EVE Search - Suicide ganking (solutions?)

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Suicide ganking (solutions?)

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
hedfunk Caldari Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.07.09 22:05:00 - [31] Oh, wow. ANOTHER thread, with the SAME 'solutions' Thankyou for your amazing inmsight, which made this worth a thread.
Ki An Gallente Filiolus Of Bellum	Posted - 2008.07.09 22:09:00 - [32] Originally by: Swalesey I would also like to see insurance payment removed in a case where concorde places the final blow. If concorde are directly responsible for the destruction of a ship, they should revoke your insurance claim. No they shouldn't. Originally by: Swalesey I don't dislike pirates, or gankers. Just the acts of piracy and ganking, amirite? Originally by: Swalesey I do se ethat the concorde response was put there for a reason ,and that was to protect players in higher security systems from player aggression. No, that's not what Concord was put in there for. To protect players from player agression all CCP had to do was to disallow weapons from being fired on other players in high sec. They did not. Concord is there to provide consequences for the agressing party. The consequences are loosing one's ship. Concord is there to make it harder to initiate hostilities in Empire. They are very successful at this. The next time you fly to the Perimeter gate in Jita, take a look at all those people floating about in space not shooting each other. Imagine what it would be like if there was no Concord. Originally by: Swalesey If suicide ganking is used to bypass this system, that is not how the game mechanics is supposed to work. Yes, that is exactly how the game mechanics are supposed to work. CCP has said so themselves. Read this please, and educate yourself. Originally by: Swalesey Insurance is good to protect yourself, but it is not supposed to be for this purpose. No, insurance is a game mechanic - in no way modeled after RL insurance - that mitigates ship loss and thus drives the economy. Insurance makes losing a ship that much less expensive, and makes sure people can afford to replace their lost ships. This is vital for the economy in Eve. Originally by: Swalesey As has already been said, if your ganking a freighter who's afk they diserve it. Ganka way imo. If your getting a good ahul out of a freighter cargo, it doesn't matter if you get no insurance. Nope, it doesn't. Originally by: Swalesey What it does effect is the mining barges. these ships don't raly offer any benefit to the guys bloweing them up, other than they are blowing up some miner's prized barge through a loop in the system. There is no loop in the system here. It's working as intended. If miners are being blown up (I assume you're talking about JihadSwarm here), they are not doing enough to protect themselves. I know for a fact that many - if not most - of the people who get suicided while in mining barges are either AFK or at least completely oblivious to the fact that they are in space, and that space is never absolutely safe, anywhere. Originally by: Swalesey If the insurance was gone in a case like that, it'd put financial burden onto the ganker, that might just make them think about what they are doing. It shouldn't be free to suicide gank someone. It isn't free. It doesn't cost a lot of isk, but if you add the time factor as well as the sec hit, the cost and risk is well above that of high sec mission running. I don't see you rushing to get that abolished any time soon. Filiolus of Bellum is recruiting
Swalesey	Posted - 2008.07.09 22:11:00 - [33] Originally by: Scatim Helicon Originally by: Promithius After all if i set my own car on fire, my insurance company arnt going to replace it for me. Would your insurance company cover the loss of your car if you took it out to some 3rd world failed state, strapped a couple of machine guns to it and used it to fight smugglers and hijackers as a mercenary? If your asking for insurance on a battle ship, I assume they'd pretty much know your not planning on using it on your weekly trip to the supermarket. This is a silly argument :P
Tippia Caldari School of Applied Knowledge	Posted - 2008.07.09 22:16:00 - [34] Originally by: Swalesey If your asking for insurance on a battle ship, I assume they'd pretty much know your not planning on using it on your weekly trip to the supermarket. This is a silly argument :P I agree with this. Insurance should only cover shuttles!
