Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Cipher Jones
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2010.06.26 16:17:00 -
[61]
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: Cipher Jones your sig says it all. Quote: ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki
Suiciding isn't fighting by a longshot.
Of course not ù it's not for "what you have" after all, but rather for "what someone else has, but you want". It's the receiver of the gank that "has it" and who needs to fight to keep from losing it.
àand, as mentioned, if they started to fight over their stuff, the risks for the gankers would increase dramatically; it would be easier to keep your stuff; and everyone would be happy.
How does one suicide gank? In a ship? You don't deserve it and you will lose it. I guess that's why they lose it when they gank. You logic seems great up till now. What about the ISK? Not willing to fight for it so you'll lose it much? No, it doesn't hold water. This is clearly a signature. |
Jiks
Caldari Prophets of Doom
|
Posted - 2010.06.26 16:23:00 -
[62]
Hisec is not safe, it never was safe and is not intended to be safe.
As has been said many times "Concord do not provide safety, they provide consequences." If you are repeated losing billions you are doing something wrong. Depending what/where you are hauling a 'ceptor, a blockade runner, a supertanked battleship/deep space transport, an orca or freighter might be the best option, it varies. If what you are carrying is worth suiciding a freighter for get some escorts with webs, ECM and remote reps. Have instant undock and warp-away gate BMs sorted. Needless to say in the name of God don't fly AFK! In short use your brains and the tools the game provides and you should never get suicided unless you have really, really annoyed people ...
The recent insurance changes make suicide ganking less profitable so if anything less of this sort of thing will be happening in future ...
|
Gladys Pank
Amarr Trillionaire High-Rollers Suicidal Bassoon Orkesta
|
Posted - 2010.06.26 16:23:00 -
[63]
So basically there are solutions, the OP recognises these solutions but thinks they are 'wierd' and therefore carries on losing ships because he is doing it wrong.
Train an orca - Wont do it
Put an mwd and cloak on a deep space transporter - Too dumb to think of it.
I'm willing to bet he is autopiloting.
High sec space hasn't changed, tactics have... you might want to update yours.
|
Breaker77
Gallente Reclamation Industries
|
Posted - 2010.06.26 16:29:00 -
[64]
Originally by: myfirst
Originally by: Phaese It is literally impossible to get killed in highsec in a blockade runner. Are you aware that they can fit cloaking devices?
I was talking about T2 Haulers, not some armored trolley with a cloaking ability
A Blockade Runner IS a T2 Hauler.
Fail troll is fail
|
RaWBLooD
|
Posted - 2010.06.26 17:01:00 -
[65]
Learn to fit your ships better, learn to use courier contracts for expensive items, learn to adapt to the game instead of asking for the game to adapt to you. miners-you can: switch, rob, wardec, nerf, scam them, buy below market, pirate them on their way to sell. mining < trading, ratting, manufacturing from market bought minerals,they still wont go away |
Wyke Mossari
Gallente Staner Industries
|
Posted - 2010.06.26 17:04:00 -
[66]
Originally by: Tippia ... that's not something the game can fix: both the risk and the reward is in the hands of the players.
Wrong, insurance means there is minimal risk that suicide gankers will lose money, even the dumbest have their losses under-written by insurance. Other players have absolutely no influence on that.
They have little or no downside or loss. That IS fixed by removing insurance from CONCORD kills.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2010.06.26 17:12:00 -
[67]
Edited by: Tippia on 26/06/2010 17:15:46
Originally by: Wyke Mossari Wrong, insurance means there is minimal risk that suicide gankers will lose money, even the dumbest have their losses under-written by insurance. Other players have absolutely no influence on that.
They have little or no downside or loss. That IS fixed by removing insurance from CONCORD kills.
Ehm. Yes they do. The reason there is "little downside or loss" is because people refuse to take advantage of their kill rights. Fiddling with insurance will not fix this. Fiddling with insurance will only mean that people will think "oh, it costs so much to gank, so I'm saf*BOOOOM*" and then they come here to whine about how something should be done about gankingà
The "solution" to ganking is to kill the gankers. This creates the downside, the loss, and the risk people want to see (but aren't willing to create themselves).
And as others have mentioned, there's still the matter of showing that there is problem that needs to be solved, and a game issue that needs to be fixed to begin withà
Quote: 2) Haulers are punished for dumb choices. - I'm fine with that.
They're being punished because other players choose to punish them.
Quote: 3) Suicide gankers are NOT punished for dumb choices. - I'm NOT fine with that. It's dumb and actually indefensible in Eve to reward it.
They're not punished because players choose not to punish them. If you're not fine with it, go out and do something about it.
Or are you suggesting a tit-for-tat? Institute automated punishment mechanics for ganks, and some kind of automated punishment mecahnics for haulers? Eg. undock with cargo that's more than 10× as valuable as the ship, and the ship automatically self-destructs. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki |
ITTigerClawIK
Amarr Galactic Rangers Galactic-Rangers
|
Posted - 2010.06.26 17:30:00 -
[68]
Originally by: MindFray EVE is dying.... Find a new game IMO read around and read into the threads. You will see. CCP is so worried about new content they are not willing to address specific issues. I'm sorry to say this but... I'm waiting for a new sandbox with better graphics an not programed in python. If CCP could generate and keep new players thy could easily expand but the problem is the SP system prevents new player from feeling like they can get ahead. Let say this . Of 56,000 player how many are Alts of players dual boxing? Next remove 1/3rd of the player base when Starcraft 2 luanches in July what I left?
Can i has your stuff?
Sig space reclaimed in the name of me -courtesy of Tiggy ([email protected]) |
Ori Blake
|
Posted - 2010.06.26 17:42:00 -
[69]
Originally by: Tippia Ehm. Yes they do. The reason there is "little downside or loss" is because people refuse to take advantage of their kill rights. Fiddling with insurance will not fix this. Fiddling with insurance will only mean that people will think "oh, it costs so much to gank, so I'm saf*BOOOOM*" and then they come here to whine about how something should be done about gankingà
The "solution" to ganking is to kill the gankers. This creates the downside, the loss, and the risk people want to see (but aren't willing to create themselves).
And as others have mentioned, there's still the matter of showing that there is problem that needs to be solved, and a game issue that needs to be fixed to begin withà
For someone who is supposedly so keen on markets, you sure don't get that retallation often makes no economic sense. Depending on the worth of the cargo lost you may not be able to recoup it at all unless the wartarget is really stupid and flies a big dumb expensive ship in a place with no backup.
This is assuming you have kill rights on a main, and not on an alt they use for ganking to shield the main from reprisal. There needs to be more economic incentive to try and use killrights when high value ISK cargoes are lost. Currently there's no point to, and even killing the ganker may not have deterrent value.
|
Cigney
Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2010.06.26 18:06:00 -
[70]
Quote: 3) Suicide gankers are NOT punished for dumb choices.
A dumb decision a suicide ganker might make is trying to suicide something too large for the number of people he has available. The punishment is loss of his ship, his time, and his sec status. There are tons of dumb decisions suicide gankers can make.
|
|
Breaker77
Gallente Reclamation Industries
|
Posted - 2010.06.26 18:50:00 -
[71]
Originally by: Cigney
Quote: 3) Suicide gankers are NOT punished for dumb choices.
A dumb decision a suicide ganker might make is trying to suicide something too large for the number of people he has available. The punishment is loss of his ship, his time, and his sec status. There are tons of dumb decisions suicide gankers can make.
Lets not forget they gank someone that has everything inside 1 container and the container pops and they get nothing. Then they suffer the above mentioned punishments and still get nothing even though they killed the hauler.
|
Felix Esperium
Lysergic Distortions Research and Development
|
Posted - 2010.06.26 19:00:00 -
[72]
Originally by: Gladys Pank So basically there are solutions, the OP recognises these solutions but thinks they are 'wierd' and therefore carries on losing ships because he is doing it wrong.
Train an orca - Wont do it
Put an mwd and cloak on a deep space transporter - Too dumb to think of it.
I'm willing to bet he is autopiloting.
High sec space hasn't changed, tactics have... you might want to update yours.
|
Jim Luc
Caldari Rule of Five Lucky Starbase Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.06.26 19:29:00 -
[73]
I propose a few things that may fix this, but first a few points:
security ratings don't really mean anything. .5 and higher are all the same from what I've seen, with .4 and lower all the same as well.
To make the security points actually worth something, I propose more CONCORD in the higher security systems, and more likely to get involved as soon as a shot is fired, instead of waiting till a ship blows up.
Also, CONCORD can send special ops fleet to chase after someone with low enough security status as soon as they enter system. If they have a low rating, they are pushed out of the system, into low security space. This forces pirates to choose - do they want to risk a low security status? Is it worth the gank?
Don't pay out insurance for CONCORDED ships. Did Burnie Madoff get reimbursed by his insurance company when the Federal Government seized his assets and put him in prison?
A sandbox game, to be a true sandbox, should attempt to mimic real life mechanics. Some areas have higher security than others. I don't expect someone to open fire in front of my house, and if someone does, I sure as hell don't expect it again, ever. High sec ganking will still be around, but the goal is to increase the risk the higher the security rating in the system.
|
Felix Esperium
Lysergic Distortions Research and Development
|
Posted - 2010.06.26 19:32:00 -
[74]
Originally by: Jim Luc
Don't pay out insurance for CONCORDED ships. Did Burnie Madoff get reimbursed by his insurance company when the Federal Government seized his assets and put him in prison?
This has nothing to do with anything.
I will mention though that authorities are now pretty sure he hid away billions before he was caught.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2010.06.26 20:05:00 -
[75]
Originally by: Jim Luc security ratings don't really mean anything. .5 and higher are all the same from what I've seen, with .4 and lower all the same as well.
There are a number of different bands of security within empire in terms of what you can and cannot do. In addition, sec rating and sec status are intimately linked.
Quote: I propose more CONCORD in the higher security systems, and more likely to get involved as soon as a shot is fired, instead of waiting till a ship blows up.
That's already how it works. As soon as you do something nasty, you get a global timer; as soon as you get a global timer, CONCORD starts coming your way. The higher the sec level, the sooner they show up.
Quote: Also, CONCORD can send special ops fleet to chase after someone with low enough security status as soon as they enter system.
Already happens, only with faction police and navies.
Quote: A sandbox game, to be a true sandbox, should attempt to mimic real life mechanics.
Non sequitur. A true sandbox would mean that there are no mechanics at all ù that the players would provide for all services, including security. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki |
N0N
|
Posted - 2010.06.26 22:56:00 -
[76]
When there is already a way to transport through hi and low sec, with almost 100% immunity, this thread is null and void.
But I believe the OP is a troll so.....
|
Xiang Jiao
|
Posted - 2010.06.26 23:26:00 -
[77]
Originally by: Tippia A true sandbox would mean that there are no mechanics at all ù that the players would provide for all services, including security.
I agree. Remove CONCORD and paying mercenaries for protection becomes feasible. Otherwise, transferable kill rights for bounty hunters.
|
Janjan Jansen
Amarr Black Viper Nomads
|
Posted - 2010.06.26 23:58:00 -
[78]
Originally by: Xiang Jiao
I agree. Remove CONCORD and paying mercenaries for protection becomes feasible. Otherwise, transferable kill rights for bounty hunters.
2 things i want to add: - Perhaps haulers should get off their industrial ships strap a nice pvp ship on. And go hunt 'm down when they are weak. - Use 2 haulers of the same type, and quickly drop and scoop cargo so they dont have a chance to get loot if you move stuff in Giant secure containers. which combat ship can carry those.
|
Dograzor
The Black Rabbits Academy The Gurlstas Associates
|
Posted - 2010.06.27 00:10:00 -
[79]
@ OP
Go away. There are a thousand threads about this, and they are all started by carebear tears and awnsered in silence by CCP.
There will be no fix for suicide ganking, ever.
Only fix there should be is is in the "multi billionaires" heads, portrayed by this simple formula:
Several billion isk in hauler + autopilot = bad
Below billion isk in hauler - autopilot = good.
With the good option, you'll lose less, and be able to fly safer. Lesson learned. -
"We don't gank, we just apply force in a disproportionate manner during an uneven tactical combat situation to maximize revenue and increase shareholder value" |
Saelie
|
Posted - 2010.06.27 00:34:00 -
[80]
Nobody mentioned the biggest risk of suicide-ganking - After you go through all the effort and lose all the ships to gank that hauler, that someone completely unrelated will grab the loot and run away with it, leaving you with nothing but a sec status hit and a bunch of lossmails. Especially if the loot you're after fits in a frigate-sized cargohold. I say this from experience after getting several very angry tells from suicide-gankers.
That said, odds are if you get suicide-ganked, you did something wrong. I've transported billions through one of the most gank-happy systems in the game (Niarja) and never been bothered. People I have seen get ganked (Not just haulers either) tend to do one of the following Silly Things:
1) Moving things that are disproportionately valuable compared to the ship's survivability. 2) Lingering too long on gates. 3) Autopiloting. 4) Giving too much information about what they're carrying. 5) Becoming known as a 'good target.' 6) Not flying with escorts.
By not doing these six things, you can quite easily move all manner of cargo throughout high-sec with no problems.
|
|
Captain Yifan
Shadows Of The Requiem
|
Posted - 2010.06.27 00:54:00 -
[81]
Originally by: Wyke Mossari Edited by: Wyke Mossari on 3) Suicide gankers are NOT punished for dumb choices. - I'm NOT fine with that. It's dumb and actually indefensible in Eve to reward it.
You sir, dosent seem to grasp the concept of oppurtunity cost.
Let me ask you, if someone waited 5 hours to gank a hauler that is only carrying 100million isk of stuff, assume he manages to grab all the loot and his loss of money of his gank-ship is totally covered by insurance, how much profit did he make?
|
Zill
The Scope
|
Posted - 2010.06.27 01:13:00 -
[82]
If the highsec warrior elite (lol) want to spoil peoples game time for their own kicks, that is fine. But CCP should at least show some balls an enforce a no insurance on concord death. At least then all the costs are not borne by the pve'er who doesn't give a monkeys about some silly griefer who lacks the stones to go fight in 0.0 where they shoot back.
And please, don't drag out the old "we take a huge sec loss when we kill you" blah blah, that is easily burned off an we all know it.
Funny enough few years ago, highsec was worse than it is now, but the pvp warriors as they call themselves, demanded it be nurfed. So CCP pandered tot hem an boosted concord an removed the timers from 0.6+. Now they did it again by allowing these teen forum bangers to do exactly same thing again an profit off it.
|
Gladys Pank
Amarr Trillionaire High-Rollers Suicidal Bassoon Orkesta
|
Posted - 2010.06.27 01:55:00 -
[83]
I like how people get butthurt and think gankers believe they are being 'elite pvpers'. It's also amusing that it's assumed this is all they do.
I do the odd high sec gank, I don't really need the money but it's good to keep the coffers topped up. It's not big, it's not clever. I don't do it for tears or any of that nonsense, It's just an efficient way to make money.
It's beyond your comprehension to realise that people engage in a variety of activities.
|
1Ekrid1
|
Posted - 2010.06.27 01:59:00 -
[84]
Originally by: Yuki Kulotsuki
Originally by: Whiner My request is now, is there ANY plans to solve highsec ganking? Or does CCP just watch the fun, that PvP is happening now in highsec too without wardec?
CCP Eris Discordia on Hulkageddon III:
Originally by: CCP Eris Discordia Sweet!
I heartely endorse any event where people come together to defend the poor and endangered asteroid from exploitation. I've heard that recent studies have shown that asteroids experience something that might be unpleasant during mining Woe you little asteroid..woe
Link.
Safer not safe and all that jazz. You got any stuff?
Hulkagedon is greifing. griefing is against the EULA. Eris of CCP approves of hulkagedon. Therefore, griefing is fine, and the EULA is not enforced, when CCP approves of it, or you can make it look okay. Therefor, the EULA is a pile of horse crap and CCP doesnt really care about enforcing it. There's 1, repeat 1, frigate in the T1 lineup designed to be a suicide tackler. the rest are for COMBAT. so don't tell me to tackle when I'm in a combat T1 frig. OR tell CCP to fix their mess. |
Herateis
|
Posted - 2010.06.27 02:14:00 -
[85]
Originally by: Kaptain Kruncher
You could be their leader.
Or, you could remain a victim.
Either way, pull your pants up and get on with it.
Eve online. the only place in the world where victims of the R crime are told this.
|
Felix Esperium
Lysergic Distortions Research and Development
|
Posted - 2010.06.27 02:23:00 -
[86]
Originally by: Herateis
Eve online. the only place in the world where victims of the R crime are told this.
You have obviously never been to GBS.
|
Whiny McEmokid
|
Posted - 2010.06.27 02:35:00 -
[87]
Originally by: myfirst I know this is a game and real life does not always apply, but just to point out the absurdity of the situation here is a real life comparison:
-Bank Robbers buy Armoured vehicle for hit and run on Bank. -Bank Robbers succesfully knock down bank walls but are killed by police in the process. -Seemingly unrelated 3rd party walks into Bank vault and takes all the money, without committing a crime. Police stand around and watch. -Friendly insurance company generously compensates bank robbers' families for 'unfortunate' loss of life and their armoured vehicle."
all that proves is RL suicide ganking needs a buff
|
Balsak
Minmatar Friends of Bigfoot
|
Posted - 2010.06.27 02:39:00 -
[88]
Originally by: 1Ekrid1
Hulkagedon is greifing. griefing is against the EULA. Eris of CCP approves of hulkagedon. Therefore, griefing is fine, and the EULA is not enforced, when CCP approves of it, or you can make it look okay. Therefor, the EULA is a pile of horse crap and CCP doesnt really care about enforcing it.
Just on the extremely slim chance you aren't trolling. Would you please explain how exactly Hulkageddon is griefing ?
|
Cipher Jones
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2010.06.27 04:14:00 -
[89]
Originally by: Balsak
Originally by: 1Ekrid1
Hulkagedon is greifing. griefing is against the EULA. Eris of CCP approves of hulkagedon. Therefore, griefing is fine, and the EULA is not enforced, when CCP approves of it, or you can make it look okay. Therefor, the EULA is a pile of horse crap and CCP doesnt really care about enforcing it.
Just on the extremely slim chance you aren't trolling. Would you please explain how exactly Hulkageddon is griefing ?
Just on the extremely slim chance you really dont understand what griefing is:
Quote: Definitions of Griefing on the Web:
* A griefer is a player in a multiplayer video game that purposely irritates and harasses other players. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griefing
This is clearly a signature. |
Jason Babbage
|
Posted - 2010.06.27 04:17:00 -
[90]
Originally by: Cipher Jones
Originally by: Balsak
Originally by: 1Ekrid1
Hulkagedon is greifing. griefing is against the EULA. Eris of CCP approves of hulkagedon. Therefore, griefing is fine, and the EULA is not enforced, when CCP approves of it, or you can make it look okay. Therefor, the EULA is a pile of horse crap and CCP doesnt really care about enforcing it.
Just on the extremely slim chance you aren't trolling. Would you please explain how exactly Hulkageddon is griefing ?
Just on the extremely slim chance you really dont understand what griefing is:
Quote: Definitions of Griefing on the Web:
* A griefer is a player in a multiplayer video game that purposely irritates and harasses other players. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griefing
Hmmmm, I've been trying to unload some product on the market all day and some other players keep undercutting my price. It irritates me quite a bit and I'm sure they are modifying their orders on purpose. Does that mean I am being griefed?
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |