
I kinda agree on the thumbs down option, but since according to the current rules issues can only be voted in but not out, it would be kinda pointless anyway...
Make suicide ganking more difficult!
|
Tusko Hopkins
HUN Corp. HUN Reloaded
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 15:26:00 -
[5]
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.
First alternate to CSM.
|
Divad Ginleek
Gateway Industries House of Mercury
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 15:37:00 -
[6]
Yes, suicide ganking needs a nerf. And I think your solution is the first one that seemed to balance the risk with rewards (leaving indies as easy targets and all.)
The main gripe I have with it is the insurance payout. I don't care that they managed to gank a faction fitted CNR in highsec, thats game mechanics and part of the risk you take for flying a bank vault around on missions. What needs to change is the fact that the gankers are actually rewarded for ganking twice, first from the loot and then from the insurance payout that makes their "losses" more like that of an unfitted BC, not a T2 fitted BS.
Ganker and carebear alike should see that this is a hole in the system that needs to be patched. People say your whining if you complain that you got suicided, but the fact is its a one sided system. the victim stands to lose everything with little chance of escape, and the attacker stands to lose what, 20 mil for fittings? heavily offset by the hundreds of millions, or even billions they can make off the loot. EVE is a harsh game, keep it that way. just make it harsh for everyone. as it stands now, it seems the highsec suicide gangs are the only real carebears having their hands held by the corrupt insurance system.
(For the record, I have never been suicided, and I actually come down on the side of the ganker on most cases, untanked industrials on autopilot, for example. those need to be blown up just to teach a lesson. I just don't like seeing plot holes in movies, book, or MMOs ) ::insert witty signature here:: |
Moridrex
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 15:40:00 -
[7]
Voting for loss of insurance to people who get concordokken, and transferable killrights for the gank victim. Reason being dedicated miners typically do not have the skills to defend themselves; being able to transfer their kill right to mercs would be far more useful and make the ganksquads think about whether it's REALLY worth suiciding that target....
|
Paaaulo
Minmatar Mafia
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 16:02:00 -
[8]
Kill rights should be able to be sold, i.e mission runner/hauler gets ganked, then they can sell the kill rights onto a bounty hunter. Changing insurance payouts would be silly.
|
Shenko Minara
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 16:28:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Leandro Salazar There, fixed it for you.
Thanks for that, if you like I can go back and fix your op for you too: "hello, I play Eve but it would be better if it was like WoW and didn't have consequences." There's more I could imply about your lack of willing to explore Eve as a whole, but since we're only making a single alteration to each other's posts...
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.
And suddenly your multi-billion Navy Raven that you care so much about gets blown up by accident because you left a weapon on prefire and Concord don't care... I guess people need to think before they react in these forums, huh? -- 99% of Eve-o posters should stop posting. This probably includes me, but definitely includes you. |
Jack Gilligan
Dragon's Rage Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 16:35:00 -
[10]
I agree. This amounts to insurance fraud. If the suiciders want to suicide, fine, they can, but they should lose insurance payouts.
This change wouldn't end suiciding, it'd make it more expensive.
My opinions are my own and do not reflect those of my corporation or alliance. |
|
agent apple
Spartan Industries Cruel Intentions
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 16:46:00 -
[11]
No as its a biased idea. If you want more realistic insurance then it goes both ways.
Zero payout for criminals + Compulsory insurance for all ships in high sec + Appropriate cost of insurance for high risk ships and pilots
While the insurance system does need looking at, and while suicide ganking is far to easy on the criminal party, this is neither the reason to do it or the way to do it.
|
Leandro Salazar
The Blackguard Wolves
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 16:49:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Shenko Minara Thanks for that, if you like I can go back and fix your op for you too: "hello, I play Eve but it would be better if it was like WoW and didn't have consequences." There's more I could imply about your lack of willing to explore Eve as a whole, but since we're only making a single alteration to each other's posts...
Oh I do explore EVE as a whole, except for those parts where I would visit grief upon people that have not done anything to me, that is just not my cup of tea. But I prefer PvP keeping mostly (note: NOT exclusively) to the areas designed for it, i.e. lowsec and 0.0, and make highsec PvP the exception.
This trend for suicide ganking is relatively recent anyway, induced by a number of outside factors such as lack of targets in lowsec, price explosion in deadspace gear, prices for ships and standard fittings dropping to rock bottom, higher player count...
What I want is not WOW in space, but the EVE that I played for a good two years, where highsec was actually safer, and not just less unsafe.
Quote: And suddenly your multi-billion Navy Raven that you care so much about gets blown up by accident because you left a weapon on prefire and Concord don't care...
Well, isn't EVE supposed to be a cold harsh place where mistakes are instantly punished? I just think that running missions in a moderately pimped ship should not be a 'mistake' but actually a common playstyle, while obviously you think the opposite.
Make suicide ganking more difficult!
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 16:53:00 -
[13]
I thought this was going to be a pretty dumb whine thread from the name, but if the suggestion is just to remove insurance from Concord kills, I'm for it. Makes sense inside the universe, doesn't really interfere with a valid part of the game(ganking idiots moving too much stuff in not enough ship) too much, and fixes some really silly possibilities. I'll hardly lose sleep if it doesn't pass, but it's a reasonable option. ------------------ Fix the forums! |
Farrqua
Turbo Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 16:54:00 -
[14]
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.
|
Piitaq
19th Star Logistics
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 17:00:00 -
[15]
I agree with this. I would even extend it to when people destroy their ship on purpose, they dont get any insurance pay out at all.
I mean what insurance company would pay, for someone destroying their insured valuables on purpose?
|
Leandro Salazar
The Blackguard Wolves
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 17:05:00 -
[16]
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).
Make suicide ganking more difficult!
|
Farrqua
Turbo Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 17:28:00 -
[17]
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.
|
Siona Windweaver
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 17:28:00 -
[18]
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.
I agree.
|
Synjin Sinner
The Phalanx Expeditionary Conglomerate The Gemini Project
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 18:39:00 -
[19]
I concur Synjin Sinner CEO of TPEC |
Zareph
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 18:45:00 -
[20]
Your solutions aren't support worthy.
However.
If one of your solutions was 'the more bad guys attacking a single non ganged target the faster concord can respond' that might be something.
For example.
one person is running missions. one person is coming through the gate. 5 people open fire.
25s? well since there is 5, lets divide that 25 by 5 and that means concord responds in 5s.
anything more than say 10 or 15 and it's instan spawn concord regardless of system sec. Tech2 ships/weaponry mean insta concord, stuff like that.
Removing insurance payment is not the option. Maybe at best make it like your car insurance in that if you have repeated claims within a certain period (say, 14 days) the cost of insurance or value of payout goes up/down, but removal isn't good.
While all answers are replies, not all replies are answers. |
|
Hamfast
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 18:49:00 -
[21]
While I would rather have no insurance pay out for anyone popped by concord, regardless of the outcome of their attack, half a loaf is better then none.
Removing the insurance makes the risk of loss somewhat bigger... Gankers could still gank, but they would have a tad bit more risk then they do now... --------*****--------
Learn and be informed, because a Politicians worst nightmare is an informed voter...
So choose your CSM Candidates wisely
|
Quaxtl
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 18:58:00 -
[22]
I agree with no insurance pay outs for people destroyed by concord. But thats it.
Suicide ganking is part of the game. Thats the way it was intended and thats the way it will stay.
|
Why'dyou HitMe
Privateers Privateer Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 19:13:00 -
[23]
Agree, they should pay a wardec fee to gank in empire like we do.
|
Kenji Kikuta
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 19:36:00 -
[24]
Any solution which makes life harder for suicide gankers is a solution I support.
|
Sariyah
HUN Corp. HUN Reloaded
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 19:45:00 -
[25]
While from the OPs tone I can feel his pimp ship was ganked ( ) generally yes there should be a higher fee. It should be still worth ganking the players in untanked indies and pimped faction Raven isk farmers.
|
Jalmari Huitsikko
Karjala Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 19:48:00 -
[26]
remove insurance if you had criminal status when getting popped = good.
|
Leandro Salazar
The Blackguard Wolves
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 20:48:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Sariyah While from the OPs tone I can feel his pimp ship was ganked ( ) generally yes there should be a higher fee. It should be still worth ganking the players in untanked indies and pimped faction Raven isk farmers.
Forget about that, I am WAY too paranoid for that to happen. But I don't think it should be required to be this paranoid in highsec, at least not when your ship is only slightly pimped.
For the record, I was suicide ganked twice, once successful while I was stupidly semi-AFK-hauling something moderately valuable in a (not well enough)tanked indie, the other time semi-afk in my hauling Jaguar which resulted in a dead suicider and a scratch in my ships armor. The successful gank would still happen under the no-insurance system as it should, the other one would not have happened, so nothing would have changed for me if the change is projected onto the past.
Make suicide ganking more difficult!
|
Frecator Dementa
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 21:03:00 -
[28]
agree ----------------------- forum ate my post again |
cimmaron
Warp Riders Fang Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 21:18:00 -
[29]
Support making suidice ganking more difficult.
|
Scagga Laebetrovo
Delictum 23216 San Matari.
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 22:10:00 -
[30]
I support your approach in dealing with this problem.
Insurance payouts shouldn't be payed out to ships lost to CONCORD.
San Matari Official forums |
|
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 donĈt 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
|
|
Mr Stark
|
Posted - 2008.05.23 15:47:00 -
[61]
Supported, cancel insurance if concorded.
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.05.23 16:04:00 -
[62]
Originally by: Stakhanov Why should the game pay insurance on self-destruct then ?
It shouldn't (IMO) good point.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Hamfast
|
Posted - 2008.05.23 17:50:00 -
[63]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Originally by: Stakhanov Why should the game pay insurance on self-destruct then ?
It shouldn't (IMO) good point.
How about we change the point that any action taken by the pilot that will guarantee the ship will be destroyed will void all insurance...
This would only cover Concord and Self Destruct as when you jump into Combat (PvP or a PvE), while you may expect to lose the ship, you are not guaranteed you will lose it.
--------*****--------
Learn and be informed, because a Politicians worst nightmare is an informed voter...
So choose your CSM Candidates wisely
|
Leandro Salazar
The Blackguard Wolves
|
Posted - 2008.05.23 18:03:00 -
[64]
Originally by: Hamfast
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Originally by: Stakhanov Why should the game pay insurance on self-destruct then ?
It shouldn't (IMO) good point.
How about we change the point that any action taken by the pilot that will guarantee the ship will be destroyed will void all insurance...
This would only cover Concord and Self Destruct as when you jump into Combat (PvP or a PvE), while you may expect to lose the ship, you are not guaranteed you will lose it.
I endorse this and amended the OP in that regard.
Make suicide ganking more difficult!
|
Gentle Miner
School of Applied Knowledge
|
Posted - 2008.05.23 18:40:00 -
[65]
Edited by: Gentle Miner on 23/05/2008 18:43:24 I support no insurance pay out for CONCORD related ship loss.
And possibly some counter to ship / cargo scanning or a warning or alert letting you know when you get scanned, like a module you can fit that detects the "scanner" signal or something.
|
MaoTseTong
|
Posted - 2008.05.23 18:53:00 -
[66]
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.
I think this guy is onto something. You all might want to read what he says.
|
Belmarduk
de Prieure Four Elements
|
Posted - 2008.05.23 19:00:00 -
[67]
This is eve - I dont suicide gank and am against it BUT this is eve - therefor I have no problem with suicide ganking.
BUT
Make it so that if a ship is killed by concord there is NO INSURANCE payout !!!!!!!!!
CCP Please give us casual players a Skill-Queue !
|
MaoTseTong
|
Posted - 2008.05.23 19:03:00 -
[68]
Originally by: Leandro Salazar
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.
I think you kinda contradict yourself here. Hauling your bazillion iski stuff in a normal hauler is a playstyle. Stupid or not isn't really whats the issue here is it?
I can easily call you flying a CNR loaded out with bazillions isk worth of gear in predictable patterns stupid just the same. Playstyle or not doesn't matter. Really. I could say suicide ganking for isk is a playstyle.
Your arguement about making suicide ganking in empire more painful is something I could listen to, until you start to say that we should support your playstyle cause you think its right, and mine isn't.
To me, you making a loot pinata out of your CNR is no different than someone doing the same with a hauler or a freighter. I just have to bring a bigger stick to break yours.
You had me considering for a moment, up until you said X kind of suicide ganking is ok cause the gankee is stupid, but ganking me isn't cause I have a 'playstyle'. I now suggest you 'smarten up your playstyle'.
|
lecrotta
lecrotta Corp
|
Posted - 2008.05.23 19:06:00 -
[69]
Originally by: Leandro Salazar
Just to be reiterate things for the uninitiated, the issue at hand is this:
A mission runner in a semi-decently fitted ship is scanned at his mission station using a passive targeter. The gankers find the fitting offers enough profit potential, and thus he makes the list of gankworthy targets or something. Now the systems the agents send people to are well known, so the ganksquad waits on the other side of one of the gates till one worthwhile targets comes by. They open up on him and there is nothing he can do to save himself. Concord takes a merry 25 secs or so before they show up in .5 sec, by that time he is dead just from the fire of about 5 ravens with overheated siege launchers and his loot goes to the gankers, who lose next to nothing thanks to insurance. Same thing happens to haulers on the highways I guess, even though there it is usually untanked industrials carrying valueable cargo on autopilot and thus just inviting disaster.
Now I find this to be very wrong, and while there are many solutions, the one I favor is this:
When you are killed by concord, you do not receive any insurance payout if you actually killed someone with your criminal act. If you did not kill anyone, you get your insurance. This would serve the following: - Higher margin of value for mission runner/T2 haulers to put on their ships to be safe from gankers out for profit. - Unsuccessful ganks would still have the same minor consequences they have now. - People can still gank for grudges or ****s/giggles, but it would cost them something now. - Paper indies with billions in cargo would remain the gank targets for caracals they are supposed to be
Ok, but I digressed. Whether this or some other solution is implemented, the question is does suicide ganking need a nerf or not?
EDIT: And at the same time as a logical consequence, self destruction should also result in insurance voiding.
The gankers are taking a big risk as it is not certain that the high isk value items will drop so unless the target is flying with a minimum of a billion isk module on every slot the odds are that the gankers will actually lose money.
PS: RK & bruce suck at pvp. |
Zanpt
|
Posted - 2008.05.23 19:09:00 -
[70]
I support making suicide ganking much more costly to the perpetrators.
|
|
Veryez
|
Posted - 2008.05.23 19:25:00 -
[71]
I wholeheartedly support this idea. I would also like to see greater security hits for repeat offenders, making it harder to regain security status by ratting in 0.0/losec.
This wasn't that big a problem when static complexes were still around and deadspace stuff was more plentiful. By removing them the cost of deadspace stuff more than tripled in many cases - making suicide ganks profitable if done correctly. CCP should have placed some compensation in place to account for this, but they didn't. I don't want to end suicide ganking, but adding more risk to the situation is fair compensation in my mind.
Besides what is more fun than flying through empire in a cheap hauler w/ a can labeled BPO (loaded with a few 1 run bpc's) knowing some fool will attack you.
|
Phelan Driscoll
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.05.23 19:30:00 -
[72]
Edited by: Phelan Driscoll on 23/05/2008 19:30:24 ccp should just make it so guns don't work unless youre targetting a war target tbqh *snip* Signature is totally inappropriate and not allowed on EvE Forums. Contact us at [email protected] if you have any queries - Valorem |
Dramaticus
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.05.23 19:38:00 -
[73]
Remove insurance if we can wardec the NPC corps for no cost. Please don't use RL pictuers of players in Sig without permission. - WeatherMan |
Efdi
Brannigan's Law
|
Posted - 2008.05.23 20:56:00 -
[74]
Originally by: Veryez
Besides what is more fun than flying through empire in a cheap hauler w/ a can labeled BPO (loaded with a few 1 run bpc's) knowing some fool will attack you.
Too bad ship scanners don't see cargo cans. _______________________________ 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. |
Admiral Feelgood
Even-Flow
|
Posted - 2008.05.23 21:50:00 -
[75]
Go play WoW you whiny babies.
|
Exodus Alpha
|
Posted - 2008.05.23 22:11:00 -
[76]
Originally by: Leandro Salazar I endorse this and amended the OP in that regard.
With this amendment, I can wholeheartedly give my /support for this.
|
Rawr Cristina
Naqam Project Alice.
|
Posted - 2008.05.24 02:36:00 -
[77]
Originally by: Stakhanov 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.
pretty much this IMO. When I want to make ISK I jumpclone to my Crystal hi-sec clone and pretty much AFK L4s without a concern in the world.
L4 Mission Ships are subjected to essentially zero-risk, and as a result are often pimped out with over 1b ISK worth of deadspace mods, because they know they won't lose them.
Is the fact it takes six battleships to suicide in 0.5 to kill one of these all that unbalanced, really? ...
|
Tommy TenKreds
Animal Mercantile Executive
|
Posted - 2008.05.24 02:43:00 -
[78]
I'm not sure about this issue. I feel that it requires wider discussion and alternative suggestions before I could support it.
I am a firm supporter of removing ALL NPC insurance from the game, however, and I feel that would go a long way towards rebalancing suicide ganking.
I don't think I can support the proposal that suicide ganking needs a nerf, for its own sake.
Congratulations on a well presented proposal though OP.
Bandures > tommy you like a cowboy harry ) |
xena zena
Catalyst Corporation Dominatus Phasmatis
|
Posted - 2008.05.24 02:46:00 -
[79]
CCP has stated numerous times that suicide ganking is a valid legal gaming tactic, that is there by design. I don't see any chance of them nerfing it.
Don't want to die in your precious fittings? don't fly alone in them. You don't need 5 billion isk ship to do missions.
|
Draygo Korvan
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.05.24 02:47:00 -
[80]
Originally by: xena zena CCP has stated numerous times that suicide ganking is a valid legal gaming tactic, that is there by design. I don't see any chance of them nerfing it.
Don't want to die in your precious fittings? don't fly alone in them. You don't need 5 billion isk ship to do missions.
Quoting this and posting to say no support for the op. --
|
|
Vaal Erit
Science and Trade Institute
|
Posted - 2008.05.24 02:55:00 -
[81]
Originally by: MaoTseTong
You had me considering for a moment, up until you said X kind of suicide ganking is ok cause the gankee is stupid, but ganking me isn't cause I have a 'playstyle'. I now suggest you 'smarten up your playstyle'.
I think you misunderstand. The orignal poster is stating that it is ok to suicide on haulers but not mission runners. I don't agree with that. I agree with you. Suicide ganking should be equal opportunity ganker.
Originally by: CCP Casqade Please refrain from making assumptions on game mechanics and then presenting them as facts before testing them yourself.
|
Vaal Erit
Science and Trade Institute
|
Posted - 2008.05.24 03:09:00 -
[82]
Originally by: Jade Constantine 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.
Okay, if insurance is gone from suiciding in high sec. Then why should it be allowed on -10.0 secutity status pirates? Why should insurance be given out on anyone who shoots in low sec and gets gate guns on them? Why should insurance on an Amarr BS be given to a Minmatar pilot in FW? Why should you pay insurance on any ship that is used to conquer space in 0.0? Why give out insurance to can flippers? Why give out insurance to people who declare war on high sec corps? Doesn't war declarations bypass CONCORD? I guess wars on next on the chopping block, huh jade?
If I get 10x T1 insured ravens and 'suicide' on people on low sec on gates, then shouldn't I get my insurance taken awawy? I mean for god's sake I am using a FREE SHIP and bypassing gate guns.
EVE is a harsh place (as stated by the devs many, amny times) If you have an expensive ship fit with billions worth of modules, then how about you act like it is worth something and protect it. Go to any mission hub and see for yourself how many CNRs/rattlesnakes/golems/super faction fit faction BS there are and then come back and tell me that risk v reward is balanced in high sec.
Originally by: CCP Casqade Please refrain from making assumptions on game mechanics and then presenting them as facts before testing them yourself.
|
Kailiani
|
Posted - 2008.05.24 04:50:00 -
[83]
Edited by: Kailiani on 24/05/2008 05:00:34 Edited by: Kailiani on 24/05/2008 04:54:55 Using 5 battleships to gank a mission runner costs approximately 100 million isk or less after insurance.
This means you have 10 attempts before you would break even, if you somehow did NOT get the deadspace module on the first 9 attempts!
Quote: Why should insurance be given out on anyone who shoots in low sec and gets gate guns on them? Why should insurance on an Amarr BS be given to a Minmatar pilot in FW? Why should you pay insurance on any ship that is used to conquer space in 0.0? Why give out insurance to can flippers? Why give out insurance to people who declare war on high sec corps? Doesn't war declarations bypass CONCORD? I guess wars on next on the chopping block, huh jade?
Its not supposed to make sense. Otherwise a list of 1000 things could be listed that isn't just right. It all basically boils down to risk vs reward.
None of the stuff you stated could make a group of players rich without risk.
Like I stated above you have 10 attempts currently to get a 1 billion isk deadspace module using 5 battleships just to break even!
Is the fact it takes six battleships to suicide in 0.5 to kill one of these all that unbalanced, really?
I've seen a CNR get ganked by 5 suicide torp ravens which are about 20 mill each, in 0.7 security space.
|
lecrotta
lecrotta Corp
|
Posted - 2008.05.24 10:08:00 -
[84]
Originally by: Kailiani
Using 5 battleships to gank a mission runner costs approximately 100 million isk or less after insurance.
Wrong it actually costs between 40 and 50 million per ship after insurance so 6 ships = 240-300 million.
Now if you consider that most target ships have one or maybe two billion isk modules at most the risk of those high value assets being destroyed is very probable. Plus you must also take into account the time spent scanning ships (hours tbh) and finding one worth ganking.
All in all id say things are perfectly balanced and if the faction fitted CNR pilots want to avoid getting ganked theres a sure fired way of doing it but im not telling.
PS: RK & bruce suck at pvp. |
Leandro Salazar
The Blackguard Wolves
|
Posted - 2008.05.24 11:12:00 -
[85]
Originally by: lecrotta
Originally by: Kailiani
Using 5 battleships to gank a mission runner costs approximately 100 million isk or less after insurance.
Wrong it actually costs between 40 and 50 million per ship after insurance so 6 ships = 240-300 million.
Now if you consider that most target ships have one or maybe two billion isk modules at most the risk of those high value assets being destroyed is very probable. Plus you must also take into account the time spent scanning ships (hours tbh) and finding one worth ganking.
All in all id say things are perfectly balanced and if the faction fitted CNR pilots want to avoid getting ganked theres a sure fired way of doing it but im not telling.
A sucide gank Raven costs nowhere near that. 20 mil is probably fairly accurate. Fittings are virtually free, ship is maybe 15 mil loss after insurance.
Also, the gank targets drop other faction modules too, not just the boosters. And these other modules pretty much guarantee that almost every gank will at least break even, more likely make a small profit. And on average every other gank hits the mother lode. And finding targets in mission hubs really is a non issue.
Make suicide ganking more difficult!
|
lecrotta
lecrotta Corp
|
Posted - 2008.05.24 12:04:00 -
[86]
Originally by: Leandro Salazar
Originally by: lecrotta
Originally by: Kailiani
Using 5 battleships to gank a mission runner costs approximately 100 million isk or less after insurance.
Wrong it actually costs between 40 and 50 million per ship after insurance so 6 ships = 240-300 million.
Now if you consider that most target ships have one or maybe two billion isk modules at most the risk of those high value assets being destroyed is very probable. Plus you must also take into account the time spent scanning ships (hours tbh) and finding one worth ganking.
All in all id say things are perfectly balanced and if the faction fitted CNR pilots want to avoid getting ganked theres a sure fired way of doing it but im not telling.
A sucide gank Raven costs nowhere near that. 20 mil is probably fairly accurate. Fittings are virtually free, ship is maybe 15 mil loss after insurance.
Also, the gank targets drop other faction modules too, not just the boosters. And these other modules pretty much guarantee that almost every gank will at least break even, more likely make a small profit. And on average every other gank hits the mother lode. And finding targets in mission hubs really is a non issue.
The voice of somebody who has obviously never done it.
I along with several others have spent hours waiting for a CNR or even standard raven to gank that is worth the cost/reward ratio in some of the busiest mission hubs in eve. Any anybody who does it to "just break even" is a fool.
Also id love you to show me where you get your fittings for free and how you can guarantee that enough high isk value loot drops to make it worthwhile as fitting the basic t1 crap will sometimes not get the job done.
|
Etil DeLaFuente
Res Publica Cosmic Anomalies
|
Posted - 2008.05.24 12:08:00 -
[87]
Quote: When you are killed by concord, you do not receive any insurance payout.
fully supported |
Karando
Random Goods
|
Posted - 2008.05.24 12:21:00 -
[88]
Originally by: Leandro Salazar
Originally by: Sariyah While from the OPs tone I can feel his pimp ship was ganked ( ) generally yes there should be a higher fee.
Forget about that, I am WAY too paranoid for that to happen.
LOL. When you can deal with the issue by being paranoid enough, where's the problem? No support.
|
Sang Jin
Avanti Industries
|
Posted - 2008.05.24 12:24:00 -
[89]
I don't see how protecting macro miners helps the game in any way what so ever.
THEHUNTER123 sucks at sigs sum1 make him 1 =( |
Leandro Salazar
The Blackguard Wolves
|
Posted - 2008.05.24 12:37:00 -
[90]
Originally by: Karando
Originally by: Leandro Salazar
Originally by: Sariyah While from the OPs tone I can feel his pimp ship was ganked ( ) generally yes there should be a higher fee.
Forget about that, I am WAY too paranoid for that to happen.
LOL. When you can deal with the issue by being paranoid enough, where's the problem? No support.
The problem is that I think it should not be neccessary to be this paranoid in highsec. Especially since a good deal of that paranoia is simply not playing at all. Of course I understand that most of the suicide supporters probably think it would be better if pimp mission runners DID not play at all.
Make suicide ganking more difficult!
|
|
Ethaet
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2008.05.24 12:58:00 -
[91]
/signed -------------------------------------------------------------- Seriously, we need some kind of separation between the post and signature. There you go. Now that wasn't so hard |
steave435
laloutre Corp
|
Posted - 2008.05.24 14:16:00 -
[92]
signed
|
herot
Fortunis - Redux
|
Posted - 2008.05.25 18:09:00 -
[93]
Yup!
|
ellie mayer
|
Posted - 2008.05.25 19:18:00 -
[94]
Originally by: Gentle Miner Edited by: Gentle Miner on 23/05/2008 19:10:05 I support no insurance pay out for CONCORD related ship loss.
Additionally I believe there should be some counter to ship / cargo scanning, maybe a warning or alert letting you know when you get scanned like a module you can fit that detects the scanners signal or something.
There is, turn the sound up an you will hear it.
|
Stakhanov
Metafarmers
|
Posted - 2008.05.25 20:46:00 -
[95]
Originally by: Sang Jin I don't see how protecting macro miners helps the game in any way what so ever.
This is the most important concern. Suicide gankers can still manage to turn a profit just fine as long as they target the juicy haulers / deadspace fitted CNRs.
Suiciding macrominers can turn a small profit thanks to insurance. Without insurance , it would become a major ISK sink and nobody would do it. Zero chance of killing gibberish named drones in your highsec belts.
You get the game environment you deserve. Me ? I'm an outlaw with no alts , highsec mechanics are not relevant to my playing style.
|
Aki Corrino
|
Posted - 2008.05.25 21:31:00 -
[96]
agreed
|
lecrotta
lecrotta Corp
|
Posted - 2008.05.25 22:30:00 -
[97]
Suicide gankers take a huge risk unless they find a fully multi-billion isk fitted ship as a single module or even two can be popped making it a loss instead of a profitable venture.
Finding a ship fitted with multiple high vale isk modules can take hours if not days or weeks so the profit made must equal the time spent and the risk taken as it is now.
Removing the insurance would virtually remove empire ganking from the game and while this would be welcomed by the mission grinding carebears it should not be allowed as there are already at least two ways of making it almost imposable to be ganked in empire.
|
Seetesh
Pixels Docks
|
Posted - 2008.05.25 23:04:00 -
[98]
/Signed
|
Cpt Branko
Surge. NIght's Dawn
|
Posted - 2008.05.26 00:58:00 -
[99]
Originally by: Leandro Salazar
Just to be reiterate things for the uninitiated, the issue at hand is this:
A mission runner in a semi-decently fitted ship is scanned at his mission station using a passive targeter.
You mean, billion+ fitted ship? Which is precisely what's going on.
Disagreed.
Running missions in a faction+ fit ship is and should be a risk. Nobody ganks plain T2 with rigs.
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Ineeh
Flying Blacksmiths
|
Posted - 2008.05.26 07:20:00 -
[100]
/signed
|
|
M4g3ll4n
Circle of Shadows
|
Posted - 2008.05.26 10:20:00 -
[101]
Quote: When you are killed by concord, you do not receive any insurance payout if you actually killed someone with your criminal act. If you did not kill anyone, you get your insurance.
This is the change I favor. Its logical and fits into gameplay and storyline.
|
Akarianna
|
Posted - 2008.05.26 11:52:00 -
[102]
/signed
|
Temitten
|
Posted - 2008.05.26 12:27:00 -
[103]
This is no good. Take a look at a high sec ice belt and you'll see why. If anything we should make suicide ganking slightly easier, remove the sec rating hit for blowing up mackinaws
|
Shanur
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2008.05.26 13:54:00 -
[104]
I agree with no insurance when you die while under a global criminal flag. Let there be a treshold value for gankers to consider whether it is worth it to lose their ship for or not. As things stand suicide ganking is free apart from the sec hit.
It also fits in well with my idea to prevent any and all "crimes" on free trial characters to prevent a nasty workaround around the (forbidden by CCP) alt abuse.
|
lecrotta
lecrotta Corp
|
Posted - 2008.05.26 14:37:00 -
[105]
Originally by: Shanur As things stand suicide ganking is free apart from the sec hit.
What game are you playing cos in eve it costs roughly 30-50 mil per BS to suicide gank.
|
Ishina Fel
Synergy. Imperial Republic Of the North
|
Posted - 2008.05.26 17:02:00 -
[106]
Then you're doing it wrong.
(also, /signed)
|
Dariah Stardweller
|
Posted - 2008.05.26 17:10:00 -
[107]
Originally by: Temitten This is no good. Take a look at a high sec ice belt and you'll see why. If anything we should make suicide ganking slightly easier, remove the sec rating hit for blowing up mackinaws
Mining bots are a completely different topic...
I strongly support this, suicide ganking should have greater financial risks.
|
lecrotta
lecrotta Corp
|
Posted - 2008.05.26 17:52:00 -
[108]
Originally by: Ishina Fel Then you're doing it wrong.
Ive been doing it against CNR's and even freighters bud, and on many occasions we have made a loss because the drop was poor from the freighter or the CNR we popped has a unlucky roll of the dice and all the high value stuff is destroyed.
And this is after waiting for hours if not days for a target worth the risk of going after in the first place.
BTW its better if you fit the gank ravens t2 as you can get away with one less if your team has top skills and thus reducing the loot split, thats why it costs 30-40 mil per ship.
|
Mundia
|
Posted - 2008.05.26 17:53:00 -
[109]
/signed
|
Tinian Singh
|
Posted - 2008.05.26 19:20:00 -
[110]
Originally by: lecrotta
Originally by: Ishina Fel Then you're doing it wrong.
Ive been doing it against CNR's and even freighters bud, and on many occasions we have made a loss because the drop was poor from the freighter or the CNR we popped has a unlucky roll of the dice and all the high value stuff is destroyed.
And this is after waiting for hours if not days for a target worth the risk of going after in the first place.
BTW its better if you fit the gank ravens t2 as you can get away with one less if your team has top skills and thus reducing the loot split, thats why it costs 30-40 mil per ship.
You are either trying to muddy the waters here or completely suck at suicide ganking. A new Raven costs 85 mil, insurance is 33, for a grand total of 118 mil. And you get back 109, so you lose 9 mil on the ship. Then 2.1 mil on 6 Arbie sieges (really no need for T2 here), 3 mil on 3 BCU-II (the only really beneficial T2 item for suicide setups), with the rest of the setup and a few shots of faction torps per launcher maybe another million. So we are looking at a max loss of 15 million per ship. Less in the very likely even that their looter also picks up the remains of the suicider wrecks. If you needlessly double your costs to use one ship less, I can't help you but the system is still borked.
|
|
Leandro Salazar
The Blackguard Wolves
|
Posted - 2008.05.26 19:21:00 -
[111]
Damn alts, that wench is me...
Make suicide ganking more difficult!
|
Krav
Egad Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.05.26 19:38:00 -
[112]
Agreed.
This does not completely remove the profitability of suicide ganking, but does make it cost more, making it more balanced. As it is right now, successful suiciding is too cheap.
Krav =====
Stacking Penalties and you |
Lord One
The Blackguard Wolves
|
Posted - 2008.05.26 20:08:00 -
[113]
you have my support to make high ganking harder and YES for no insurance to criminals
|
lecrotta
lecrotta Corp
|
Posted - 2008.05.26 20:28:00 -
[114]
Originally by: Tinian Singh
If you needlessly double your costs to use one ship less, I can't help you but the system is still borked.
Actually we double the cost to reduce the spilt of the loot, if you do the math the profit is much higher and you would know that if you ganked instead of using eve fitting tool or a calculator to figure things out.
|
Leandro Salazar
The Blackguard Wolves
|
Posted - 2008.05.26 20:41:00 -
[115]
Originally by: lecrotta
Originally by: Tinian Singh
If you needlessly double your costs to use one ship less, I can't help you but the system is still borked.
Actually we double the cost to reduce the spilt of the loot, if you do the math the profit is much higher and you would know that if you ganked instead of using eve fitting tool or a calculator to figure things out.
Fine if that works for you. Doesn't change the fact though that you can (and most of the KMs I have seen suggest this is also what happens most) easily gank losing just 15 mil per ship or even less (some use Geddons or Phoons). And really, if you are only after really high profile targets that guarantee a drop of 1 bil or so, you can still do that fine even without getting insurance, especially if you reduce your ship numbers. But the people wantonly ganking 500 mil to 1 bil setups, often even with overkill because its so dirt cheap, need a slap on the wrist.
Make suicide ganking more difficult!
|
lecrotta
lecrotta Corp
|
Posted - 2008.05.26 20:58:00 -
[116]
Originally by: Leandro Salazar
But the people wantonly ganking 500 mil to 1 bil setups, often even with overkill because its so dirt cheap, need a slap on the wrist.
No they do not because if you remove insurance you stop those gankers all together cos the 500 mil to one bil setups are always from one module like a booster and if that gets destroyed they still make a loss even with insurance.
Removing insurance will make every ship without multiple multi billion modules not worth going for and i know for a fact that they are very very rare. The way things are make 500 to 1 bil ships sometimes worth going for but removing insurance will screw that royally.
|
Neti Keire
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse The ENTITY.
|
Posted - 2008.05.26 23:13:00 -
[117]
I agree with the OP.
|
vile56
RillaCorp Insurgency
|
Posted - 2008.05.27 00:07:00 -
[118]
after they kill you, you get kill rights, go get another ship and get your mods back the ability to not get ganked or to recive your loot back has always been available.
risk/reward if you fit high end mods the reward is a quicker mission. the risk is getting killed.
if you are so concerned about the responce time, dont go below 1.0? they almost insta spawn. or before you go into any system have a alt in a ibis attack something.
adapt dont ***** tbh
i dont support
[Image about internet spaceships removed due to legal action by the Church of Scientology.] support chanology |
Souvera Corvus
SPORADIC MOVEMENT
|
Posted - 2008.05.27 02:12:00 -
[119]
Fully support the premise of this thread.
This is something that CCP really needs to look at and soon. |
Kailiani
|
Posted - 2008.05.27 03:14:00 -
[120]
Originally by: Tinian Singh
Originally by: lecrotta
Originally by: Ishina Fel Then you're doing it wrong.
Ive been doing it against CNR's and even freighters bud, and on many occasions we have made a loss because the drop was poor from the freighter or the CNR we popped has a unlucky roll of the dice and all the high value stuff is destroyed. And this is after waiting for hours if not days for a target worth the risk of going after in the first place.
BTW its better if you fit the gank ravens t2 as you can get away with one less if your team has top skills and thus reducing the loot split, thats why it costs 30-40 mil per ship.
You are either trying to muddy the waters here or completely suck at suicide ganking. A new Raven costs 85 mil, insurance is 33, for a grand total of 118 mil. And you get back 109, so you lose 9 mil on the ship. Then 2.1 mil on 6 Arbie sieges (really no need for T2 here), 3 mil on 3 BCU-II (the only really beneficial T2 item for suicide setups), with the rest of the setup and a few shots of faction torps per launcher maybe another million. So we are looking at a max loss of 15 million per ship. Less in the very likely even that their looter also picks up the remains of the suicider wrecks. If you needlessly double your costs to use one ship less, I can't help you but the system is still borked.
6x T2 siege = 8.4m Insurance = 9m 4x T2 BCU = 4m T1 other crap= negligible 22m total...
24m tops.
Again everyone is ignoring that using 6(I've seen a CNR ganked with 5) Ravens at 24m cost each, you would have 7 attempts to loot a 1b isk deadspace booster before you start losing cash, if you loot NOTHING! More then likely you will get other good loot to offset some or all the costs of the gank if the booster does not drop.
Each ganker raven can deal 6k alpha.
- The gankee CNR(higher effective HP vs the raven/golem) Setup-
Highs: 7x cruises(possibly faction) Meds: 1x deadspace booster, 3x hardeners, 1 cap recharger, 1 boost amp(could be faction/deadspace) Lows:1-2x PDU, 3-4x BCU(possibly faction) Rigs: 3x CCC
Shield-14175 Armor- 10957 Structure- 12451
- 0% EM resist CNR
2x Kin hardener, 1x therm hardener Lowest resist-0% EM Effective HP vs EM- 48,540 5x ravens(6k volley), 2x volleys of EM torps to die.
- Photon resisted CNR
2x EM hardener, 1x therm hardener Lowest resist- 40% Kinetic Effective HPS vs kinetic: 50,686 5x ravens can take this raven out with kinetic damage in 2 volleys.
- Omni-tank CNR-
2x invuln, 1x Photon Lowest resist= 58.6% Thermal Effective HP vs thermal= 66,613 Need 6 ravens, 2 volleys to kill.
Ill let this speak for itself.
|
|
Deviana Sevidon
Panta-Rhei Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2008.05.27 06:26:00 -
[121]
/signed
I have never been suicide ganked, or killed in a non PvP ship. But from what I have seen in my last empire visits, the ganking is getting out of hand. On the main route through the empires, you often see gankers that are trying to scan every ship that looks slightly valuable to them.
|
Efdi
Tritanium Workers Union
|
Posted - 2008.05.27 07:14:00 -
[122]
Originally by: Deviana Sevidon /signed
I have never been suicide ganked, or killed in a non PvP ship. But from what I have seen in my last empire visits, the ganking is getting out of hand. On the main route through the empires, you often see gankers that are trying to scan every ship that looks slightly valuable to them.
And yet, they don't kill them. I wonder why that is? Could it be that people are actually trying to find targets that are worth their time? I fail to understand how scanning many ships looking for valuable ganks is a problem. _______________________________ 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. |
Esmenet
|
Posted - 2008.05.27 07:58:00 -
[123]
Originally by: Deviana Sevidon /signed
I have never been suicide ganked, or killed in a non PvP ship. But from what I have seen in my last empire visits, the ganking is getting out of hand. On the main route through the empires, you often see gankers that are trying to scan every ship that looks slightly valuable to them.
And yet there is hardly any actual ganks while they spend all that time scanning ships. Considering the time spent its not exactly extremely profitable unless you find a real good target.
|
Abydos Lanti
|
Posted - 2008.05.27 11:51:00 -
[124]
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.
Agreed |
Leandro Salazar
The Blackguard Wolves
|
Posted - 2008.05.27 16:53:00 -
[125]
Edited by: Leandro Salazar on 27/05/2008 16:53:04
Originally by: lecrotta
No they do not because if you remove insurance you stop those gankers all together cos the 500 mil to one bil setups are always from one module like a booster and if that gets destroyed they still make a loss even with insurance.
7 Navy Cruise, 3 Navy BCUs, thats your 500 mil spread over many mods right there. No expensive booster at all needed to pretty much guarantee 200mil+ dropping. And this kind of setup is VERY common.
Quote: Removing insurance will make every ship without multiple multi billion modules not worth going for and i know for a fact that they are very very rare.
Once again you either lie or suck.
Quote: But then if ppl are honest thats what this thread is all about as virtually all mission runners have a max fit of around 1 bil with only a few who fit over that to two billion and over that is never really seen tbh.
Exactly, and imho the many who fit up to 1 bil in gear should not be ganker prey. Only the few who really pimp (and I am actually one of them) should. Highsec ganking should not be something that every incompetent sucker can get rich off.
Make suicide ganking more difficult!
|
lecrotta
lecrotta Corp
|
Posted - 2008.05.27 17:34:00 -
[126]
Originally by: Leandro Salazar
Exactly, and imho the many who fit up to 1 bil in gear should not be ganker prey. Only the few who really pimp (and I am actually one of them) should. Highsec ganking should not be something that every incompetent sucker can get rich off.
And that quite simply is why it will not and should not be nerfed as making only pimped to hell ships vulnerable and worth ganking is biased against the majority.
|
Leandro Salazar
The Blackguard Wolves
|
Posted - 2008.05.27 17:43:00 -
[127]
Originally by: lecrotta
Originally by: Leandro Salazar
Exactly, and imho the many who fit up to 1 bil in gear should not be ganker prey. Only the few who really pimp (and I am actually one of them) should. Highsec ganking should not be something that every incompetent sucker can get rich off.
And that quite simply is why it will not and should not be nerfed as making only pimped to hell ships vulnerable and worth ganking is biased against the majority.
What majority? The majority of the people you gank with? lol
Make suicide ganking more difficult!
|
lecrotta
lecrotta Corp
|
Posted - 2008.05.27 18:06:00 -
[128]
Edited by: lecrotta on 27/05/2008 18:06:56
Originally by: Leandro Salazar
Originally by: lecrotta
Originally by: Leandro Salazar
Exactly, and imho the many who fit up to 1 bil in gear should not be ganker prey. Only the few who really pimp (and I am actually one of them) should. Highsec ganking should not be something that every incompetent sucker can get rich off.
And that quite simply is why it will not and should not be nerfed as making only pimped to hell ships vulnerable and worth ganking is biased against the majority.
What majority? The majority of the people you gank with? lol
Both myself and others actually as making it only worthwhile to gank multi billion isk fits will stop ppl from flying them (as whats the point of a few extra percentage on your tank when you can be 100% safe) and so it will remove the high sec ganking of mission runners all together.
|
Inzanami
AnTi. Atrocitas
|
Posted - 2008.05.27 18:06:00 -
[129]
Suicide ganking happens in 2 places: AFK hauling or moving through highsec (I have had my alt killed... more than 4 times, and just lost a t2 hauler w/ about 200mil in faction fittings last night b/c i was lazy), and afk mining, and perhaps the slow freighter pilot.
The problems of this only were brought up when our precious highsec miners running several accounts or one and not being close to the keyboard were being attacked.
If you dont adapt in this game you lose. HICs.. dont fit WCS, use a ******* alt scout, or scout with your pod. You get ganked afking your hauler... dont AFK your hauler if you dont want it to happen again, plain and simple. You get blown up by goons and you are at the keyboard... set them red -, watch for them in local or in belt. If you see one, you should be aligned to something to warp off. If you dont pay attention to things in this game, you die. Its been part of the game since the first time i started playing in 2006.
As per the highsec mission ganking the OP is talking about... again... pay ******* attention to more than just your mission, or dont put 1bn in a ******* mission ship, then you lose only slightly more than them. You can do level 4s w/ t2 fitted ships, get a clue, learn how to minimize your losses. Most fundamental rule of eve: Only fly something you can afford to lose.
So... for those of you that are complaining, get off your lazy asses and start adapting, and here is how you can do it, ill give you some tips.
If you are a miner, dont go AFK, set goonswarm as an alliance red. Stay aligned at all times to something that you can warp off to. youll have to switch between several objects, but... well... better than losing your hulk.
AFK haulers, myself included.... if you dont know how to avoid this one, seriously, castrate yourself or remove your ovaries, better for the gene pool.
Mission runners, use your directional scanner. Make an overview setting that will have your npcs and stuff on there, and hten also ship... check "use overview settings" and set the distance to a healty 100,000km. Every 10 or so seconds, hit the scan button. If you see a ship that isn't yours on scans, chances are its going to your mission. That means... warp your gang out, and voila, they are foiled. If you really want to **** them off, come back in a raven that has civ gatling guns and civ mining lasers equiped and let them have fun and lose, nothing like revenge and making them look like asses :). Hell... you may lose a few mil, but im sure its worth making them look like asses.
Instead of trying to change game mechanics so you can do what you want, try changing yourself first to see where the problem lies, and then stop posting on the forums and whining b/c you lost your CNR in a system where you know people get their ravens highsec ganked. Adapt or die. AnTi. is recruiting pirates in the US TZ |
Farrqua
Turbo Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.05.27 18:18:00 -
[130]
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.
|
|
Leandro Salazar
The Blackguard Wolves
|
Posted - 2008.05.27 18:55:00 -
[131]
Originally by: Inzanami Mission runners, use your directional scanner. Make an overview setting that will have your npcs and stuff on there, and hten also ship... check "use overview settings" and set the distance to a healty 100,000km. Every 10 or so seconds, hit the scan button. If you see a ship that isn't yours on scans, chances are its going to your mission. That means... warp your gang out, and voila, they are foiled. If you really want to **** them off, come back in a raven that has civ gatling guns and civ mining lasers equiped and let them have fun and lose, nothing like revenge and making them look like asses :). Hell... you may lose a few mil, but im sure its worth making them look like asses.
And this helps against being suicide ganked on a jumpgate how? Not to mention people go to highsec to relax without being subject to this kind of hassle. You know, not everyone plays games for excitement and adrenaline. Oh wait. You prolly don't know.
And dear god how I love this infinitely stupid argument that you can do missions in simple T2 ships. Thats like telling 0.0 PvPers they must not fly T2 ships anymore beacause you can pvp in rookie ships just as well.
Make suicide ganking more difficult!
|
lecrotta
lecrotta Corp
|
Posted - 2008.05.27 19:36:00 -
[132]
Originally by: Leandro Salazar
Not to mention people go to highsec to relax without being subject to this kind of hassle. You know, not everyone plays games for excitement and adrenaline. Oh wait. You prolly don't know.
Well at least we have some progress and your finally admitting this is about making empire mission running 100% safe for those who want it safe and has nothing to do with balancing things at all.
If you want a game where if you get killed you do not lose your stuff i suggest you go and play WOW bud cos eve is a much harsher environment even in empire. That is the attraction of EVE for most of those who play it, if you do not like that change your style or move to another game but do not try to twist EVE into a WOW type risk free kind of game just to suit your individual play preferances.
|
Inzanami
AnTi. Atrocitas
|
Posted - 2008.05.27 20:08:00 -
[133]
Edited by: Inzanami on 27/05/2008 20:17:44 Edited by: Inzanami on 27/05/2008 20:12:56
Quote: And dear god how I love this infinitely stupid argument that you can do missions in simple T2 ships. Thats like telling 0.0 PvPers they must not fly T2 ships anymore beacause you can pvp in rookie ships just as well.
Wow dude... are you seriously this stupid to make that bad of a comparison. You can complete missions in t2 gear if you fit your ship right and do the missions in the right way, although not as fast. On the other hand, you cannot kill a BS w/ a noobship. This is a horrible horrible analogy. Quit life now.
Quote: Not to mention people go to highsec to relax without being subject to this kind of hassle. You know, not everyone plays games for excitement and adrenaline. Oh wait. You prolly don't know.
If pressing a button every 10 seconds and looking at it is an adrenaline rush to you... wow... just wow..
Furthoermore... you do what i say for a bit... people quit suicide ganking. I carebear too sometimes, i rat, i look at local.
Suicide ganking is easy b/c the targets make it easy. Make it hard for them and chances are, they will quit. Changing game mechanics to make it harder is just a pitty excuse. If you dont like that systme, take a hit on the quality of your agent hten and go to a less popular mission spot, problem solved again. Adapt ffs dude, dont whine. AnTi. is recruiting pirates in the US TZ |
Leandro Salazar
The Blackguard Wolves
|
Posted - 2008.05.27 20:30:00 -
[134]
Originally by: lecrotta Well at least we have some progress and your finally admitting this is about making empire mission running 100% safe for those who want it safe and has nothing to do with balancing things at all.
If you want a game where if you get killed you do not lose your stuff i suggest you go and play WOW bud cos eve is a much harsher environment even in empire. That is the attraction of EVE for most of those who play it, if you do not like that change your style or move to another game but do not try to twist EVE into a WOW type risk free kind of game just to suit your individual play preferances.
First the idea is not to make highsec safe but safer. And put at least a little difficulty into suicide ganking. Right now, if you do not mind spoiling someone elses day or even enjoy it, you are stupid if you do NOT suicide gank. And this is not due to player inattentivenes, but due to a combination of game mechanics and price changes induceds by CCP fkups.
And to pretty much everyone I know in EVE, the attraction comes from the freedom offered in EVE to do whatever you like. Relaxed missioning and ship pimping in highsec, get an adrenalline rush in lowsec or 0.0. The cold harsh place everywhere idea really only attracts a very small percentage of the playerbase. The cold harsh places paired with a relax zone is what attracts most. And that zone is being threatened.
Of course alternatively CCP could reintroduce static plexes or fix exploration to a degree that it provides adequate amounds of deadspace **** again, and at the same time remove the drone regions and all mineral stockpiles so we can get decent mineral prices again, so the gap between prices of high end gear and T1 ship becomes smaller again (and this immense gap is the real reason behind the proliferation of suiciding). But it is way easier to fix the broken insurance mechanics.
Make suicide ganking more difficult!
|
lecrotta
lecrotta Corp
|
Posted - 2008.05.27 20:40:00 -
[135]
Edited by: lecrotta on 27/05/2008 20:40:19
Originally by: Leandro Salazar
Originally by: lecrotta Well at least we have some progress and your finally admitting this is about making empire mission running 100% safe for those who want it safe and has nothing to do with balancing things at all.
If you want a game where if you get killed you do not lose your stuff i suggest you go and play WOW bud cos eve is a much harsher environment even in empire. That is the attraction of EVE for most of those who play it, if you do not like that change your style or move to another game but do not try to twist EVE into a WOW type risk free kind of game just to suit your individual play preferances.
First the idea is not to make highsec safe but safer. And put at least a little difficulty into suicide ganking. Right now, if you do not mind spoiling someone elses day or even enjoy it, you are stupid if you do NOT suicide gank. And this is not due to player inattentivenes, but due to a combination of game mechanics and price changes induceds by CCP fkups.
And to pretty much everyone I know in EVE, the attraction comes from the freedom offered in EVE to do whatever you like. Relaxed missioning and ship pimping in highsec, get an adrenalline rush in lowsec or 0.0. The cold harsh place everywhere idea really only attracts a very small percentage of the playerbase. The cold harsh places paired with a relax zone is what attracts most. And that zone is being threatened.
Of course alternatively CCP could reintroduce static plexes or fix exploration to a degree that it provides adequate amounds of deadspace **** again, and at the same time remove the drone regions and all mineral stockpiles so we can get decent mineral prices again, so the gap between prices of high end gear and T1 ship becomes smaller again (and this immense gap is the real reason behind the proliferation of suiciding). But it is way easier to fix the broken insurance mechanics.
If you ask ccp they will say "concord provide consequences not safety" they will not and should not change that entire premise and the game just so you and a few other carebears want to mission run in 100% safety, so i suggest you deal bud.
|
Leandro Salazar
The Blackguard Wolves
|
Posted - 2008.05.27 20:41:00 -
[136]
Originally by: Inzanami Wow dude... are you seriously this stupid to make that bad of a comparison. You can complete missions in t2 gear if you fit your ship right and do the missions in the right way, although not as fast. On the other hand, you cannot kill a BS w/ a noobship. This is a horrible horrible analogy. Quit life now.
Simply finishing missions = Fighting in PvP. Both can be done in crap fit and crap ship. Finishing missions as fast as possible = Killing good in PvP. Both cannot be done very well in crap ships. Not that I expect you to be able to see things from the perspective of a professional mission runner.
Quote: Furthoermore... you do what i say for a bit... people quit suicide ganking. I carebear too sometimes, i rat, i look at local.
Suicide ganking is easy b/c the targets make it easy. Make it hard for them and chances are, they will quit. Changing game mechanics to make it harder is just a pitty excuse. If you dont like that systme, take a hit on the quality of your agent hten and go to a less popular mission spot, problem solved again. Adapt ffs dude, dont whine.
Suicide ganking is easy because the game mechanics and some out of whack prices make it easy. Nothing more nothing less. And if everyone running out of 0.5/0.6 atm would go to one of the few good .8+ agents, we would only get Motsu lag 5 times over. Now if CCP seeded more combat L4 agents...
Make suicide ganking more difficult!
|
Leandro Salazar
The Blackguard Wolves
|
Posted - 2008.05.27 20:46:00 -
[137]
Originally by: lecrotta If you ask ccp they will say "concord provide consequences not safety" they will not and should not change that entire premise and the game just so you and a few other carebears want to mission run in 100% safety, so i suggest you deal bud.
You would do a lot to help your credibility if you jumped off that 100% safety wagon, because nothing in the insurance fix would guarantee 100% safety, and I don't want that either.
In fact it would mean that CONCORD would finally provide some real consequences to suiciders. Which right now they do not.
Make suicide ganking more difficult!
|
lecrotta
lecrotta Corp
|
Posted - 2008.05.27 20:53:00 -
[138]
Originally by: Leandro Salazar
Originally by: lecrotta If you ask ccp they will say "concord provide consequences not safety" they will not and should not change that entire premise and the game just so you and a few other carebears want to mission run in 100% safety, so i suggest you deal bud.
You would do a lot to help your credibility if you jumped off that 100% safety wagon, because nothing in the insurance fix would guarantee 100% safety, and I don't want that either.
In fact it would mean that CONCORD would finally provide some real consequences to suiciders. Which right now they do not.
They provide them now the difference is that if insurance is removed a huge percentage of mission runners will not be worth ganking (ie:100% safe) and nobody and nowhere in eve should ppl be 100% safe if they are undocked.
|
Inzanami
AnTi. Atrocitas
|
Posted - 2008.05.27 21:00:00 -
[139]
Quote: Simply finishing missions = Fighting in PvP. Both can be done in crap fit and crap ship.
Wrong analogies here again: Dying in a mission = Dying in pvp w/ an ibis Finishing mission in t2 fit Raven = Pvping in a somewhat even fight Running missions in a faction fit Naven = 100-1 gankfest. AnTi. is recruiting pirates in the US TZ |
Kailiani
|
Posted - 2008.05.27 22:38:00 -
[140]
Edited by: Kailiani on 27/05/2008 22:41:30
Originally by: lecrotta Edited by: lecrotta on 27/05/2008 21:15:04
Originally by: Leandro Salazar
Originally by: lecrotta If you ask ccp they will say "concord provide consequences not safety" they will not and should not change that entire premise and the game just so you and a few other carebears want to mission run in 100% safety, so i suggest you deal bud.
You would do a lot to help your credibility if you jumped off that 100% safety wagon, because nothing in the insurance fix would guarantee 100% safety, and I don't want that either.
In fact it would mean that CONCORD would finally provide some real consequences to suiciders. Which right now they do not.
They provide them now the difference is that if insurance is removed a huge percentage of mission runners will not be worth ganking (ie:100% safe) and nobody and nowhere in eve should ppl be 100% safe if they are undocked or uncloaked.
Ganking is risk-free, and you can make good ISK from it.
Gankers atm have 7 attempts(going for a lowend, 1b isk booster) using 6 torp ravens to gank for a deadspace booster, if they somehow get nothing over and over...
Now if they got a Gist X-type(2b isk) they have the next 14 ganks covered, if nothing at all drops again(lol).
Removing insurance means you would have 2-3 attempts, again only counting the deadspace booster as a drop, count in faction launchers, bcu, and amps to cover some or all the costs of a gank and the number of attempts increases.
Then your risk-free 'profession' isn't so risk-free and becomes less profitable, more in line with other high-sec activities.
|
|
lecrotta
lecrotta Corp
|
Posted - 2008.05.27 22:47:00 -
[141]
Originally by: Leandro Salazar
Originally by: lecrotta If you ask ccp they will say "concord provide consequences not safety" they will not and should not change that entire premise and the game just so you and a few other carebears want to mission run in 100% safety, so i suggest you deal bud.
You would do a lot to help your credibility if you jumped off that 100% safety wagon, because nothing in the insurance fix would guarantee 100% safety, and I don't want that either.
In fact it would mean that CONCORD would finally provide some real consequences to suiciders. Which right now they do not.
They provide them now the difference is that if insurance is removed a huge percentage of mission runners will not be worth ganking (ie:100% safe) and nobody and nowhere in eve should ppl be 100% safe if they are undocked or uncloaked.
Ganking is risk-free, and you can make good ISK from it.
Gankers atm have 7 attempts(going for a lowend, 1b isk booster) using 6 torp ravens to gank for a deadspace booster, if they somehow get nothing over and over...
Now if they got a Gist X-type(2b isk) they have the next 14 ganks covered, if nothing at all drops again(lol).
Removing insurance means you would have 2-3 attempts, again only counting the deadspace booster as a drop, count in faction launchers, bcu, and amps to cover some or all the costs of a gank and the number of attempts increases.
Then your risk-free 'profession' isn't so risk-free and becomes less profitable, more in line with other high-sec activities.
The time spent finding 7 gankable ships with 1 bil or 14 with 2 bil in modules makes it highly unprofitable as it is chance based. So removing insurance would make it a waste of time, anyway ppl have been whining about this for years on various forums and they always get the same answer and that answer is NO.
So good luck with your next whine on your next forum.
|
Kailiani
|
Posted - 2008.05.27 23:22:00 -
[142]
Edited by: Kailiani on 27/05/2008 23:26:14
Originally by: lecrotta
Originally by: Leandro Salazar
Originally by: lecrotta If you ask ccp they will say "concord provide consequences not safety" they will not and should not change that entire premise and the game just so you and a few other carebears want to mission run in 100% safety, so i suggest you deal bud.
You would do a lot to help your credibility if you jumped off that 100% safety wagon, because nothing in the insurance fix would guarantee 100% safety, and I don't want that either.
In fact it would mean that CONCORD would finally provide some real consequences to suiciders. Which right now they do not.
They provide them now the difference is that if insurance is removed a huge percentage of mission runners will not be worth ganking (ie:100% safe) and nobody and nowhere in eve should ppl be 100% safe if they are undocked or uncloaked.
Ganking is risk-free, and you can make good ISK from it.
Gankers atm have 7 attempts(going for a lowend, 1b isk booster) using 6 torp ravens to gank for a deadspace booster, if they somehow get nothing over and over...
Now if they got a Gist X-type(2b isk) they have the next 14 ganks covered, if nothing at all drops again(lol).
Removing insurance means you would have 2-3 attempts, again only counting the deadspace booster as a drop, count in faction launchers, bcu, and amps to cover some or all the costs of a gank and the number of attempts increases.
Then your risk-free 'profession' isn't so risk-free and becomes less profitable, more in line with other high-sec activities.
The time spent finding 7 gankable ships with 1 bil or 14 with 2 bil in modules makes it highly unprofitable as it is chance based. So removing insurance would make it a waste of time, anyway ppl have been whining about this for years on various forums and they always get the same answer and that answer is NO.
So good luck with your next whine on your next forum.
The time spent missioning for 1 bil is over 50 hours, 20 mill an hour.
Lets say you spend 3 hours looking for 1.5b isk ship, and the low-end booster drops, half the faction dies, so 1.05b profit between 6 gankers. Thats 55m per hour per ganker after gank cost. Ratting to regain standing doesn't count as a time-sink since you make isk there.
I think its highly unlikely to take 3 hours, not even a third of that. Potentially 165m or more for an hour.
|
JVol
The IMorral MAjority Imorral Dragons
|
Posted - 2008.05.27 23:23:00 -
[143]
I suicide gank whenever I would like a large cash injection, not because its easy, but because taking from the stupid or afk is my duty in eve I feel.
I would like to see the insurance taken away for self destruction or anything that caused a sec loss and resulted in your ship loss.
When I started making isk by lets just say, 'less than ethical ways' not much of the player base was doing it, now its common place and everyones doing it. Making it cost a bit more would filter the true chumps outta here and let the hardcore continue with less publicity.
|
lecrotta
lecrotta Corp
|
Posted - 2008.05.27 23:45:00 -
[144]
Edited by: lecrotta on 27/05/2008 23:45:04
Originally by: Kailiani
The time spent missioning for 1 bil is over 50 hours, 20 mill an hour.
Lets say you spend 3 hours looking for 1.5b isk ship, and the low-end booster drops, half the faction dies, so 1.05b profit between 6 gankers. Thats 55m per hour per ganker after gank cost. Ratting to regain standing doesn't count as a time-sink since you make isk there.
I think its highly unlikely to take 3 hours, not even a third of that. Potentially 165m or more for an hour.
IF it drops and thats a big IF not only that but after the gank the gate is dead until DT the next day cos of concord being on it, so 55mil per hour is a joke as finding a gist fitted raven can also take a lot of time.
Math cannot compete with xp bud keep trying.
|
Kailiani
|
Posted - 2008.05.28 00:04:00 -
[145]
Originally by: lecrotta Edited by: lecrotta on 27/05/2008 23:45:04
Originally by: Kailiani
The time spent missioning for 1 bil is over 50 hours, 20 mill an hour.
Lets say you spend 3 hours looking for 1.5b isk ship, and the low-end booster drops, half the faction dies, so 1.05b profit between 6 gankers. Thats 55m per hour per ganker after gank cost. Ratting to regain standing doesn't count as a time-sink since you make isk there.
I think its highly unlikely to take 3 hours, not even a third of that. Potentially 165m or more for an hour.
IF it drops and thats a big IF not only that but after the gank the gate is dead until DT the next day cos of concord being on it, so 55mil per hour is a joke as finding a gist fitted raven can also take a lot of time.
Math cannot compete with xp bud keep trying.
IF it doesn't drop and half the faction loot does, you lose nothing-->repeat, while this poor guy just lost 1.5b isk in modules +600m isk ship, which should have some effect on the balance considering that 100 hours of play is gone in 12 seconds.
Oh noes, concord is protecting the gate.. Move to the other side of it? Or to another gate?
SO how long does it take Mrs. xp? I won't believe anything over 3 hours and thats pushing it far already.
|
lecrotta
lecrotta Corp
|
Posted - 2008.05.28 00:19:00 -
[146]
It can take hours and then you stand a chance of getting nothing and even if you do you get 1 gank per gate per 24 hours as after the first gank concord is all over it.
|
Kailiani
|
Posted - 2008.05.28 00:28:00 -
[147]
Originally by: lecrotta
It can take hours and then you stand a chance of getting nothing and even if you do you get 1 gank per gate per 24 hours as after the first gank concord is all over it.
Concord is really irrelevant as you can do something else after you spend "hours"(like 2 or 3?) on 2 gates with 2 sides each, thats up to 12 hours of play.
And I've already proven you have 7 or more attempts of getting a 1b isk booster, IF no other good faction loot drops on any attempt, before you truely start losing money.
Meh I'm not arguing this anymore.
|
lecrotta
lecrotta Corp
|
Posted - 2008.05.28 00:34:00 -
[148]
Originally by: Kailiani
Originally by: lecrotta
It can take hours and then you stand a chance of getting nothing and even if you do you get 1 gank per gate per 24 hours as after the first gank concord is all over it.
Concord is really irrelevant as you can do something else after you spend "hours"(like 2 or 3?) on 2 gates with 2 sides each, thats up to 12 hours of play.
And I've already proven you have 7 or more attempts of getting a 1b isk booster, IF no other good faction loot drops on any attempt, before you truely start losing money.
Meh I'm not arguing this anymore.
Good whiney carebears are annoying.
Although for 7 attempts you need 4 gates (2 sides each) + a faction fitted ship to actually go through those gates + them to drop the good stuff.
|
Kailiani
|
Posted - 2008.05.28 00:39:00 -
[149]
Edited by: Kailiani on 28/05/2008 00:41:35
Originally by: lecrotta
Originally by: Kailiani
Originally by: lecrotta
It can take hours and then you stand a chance of getting nothing and even if you do you get 1 gank per gate per 24 hours as after the first gank concord is all over it.
Concord is really irrelevant as you can do something else after you spend "hours"(like 2 or 3?) on 2 gates with 2 sides each, thats up to 12 hours of play.
And I've already proven you have 7 or more attempts of getting a 1b isk booster, IF no other good faction loot drops on any attempt, before you truely start losing money.
Meh I'm not arguing this anymore.
Good whiney carebears are annoying.
Although for 7 attempts you need 4 gates (2 sides each) + a faction fitted ship to actually go through those gates + them to drop the good stuff.
Your just being ridiculous now... seriously 7 attempts is over half a day, go outside or something? Or go pvp/mission/mine/scamjita/anything after you somehow can still stay awake.
Oh and lets pretend 7 attempts shall yield no booster while were at it.
|
lecrotta
lecrotta Corp
|
Posted - 2008.05.28 00:53:00 -
[150]
Edited by: lecrotta on 28/05/2008 00:53:59
Originally by: Kailiani
Your just being ridiculous now... seriously 7 attempts is over half a day, go outside or something? Or go pvp/mission/mine/scamjita/anything after you somehow can still stay awake.
Oh and lets pretend 7 attempts shall yield no booster while were at it.
Raven = 18 slots, with only one of them fitted with a worthwhile module the odds are against it dropping IF the guys flying the ravens are kind enough to jump through 4 different gates for me and my brosefs. If not ..............
|
|
Kailiani
|
Posted - 2008.05.28 01:09:00 -
[151]
Edited by: Kailiani on 28/05/2008 01:14:14 Edited by: Kailiani on 28/05/2008 01:11:21 WHY does it matter if you can't get 7 in one day from one system? The time required is half a day, come on... Your arguing stupidly now. Besides ......... MOTSU/SAILA/LAAH/ARAMACHI, please count the gates, thank you.
I'll go ahead and put it in your favor and say only 25% of loot drops, thats a good chance of 2 boosters.
7 ganks- 1b cost in 42 gank ravens. 3 hours per gank ..... lol 2 bill isk from only 2 low-end gist booster. You count faction drops to break even point, so you make 2bill isk. Thats average of 15.8m ISK per hour per ganker.
And I've got all the numbers heavily stacked to the worst case scenarios for the ganker.
More reasonable is 3-4 boosters, and 1 hour per gank.
|
lecrotta
lecrotta Corp
|
Posted - 2008.05.28 01:13:00 -
[152]
Originally by: Kailiani
WHY does it matter if you can't get 7 in one day from one system? The time required is half a day, come on... Your arguing stupidly now. Besides ......... MOTSU/SAILA/LAAH/ARAMACHI, please count the gates, thank you.
I'll go ahead and put it in your favor and say 25% of loot drops(it seems random), thats a good chance of 2 boosters.
7 ganks- 1b cost in 42 gank ravens. 3 hours per gank ..... lol 2 bill isk from only 2 low-end gist booster. You count faction drops to break even point, so you make 2bill isk. Thats average of 15.8m ISK per hour per ganker.
And I've got all the numbers heavily stacked to the worst case scenarios for the ganker.
So we make 15.8mil isk per hour but earlier you say mission runners make 20 mil per hour, holy heck we piwates need a boost not a nerf we are 4.2 mil behind!!.
|
Kailiani
|
Posted - 2008.05.28 01:17:00 -
[153]
Edited by: Kailiani on 28/05/2008 01:25:22
Quote: So we make 15.8mil isk per hour but earlier you say mission runners make 20 mil per hour, holy heck we piwates need a boost not a nerf we are 4.2 mil behind!!.
Yesyes, lets just completely ignore that it doesn't take 3 hours and that loot drop is actually higher then 25%. Also lets pretend 1b isk boosters are all there is while were at it.
15.8m per hour if all the gankers have the worst of luck and all of them have been stuck by lightning on the same day.
Lowering the time to 1 hour= 3x more per hour.45. Higher drop percentage increases this up to double,90. And potentially 2x the amount from booster,180. 180m per hour if they have luck of gods, so lets settle somewhere in between somewhere mmmkay?
|
lecrotta
lecrotta Corp
|
Posted - 2008.05.28 01:30:00 -
[154]
Edited by: lecrotta on 28/05/2008 01:31:49
Originally by: Kailiani
Quote: So we make 15.8mil isk per hour but earlier you say mission runners make 20 mil per hour, holy heck we piwates need a boost not a nerf we are 4.2 mil behind!!.
Yesyes, lets just completely ignore that it doesn't take 3 hours and that loot drop is actually higher then 25%. Also lets pretend 1b isk boosters are all there is while were at it.
While you conveniently forget to mention that the runner is guaranteed to make 20 mil per hour while we are not unless we work for all those hours you use to come up with your averages.
You do understand that this argument has been flying around these forums for many many many years don't you?. Do you really think that now you have a new shoulder to cry on that the peeps at CCP will change their minds???.
Play with you fake and imaginary numbers all you like it will make no differance.
|
Kailiani
|
Posted - 2008.05.28 01:37:00 -
[155]
Edited by: Kailiani on 28/05/2008 01:39:06 Duuuuurrrrrrrrr, and you convienently ignore you could make 180m an hour. Oh noes a extremely small chance to make under what a mission runner makes, VS a very great chance of making double or triple or even more then the missioner.
.....and no I don't expect anything to be done. I personally don't think they intended for ganking to be as widespread as it is, all I ask is they look into it. Which is all I voted for right? Just because there might be over 5% votes on it doesn't mean they will rebalance it if they think its good as is.
|
lecrotta
lecrotta Corp
|
Posted - 2008.05.28 01:43:00 -
[156]
Originally by: Kailiani Duuuuurrrrrrrrr, and you convienetly ignore you could make 180m an hour.
.....and no I don't expect anything to be done. I personally don't think they intended for ganking to be as widespread as it is, all I ask is they look into it. Which is all I voted for right? Just because there might be over 5% votes on it doesn't mean they will rebalance it if they think its good as is.
I'm not ignoring anything but Ive ganked in empire for a long time and id love to see as many high value faction fitted ravens as your figures NEED to be even close to accurate, among all the other variables that need to work also.
I have spent hours for nothing while looking to gank CNR's and freighters and tbh i wish it was as easy as your calculator seems to think it is.
|
Kailiani
|
Posted - 2008.05.28 01:50:00 -
[157]
You have a point, I really have no idea how long it takes or what percent of modules drop. I assume 1-2 hours tops myself, and somewhere between 30-50% drop rate.
CCP are the only ones who can decide whether or not the profit is to high in terms on ISK/hour. I hope they realize that losing sec status is regained by ratting, which you make ISK doing. And a suicide ship blowing up from concord isn't a punishment.
|
lecrotta
lecrotta Corp
|
Posted - 2008.05.28 02:06:00 -
[158]
Originally by: Kailiani You have a point, I really have no idea how long it takes or what percent of modules drop. I assume 1-2 hours tops myself, and somewhere between 30-50% drop rate.
CCP are the only ones who can decide whether or not the profit is to high in terms on ISK/hour. I hope they realize that losing sec status is regained by ratting, which you make ISK doing. And a suicide ship blowing up from concord isn't a punishment.
Ive spent 5 hours or longer looking for a raven to gank that was worth it for it to lose all its high value mods but then ive spent 1 hour and had 1-2 bil drop although thats very rare.
TBH even though ive done it a lot id find it hard to work out a average as it is way to random but i do know that it is not as profitable as ppl think unless you have the ability to play eve for 12 or more hours a day.
Ganking freighters is better but to be assured a worthwhile haul it needs to have 20 or so bil of various types of items as the pop as stacks so if its full of zid all or none will survive, and you need roughly 9 or so high sp BS pilots to do it in a .5.
|
Kailiani
|
Posted - 2008.05.28 02:22:00 -
[159]
Edited by: Kailiani on 28/05/2008 02:23:42 My friend was ganked by a group who decided to take out the first navy raven they saw. He talked to them and they said they didn't even scan him. He just got the cnr a week or two before and saved along time to get it. His modules were all T2 with only 2 dread guristas BCU's. This was back when domi's were used which were cheaper aswell but required more of them. He was just ganked for carebear tears and fun is all.
Only bout 10m domi per person and 10 people, it wasn't much cost to each of them. And raven's aren't much more costly per person. Basically each person could pay off their own 24m gank raven in alittle over an hour, but costing the gankee 100+ hours of play.
|
lecrotta
lecrotta Corp
|
Posted - 2008.05.28 02:38:00 -
[160]
So its really all about how much the gankee losses?.
If you cannot afford to lose it do not fly it has always been the rule of eve buddy you should tell your friend that,although the gankers were morons for not using a passive targeter and scanner tbh.
|
|
Kailiani
|
Posted - 2008.05.28 02:50:00 -
[161]
Edited by: Kailiani on 28/05/2008 02:51:22
Originally by: lecrotta So its really all about how much the gankee losses?.
If you cannot afford to lose it do not fly it has always been the rule of eve buddy you should tell your friend that,although the gankers were morons for not using a passive targeter and scanner tbh.
Meh it doesn't really make much sense tbh, 20m/hr is 20m/hr. Unless you have a nice T2 bpo back in the day a faction ship alone is more then most people can afford, you know, god forbid you have a pvp alt.
|
Ankhesentapemkah
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2008.05.28 15:44:00 -
[162]
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. ---
Thanks for all that supported me. Let me know if there's anything I can do for you.
|
Farrqua
Turbo Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.05.28 17:14:00 -
[163]
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".
|
Leandro Salazar
The Blackguard Wolves
|
Posted - 2008.05.28 19:40:00 -
[164]
Originally by: Farrqua 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".
I am fairly sure Ankh was talking about PLAYERS dealing with suiciders preemptively being more or less impossible (at least without resorting to metagaming). The notion that 'suspect' suicide gankers should be dealt with preemptively by game mechanics seems stupid even to me.
Make suicide ganking more difficult!
|
Squirrrel
Squirrrel Industries
|
Posted - 2008.05.28 21:30:00 -
[165]
No insurance if Concord appear on your loss post. Agreed.
|
Amarr Holymight
Bat Country Aegis Militia
|
Posted - 2008.05.28 21:35:00 -
[166]
Its not as easy as you think guys so no to this please try less to promote stupidity in EVE. Why don't you make it harder yourself by fitting a rack of WCS and actively move your expensive loot as fast you can. Train an alt to fly a transport and use them to carry your stuff those things are ***** hard to kill. Use a noob alt to scout for you, be proactive you whining lump of total fail.
|
Squirrrel
Squirrrel Industries
|
Posted - 2008.05.28 21:42:00 -
[167]
Originally by: Amarr Holymight Use a noob alt to scout for you, be proactive you whining lump of total fail.
Shouldn't have to use an alt on a second account for this you... oh you already said it.
|
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2008.05.28 21:46:00 -
[168]
Originally by: Amarr Holymight Why don't you make it harder yourself by fitting a rack of WCS...
Bumping a hauler is pathetically easy to do. Freighters cannot fit WCS at all.
Quote: Train an alt to fly a transport and use them to carry your stuff those things are ***** hard to kill.
I assume you mean Blockade Runners. Yes they are very hard to catch. They also carry barely any cargo. Depending on what you are carrying they could be literally incapable of moving what you have. Even so you'd be looking at a half-dozen trips for every one trip in a Deep Space Transport (so if you went just 10J onec with the Deep Space Transport it'd take you 120J to do the same in a Blockade Runner).
If you are in a Freighter, which cannot fit any defense whatsoever, the matter gets far worse. I recently moved 16 full loads in a maxed Charon. That is roughly 400 loads of a pimped Bustard (T2 Deep Space Transport). On just a 5J run that makes 4000 jumps total (remember you have to double it for there and back).
Quote: Use a noob alt to scout for you...
People should not need a second account to play.
-------------------------------------------------- "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!"
|
Xaryus
|
Posted - 2008.05.28 22:06:00 -
[169]
Concord and SCC are part of the same entity. It's completly illogical from any aspect that insurance is payed out for shiplosses resulting from concord fire.
Regarding self-destruct from a story point of view, they may not KNOW it was fraud, but for sake of having to do less explaining, yes remove the payout on self-destruct as well. (and on a diff topic, remove the ability to collect your own bounty, please) -- Everyone is someone elses wierdo. |
Wu Jian
School of Applied Knowledge
|
Posted - 2008.05.28 22:13:00 -
[170]
No insurance payout for Concord kills or self destructing /support
|
|
Elseix
|
Posted - 2008.05.28 22:18:00 -
[171]
Originally by: Leandro Salazar When you are killed by concord, you do not receive any insurance payout
This is the obvious change & makes sense gameplay-wise, but I'm not going to support because this thread is probably full of carebear tears about how they deserve to fly around in untanked t1 haulers carrying 1bil+.
Yes, insurance shouldn't be paid if you are destroyed by CONCORD, perhaps you could combine this with a logical penalty against lowsec piracy and people who die who have been attacked by gateguns dont get insurance payout either. Just makes sense gameworld-wise.
I dont think the problem is suicide gankers though, its the morons who can't afford to tank a 'matar hauler or use a t2 indy...
|
Kasarandon
Suzaku Enterprises
|
Posted - 2008.05.28 22:47:00 -
[172]
Supported. Remove insurance payment for being killed by concord.
|
Yuri Mengeroth
Very Bad Things
|
Posted - 2008.05.28 23:09:00 -
[173]
indeed |
Amarr Holymight
Bat Country Aegis Militia
|
Posted - 2008.05.28 23:58:00 -
[174]
The penalties for the ganker are a sec hit so he has to rat monotonously to be allowed back in Empire. Getting his loot stolen by third parties, numerous people having kill rights on them which might be transferable in the future. Not to mention the hours of waiting for a nice haul and nothing drops. If these aren't enough pain I don't know what is.
Also I don't mind the idea of the ganker not receiving the insurance but if you do this you open a huge can of worms and a wall of petitions to CCP oh I wasn't really suicide ganking my Blasters went off by accident.
|
Phroneo
Southern Cross Incorporated Southern Cross Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.05.29 06:54:00 -
[175]
/signed -- It may be that the old astrologers had the truth exactly reversed, when they believed that the stars controlled the destinies of men. The time may come when men control the destinies of stars. ACC |
Drilacred
|
Posted - 2008.05.29 09:22:00 -
[176]
/signed
|
Roguehalo
RH Ship Brokers
|
Posted - 2008.05.29 09:49:00 -
[177]
/signed
|
Raiven Parker
The Athiest Syndicate INT0XICATI0N
|
Posted - 2008.05.29 12:36:00 -
[178]
Sec hit should just be much bigger in highsec.
|
RNGD Maniac
Brute Strength THORN Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.05.29 12:54:00 -
[179]
i dont support. empire isnt 100% safe, there should be some risk involved tbh ----------
|
Jeirth
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2008.05.29 13:22:00 -
[180]
Originally by: RNGD Maniac i dont support. empire isnt 100% safe, there should be some risk involved tbh
Indeed, the suicide gankers should have some risk, instead of a virtual risk free isk printing machine.
/Signed
|
|
Esmenet
|
Posted - 2008.05.29 17:29:00 -
[181]
Originally by: Jeirth
Originally by: RNGD Maniac i dont support. empire isnt 100% safe, there should be some risk involved tbh
Indeed, the suicide gankers should have some risk, instead of a virtual risk free isk printing machine.
/Signed
Thats the mission runners you are talking about right?
|
Kazzac Elentria
|
Posted - 2008.05.29 18:19:00 -
[182]
Easy fix... remove insurance payouts. In fact remove insurance period.
Solves about 10 different problems including this one |
Windjammer
|
Posted - 2008.05.29 18:22:00 -
[183]
A ship which has been killed by Concord should receive no insurance pay off. Noob mistake or not. When I was a noob I made such a mistake and didn't have insurance. It never occured to me to whine to CCP about it. I'd done the tutorial and I knew the consequences. I had locked onto a target I wasn't supposed to in high sec. I had turned off the warning box. I had pushed the dang button to fire. I was responsible. I sucked it up, laughed, earned isk and bought another ship.
Higher sec hit for Concord offenses. Currently it is far to easy to recover sec status after a suicide gank. Elimination of insurance alone is not sufficiently punitive to put a crimp in the style of suicide gankers.
Currently it is actually possible to make a profit from the insurance payout alone. If you build the ship yourself, the insurance payout is higher than the cost of building the ship added to the cost of the insurance premium. I'm using a Dominix for this example.
Regards, Windjammer
|
BlondieBC
7th Tribal Legion
|
Posted - 2008.05.29 18:53:00 -
[184]
Suicide GAnking is good for game.
|
Jeirth
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2008.05.29 19:00:00 -
[185]
Originally by: BlondieBC Suicide GAnking is good for game.
Could you enlighten me as to the reasoning behind this statement?
|
Exodus Alpha
|
Posted - 2008.05.29 20:11:00 -
[186]
Originally by: Jeirth
Originally by: BlondieBC Suicide GAnking is good for game.
Could you enlighten me as to the reasoning behind this statement?
Sorry, I think he mistyped that.
"Suicide ganking is good for me."
---
Suicide ganking only benefits those who can't hold their own against a competent opponent (also see reevaluation of Empire wardec mechanics), so they go after officer-fit CNRs and big haulers to get their ticket of the free ISK moneytrain.
I mean, face it. You find a ship that very obviously is worth a great deal or is carrying a great deal of cargo, you throw away a ship, you get free ISK. Where exactly is the risk involved for the reward? And don't say sec status loss, that's a joke (as is a good part of the sec status system as well). Every other avenue has more or less risk or more or less reward, so what about the carebear gankers?
Obviously suicide ganking should NOT be done away with in total - I don't advocate for any part of that. Eliminating more and more of the sandbox in Eve is NOT a good idea, and only serves to weaken Eve's main strongpoint. However, I do greatly support a general re-evaluation of suicide ganking, so...
/supported
|
Esmenet
|
Posted - 2008.05.29 22:17:00 -
[187]
Edited by: Esmenet on 29/05/2008 22:18:54
Originally by: Exodus Alpha
I mean, face it. You find a ship that very obviously is worth a great deal or is carrying a great deal of cargo, you throw away a ship, you get free ISK. Where exactly is the risk involved for the reward?
The security status loss and the loss of your ship is a much greater risk and penalty than anything a zero-risk high sec mission runner takes for his isk.
Simply speaking high sec mission runners (especially noob corp ones) completely destroy the concept of risk/reward in the game. You dont even need to pay attention to what you are doing. Removing the last neglible risk for this profession is simply wrong.
|
Tessen
Stellar Tide
|
Posted - 2008.05.29 22:27:00 -
[188]
|
Jeirth
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2008.05.29 22:46:00 -
[189]
Esmenet, it seems to me that you shift the concept of risk less isk from those that are actually making it, the suicide gankers, to those that have to haul through the myriad gank camps and then face the market pvp, which is actually a lot more cut-throat than ship to ship PvP is. Whereas all that suicide gankers face is a sec hit, and if they don't recycle the ganking character then all they have to do is a few hours ratting, less if they have low/no sec access and the relevant skill trained (as the skill works as it should according to CCP now). Please enlighten me if I am confused in my salient points?
|
lecrotta
lecrotta Corp
|
Posted - 2008.05.29 22:53:00 -
[190]
Remove the insurance and you remove any ganks on ships with less that 500 - bil in mods as they will not be worth going for, so a huge NO.
|
|
Jaabaa Prime
Quam Singulari
|
Posted - 2008.05.29 22:56:00 -
[191]
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 --
|
Cergorach
The Helix Foundation
|
Posted - 2008.05.29 23:19:00 -
[192]
Opposed!
I think EVE needs the thrill of the possible kill in High-sec, making it more difficult for the basic mission runner to get suicided will make it imposible to SG a ship fitted for evasion. Effectively making you invunerable in HS from SG...
I would like to note, that I never SG, never have, never will!
|
Gotrek65
Industrial Warlords Dominatus Phasmatis
|
Posted - 2008.05.29 23:33:00 -
[193]
suicide ganking does indeed need to be nerfed
|
Le Skunk
Low Sec Liberators
|
Posted - 2008.05.30 00:11:00 -
[194]
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
|
Farrqua
Turbo Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.05.30 00:34:00 -
[195]
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.
|
Le Skunk
Low Sec Liberators
|
Posted - 2008.05.30 00:58:00 -
[196]
Originally by: Farrqua 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.
Yeah i think Mission Runners should be exempt from insurance. After all - what sane insurer would insure a guy who keeps flying into massive rat fleets, and gettign blow up occasionaly.
SKUNK
|
MongWen
Farmer Killers United Corporations Against Macros
|
Posted - 2008.05.30 01:04:00 -
[197]
In some cases suicide runs are the only way to get your target, since there is no way to dec a NPC corp, and the ones that bail their corp when you dec them in order to be ôsafeö from loosing ships and fittings, and protecting farmers and macro miners at the same time.
Making suicide runs harder will make way for other changes that in turn will make it impossible to do any pirate actions in high sec, and destroy game styles in the process. And limiting the suicide runs to the rich.
Originally by: Le Skunk
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.
I have to agree to this one, and added with no insurance payout for ship losses to mission rats. Sice you are throwing your ship into danger.
-------
And on a side note to the CSM members that are going to fight for changes that affect game styles in this manor, watch your backs in game, I have seen talks both in game and on third party sites that people will take action against them regardless of the drawbacks.
------------------
|
Esmenet
|
Posted - 2008.05.30 01:13:00 -
[198]
Originally by: Jeirth Edited by: Jeirth on 29/05/2008 22:50:27 Esmenet, it seems to me that you shift the concept of risk less isk from those that are actually making it, the suicide gankers, to those that have to haul through the myriad gank camps and then face the market pvp, which is actually a lot more cut-throat than ship to ship PvP is.
Having done hundreds if not thousands of missions myself(many of them in high activity mission hubs) to support other activities thats simply a joke. You can easily do missions for a year and never ever loose a single ship to any gatecamp or rat. And market pvp is really practically nonexistant for a missionrunner.
The input from the player is minimal, i usually watched TV while doing them while the return in terms of isk is among the highest in the game for a simple grunt. In terms of risk/imput/reward its probably the easiest thing to do with the highest reward.
High sec needs more risk or its rewards nerfed.
|
Malcolm Gerhardt
Hadean Drive Yards Archaean Cooperative
|
Posted - 2008.05.30 03:12:00 -
[199]
I support this discussion
Keep your Head low, Your Mind high and Your Mouth Shut |
Czanthria
Ad Astra Vexillum
|
Posted - 2008.05.30 03:18:00 -
[200]
-- Knowledge is Power! |
|
Arbor Down
|
Posted - 2008.05.30 12:28:00 -
[201]
I don't know what needs to be done, but something does.
I think making kill rights tradeable would probably be a good first step.
|
Amarr Holymight
Bat Country Aegis Militia
|
Posted - 2008.05.30 13:54:00 -
[202]
Originally by: Arbor Down I don't know what needs to be done, but something does.
I think making kill rights tradeable would probably be a good first step.
Now there's a really good solution to your problem make new thread this one has failed.
|
Rafe Udall
R.U.S.E.
|
Posted - 2008.05.30 14:06:00 -
[203]
I support this. As it stands, suicide ganking is an important element in eve for various reasons, however it should not become a profession.
Currently, the way insurance works emphasizes that it is a game, and provides the ganker with effectively very low to zero risk.
I would like to think that in a world where you are effectively immortal, insurance companies would not run at a massive loss, as they clearly do now. |
Talkuth Rel
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2008.05.30 18:29:00 -
[204]
Issue supported. At the very least, this needs to be discussed by the CSM.
Personally, I'd take away insurance payouts regardless of the outcome, If you pick a fight with CONCORD, CONCORD (via SCC) does not cover your losses.
|
Amarr Holymight
Bat Country Aegis Militia
|
Posted - 2008.05.30 20:03:00 -
[205]
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=784681&page=1
Vote for transferable kill rights this will hinder suicide ganking.
|
Praxis1452
Corp 1 Allstars Insurgency
|
Posted - 2008.05.30 20:43:00 -
[206]
Originally by: Rafe Udall I support this. As it stands, suicide ganking is an important element in eve for various reasons, however it should not become a profession.
Currently, the way insurance works emphasizes that it is a game, and provides the ganker with effectively very low to zero risk.
I would like to think that in a world where you are effectively immortal, insurance companies would not run at a massive loss, as they clearly do now.
They will always run at a massive loss. If they made money then most players would lose more money than it's worth.
Suicide ganking should become a profession as the profitability of high-sec currently stands. It has pretty much no risk. People can get setups to Perma-run LAR's. specific hards for certain missions pretty much nullifies much risk at all. Yes, there are certain missions which are incredibly hard even for rigged t2 ships to do, however those are few and do not hinder isk making in high-sec. People flying around in t2 BS are not really suicided. It's just not worth it. It is the people who fly around in pimped ships with faction mods that make high-sec ganking worth it. t1 haulers carrying hundreds of millions worth of stuff SHOULD be suicided. -------------------------------------------- ôHe who must expend his life to prolong life cannot enjoy it, and he who is still seeking for his life does not have it and can as little enjoy it" |
ishkabibble
Black Avatar Lost Sheep Domain
|
Posted - 2008.05.30 22:37:00 -
[207]
Make it happen NYC gets Rick Roll'd |
javer
4S Corporation Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2008.05.30 23:10:00 -
[208]
Edited by: javer on 30/05/2008 23:09:52 boost concord to handle overloading and t2 ships also factor in plates/extenders and remove innsurance if the response from concord removes the ship as in real world you wont get payout if your responsible for killing your own innsurance object -------------------------------------------- Never argue with an idiot, they will drag you down to their Level and beat you with experience. |
Aida Cyprus
|
Posted - 2008.05.30 23:11:00 -
[209]
Edited by: Aida Cyprus on 30/05/2008 23:13:22 Totaly agree, missionrunning should be a viable path for those who enjoy PvE 100%. Some people do, and there is absolutely no reason why they should not have their game, as the "ganking" comunnity will still have theirs. The 100% missionrunners do need something to aim for, and that is usally the pimp ... after all, where else would you sell all that shiny faction stuff ? I mean if noone buys, they will drop to values where they work for pvp. Those PvEers buying them help fund the sellers (usually 0.0 people) PvP, which is a good thing imho.
Aida Cyprus
|
Frug
Repo Industries R.E.P.O.
|
Posted - 2008.06.01 06:53:00 -
[210]
This idea has been floating around for so damn long.
- - - - - - - - - Do not use dotted lines - - - - - - - If you think I'm awesome, say BOOO BOOO!! - Ductoris Neat look what I found - Kreul Hey, my marbles |
|
Jowen Datloran
Science and Trade Institute
|
Posted - 2008.06.01 10:42:00 -
[211]
No insurance payout for victims killed by CONCORD, signed.
No other changes are needed imo. ---------------- Mr. Science & Trade Institute |
Melllo champers
|
Posted - 2008.06.01 11:13:00 -
[212]
Screw the Newbs to protect the veterans running top pay out misions in multi billion isk mission ships.
NO THANKS.
|
Efa Morgan
|
Posted - 2008.06.02 15:51:00 -
[213]
supporting
|
namelessclone01
blackbox ops
|
Posted - 2008.06.02 16:12:00 -
[214]
- no insurance to criminals killed by Concord (no matter if they succeeded in killing their target or not) /signed
- transferrable kill-rights /signed
- i'd even go as far as paying the gankers' insurance to the victim (this is debatable of course, but.. /signed)
|
Molarin
|
Posted - 2008.06.02 22:49:00 -
[215]
Yep, it is too easy.
|
Buck Starchaser
|
Posted - 2008.06.03 02:35:00 -
[216]
Nerf it
|
Dav Varan
|
Posted - 2008.06.03 15:58:00 -
[217]
Even a scurvy pirate such as myself can see the sense in this suggestion.
No Insurance payouts for people with concord on there kill mail full stop.
This is not intended as a punishment it is intended as a way to Raise the value of cargo that can be carried before a suicide gank becomes profitable, because at the moment it is way to low.
atm suicide ganking is low risk / high reward and needs a fix and majority of community have been calling for this fix for ages with no response from ccp.
So yes council bring this topic before them.
|
Mileni
AntiMacro Decimation
|
Posted - 2008.06.03 19:55:00 -
[218]
Not supporting.
A: Suiciding macro barges would make it 0 payout at all, since macro's use junk t1 fittings. B: Folks that fire on mission buddies via accident (happens alot) Lose their ship and get nothing. C: Most suiciders looking for sheer profits only bother with farmers that buy ISK then snag up faction items for their ship.
If this change is passed, it's yet another confirmation that CCP fully supports the 150,000+ farmer and macro accounts safety and again isn't concerned with the intense lag, server problems and RMT problems Eve has. |
Tomo Yamaoka
The Nightwatch
|
Posted - 2008.06.03 20:10:00 -
[219]
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 Agent Provocateur of the FIO
|
Farrqua
Turbo Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.06.03 21:30:00 -
[220]
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.
|
|
Leandro Salazar
The Blackguard Wolves
|
Posted - 2008.06.03 21:37:00 -
[221]
Originally by: Farrqua 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.
The problem is not mission runners found in a mission (you CAN actually protect against that somewhat by eying local and scanning for probes), but mission runners jumping through a gate. Now if CCP changed every mission to spawn in the agents system, this would be a perfectly fine fix too. But I have the underlying feeling that CCP enjoys subjecting mission runners to stupid idle time sinks like jumping to other systems or traveling 70km to the next gate in a mission where it takes a Velator 20 secs to kill all enemies, so I don't see that happening.
Make suicide ganking more difficult!
|
MirrorGod
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
|
Posted - 2008.06.03 22:18:00 -
[222]
Thumbs down goes here
Recruitment: [ANTI]
|
Tomo Yamaoka
The Nightwatch
|
Posted - 2008.06.03 22:26:00 -
[223]
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. Agent Provocateur of the FIO
|
Farrqua
Turbo Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.06.04 01:06:00 -
[224]
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.
|
Tomo Yamaoka
The Nightwatch
|
Posted - 2008.06.04 06:09:00 -
[225]
I didn't mention a crime fighting force, unless the x men are joining the game.
High sec is risky for certain professions, and it seems like there are new ways put into practice quite often to circumvent the veil of safety in high sec empire space. My suggestion in no way changes the risk for pilots involved in high sec crime as far as the ship they are in is concerned, all it does is further alienate them from high security empire controlled space. Things like this will add challenge to a profession that is quickly growing repetative and predictible...but its just a suggestion.
Agent Provocateur of the FIO
|
Esmenet
|
Posted - 2008.06.04 10:55:00 -
[226]
Originally by: Tomo Yamaoka My suggestion in no way changes the risk for pilots involved in high sec crime as far as the ship they are in is concerned, all it does is further alienate them from high security empire controlled space. Things like this will add challenge to a profession that is quickly growing repetative and predictible...but its just a suggestion.
Actually it will completely remove their possibility to be in high sec space, making a already near risk free zone completely safe while still giving very high rewards.
|
Marara Kovacs
|
Posted - 2008.06.04 11:21:00 -
[227]
No insurance payout for being concorded, obvious and simple. It doesnt really need much more than that.
|
Sir Substance
|
Posted - 2008.06.04 12:02:00 -
[228]
Originally by: Marara Kovacs No insurance payout for being concorded, obvious and simple. It doesnt really need much more than that.
exactly. theres no problem with suiciding someone in empire. the problem is that it can be profitable with silly cheap items.
|
Dray
Spartan Industries Cruel Intentions
|
Posted - 2008.06.04 12:12:00 -
[229]
Definitely not signed, its so easy to avoid suicide ganking its not even funny, so why should you expect CCP to bail you out of a situation where your too lazy/stupid/greedy to do anything about it.
Just because you want to be greedy and make maximum profit from missions and not work in a group doesn't mean you cant work together as individuals in a system and try to make a gank harder, omg but i might lose a bit of my max isk/time profit ratio, cmon ffs its not rocket science.
No to insurance invalidation, whole bags worms waiting to be opened there.
In fact no to everything that encourages ppl to be hi-sec isk machines that has no risk.
Eve is a MMO, one of those M's is for multiplayer, I dont care how hard you worked for that pimp fit your running, if your stupid enough to assume that concord will take care of you in an area where there is a tangible risk then great, let me and my friends ride you like seabiscuit and in the process increase the average intelligence of the player base, awesome, I'm performing a service and making a profit at the same time.
The question you have to ask is how hard is it to stop suicide ganks, if the answer is that its to difficult within current mechanics then yes there is a problem and it needs fixing, but when the answer is simple there is no justifiable reason to be here, and believe me the answer is so, so simple its incredible your all here asking to be bailed out.
As a side note, it's worth remembering theres a lot of mission runners in low sec who run the risk of ganking every time they undock and they are doing fine.
In summary stop being lazy, analyze the problem and solve it, its doesn't need a nerf, it just requires you think about it, seriously.
|
Gonetae
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2008.06.04 13:03:00 -
[230]
No insurance payouts for those killed by Concord gets a mighty thumbs up from me.
|
|
Lex Tael
Advanced Defences Research
|
Posted - 2008.06.04 13:07:00 -
[231]
/signed
No payout to CONCORD victims.
Suicide ganks for profit are fine.
It's people who don't mind losing ~20mil for a 'cool' faction/T2 ship killmail and some perverted 'fun' (of hurting a real person) that bother me the most. And those are too common right now.
|
hattifnatt
Spartan Industries Cruel Intentions
|
Posted - 2008.06.04 19:44:00 -
[232]
Lol at all the carebear fgts
|
SencneS
Rebellion Against big Irreversible Dinks
|
Posted - 2008.06.04 21:03:00 -
[233]
You don't need to cancel insurance or make kill rights tradeable. That is just a band-aid on the issue. Keep in mind if you are going to suicide gank, and you know you're not going to get insurance why insure it to begin with.
So the Insurance ISK sink is removed from Gankers. This is no good either, although it's a small ISK sink it's a Sink none the less. Let them keep the insurance, don't even worry about tradable kill rights.
What really needs to happen is the frequency in which someone could gank.
You know someone could suicide gank 92 times in a day... That's far too many, potential suicides. I would much rather see the outlaw timer last an hour.
This also forces gankers to be more choosy when it comes to targets, and being an outlaw for an hour drastically cuts down the amount of ganks they can perform, but it still gives them the opportunity and motive to do it.
If they have the balls they can sit on a gate with global countdown and defend themselves from people attacking them. A group of circle jerking remote shield repping Ravens can tank gate guns, so the can still do exactly what they want, they just need to devote more effort to their cause.
If they are solo gankers, they must be more selective on their targets, so it works there too. Also when you consider what effort it would take to implement this for CCP.
Change the timer from 15 minutes, to 60 minutes, but make it so you only get 60 minutes if done in high sec. Low Sec, remove the agro timer completely.
So I'd support, Removal of Timer in Low sec, increase the timer in high-sec.
The reason I'd support removal of Low Sec timer is simply to make ganking in low sec more attractive vs high sec. If you don't want a global counter for 60 minutes go camp a low sec gate.
Amarr for Life |
Junbug
|
Posted - 2008.06.04 21:41:00 -
[234]
yes, secure systems should be.. secure.
if suicide ganking are allowed, then the gankers should be put in a 24 hour anyone-can-kill-them mode. or something of the sort
|
Kiss TheBlade
|
Posted - 2008.06.05 12:29:00 -
[235]
supported
|
Deej Montana
Outbound Flight
|
Posted - 2008.06.05 17:35:00 -
[236]
I support this proposal. |
Kethry Avenger
Krell-Korp
|
Posted - 2008.06.05 19:17:00 -
[237]
I support the OP where he said insurance doesn't get paid if the ship being targeted gets blown up first.
|
Tesseract d'Urberville
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation The Honda Accord
|
Posted - 2008.06.05 19:42:00 -
[238]
Originally by: Dray To hammer home my earlier point, asking for a change in the game is all well and good if the problem cant be solved because the game is broken, in this case it isn't.
Lets be honest here, its about greed, people don't want to interrupt their isk flow taking a little bit of time to counter the problem.
Are you a miner Dray?
--------------------------------- Thomas Hardy is going to eat your brains. |
Somatic Neuron
|
Posted - 2008.06.05 19:51:00 -
[239]
Originally by: Mileni Not supporting.
A: Suiciding macro barges would make it 0 payout at all, since macro's use junk t1 fittings. B: Folks that fire on mission buddies via accident (happens alot) Lose their ship and get nothing. C: Most suiciders looking for sheer profits only bother with farmers that buy ISK then snag up faction items for their ship.
If this change is passed, it's yet another confirmation that CCP fully supports the 150,000+ farmer and macro accounts safety and again isn't concerned with the intense lag, server problems and RMT problems Eve has.
A. If you are taking it upon yourself to do CCP's job, then you take the risk upon yourself. B. I've never actually killed a mission buddy by firing on them...been ganked by CONCORD, for sure, but never killed a mission buddy that I accidently fired upon...which is why you only make it so that if you participate in a kill for someone and then die by CONCORD, either before or after the kill happens, then you lose your insurance payout. Stops the accidents from killing your wallet. C. Seems to be a lot of suicide ganking of Freighters and Industrial ships when I fly through space. ---------- |
Lumen Atra
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.05 21:29:00 -
[240]
It is obvious those farming in concord protected areas hope for peace and quiet to go about their merry business. It doesn't matter if you think it is wrong or right - it is how it is; it is part of what makes Eve, Eve.
The problem with things such as "no insurance payout" is that they are one sided solutions. They cater to the miners, and nobody else. It doesn't address why a miner should have this special protection for the sake of their fun or profit, but a pirate or suicide ganker does not.
Suicide ganking does cost people something. The fact that they might come out on top of the loss - maybe even by a hefty margin, does not change the fact their was a loss. You invested in your cargo holds, your mining lasers, mining drones, your hauler, whatever. They invested in a ship capable of ganking a target in less than 30s. Those are your investments, and you are suggesting that only the mining investments should not have any risk. What you are suggesting is that people should be so afraid to gank a perfectly legitimate (and juicy) target so that you lose nothing and they lose everything.
You'll argue "no no, they can still gank us, but it is going to hurt them a lot more!" But that isn't what you're saying: you want no insurance payout on successful suicide ganks; you may want concord to respond even faster to prevent the gank in the first place. You want this so that suicide ganking becomes UNATTRACTIVE to anybody. Afterall, who is really going to suicide gank as a business initiative if it only results in a net loss? And you like that idea - mine in peace. You get to make money for nothing but time. No risk. Wannabe pirates...100% risk, to the point that they aren't even allowed to pirate for profit, but only for "****s and giggles."
And this seems fair to you? There are only two answers: yes or no. If yes, then you boldly admit that your idea of fun - the idea that is NOT supported by Eve itself, is somehow the golden rule. If no, then there is nothing to actually discuss, because if you say no but want to entertain unfair ideas, then you really meant to say yes, now didn't you?
You engage in mining, which you know could cause you to lose your ship and cargo to a pirate. So I guess you will be ok with not getting any insurance out of it, either?
If you want to discuss whether or not something needs a nerf, you need to look out how widespread the phenomena is, and how it is actually affecting the game. Do you believe that the majority of haulers are ganked? Do you believe even 30% of them are ganked? 10%? How many suicide ganks a day would you estimate occur? How many ganks fail? How many total hauls occur without being killed? What sort of net loss on the economy of Eve do you think there is? (please note, this is FOR EVE, not for you...what you lose and what is not destroyed is still on the market or in use, and therefore is not a loss for eve, only for you). If there is a net loss, is there a noticeable impact to the economic system - negative or positive, and if so, what are those impacts?
You can't simply say "I feel this is wrong" just because you don't find it fun. Somebody is always going to find no-fun in what somebody else does. If you feel there is truly a gamebreaking issue, THEN TREAT IT AS SUCH INSTEAD OF SAYING "I FEEL."
|
|
Farrqua
Turbo Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.06.05 22:16:00 -
[241]
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.
|
Esmenet
|
Posted - 2008.06.05 22:55:00 -
[242]
Originally by: Farrqua
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.
Well the CSM members have not exactly tried to hide that they are just in it for their personal agendas. But so far they dont seem to be more than a glorified suggestion forum so does it really matter? Time will tell if this has any merit but cant say it looks promising atm.
Hopefully those that really matter (the devs) can make their decisions from a more objective view of the game.
|
cain mjolnir
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 04:31:00 -
[243]
This thread is so ridiculous, cause you seem to forget a ganker loses his privileges in empire which means doing some mindnumbing ratting. I'll agree to nefing up suicide ganking if ratting is made more interesting cause its bloody boring or even more interesting ways to up your sec status. Just to show you how ridiculous this thread is I vote YES cause Im still gonna gank you no matter how high you make it for me. Actually you will be doing me a favour I won't have to waste my time on crappy 200mil kills Ill go straight for the biggies with a bil or more, so more profit less ratting thanks. Make suicide ganking more difficult and you will give people a real false sense of security and bring out even more afk haulers while at the same time making me more focused on getting that uber kill I really love your work do it I friggin dare ya.
|
cain mjolnir
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 04:32:00 -
[244]
/signed
|
Professor Pizi
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 06:36:00 -
[245]
i
|
SocialPolice
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 06:43:00 -
[246]
Originally by: Leandro Salazar Edited by: Leandro Salazar on 23/05/2008 18:02:59 Just to be reiterate things for the uninitiated, the issue at hand is this:
A mission runner in a semi-decently fitted ship is scanned at his mission station using a passive targeter. The gankers find the fitting offers enough profit potential, and thus he makes the list of gankworthy targets or something. Now the systems the agents send people to are well known, so the ganksquad waits on the other side of one of the gates till one worthwhile targets comes by. They open up on him and there is nothing he can do to save himself. Concord takes a merry 25 secs or so before they show up in .5 sec, by that time he is dead just from the fire of about 5 ravens with overheated siege launchers and his loot goes to the gankers, who lose next to nothing thanks to insurance. Same thing happens to haulers on the highways I guess, even though there it is usually untanked industrials carrying valueable cargo on autopilot and thus just inviting disaster.
Now I find this to be very wrong, and while there are many solutions, the one I favor is this:
When you are killed by concord, you do not receive any insurance payout if you actually killed someone with your criminal act. If you did not kill anyone, you get your insurance. This would serve the following: - Higher margin of value for mission runner/T2 haulers to put on their ships to be safe from gankers out for profit. - Unsuccessful ganks would still have the same minor consequences they have now. - People can still gank for grudges or ****s/giggles, but it would cost them something now. - Paper indies with billions in cargo would remain the gank targets for caracals they are supposed to be
Ok, but I digressed. Whether this or some other solution is implemented, the question is does suicide ganking need a nerf or not?
EDIT: And at the same time as a logical consequence, self destruction should also result in insurance voiding.
Stop being such a whiny carebear.
The only people who agree with you are OTHER whiny carebears.
If you want a non pvp server go play WOW and STFU.
|
cain mjolnir
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 06:52:00 -
[247]
Edited by: cain mjolnir on 06/06/2008 06:53:05
Originally by: SocialPolice
Stop being such a whiny carebear.
The only people who agree with you are OTHER whiny carebears.
If you want a non pvp server go play WOW and STFU.
Second this
|
Jeirth
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 10:29:00 -
[248]
Originally by: cain mjolnir Edited by: cain mjolnir on 06/06/2008 06:53:05
Originally by: SocialPolice
Stop being such a whiny carebear.
The only people who agree with you are OTHER whiny carebears.
If you want a non pvp server go play WOW and STFU.
Second this
Such reasoned arguments in a discussion thread.
Concord doesnt protect you, it provides consequences to those that break the law, to my mind, one of those consequences should be if you lose your ship to them then you don't get an insurance payout on top of what you pick up from the target. It forces people to think about what they are doing more and to weigh the loss/profit balance, to my way of thinking, it introduces SKILL to the profession of suicide ganking.
|
lecrotta
lecrotta Corp
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 11:01:00 -
[249]
Originally by: Jeirth
Originally by: cain mjolnir Edited by: cain mjolnir on 06/06/2008 06:53:05
Originally by: SocialPolice
Stop being such a whiny carebear.
The only people who agree with you are OTHER whiny carebears.
If you want a non pvp server go play WOW and STFU.
Second this
Such reasoned arguments in a discussion thread.
Concord doesnt protect you, it provides consequences to those that break the law, to my mind, one of those consequences should be if you lose your ship to them then you don't get an insurance payout on top of what you pick up from the target. It forces people to think about what they are doing more and to weigh the loss/profit balance, to my way of thinking, it introduces SKILL to the profession of suicide ganking.
Adds skill my ass, all it does is make ships with less than 2+ bil in mods not worth killing and they are rare enough already.
|
Jeirth
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 11:10:00 -
[250]
If they are that rare, how come you see so many concordokkens as you travel through empire space? Are gankers shooting everything in sight on the off-chance?
|
|
lecrotta
lecrotta Corp
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 11:20:00 -
[251]
Originally by: Jeirth If they are that rare, how come you see so many concordokkens as you travel through empire space? Are gankers shooting everything in sight on the off-chance?
Theres roughly 30k ppl online in eve at any time during the day or night and concord stays on the gate until after DT so it will add up and seem like a lot (especially if you include customs by mistake). But the fact is that avoiding gankers is easy unless your lazy and that is the real issue not the insurance.
|
Nikeffo
Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 12:43:00 -
[252]
Deffo!
|
Jeirth
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 13:00:00 -
[253]
Originally by: lecrotta Theres roughly 30k ppl online in eve at any time during the day or night and concord stays on the gate until after DT so it will add up and seem like a lot (especially if you include customs by mistake). But the fact is that avoiding gankers is easy unless your lazy and that is the real issue not the insurance.
Why not tell everyone how to easily avoid these ganks, mission ganks, travel ganks, so that the issue then becomes null and void and doesnt have to take up ccp's time?
|
lecrotta
lecrotta Corp
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 13:11:00 -
[254]
Edited by: lecrotta on 06/06/2008 13:11:31
Originally by: Jeirth
Originally by: lecrotta Theres roughly 30k ppl online in eve at any time during the day or night and concord stays on the gate until after DT so it will add up and seem like a lot (especially if you include customs by mistake). But the fact is that avoiding gankers is easy unless your lazy and that is the real issue not the insurance.
Why not tell everyone how to easily avoid these ganks, mission ganks, travel ganks, so that the issue then becomes null and void and doesnt have to take up ccp's time?
Why would i want to reduce my income by doing that?, theres enough ppl doing it to avoid getting ganked in eve already let alone giving a blow by blow how to avoid getting ganked guide to every other muppet in eve. In fact theres a few of the ways already posted on here by idiots who's brains are obviously lacking any common sense.
Roflmao typical eve, if you wanna know how to do summat in eve just post a thread about how that it cannot be done and wait for the responses from fools whos ego is not connected to their wallets.
|
Chiana Torrou
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 13:46:00 -
[255]
signed
|
Haulerella
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 14:29:00 -
[256]
|
Rich Mann
University of Caille
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 15:09:00 -
[257]
Supported: No insurance for ships lost to concord. Can you imagine what the insurance company would say when they got the claim form?
|
Tesseract d'Urberville
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation The Honda Accord
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 17:05:00 -
[258]
Originally by: Lumen Atra Do you believe that the majority of haulers are ganked? Do you believe even 30% of them are ganked? 10%? How many suicide ganks a day would you estimate occur? How many ganks fail? How many total hauls occur without being killed? What sort of net loss on the economy of Eve do you think there is? (please note, this is FOR EVE, not for you...what you lose and what is not destroyed is still on the market or in use, and therefore is not a loss for eve, only for you). If there is a net loss, is there a noticeable impact to the economic system - negative or positive, and if so, what are those impacts?
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.
Originally by: Lumen Atra It is obvious those farming in concord protected areas hope for peace and quiet to go about their merry business.
That's true. But there are many, many legitimate players who want it too. For the record, as a miner, I vehemently oppose macro miners and other low-lifes, who drive down the prices the real miners can get for their ore and minerals.
Originally by: Lumen Atra The problem with things such as "no insurance payout" is that they are one sided solutions. They cater to the miners, and nobody else. It doesn't address why a miner should have this special protection for the sake of their fun or profit, but a pirate or suicide ganker does not.
Why should an honest miner have "special protection" in hi-sec? Because he's a law-abiding citizen minding his own business, doing something that benefits the economy. Why should a ganker not? Because a ganker is a criminal. The vast majority of New Eden is not policed - and in those areas pirating is a perfectly legitimate playstyle. And anyone who ventures there does so knowing the potential gains and risks involved. But ganking in hi-sec is illegal. Why would we protect anyone's "right" to gank in hi-sec?
Originally by: Lumen Atra What you are suggesting is that people should be so afraid to gank a perfectly legitimate (and juicy) target so that you lose nothing and they lose everything.
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.
Originally by: Lumen Atra You want this so that suicide ganking becomes UNATTRACTIVE to anybody. Afterall, who is really going to suicide gank as a business initiative if it only results in a net loss? And you like that idea - mine in peace. You get to make money for nothing but time. No risk.
Yes, ganking in hi-sec should not be financially viable. If there weren't hundreds of players willing to sit in asteroid belts for days shuffling cargo into a jetcan every three minutes, you'd be mining to build your own ships. Wanna try it? Suicide ganking in hi-sec is bad for the game.
Originally by: Lumen Atra And this seems fair to you? ... If yes, then you boldly admit that your idea of fun - the idea that is NOT supported by Eve itself, is somehow the golden rule.
Yes, it seems fair to me, but YES, it is also supported by EVE: EVE's economy needs carebear miners, because nobody else is willing to mindlessly sit in asteroid fields. The skill system forces everyone to specialize, and it's a safe bet that the folks who want to specialize in mining are mostly carebears.
Now, why do gankers need their "right" to gank carebears protected? Do they only want easy meat, and are afraid to go into 0.0 and pick a fight with someone who could actually defend themselves? Now who wants to enjoy a cushy playstyle?
(Still supported)
--------------------------------- Thomas Hardy is going to eat your brains. |
Amarr Holymight
Bat Country Aegis Militia
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 17:34:00 -
[259]
What about all the accidental Concords that happen to everyone and the following petitions. How do you think new players will feel when they get Concorded by accident and don't receive the return on insurance they were told to pay for. A ganker won't bother paying for his insurance and still only stand to lose about.
This only serves to frustrate new players and I agree as "Cain Mjolnir" said above it will only give you carebears a false sense of security you are still going to get ganked. What happens then when you remove insurance you are all still getting ganked and people aren't receiving insurance for silly mistakes, you are doing more damage to new players here than suicide gankers.
|
SencneS
Rebellion Against big Irreversible Dinks
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 18:20:00 -
[260]
Maybe the solution is not to deny the pirates from ganking but to support those being ganked.
Imagine at each gate instead of the Billboard having a gun it has a Large Remote Shield Repair II and a Large Remote Armor Repair II on it.
If someone attacks you the guns and concord go on the hostile, but the Billboard starts repairing you. The only way to take out a target is to commit more of a force to assault.
Amarr for Life |
|
Farrqua
Turbo Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 18:37:00 -
[261]
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.
|
Amarr Holymight
Bat Country Aegis Militia
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 18:40:00 -
[262]
Originally by: SencneS Maybe the solution is not to deny the pirates from ganking but to support those being ganked.
Imagine at each gate instead of the Billboard having a gun it has a Large Remote Shield Repair II and a Large Remote Armor Repair II on it.
If someone attacks you the guns and concord go on the hostile, but the Billboard starts repairing you. The only way to take out a target is to commit more of a force to assault.
Billboards have guns? I think not such a bad idea can't see it happening though.
|
Tesseract d'Urberville
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation The Honda Accord
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 22:36:00 -
[263]
Originally by: Farrqua 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.
Fair enough, but the data either of us needs to conclusively prove our point isn't available on the scale we need it. One interesting number I can point to is that currently this topic is the 5th most-supported topic in the Assembly Hall, out of almost 250.
The trouble with compiling data on miners' losses is that on killboards it's impossible to tell who is a real miner and who is a macro, so I admit that these numbers are inherently flawed. There isn't a universal killboard that I can point to, so I'm going to use as an example the killboard of the Jihadswarm campaign, which got a lot of attention recently. According to their killboard, in March and April of this year they destroyed 923 exhumers, 25 industrials, and 128 mining barges in hi-sec, for total destroyed value which they calculated at 107 billion ISK. That's just losses inflicted by a single group (albeit probably the most active group).
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.
Originally by: Farrqua 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.
Why does EVE even have a feature allowing legal war declarations if all combat is legit anyway? And war declarations are not necessarily consensual, they're just fair warning. CCP has emphasized that a big part of the game is nonconsensual combat - and indeed, nonconsensual combat can and does occur all over the map. Nobody is suggesting that you not be allowed to activate a weapon module on an unflagged pilot in high-security space.
Originally by: Farrqua 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.
Can do: Originally by: EVE Help, Intermediate Tutorial, Combat: Choose the Venue, Ambush, Ambush Locations Unless we are in a state of war, all aggression needs to take place in low security space - security 0.4 or below - where CONCORD will not interfere.
Attacking unflagged ships in hi-sec is called a "crime." Pilots are flagged as "criminals" for it. That sounds pretty not legitimate.
Originally by: Farrqua 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.
It's not possible to make it not "fun" for the attacker when that's their motivation. But making it extremely expensive, as opposed to in the neighborhood of breaking even, will help deter it. I'm not married to the idea of voiding insurance, though, and I trust CCP to use reasonable judgement in balance and mechanics if it decides to make a change.
--------------------------------- Thomas Hardy is going to eat your brains. |
Kailiani
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 22:51:00 -
[264]
Originally by: abbagabba Edited by: abbagabba on 05/06/2008 11:52:36 Not signed. You seem to be missing the bigger picture and are focused on your paticular playstyle, pimped mission running.
It only takes 1 very useful module, if you call that "pimped". A gist booster, 1B+ ISK for it. It's extremely useful on a torp setup nowadays since you need flight time/velocity rigs. This makes you a viable target even if the rest of your gear is T2. Hardly "pimped"...
|
lecrotta
lecrotta Corp
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 23:19:00 -
[265]
Originally by: Kailiani
Originally by: abbagabba
Not signed. You seem to be missing the bigger picture and are focused on your paticular playstyle, pimped mission running.
It only takes 1 very useful module, if you call that "pimped". A gist booster, 1B+ ISK for it. It's extremely useful on a torp setup nowadays since you need flight time/velocity rigs. This makes you a viable target even if the rest of your gear is T2. Hardly "pimped"...
And the fact that the module you are referring to has a very very slim chance of dropping is why insurance should not be removed.
|
Dray
Spartan Industries Cruel Intentions
|
Posted - 2008.06.07 14:18:00 -
[266]
Originally by: Tesseract d'Urberville
Originally by: Dray To hammer home my earlier point, asking for a change in the game is all well and good if the problem cant be solved because the game is broken, in this case it isn't.
Lets be honest here, its about greed, people don't want to interrupt their isk flow taking a little bit of time to counter the problem.
Are you a miner Dray?
Ive been known to suck a rock or two.
|
Leandro Salazar
The Blackguard Wolves
|
Posted - 2008.06.07 16:50:00 -
[267]
Originally by: lecrotta
Originally by: Kailiani
Originally by: abbagabba
Not signed. You seem to be missing the bigger picture and are focused on your paticular playstyle, pimped mission running.
It only takes 1 very useful module, if you call that "pimped". A gist booster, 1B+ ISK for it. It's extremely useful on a torp setup nowadays since you need flight time/velocity rigs. This makes you a viable target even if the rest of your gear is T2. Hardly "pimped"...
And the fact that the module you are referring to has a very very slim chance of dropping is why insurance should not be removed.
And the fact that a 50% chance is anything but slim is why pretty much all arguments you make are invalid.
Make suicide ganking more difficult!
|
lecrotta
lecrotta Corp
|
Posted - 2008.06.07 17:12:00 -
[268]
Edited by: lecrotta on 07/06/2008 17:16:05
Originally by: Leandro Salazar
Originally by: lecrotta
Originally by: Kailiani
Originally by: abbagabba
Not signed. You seem to be missing the bigger picture and are focused on your paticular playstyle, pimped mission running.
It only takes 1 very useful module, if you call that "pimped". A gist booster, 1B+ ISK for it. It's extremely useful on a torp setup nowadays since you need flight time/velocity rigs. This makes you a viable target even if the rest of your gear is T2. Hardly "pimped"...
And the fact that the module you are referring to has a very very slim chance of dropping is why insurance should not be removed.
And the fact that a 50% chance is anything but slim is why pretty much all arguments you make are invalid.
50%!!!!!!!!!!! on what planet pal???.
19 mod slots on a raven with only 1 worth anything and only a few of them dropping per kill is not 50%.
And thats why ALL the arguments you make are invalid.
|
Farrqua
Turbo Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.06.07 17:26:00 -
[269]
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?
|
lecrotta
lecrotta Corp
|
Posted - 2008.06.07 17:54:00 -
[270]
Edited by: lecrotta on 07/06/2008 17:54:57
Originally by: Farrqua
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?
From experience i can say that more gets destroyed than survives always, but the exact percentage is random i think as it seems to vary but never anywhere near 50% of the mods on a fully fitted ship normally 20-30%ish.
So claiming that a individual item has a 50% chance of dropping is utter b****cks.
|
|
Kailiani
|
Posted - 2008.06.08 07:42:00 -
[271]
Originally by: lecrotta Edited by: lecrotta on 07/06/2008 17:54:57
Originally by: Farrqua
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?
From experience i can say that more gets destroyed than survives always, but the exact percentage is random i think as it seems to vary but never anywhere near 50% of the mods on a fully fitted ship normally 20-30%ish.
So claiming that a individual item has a 50% chance of dropping is utter b****cks.
Of the 9 kill mails I have, it seems 50% is fairly accurate. Will check kill mail boards right now.
|
Leandro Salazar
The Blackguard Wolves
|
Posted - 2008.06.08 09:11:00 -
[272]
Originally by: lecrotta Edited by: lecrotta on 07/06/2008 17:16:05
Originally by: Leandro Salazar
Originally by: lecrotta
Originally by: Kailiani
Originally by: abbagabba
Not signed. You seem to be missing the bigger picture and are focused on your paticular playstyle, pimped mission running.
It only takes 1 very useful module, if you call that "pimped". A gist booster, 1B+ ISK for it. It's extremely useful on a torp setup nowadays since you need flight time/velocity rigs. This makes you a viable target even if the rest of your gear is T2. Hardly "pimped"...
And the fact that the module you are referring to has a very very slim chance of dropping is why insurance should not be removed.
And the fact that a 50% chance is anything but slim is why pretty much all arguments you make are invalid.
50%!!!!!!!!!!! on what planet pal???.
19 mod slots on a raven with only 1 worth anything and only a few of them dropping per kill is not 50%.
And thats why ALL the arguments you make are invalid.
I live in EVE, and I actually prefer crunching the numbers the entire game is based on over mindlessly ganking and making an idiot out of myself fighting a fight based on epic fail at math on the forum. And common lore as well as the killboard sampling I just did both say the loss chance for mods on ship destruction is pretty much exactly 50%. (And please if you sample too do not count rigs as those ALWAYS get destroyed and thus would skew the numbers. Also do not count the lines seperating slots, rigs and cargo, easily done as those have the same color as lost items at least on our kb...)
And just to waste a little education on you, how many modules a ship has fitted does in NO way change the chance of an individual mod dropping. It is a 50% chance either way. To illustrate it, you can toss one coin 1000 times, and then toss that coin with 20 others 1000 times. In both cases, you will get roughly 500 heads and 500 tails from that particular coin. This actually had to be explained to another suicide ganker not too long ago as well, which does give quite an insight into you guys' understanding of game mechanics...
Of course there will be variance, and it might even be that you never get the good stuff, but then that is due to you having extreme bad luck, too small sample size, or both. Personally I have the opposite, if I lose something and actually get to retrieve my loot, the more valuable things survive more often than not. This variance phenomenon doesn't change the base chance though.
Make suicide ganking more difficult!
|
lecrotta
lecrotta Corp
|
Posted - 2008.06.08 11:20:00 -
[273]
Edited by: lecrotta on 08/06/2008 11:24:40
Originally by: Leandro Salazar blah blah blah i wanna mission run in safety blah blah
Fixed that for ya.
Your coin example has nothing resembling the truth about suicide ganking and how often the high value mods drop other than on paper.
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. If it was as easy and as profitable as you claim it would be going on in every high lvl mission system every day 23/7 but the fact is its not.
In fact we have moved onto ganking freighters as its a bit easier if you go for those loaded with lots of varied items BECAUSE of how the loot drops although it takes a lot more of us to do.
|
Chris Vattic
Paxton Industries Paxton Federation
|
Posted - 2008.06.08 11:34:00 -
[274]
Edited by: Chris Vattic on 08/06/2008 11:34:15 Eve really is a cold and dark world where you can get killed just for the giggles, but law paying people for whacking others under their eyes is a bit too much, yes. Signed --
|
Varelen
|
Posted - 2008.06.08 11:44:00 -
[275]
/signed |
Leandro Salazar
The Blackguard Wolves
|
Posted - 2008.06.08 12:20:00 -
[276]
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.
Make suicide ganking more difficult!
|
lecrotta
lecrotta Corp
|
Posted - 2008.06.08 12:58:00 -
[277]
Edited by: lecrotta on 08/06/2008 13:03:41 Edited by: lecrotta on 08/06/2008 13:02:22
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.
You are missing the point.
If insurance is removed then so is the slight risk that mission runners with 500mil or less fittings have and that is the vast majority of them tbh.
Farming mission runners is already less than highly profitable if you add the time spent hunting into the equation, unless you get very lucky and get a " uber faction spawn" with no clue how to travel safe within minutes of setting up, and tbh in all my time that has never happened to me.
In fact Ive spent hours passively scanning ships only to run out of game time and log off with nothing to show for my time, and that happens a lot, a real lot actually. Your problem is you only see the 10 secs it takes to kill the ship not the hours or days it can take finding a worthy target.
PS: Got a 24 bil freighter a few days ago but only 4 bil dropped unfortunately and we were camping that system for nearly 2 days, see how it sucks?.
Now if entire stacks did not pop or survive..........
|
Farrqua
Turbo Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.06.08 16:27:00 -
[278]
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.
|
Reachok
Tres Hombres
|
Posted - 2008.06.08 16:48:00 -
[279]
/signed Yes, remove insurance payouts from Concord kills.
|
Heria Herath
Green Men Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.06.08 18:12:00 -
[280]
|
|
Dray
Spartan Industries Cruel Intentions
|
Posted - 2008.06.08 19:11:00 -
[281]
Originally by: Farrqua
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.
Listen to this guy.
Just to be clear I'm not against voiding the insurance, what I'm against is people crying for a fix when nothing is broken I'd rather not lose the insurance as its a sign that something is broken, it isn't, all thats wrong is people want bailing out instead of sorting it out for themselves, there is no easy mode in Eve nor was there ever meant to be.
Also you need to understand that voiding insurance will never stop suicide ganking, only one thing can stop that and that's figuring out how to prevent it, which at the risk of repeating myself, again, is easy.
|
Leandro Salazar
The Blackguard Wolves
|
Posted - 2008.06.08 19:43:00 -
[282]
Originally by: Dray Also you need to understand that voiding insurance will never stop suicide ganking, only one thing can stop that and that's figuring out how to prevent it, which at the risk of repeating myself, again, is easy.
Well, the idea IS not to stop it entirely, just to make it less profitable on 'low-profile' targets.
Make suicide ganking more difficult!
|
Lord WarATron
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.06.08 19:47:00 -
[283]
A Intresting issue.
One once side, the Ganker has already limited his risk due to insurance. And on the other the victim can do nothing since the ganker will have scanned his setup.
Suicide Ganking should stay, but something should add the risk back to the Gankers side. Just now, the risk/reward balance is not really there. --
Billion Isk Mission |
Dray
Spartan Industries Cruel Intentions
|
Posted - 2008.06.08 20:32:00 -
[284]
Originally by: Leandro Salazar
Originally by: Dray Also you need to understand that voiding insurance will never stop suicide ganking, only one thing can stop that and that's figuring out how to prevent it, which at the risk of repeating myself, again, is easy.
Well, the idea IS not to stop it entirely, just to make it less profitable on 'low-profile' targets.
To be fair low profile targets aren't worth it, that's probably a deliberate attempt at disrupting someone due to an in game dispute where a war dec isn't an option or not preferred, or just straight forward griefing, but figuring out which is another problem as well.
|
Dray
Spartan Industries Cruel Intentions
|
Posted - 2008.06.08 20:43:00 -
[285]
Originally by: Lord WarATron A Intresting issue.
One once side, the Ganker has already limited his risk due to insurance. And on the other the victim can do nothing since the ganker will have scanned his setup.
Suicide Ganking should stay, but something should add the risk back to the Gankers side. Just now, the risk/reward balance is not really there.
A valid point but I'd argue the time spent waiting to find the right target is in itself risk vs reward, not a real risk in the sense of word but your time waiting while you could be doing something else is already costing you isk, I've spent upwards of 3 hours plus a frequent number of times in a gang waiting for the right target that ultimately never came.
I'll still argue my point that prevention is easy though and that in itself should be enough, I'd even live with no insurance because when you are selective even no insurance only hurts your return a little, but I've already said it wouldn't stop me so I don't see as a good preventative measure, the whole crux of the matter for me is that prevention is so simple.
|
cain mjolnir
|
Posted - 2008.06.08 20:50:00 -
[286]
Originally by: Leandro Salazar
Originally by: Dray Also you need to understand that voiding insurance will never stop suicide ganking, only one thing can stop that and that's figuring out how to prevent it, which at the risk of repeating myself, again, is easy.
Well, the idea IS not to stop it entirely, just to make it less profitable on 'low-profile' targets.
Hey Problem solved gankers don't generally go for low profile targets cause they risk losing sec status that needs to be regained from hours of ratting.
|
Leandro Salazar
The Blackguard Wolves
|
Posted - 2008.06.08 20:50:00 -
[287]
Originally by: Dray
Originally by: Leandro Salazar
Originally by: Dray Also you need to understand that voiding insurance will never stop suicide ganking, only one thing can stop that and that's figuring out how to prevent it, which at the risk of repeating myself, again, is easy.
Well, the idea IS not to stop it entirely, just to make it less profitable on 'low-profile' targets.
To be fair low profile targets aren't worth it, that's probably a deliberate attempt at disrupting someone due to an in game dispute where a war dec isn't an option or not preferred, or just straight forward griefing, but figuring out which is another problem as well.
Actually it is more likely that our definitions of low-profile targets are quite different. An entirely navy fit CNR with not a single deadspace mod is a low profile target imho, yet under the current system would be profitable to suicide. And that is what I think is wrong.
Make suicide ganking more difficult!
|
Dray
Spartan Industries Cruel Intentions
|
Posted - 2008.06.08 21:03:00 -
[288]
Originally by: Leandro Salazar
Originally by: Dray
Originally by: Leandro Salazar
Originally by: Dray Also you need to understand that voiding insurance will never stop suicide ganking, only one thing can stop that and that's figuring out how to prevent it, which at the risk of repeating myself, again, is easy.
Well, the idea IS not to stop it entirely, just to make it less profitable on 'low-profile' targets.
To be fair low profile targets aren't worth it, that's probably a deliberate attempt at disrupting someone due to an in game dispute where a war dec isn't an option or not preferred, or just straight forward griefing, but figuring out which is another problem as well.
Actually it is more likely that our definitions of low-profile targets are quite different. An entirely navy fit CNR with not a single deadspace mod is a low profile target imho, yet under the current system would be profitable to suicide. And that is what I think is wrong.
Your right that our views differ on low profile targets, our gangs certainly wouldn't gank that type of ship, if no insurance prevented those types of ganks then i'll support it, theres a lot of suicide ganks happening and I'm not doing it atm because people are getting wise and its a lot harder to find the right target, so it's in my intrest to stop it asap.
But once again I'll argue that prevention is easy.
|
Mjedesiin
Pvar Group
|
Posted - 2008.06.08 21:40:00 -
[289]
Edited by: Mjedesiin on 08/06/2008 21:42:52 remove insurance - remove zero cost ganking.
far as i'm concerned, remove it entirely from the game.
|
Dray
Spartan Industries Cruel Intentions
|
Posted - 2008.06.08 21:56:00 -
[290]
Originally by: Mjedesiin Edited by: Mjedesiin on 08/06/2008 21:42:52 remove insurance - remove zero cost ganking.
far as i'm concerned, remove it entirely from the game.
Why remove it from the game?
Work as a team, have fun finding and implementing solutions and put the M in Multi player.
You can run missions solo and make isk but the game is a MMO and sooner or later you're going to have to make friends to move on in the game.
|
|
Shaitis
Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.06.12 09:15:00 -
[291]
"What is funnier ? 20 Matari slaves pinned to one tree or 1 Matari slave pinned to 20 trees ? |
marie blueprint
|
Posted - 2008.06.12 12:09:00 -
[292]
gankers suck and fear this thread
|
sophisticatedlimabean
Terra Incognita.
|
Posted - 2008.06.12 12:15:00 -
[293]
Ive done a bit of ganking in empire over the years and the risk/time/reward does not lend itself to removing insurance at all, well unless your a total empire carebear mission runner looking for a 100% safe environment.
In fact the gankers need a boost as less and less empire rats are dropping faction loot.
My views may reflect those of my corp/alliance, but if you wanna know for sure ask em for gods sake. |
Morgenrei
|
Posted - 2008.06.12 13:42:00 -
[294]
No insurance payout.
|
Dianeces
The Illuminati. Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.06.12 15:22:00 -
[295]
Originally by: Morgenrei No insurance payout.
I agree. Mission runners should not get insurance. |
Banedon Runestar
The Phalanx Expeditionary Conglomerate The Gemini Project
|
Posted - 2008.06.12 16:28:00 -
[296]
Yes, a thousand times, yes! |
Mistress Suffering
Einherjar Rising Cry Havoc.
|
Posted - 2008.06.13 01:26:00 -
[297]
No insurance for Concord kills (which is really what he proposes) is fine.
|
Kasheem Cetanes
coracao ardente
|
Posted - 2008.06.13 08:00:00 -
[298]
Suicide Ganking ISN'T POSSIBLE, if the people piloting their ships aren't DUMB. I mean, seriously, warp to Zero and align in less than ohhh. 10 seconds.
It takes me .5 seconds to lock + 2 seconds lag, plus 2.5 seconds to scan your cargo / your fittings then another 2 to 5 seconds to make a call. Then my mate takes another 2 seconds to lock you and then scram / blow you away. If your hauler doesn't take, oh 20 seconds to align and warp you are PROBABLY fine. However, if you are afk autopiloting. I mean, its your own damn fault if you are auto-piloting in a hauler filled with minerals through high sec, or in a shuttle filled with CAPITAL SKILLS AND IMPLANTS. |
Hank Cousteau
|
Posted - 2008.06.13 08:15:00 -
[299]
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.
|
Dagas Hunter
|
Posted - 2008.06.13 21:50:00 -
[300]
I support this, it doesn't make sense that the insurance company should pay you when CONCORD shoots you down since it's effectively 100 % chance that your ship is doomed when they show up so and insurance is supposed to protect people from accidents etc. not when they choose to deliberately loose their ship, also destroying your own ship should be considered insurance fraud just like IRL.
The insurance companies in EVE are total suckers since they have no rules at all except that you can't repackage the item. |
|
Farrqua
Turbo Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.06.13 22:04:00 -
[301]
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. |
Lt Graco
|
Posted - 2008.06.13 22:11:00 -
[302]
Her: "Allstate Insurance, how may I help you?"
Me: "Hi I was in a wreck that totaled my car but i had full coverage through you guys. Can you send me a check?"
Her: "Oh! That's terrible. I hope everyone is ok?! How did the wreck occur?"
Me: "I saw an armored car pulling away from picking up at Walmart so I strapped some explosives to the front and drove at it as fast as I could....only problem is some cops showed up and took out my car with shotguns. So when can I expect the check?"
|
Zorok
LEGI0N F.E.A.R Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.14 01:24:00 -
[303]
I'll sign onto this...High sec is not a ganker's haven- never was and should never be.
|
Dianeces
The Illuminati. Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.06.14 01:26:00 -
[304]
Originally by: Zorok I'll sign onto this...High sec is not a ganker's haven- never was and should never be.
Still isn't.
|
Wonton Tomato
Suicide Girls
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 19:32:00 -
[305]
Originally by: Leandro Salazar ...and his loot goes to the gankers, who lose next to nothing thanks to insurance.
Whether this or some other solution is implemented, the question is does suicide ganking need a nerf or not?
and there is nothing he can do to save himself.
No, no and no. The security status lost costs the player plenty enough. Insurance is just that, insurance, no matter what role you play. Warp to zero nerfed suicide ganking enough. We don't need cuddly protected mission runners in cold harsh space, they can save themselves by staying docked.
Why isn't there a thumbs down option? All I see is a fanboi box to check.
|
Grann Thefauto
Tribal Liberation Force
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 19:54:00 -
[306]
I support tradable kill rights, but if you're going to pimp out your ship expect to be a target.
|
Buzz Boulderbrains
|
Posted - 2008.06.17 06:33:00 -
[307]
I've just spent the last 2 or 3 hours reading this entire thread/conversation/argument. Since I've invested that much time reading your thoughts, please take a moment to read mine. I promise that it won't take longer than a few minutes, and while that might cost some of you some serious "loss-of-ISK-makin-time," it might shed some light on why this kind of change is *absolutely* necessary.
I learned some new things by spending those hours reading this thread. For those of you who have been playing this game for so long that you think you actually fly a ship in outer space, please ignore the blatant whining, crying, boo-hooing, etc. that follows below. I pay for the privilege of playing just like you do.
Some of what I learned from this highly-enlightened discussion:
(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.
(2) I am not ALLOWED to insure my ships for anywhere close to their actual value. CNR max insurance is a joke. 109m-32m(cost)=77m return on a 500m ship (net loss 423m +). Hulk max insurance is a joke. 29m-9m(cost)=20m return on a 100m ship (net loss 80m +).
(3) Because I'm successful in running missions, and wish to become more successful, means that I am a loser, should not play the game, and/or should be the target of every criminal in "hi-sec" space. I ruin game-play for everyone else in the game.
Some simple observations for those who are so removed from reality that you can't see straight:
-Contrary to popular belief, mission-running is not without risk, particularly solo. I've lost many ships while trying to complete missions even with the help of others. It's called a learning experience, and I realize it takes time to get to *your* skill level of uber-leetness. Until that time, I'll be taking that risk when I head into level3 or level4 missions by myself, or even with a small group of friends.
-Mining roid fields isn't without risk either. As you gankers are *well* aware, these mining ships aren't very defendable, and probably take very little of your skill or ammo to destroy. Sometimes you even come by and try to can-flip me, or otherwise tempt me into dispatching my 5 meager drones on your uber-exhumer-killer. I might be weak, outnumbered, and outgunned, but I'm not stoopid my friend.
-Gankers are like folks who would sit in a rowboat over a school of fish dropping hand-grenades in the water. They complain about how un-economical it is to waste a perfectly good hand-grenade on such small fish. They feel that they are entitled to get their money back on the rowboat when they were the ones who blew the damned thing up in the first place. Besides, you already control 2/3 or even 3/4 of the damned lake you fish in.
-For those who would tell me to shut up, that this is a "MMO" and that "you don't participate" by "doing what we do," I say this: This game is *clearly* setup for solo and small-time corporation play. It seems to be intended to serve the needs of the many. (I *do* participate, just not with you)
I fully support this idea- you shouldn't be given insurance payments on your Concord'ed ships, especially when CCP can't provide me with a way to insure my own ships.
You think I'm a crybaby, and I think you're a crybaby.
Clearly, I'm not a "normal" Eve player by your definition. I don't have your evil streak, your malcontent attitude towards others, your greed stamina, or your general self-centered nature in the game. I'm not saying that this game should be without you. You stay on your side, and I'll stay on mine... When I feel I have enough skillpoints, ships, and ISK to counter your uber-leetness, I will venture into low-sec space and try to kick your butts. Until then, I have rocks to mine, and missions to run.
I've said my piece. -Buzz
|
Buzz Boulderbrains
|
Posted - 2008.06.17 06:34:00 -
[308]
/signed
|
Venomire
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.17 07:08:00 -
[309]
Consider the insurance company in EVE to be like a Swiss bank. They don't ask questions and keep the matter confidential.
|
RazorDreamz
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2008.06.17 10:24:00 -
[310]
Also need a counter module to the ship and cargo scanners. This would allow haulers to prevent gankers from peeking. They can still blow the ship up but wouldn't know exactly what was inside so there would be a risk involved for the gankers.
|
|
Jastra
Stardream Research
|
Posted - 2008.06.17 11:04:00 -
[311]
/signed, no insurance
|
Molock Saronen
|
Posted - 2008.06.17 13:18:00 -
[312]
|
Drago Vanguard
Vanguard Corporation
|
Posted - 2008.06.17 13:24:00 -
[313]
Originally by: RazorDreamz Also need a counter module to the ship and cargo scanners. This would allow haulers to prevent gankers from peeking. They can still blow the ship up but wouldn't know exactly what was inside so there would be a risk involved for the gankers.
It exists. And it actually lets you carry more cargo. Stupidity of victims is the only thing that makes suicide ganking viable, as it stands.
|
Farrqua
Turbo Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.06.17 16:04:00 -
[314]
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.
|
Zaran Darkstar
Brutor tribe
|
Posted - 2008.06.17 18:50:00 -
[315]
From the title i got the impression it would be a lame suggestion. But it's in fact the
Remove insurance payoff if you get killed by Concord
Very good idea and preety simple. Approved! |
Zaran Darkstar
Brutor tribe
|
Posted - 2008.06.17 19:06:00 -
[316]
Originally by: Wonton Tomato
Originally by: Leandro Salazar ...and his loot goes to the gankers, who lose next to nothing thanks to insurance.
Whether this or some other solution is implemented, the question is does suicide ganking need a nerf or not?
and there is nothing he can do to save himself.
No, no and no. The security status lost costs the player plenty enough. Insurance is just that, insurance, no matter what role you play. Warp to zero nerfed suicide ganking enough. We don't need cuddly protected mission runners in cold harsh space, they can save themselves by staying docked.
Why isn't there a thumbs down option? All I see is a fanboi box to check.
I agree that there should be a thumbs down option.
Apart from that i discagree with the rest of what you say. And here is why. 1) People that get the security hit can get back the lost security status with the rating/mission runing. They do it anyway. 2) Lets imagine a common situation. A marauder pimped with faction/commander stuff is playing it right and warps to 0 etc. Of course when he jumps on the other side he gets ganged by several insured torp Ravens with tech 1 equipment. The Ravens get back the cost of losses to the concord minus the cost of tech 1 trop launchers and other tech 1 stuff that is ridiculusly low. While you kill an 1 bilion ship and get the modules probably costing all together several bilions while you lost after insurance maximun 10millions each. Without the insurance the cost would be alltogether near 1 billion again but you would gain around 2 billions from the faction stuff so net gain 1 billion profit isn't enough?
As it is now gangers may gang anything,not just the pimped Navy BS/Marauder with the Faction/officer stuff but even a normal BS with tech 2 stuff could be a target. Even a Freighter with scrap metal would be a target. I was thinking to learn freighter skill and i don't because of this. Because when the gangers are losing 0 due to the insurance it's very possible to kill your freighter loaded with scrap metal just for the excitement.
That is why i favor this idea. So you still will have profit by ganging the very tempting targets but at least the rest of the players who may fly just a Marauder with tech 2 or a BS with some occasional faction module will be safer. What you are doing now is more or less an exploit of the game mechanics.
|
Dianeces
The Illuminati. Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.06.17 20:27:00 -
[317]
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.
PvPers =/= criminals. So you can remove nullsec from the equation. You could argue that pirates are criminals because Concord dislikes them. I personally disagree with this, because most pirates I know are looking for PvP, and any profits they make are a side benefit.
Originally by: Buzz Boulderbrains
I am not ALLOWED to insure my ships for anywhere close to their actual value. CNR max insurance is a joke. 109m-32m(cost)=77m return on a 500m ship (net loss 423m +). Hulk max insurance is a joke. 29m-9m(cost)=20m return on a 100m ship (net loss 80m +).
If you want the improved performance of faction or T2 ships, you have to live with the drawback of not having much insurance to fall back on. Otherwise there would be no reason to use T1 ships unless you didn't have the skills for T2. PvPers deal with this issue on a daily basis, and most of us don't ***** about it.
Originally by: Buzz Boulderbrains
(3) Because I'm successful in running missions, and wish to become more successful, means that I am a loser, should not play the game, and/or should be the target of every criminal in "hi-sec" space. I ruin game-play for everyone else in the game.
If you want to pimp out a ship, that's fine. Nobody is arguing you shouldn't be able to do that. What you have to understand is the more you pimp your ship, the more you should be gankable. The difference in opinions (among the sensable people) is over what level of pimpness you should have before you should start worrying.
Originally by: Buzz Boulderbrains
-Contrary to popular belief, mission-running is not without risk, particularly solo. I've lost many ships while trying to complete missions even with the help of others. It's called a learning experience, and I realize it takes time to get to *your* skill level of uber-leetness. Until that time, I'll be taking that risk when I head into level3 or level4 missions by myself, or even with a small group of friends.
If you haven't figured out how to run level 4s safely by the time you decide to start pimping out a Navy Raven, I have zero sympathy for you. There are websites that tell you exactly how to run each and every mission in a manner that practically eliminates the risk by preventing unwanted aggro. At this point in time mission running is more of a science than an art.
Originally by: Buzz Boulderbrains
-Mining roid fields isn't without risk either. As you gankers are *well* aware, these mining ships aren't very defendable, and probably take very little of your skill or ammo to destroy. Sometimes you even come by and try to can-flip me, or otherwise tempt me into dispatching my 5 meager drones on your uber-exhumer-killer. I might be weak, outnumbered, and outgunned, but I'm not stoopid my friend.
Mining barges also tend to drop, in the grand scheme of things, very poor loot (with the possible exception of people who use entirely unnecessary deadspace boosters to tank). There are much better uses of sec status. And yes, sec status recovery is a serious penalty. There is only one way for me to increase it, shooting NPCs. I can't bribe Concord, can't shoot pirates, can't do anything but carebear to recover sec. So even though I may be making money while ratting, I'm still being forced to do something I don't like.
Originally by: Buzz Boulderbrains
This game is *clearly* setup for solo and small-time corporation play.
This game is clearly set up to encourage team play, not solo. The fact that strategic aspects such as capitals, outposts, sovereignty, and even Factional Warfare require multiple people to achieve should clue you into that. Eve tolerates the solo player, it is not designed for it. You can't do everything in Eve solo. sorry.
|
Dramaticus
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.17 20:31:00 -
[318]
Originally by: Buzz Boulderbrains -Contrary to popular belief, mission-running is not without risk, particularly solo. I've lost many ships while trying to complete missions even with the help of others. It's called a learning experience, and I realize it takes time to get to *your* skill level of uber-leetness. Until that time, I'll be taking that risk when I head into level3 or level4 missions by myself, or even with a small group of friends.
These can't be level 4 missions because I havent come close to losing my CNR to a level 4 mission. Please don't use RL pictuers of players in Sig without permission. - WeatherMan |
redCube
|
Posted - 2008.06.21 19:11:00 -
[319]
Well... don't go to 0.5 if concord takes to long. IMHO it is an important aspect of eve, that you are ALWAYS in the risk of beeing attacked. As the tutorial states: Never ever fit anything that you are not willing to loose.
|
Miner Nine
|
Posted - 2008.06.21 21:02:00 -
[320]
Originally by: redCube Well... don't go to 0.5 if concord takes to long. IMHO it is an important aspect of eve, that you are ALWAYS in the risk of beeing attacked. As the tutorial states: Never ever fit anything that you are not willing to loose.
\ lose
I do full time production in Empire, but I accept the risk of being suicide gank. It's been part of the game for years. If I do get suicide gank, then it's my fault for not getting a scout to see if gates are clear(ish).
Their is already cons to suicide ganking, first you lose your ship. When ever you lose a ship insurence helps but it never covers the full cost of the ship. Next, you sec rating goes down. Thus you'll have to spend your time bring it up. While you may be making money doing this, if you're into ganking then you are most likely not going enjoy ratting.
This game isn't WoW, we don't have PvE servers. We got PvP server that has some PvE aspects in it, if you don't want to get gank. Max out the low slots of your ship with wrap stabs and don't go into lowsec. I don't see why you want to play a game with zero risks and you can't lose. The change to insurence seems like a cheap blow to gankers to make it more of a lost to the efforts they spend just so some people can make more profit and watch tv as they run missions.
|
|
Cpt Fina
Mutually Assured Distraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.22 08:03:00 -
[321]
Not suported.
But additional means for freighters to reduce risk needs to be looked at imo. People that want to make changes in Eve by enhancing game-mechanics/-rules and/or NPCs makes me a sad panda.
|
Hastur DragonTooth
coracao ardente
|
Posted - 2008.06.22 11:49:00 -
[322]
I do not support this issue.
Quote: A mission runner in a semi-decently fitted ship is scanned at his mission station using a passive targeter
Suicide gankers are not targeting 'decently fitted ravens.' Pimp my ride boats are the targets and rightfully so. There should be a risk when you undock anywhere in eve in your 5bil isk Raven. This is not WoW, toning down such aspects of the game will make it less appealing to a good number of people. .. |
Stalkman
|
Posted - 2008.06.22 14:14:00 -
[323]
I agree and/or support this idea.
|
Inanna Zuni
|
Posted - 2008.06.22 14:46:00 -
[324]
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ A discussion between the CSM and CCP / Devs on the issues about Suicide Ganking, the consequences of it, and the relationship with insurance took place this morning. A number of possibilities were reviewed and announcements will be made. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
IZ
My principles |
Mr Ignitious
Series of Tubes
|
Posted - 2008.06.22 15:48:00 -
[325]
NO SUPPORT. i want moar dying.
|
Belmarduk
de Prieure Four Elements
|
Posted - 2008.06.23 08:11:00 -
[326]
CCP Please give us casual players a Skill-Queue !
|
Gaelenus
Federal Guard and Recon Corporation
|
Posted - 2008.06.23 12:41:00 -
[327]
|
Solauren Mirtakh
|
Posted - 2008.06.23 14:49:00 -
[328]
/signed.
...because pirates/gankers already have it too easy. á á -----
|
Kinkie Yuuki
|
Posted - 2008.06.24 03:52:00 -
[329]
Originally by: Inanna Zuni +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ A discussion between the CSM and CCP / Devs on the issues about Suicide Ganking, the consequences of it, and the relationship with insurance took place this morning. A number of possibilities were reviewed and announcements will be made. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
IZ
2
Has this been published yet? If so where may we find it?
|
Thirzarr
|
Posted - 2008.06.24 07:24:00 -
[330]
I likes it.
|
|
Setana Manoro
Firefly Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.06.24 14:46:00 -
[331]
Originally by: Leandro Salazar Edited by: Leandro Salazar on 23/05/2008 18:02:59 Just to be reiterate things for the uninitiated, the issue at hand is this:
A mission runner in a semi-decently fitted ship is scanned at his mission station using a passive targeter. The gankers find the fitting offers enough profit potential, and thus he makes the list of gankworthy targets or something. Now the systems the agents send people to are well known, so the ganksquad waits on the other side of one of the gates till one worthwhile targets comes by. They open up on him and there is nothing he can do to save himself. Concord takes a merry 25 secs or so before they show up in .5 sec, by that time he is dead just from the fire of about 5 ravens with overheated siege launchers and his loot goes to the gankers, who lose next to nothing thanks to insurance. Same thing happens to haulers on the highways I guess, even though there it is usually untanked industrials carrying valueable cargo on autopilot and thus just inviting disaster.
Now I find this to be very wrong, and while there are many solutions, the one I favor is this:
When you are killed by concord, you do not receive any insurance payout if you actually killed someone with your criminal act. If you did not kill anyone, you get your insurance. This would serve the following: - Higher margin of value for mission runner/T2 haulers to put on their ships to be safe from gankers out for profit. - Unsuccessful ganks would still have the same minor consequences they have now. - People can still gank for grudges or ****s/giggles, but it would cost them something now. - Paper indies with billions in cargo would remain the gank targets for caracals they are supposed to be
Ok, but I digressed. Whether this or some other solution is implemented, the question is does suicide ganking need a nerf or not?
EDIT: And at the same time as a logical consequence, self destruction should also result in insurance voiding.
Good ideea, if it is applied without the usuall mega-swing of CCP ... and we know how CCP swings and misses.
|
Tony Allizzar
POINT CLICK KILL
|
Posted - 2008.06.26 14:12:00 -
[332]
Originally by: Zareph Your solutions aren't support worthy.
However.
If one of your solutions was 'the more bad guys attacking a single non ganged target the faster concord can respond' that might be something.
For example.
one person is running missions. one person is coming through the gate. 5 people open fire.
25s? well since there is 5, lets divide that 25 by 5 and that means concord responds in 5s.
anything more than say 10 or 15 and it's instan spawn concord regardless of system sec. Tech2 ships/weaponry mean insta concord, stuff like that.
Removing insurance payment is not the option. Maybe at best make it like your car insurance in that if you have repeated claims within a certain period (say, 14 days) the cost of insurance or value of payout goes up/down, but removal isn't good.
the goon on page one had a good idea. need to go wash my mouth out with soap
|
Astria Tiphareth
|
Posted - 2008.06.26 14:45:00 -
[333]
Edited by: Astria Tiphareth on 26/06/2008 14:44:42 Ganking should and is a perfectly valid option. However, ironically those against this proposal keep quoting that EVE should have consequences, when they're busy using a system without consequences, namely suiciding.
At present if I want to suicide gank a target, I & my friends roll 12 alts, fit suitable ships (kestrels are quite popular), gank the target, collect the insurance and loot, forward both to the main char, and delete the alt.
This happens rather a lot. The sec status hit that comes with ganking becomes irrelevant in this case. On the other hand if a kill in high-sec resulting in CONCORD voided insurance payouts, it would at least require sufficient profit to be undertaken.
Risk vs reward. The gankers should be risking something. The mission runners already are. ___ My views may not represent those of my corporation or alliance, which is why I never get invited to those diplomatic parties... |
AltBier
Freelance Unincorporated
|
Posted - 2008.06.27 13:13:00 -
[334]
|
Anaalys Fluuterby
|
Posted - 2008.06.27 13:52:00 -
[335]
/Signed for additional counters
I find is ridiculous that someone can freely scan a ship and KNOW whether they will make a profit or not.
1)Insurance for Concord kills need to go. 2)Skills need to be added and the ship/cargo scanners shifted to chance based according to those skills 3)Counter-modules for the scanners need to be put in. 4)Mechanisms need to be put in to allow a support fleet to protect slow, vulnerable ships.
Originally by: CCP Wrangler
Not it isn't, people should be encouraged to get out in low sec space, but never forced to do so.
|
abbagabba
Gallente Monster Raving Loonies
|
Posted - 2008.06.27 15:33:00 -
[336]
Originally by: Anaalys Fluuterby /Signed for additional counters
I find is ridiculous that someone can freely scan a ship and KNOW whether they will make a profit or not.
1)Insurance for Concord kills need to go. 2)Skills need to be added and the ship/cargo scanners shifted to chance based according to those skills 3)Counter-modules for the scanners need to be put in. 4)Mechanisms need to be put in to allow a support fleet to protect slow, vulnerable ships.
1) It is a popular suggestion 2) Ship scanner is chance based already 3) There are already counters that make cargo scanning impossible 4) webbed instawarp freighters, remote repping support, falcon jammers, scouts?
|
Anaalys Fluuterby
Caldari
|
Posted - 2008.06.27 16:29:00 -
[337]
Edited by: Anaalys Fluuterby on 27/06/2008 16:30:53
Originally by: abbagabba
2) Ship scanner is chance based already
Every time I've tried it I've been 100% successful. If it is actually chance based, what skills effect both scanning and counters?
Quote:
3) There are already counters that make cargo scanning impossible
GSCs and Freight cans haven't blocked scans for a long time. What are the counters?
Quote:
4)remote repping support, falcon jammers, scouts?
1)Remote rep doesn't work; Cycle rate on the remote reppers is slow enough that at most one cycle gets off before concord would respond as it is once you factor in lock times. Plus with the very short range of remote reps on anything but logistics ships combined with the random jump in points you can't bring your reppers to play on the ship you need to protect.
2)Falcon jammers cannot counter until the attack is underway or they get concorded, meaning the ship is already mostly dead before they can engage. They are also helpless against gank squads of BSs as they can't lock and engage enough targets fast enough to drop the DPS to save the gankee.
3)Scouts works, but there are many places in eve where you have the option of going through X gate or going through lowsec to get to your location. No alternative routes are available meaning if you do find something you can't go around.
But this has been covered many times in the 100s of threads on the subject.
Originally by: CCP Wrangler
Not it isn't, people should be encouraged to get out in low sec space, but never forced to do so.
|
Exlegion
New Light Hydra Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.27 19:16:00 -
[338]
Although I hardly operate in high sec these days and I don't believe high sec should be 100% safe I do believe it should be reasonably safe. It seems way too easy and riskless to gank just about anything in high sec.
TL/DR Version: Agree 100% with Leandro Salazar.
One of us equals many of us. Disrespect one of us, you'll see plenty of us. - Gang Starr |
Dray
Caldari Spartan Industries Cruel Intentions
|
Posted - 2008.06.27 19:36:00 -
[339]
Originally by: Inanna Zuni +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ A discussion between the CSM and CCP / Devs on the issues about Suicide Ganking, the consequences of it, and the relationship with insurance took place this morning. A number of possibilities were reviewed and announcements will be made. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
IZ
I would hope that the parties involved in this discussion are all aware of how easy it is to avoid suicide ganking, because it is easy to avoid unless your IQ is less than your shoe size.
|
Kinkie Yuuki
|
Posted - 2008.06.28 02:18:00 -
[340]
Edited by: Kinkie Yuuki on 28/06/2008 02:18:32
Originally by: Dray
Originally by: Inanna Zuni +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ A discussion between the CSM and CCP / Devs on the issues about Suicide Ganking, the consequences of it, and the relationship with insurance took place this morning. A number of possibilities were reviewed and announcements will be made. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
IZ
I would hope that the parties involved in this discussion are all aware of how easy it is to avoid suicide ganking, because it is easy to avoid unless your IQ is less than your shoe size.
1. Don't put more then 2-3 hundred mill on your ship. 2. Use alt scout. Which would be tiresome after awhile. 3. Use cloak which kills scan resolution. 5. Forget any lowslots and fill them with istabs+nanos. 6. ???
What other counters are there exactly? The only real feasible option is number 1.
|
|
Bl00dyAngel
Brothers Of Republic Libertas Fidelitas
|
Posted - 2008.06.28 08:51:00 -
[341]
no insurence for highsec ganker sounds right
|
Dray
Caldari Spartan Industries Cruel Intentions
|
Posted - 2008.06.28 12:06:00 -
[342]
Originally by: Kinkie Yuuki Edited by: Kinkie Yuuki on 28/06/2008 02:18:32
Originally by: Dray
Originally by: Inanna Zuni +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ A discussion between the CSM and CCP / Devs on the issues about Suicide Ganking, the consequences of it, and the relationship with insurance took place this morning. A number of possibilities were reviewed and announcements will be made. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
IZ
I would hope that the parties involved in this discussion are all aware of how easy it is to avoid suicide ganking, because it is easy to avoid unless your IQ is less than your shoe size.
1. Don't put more then 2-3 hundred mill on your ship. 2. Use alt scout. Which would be tiresome after awhile. 3. Use cloak which kills scan resolution. 5. Forget any lowslots and fill them with istabs+nanos. 6. ???
What other counters are there exactly? The only real feasible option is number 1.
Option 2 being the most obvious, its not that it gets tiresome, its that you don't want to interrupt your isk flow by spending time ensuring your safety, failing that go ask the low sec mission runners who've been living with ganks long before ppl came crying to the forums.
Also L4 missions dont require a pimp fit to complete, so your low cost option is also fine.
Scan res isnt that big a deal in pve tbh, at least it shouldn't be, in some cases a cloak wont save you anyway.
Its easily done and I'm not going to tell you how, as I've said before it is a "multi" player game, you don't have to be in the same corp to work together. |
Dray
Caldari Spartan Industries Cruel Intentions
|
Posted - 2008.06.28 23:40:00 -
[343]
OK, CAPS FOR STATING THE OBVIOUS, suicide ganking is only a problem for ppl to greedy to scout, there you go soloution number 1.
Suicide ganking isnt broken, but for the sake of this thread remove hi-sec gank insurance, you low IQ, too lazy to work out how to stop it, cry on the forums and hope its fixed in our favour ****suckers, will stop crying.
NEWS FLASH, voiding insurance wont stop hi sec ganks......
Thank you and good night. |
Internet Knight
|
Posted - 2008.06.29 01:17:00 -
[344]
Edited by: Internet Knight on 29/06/2008 01:17:34 I wholeheartedly agree with OP.
Perhaps insurance should be sent to the character that got ganked rather than being completely voided.
|
Kailiani
|
Posted - 2008.06.29 02:31:00 -
[345]
Originally by: Dray OK, CAPS FOR STATING THE OBVIOUS, suicide ganking is only a problem for ppl to greedy to scout, there you go soloution number 1.
Suicide ganking isnt broken, but for the sake of this thread remove hi-sec gank insurance, you low IQ, too lazy to work out how to stop it, cry on the forums and hope its fixed in our favour ****suckers, will stop crying.
NEWS FLASH, voiding insurance wont stop hi sec ganks......
Thank you and good night.
Not everyone is able to afford or willing to pay for a second account to scout for them.
Instead of providing a second solution you insult us, and then tell us what we already know, thanks!
|
Dray
Caldari Spartan Industries Cruel Intentions
|
Posted - 2008.06.29 17:02:00 -
[346]
Edited by: Dray on 29/06/2008 17:05:34
Originally by: Kailiani
Originally by: Dray OK, CAPS FOR STATING THE OBVIOUS, suicide ganking is only a problem for ppl to greedy to scout, there you go soloution number 1.
Suicide ganking isnt broken, but for the sake of this thread remove hi-sec gank insurance, you low IQ, too lazy to work out how to stop it, cry on the forums and hope its fixed in our favour ****suckers, will stop crying.
NEWS FLASH, voiding insurance wont stop hi sec ganks......
Thank you and good night.
Not everyone is able to afford or willing to pay for a second account to scout for them.
Instead of providing a second solution you insult us, and then tell us what we already know, thanks!
Scouting is just one solution, there are others and I'm not here to tell you how.
As for not having second acc for scouting, how about your work together with other mission runners and catch on to the "multi player" side of the game.
You all seem to be happy with voiding insurance for suicide ganks, I'm telling you now the people who do it properly wont be put off at all by no insurance, myself included.
If they void insurance and people are still getting suicide ganked I'll bet my left testicle you'll be back here asking for nerfs/changes whatever instead of solving a simple problem with a bit of common sense, which is what you should be doing now tbh.
|
Fenris Ulfur
|
Posted - 2008.06.29 18:05:00 -
[347]
supported all the way
|
Level5
|
Posted - 2008.06.29 20:43:00 -
[348]
I agree its to easy to gank in highsec.
|
Kuzya
Not Like Most Controlled Chaos
|
Posted - 2008.06.29 23:15:00 -
[349]
|
Marlona Sky
D00M. The Requiem
|
Posted - 2008.06.29 23:42:00 -
[350]
Take away the insurance payout if you get Concorded and that will help balance this play style a lot. |
|
Marlona Sky
Caldari D00M. The Requiem
|
Posted - 2008.06.29 23:58:00 -
[351]
Originally by: Shenko Minara
Originally by: Leandro Salazar There, fixed it for you.
Thanks for that, if you like I can go back and fix your op for you too: "hello, I play Eve but it would be better if it was like WoW and didn't have consequences." There's more I could imply about your lack of willing to explore Eve as a whole, but since we're only making a single alteration to each other's posts...
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.
And suddenly your multi-billion Navy Raven that you care so much about gets blown up by accident because you left a weapon on prefire and Concord don't care... I guess people need to think before they react in these forums, huh?
Stop trying to spin this. You are trying to make it sound like people are worried about accidentally shooting something and getting concorded, that is not anywhere close to what they are talking about.
This is about the current system. Basically it is all REWARD. It needs to be RISK vs. REWARD
Currently there is zero risk at all. |
Maus Bailey
International House of PWNCakes Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2008.06.30 00:02:00 -
[352]
Most just log before Concord even show up now. No loss at all.
It's pretty stellar. |
Marlona Sky
Caldari D00M. The Requiem
|
Posted - 2008.06.30 00:02:00 -
[353]
Edited by: Marlona Sky on 30/06/2008 00:02:53
Originally by: Dray OK, CAPS FOR STATING THE OBVIOUS, suicide ganking is only a problem for ppl to greedy to scout, there you go soloution number 1.
Suicide ganking isnt broken, but for the sake of this thread remove hi-sec gank insurance, you low IQ, too lazy to work out how to stop it, cry on the forums and hope its fixed in our favour ****suckers, will stop crying.
NEWS FLASH, voiding insurance wont stop hi sec ganks......
Thank you and good night.
NEWS FLASH, OP is not wanting high sec ganks to stop, just for there to be "Risk" in the "Risk vs. Reward" part of the game.
Thank you and go learn to read. |
Esmenet
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.06.30 00:53:00 -
[354]
Originally by: Marlona Sky
NEWS FLASH, OP is not wanting high sec ganks to stop, just for there to be "Risk" in the "Risk vs. Reward" part of the game.
Thank you and go learn to read.
Sorry but high sec missions completely destroy the concept of risk/reward in this game.
|
Kazzac Elentria
|
Posted - 2008.06.30 01:10:00 -
[355]
Originally by: Esmenet
Originally by: Marlona Sky
NEWS FLASH, OP is not wanting high sec ganks to stop, just for there to be "Risk" in the "Risk vs. Reward" part of the game.
Thank you and go learn to read.
Sorry but high sec missions completely destroy the concept of risk/reward in this game.
Pretty much |
Dianeces
The Illuminati. Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.06.30 04:30:00 -
[356]
Originally by: Maus Bailey Most just log before Concord even show up now. No loss at all.
It's pretty stellar.
It's a good thing Concord can't find safespots or anything. Owait....
|
Maus Bailey
International House of PWNCakes Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2008.06.30 07:11:00 -
[357]
Quote: It's a good thing Concord can't find safespots or anything. Owait....
Exactly, just wait.
24hrs to be precise. |
Dray
Caldari Spartan Industries Cruel Intentions
|
Posted - 2008.06.30 11:03:00 -
[358]
Edited by: Dray on 30/06/2008 11:05:53
Originally by: Marlona Sky Edited by: Marlona Sky on 30/06/2008 00:02:53
Originally by: Dray OK, CAPS FOR STATING THE OBVIOUS, suicide ganking is only a problem for ppl to greedy to scout, there you go soloution number 1.
Suicide ganking isnt broken, but for the sake of this thread remove hi-sec gank insurance, you low IQ, too lazy to work out how to stop it, cry on the forums and hope its fixed in our favour ****suckers, will stop crying.
NEWS FLASH, voiding insurance wont stop hi sec ganks......
Thank you and good night.
NEWS FLASH, OP is not wanting high sec ganks to stop, just for there to be "Risk" in the "Risk vs. Reward" part of the game.
Thank you and go learn to read.
I can read fine and I'm not debating what the OP wants I'm simply pointing out how easy it is to counter suicide ganking.
Also I stand by my comments of some people being to greedy to want to try and work together to stop it because it interrupts their isk flow, that or their being to lazy or stupid to work out how.
|
Weeman
Caldari FIRMA
|
Posted - 2008.06.30 12:57:00 -
[359]
Originally by: Kazzac Elentria
Originally by: Esmenet
Originally by: Marlona Sky
NEWS FLASH, OP is not wanting high sec ganks to stop, just for there to be "Risk" in the "Risk vs. Reward" part of the game.
Thank you and go learn to read.
Sorry but high sec missions completely destroy the concept of risk/reward in this game.
Pretty much
No risk to the reward? Kill rights? I risk hauling afk with kill rights on me because I know people i've killed are too gutless or stupid to come get me. That and it'd throw their isk/hour ratio right off which is just sacrilege to these mission runners :o.
Nerf is not an option there are already MANY EFFECTIVE COUNTERS. |
SickSeven
|
Posted - 2008.06.30 21:03:00 -
[360]
Dont stop it, just make it less profitable. -ANY ship destroyed by Concord should only be paid pack what was paid to SCC. In essence a refund. Not full Payout. -ANY ship that is self-destructed should have the same result as above. |
|
Dianeces
The Illuminati. Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.06.30 22:04:00 -
[361]
Originally by: Maus Bailey
Quote: It's a good thing Concord can't find safespots or anything. Owait....
Exactly, just wait.
24hrs to be precise.
It's almost as if you missed the sarcasm, so I'll spell it out. Concord doesn't give a hoot if you log out before they show up, they will find you, because you will have a 15 minute agression timer and will remain in space long enough for them to leisurely find your e-warp spot and destroy your ship. Logging off will not save your ship. Thanks for playing. |
Eanok
Equitus Nosferatum Praetorians
|
Posted - 2008.07.01 12:12:00 -
[362]
If the suggestion is just to remove insurance from Concord kills, I'm for it. |
The Critic
|
Posted - 2008.07.02 12:17:00 -
[363]
Originally by: Dianeces
Originally by: Maus Bailey
Quote: It's a good thing Concord can't find safespots or anything. Owait....
Exactly, just wait.
24hrs to be precise.
It's almost as if you missed the sarcasm, so I'll spell it out. Concord doesn't give a hoot if you log out before they show up, they will find you, because you will have a 15 minute agression timer and will remain in space long enough for them to leisurely find your e-warp spot and destroy your ship. Logging off will not save your ship. Thanks for playing.
Seems like you can escape Concord
|
GulletSplitter
Maasai Tribal Products Independent Faction
|
Posted - 2008.07.02 21:30:00 -
[364]
Oh why not....does make sense on the insurance payout part of it at least...
|
Tiodus
Gallente City of Certitude Coalition of the ExtraOrdinary
|
Posted - 2008.07.02 22:22:00 -
[365]
I agree and hope to see measures taken in a swift manner
-------------------- /O\ Can't pvp /O\ -------------------- |
Sartori Tangier
Lai Dai Infinity Systems
|
Posted - 2008.07.02 23:23:00 -
[366]
Edited by: Sartori Tangier on 02/07/2008 23:25:39 There should be no insurance payout if a ship is destroyed by CONCORD. __________________
|
rosey palmer
|
Posted - 2008.07.03 02:53:00 -
[367]
Edited by: rosey palmer on 03/07/2008 02:53:42 Two problems with suicide ganking today.
1) Today there appears to be no risk to suicide ganking. 2) There also is no real way to counter it other then using a second account.
I have not read one post which successfuly proves otherwise on either point. I do think that suicide ganking is a bit unbalanced as it stands today.
If the suicide gankers feel that completely removing insurance eliminates suicide ganking then what would a resonable penalty / payout be?
Show some reasonable math to show a balanced approach to the situation. Not "I don't like mission runners so I want a risk free way to kill them at will"
|
Klistell
|
Posted - 2008.07.03 03:32:00 -
[368]
Definately something should be done about hi-sec suicide ganking because there is no risk for those that do it. If it hurts for those that are "victim" to it, then there should be a large risk for it in hi-sec space.
if i rob a guy in the middle of a big city in one of the "safe" countries in the world, im gonna get arrested and put in jail. BIG risk.
However, if the reward is big enough, someone is gonna take it no matter the risk.
Things shouldnt be done to stop it, but things should be done to make it painful and RISKY for those doing it.
Support
|
ShaffGT
The Lost Legion
|
Posted - 2008.07.03 04:03:00 -
[369]
/signed
|
Aegir Asgaurd
|
Posted - 2008.07.03 09:16:00 -
[370]
|
|
Hariya
|
Posted - 2008.07.03 12:02:00 -
[371]
I am definitely against this nber lame idea.
|
Cypher Run
|
Posted - 2008.07.03 15:36:00 -
[372]
Edited by: Cypher Run on 03/07/2008 15:38:59
Originally by: Hariya Edited by: Hariya on 03/07/2008 12:07:48 I am definitely against this [hi sec suicicde] nber lame idea. It is even at this moment absoluetly possible to suicide in high sec, even if you're a complete moron.
Risk vs reward. Not even 1.0 should be entirely risk free for people suicide ganking for billions of worth modules in their ships made out of wet paper bags.
In the history the "security" of empire has been toughened several times. Each time has meant risk vs rewards is adjusted. Go on CCP. People supporting ideas like hi sec suicide without consequences only just want the reward without the risk. It is wrong. Grief them out of the game please.
There ya go. Fixed it for ya. No need to thank me.
|
Doc Extropy
Gallente Kinda'Shujaa
|
Posted - 2008.07.03 15:37:00 -
[373]
No, please not. Suicide ganking is one of the things that make me smile when I read the C&P - forum. I love the carebear whines. ---
Skill queue now! Nerf skillpoint loss and half done skills! WE ARE PAYING CUSTOMERS AND DESERVE MAXIMUM COMFORT! |
Doc Extropy
Gallente Kinda'Shujaa
|
Posted - 2008.07.03 15:42:00 -
[374]
Originally by: Shenko Minara This topic has been done to death. The only support for this will come from the sheltered folk that aren't interested in the majority of Eve as a game, just pimping out their Ravens to do the same grind everyday.
This forum should also have a "thumbs down" option, since this thread badly needs it.
QFT. ---
Skill queue now! Nerf skillpoint loss and half done skills! WE ARE PAYING CUSTOMERS AND DESERVE MAXIMUM COMFORT! |
Ivena Amethyst
|
Posted - 2008.07.03 20:14:00 -
[375]
suicide gank/selfdestruct should not pay out insurance
|
Hariya
|
Posted - 2008.07.03 21:56:00 -
[376]
Originally by: Klistell Definately something should be done about hi-sec suicide ganking because there is no risk for those that do it. If it hurts for those that are "victim" to it, then there should be a large risk for it in hi-sec space.
What a load of bull. It is very easy to create that risk. Just slap in med slots full of shield extenders. Most likely the ganker will miscalculate, assault, fail, lose his ship but not get any reward.
That's what I always do, my innocent looking haulers are actually quite as touch as battleships Some people even have fallen into it, it always makes my day
Imho you skilless lame newbie dorks should learn how to play the game instead of whining.
|
rosey palmer
|
Posted - 2008.07.04 01:40:00 -
[377]
Edited by: rosey palmer on 04/07/2008 01:43:33
Originally by: Hariya
What a load of bull. It is very easy to create that risk. Just slap in med slots full of shield extenders. Most likely the ganker will miscalculate, assault, fail, lose his ship but not get any reward.
That's what I always do, my innocent looking haulers are actually quite as touch as battleships Some people even have fallen into it, it always makes my day
Imho you skilless lame newbie dorks should learn how to play the game instead of whining.
Yeah, I'm sure the gankers that spend "hours" scanning down ships fall for this all of the time.
Funny how freightors with 205,910 effective HP (all level V skills) can be killed by gankers but your maxed out badger with all level 5 skills and 4 shield extenders (due to PG constraints) giving it a 13,764 effective HP seem to baffle the gankers.
A Caldari Navy Raven with a full out tank setup has a 99,963 effective HP but still seem to die.
Your hauler must be AWSOME.
Either that or you are known to lie. I will go with the latter.
So why do these ships die so easily? Quite simple, they get full insurance back for the loss of the ship, regardless if they are successful or not, so they can AFFORD to put a 6 ravens with heat and insta pop anything in their path (2 volleys).
Or use a bunch of domis with drones, your choice. Either way it costs you nothing and the other player has no way around it (unless they somehow get hold of your jove hauler that you must be flying around).
Math, is fun isn't it? Just kind of cuts through all the BS and lies doesn't it?
Nobody is saying remove ganking, that would be stupid, high sec should not be complete safe, but should not 100% favor the attacker either. Just add some risk back to the gankers, IE, they had better damn well be sure they kill that hauler / pimp BS / freightor to make it worth while or they *gasp*, run the risk of losing isk as a result (see how the risk & reward works in that equation?). All there is right now is reward with really only boredom as a result waiting for a juicy target to show up. Also the game should not have to rely on 2 accounts to live in high sec.
|
rosey palmer
|
Posted - 2008.07.04 02:02:00 -
[378]
Edited by: rosey palmer on 04/07/2008 02:04:48
Originally by: Dray
Also I stand by my comments of some people being to greedy to want to try and work together to stop it because it interrupts their isk flow, that or their being to lazy or stupid to work out how.
Yeah, log on an alt (oh this requires a second account), warp to the gate where you are about to get attacked, aggress ANYTHING, draw concord into the area, if they attack you, they die as Concord will have already been deployed to the grid.
Or log on an alt to scout your ship through every high sec system to insure there are no camps setup (oh, this requires a second account to).
I would be 100% fine with these options if they did not require a second person or alt to get around it. I don't think we should discourage people being able to play the game solo in HIGH SEC.
Low sec, null sec is a different story.
|
Dianeces
The Illuminati. Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.07.04 03:50:00 -
[379]
Originally by: rosey palmer
Yeah, I'm sure the gankers that spend "hours" scanning down ships fall for this all of the time.
Funny how freightors with 205,910 effective HP (all level V skills) can be killed by gankers but your maxed out badger with all level 5 skills and 4 shield extenders (due to PG constraints) giving it a 13,764 effective HP seem to baffle the gankers.
A Caldari Navy Raven with a full out tank setup has a 99,963 effective HP but still seem to die.
Your hauler must be AWSOME.
Either that or you are known to lie. I will go with the latter.
Missing the point completely ITT.
|
rosey palmer
|
Posted - 2008.07.04 04:14:00 -
[380]
Originally by: Dianeces
Originally by: rosey palmer
Yeah, I'm sure the gankers that spend "hours" scanning down ships fall for this all of the time.
Funny how freightors with 205,910 effective HP (all level V skills) can be killed by gankers but your maxed out badger with all level 5 skills and 4 shield extenders (due to PG constraints) giving it a 13,764 effective HP seem to baffle the gankers.
A Caldari Navy Raven with a full out tank setup has a 99,963 effective HP but still seem to die.
Your hauler must be AWSOME.
Either that or you are known to lie. I will go with the latter.
Missing the point completely ITT.
Wow, way to prove me wrong!
|
|
Sin Fae
Income Redistribution Service
|
Posted - 2008.07.04 04:20:00 -
[381]
Solution: Move ALL lvl 4 missions and agents to low-sec.
There. Problem solved. No suicide ganking because there is no Concord, and folks can battle in.. um Battleships.
|
Dray
Caldari Spartan Industries Cruel Intentions
|
Posted - 2008.07.04 10:57:00 -
[382]
Edited by: Dray on 04/07/2008 10:59:52
Originally by: rosey palmer Edited by: rosey palmer on 04/07/2008 02:04:48
Originally by: Dray
Also I stand by my comments of some people being to greedy to want to try and work together to stop it because it interrupts their isk flow, that or their being to lazy or stupid to work out how.
Yeah, log on an alt (oh this requires a second account), warp to the gate where you are about to get attacked, aggress ANYTHING, draw concord into the area, if they attack you, they die as Concord will have already been deployed to the grid.
Or log on an alt to scout your ship through every high sec system to insure there are no camps setup (oh, this requires a second account to).
I would be 100% fine with these options if they did not require a second person or alt to get around it. I don't think we should discourage people being able to play the game solo in HIGH SEC.
Low sec, null sec is a different story.
Firstly whilst solo play options exist Eve is a multi-player game thats just the way it is, secondly level 4 missions are very easy, to the point where its easily done in none faction load outs, you say you want more risk for the gankers while you have none at all.
The facts are quite simple, it is easy to counter suicide ganking, but I'm not telling you how, also there is no risk in level 4 missions unless you try to run before you can walk or you're a simpleton.
Change the insurance payout, I'll still suicide gank in hi sec whether its a hauler or a mission runner, and why will I still do it, because I know there's still stupid/greedy people out there that will insist on trying to do as much as possible alone so they can maximize their isk flow.
|
Hariya
|
Posted - 2008.07.04 11:37:00 -
[383]
Edited by: Hariya on 04/07/2008 11:38:25
Originally by: rosey palmer Your hauler must be AWSOME.
It's not awesome. It is more awesome than what they expect. No use killing a fly with atom bomb. If you think it's fly, might be or might not be. That's the whole point.
No one really forces you into using the ships you use, the way you use them, and when you use them. Tbh there is not enough high sec ganking in the game, everyone should get at least free frigate once per week specifically for it to keep skilless players on toes
It's a shame that very likely all your lame whining will have some effect, and we'll make yet another step towards Hello Kitty Online.
|
Dray
Caldari Spartan Industries Cruel Intentions
|
Posted - 2008.07.04 14:08:00 -
[384]
Originally by: Hariya Edited by: Hariya on 04/07/2008 11:38:25
Originally by: rosey palmer Your hauler must be AWSOME.
It's not awesome. It is more awesome than what they expect. No use killing a fly with atom bomb. If you think it's fly, might be or might not be. That's the whole point.
No one really forces you into using the ships you use, the way you use them, and when you use them. Tbh there is not enough high sec ganking in the game, everyone should get at least free frigate once per week specifically for it to keep skilless players on toes
It's a shame that very likely all your lame whining will have some effect, and we'll make yet another step towards Hello Kitty Online.
Agreed, trouble is the little bit of common sense that we find so useful which they seem to so desperately to need cant be trained thru a rank 1 skill, f*ck them, like you say, just another step towards "hello kitty in space",
Listen to these b3llends CCP and the game you spent so much time creating will become exactly what you didn't envisage.
|
Sean Graves
Caldari Shipwrights Corporation
|
Posted - 2008.07.04 14:10:00 -
[385]
agreed
|
Kurald
SyNtHeTiC D.N.A Cold Steel Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.07.04 15:49:00 -
[386]
total agreement. In real life you won't get anything of an insurance company if you damage something during a criminal act.
|
rosey palmer
|
Posted - 2008.07.04 17:10:00 -
[387]
Edited by: rosey palmer on 04/07/2008 17:10:32
Originally by: Hariya
It's a shame that very likely all your lame whining will have some effect, and we'll make yet another step towards Hello Kitty Online.
Yes, I want to make it more like hello kitty online. Simply because you as the ganker don't want to increase any risk to yourself.
read carefully. I am not against ganking, I am against the insurance payouts for them. Allow transferable kill rights as well. But I am sure that you will complain about both of those, as you really don't want any risk for yourself. BTW, hello kitty is
|
rosey palmer
|
Posted - 2008.07.04 17:12:00 -
[388]
Edited by: rosey palmer on 04/07/2008 17:16:35
Originally by: Dray
Listen to these b3llends CCP and the game you spent so much time creating will become exactly what you didn't envisage.
Another whiner joins the fray. I love the ganker tears that there may be risk to their profession, while they complain about carebears that have no risk!
Ganker: "I want to be safe in high sec blowing up whomever I want with no risk to myself!!! Stupid level 4 carebears have no risk to themselves" (which I agree with incidently)
Rest of the game: "Lets introduce risk to the gankers since they complain that there is not enough risk in the game"
Ganker: "OMG WHINE, no, I don't want risk for ME, I want risk for everyone else. I want to do whatever I want without penalty and get the FULL payout for my ship when I lose it"
I love the tears!
|
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.07.04 17:18:00 -
[389]
Not sure why this is still going on tbh. The issue got raised, supported, and presented to CCP. There was agreement from the devs that suicide ganking does need making more difficult with additional sec penalties for participating (non final blow) ships and insurance loss was also on the table.
Its done and dusted people and on the list of priority issues for fixing!
Chill be happy!
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
XoPhyte
Gallente Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.07.04 18:48:00 -
[390]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Not sure why this is still going on tbh. The issue got raised, supported, and presented to CCP. There was agreement from the devs that suicide ganking does need making more difficult with additional sec penalties for participating (non final blow) ships and insurance loss was also on the table.
Its done and dusted people and on the list of priority issues for fixing!
Chill be happy!
We just like to argue
|
|
Hariya
|
Posted - 2008.07.04 19:58:00 -
[391]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Its done and dusted people and on the list of priority issues for fixing!
The real issue is that there was no issue. Don't attempt to fix something that wasn't broken.
You know, it was made to their attention due the whines (aka democracy?). You have to always keep in mind that although 900 billion flies like eating shit, it perhaps still isn't actually very good. Even ancient greeks understood it and named it argumentum ad populum.
Hello Kitty Online seems to rule.
|
Ava Santiago
|
Posted - 2008.07.04 22:42:00 -
[392]
Until they make it so I can refuse to do business with people via the market system and have my economic revenge upon the military specialists who have forced me to redesign my logistics and business systems, suicide ganking needs a serious cost benefit redesign. Concord doesn't provide consequences. Concord provides insurance payouts. |
Dianeces
The Illuminati. Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.07.04 23:40:00 -
[393]
Originally by: Ava Santiago Until they make it so I can refuse to do business with people via the market system and have my economic revenge upon the military specialists who have forced me to redesign my logistics and business systems, suicide ganking needs a serious cost benefit redesign.
ITT we learn about noob corp alts.
|
Dray
Caldari Spartan Industries Cruel Intentions
|
Posted - 2008.07.05 06:29:00 -
[394]
Originally by: rosey palmer Edited by: rosey palmer on 04/07/2008 17:16:35
Originally by: Dray
Listen to these b3llends CCP and the game you spent so much time creating will become exactly what you didn't envisage.
Another whiner joins the fray. I love the ganker tears that there may be risk to their profession, while they complain about carebears that have no risk!
Ganker: "I want to be safe in high sec blowing up whomever I want with no risk to myself!!! Stupid level 4 carebears have no risk to themselves" (which I agree with incidently)
Rest of the game: "Lets introduce risk to the gankers since they complain that there is not enough risk in the game"
Ganker: "OMG WHINE, no, I don't want risk for ME, I want risk for everyone else. I want to do whatever I want without penalty and get the FULL payout for my ship when I lose it"
I love the tears!
Its not a whine or tears, you just don't get it, I wont stop suicide ganking because of the insurance or the sec hit.
Ok now listen carefully, suicide ganking is a good way of making isk because people are stupid and greedy as I've pointed out numerous times in this thread.
Also its not my profession it's just another way of making isk.
The next question is, what happens when the sec hit and the insurance voiding fails to stop it and people still come to the forums to complain?
|
Leandro Salazar
The Blackguard Wolves
|
Posted - 2008.07.05 07:44:00 -
[395]
Originally by: Dray Its not a whine or tears, you just don't get it, I wont stop suicide ganking because of the insurance or the sec hit.
Ok now listen carefully, suicide ganking is a good way of making isk because people are stupid and greedy as I've pointed out numerous times in this thread.
Also its not my profession it's just another way of making isk.
The next question is, what happens when the sec hit and the insurance voiding fails to stop it and people still come to the forums to complain?
I can only speak for myself here and I am sure there are more than enough WOW-in-space players who would prefer all their activities being instanced who will disagree, but after a complete insurance nerf for suicide ganking, anyone who is STILL ganked either really had it coming anyway, or required some real effort on the part of the gankers, and thus those ganks will be balanced.
If you are really not going to stop suicide ganking because of an insurance nerf, more power to you, you are not my 'target audience' then in the first place. Also makes me wonder why you even argue here then, in fact an insurance nerf could be advantageous to you, if all the amateur-suiciders go for greener pastures there will be more potential victims left for the pros, and they might end up being less wary after a nerf too.
Make suicide ganking more difficult!
|
Dray
Caldari Spartan Industries Cruel Intentions
|
Posted - 2008.07.05 09:36:00 -
[396]
Originally by: Leandro Salazar I can only speak for myself here and I am sure there are more than enough WOW-in-space players who would prefer all their activities being instanced who will disagree, but after a complete insurance nerf for suicide ganking, anyone who is STILL ganked either really had it coming anyway, or required some real effort on the part of the gankers, and thus those ganks will be balanced.
If you are really not going to stop suicide ganking because of an insurance nerf, more power to you, you are not my 'target audience' then in the first place. Also makes me wonder why you even argue here then, in fact an insurance nerf could be advantageous to you, if all the amateur-suiciders go for greener pastures there will be more potential victims left for the pros, and they might end up being less wary after a nerf too.
Fair comment, tbh my real issue is that it's easy to counter that more than anything is really what's annoying, but I do think it will make the ganking drop off which as you say is to my advantage.
The only real way to stop it is imposing a massive sec hit, that' s the only thing that would deter me, which possibly might happen, because lets face it, there's more mission runners than gankers and that means more subs per month for CCP from them so it's in their interest to look after them, not that I'd quit the game, suicide ganking is one of the things I do but it's not everything for me in the game.
|
rosey palmer
|
Posted - 2008.07.05 19:36:00 -
[397]
Originally by: Leandro Salazar I can only speak for myself here and I am sure there are more than enough WOW-in-space players who would prefer all their activities being instanced who will disagree, but after a complete insurance nerf for suicide ganking, anyone who is STILL ganked either really had it coming anyway, or required some real effort on the part of the gankers, and thus those ganks will be balanced.
If you are really not going to stop suicide ganking because of an insurance nerf, more power to you, you are not my 'target audience' then in the first place. Also makes me wonder why you even argue here then, in fact an insurance nerf could be advantageous to you, if all the amateur-suiciders go for greener pastures there will be more potential victims left for the pros, and they might end up being less wary after a nerf too.
This pretty much reiterates exactly what my point was. The point (my point) was to never eliminate suicide ganking, as I have stated in NUMEROUS posts in this thread I am FOR ganking. I am just not for the full insurance payouts that go along with them.
Originally by: Leandro Salazar anyone who is STILL ganked either really had it coming anyway, or required some real effort on the part of the gankers, and thus those ganks will be balanced.
Exactly correct.
|
Sokratesz
Rionnag Alba The Requiem
|
Posted - 2008.07.06 15:56:00 -
[398]
Originally by: Leandro Salazar anyone who is STILL ganked either really had it coming anyway, or required some real effort on the part of the gankers, and thus those ganks will be balanced.
You know whtas funny? Thats the exact situation right now.
The only difference your change will make is that the average target will need to be more expensive to be worth it. Why do you need to mission in a 1bil ship when a 200mil raven will do just fine?
Not supported.
I refuse to respect religious beliefs, and i refuse to respect people who hold them. |
Leandro Salazar
The Blackguard Wolves
|
Posted - 2008.07.06 21:08:00 -
[399]
Originally by: Sokratesz The only difference your change will make is that the average target will need to be more expensive to be worth it. Why do you need to mission in a 1bil ship when a 200mil raven will do just fine?
Why do people PvP in 200 mil HACs when a 10 mil cruiser will 'do just fine'? Fun and effectiveness. Just because you don't understand how people can have fun with the mission running/ship pimping playstyle doesn't mean they don't and shouldn't. Sure, beyond a certain point a pimp ships should become suicider prey, but right now that point is way way too low imho.
Make suicide ganking more difficult!
|
Halada
Lone Star Joint Venture
|
Posted - 2008.07.06 22:42:00 -
[400]
No insurance for CONCORD killed ships.
Badly needed.
★ LSJV now recruiting ★ |
|
Xaen
Caldari Caritas.
|
Posted - 2008.07.07 01:43:00 -
[401]
If you don't want suicide ganked in highsec, don't be a high profit target. In the case of freighters, don't be an un-escorted high value target. Bring friends with ECM.
As soon as they open fire on you they become global criminals, your friends can ECM or damp at will. Most ships won't survive the first jam cycle.
NOT supporting this. - Support fixing the UI|Suggest Jita fixes|Compact logs |
Xaen
Caldari Caritas.
|
Posted - 2008.07.07 02:05:00 -
[402]
Originally by: Leandro Salazar
Originally by: Sokratesz The only difference your change will make is that the average target will need to be more expensive to be worth it. Why do you need to mission in a 1bil ship when a 200mil raven will do just fine?
Why do people PvP in 200 mil HACs when a 10 mil cruiser will 'do just fine'? Fun and effectiveness. Just because you don't understand how people can have fun with the mission running/ship pimping playstyle doesn't mean they don't and shouldn't. Sure, beyond a certain point a pimp ships should become suicider prey, but right now that point is way way too low imho.
Unless you're running like 4 officer mods or 8 faction mods I wouldn't bother.
Are you doing that?
Cause in the EVE universe that would be a NotBrightÖ thing to do.
Especially given that lag in a mission can kill you just as dead. - Support fixing the UI|Suggest Jita fixes|Compact logs |
Nilder Shadowfiyah
3rd Millennium Group
|
Posted - 2008.07.07 12:22:00 -
[403]
How about ECM modules anchored in high sec near gates. This would have 2 results. It would allow the ganked to possibly escape due to lock loss by aggressors.
|
Exlegion
New Light Hydra Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.07.07 14:21:00 -
[404]
Edited by: Exlegion on 07/07/2008 14:23:29
Originally by: Xaen Unless you're running like 4 officer mods or 8 faction mods I wouldn't bother.
Are you doing that?
Cause in the EVE universe that would be a NotBrightÖ thing to do.
Especially given that lag in a mission can kill you just as dead.
You may be exercising sound economic judgement. And that's all well and fine. However, at the moment it seems suicide ganks occur primarily for the "lulz" effect with "ooh, look! shiny!" as the secondary effect (cherry on top). Suicide ganking should be a high-risk daring undertaking in high sec, of which at the moment it is none. See Jihadswarm for proof.
One of us equals many of us. Disrespect one of us, you'll see plenty of us. - Gang Starr |
Sokratesz
Rionnag Alba The Requiem
|
Posted - 2008.07.07 15:47:00 -
[405]
Originally by: Exlegion Edited by: Exlegion on 07/07/2008 14:23:29
Originally by: Xaen Unless you're running like 4 officer mods or 8 faction mods I wouldn't bother.
Are you doing that?
Cause in the EVE universe that would be a NotBrightÖ thing to do.
Especially given that lag in a mission can kill you just as dead.
You may be exercising sound economic judgement. And that's all well and fine. However, at the moment it seems suicide ganks occur primarily for the "lulz" effect with "ooh, look! shiny!" as the secondary effect (cherry on top). Suicide ganking should be a high-risk daring undertaking in high sec, of which at the moment it is none. See Jihadswarm for proof.
Wrong. Suicide ganks is a way of making a living, noone spends hours scanning missionrunners and the effort of getting half a dozen bs'es together for 'the lulz'.
So basically what you are 'fighting for' is the right to fit mission ships overly expensive..well guess what..doing so comes with a risk..
I refuse to respect religious beliefs, and i refuse to respect people who hold them. |
Exlegion
New Light Hydra Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.07.07 16:13:00 -
[406]
Socratesz,
Quote: noone spends hours scanning missionrunners and the effort of getting half a dozen bs'es together for 'the lulz'.
Not true. You can suicide-gank a ship with one ship alone (and another non-aggressed to scoop up the loot. Again, see any of the numerous Jihadswarm threads.
Don't misunderstand. I'm not for completely nerfing suicide ganks. Nor am I fighting for the right to fit mission ships overly expensive. I am, however, against suicide-gank being risk-free or minimally risky. If you have assembled a dozen battleships and have spent hours scanning for the right target at the right time then good for you. You deserve that juicy clumsy target coming your way. That is not what I am against.
IMHO, it is way too easy to suicide-gank in high sec. The consequences are just a slap in the hand and the rewards are extravagant. Anyone can do it. It doesn't take much planning, character skills, or player skills. Hell, I can use a couple of alts to suicide-gank a mining ship in high sec. And I don't think the solution to an Osprey pilot is to have escorts in high sec so he can mine Veldspar. There should be a possibility to be blown up. But I would like for the perpetrator to think it twice (or better yet three times) before ramming his disposable ship into the Osprey.
One of us equals many of us. Disrespect one of us, you'll see plenty of us. - Gang Starr |
Anaalys Fluuterby
Caldari
|
Posted - 2008.07.07 17:30:00 -
[407]
Originally by: Xaen If you don't want suicide ganked in highsec, don't be a high profit target.
Some idiots tried to suicide my AF the other night, carrying a whole 8m in datacores. 8 million isk in datacores. No officer/faction mods, jut plain T2.
They didn't succeed (tank was turned on, I get nervous at times) but the point is that the practice is far too common. When you can't pass through any gate in certain regions of eve without seeing a potential suicide group or getting scanned, there are obviously not enough drawbacks to the "profession".
Originally by: CCP Wrangler
Not it isn't, people should be encouraged to get out in low sec space, but never forced to do so.
|
EYEDOLL
Imperial Shipment
|
Posted - 2008.07.09 12:30:00 -
[408]
Signed |
Exlegion
New Light Hydra Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.07.09 15:03:00 -
[409]
Originally by: Hariya Hello Kitty Online seems to rule.
If that's what is worrying you then you should be thanking us instead of trolling us as we're trying to make this game less like Hello Kitty Online by making you earn your lunch instead of getting it for free. Most of us here don't want high sec safer. I personally want the rewards to justify the risk, which at the moment isn't the case.
One of us equals many of us. Disrespect one of us, you'll see plenty of us. - Gang Starr |
Sin Fae
Income Redistribution Service
|
Posted - 2008.07.09 22:06:00 -
[410]
Edited by: Sin Fae on 09/07/2008 22:09:30 No insurance for renegade pod pilots who engage poorly defended ships known as "Rats" Since Concord does not immediately obliterate all these ships in Hi-Sec. How can they be criminals? There needs to be a law!
Thousands of blatent legal violations occur everyday, yet the agressors can have their ships insured. Oh the madness!
The bottom line is a vocal minority wants a risk-free Empire space, and that I cannot endorse, and "Making suicide ganking more difficult" will do absolutley nothing to this effect.
But hey if it makes completely ignorant people happy (including devs), **** it, knock yourself out.
|
|
Ki An
Gallente Filiolus Of Bellum
|
Posted - 2008.07.09 23:35:00 -
[411]
Where is the freaking thumbs-down sign??? CCP GET ON THIS!!!
Filiolus of Bellum is recruiting
|
Esmenet
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.07.09 23:42:00 -
[412]
Originally by: Exlegion
Originally by: Hariya Hello Kitty Online seems to rule.
If that's what is worrying you then you should be thanking us instead of trolling us as we're trying to make this game less like Hello Kitty Online by making you earn your lunch instead of getting it for free. Most of us here don't want high sec safer. I personally want the rewards to justify the risk, which at the moment isn't the case.
So what you are saying is that you want to nerf highsec missions?
|
Exlegion
New Light Hydra Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.07.10 00:17:00 -
[413]
Originally by: Esmenet So what you are saying is that you want to nerf highsec missions?
If you have issues with Level 4 missions in high sec how about starting your own thread instead of trolling this one?
One of us equals many of us. Disrespect one of us, you'll see plenty of us. - Gang Starr |
Sin Fae
Income Redistribution Service
|
Posted - 2008.07.10 00:43:00 -
[414]
Originally by: Ki An Where is the freaking thumbs-down sign??? CCP GET ON THIS!!!
CCP did get on it and caved.
Originally by: Jade Constantine --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not sure why this is still going on tbh. The issue got raised, supported, and presented to CCP. There was agreement from the devs that suicide ganking does need making more difficult with additional sec penalties for participating (non final blow) ships and insurance loss was also on the table.
Its done and dusted people and on the list of priority issues for fixing!
Chill be happy!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 26 - Suicide Gank Someone Day!
|
Frygok
Minmatar M. Corp Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2008.07.10 03:34:00 -
[415]
Okay, after reading this thread I have to admit I am more than a bit annoyed.
First off, I have NEVER been even close to getting ganked with my empire character doing missions. Why? Because I do level 4 missions in a t2 fitted ship. It's that easy. Why people insist on using deepspace and officer fittings is beyond me, but each to their own.
Secondly, I think most of the people who do suicide ganking is doing it because they have no other option in Empire. FUNNILY ENOUGH BECAUSE CAREBEARS ARE IN NPC CORPS WHICH CAN'T BE WAR DECCED OR ARE IN 1-MAN CORPS THEY JUMP FROM AFTER A WAR-DEC(sorry for the caps). How's that for no ****ing consequence or risk? And war dec is a completely legitimate part of the game (And if someone says corp-jumping to avoid war decs is a legitimate use of game mechanics, then so is suicide-ganking).
IMO, it is beyond hyprocricy to whine about suicide ganking and the lack of consequences, when you time and time again see empire carebears deliberately corp jump or stay in npc corps to avoid risk with zero consequence.
Fair enough, let us remove insurance so suicide ganking becomes more difficult. At the same time, kick everybody out of npc corps after 2 months, and then whenever they are in a corp that gets wardecced, and they then corpjump, that wardec follows the character (only character, not the new corp that is created/said character joins) for a week/month.
Then there would be a way to add risk to now hilariously risk free high sec. And frankly, it's a natural extension of wanting to add to the risk of suicide ganking.
Both things are use of game mechanics. However, one of them is a response to a use of game mechanics, the other is a reponse to a complete and integral part of the game.
|
Vreena
Yurai-Tenshin Zaibatsu Celestial Imperative
|
Posted - 2008.07.10 07:29:00 -
[416]
Edited by: Vreena on 10/07/2008 07:30:17 Signed, though I'd like to say that you should be able to be in an NPC corp for more than a year. Doesn't make sense to me. -----
The above does not reflect the views and/or opinions of my corporation or alliance...well it could, but let's not be presumptuous, okay? |
Esmenet
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.07.10 10:51:00 -
[417]
Originally by: Exlegion
Originally by: Esmenet So what you are saying is that you want to nerf highsec missions?
If you have issues with Level 4 missions in high sec how about starting your own thread instead of trolling this one?
Ah the usual lack of consistency. Risk reward is important as long as it dont affect what you do right?
|
Exlegion
New Light Hydra Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.07.10 11:04:00 -
[418]
Edited by: Exlegion on 10/07/2008 11:04:57
Originally by: Esmenet Ah the usual lack of consistency. Risk reward is important as long as it dont affect what you do right?
You're barking at the wrong tree. I run all my missions in low/0.0 sec. And level 4 missions do need to be balanced. And now I will ask you again, why are you derailing this thread?
One of us equals many of us. Disrespect one of us, you'll see plenty of us. - Gang Starr |
Ki An
Gallente Filiolus Of Bellum
|
Posted - 2008.07.10 19:50:00 -
[419]
Originally by: Frygok Okay, after reading this thread I have to admit I am more than a bit annoyed.
First off, I have NEVER been even close to getting ganked with my empire character doing missions. Why? Because I do level 4 missions in a t2 fitted ship. It's that easy. Why people insist on using deepspace and officer fittings is beyond me, but each to their own.
Secondly, I think most of the people who do suicide ganking is doing it because they have no other option in Empire. FUNNILY ENOUGH BECAUSE CAREBEARS ARE IN NPC CORPS WHICH CAN'T BE WAR DECCED OR ARE IN 1-MAN CORPS THEY JUMP FROM AFTER A WAR-DEC(sorry for the caps). How's that for no ****ing consequence or risk? And war dec is a completely legitimate part of the game (And if someone says corp-jumping to avoid war decs is a legitimate use of game mechanics, then so is suicide-ganking).
IMO, it is beyond hyprocricy to whine about suicide ganking and the lack of consequences, when you time and time again see empire carebears deliberately corp jump or stay in npc corps to avoid risk with zero consequence.
Fair enough, let us remove insurance so suicide ganking becomes more difficult. At the same time, kick everybody out of npc corps after 2 months, and then whenever they are in a corp that gets wardecced, and they then corpjump, that wardec follows the character (only character, not the new corp that is created/said character joins) for a week/month.
Then there would be a way to add risk to now hilariously risk free high sec. And frankly, it's a natural extension of wanting to add to the risk of suicide ganking.
Both things are use of game mechanics. However, one of them is a response to a use of game mechanics, the other is a reponse to a complete and integral part of the game.
This is an interesting aspect of the discussion.
Filiolus of Bellum is recruiting
|
Erik D
|
Posted - 2008.07.13 11:17:00 -
[420]
Supported
|
|
Siebenthal
|
Posted - 2008.07.15 15:48:00 -
[421]
No insurance for Concord kills. Just non-sensical.
|
gernader
|
Posted - 2008.07.27 03:04:00 -
[422]
Originally by: agent apple No as its a biased idea. If you want more realistic insurance then it goes both ways.
Zero payout for criminals + Compulsory insurance for all ships in high sec + Appropriate cost of insurance for high risk ships and pilots
While the insurance system does need looking at, and while suicide ganking is far to easy on the criminal party, this is neither the reason to do it or the way to do it.
i like your idea agent apple /signed
|
Tchu
Rage and Terror Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2008.07.27 09:52:00 -
[423]
Current mechanic is ok, please do not change.
|
Ophelia Mckenzie
|
Posted - 2008.08.10 14:55:00 -
[424]
Edited by: Ophelia Mckenzie on 10/08/2008 14:57:15
Originally by: Zareph Your solutions aren't support worthy.
However.
If one of your solutions was 'the more bad guys attacking a single non ganged target the faster concord can respond' that might be something.
For example.
one person is running missions. one person is coming through the gate. 5 people open fire.
25s? well since there is 5, lets divide that 25 by 5 and that means concord responds in 5s.
anything more than say 10 or 15 and it's instan spawn concord regardless of system sec. Tech2 ships/weaponry mean insta concord, stuff like that.
Removing insurance payment is not the option. Maybe at best make it like your car insurance in that if you have repeated claims within a certain period (say, 14 days) the cost of insurance or value of payout goes up/down, but removal isn't good.
I agree for this idea that I have quoted. My support is for doing SOMETHING and if we do something...I support this idea that Zareph thought of.
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 .. 15 :: [one page] |