EVE Search - Suicide Ganking- still too easy

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Suicide Ganking- still too easy

» 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 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
RedSplat	Posted - 2009.01.02 15:39:00 - [61] OP no offence but i wish people like you didnt play eve, or rather that you stopped trying to warp it into an ice cream and rainbows hug fest.
Al Drevika	Posted - 2009.01.02 15:45:00 - [62] Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: Al Drevika Sure, I'd be happy with a working bounty system, too. I've been behind that for a long time. I guess I've just given up since it's been rejected for years. Meanwhile there is a highly efficient exploit to avoid being suicide ganked. Don't spread it around or you'll pretty much eliminate a legitimate profession in EvE, but not going AFK is an almost perfect defence. If anyone asks, I didn't tell you, OK? If you actually read the thread or just used your brain cells, you'd realize it doesn't take a hauler in Jita being afk to be a target. Cargo scanning takes 5 seconds. Locking on and scramming is only a few seconds more. Try turning a hauler with three cargo expanders, it's more than enough time. So, STFU until you actually think things through.
maCH'EttE Counter Errorist Unit	Posted - 2009.01.02 15:49:00 - [63] Originally by: Al Drevika Podkills are not allowed for -5 sec (without penalty). Two representatives of CCP said so. Get a clue. Players with -5 sec are outlaw and can be podded. Originally by: Al Drevika ...my indy is toast, no matter how well I tank it (indy's just aren't built for that). There is no countermeasure to suicide ganking in high sec space. Check 'Transport Ships' on the market. Originally by: Devil Hanzo (ISD) I got pwned!
Al Drevika	Posted - 2009.01.02 15:49:00 - [64] Originally by: RedSplat OP no offence but i wish people like you didnt play eve, or rather that you stopped trying to warp it into an ice cream and rainbows hug fest. Wanting a working sec status or bounty system to return balance is hardly what you describe. I've been proposing real solutions here, it's the gank-babies that are whining and offer nothing to the discussion other than whining about how their way of life would be changed, that it might actually get harder for them to find targets, and how it's "their game anyway." If they day ever comes that CCP returns balance, there will be a deluge of tears. YOU FAIL. All of you ganking whiners.
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators Chubby Chuppers Chubba Chups	Posted - 2009.01.02 15:57:00 - [65] Originally by: Laiyna Edited by: Laiyna on 02/01/2009 11:12:40 Originally by: MongWen Originally by: Wendat Huron Concord should podkill anyone at -10. Pirate NPC's should do the same against their -10 aswell. signed on both. Yeah! Im up for this! SIGNED How about it carebears? Does your LOGICAL INNIT extensions of concord powers also apply to the npc pirates youf fight again and again and again and again in your missions? I always thought it strange that rats with descriptions suches as "Threat Level: Deadly - One of the most feared killers of the galaxy (blah blah blah)" would stop shooting mission runners/ratters when they were in their pod! Some sort of evil guilt trip or something? Lets get these pirates podding mission runners and ratters! It makes total sense. Also to balance this lets have concord podding -10 pilots. SKUNK Originally by: CCP Navigator People who think I am joking or talking big are going to understand very quickly that there will be order
Kessiaan Minmatar Army of One	Posted - 2009.01.02 15:57:00 - [66] Originally by: Destination SkillQueue The difference is that pirates want players to be in control, while bears want NPCs to limit players actions. Pirates would propably prefer systems, that allowed and encouraged players to secure themselves instead of more NPC hand holding. This. Current mechanics are fine - avoiding pirates in highsec is very, very easy already as long as you wake up, pay attention, and make some attempt at dealing with said pirates.
Al Drevika	Posted - 2009.01.02 16:01:00 - [67] Originally by: maCH'EttE Originally by: Al Drevika Podkills are not allowed for -5 sec (without penalty). Two representatives of CCP said so. Get a clue. Players with -5 sec are outlaw and can be podded. Originally by: Al Drevika ...my indy is toast, no matter how well I tank it (indy's just aren't built for that). There is no countermeasure to suicide ganking in high sec space. Check 'Transport Ships' on the market. I never thought of having to use a transport ship in high sec space, but true, that would fit two web scrams with the expanders (and the Bustard has the extra warp strength anyway, if I recall). I can afford, but it's out of the price range of a lot of people hauling. Something like 100 mil for the ship and skill book, I think.
Al Drevika	Posted - 2009.01.02 16:03:00 - [68] Originally by: Le Skunk Edited by: Le Skunk on 02/01/2009 16:00:20 Originally by: Laiyna Edited by: Laiyna on 02/01/2009 11:12:40 Originally by: MongWen Originally by: Wendat Huron Concord should podkill anyone at -10. Pirate NPC's should do the same against their -10 aswell. signed on both. Yeah! Im up for this! SIGNED How about it carebears? Does your LOGICAL INNIT extensions of concord powers also apply to the npc pirates youf fight again and again and again and again in your missions? I always thought it strange that rats with descriptions suches as "Threat Level: Deadly - One of the most feared killers of the galaxy (blah blah blah)" would stop shooting mission runners/ratters when they were in their pod! Some sort of evil guilt trip or something? Also they dont even loot the players bloody wreck! What sort of pirates are these nubs!!! Lets get these pirates podding mission runners and ratters! It makes total sense. Also to balance this lets have concord podding -10 pilots. SKUNK Sure, I would have no problem with that. Honestly. It would make mission running more interesting (not so much to me- I have more isk in my ship than in my implants).
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators Chubby Chuppers Chubba Chups	Posted - 2009.01.02 16:04:00 - [69] Originally by: Kessiaan Originally by: Destination SkillQueue The difference is that pirates want players to be in control, while bears want NPCs to limit players actions. Pirates would propably prefer systems, that allowed and encouraged players to secure themselves instead of more NPC hand holding. This. Current mechanics are fine - avoiding pirates in highsec is very, very easy already as long as you wake up, pay attention, and make some attempt at dealing with said pirates. Indeed - actually sitting at the keyboard and playing the game would have ensured the OPs ship and cargo got safely to its destination. He chose to go and watch TV whilst his ship was being automatically piloted. This gives the advantage to a player who was actualy sat playing the game. Dosent take a genius to work this out. SKUNK Originally by: CCP Navigator People who think I am joking or talking big are going to understand very quickly that there will be order
Peter Wheatstraw Gallente Odyssey SDC	Posted - 2009.01.02 16:05:00 - [70] Edited by: Peter Wheatstraw on 02/01/2009 16:06:16 The only thing I see "wrong" with the current game mechanic vis-a-vis suicide ganking is the insurance payout. My suggestion is, roll-back the Concord response buff to what it used to be, and instead, alter the insurance payout to be commensurate with the sec status of the offender, to a percentage of the whole payout based on sec status, e.g., sec status -2.0 ins payoff of 80% of face value, -5.0 ins payoff is 50% of face value, -7.0 is 30% of face value, -10.0 is 0% of face value, etc.. And before someone pipes up and says it, no, there is no "bonus" payout for positive sec status......+5.0 gets you the same as 0.0 .... 100% of face value. Problem solved, no?
BruisedMoon Amarr Power Seed Enterprises A.X.I.S	Posted - 2009.01.02 16:13:00 - [71] Originally by: Al Drevika Originally by: Falcon Troy I never said the problem had an easy solution (or one a all) but that doesn't negate the existence of it. There's actually a number of good suggestions. But CCP has to decide to quit slanting the system in favor of PVPers, first. Some I've heard include: - No insurance payout for ships destroyed by Concord actions (stop financing SGing) - Allow PKs on -5 sec status and below by anyone - Make taking or destroying player wrecks/loot in high sec a Concord offense (drive down the sec status of the looting alts). - Have gate/station sentry guns open fire on pods These are all easily rationalized concepts. We're not asking for protections (like insuring our cargoes), just to level the playing field and make low sec standing actually meaningful. That's all. Until I see you at -10.0, you need to stfu and gtfo.... Seriously dude, its not as easy as it sounds, or it looks.. Most of the -10s that you see in high sec have an idea of what they are doing. Your so freaking ******ed (in game) its pathetic! This game was met for pvpers, if you want a carebear friendly game play something else, I hear Disney has a new fairy game out... my friends sister was telling me about it the other day, I bet that would be perfect for you.. no suicide ganking in that!
F4LC0N	Posted - 2009.01.02 16:17:00 - [72] maybe you want to protect your hauler with a logistics ship it usualy takes less time to target and remote shield or armor boost or us a blackbird or other ecm ship to jam the attacker then to target, scan, decide if it is worth it and kill the hauler. you're just to lazy to use the stuff you can to protect your hauler.
Al Drevika	Posted - 2009.01.02 16:34:00 - [73] Originally by: F4LC0N maybe you want to protect your hauler with a logistics ship it usualy takes less time to target and remote shield or armor boost or us a blackbird or other ecm ship to jam the attacker then to target, scan, decide if it is worth it and kill the hauler. you're just to lazy to use the stuff you can to protect your hauler. The solution is to run an alt? You must work for CCP then. There are better and more reasonable fixes than handing CCP another $12/month.
Hebik Fane The Ginger Stepkids	Posted - 2009.01.02 16:43:00 - [74] Originally by: Al Drevika Originally by: F4LC0N maybe you want to protect your hauler with a logistics ship it usualy takes less time to target and remote shield or armor boost or us a blackbird or other ecm ship to jam the attacker then to target, scan, decide if it is worth it and kill the hauler. you're just to lazy to use the stuff you can to protect your hauler. The solution is to run an alt? You must work for CCP then. There are better and more reasonable fixes than handing CCP another $12/month. Or in a game with 100s of thousands of other people playing along with you, you could, you know, ask a friend.
BruisedMoon Amarr Power Seed Enterprises A.X.I.S	Posted - 2009.01.02 16:56:00 - [75] Originally by: Hebik Fane Originally by: Al Drevika Originally by: F4LC0N maybe you want to protect your hauler with a logistics ship it usualy takes less time to target and remote shield or armor boost or us a blackbird or other ecm ship to jam the attacker then to target, scan, decide if it is worth it and kill the hauler. you're just to lazy to use the stuff you can to protect your hauler. The solution is to run an alt? You must work for CCP then. There are better and more reasonable fixes than handing CCP another $12/month. Or in a game with 100s of thousands of other people playing along with you, you could, you know, ask a friend. Don't be silly, we can all tell that this dude doesn't have any friends! So yes get an alt!
Sniper Wolf18 Gallente Apocalypse Ponies	Posted - 2009.01.02 17:18:00 - [76] I've suicide ganked, i've been suicide ganked (my own dumbass fault) and since that time i've not been ganked since. Learn from your mistakes, buy an orca (the nigh invunerable hi-sec hauler). Or just fly a hauler and dont be a dumbass. By the way, does it annoy you when you didnt realise that you were reading my sig?
Malcanis R.E.C.O.N. The Firm.	Posted - 2009.01.02 17:32:00 - [77] Originally by: Al Drevika Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: Al Drevika Sure, I'd be happy with a working bounty system, too. I've been behind that for a long time. I guess I've just given up since it's been rejected for years. Meanwhile there is a highly efficient exploit to avoid being suicide ganked. Don't spread it around or you'll pretty much eliminate a legitimate profession in EvE, but not going AFK is an almost perfect defence. If anyone asks, I didn't tell you, OK? If you actually read the thread or just used your brain cells, you'd realize it doesn't take a hauler in Jita being afk to be a target. Cargo scanning takes 5 seconds. Locking on and scramming is only a few seconds more. Try turning a hauler with three cargo expanders, it's more than enough time. So, STFU until you actually think things through. Perhaps you'd like to explain then why every single time someone complains about being suicide ganked it always turns out that they were AFK...?
Gambuk	Posted - 2009.01.02 17:33:00 - [78] Pod killing -10s? I mean come on people. I am at about -7. I became -7 by mainly fighting people WHO WERE OUT LOOKING FOR FIGHTS. I just happened to do in in .1-.4 sec, so I took security hits. Why do I take security hits on lower-sec? I'm not exactly sure, but now im a "Fugitive" because I attack people cruising around in PVP fitted frigs/cruisers/BC's. I have ganked the occasional miner/carebear travelling into lowsec, but like everyone knows, Concord pops me if I attacked anyone in .5 or above, so I never killed anyone staying in highsec before. They came into my "pvp" territory, and got PVP'd. Why should I be punished more than I already am? I dont suicide gank. I travel to highsec sometimes for equipment/ships. Whats the problem? Seriously... I'd say -6 of my sec status is from killing PVPers.
Pwett Minmatar QUANT Corp. QUANT Hegemony	Posted - 2009.01.02 17:55:00 - [79] Originally by: Al Drevika If you actually read the thread or just used your brain cells, you'd realize it doesn't take a hauler in Jita being afk to be a target. Cargo scanning takes 5 seconds. Locking on and scramming is only a few seconds more. Try turning a hauler with three cargo expanders, it's more than enough time. So, STFU until you actually think things through. You are invulnerable for 30 seconds. Make an undock bookmark with a mwd'd frig if you know you're carrying important cargo. Immediately warp to the bookmark while still under invulnerability timer. Turn around in the safespot and carry on. If you're carrying something valuable in a t1 hauler, then you need to rethink your business plan. _______________ Pwett Founder <Q> QUANT Hegemony
Strel Samodelkin Caldari Nationalist Party	Posted - 2009.01.02 17:59:00 - [80] Originally by: Al Drevika Originally by: Falcon Troy I never said the problem had an easy solution (or one a all) but that doesn't negate the existence of it. There's actually a number of good suggestions. But CCP has to decide to quit slanting the system in favor of PVPers, first. Some I've heard include: - No insurance payout for ships destroyed by Concord actions (stop financing SGing) - Allow PKs on -5 sec status and below by anyone - Make taking or destroying player wrecks/loot in high sec a Concord offense (drive down the sec status of the looting alts). - Have gate/station sentry guns open fire on pods These are all easily rationalized concepts. We're not asking for protections (like insuring our cargoes), just to level the playing field and make low sec standing actually meaningful. That's all. That is the best idea there. Players with low sec standing should be KoS to EVERY high sec status player, AND killing them should even raise your sec status a bit. They're pirates, wanted by the law, why can't we fire on them? Caldari Nationalist Party
F4LC0N	Posted - 2009.01.02 18:05:00 - [81] there are many ways to avoid most situations you just have to figure them out.
F4LC0N	Posted - 2009.01.02 18:08:00 - [82] Originally by: Strel Samodelkin Originally by: Al Drevika Originally by: Falcon Troy I never said the problem had an easy solution (or one a all) but that doesn't negate the existence of it. There's actually a number of good suggestions. But CCP has to decide to quit slanting the system in favor of PVPers, first. Some I've heard include: - No insurance payout for ships destroyed by Concord actions (stop financing SGing) - Allow PKs on -5 sec status and below by anyone - Make taking or destroying player wrecks/loot in high sec a Concord offense (drive down the sec status of the looting alts). - Have gate/station sentry guns open fire on pods These are all easily rationalized concepts. We're not asking for protections (like insuring our cargoes), just to level the playing field and make low sec standing actually meaningful. That's all. That is the best idea there. Players with low sec standing should be KoS to EVERY high sec status player, AND killing them should even raise your sec status a bit. They're pirates, wanted by the law, why can't we fire on them? you already can shoot anyone flashing which you start when you're -5 so where's the problem?
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators Chubby Chuppers Chubba Chups	Posted - 2009.01.02 18:11:00 - [83] Originally by: Strel Samodelkin That is the best idea there. Players with low sec standing should be KoS to EVERY high sec status player, AND killing them should even raise your sec status a bit. They're pirates, wanted by the law, why can't we fire on them? This is totally unacceptable. Why should people be able to fire on and pod kill outlaws!! ITs disgusting. CCP would never implement this!!!! SKUNK Originally by: CCP Navigator People who think I am joking or talking big are going to understand very quickly that there will be order
F4LC0N	Posted - 2009.01.02 18:14:00 - [84] why do we have high sec systems anyway?
Xtreem Gallente Knockaround Guys Inc.	Posted - 2009.01.02 18:25:00 - [85] people with -10 should still be aloud to enter all hi sec, in any ship, same rules apply if they agro - concord whip them, however when -10 in empire anyone can shoot them, and they can shoot back ofc without concord. even if they could bring ships in they cant do any damage to people unless they fire first and would make high sec alot more risky for them now rather than scooting along in pods :)
Blastil	Posted - 2009.01.02 18:34:00 - [86] Originally by: Al Drevika There's actually a number of good suggestions. But CCP has to decide to quit slanting the system in favor of PVPers, first. Some I've heard include: - No insurance payout for ships destroyed by Concord actions (stop financing SGing) - Allow PKs on -5 sec status and below by anyone - Make taking or destroying player wrecks/loot in high sec a Concord offense (drive down the sec status of the looting alts). - Have gate/station sentry guns open fire on pods These are all easily rationalized concepts. We're not asking for protections (like insuring our cargoes), just to level the playing field and make low sec standing actually meaningful. That's all. 1) Already in place. Concord-related deaths do not pay insurance. 2) Also already in place. All flashy red pods and ships in highsec are shootable. Remember, if it flashes, kill it. 3) You want us to kill Ninja salvage, perhaps the only thing that keeps rig prices depressed so you can play EVE-Offline?? screw you too! 4) It doesn't mater, since pods INSTA WARP before the guns can lock you. This fact alone is how I cruise my interceptors through highsec and can win at EVE, unlike you aparently. Low security status is ALREADY extreemly gimping. I can't roam through lowsec win a heavy ship thanks to that little number, because I could get trapped in lowsec with a battleship or a battle cruiser, and the fact there is literaly no contiguous lowsec routes between regions (except black rise) forces me to own a hauling alt to get to my destinations. Or PVP in blackrise. Open universe right? Honestly, if it werent for the fact that trade needs to happen or else my HAC will cost a fortune, I'd rather see all empire space become NPC 0.0 It might actually be safer for you after that.
Pan Crastus Anti-Metagaming League	Posted - 2009.01.02 18:41:00 - [87] Look at all the PVP noobs crying "wawawa please don't take my easy suicide ganks away cuz I'll have to fight targets that shoot back otherwise" ... 1) Insurance on ships blown up by CONCORD is stupid and must go 2) podding of flashies should be possible everywhere 3) the use of alts to circumvent many game mechanics should be looked at... if it can't be limited, then the mechanics must change to accomodate alt abuse that's all. How to PVP: 1. buy ISK with GTCs, 2. fit cloak, learn aggro mechanics, 3. buy second account for metagaming
Aerick Dawn Gallente Clown Punchers. Clown Punchers Syndicate	Posted - 2009.01.02 18:44:00 - [88] My alt got popped last night in Jita. I blame nobody but myself though. :) More or less what happened is I was afk. So they had all the time in the world to set it up. The suiciders were both -10 guys. They must have had alts drop BS's for them. I would assume corp insured. Both BS's were fitted with SB's. They blew my viator up, had about 200mil in stuff in it. All of the valuable stuff exploded too, so they wound up with crap and two blown up bs's. Dont be afk in Jita, and yeah the mechanics of what they did are gamey, but its in the game..so...Welp. __________________ If I'm in a fair fight, i've done something terribly wrong.
Grarr Dexx Amarr Paxton Industries Paxton Federation	Posted - 2009.01.02 18:45:00 - [89] Shows just howmuch people know about aggression rules and howmuch they want to gimp their own survivability by making it more specialized. I'm also surprised noone has said this to the OP, but I'll have a go at it: GO BACK TO WOW! ----- Nexus stamps of approvalÖ count: 1
Blastil	Posted - 2009.01.02 18:46:00 - [90] Originally by: Pan Crastus Look at all the PVP noobs crying "wawawa please don't take my easy suicide ganks away cuz I'll have to fight targets that shoot back otherwise" ... 1) Insurance on ships blown up by CONCORD is stupid and must go 2) podding of flashies should be possible everywhere 3) the use of alts to circumvent many game mechanics should be looked at... if it can't be limited, then the mechanics must change to accomodate alt abuse that's all. 1) I'm pretty sure this has already been done. If not, its supposed to come with our bounty hunting/PVP buff sometime in the next year. Its a high priority. 2) Already done. You just cant lock us because your in your ****ing CNR. 3) Like logistics ships helping CNR's run level 4's in record times? yeah, totaly unfair man. Alts have always been a part of the game. there really is no such thing as 'alt abuse'.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 :: 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.