EVE Search - [Issue] Suicide Ganking Part 2

All Channels

Assembly Hall

[Issue] Suicide Ganking Part 2

» 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)
Rsorh Nalozigur	Posted - 2008.12.03 14:19:00 - [31] Originally by: LaVista Vista We already discussed with CCP to remove insurance from suicide ganking. Isn't that enough? That discussion should have been enough, only thing aggravating the problem is that orca is a popular ship and any exploit related to it are going to become popular as well and then this thing needs to be addressed soon.
Ignition SemperFi Private Nuisance	Posted - 2008.12.03 14:35:00 - [32] except for the fact this isnt an exploit and is part of the game... now you may want suicide ganking changed but its part of the game. but remember your going off what the OP said and that there are NO consequences for the suicide gankers, but infact there are. Yes they get alot back with insurance, but not all of it usually. And if you have enough protection, chances are you can avoid the gank. High security space is safer space than lowsec/0.0 its not invulnerable isk printing space that you wish it to be. ------ People Say Im paranoid because I have a gun, I say I dont have to be paranoid because I have a gun. Garmon - "I LOK ON TO ROMULAN WARBIRD AND GO POW POW POW"
Re'taka Minmatar Republic University	Posted - 2008.12.03 17:01:00 - [33] Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah As can be read in this thread, criminals are once again destroying ships without consequence, even if they are already at -10 security status. The method: * Fly into empire in pod * Let neutral alt pile up ships in safespot (either with Orca or by ejecting) * Board ships and fly to belt * Activate smartbombs or ortherwise gank some targets * Let neutral alt loot the wrecks * Repeat Apparantly this system allows these players to ignore the limitations imposed by their security status, and are able to attack people with impunity. My personal gripe is not the suicide ganking itself, it is the fact that there are no consequences. The criminals do not lose much because of insurance, and are not affected by the security status hit. It once again is a easy way to make money. A clever use of a loophole in the system, sure, but I'm sure that CCP intends that suicide ganking should have consequences. Discuss, and do not hesitate to offer your suggestions. I would like to ask how this is a loop hole? just because your -10 doesn't mean you cant fly into highsec with a ship, it wont insta pop, concord doesn't reply to your being there, only the faction navy's do, I don't see the issue you speak of, because as it stands you can already fit out a BS jump into highsec warp to the belt and kill the hulk anyway. This is a non-issue issue.
Grann Thefauto Minmatar Delta India Echo	Posted - 2008.12.03 21:51:00 - [34] Given the following: 1. Insurance is voided when a ship is given to another player. 2. Player still loses ship that they had to pay for with the alt. It is thus false that there are no consequences. Also, the point of buffing Concord was NOT to make sure suicide ganking never happens, but to make it more difficult and/or costly. High sec was never meant to be 100% safe, nor should it ever be. Conclusion: Since concord response times are now much quicker and suiciders still face equal or higher consequences, this is working as it should. If you are mining without protection or not paying attention to a blinky battleship slowly coming towards you, it is your fault that you lose your ship.
Vaal Erit Science and Trade Institute	Posted - 2008.12.03 23:29:00 - [35] Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah My personal gripe is not the suicide ganking itself, it is the fact that there are no consequences. You get your security status lowered and your ship blown up. -10 pilots don't get a further sec hit but their ship DOES get blown up. You get a GCC for at least 15 minutes and are not really allowed in high security at all in anything bigger than a pod. Flying tech2 ships is a conscious choice you make. You can fly tech 1 ships and have little death penalty or fly tech 2 ships and receive lots of bonuses but have a huge death penalty. I see no reason why using cheap ships to destroy powerful single enemies is wrong, in fact I would say that is good gameplay mechanics and good strategy on behalf of the tech 1 pilots. Can't stand the heat, stay in the tech 1 kitchen. Also, stop *whining* about suicide ganking. It is part of the game and intended. It was SEVERLY nerfed lately and it is extremely hard to suicide gank in .7 and above. Also, STFU unless you have actually tried to suicide gank. You don't know what it entails and don't know anything about it. You flat out do not know what you are talking about. There are plenty of consequences. If there were no consequences in suicide ganking as you foolishly think, then a lot more people would be doing it. -- http://desusig.crumplecorn.com/sigs.html
Maximum KILLDEATHRATIO Minmatar 24th Imperial Crusade	Posted - 2008.12.03 23:40:00 - [36] Originally by: Venkul Mul Edited by: Venkul Mul on 03/12/2008 12:16:00 Originally by: Maximum KILLDEATHRATIO Get an alt of your own to shoot you with a civilian railgun in the belt you are mining. Instant concord bodyguards. And it still change nothing: smartbomb+enough damage to kill hulks fast and Concord make 0 difference for the miners. It is revenge but no defence. This is the best you'll ever get without CCP adding a system-wide deathray that instantly pops anyone that does damage to another player illegally. ___________________ Yes I'm bitter. (the taste you can see!)
Cyprus Black School of Applied Knowledge	Posted - 2008.12.03 23:49:00 - [37] Edited by: Cyprus Black on 03/12/2008 23:52:07 Edited by: Cyprus Black on 03/12/2008 23:50:46 Well, if a player in question has the lowest possible rating of -10, maybe Concord should start podding them. Maybe players with the lowest possible standing who want to atone and enter empire space again without being podded could serve time (aka an SP penalty). It certainly wouldn't put suicide ganking to an end nor should it, but rather it would slow down it's repetition by the same individuals. ___________________________________________________ The Escapist: EvE Online video review.
Resivan	Posted - 2008.12.04 05:11:00 - [38] The only suggestion I've seen in this thread or the original that I think CCP should actually implement is flagging a pilot who lets outlaws use his maintenance bay. The suicide squad gets Concorded; the haulers who do the looting get flagged for stealing. No reason to leave the Orca pilot out.
Dariah Stardweller	Posted - 2008.12.04 10:30:00 - [39] Originally by: LaVista Vista We already discussed with CCP to remove insurance from suicide ganking. Isn't that enough? Discussing is quite meaningless if it doesn't lead to consequences of course. But like I said: remove the insurance for suicide gankers (properly pls, no loopholes like selfdestruct or have yourself shot by alts/mates b4 concord finishes you off and receiving insurance anyway or something like it) and I'll be a happy person.
Drac Asiv	Posted - 2008.12.04 14:21:00 - [40] Originally by: Rsorh Nalozigur Remove insurance to anyone killed by concord. Agreed
Ignition SemperFi Private Nuisance	Posted - 2008.12.04 14:30:00 - [41] Quote: Given the following: 1. Insurance is voided when a ship is given to another player. This detracts from all of your orca are overpowered w/ pirates at the helm. Now if they flew in ships directly from lowsec (which is also a possibility) faction navies no longer scram ships instantly, infact they web instantly giving an easy warp off, as long as you can make it out in under 30sec. Just avoid the highsec stations So mainly this is a whine whine whine thread without knowing the full details. Sorry your isk printing machines arent invulnerable to everything.
ToTheCore Fire Mandrill	Posted - 2008.12.04 15:36:00 - [42] Not supported as it's not an exploit or anything close to it. It's a clever use of game mechanics and is working as intended. You could do the same thing prior to the orca being released, but you just needed to have ships in safespots.
Ombey Mirkur Draug'Tyr Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2008.12.04 15:38:00 - [43] Sorry, not supported. I'm no pirate, but I love the fact they are in the game. You nerf insurance on CONCORD deaths, that's fine- what will change? Nothing. They'll do it for the kicks, for the laughs, for the whining. It is very easy to make ISK in Eve, ISK loss won't stop it happening. CCP already brought in faster and heavier CONCORD response, and that still isn't enough? -- 2d EveMaps\|My blog
Javelin6 Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Associates	Posted - 2008.12.04 17:14:00 - [44] Originally by: Rsorh Nalozigur Remove insurance to anyone killed by concord. This. No other changes necessary.
Drake Draconis Minmatar Brutor tribe	Posted - 2008.12.04 17:19:00 - [45] I mentioned this in an another thread... or was it this one? Can't find it... I'll just say it again. Perhaps the gates should lock out pilots that are around -7 to -8 and lower sec status? On top of voiding of insurance.
Nadarius Chrome Celestial Industrial Alliance	Posted - 2008.12.04 22:01:00 - [46] It would be nice if there were practical ways to protect a ship in highsec. Maybe a suicide ECM-burst frigate or destroyer, to break the locks of anyone in the area if your MO gets suicided? Given that remote repping is far too slow for a concerted, focused attack, maybe a new module that would allow a logistics ship to project a forcefield, like a tiny POS shield-like thing, around a ship that prevents it being targeted and needs to be destroyed (or destroy the projecting logistics ship) before the target can be attacked. Prevent a ship so-guarded to do anything offensive, just like a POS shield prevents people targetting out. You could have your logistics ships on standby with friendlies targetted, and if a hostile fleet warps in you can activate these shields. They'd drop the protected ship's locks (and hence would be considered hostile if you're not in the same corp, to save people exploiting it) but means the attackers would first need to take out the logistics ship. This is just rattled off the top of my head so there's quite likely to be serious flaws with it. But maybe the suicide ECM-burst ship would work within existing mechanics. Sure, concord would be paying you a visit too but if the attackers get their insurance payouts, why can't you?
Haakelen Gallente Cassandra's Light Caeruleum Alliance	Posted - 2008.12.04 22:17:00 - [47] Originally by: Nadarius Chrome Given that remote repping is far too slow for a concerted, focused attack, Shield extenders/extender rigs/Invuls on a hulk + remote shield reppers (which have a very short cycle time).
Nadarius Chrome Celestial Industrial Alliance	Posted - 2008.12.04 22:53:00 - [48] Fitting mining ships for combat (thereby compromising their primary function), simply because of combat ship ineffectiveness in said combat, is hardly a suitable solution. IMO.
Haakelen Gallente Cassandra's Light Caeruleum Alliance	Posted - 2008.12.04 23:39:00 - [49] Originally by: Nadarius Chrome Fitting mining ships for combat (thereby compromising their primary function), simply because of combat ship ineffectiveness in said combat, is hardly a suitable solution. IMO. Shield extenders are combat modules now? what. I didn't mean put the shield reppers on the hulks. You could always, y'know, have one person sit in a Raven or something with a bunch of reppers, if you insist on staying in a stationary blob (an arrangement highly attractive to smartbombers, but whatever). Spreading the ships out and having them aligned (even passively) would not only make smartbombers less likely, but would greatly reduce the success of most suicide ganks. Or you could just sit in one place, quasi-AFK, with no tank or security, and wonder why you keep dying.
Tai Paktu Beyond Divinity Inc	Posted - 2008.12.04 23:58:00 - [50] Originally by: Hesod Adee If I was doing the ganking, I would have multiple safe spots setup in that system and the first time I see another player at one SS, we stop using that SS. So basically what you're saying is that this sort of thing would require some effort and planning to do well? 'cus I thought suicide ganking was something that was really easy and had few consequences and the ones it did have didn't matter. Isn't that what the whines are about? If you want to kill the pods, use some smarties of your own. Probe out the safe (a well skilled pilot can do it in under 30 seconds) and light them up. The fact of the matter is that EvE favours the prepared and the one who takes the initiative. The choice to sit in a large, smartbomb-able blob in a belt with a bunch of Hulks and Itty 5s with no tank and no logistics is yours. You make it knowing that you could be ganked whenever. Originally by: Haakelen Or you could just sit in one place, quasi-AFK, with no tank or security, and wonder why you keep dying. Get out of here with your logic.
Felysta Sandorn coracao ardente Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.12.05 01:57:00 - [51] Oh my, stop whining about suicide ganks and go play Hello Kitty Online! Seriously, you got your pirate nerf to the extreme! So much so in fact, that I know 8 players who used to be pirates leave EVE! Yes, that's about ú100 a month less to CCP... Who voted you on to the CSM? .: A Vagabond's Requiem (Blog) :.
FunzzeR Death of Virtue	Posted - 2008.12.05 05:17:00 - [52] Woah, you want to nerf piracy more despite the fact that there are many risks and consequences for going down that path. There are many ways to avoid getting ganked, of course many of them require thinking--which is what most of us pvpers and pirates do, yet we get nerfed for our ingenuity? Something is wrong with this picture.... I have missioned, mined, traded, and manufactured in the past and have never ever gotten ganked.. Not because of luck, but I took the time to understand the mechanics and determine the safest and most efficient ways to do them. THINKING is the best defense/offense that a play has in this game regardless of the player's profession. VIGILANCE is the player's second best defence/offence. I will summarize my arguement by pointing out that incompetence on the part of the individual player is not a acceptable justification for nerfing an already challenging playstyle. I walked a mile your shoes (as a miner/mission runner/industrialist) I suggest you walk a mile in mine...
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2008.12.05 10:11:00 - [53] Originally by: Ignition SemperFi And if you have enough protection, chances are you can avoid the gank. Care to explain what could be doing the "enough protection" to protect you in high sec space? Kill everyone that enter the system? Shoot the smartbombing ships while they warp in through some magic of them? Remote repping the mining ships hoping they are fast enough and skilled enough to save them? Care to define the numbers of "enough protection" against the numbers of miners and how you think to compensate them while earning 10 millions hour per miner? If you feel the risk is low as long as the number of suicide gankers is low, fine, say that. If you feel that suicide ganking is fine, again, it is your right to say that. But try to be honest and don't say that it is possible to protect efficiently miners in high sec. In high sec you can react only when the attack has started (barring wars) and at that point the mining ship is already doomed.
Myrhial Arkenath Ghost Festival	Posted - 2008.12.05 10:20:00 - [54] Originally by: LaVista Vista We already discussed with CCP to remove insurance from suicide ganking. Isn't that enough? This. If players are willing to invest enough ISK to get this whole chain running then they should be able to. The OP is really sounding as if wanting to make hisec 100% safe Not the game most of us signed up for I believe. Diary of a pod pilot
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2008.12.05 10:22:00 - [55] Originally by: Grann Thefauto Given the following: 1. Insurance is voided when a ship is given to another player. 2. Player still loses ship that they had to pay for with the alt. False statement or ignorance. 1. Insurance is voided if the ship is in the hands of another player when the ship is destroyed. If the person that insured it get it back and it has never been repackaged in the meantime, the insurance is still valid. 2. Ok, the alt paid the ship, them main insured it and get the money. So he still get the isk on one of his characters. So if the suicide ganking character is already at -10 and the ship is insured he will get out of the ganking attempt with almost 0 cost and practically 0 consequences.
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2008.12.05 10:36:00 - [56] Originally by: Nadarius Chrome It would be nice if there were practical ways to protect a ship in highsec. Maybe a suicide ECM-burst frigate or destroyer, to break the locks of anyone in the area if your MO gets suicided? **** edit to add: I don't believe suicide attacks should be impossible. I don't believe highsec should be "safe", just "safer". I don't believe that that safety should be free. Make people who are willing to work for it, able to improve their safety. As it stands, 5 hulks and an iteron are at no greater risk than 5 hulks, an iteron, with three BC/BS guards. That's just illogical. Concord use ECM very well, but gankers use smartbombs, as they need to kill fast, without locking targets. Yes, suicide ganking should be allowed, but while hi-sec should be safer and not safe, suicide ganking should be doable, not 0 cost even if you get nothing. The whole issue is that currently it is possible to suicide gank at 0 isk cost and with this tactic at 0 sec status cost, removing any consequence.
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2008.12.05 10:41:00 - [57] Originally by: Haakelen Originally by: Nadarius Chrome Given that remote repping is far too slow for a concerted, focused attack, Shield extenders/extender rigs/Invuls on a hulk + remote shield reppers (which have a very short cycle time). 1 medium shield extender and 1 resits. Wow tons of hit points. Rigs on a ship you need to move from system to system often. Another smart move (but the Orca here will help). and you are still increasing a low shield value. Remote repping in advance. So what is your idea of a mining op? 2 hulks, 1 basilisk, 1 hauler? The return is still 10 millions/hour for each hulk. Again where you get the isk for the protection pilots?
Anarich Caldari Perkone	Posted - 2008.12.05 12:09:00 - [58] Edited by: Anarich on 05/12/2008 12:09:46 Mining Ships are like wet tissue paper, that said I don't think any playing style should be nerfed out of existence, even though that has what has happened in the past. I like variety in gameplay. As long as any group is not too inconvenienced, why change a playstyle. First I think concord is too uber buff. They shouldn't always be able to pawn everything. And currently the high sec suicide gankers with -10 sec status aren't so widespread that they cannot be avoided. Kinda like cloaked ships were used to avoid concord in the past. I think that should still exist to an extent, like basically you could maybe sneak into high sec for small period of time and in that time there is a chance you will be detected. Currently concord is this omnipresent, all knowing, all powerful force guarding high sec and I don't think it should be that way. Concord should be powerful, yes, but it should exist as individual ships with patrol routes that have to rely on intel to respond to a crime. And residents of a system should have to pay money like in taxes(sales, mining, mission) in order for concord to exist and vote on tax rates or elect representatives to run a system. The representative(major, etc.) can then decide how to tax the system and how to use the funds to buy and repair concord ships, gateguns, and creating laws, and other functions. There should be max tax rates of course. This can effectively create dynamic security systems. Basically this will allow people to effect geography of space itself. If a local pirate gang wants to convert a high sec system to low sec all they need to do is destroy all the concord spawns in the system. This may take a few days for the higher sec systems(1.0) and can be further increased in difficulty by concord replacing itself due to taxes. This would result in pirates having other options. On the mining/mission running side, they can convert a low sec region to a high sec region by actively mining and mission running and engaging in market transactions. You can also temporarily have low sec ores in a high sec region due to this. If the balance is done correctly you would see an equal number of low sec regions appearing as you see high sec regions appearing.
Esmenet Gallente	Posted - 2008.12.05 12:22:00 - [59] Originally by: Haakelen Or you could just sit in one place, quasi-AFK, with no tank or security, while whining on the forums for mommy to come protect you. Fixed it :)
V3 Empire Gallente Kildare Industries	Posted - 2008.12.05 14:17:00 - [60] Alright, this method of suicide ganking is old. If you guys do some tests, you will notice that there is only 1 tiny fix which is necessary, which wouldn't require much efforts: give the police frigate warp scrambling abilities with a warp strength of 9. This would prevent pirates from boarding ships at a safespot and then being able to warp to a belt. For those who have followed "yarr" lessons, you should know that police spawns wherever you go. Only issue is that the police frigate locks first and webs, a thing which in fact makes you warp faster (the other ships in the police spawn take significantly more time to lock you, therefore cruisers can escape without being scrambled). So it is currently possible for a cruiser to escape the police for quite a while in high sec space. This simple idea would fix the issue in 10 seconds instead of waiting 6 months for ccp to come up with a better idea. Well, on the other hand you can simply wait for the long solution with insurance, but still, losing a cruiser means nothing (I mean a caracal is like what... 3 or 4 million ISK? It's laughable).

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.