EVE Search - CSM - CCP Meeting 001 - 0026 Suicide Ganking

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Assembly Hall

CSM - CCP Meeting 001 - 0026 Suicide Ganking

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 21 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 2 post(s)

CCP Wrangler	Posted - 2008.07.10 14:13:00 - [1] CCP realized that even though they do not plan to remove suicide ganking completely, today's suicide gank mechanics are too biased in the ganker's favor, and they have set up a task force to look into suicide ganking and crime and punishment in general. For the short term, they plan to increase the security hit for crime in high-sec space and make sure that all ship kills will be counted as kills, with the matching sec hit, for everyone that participated. CCP also considers influencing the sec hit penalty based on the security status of the victim. Mid term, the plans are to look into suicide ganking and the insurance payout, once they have made sure that new players are not impacted by this too much and have extra security in place so that accidents should not be punished. In the long term, they plan to have criminal records for players, with the appropriate consequences. Tradable killrights are also on the table, to let players deal with criminals instead of just CONCORD being responsible for security. Alex (CSM Bane Glorious) said that most suicide gankers already thought of ratting to regain security status as painful. Because a lot of suicide ganking occurs from NPC corporations, it was considered to move criminal offenders out of the NPC corporations into Pirate NPC corporations if they committed too many crimes. Eva (CSM Ankhesentapemkah) reacted to this that it could be standing based, like Factional Warfare, where a player would be ejected out of the militia if their standing with the faction became too low. Various people added to this that criminals could lose standing with the faction where they committed their crimes in addition to the security status hit. As for the bounty system, it was suggested that the bounty could be paid out in parts, with the amount being paid out at a moment depending on the damage inflicted on the criminal, so that a criminal could still have bounty remaining after the first time he was killed. Wrangler Community Manager CCP Hf, EVE Online Email "It's not worth doing something unless you are doing something that someone, somewhere, would much rather you weren't doing."

Ki An Gallente Filiolus Of Bellum	Posted - 2008.07.10 15:16:00 - [2] Quote: today's suicide gank mechanics are too biased in the ganker's favor How can CCP realize this? How can any sane person acknowledge this? It's the same mechanics as before. Caving in to whines? Filiolus of Bellum is recruiting
Exlegion New Light Hydra Alliance	Posted - 2008.07.10 15:20:00 - [3] Edited by: Exlegion on 10/07/2008 15:25:49 This should curb somewhat the gank-for-lulz incidents. Nice to see you're atleast working on making it more interesting for the aggressors. Good write-up :) One of us equals many of us. Disrespect one of us, you'll see plenty of us. - Gang Starr
Cyrith Republic Military School	Posted - 2008.07.10 15:30:00 - [4] Great new's
Caiman Graystock Quantum of Solace	Posted - 2008.07.10 15:36:00 - [5] Edited by: Caiman Graystock on 10/07/2008 15:36:00 Simple. Stop insurance pay outs for ships destroyed by concord.
Avon Caldari Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.07.10 15:38:00 - [6] Originally by: Caiman Graystock Simple. Stop insurance pay outs Fixed that for you. Eve-Online: The Text Adventure
Molock Saronen	Posted - 2008.07.10 15:41:00 - [7] Originally by: Dantes Revenge If a PVP element to ratting could also be implemented, maybe this would help. Rather than taking a sec hit for shooting at players with a sec rating <-0.1 in lowsec, this should be changed to give the attacking player a sec gain consistent with the ship kill. Your sec rating would then be repaired inversely proportional to the rating of the person whose ship you kill (whoever laid the final blow gets the sec repair not everyone in a large gang). Pods may receive an additional sec repair boost therefore podding is more beneficial. This would encourage more lowsec PVP in small gang and 1v1 encounters. It would also encourage bounty hunters who currently take a sec hit for shooting other players in lowsec even though the player they are hunting has a negative sec rating. The same mechanics as are currently in place should stand for initiaiting combat against positive sec players. Return fire is acceptable. This might be a nice addition, but with the extra that this would only apply to people with a positive sec status to begin with. Two pirates shooting each other back to positive sec status does somewhat defeat the principle
Lieutenant Isis Gristle Industries	Posted - 2008.07.10 15:45:00 - [8] Originally by: Avon Originally by: Caiman Graystock Simple. Stop insurance pay outs Fixed that for you. This, please.
Ashen Angel Minmatar Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2008.07.10 15:52:00 - [9] Originally by: Molock Saronen Originally by: Dantes Revenge If a PVP element to ratting could also be implemented, maybe this would help. Rather than taking a sec hit for shooting at players with a sec rating <-0.1 in lowsec, this should be changed to give the attacking player a sec gain consistent with the ship kill. Your sec rating would then be repaired inversely proportional to the rating of the person whose ship you kill (whoever laid the final blow gets the sec repair not everyone in a large gang). Pods may receive an additional sec repair boost therefore podding is more beneficial. This would encourage more lowsec PVP in small gang and 1v1 encounters. It would also encourage bounty hunters who currently take a sec hit for shooting other players in lowsec even though the player they are hunting has a negative sec rating. The same mechanics as are currently in place should stand for initiaiting combat against positive sec players. Return fire is acceptable. This might be a nice addition, but with the extra that this would only apply to people with a positive sec status to begin with. Two pirates shooting each other back to positive sec status does somewhat defeat the principle Put a cool down of hours before a player target counts for status updates.
Bellator Militaris Caldari	Posted - 2008.07.10 15:53:00 - [10] Excellent. The players of EvE thank the panel for addressing this problem. Stronger and longer pentalies for this must be applied. Thank You.

Matrixcvd Caldari Rionnag Alba	Posted - 2008.07.10 15:54:00 - [11] Originally by: CCP Wrangler CCP realized that even though they do not plan to remove suicide ganking completely, today's suicide gank mechanics are too biased in the ganker's favor, did they realize they have two heads as well? How do you just realize? this is right up there with "Carriers, the swiss army of EVE?" Cloak, Scout, Don't AFK, wow pretty hard i never realized that can I have a titan now?
Misanth The Forsakened Companions Pure.	Posted - 2008.07.10 16:27:00 - [12] Tradeable killrights sounds promising. As long as CCP is able to track the biomassed ex-alts and make the contract carry over..
Dakry helios	Posted - 2008.07.10 16:29:00 - [13] sorry but hav we missed the obviousness of dont give a ganker insurance because obviously he has been shot by concord meaning they obviously commited the crime? it takes forever to get your sec status back up in th game if your low so having an increased it is just meaning that gankers waste more time. by bringing in the insurance lost due to concord idea then gankers are not only ratting their sec up but also their isk at the same time so its a double whammy there. This sounds much like a biased "we have too many players who dont like fighting and think the game should only be industry and good" sorta the forces of good vs the forces of evil. the criminal records is a nice idea and is ralistic really and will give a slightly nicer edge but bring in the sec hit part and it will turn eve into a crunching game much the same as any other mmorpg out there. Dak's
sesanti Minmatar Universal Exports FOUNDATI0N	Posted - 2008.07.10 16:49:00 - [14] Edited by: sesanti on 10/07/2008 16:55:33 Originally by: Dakry helios sorry but hav we missed the obviousness of dont give a ganker insurance because obviously he has been shot by concord meaning they obviously commited the crime? it takes forever to get your sec status back up in th game if your low so having an increased it is just meaning that gankers waste more time. by bringing in the insurance lost due to concord idea then gankers are not only ratting their sec up but also their isk at the same time so its a double whammy there. This sounds much like a biased "we have too many players who dont like fighting and think the game should only be industry and good" sorta the forces of good vs the forces of evil. the criminal records is a nice idea and is ralistic really and will give a slightly nicer edge but bring in the sec hit part and it will turn eve into a crunching game much the same as any other mmorpg out there. Dak's It doesn't just sound like "we have too many players who dont like fighting and think the game should only be industry and good", it IS like it. Most of the people who gets ganked has the means to avoid ganking - they are just lazy whiners who come to the forums to whine en masse and then have the game mechanics bent to their will. _______________________________________________ The ShadowMaster - <I am a guy... never mind the portrait>
Lieutenant Isis Gristle Industries	Posted - 2008.07.10 17:06:00 - [15] Originally by: Dakry helios sorry but hav we missed the obviousness of dont give a ganker insurance because obviously he has been shot by concord meaning they obviously commited the crime? it takes forever to get your sec status back up in th game if your low so having an increased it is just meaning that gankers waste more time. by bringing in the insurance lost due to concord idea then gankers are not only ratting their sec up but also their isk at the same time so its a double whammy there. This sounds much like a biased "we have too many players who dont like fighting and think the game should only be industry and good" sorta the forces of good vs the forces of evil. the criminal records is a nice idea and is ralistic really and will give a slightly nicer edge but bring in the sec hit part and it will turn eve into a crunching game much the same as any other mmorpg out there. Dak's From an ISK stand point the ganker has NO(!) risk. Insurance pays for nearly all of it. Now look at the risk involved from the side of the gankee. They risk not only their cargo, but their ship, which in the case of a frighter is hundreds of millions. Basically I think you should have to risk more to gank, more then just a small insurance payment. We're saying that the barrier to entry to ganking should be higher; why should my hold full of trit but a viable target? Note I said viable not most attractive. You could in theory make ISK by ganking haulers full of trit and make ISK, which is very dumb.
plummet	Posted - 2008.07.10 17:13:00 - [16] how about an actual "bounty hunter" designation, and maybe new "sheriff" in town too? how thats achieved up to you, but i suggest he can appoint deputy's too!
Pwett Minmatar QUANT Corp. QUANT Hegemony	Posted - 2008.07.10 17:16:00 - [17] How about fixing the bounty system first? :) As is stands now, you put bounty on some one, you might as well be transferring it directly into his wallet. _______________ Pwett CEO, Founder, & Executor <Q> QUANT Hegemony
Farrqua Minmatar Turbo Mining Inc.	Posted - 2008.07.10 17:28:00 - [18] Unfortunately i think this topic is skewed by EMO posts on all parties with out really looking at this from a far. I would really like to see what the numbers are on how many ganks (concord response) in a certain area are in relation to how much traffic in a given period. What this should tell us is how much risk the freighter/hauler pilot has by moving there stuff. Is it a 20% chance of being ganked? 30% or is it fairly low? I understand that there are a lot of posts stating that the ganker does not face really that much risk. But what is the risk for the ganker. What is the time (which is equal in money) to grind sec status back up to re-enter high sec and is the proportionate with the loss of the gankee? I have always heard that the reward has to or should be equal to the risk. Are the parties involved sharing equal risk? What is the true cost on both sides in real isk and time with the current mechanics? I think if we can finally establish what the true risk is on both parts I think we can then proceed to balance the current game play. But as it stands now it is just an EMO whine fest.
Khonn Interstellar eXodus R0ADKILL	Posted - 2008.07.10 17:47:00 - [19] Edited by: Khonn on 10/07/2008 17:50:15 Originally by: Pwett How about fixing the bounty system first? :) As is stands now, you put bounty on some one, you might as well be transferring it directly into his wallet. Exactly. I think when a person gets a bounty put on his head, you don't just get it for pod killing them. What should happen is you have to go into the bounty system and accept the bounty contract. This not only allows you to hunt this specific person anywhere, but entitles you to the rewards of the bounty. Maybe make a bounty hunter school or something for you to be able to do this? Some sort of work should be required to become a bounty hunter IMHO. I dunno, but seems like fun to be a true bounty hunter in game and not just paid for situational opportunity. ================== Suicide ganking. Make empire, non war target aggression(criminal aggression) = 1/4 dps output on your ship. Have fun trying to kill a fly after that. Khonn
Herschel Yamamoto Bloodmoney Incorporated	Posted - 2008.07.10 17:48:00 - [20] The problem is that insurance makes the gank near-free. It's fine except for the fact that the ganker loses next to nothing. Fix insurance, and this problem goes back down to reasonable levels. ------------------ Fix the forums!

Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2008.07.10 17:50:00 - [21] Originally by: Farrqua But what is the risk for the ganker. What is the time (which is equal in money) to grind sec status back up to re-enter high sec and is the proportionate with the loss of the gankee? For your equation it is = 0 as he is getting isk doing the grinding. And very good isk if he is grinding in 0.0. So the proportion is: cost of suicide gank 5-10% of total ship and fitting value (thank to insurance scam) / cost to ganked pilot 5-10% at least of ganked ship (often more as they are rigged/T2/freighters)+full cargo Gains of suicide ganker: survived cargo/ganked = 0 Cost of sec loss: fairly long time ratting to recover Gain of sec loss: bounties/drops of the rats killed for recovering the loss. Don't seem so hard for gankers.
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.07.10 17:54:00 - [22] Is this wrangle talking or the puppet master RyandD SKUNK
Xaen Caldari Caritas.	Posted - 2008.07.10 18:01:00 - [23] Originally by: CCP Wrangler Mid term, the plans are to look into suicide ganking and the insurance payout, once they have made sure that new players are not impacted by this too much and have extra security in place so that accidents should not be punished. As long as this doesn't consist of more modal fracking dialogs. Originally by: CCP Wrangler In the long term, they plan to have criminal records for players, with the appropriate consequences. Tradable killrights are also on the table, to let players deal with criminals instead of just CONCORD being responsible for security. I've been a suicide ganker. I've been the victim of suicide ganking attempts. And I support transferable killrights. I'll go be a bad boy just so some targets with some teeth come after me for some 1v1. Blob warfare sucks. Even small gang warfare is generally very one sided. I fully support anything that allows me to 1v1 more. Originally by: CCP Wrangler Alex (CSM Bane Glorious) said that most suicide gankers already thought of ratting to regain security status as painful. It's extremely painful. It takes about four dedicated hours of ratting in 0.0 to regain the sec hit from a single ship kill. And there's no guarantee you even got anything from the ship kill. Originally by: CCP Wrangler Because a lot of suicide ganking occurs from NPC corporations, it was considered to move criminal offenders out of the NPC corporations into Pirate NPC corporations if they committed too many crimes. Good idea. Originally by: CCP Wrangler Eva (CSM Ankhesentapemkah) reacted to this that it could be standing based, like Factional Warfare, where a player would be ejected out of the militia if their standing with the faction became too low. Various people added to this that criminals could lose standing with the faction where they committed their crimes in addition to the security status hit. As for the bounty system, it was suggested that the bounty could be paid out in parts, with the amount being paid out at a moment depending on the damage inflicted on the criminal, so that a criminal could still have bounty remaining after the first time he was killed. The bounty system is completely broken. Any time the bounty becomes worth collecting, a friend or corpmate collects it. Kill rights need to be transferable for ISK or for free. I would happily buy tons of kill rights just for the PvP it would bring me. I would happily gank people just so there more kill rights out there for me. Factional warfare as I've experienced it is a giant stupid blobfest. It's not the answer. Transferable kill rights will go a long way. - Support fixing the UI\|Suggest Jita fixes\|Compact logs
Wynona Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2008.07.10 18:05:00 - [24] Wrangler, I'm going to buy you a new dress to go along with your new pretty vision of a warm cuddly universe. What size are you?
Anaalys Fluuterby	Posted - 2008.07.10 18:11:00 - [25] Originally by: CCP Wrangler Mid term, the plans are to look into suicide ganking and the insurance payout, once they have made sure that new players are not impacted by this too much and have extra security in place so that accidents should not be punished. Excellent Quote: In the long term, they plan to have criminal records for players, with the appropriate consequences. Tradable killrights are also on the table, to let players deal with criminals instead of just CONCORD being responsible for security. Very nice. Quote: Alex (CSM Bane Glorious) said that most suicide gankers already thought of ratting to regain security status as painful. Because a lot of suicide ganking occurs from NPC corporations, it was considered to move criminal offenders out of the NPC corporations into Pirate NPC corporations if they committed too many crimes. Eva (CSM Ankhesentapemkah) reacted to this that it could be standing based, like Factional Warfare, where a player would be ejected out of the militia if their standing with the faction became too low. Various people added to this that criminals could lose standing with the faction where they committed their crimes in addition to the security status hit. As for the bounty system, it was suggested that the bounty could be paid out in parts, with the amount being paid out at a moment depending on the damage inflicted on the criminal, so that a criminal could still have bounty remaining after the first time he was killed. Agreed as well! The only thing I think needs to be added is to make sure that even the worst offender has some way of crawling back. Something besides ratting or missioning, preferably something dealing with PvP rather than just grinding rats forever. 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.
Rojar Parit Caldari HYDRA MANUFACTURING Corp O X I D E	Posted - 2008.07.10 18:12:00 - [26] Edited by: Rojar Parit on 10/07/2008 18:15:50 Another point where I think I will get a lot of support... How are us "good" miners supposed to deal with macros in empire? Reporting does not work anymore as there are just too darn many. (Take a look at any system in empire with an Ice Belt some day.) So I and several others I know have resorted to the only option we have and that is to knock the macros ships out cost them some isk and mining time (hopefully more mining time than the ship is worth) and wait for them to come back. Rinse and repeat. Making the sec hit even tougher just balances things in their favor. I honestly think it already is a pain in the butt enough to get your sec status back up especially if you are an empire hugger like myself. (Yes I do admit it!) Hey maybe theycould knock all players out of the starting corps who get above a certain level of skill points. i.e. they corp decides they leave the nest. That would leave us the avenue of war deccing THOSE corps on our own and going after them.
Dray Caldari Spartan Industries Cruel Intentions	Posted - 2008.07.10 19:17:00 - [27] If the sec hit is just the hit for the kill applied to all and void insurance i can live with that, but if the sec hit goes beyond that its a case of pandering to the bigger subscriber base, cash flow always wins in the end.
Hamfast Gallente	Posted - 2008.07.10 19:26:00 - [28] Originally by: Xaen Originally by: CCP Wrangler Alex (CSM Bane Glorious) said that most suicide gankers already thought of ratting to regain security status as painful. It's extremely painful. It takes about four dedicated hours of ratting in 0.0 to regain the sec hit from a single ship kill. And there's no guarantee you even got anything from the ship kill. I am going to assume that Xaen is correct and 4 hours (average) in 0.0 space will clear the hit of 1 kill... My question is why would any amount of ratting in 0.0 space raise your security standing with Concord that totally ignores security hits in 0.0? If Killing and Podding another player in 0.0 space will not lower your standing with Concord (a correct function I might add), then ratting in that system should have no affect as well... Modify all security hit's or bumps by the posted security level of the system (For Concord only)... now those who commit criminal acts will be paying with more then a few hours of ratting in (with sovereignty and control) relative safety, to counter the security hit on suicide ganking... As Concord showing up is a function of Suicide Ganking, if the attacker(s) are in a NPC corp. (unable to be war-deced) lets have concord show up faster so that odds are they will not get the ship killed in time. --------*****-------- Learn and be informed, because a Politicians worst nightmare is an informed voter... So choose your CSM Candidates wisely
ElanMorin6 Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.07.10 19:43:00 - [29] Currently, suicide ganking is the only way to attack large numbers of pod-pilots who intentionally join NPC corps where they cannot be war-deced. This includes logistic alts for nearly everyone whose main is in 0.0, as well as large numbers of industrialists/inventors/miners who primarily reside in empire. The NPC corp mechanic allows these characters to avoid wardecs indefinitely, making it impossible to "legally" interfere with their activities. Suicide-ganking has become the only way to interdict empire operations - making it even harder makes empire more of a safe-haven than it already is. Major alliances at war with each other shouldn't be able to conduct their logistics and other business operations in complete safety despite ongoing hostilities. Any change that makes suicide ganking more difficult reduces the risk of any empire logistics and commerce, with no recourse for the people that seek to disrupt said activities. The counterpoint being, of course, that there is currently very little financial risk to suicide ganking, and that risk/reward/effort is not at all balanced for the ganker and gankee. There are a couple problems with some of the proposed solutions. Adding faction standing hits would be insanity, as there is currently no real way to repair that damage (which breaks our delicate risk/reward balance completely). Increasing sec-status hits or reducing insurance gives everyone carte blanche to move though empire in 100% safety - on an alt. By themselves, these arenÆt great solutions either û they make it to easy to side-step legitimate attacks. In order to keep things in line it would need to be possible to issue wardecs against these pilots. There are numerous ways to ôencourageö people to leave NPC corps for wardecable PC corps. Almost all of them would work just fine. The goal, of course, is to allow player groups to specifically target and attack each other while at the same time making random/opportunistic attacks less profitable. EVE isnÆt supposed to provide ultimate safety, and it seems the goal of most of the anti-ganking crowd is just that. While I can freely admit that suicide ganking is a little too cheap/easy at present, the problem remains that it is the ONLY option available for attacking a huge number of characters. Taking away that option leaves far too many pilots operating in complete safety, and reward without risk is a broken game mechanic. The reality is that over 90% of suicide ganks can already be easily defeated using existing game mechanics. The effort and investment necessary to do so is out of line with the difficulty of ganking in many cases though, which is why things need to be tweaked slightly. However, making empire space too safe brings its own set of problems and would ultimately lead to a much less interesting game.
Farrqua Minmatar Turbo Mining Inc.	Posted - 2008.07.10 19:52:00 - [30] Originally by: Hamfast Originally by: Xaen Originally by: CCP Wrangler Alex (CSM Bane Glorious) said that most suicide gankers already thought of ratting to regain security status as painful. It's extremely painful. It takes about four dedicated hours of ratting in 0.0 to regain the sec hit from a single ship kill. And there's no guarantee you even got anything from the ship kill. I am going to assume that Xaen is correct and 4 hours (average) in 0.0 space will clear the hit of 1 kill... My question is why would any amount of ratting in 0.0 space raise your security standing with Concord that totally ignores security hits in 0.0? If Killing and Podding another player in 0.0 space will not lower your standing with Concord (a correct function I might add), then ratting in that system should have no affect as well... Modify all security hit's or bumps by the posted security level of the system (For Concord only)... now those who commit criminal acts will be paying with more then a few hours of ratting in (with sovereignty and control) relative safety, to counter the security hit on suicide ganking... As Concord showing up is a function of Suicide Ganking, if the attacker(s) are in a NPC corp. (unable to be war-deced) lets have concord show up faster so that odds are they will not get the ship killed in time. Well the rats are "Bountied" by concord that reaches through out EVE. Same as a player that has a bounty sanctioned by Concord getting podded in 0.0. The player that pod him will receive the bounty. Your line of thinking would cancel out the opportunity in podding a pirate in 0.0 and receiving the bounty because in 0.0 concord does not apply. You receive a Sec bump once every 15 minutes and it relates to what rat you kill at the time. It does not matter how much and how big the rats you have been killing, it just pertains to the rat you kill during the time you are able to bump your Sec status. So in one hour you will receive a slight bump to your sec status. And it is also dependent on how low you are. a -10 will take weeks if not more of solid ratting with doing nothing else just to stick there head into a .5 system. So using 4 hours to erase one kill is kind of wrong. It is based on a lot of different factors.



Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 21 :: 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.