Lurana Lay Gallente	Posted - 2008.07.09 22:17:00 - [35] I don't fit Faction gear on my mission Rattlesnake just for this reason and I don't even run in a busy mission hub (can't stand those). Much less of a worry/bother/expense running with T2 stuff, and scarcely less effective, barring some idiotically priced items I can easily do without. I sincerely doubt I'm the only one. But yeah, t1 ss gank bs that have great insurance payouts once Concorded is pretty ******ed. The risk/reward there is whacked. However, I DON'T want to see non concord involved pvp ship destruction suffer for insurance though.
hedfunk Caldari Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.07.09 22:18:00 - [36] Ki An is my hero.
Qui Shon	Posted - 2008.07.09 22:36:00 - [37] Originally by: Ki An Concord is there to provide consequences for the agressing party. The consequences are loosing one's ship. Which, of course, is the problem right now. That consequence is rendered meaningless by insurance payout with current ship prices. Quote: It isn't free. It doesn't cost a lot of isk, but if you add the time factor as well as the sec hit, the cost and risk is well above that of high sec mission running. I don't see you rushing to get that abolished any time soon. It's close enough to free for it to be a problem. And the risk certainly isn't above missionrunning, that's rubbish.
Metangela Usafa	Posted - 2008.07.09 22:41:00 - [38] All of you gank happy pirates can rationalize it all you want but with insurance it is pathetic that you can reap such a huge reward without the risk of losing even 10 mil. They need to modify insurance in more ways than one. If you are in high sec and you get concorded you should NOT get an insurance payment. I'm not saying do away with ganking in high sec but the rewards are far higher than the risks involved. "It isn't free. It doesn't cost a lot of isk, but if you add the time factor as well as the sec hit, the cost and risk is well above that of high sec mission running. I don't see you rushing to get that abolished any time soon." This one really cracked me up...sec loss is part of your risk? LOL. Insurance should not be paid out if the loss of the ship occured during an illegal activity. Doubt that CCP will change things until it gets to the point that it has damaged the game. And IMO it is.
Ki An Gallente Filiolus Of Bellum	Posted - 2008.07.09 22:47:00 - [39] Originally by: Metangela Usafa All of you gank happy pirates can rationalize it all you want but with insurance it is pathetic that you can reap such a huge reward without the risk of losing even 10 mil. They need to modify insurance in more ways than one. If you are in high sec and you get concorded you should NOT get an insurance payment. I'm not saying do away with ganking in high sec but the rewards are far higher than the risks involved. Yes, if you get concorded you SHOULD get an insurance payment. This is because Eve insurance has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH RL. Originally by: Metangela Usafa "It isn't free. It doesn't cost a lot of isk, but if you add the time factor as well as the sec hit, the cost and risk is well above that of high sec mission running. I don't see you rushing to get that abolished any time soon." This one really cracked me up...sec loss is part of your risk? LOL. What do you find funny about it? I mean, I can explain it to you using different words that you don't giggle as much upon hearing, but the message would be the same. If you can't see that sec loss is part of the consequences, and a major part, you're fairly stupid. Originally by: Metangela Usafa Insurance should not be paid out if the loss of the ship occured during an illegal activity. Doubt that CCP will change things until it gets to the point that it has damaged the game. And IMO it is. You know, saying it over and over again doesn't make it so. Filiolus of Bellum is recruiting
Ki An Gallente Filiolus Of Bellum	Posted - 2008.07.09 22:51:00 - [40] Originally by: Qui Shon Which, of course, is the problem right now. That consequence is rendered meaningless by insurance payout with current ship prices. So, because industrialists have driven the prices down to such a degree that many of them actually makes a net loss when they sell a ship, CCP should step in and nerf a completely different and unrelated part of the game? Why not start off by regulating ship prices by, say, driving towards more PvP, and eventually, more ship losses, making the prices of ships go up? The problem you are describing has nothing to do with suicide ganks. It's the carebears that are at fault. Originally by: Qui Shon It's close enough to free for it to be a problem. And the risk certainly isn't above missionrunning, that's rubbish. As I said, it being cheap isk wise is due to all the nubbin industrialists who think "minerals I mined myself are free". The risk for suicide ganks are quite a bit higher than mission running. There are a lot more to factor in. Granted, the expected payout is higher, but the time and effort put in is a lot higher as well. Filiolus of Bellum is recruiting
Qui Shon	Posted - 2008.07.09 23:03:00 - [41] Edited by: Qui Shon on 09/07/2008 23:03:54 Originally by: Ki An So, because industrialists have driven the prices down to such a degree that many of them actually makes a net loss when they sell a ship, CCP should step in and nerf a completely different and unrelated part of the game? Why not start off by regulating ship prices by, say, driving towards more PvP, and eventually, more ship losses, making the prices of ships go up? The problem you are describing has nothing to do with suicide ganks. It's the carebears that are at fault. The insurance prices are locked, while the mineral values are not. That is what's broken, and what needs to be fixed. That problem has a lot to do with suicide ganks, because it has increased their frequency massively. Quote: As I said, it being cheap isk wise is due to all the nubbin industrialists who think "minerals I mined myself are free". The risk for suicide ganks are quite a bit higher than mission running. There are a lot more to factor in. Granted, the expected payout is higher, but the time and effort put in is a lot higher as well. You can only risk what you stand to loose. You cannot loose time any more then you can gain time, buy time, or reverse time. Time passes, and that's all there is to that. There is NO minimum or maximum wage in Eve, nor is there any welfare or other kind of automatic isk. So. The ONLY thing the ganker risks, is what he stands to loose if he FAILS in his gank. Currently that is next to nothing, and that is the reason suicide ganks have become so common.
hedfunk Caldari Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.07.09 23:06:00 - [42] ALl the people whining should try sitting and waiting for a target for 5hours or so and get nothing. Sure the isk loss isn't much, but the time put in is punishment enough. It's not like you log on, instantly gank something and have made 1bill isk.
Ki An Gallente Filiolus Of Bellum	Posted - 2008.07.09 23:09:00 - [43] Originally by: Qui Shon The insurance prices are locked, while the mineral values are not. That is what's broken, and what needs to be fixed. That problem has a lot to do with suicide ganks, because it has increased their frequency massively. You are correct that this might be a problem, however it really doesn't have anything to do with suicide ganks. Suicide ganks, on the other hand, has a lot to do with this problem. CCP might have to step in to fix something, but disallowing insurance for 'criminals' is fixing the wrong end of the pipe line. Originally by: Qui Shon You can only risk what you stand to loose. You cannot loose time any more then you can gain time, buy time, or reverse time. Time passes, and that's all there is to that. There is NO minimum or maximum wage in Eve, nor is there any welfare or other kind of automatic isk. So. The ONLY thing the ganker risks, is what he stands to loose if he FAILS in his gank. Currently that is next to nothing, and that is the reason suicide ganks have become so common. Time is a comodity in Eve. It's a comodity that you can put a price on. Thus, time factors in to these kinds of calculations. It all breaks down to isk/h of work, and I can almost guarantee you that the average high sec lvl 4 runner has a higher isk/h than the average member of a suicide crew. This is, of course, barring amazing streaks of luck. The difference, however, is that the isk/h of the mission runner is almost completely set by artificial means, whereas the isk/h for the suicide ganker is set by other players, mainly depending on how much effort people go through to protect themselves. Breaking it down this means that if you want to kill off suicide ganking as a phenomenon, start educating your fellow players in the art of flying smart. Filiolus of Bellum is recruiting
Price Cezh	Posted - 2008.07.09 23:10:00 - [44] Originally by: Ki An Originally by: Metangela Usafa All of you gank happy pirates can rationalize it all you want but with insurance it is pathetic that you can reap such a huge reward without the risk of losing even 10 mil. They need to modify insurance in more ways than one. If you are in high sec and you get concorded you should NOT get an insurance payment. I'm not saying do away with ganking in high sec but the rewards are far higher than the risks involved. Yes, if you get concorded you SHOULD get an insurance payment. This is because Eve insurance has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH RL. Originally by: Metangela Usafa "It isn't free. It doesn't cost a lot of isk, but if you add the time factor as well as the sec hit, the cost and risk is well above that of high sec mission running. I don't see you rushing to get that abolished any time soon." This one really cracked me up...sec loss is part of your risk? LOL. What do you find funny about it? I mean, I can explain it to you using different words that you don't giggle as much upon hearing, but the message would be the same. If you can't see that sec loss is part of the consequences, and a major part, you're fairly stupid. Originally by: Metangela Usafa Insurance should not be paid out if the loss of the ship occured during an illegal activity. Doubt that CCP will change things until it gets to the point that it has damaged the game. And IMO it is. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You know, saying it over and over again doesn't make it so. <<<<<<<<<<<< Then why do you keep saying it. The game has evolved and people have figured out that high sec ganking is a low to no risk way to profit. Insurance needs to be changed. Let's say you're a merchant and you know that you have a few gates to go through that are probably camped. You can't even hire an escort that can do anything because the gankers are untouchable until they aggress and then the merchant is dead and the gankers are concorded and thier buddies are comin in to pick up the lootand they are untouchable since they just sat there cheering. This makes it an UNAVOIDABLE loss for the merchant. FAIL
Ki An Gallente Filiolus Of Bellum	Posted - 2008.07.09 23:15:00 - [45] Edited by: Ki An on 09/07/2008 23:15:26 Originally by: Price Cezh The game has evolved and people have figured out that high sec ganking is a low to no risk way to profit. No, what people have figured out is that most people would much rather run to the forums to whine about suicide ganking than actually doing something - ANYTHING - to protect themselves. That is what makes suicide ganking lucrative. Your stupidity. Originally by: Price Cezh Insurance needs to be changed. No, it really doesn't. At least not in the way you are driving at. I have explained why in this thread and the others that keep popping up so many times that you're going to have to do the effort to go back and look. Originally by: Price Cezh Let's say you're a merchant and you know that you have a few gates to go through that are probably camped. You can't even hire an escort that can do anything because the gankers are untouchable until they aggress and then the merchant is dead and the gankers are concorded and thier buddies are comin in to pick up the lootand they are untouchable since they just sat there cheering. This makes it an UNAVOIDABLE loss for the merchant. Yes, it is unavoidable if you are incredibly stupid and unimaginative. I suppose you are. Originally by: Price Cezh FAIL Very much so. Filiolus of Bellum is recruiting
Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2008.07.09 23:21:00 - [46] You know, if you want to get rid of suicide ganking, but can't get rid of the 'ganking' part, maybe we should get rid of the 'suicide' part. You know, remove CONCORD. - DesuSigs
Plumpy McPudding	Posted - 2008.07.09 23:23:00 - [47] Doesn't really matter. People will still suicide gank. If this nerf hits, Carebears will load up their industrials with even more juicy cargo, get ganked and whine about it again. __________________________ Fear me for I have an insatiable appetite! Proprietor and inventor of Chocolate Chip Chocolate Donut flavored Ice Cream.
Jinx Barker GFB Scientific	Posted - 2008.07.10 00:02:00 - [48] I am heading out to get some coffee. Anyone want some?
Ekrid	Posted - 2008.07.10 00:28:00 - [49] I like suicide ganks because they create a huge mod/isk sink. I dont think suicide ganks were an intended part of the game, but a mechanic being taken advantage of. The real problem with it is insurance doesn't SCALE. If you are a suicide ganker, you insurance rates should rise. If you're a good driver and can keep your ship safe, your rates should stay the same if something does happen, or even drop slightly. Thats allstates stand.
Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2008.07.10 00:30:00 - [50] Originally by: Ekrid I like suicide ganks because they create a huge mod/isk sink. Ship destruction is an ISK faucet. Well, the insurance is. - DesuSigs
Bai ZongTong	Posted - 2008.07.10 00:35:00 - [51] Edited by: Bai ZongTong on 10/07/2008 00:35:39 The Solution Also quitting the game helps prevent you from being suicide ganked. Can I has your stuff naw? k thx.
Spike Hammer Gravis Corp Hydra Alliance	Posted - 2008.07.10 01:03:00 - [52] Maybe they should add a module that makes it impossible to scan your cargo?
Anathema Amat Commerce Experts Stellar Economy Experts	Posted - 2008.07.10 17:25:00 - [53] Edited by: Anathema Amat on 10/07/2008 17:25:16 Suicide ganking as it stands is dull. Low risk, high return. You can calculate with a high degree of accuracy how many ships are needed for the task at hand, and get a reward for little effort. Rather than make it impossible, I suggest we just make it more interesting, by adding greater uncertainly in the response times of CONCORD. Currently it takes about something like 30 seconds for CONCORD to respond in 0.5 sec. If that was instead a range from 5 to 60 seconds, it would greatly improve the firepower required and the risk, making the whole thing much more interesting. Some situation-dependent factor (like time since and distance from last ganking) could also add some spice. Thanks, -Anathema
Arvald Caldari Aurora Acclivitous Paxton Federation	Posted - 2008.07.10 17:43:00 - [54] Originally by: Ki An thats a keeper Originally by: Siddy APERANTLY GEED PEE VEE PEE PLAYAS!!111 there is only one thing left to do...MOAR TECHNO
Bleeshtar	Posted - 2008.07.10 17:43:00 - [55] Originally by: Lieutenant Isis Ganking is cool, but insurance should be removed from the game entirely. I mean your in warships! You don't see State Farm insuring the US Navy do you? Yea but the sailors dont have to buy there ships.
Altpause Caldari AFK	Posted - 2008.07.10 17:59:00 - [56] A couple of weeks ago,in a .05 mission hub system RA ran a suicide gank squad. There where 6-7 known RA pilots and of course unknown number of alts. They killed 5 CNR's within 1 hour, so tell me why any mission runner should use a faction ship and faction gear? This only leads to you getting killed and losing all that time you invested into LP,ISK, ETC and making your killers rich. More and more of the mission runners that I know just use plain Ravens and T2 gear just to avoid the masses of suicide gankers at near every important gate.
Mistle Ord	Posted - 2008.07.10 18:09:00 - [57] Edited by: Mistle Ord on 10/07/2008 18:09:20 Ki An: I don't like you. And my friend doesn't like you either.
Ki An Gallente Filiolus Of Bellum	Posted - 2008.07.10 19:52:00 - [58] Originally by: Altpause A couple of weeks ago,in a .05 mission hub system RA ran a suicide gank squad. There where 6-7 known RA pilots and of course unknown number of alts. They killed 5 CNR's within 1 hour, so tell me why any mission runner should use a faction ship and faction gear? This only leads to you getting killed and losing all that time you invested into LP,ISK, ETC and making your killers rich. More and more of the mission runners that I know just use plain Ravens and T2 gear just to avoid the masses of suicide gankers at near every important gate. This is a good sign. People are learning. Filiolus of Bellum is recruiting
Ki An Gallente Filiolus Of Bellum	Posted - 2008.07.10 19:53:00 - [59] Originally by: Mistle Ord Edited by: Mistle Ord on 10/07/2008 18:09:20 Ki An: I don't like you. And my friend doesn't like you either. That's ok. I still like you. You and your friend. If you want you can invite her over and we can 'talk' about it, just the three of us and a bottle of whine. Filiolus of Bellum is recruiting
Bleeshtar	Posted - 2008.07.10 19:58:00 - [60] Originally by: Ki An Originally by: Mistle Ord Edited by: Mistle Ord on 10/07/2008 18:09:20 Ki An: I don't like you. And my friend doesn't like you either. That's ok. I still like you. You and your friend. If you want you can invite her over and we can 'talk' about it, just the three of us and a bottle of whine. Bottle of whine Uhhh dude its a dude.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.