Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
![Buck Futz Buck Futz](https://images.evetech.net/characters/1330198615/portrait?size=64)
Buck Futz
Suddenly Violence Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
56
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 17:19:00 -
[31] - Quote
Lord LazyGhost wrote:Buck Futz wrote:Lord LazyGhost wrote:easy to fix. if killed by concord no insurance pay out done dusted and suicide ganking will stop being as easy as it is to make a profit and only ships realy worth it will be killed..... Yeah, remove insurance for gankers! That will show them! ![Roll](https://forums-archive.eveonline.com/Images/Emoticons/ccp_roll.png) i never said it would stop them i said it would calm the efect of ganking. as less ships would be targeted as the risk vs reward or cost vs profit would be a lot more closly watched. only ships that are going to cover the cost of the fleet+ profit would be hit rather then somone ganking somone in said ship when there insurance covers all but say 10m of the cost. then they can go around ganking pritty much what they want as they only need to make say 50-100m to cover the cost of a small fleet as the insurance makes up the difference.
Personally, I think that if you remove insurance from gankers, it will lead to an increase in suicide ganking. Gankers will simply find ways to gank more cheaply and improve their tactics. And then carebears will just find something new to whine about....like getting ganked in destroyers.
But thats just me. What do I know?
|
![Sentinel Smith Sentinel Smith](https://images.evetech.net/characters/91391048/portrait?size=64)
Sentinel Smith
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
40
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 17:38:00 -
[32] - Quote
The problem isn't the suicide gankers.. it's the people being ganked that somehow feel they are entitled to more protection and to be babied.
I'm had 2 failed gankes on my when I was in a Badger/II .. How did I survive ? Simple.. I shield tanked it.. Just makes sense.. If your ship and it's contents are valuable, use some common sense.
Out mining ? Hey I hear there are lots of attacks on mining ships, maybe I should, Oh I don't know, TANK MY SHIP.. That way the lone Cata Won't take me down..
Gotta move something really expensive ? Orca Corp hold.. Gotta move a lot of something ? Freighter.. but add up the hold before I undock to make sure I'm not over 1-1.5 bil..
These are really simple things that imho should be common sense. Anyone getting poped for following it, sorry, I have no sympathy for. |
![Pohbis Pohbis](https://images.evetech.net/characters/732641455/portrait?size=64)
Pohbis
Neo T.E.C.H.
20
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 17:45:00 -
[33] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Tier 3 BCs aren't actually all that cheap now, especially once you've put a rack of large guns on them. Much cheaper than the fitted Tempest needed before, to alpha industrials tho. Quite a lot cheaper.
IMO they should improve the EHP of a tanked industrial so you need 2 ships with large guns to alpha it.
At least that way it's not every lonely bored guy trained with BC4 and meta large guns, who suicide ganks. Either a seperate account ( besides the "looter" ) would be needed, or a friend.
But yeah, not much change needed, if any at all.
Now if CCP does indeed introduce the tags you can turn in for sec status increase, then something probably needs to be done, since you're effectively allowing the ganker to buy back his sec with his profits.
So he doesn't even have to leave his gate, to get his sec up once in a while. |
![Ameron Phinard Ameron Phinard](https://images.evetech.net/characters/1428779998/portrait?size=64)
Ameron Phinard
15
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 18:12:00 -
[34] - Quote
. |
![Herping yourDerp Herping yourDerp](https://images.evetech.net/characters/90070857/portrait?size=64)
Herping yourDerp
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
533
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 18:21:00 -
[35] - Quote
make it so people with low sec statuses can't suicide gank, atm a -10 person can just use an orca to get into a ship warp to a belt and pop a hulk with little loss, sec status is hardly a deterrent for anything which is one of the bigger problems.
that and t2 ships so they can survive 1-2 catalyst suicide gank attempt and everything will be a it should suicide ganking should be about finding the idiot with 30 plex in a freighter, or frigate... not padding killboard stats with typical miner fits. |
![Retar Aveymone Retar Aveymone](https://images.evetech.net/characters/1863992548/portrait?size=64)
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
297
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 18:22:00 -
[36] - Quote
Pohbis wrote:Much cheaper than the fitted Tempest needed before, to alpha industrials tho. Quite a lot cheaper. not after insurance it isn't you dimwit |
![Retar Aveymone Retar Aveymone](https://images.evetech.net/characters/1863992548/portrait?size=64)
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
297
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 18:25:00 -
[37] - Quote
i have no brain and i must graze, tankless save me ccp |
![Tippia Tippia](https://images.evetech.net/characters/1938874952/portrait?size=64)
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6241
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 18:27:00 -
[38] - Quote
evereplicant wrote:Judging by the cheap high alpha T3 BC constant ganks, and the 5 thrashers can kill a hulk i am thinking not What constant ganks? By the look of the gates around here, it rather seems like a case of constant whines than actual ganks. Is there any actual data to suggest that they're nearly as GǣconstantGǥ as people like to claim? Also, have you run the numbers on what a T3 gank will cost youGǪ?
Oh, and for the record, the gankers said so quite clearly: the change wouldn't actually affect the amount of ganking.
Eternum Praetorian wrote:March rabbit wrote:need to say: there is no problem to solve. Freighter pilot has number of options to defend himself. Nano's also had a counter... other nano's. Remember? In other words, there was not a number of options to counter them, so that comparison falls flat on its face, and you know it.
Anyway, largely, the effect seems to have been that haulers have lulled themselves deeper still into a sense of false security, and keep coming back surprised that their complete lack of preventive measures are getting them killedGǪ shocking! ![Roll](https://forums-archive.eveonline.com/Images/Emoticons/ccp_roll.png) GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
![Cipher Jones Cipher Jones](https://images.evetech.net/characters/928056758/portrait?size=64)
Cipher Jones
The Thomas Edwards Taco Tuesday All Stars
492
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 18:29:00 -
[39] - Quote
evereplicant wrote:Judging by the cheap high alpha T3 BC constant ganks, and the 5 thrashers can kill a hulk i am thinking not CCP why do you keep doing this, remove something then add something that completely negates the nerf in the first place.
if you have 300mill in T3 BC loses, compared to a few billion ship kill, its really a no brainer..
couple of solutions 1) give freighters type ships more EHP and add slots for tank 2) remove cargo scanners - its a suicide gankers dream
Lol. My ship can be alpha'd, plz nerf my advasaries. thank you. We now return you to your regularly scheduled **** poast. |
![Retar Aveymone Retar Aveymone](https://images.evetech.net/characters/1863992548/portrait?size=64)
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
297
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 18:30:00 -
[40] - Quote
herp de derp let me just pilot 1b worth of goods in the wrong ship and lo and behold watch someone kill me how did this happen |
|
![Retar Aveymone Retar Aveymone](https://images.evetech.net/characters/1863992548/portrait?size=64)
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
301
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 18:32:00 -
[41] - Quote
ccp please buff shuttles it seems i get reliably ganked when i afk in them with plex in the cargohold |
![Revii Lagoon Revii Lagoon](https://images.evetech.net/characters/720212040/portrait?size=64)
Revii Lagoon
The Foreign Legion Test Alliance Please Ignore
74
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 19:36:00 -
[42] - Quote
How do you counter suicide gankers? You don't, they learn to adapt, unlike all the high sec pubbies who refuse to learn from their mistakes. |
![Tobiaz Tobiaz](https://images.evetech.net/characters/1796481945/portrait?size=64)
Tobiaz
Spacerats
316
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 20:00:00 -
[43] - Quote
Veshta Yoshida wrote:- Separate gate guns from Concord, triple or quadruple security hit when Concord has to put down their donuts to sort out unruly elements. - Give sec. gain to low-sec a huge bump, remove it in null (no "law") and decimate it in high-sec.
There, sorted suicide ganking once and for all. Still perfectly viable but with risk and cost equal to the deed.
You do know that CCP is planning on allowing players to sell NPC tags for sec. standing right?
For all the whiners about gankers: it has ALWAYS been part in EVE. Why is it so now popular?
1. the Tornado has an excellent cost-effectiveness 2. more idiots flying with more ISK in their ships then ever, increasing cost-effectiveness
You call them griefers, while history has show that it's mostly about simple ISK. Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!-á Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors! |
![Endeavour Starfleet Endeavour Starfleet](https://images.evetech.net/characters/91002127/portrait?size=64)
Endeavour Starfleet
809
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 20:45:00 -
[44] - Quote
Skydell wrote:No need to remove cargo scanners. Just add them to the list of GCC actions.
