| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 .. 13 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
hall monitor
   |
Posted - 2008.07.06 16:34:00 -
[31]
 Originally by: Aria Seniste
Negative. CONCORD does not jail anyone. Also, killing someone elses ship is a pretty minor crime. It's not like you murdered another pilot and somehow destroyed all their clones. Even podding isn't murder when they can simply clone themselves.
Troll.
Hi Aria 
Please don't accuse me of trolling I honestly am not and really did just start a month ago (and I'm not quitting because this is the best game ever.) I'm being honest about this issue. I find suicide ganking silly is all. I think every other aspect is gritty and realistic.
|
Hotice
|
Posted - 2008.07.06 16:45:00 -
[32]
Well, maybe not ending it as whole, but at least stop paying insurance to the attackers. Simply no more insurance payout to concord kills. We really don't have to worry about new players. If you they indeed got killed by concord due to mistakes, I'm sure other players will give some isk to the new players to let them buy another frigate/cruiser. This will also make sure that they know what to do and what not to do.
|
Jim McGregor
|
Posted - 2008.07.06 16:48:00 -
[33]
Edited by: Jim McGregor on 06/07/2008 16:48:55
Originally by: Hotice
Well, maybe not ending it as whole, but at least stop paying insurance to the attackers. Simply no more insurance payout to concord kills. We really don't have to worry about new players. If you they indeed got killed by concord due to mistakes, I'm sure other players will give some isk to the new players to let them buy another frigate/cruiser. This will also make sure that they know what to do and what not to do.
Just pop up a messagebox that you cant close until you have typed in a letter combination given in the messagebox. The message would say "If you attack this player, concord will go superman on your ass and you will not get insurance payout for your ship".
No new player is going to ignore that message box, and if they do, its their own fault.
---
Its dead, Jim.
|
Apoctasy
The Python Cartel
|
Posted - 2008.07.06 16:56:00 -
[34]
This is Eve, not WoW.
Stop autopiloting through highsec
Alternatively, stop mining in your retriever without bringing in concord first (get an alt to do something ebil and bring in concord to the belt)
----
|
Le Skunk
Low Sec Liberators
|
Posted - 2008.07.06 17:02:00 -
[35]
HAI EVERYONE
I HAVE HAD A NEW THOUGHT WHICH WILL STOP SUICIDE GANKING _ ITS SIMPLE _ ALL WE HAVE TO DO IS STOP INSURANCE PAYOUTS FOR SUICIDE GANKER WHEN THEY LOSE THEIR SHIP _ THIS IS REALLY NEW AND ORIGNIAL I CANT BELIEVE NOONE THOUGH OF IT _ ARNT I GREAT>>
SKUNK
|
Esu Nahalas
The Night Corporation
RONA Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.07.06 17:05:00 -
[36]
That's one thing I've never understood: if EVE is a harsh, cold place . . . then why is suicide ganking so easy? (In the sense that it is so profitable).
Although I suppose the ganker takes a standing hit. Is it enough of one? I'm just navel-gazing here, I've been ganked before but I deserved it.
|
Lochmar Fiendhiem
Caldari
Wyverns of Dionysus
Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2008.07.06 17:05:00 -
[37]
It is really easy to do, add a clause to the insurance contract.
"Insurance is null and void if you lose your ship to carelessness due to your own fault. As such if your ship is destroyed by CONCORD due to a hostile action in empire space, or from a sentry gun due to hostile actions towards a sovern state or corporation in empire space, you will receive base insurance payout."
Then for insurance mails when this happens,
"Insurance payment for ship xyz123 has been awarded [amount] due to its destruction. Because this ship was destroyed by CONCORD, as per the terms and conditions of the insurance contract, only base insurance has been paid out. Have a nice day!"
Originally by: Halkin
bob is dead, goons are great, cheese is cheesy, there we go no need for any more threads
|
Aria Seniste
|
Posted - 2008.07.06 17:09:00 -
[38]
Remove insurance payouts for people killed by players in highsec.
Any gank in highsec comes due to carelessness; why would the insurance company give a payout to a careless pilot?
Also, make CONCORD tankable and not an exploit to escape. If highsec is more noticably dangerous, people won't get so comfortable as to haul several billion afk in an untanked hauler.... 
|
Malcanis
We are Legend
|
Posted - 2008.07.06 17:17:00 -
[39]
Originally by: hall monitor
Edited by: hall monitor on 06/07/2008 15:57:00
It's not even evil...it's silly and wrecks the viability of the game taken in any rational context. You know I'm right. I might quit because of it and I just started...why spend all that time to just get wrecked via a method that should be an illegal exploit IMHO 
Agreed. Disband concord and then it won't be a suicide gank.
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
baltec1
Antares Shipyards
|
Posted - 2008.07.06 17:29:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Nocturnal Avenger
Originally by: Nebuchadnezzar I
As the bob guy said. The solution is easy, no insurance when concord is involved, pretty easy, amazing ccp hasnt been capable of introducing that yet.
This is not a real solution - as he also said. It just raises the cost for the ganker. If he saw a tech 1 hauler with 1B loot, he would most likely still go for it.
btw - I really like the fact that CCP is aware of suicide ganking. They endorse it.
At least I could pimp my raven
|
Rawr Cristina
Caldari
Omerta Syndicate
|
Posted - 2008.07.06 17:40:00 -
[41]
I like how people make out that suicide ganking is more widespread than it actually is.
How about:
I don't personally know anyone in EVE that has ever been suicide ganked.
Start AFKing 500mil+ of goods in T1 haulers and yes, you're probably going to be suicided.
...
|
Le Skunk
Low Sec Liberators
|
Posted - 2008.07.06 17:45:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Lochmar Fiendhiem
It is really easy to do, add a clause to the insurance contract.
"Insurance is null and void if you lose your ship to carelessness due to your own fault. As such if your ship is destroyed by CONCORD due to a hostile action in empire space, or from a sentry gun due to hostile actions towards a sovern state or corporation in empire space, you will receive base insurance payout."
Then for insurance mails when this happens,
"Insurance payment for ship xyz123 has been awarded [amount] due to its destruction. Because this ship was destroyed by CONCORD, as per the terms and conditions of the insurance contract, only base insurance has been paid out. Have a nice day!"
Also add this clause
"Your ship was destroyed in a war zone (0.0 system). Reports show you williningly jumped into a war zone without regard to your ship and fittings and so insurance has been voided."
No insurance for 0.0ers.. IT IS LOGICAL INNIT LIKE THE CONCORD FING
SKUNK
|
Tai Paktu
Ataraxia.
|
Posted - 2008.07.06 17:49:00 -
[43]
Why?
______
http://eve-files.com/sig/TaiPaktu/sig3.PNG |
Johnny Darkseid
Caldari
School of Applied Knowledge
|
Posted - 2008.07.06 17:53:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Rawr Cristina
I like how people make out that suicide ganking is more widespread than it actually is.
How about:
I don't personally know anyone in EVE that has ever been suicide ganked.
Start AFKing 500mil+ of goods in T1 haulers and yes, you're probably going to be suicided.
Hehe. Yeah reality very seldom has any impact on the claims made on the forums. To be fair I'm sure two or three of the hundreds of threads about this subject were from people who really did get ganked. But the flood of alts who then invade and are all sqealing 'omgogmgomomg i got killed by gankers leik 12 time in a row NERF SUICIDE GANKING!!!!11111oneone' as they sit at thier keyboard and giggle uncontrollably whilst Mum's warm milk and cookies squirt out their nose kinda dilutes thier credibility.
|
AxisKiller
Caldari
Hatori Mining Services
DAMAGE INC...
|
Posted - 2008.07.06 17:55:00 -
[45]
Obvious troll is obvious.
Anyhow, I'm simply going to restate what everyone else is, and that is void the insurance (possibly even ZERO) payout to people who get owned by CONCORD. Pay attention and stay on your toes and you probably won't get shot at.
Quote:
Creiger Rykov > Axis, i swear to go i'm gonna ram this badger up your ***
|
Slanty McGarglefist
University of Caille
|
Posted - 2008.07.06 18:01:00 -
[46]
I'm confused since this mechanic has been in EVE since its inception, but now people are complaining about it? Why is this?
__________________________________________________
Originally by: CCP Wrangler
No
Doh! |
Jim McGregor
|
Posted - 2008.07.06 18:03:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Slanty McGarglefist
I'm confused since this mechanic has been in EVE since its inception, but now people are complaining about it? Why is this?
Eve started out with a few thousand players that got attracted to the core mechanics of a unforgiving universe, but now that they have like 150.000 players or so, you also have a larger amount of people wanting to change the game so it becomes easier for them.
---
Its dead, Jim.
|
baltec1
Antares Shipyards
|
Posted - 2008.07.06 18:05:00 -
[48]
Originally by: Slanty McGarglefist
I'm confused since this mechanic has been in EVE since its inception, but now people are complaining about it? Why is this?
People are doing rather silly things, like fitting a mission ship with 1-45 billion isk worth of fittings and transporting expencive cargo in badgers.
|
Jim McGregor
|
Posted - 2008.07.06 18:06:00 -
[49]
Originally by: baltec1
Originally by: Slanty McGarglefist
I'm confused since this mechanic has been in EVE since its inception, but now people are complaining about it? Why is this?
People are doing rather silly things, like fitting a mission ship with 1-45 billion isk worth of fittings and transporting expencive cargo in badgers.
Since they get away with it in other games where the game mechanics says to players "You cant do that" when they try to attack them. Nice virtual reality... not.
---
Its dead, Jim.
|
Slanty McGarglefist
University of Caille
|
Posted - 2008.07.06 18:06:00 -
[50]
Originally by: Jim McGregor
Originally by: Slanty McGarglefist
I'm confused since this mechanic has been in EVE since its inception, but now people are complaining about it? Why is this?
Eve started out with a few thousand players that got attracted to the core mechanics of a unforgiving universe, but now that they have like 150.000 players or so, you also have a larger amount of people wanting to change the game so it becomes easier for them.
What a shame. That reminds me how Ultima Online met a terrible fate because of players like that.
__________________________________________________
Originally by: CCP Wrangler
No
Doh! |
Tippia
Caldari
School of Applied Knowledge
|
Posted - 2008.07.06 18:06:00 -
[51]
Originally by: Slanty McGarglefist
I'm confused since this mechanic has been in EVE since its inception, but now people are complaining about it? Why is this?
Larger influx of MMO players who aren't used to an all-PvP environment?
|
Tankn00blicus
Cosmic Vacum Cleaners
|
Posted - 2008.07.06 18:07:00 -
[52]
Edited by: Tankn00blicus on 06/07/2008 18:07:32
Originally by: Slanty McGarglefist
I'm confused since this mechanic has been in EVE since its inception, but now people are complaining about it? Why is this?
Because insurance coverage is a hell of a lot greater now than it was back then, meaning more taco pirates can afford to suicide gank for the lulz because it doesn't have much of a net cost if any at all.
|
Le Skunk
Low Sec Liberators
|
Posted - 2008.07.06 18:07:00 -
[53]
Originally by: AxisKiller
Edited by: AxisKiller on 06/07/2008 17:57:06
Originally by: Le Skunk
Also add this clause
"Your ship was destroyed in a war zone (0.0 system). Reports show you williningly jumped into a war zone without regard to your ship and fittings and so insurance has been voided."
No insurance for 0.0ers.. IT IS LOGICAL INNIT LIKE THE CONCORD FING
SKUNK
Obvious troll is obvious. Don't feed it lest it bite your hand off.
Anyhow, I'm simply going to restate what everyone else is, and that is void the insurance (possibly even ZERO) payout to people who get owned by CONCORD. Pay attention and stay on your toes and you probably won't get shot at.
That was no troll.
All the divs who say "*snort* A real life insuarnace company would NEVER *snort* pay out to some one who ramraided walmart *snort**push glasses back on nose*. It *snort* not logical to pay out for concord ganks"
Are completly ignoring the fact that following this line of argument - no pirate, low sec dweller, 0.0 dweller, self destructer, crap fit user would ever get insuarnce either.
If you want to nerf the suicide ganker insurance on soem bullshit "real life comparison" then fine - just make sure the other list of people get nothing either. Which includes people like your alliance, who dwell in low sec deliberatly putting their ships at massive risk of being destroyed.
Im all for it - kill of insurnace full stop - lets do it.
If not - stop the whining about suicide gankers and insurance.
|
Mahogany Finish
State War Academy
|
Posted - 2008.07.06 18:56:00 -
[54]
Originally by: Tzigan Jegos
Edited by: Tzigan Jegos on 06/07/2008 16:02:27
I will participate in destroying an 1,500,000,000.00 ISK freighter ship and its cargo just to lose almost nothing because insurance reimburses my suicidal ship.
This is ok.
What are you doing flying a freighter without an escort?
|
Sean Avery
Revival.
|
Posted - 2008.07.06 19:02:00 -
[55]
gb2wow....shortbus is thataway---->
|
Jinx Barker
GFB Scientific
|
Posted - 2008.07.06 19:08:00 -
[56]
Suicide ganking is a valid game mechanic. It is not an exploit, the offender's ship is destroyed by CONCORD.
Only thing that needs to be done is the removal of Insurance when one is aggressed by CONCORD. This will bring it in line with common sense, that is it.
|
DubanFP
Caldari
Four Rings
Souls of Vengeance
|
Posted - 2008.07.06 19:13:00 -
[57]
Originally by: Serenity Steele
This issue was raised by the Council of Stellar Management at the first CSM meeting on 19th June, together with a set of solutions. CCP are aware of it.
Quit polishing the PR turd that is the CSM. You guys don't have any real power and most of the better part of EVE knows it. Hell that's the only reason so many of you carebears got elected. Personally I wish you guys would butt out and quit trying to change EVE to suit YOUR wishes. CCP has done a fine job at governing EVE so far and you guys have proposed more crap ideas in the last 3 months then CCP has in the last 5 years.
_______________
ReiAyanami> We bring you tidings of AARRRRRRRRR |
Jinx Barker
GFB Scientific
|
Posted - 2008.07.06 19:20:00 -
[58]
Originally by: DubanFP
Originally by: Serenity Steele
This issue was raised by the Council of Stellar Management at the first CSM meeting on 19th June, together with a set of solutions. CCP are aware of it.
Quit polishing the PR turd that is the CSM. You guys don't have any real power and most of the better part of EVE knows it. Hell that's the only reason so many of you carebears got elected. Personally I wish you guys would butt out and quit trying to change EVE to suit YOUR wishes. CCP has done a fine job at governing EVE so far and you guys have proposed more crap ideas in the last 3 months then CCP has in the last 5 years.
Duban, what exactly did they propose that was messed up? I know they finally asked CCP about POS overhaul, if anything this will benefit Alliance PVP more than it would benefit any "carebears." Well, thats the extent what what I know as far as proposed issues - is there a list?
|
Marlona Sky
Caldari
D00M.
The Requiem
|
Posted - 2008.07.06 19:29:00 -
[59]
Edited by: Marlona Sky on 06/07/2008 19:30:25
CCP should not remove suicide ganking.
That being said, it needs to be balanced. Currently, there is no penelty that comes to even a small fraction or the "risk vs. reward" which is virtually no "risk" in the formula. There is just simply "reward".
This has got to be the least addressed issue currently in game by CCP by the lack of CCP replies to any of these type of threads involving the subject of suicide ganking.
Of course there is the one reply by CCP that talks about how if the player is going to have cash sticking out of their pocket they should be penalized. But is this 'balanced'???
And the question that I am sure a lot of people would really like to know is...
CCP: Is suicide ganking balanced or are you looking into making any changes?
Please give a fresh reply instead of players linking a reply that is several years old.
|
DubanFP
Caldari
Four Rings
Souls of Vengeance
|
Posted - 2008.07.06 19:32:00 -
[60]
Edited by: DubanFP on 06/07/2008 19:34:29
Originally by: Jinx Barker
Duban, what exactly did they propose that was messed up? I know they finally asked CCP about POS overhaul, if anything this will benefit Alliance PVP more than it would benefit any "carebears." Well, thats the extent what what I know as far as proposed issues - is there a list?
My main problem is the people that are happy the way things are don't butt into things like this. Therefore there is no voice of reason that states "lets let CCP sort this one out where possible". They do have a few good ideas now and then, i'll admit that. but other proposals go where they simply shouldn't. I'm just saying that I think CCP would be much better off handling most of these things and for the most part CSM should butt out unless they have something importaint to say.
Suicide ganking for example only happens when players allow it to happen. There would be no suicide ganks without people willing to fly ships worth getting ganked. This is one of those "please BUTT OUT" moments. There's just nobody there to say butt out because the people who do get involved in this are there to change EVE rather then guide it.
_______________
ReiAyanami> We bring you tidings of AARRRRRRRRR |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 .. 13 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |