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)
Chainsaw Plankton IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE	Posted - 2008.07.11 10:53:00 - [61] Originally by: nathaniel flanders my vote goes for no insurance at all. This would automatically balance faction/T2/T1 and solve suicide ganking till a certain level. Yeah, pvp'ers would have to spend more. But don't they mostly use T2 ships anyways? And wouldn't a general decrease in ISK serve eve? maybe, but not having insurance wont decrease the amount of ISK in the EvE universe. it may decrease the flow of isk into the eve universe however. It will decrease the amount of minerals though
Chainsaw Plankton IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE	Posted - 2008.07.11 10:59:00 - [62] Originally by: Toshiro GreyHawk 6) Most games are vulnerable to having the players circumvent the designers intent. CCP seems to intend that High Sec not be completely safe but that it does offer some degree of safety and some penalty for those committing what it has decided are crimes. Of course in any real universe - getting the slap on the wrist FOR BLOWING UP SOMEONE'S SHIP that the loss in security status is would be absurd. In any realistic venue - they'd be banned from the system for life and hunted to the ends of space FOR DOING THAT ONE FRAKING TIME. Anyway ... it obviously being CCP's purpose that this is a game for pirates by pirates with everyone else just there to give them someone to attack they've designed it the way they have. The thing is - when you get players who really max out a game design vulnerability and take full advantage of it - the way the Jihad Swarm did - don't be surprised when the nerf bat comes out. Yes, High Sec isn't supposed to be completely safe but the wholesale slaughter of miners wasn't what they had in mind either. And yes - the miners fought back as best they could hiring mercs to strike back - but in no case did their kills come even close to their losses. Now - if they could have inflicted losses equal to their own - THEN - you would have balance. THEN you could say the system worked - but as I recall - the Goons laughed at the Merc's the whole time. The miners did get some measure of revenge and that was all they expected - but there is a vast difference between that and - balanced game play. If game mechanics allow one group to SLAUGHTER another - then the game mechanics are broken. It's about time CCP did something to fix that. yea, and In a real universe I could take the system over, rather than fight an omnipotent police force. also noone really seemed to give a flying **** about the jihad swarm, except for those who paid the mercs. just because the mercs can't inflict the same amount of damage on the goons doesn't mean the systems broken.
Toshiro GreyHawk	Posted - 2008.07.11 11:09:00 - [63] Originally by: Ki An Originally by: Toshiro GreyHawk A well thought out post that accurately, if simply, depicts suicide ganking. It's you. YOU are the problem that causes suicide ganks. Yeah right. It works like I said it did but you don't like my post so you pretend I'm wrong. yawn Did you start posting yesterday ... or can't you come up with a more original response than that? Originally by: Esmenet ... RL comparisons to a game = complete and utter fail. If you base EVE insurance on RL insurance not a single ship in EVE would get insurance. Wrong. Look at Lloyds. Realism in game play serves as a touch stone. Reality is inherently balanced while arbitrary game systems tend to move away from being balanced the more arbitrary they are. Do you want the person playing your flight sim to throw up on their key board and spend 400 hours just learning to fly their P-39 the way Chuck Yeager did? No. But that doesn't mean that an arcade style game is desirable either. What you want is a balance between realism and arbitrary gaming devices. Up to a point, the more Realistic a game is - the more immersive it is. The more immersive it is, generally, the better a game it is judged to be. So - Realism - does have a place in discussing game play. Also, one of the ways of pointing out just how flawed something is - is by using Realism as a reference. Here - you have all these pirates squealing like stuck pigs because - the game designers are taking modest steps to redress their excesses. By pointing out how utterly absurd things already are in the game compared to a realistic situation - you put the pirates whining into perspective. Lets be clear about this. Most of the posts here, as in most forum threads, are about people advocating that their style of game play should be blessed and that game play styles they don't like should be nerfed. It isn't about who's right and who's wrong. It's about how CCP is going to adjust things one way or the other. Also - realistically - paying one third the cost of your hull with no payment for the fittings (which often exceed the value of the hull by several factors) would be fairly steep. The way it SHOULD be done - is to have the premium you pay dependent on how many ships you lose. That's how real insurance works. And yes ... after a while ... you wouldn't be able to get insurance. So - if you're a Careful Care Bear and rarely lose a ship - your premiums might go down from the base line (what it is now). If you're a suicide Ganker that is constantly having your ship blown up by Concord - then NO you shouldn't be allowed to insure ANYTHING you own (though no one is actually advocating that). I think it would be funny if CCP did it though. THAT would be realistic and something the game designers could really do - if they wanted to seriously limit the amount of high sec ganking going on. If you're in a Factional Militia - then you're insurance premiums should be paid by the faction. They aren't - but they should be. People in the Army don't pay for equipment they lose to enemy action (though they may pay for it if they lose something without the enemy being involved). The way it is in the game now, if you're in a Corporation - the Corporation can insure your ship (and anyone in the corporation can use it), on top of which, many Corporations furnish their members with ships. So, there is a way to make the insurance situation in the game both realistic to some degree and playable. The way it is now - it is seriously flawed. Everyone pays the exact same rates regardless of their play style. There is NO penalty for treating your ships as being expendable. Redressing the insurance system would alleviate much of the problem by not only punishing the gankers but by being fair to those they attack. As usual - being more realistic - makes a game more balanced. You just have to get it right.
Jowen Datloran Science and Trade Institute	Posted - 2008.07.11 11:10:00 - [64] Originally by: Caiman Graystock Simple. Stop insurance pay outs for ships destroyed by concord. That is the way. ---------------- Mr. Science & Trade Institute

CCP Wrangler	Posted - 2008.07.11 11:22:00 - [65] Originally by: Le Skunk Is this wrangle talking or the puppet master RyandD Neither, this is the meeting minutes the CSM wrote after their meeting with CCP. I think I corrected some grammar and Ryan wasn't involved at all. I'll tell him that you consider him a puppet master though. Originally by: Wynona 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? No idea, I've never had a dress before. My t-shirt size is XL if that helps? Originally by: Vaal Erit Please, CCP Wrangler, explain to all of the players here how it is too biased for the ganker. For a topic that got so little support from the playerbase I do not think you are getting the correct information on this subject. As stated above, I did not write this, I just posted it. You'll have to ask the CSM. 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."

Mika Meroko Minmatar Crayon Posting Inc	Posted - 2008.07.11 11:23:00 - [66] Edited by: Mika Meroko on 11/07/2008 11:23:58 yeah, it got ridiculous when I can come out RICHER having concord destorying my ship.... before the looting...(plat insurance...) edit: and lets face it... the sec hit isnt that bad... if you pick your targets =P Originally by: CCP Atropos I pod people because there's money to be made in selling tears.
Kingwood Amarr Domini Umbrus Free Trade Zone.	Posted - 2008.07.11 11:23:00 - [67] Originally by: Jowen Datloran Originally by: Caiman Graystock Simple. Stop insurance pay outs for ships destroyed by concord. That is the way. Can't wait for the first whine on the forums; "Oh god, I accidentally activated a mod in High-Sec, got concorded and received no insurance. CCP, fix this!"
Mika Meroko Minmatar Crayon Posting Inc	Posted - 2008.07.11 11:25:00 - [68] Edited by: Mika Meroko on 11/07/2008 11:26:15 Originally by: Kingwood Originally by: Jowen Datloran Originally by: Caiman Graystock Simple. Stop insurance pay outs for ships destroyed by concord. That is the way. Can't wait for the first whine on the forums; "Oh god, I accidentally activated a mod in High-Sec, got concorded and received no insurance. CCP, fix this!" thats what the warning labels are for =P!!!! but yeah, you COULD delay insurance payout... IE: if you managed to kill something or get on another player's killmail as the killer in the next 20 minutes... you dont get insurance? but if you didnt pop anyone...you get it?... yeah I doubt people who acidently shot at/activated a ECM burst/smart bomb in highsec would manage to pop anyone... so.... Originally by: CCP Atropos I pod people because there's money to be made in selling tears.
Jowen Datloran Caldari Science and Trade Institute	Posted - 2008.07.11 11:31:00 - [69] Edited by: Jowen Datloran on 11/07/2008 11:31:07 Originally by: Kingwood Originally by: Jowen Datloran Originally by: Caiman Graystock Simple. Stop insurance pay outs for ships destroyed by concord. That is the way. Can't wait for the first whine on the forums; "Oh god, I accidentally activated a mod in High-Sec, got concorded and received no insurance. CCP, fix this!" I seriously believe that it will no problem. Of course accidents will occur, but they will be rare. What you instead will see on the forums are fake troll whines, who are mighty popular these days. ---------------- Mr. Science & Trade Institute
Kingwood Amarr Domini Umbrus Free Trade Zone.	Posted - 2008.07.11 11:36:00 - [70] Quote: thats what the warning labels are for =P!!!! but yeah, you COULD delay insurance payout... IE: if you managed to kill/pop someone OR get on the killmail as the killer in the next 20 minutes after concord popped you. you dont get insurance? but if you didnt pop anyone...you get it after the 20 minutes.... that way the accidents would get it. but a *successful suicide ganker wont? yeah I doubt people who accidentally shot at/activated a ECM burst/smart bomb in highsec would manage to pop anyone... so.... Yeah, let's make High-Sec the safe place it should be. A safe heaven from all the evil pirates who have nothing better to do than harrass honest players by suicide ganking. If I want to transport 2 billion in mods afk through High-Sec, I should be damn able to. It's not the game mechanics, it's the people playing this game. What a change like this leads to is dumbing down the game. I guess it's natural, considering the intellectual capacity of most of the whiners here.

Toshiro GreyHawk	Posted - 2008.07.11 11:41:00 - [71] Originally by: Chainsaw Plankton ... yea, and In a real universe I could take the system over, rather than fight an omnipotent police force. also noone really seemed to give a flying **** about the jihad swarm, except for those who paid the mercs. just because the mercs can't inflict the same amount of damage on the goons doesn't mean the systems broken. Yes, there are, not flaws ... but certain aspects of the game such as you've pointed out. Even with Factional Warfare, it's not like Planetside where the ultimate object of the game was to go around trying to conqueror everything - but can't you take control of a system in 0.0? Doesn't that exist to some degree? (That is a rhetorical question ...). Uh ... sure ... only the people getting blown up cared. But if you look at the stats on just how many miners got blown up the loses really were slanted in one direction. It isn't that one side lost more than the other - it's that one side was being SLAUGHTERED by the other on a consistent basis. CCP has given High Sec some degree of protection for a reason. There are some operations by some people that need some degree of protection. Otherwise - there wouldn't be any newbee miners. They'd all be base camped in their schools. Commercial vessels need some degree of protection from combat vessels. If you've really got your act together and are in a strong alliance then you can go on down to 0.0, take over a system and protect that system and your people in it AND reap the rewards for operating in 0.0. If you aren't in that situation, which a lot of people are not, then you need a bit of help and that's why the game has different levels of security. Nothing CCP is advocating is going to end suicide ganking or make High Sec a completely safe place to be. All they are talking about doing is redressing a problem. If the Goons hadn't done what they did though - we wouldn't be having this conversation. (See the link to the Goons Killboard posted in that thread). Yes, they certainly weren't and aren't the only ones - but they made a big show of it - which only encouraged copying ... so even more people did it. So it became a problem. All the wailing and knashing of teeth by the gankers posting here is just over reaction. Trust me - EVE is going to stay the same cold, heartless game it was designed to be and has always been. All CCP is doing is taking steps to keep things the way they were before suicide ganking became what it has become. This isn't about turning EVE into a warm fuzzy place filled with sunshine and laughter. It's about it not getting any more vicious and deadly than it already was.
Ki An Gallente Filiolus Of Bellum	Posted - 2008.07.11 11:47:00 - [72] Originally by: Toshiro GreyHawk Yeah right. It works like I said it did but you don't like my post so you pretend I'm wrong. yawn Did you start posting yesterday ... or can't you come up with a more original response than that? Lol... well, if you would take the time to read through the numerous threads about suicide ganking you would have a better idea why your views on it are based on complete fallacies. The originality of my response is higher than the originality of your rant, as that has been answered and debunked numerous times already. When you get the urge to post about a subject in which you have no experience, please, do us all a favor and step away from the computer. This debate is muddled enough by imbecilles who haven't the slightest clue. Originally by: Toshiro GreyHawk Some useless rant about how insurance in Eve would be realistic if only criminals didn't get it This is what I'm talking about when I say "do your ****ing research". You obviously haven't read any of the hundreds of posts debunking this nonsense. Filiolus of Bellum is recruiting
Ki An Gallente Filiolus Of Bellum	Posted - 2008.07.11 11:58:00 - [73] Originally by: CCP Wrangler As stated above, I did not write this, I just posted it. You'll have to ask the CSM. Do you think you could do us the favor of asking the devs mentioned in the OP to come here and answer a few of our questions - like how they can just suddenly realise that suicide ganking is too easy despite it having been the same way for five years? Would make us all feel much better about this I think. Filiolus of Bellum is recruiting
Toshiro GreyHawk	Posted - 2008.07.11 11:59:00 - [74] Originally by: Ki An Originally by: Toshiro GreyHawk Yeah right. It works like I said it did but you don't like my post so you pretend I'm wrong. yawn Did you start posting yesterday ... or can't you come up with a more original response than that? Lol... well, if you would take the time to read through the numerous threads about suicide ganking you would have a better idea why your views on it are based on complete fallacies. The originality of my response is higher than the originality of your rant, as that has been answered and debunked numerous times already. When you get the urge to post about a subject in which you have no experience, please, do us all a favor and step away from the computer. This debate is muddled enough by imbecilles who haven't the slightest clue. Originally by: Toshiro GreyHawk Some useless rant about how insurance in Eve would be realistic if only criminals didn't get it This is what I'm talking about when I say "do your ****ing research". You obviously haven't read any of the hundreds of posts debunking this nonsense. But - you see - I have done my research and come to a different conclusion than yourself. My conclusion - as it happens - is right and your conclusion - as it happens is wrong. Thus - you are the one who needs to remove the bias from your point of view - and look at what is really going on. Gankers abused - no - took advantage ... of a vulnerability in the game mechanics - and now they are being made to pay for it. If they'd not taken as much advantage of it as they did - we wouldn't be having this conversation. I'm not the one that caused the problem. CCP didn't suddenly wake up one morning and say "Hey! Lets go nerf some gankers today!" This all came about because a lot of people started doing the same thing and it had a real effect. The people who said "Hey! Lets all get together and go gank a real shit load of miners! We'll use cheap ships and cheap modules and Pend will pay for our lost ships! Man this will be cool. We'll really make those Care Bears squeal!" - they are the ones you have to thank for this. If they hadn't done so much of it - CCP wouldn't have changed anything. Isn't that the way this ALWAYS works? Someone comes up with a way to really take advantage of some game mechanic - and - the developers nerf it. What's the big surprise?
Keeves Minmatar Sexy Pirate Club	Posted - 2008.07.11 12:05:00 - [75] It's funny how many times the "griefer" niche needs to adapt to the whines of the super-rich who are goddamn lazy and afk haul billions in their T1 industrials. Risk vs Reward my ass. Sounds more like Reward vs better Reward.
Dr Slaughter Minmatar Rabies Inc.	Posted - 2008.07.11 12:09:00 - [76] Two thoughts on this really: 1. when you delete a character, it doesn't get deleted for a month So before you suicide gank with your alt. with the plan of re-cycling it, you know you're going to have to wait an entire month before you can start training again. 2. Delay insurance payouts on CONCORD destroyed ships for a month too. Rabies is unexpected ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ dealing with the UNDERPANTS of eve since 2004
Caiman Graystock Quantum of Solace	Posted - 2008.07.11 12:19:00 - [77] Edited by: Caiman Graystock on 11/07/2008 12:21:55 Originally by: Andy Grove Originally by: Caiman Graystock Edited by: Caiman Graystock on 10/07/2008 15:36:00 Simple. Stop insurance pay outs for ships destroyed by concord. And when I'm crusing through high sec and target you, you auto target me back and your mods are active, and you engage me, get popped by Concord, and don't get insurance, then what? Then it'd be my fault for having auto-target turned on, concord warnings turned off and weapons blinking when not engaging an enemy already. Perhaps it would promote people to be a little more careful in what they're doing. If someone has auto target back on, but has disabled the concord warnings, they only have their selves to blame for 'accidents'. There are measures in place for a reason.
Durzel Caldari	Posted - 2008.07.11 12:30:00 - [78] Originally by: Nemtar Nataal Simple solution is to add just a single logistical ship to the Concord detail moving in to protect a ship that is being ganged. This should only be a "feature" for the highest sec gangs like 1.0 and 0.9. A single logistical ship respawning with more Concord ships if it was killed, would make it significantly harder to do empire ganging and would hopefully reduce it to 0.8 systems and below. Wouldn't work. Suicide ganking works on the premise that you have already destroyed your target by the time CONCORD arrive, because when that happens you're instantly scrammed, jammed and omgwtfpwned. No one is doing any damage to a gank target once CONCORD are on grid, they're too busy with the dying. What frustrates me about the suicide gank debate is the argument that there are plenty of things the target can do to protect themselves. I don't buy that personally. If you arrive on the other side of a gate into a waiting gank party you're dead. Do not pass Go, do not collect ú200. There is literally nothing you can do in this situation, and unless you have a very peculiar fit theres no way any tank can survive ~20 seconds of overloaded torp volleys hitting you. The issue at heart really is the fact that faction & officer modules do not confer an added level of protection commensurate with their price tags. A 5 billion officer-fit battleship does the job in missions a bit faster, but against 6 Ravens that have a collective cost of about 100m (insurance payout - (ship + insurance cost)) it stands no chance. I'm not advocating that faction/officer modules should make ships a lot stronger, just pointing out a flaw if you will in the system.
Toshiro GreyHawk	Posted - 2008.07.11 12:30:00 - [79] Originally by: Dr Slaughter Two thoughts on this really: 1. when you delete a character, it doesn't get deleted for a month So before you suicide gank with your alt. with the plan of re-cycling it, you know you're going to have to wait an entire month before you can start training again. ... Uh ... I recently deleted a new character I'd made ... (poor choice of name ...) but it only took me a day or so ... maybe two ... and he was off to the bio-mass recycler. shrug
Ki An Gallente Filiolus Of Bellum	Posted - 2008.07.11 13:03:00 - [80] Originally by: Toshiro GreyHawk blaaarghhhevilpiratesgrieferswhaaa!!! Educate yourself. Nothing in the game mechanics has changed to make ganking easier since that was written. This invalidates your 'argument'. Filiolus of Bellum is recruiting

Chainsaw Plankton IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE	Posted - 2008.07.11 13:17:00 - [81] Originally by: Durzel Originally by: Nemtar Nataal Simple solution is to add just a single logistical ship to the Concord detail moving in to protect a ship that is being ganged. This should only be a "feature" for the highest sec gangs like 1.0 and 0.9. A single logistical ship respawning with more Concord ships if it was killed, would make it significantly harder to do empire ganging and would hopefully reduce it to 0.8 systems and below. Wouldn't work. Suicide ganking works on the premise that you have already destroyed your target by the time CONCORD arrive, because when that happens you're instantly scrammed, jammed and omgwtfpwned. No one is doing any damage to a gank target once CONCORD are on grid, they're too busy with the dying. What frustrates me about the suicide gank debate is the argument that there are plenty of things the target can do to protect themselves. I don't buy that personally. If you arrive on the other side of a gate into a waiting gank party you're dead. Do not pass Go, do not collect ú200. There is literally nothing you can do in this situation, and unless you have a very peculiar fit theres no way any tank can survive ~20 seconds of overloaded torp volleys hitting you. The issue at heart really is the fact that faction & officer modules do not confer an added level of protection commensurate with their price tags. A 5 billion officer-fit battleship does the job in missions a bit faster, but against 6 Ravens that have a collective cost of about 100m (insurance payout - (ship + insurance cost)) it stands no chance. I'm not advocating that faction/officer modules should make ships a lot stronger, just pointing out a flaw if you will in the system. except there are plenty of things a pilot can do to avoid being suicide ganked, to say otherwise is to whine out of your arse. and you should realize that your officer mods only give so much advantage, theres a show info button on the contract window, and a compare to option on the module info screen. and hell if its a 5bn fit I don't need insurance to gank it
Chainsaw Plankton IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE	Posted - 2008.07.11 13:19:00 - [82] Originally by: Ki An Originally by: Toshiro GreyHawk blaaarghhhevilpiratesgrieferswhaaa!!! Educate yourself. Nothing in the game mechanics has changed to make ganking easier since that was written. This invalidates your 'argument'. in fact ganking has been made harder!
Kazzac Elentria	Posted - 2008.07.11 13:26:00 - [83] Remove insurance and the problem goes away (along with a myriad of other issues with the game revolving around the industry and market)
Farrqua Minmatar Turbo Mining Inc.	Posted - 2008.07.11 14:27:00 - [84] Edited by: Farrqua on 11/07/2008 14:31:27 Originally by: Kazzac Elentria Remove insurance and the problem goes away ... No it doesn't.
Surreea	Posted - 2008.07.11 14:38:00 - [85] So suicide ganking in high-sec will be made harder/more costly, i can actually see some reasons supporting this... but don¦t make it too hard/costly, this isn¦t "hello kitty online", harder-yes , impossible-no make sure it doesn¦t equally hit normal low-sec piracy, it¦s hard enough as it is and is an essential part of low-sec while your at it, why don¦t you kick everyone older then 1-2 months out of the npc-corps? make them valid wardecctargets instead of suicide targets. the suggestion to connect sec-hits and faction/corp-standing sucks tbh, even pirates need to have a home and run some missions (if not for anything else then to be able to reform if they want), f***ing up their factionstanding would be a massive hit imo and not an easy one to repair just my humble opinions
Kazzac Elentria	Posted - 2008.07.11 14:40:00 - [86] Originally by: Farrqua Edited by: Farrqua on 11/07/2008 14:31:27 Originally by: Kazzac Elentria Remove insurance and the problem goes away ... No it doesn't. How so. Removing insurance lowers the profit barrier and would in essence reduce the number of incidents. EVE is not a pretty place and no place in space is safe. You cannot eliminate ganking, it would be idiotic to even remove it completely anyway. You can however eliminate the innumerable number of gank camps sitting on the borders of Jita, or at the chokepoints between major hubs since they exist for profit. They profit because insurance buffers the actions. Remove insurance and you remove the buffer and add cost. You can still gank...it'll just cost you more now.. the way it should be. ...I won't even get into the other benefits no insurance has since it's for another thread.
Princess Jodi Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2008.07.11 14:55:00 - [87] The most obvious problem is the payment of insurance to suicide gankers. I support the removal of ALL insurance from the game after a toon reaches a few million experience points. By then they should know better. CCP needs to implement a tracking system for biomassed toons. There needs to be a way to determine if someone is making suicide toons and recycling them frequently. Then ban the perps. The real key is making Bounty Hunting a viable profession. Being a Piewrat is a viable profession: its nemesis should also be viable. More viable, actually, as they are on the side of the law. Trends I like in the posts seen so far: - No insurance for Concorded ships - Reduced penalties for Low-sec pirating, Increased for High-Sech pirating - Tradable Kill Rights. Longer timers on kill rights. - Podding included with a Kill Right - Bounty reworking so PieWrats don't just have a buddy pod them - Bounty Hunter profession reworked CCP, I'm sure you're aware of just how divisive this topic is. Do what you can to allow Piewrats to exist: Just don't consign the rest of Eve to only exist as 'Prey'.
Efdi Minmatar The Illuminati.	Posted - 2008.07.11 15:09:00 - [88] Originally by: Yon Krum and then have one person take a four-hour sec hit. Unless CCP broke the code, or there's some sort of exploit floating around I don't know about, everyone on the killmail gets the sec hit. _______________________________ 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.
Rakivic Galactic Express Burning Horizons	Posted - 2008.07.11 15:12:00 - [89] Quote: 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 That is not true by the sound of that you never have been the victim of suside gankingà..if you have you would not be saying that if you lost about 100-200m worth of cargo not including the ship. There is a simple fix for this if a persons ship gets destroyed in high sec from a ganker simply have it so that he/she gets up to 60% value of said ship back. And also have a way to ensure the onboard cargo in a similar way, not just the ship like the system is now. Or have concordÆs ships be able to insta pop ANY ship as soon as it fires of the first roundàGanker looses his ship and the victim should get awayàif not there is the current insurance for that and also have it so that the cargo can be insured as well. ----------------------------------------------- [Image Removed] CCP did not like my signature so I had to replace it with this one
Efdi Minmatar The Illuminati.	Posted - 2008.07.11 15:20:00 - [90] Originally by: Rakivic Quote: 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 That is not true by the sound of that you never have been the victim of suside gankingà..if you have you would not be saying that if you lost about 100-200m worth of cargo not including the ship. There is a simple fix for this if a persons ship gets destroyed in high sec from a ganker simply have it so that he/she gets up to 60% value of said ship back. And also have a way to ensure the onboard cargo in a similar way, not just the ship like the system is now. Or have concordÆs ships be able to insta pop ANY ship as soon as it fires of the first roundàGanker looses his ship and the victim should get awayàif not there is the current insurance for that and also have it so that the cargo can be insured as well. This has got to be a troll. _______________________________ 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.



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.