This sound's fair to me. |
![Tippia Tippia](https://images.evetech.net/characters/1938874952/portrait?size=64)
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6243
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 20:53:00 -
[45] - Quote
Skydell wrote:No need to remove cargo scanners. Just add them to the list of GCC actions. That makes pretty much no sense, and would only really serve to increase the number of ganks GÇö if you can't use planning and precision, you have to go for volume instead. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
![Ludi Burek Ludi Burek](https://images.evetech.net/characters/1213261663/portrait?size=64)
Ludi Burek
The Player Haters Corp
47
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 21:03:00 -
[46] - Quote
Here's a novel idea. How about you the people do something about and stop being useless, constantly asking for game mechanics help? I can guarantee you that anyone with half a brain is not on the ganking menu. Trawl the killboards a bit and see what kind of fits actually litter them. That's if you even understand ship fittings.
The forums are so full of stupidity these days, it seems like eve had a huge recruitment drive to get all the dumbest people in the world to subscribe. ![Roll](https://forums-archive.eveonline.com/Images/Emoticons/ccp_roll.png) |
![Nicolo da'Vicenza Nicolo da'Vicenza](https://images.evetech.net/characters/1136849519/portrait?size=64)
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Divine Power. Cascade Imminent
685
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 23:35:00 -
[47] - Quote
well said ludi well said |
![Cipher Jones Cipher Jones](https://images.evetech.net/characters/928056758/portrait?size=64)
Cipher Jones
The Thomas Edwards Taco Tuesday All Stars
494
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 23:40:00 -
[48] - Quote
Tobiaz wrote:Veshta Yoshida wrote:- Separate gate guns from Concord, triple or quadruple security hit when Concord has to put down their donuts to sort out unruly elements. - Give sec. gain to low-sec a huge bump, remove it in null (no "law") and decimate it in high-sec.
There, sorted suicide ganking once and for all. Still perfectly viable but with risk and cost equal to the deed.
You do know that CCP is planning on allowing players to sell NPC tags for sec. standing right? For all the whiners about gankers: it has ALWAYS been part in EVE. Why is it so now popular? 1. the Tornado has an excellent cost-effectiveness 2. more idiots flying with more ISK in their ships then ever, increasing cost-effectiveness You call them griefers, while history has show that it's mostly about simple ISK.
Even better than that you won't lose sec status from ganiking people w/o positive sec status.
So AFK ice miners in nub corps will become extinct.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled **** poast. |
![Boomhaur Boomhaur](https://images.evetech.net/characters/401332292/portrait?size=64)
Boomhaur
21
|
Posted - 2012.04.24 01:16:00 -
[49] - Quote
As a fellow carebear let me tell you something HTFU!!
If you don't like that, Hello Kitty Online is that a way ---> http://www.hellokittyonline.com/ |
![Veshta Yoshida Veshta Yoshida](https://images.evetech.net/characters/960693087/portrait?size=64)
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
69
|
Posted - 2012.04.24 02:28:00 -
[50] - Quote
Tobiaz wrote:Veshta Yoshida wrote:- Separate gate guns from Concord, triple or quadruple security hit when Concord has to put down their donuts to sort out unruly elements - Give sec. gain to low-sec a huge bump, remove it in null (no "law") and decimate it in high-sec
There, sorted suicide ganking once and for all. Still perfectly viable but with risk and cost equal to the deed. You do know that CCP is planning on allowing players to sell NPC tags for sec. standing right?...... On top of the current system where you are compensated extremely well while repairing it or as a replacement
Which tags? .. the ones we are already drowning in, making crimes such as suiciding even more widespread by moving it from low to zero consequence, o .. some new tags that will have low drop rates (ie. pricey)
My problem isn't with suiciding, could care less but not much. My issue is with people convicted of a crime (sec. drop) being paid the same as law abiding citizens while in the process of making amends in what is often 100% safety (deep blue sea of null) .. imagine if we in the RL paid our convicts blue-collar wages for stamping license plates or whatever slave labour they get to dabble with .. there should in the very least be a toggle somewhere that makes us choose between padding the wallet or reinforcing our karma (sec.)
Moving the whole thing to low-sec addresses all the issues in one fell swoop .. rats are worth less so toggle is unnecessary, there is actual risk while "working" and it just fits exceedingly well with RP as the Empires (Concord is the Empires, remember?) ought to be a lot more interested in keeping their own backyard safe from the pirate (NPC) menace than some generic black space on the map where they hold no influence. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |