EVE Search - Make sucide ganking more difficult

Search EVE-Online forums for:

All Channels

Assembly Hall

Make sucide ganking more difficult

» 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 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Leandro Salazar The Blackguard Wolves	Posted - 2008.05.22 15:01:00 - [1] Edited by: Leandro Salazar on 22/05/2008 15:40:42 Just to be reiterate things for the uninitiated, the issue at hand is this: A mission runner in a semi-decently fitted ship is scanned at his mission station using a passive targeter. The gankers find the fitting offers enough profit potential, and thus he makes the list of gankworthy targets or something. Now the systems the agents send people to are well known, so the ganksquad waits on the other side of one of the gates till one worthwhile targets comes by. They open up on him and there is nothing he can do to save himself. Concord takes a merry 25 secs or so before they show up in .5 sec, by that time he is dead just from the fire of about 5 ravens with overheated siege launchers and his loot goes to the gankers, who lose next to nothing thanks to insurance. Same thing happens to haulers on the highways I guess, even though there it is usually untanked industrials carrying valueable cargo on autopilot and thus just inviting disaster. Now I find this to be very wrong, and while there are many solutions, the one I favor is this: When you are killed by concord, you do not receive any insurance payout if you actually killed someone with your criminal act. If you did not kill anyone, you get your insurance. This would serve the following: - Higher margin of value for mission runner/T2 haulers to put on their ships to be safe from gankers out for profit. - Unsuccessful ganks would still have the same minor consequences they have now. - People can still gank for grudges or ****s/giggles, but it would cost them something now. - Paper indies with billions in cargo would remain the gank targets for caracals they are supposed to be Ok, but I digressed. Whether this or some other solution is implemented, the question is does suicide ganking need a nerf or not? Make suicide ganking more difficult!
Leandro Salazar The Blackguard Wolves	Posted - 2008.05.22 15:01:00 - [2] And I guess I need to post again for my support... Make suicide ganking more difficult!
Shenko Minara	Posted - 2008.05.22 15:08:00 - [3] This topic has been done to death. The only support for this will come from the sheltered folk that aren't interested in the majority of Eve as a game, just pimping out their Ravens to do the same grind everyday. This forum should also have a "thumbs down" option, since this thread badly needs it. -- 99% of Eve-o posters should stop posting. This probably includes me, but definitely includes you.
Leandro Salazar The Blackguard Wolves	Posted - 2008.05.22 15:25:00 - [4] Edited by: Leandro Salazar on 22/05/2008 15:27:37 Originally by: Shenko Minara This topic has been done to death. The only support for this will come from the sheltered folk that aren't interested in the majority of Eve as a Shenko Minara's game, just pimping out their Ravens to do the same grind everyday. This forum should also have a "thumbs down" option, since this thread badly needs it. There, fixed it for you. I kinda agree on the thumbs down option, but since according to the current rules issues can only be voted in but not out, it would be kinda pointless anyway... Make suicide ganking more difficult!
Tusko Hopkins HUN Corp. HUN Reloaded	Posted - 2008.05.22 15:26:00 - [5] Edited by: Tusko Hopkins on 22/05/2008 15:28:27 I support the idea, no insurance payout for high sec gankers, no matter if the gank is successful or not. When a ship is killed by CONCORD, the owner should not receive any kind of insurance payout. It might be interesting to consider returning the insurance fee if there was any, so that it doesnt look like a big SCC ripoff. First alternate to CSM.
Divad Ginleek Gateway Industries House of Mercury	Posted - 2008.05.22 15:37:00 - [6] Yes, suicide ganking needs a nerf. And I think your solution is the first one that seemed to balance the risk with rewards (leaving indies as easy targets and all.) The main gripe I have with it is the insurance payout. I don't care that they managed to gank a faction fitted CNR in highsec, thats game mechanics and part of the risk you take for flying a bank vault around on missions. What needs to change is the fact that the gankers are actually rewarded for ganking twice, first from the loot and then from the insurance payout that makes their "losses" more like that of an unfitted BC, not a T2 fitted BS. Ganker and carebear alike should see that this is a hole in the system that needs to be patched. People say your whining if you complain that you got suicided, but the fact is its a one sided system. the victim stands to lose everything with little chance of escape, and the attacker stands to lose what, 20 mil for fittings? heavily offset by the hundreds of millions, or even billions they can make off the loot. EVE is a harsh game, keep it that way. just make it harsh for everyone. as it stands now, it seems the highsec suicide gangs are the only real carebears having their hands held by the corrupt insurance system. (For the record, I have never been suicided, and I actually come down on the side of the ganker on most cases, untanked industrials on autopilot, for example. those need to be blown up just to teach a lesson. I just don't like seeing plot holes in movies, book, or MMOs ) ::insert witty signature here::
Moridrex	Posted - 2008.05.22 15:40:00 - [7] Voting for loss of insurance to people who get concordokken, and transferable killrights for the gank victim. Reason being dedicated miners typically do not have the skills to defend themselves; being able to transfer their kill right to mercs would be far more useful and make the ganksquads think about whether it's REALLY worth suiciding that target....
Paaaulo Minmatar Mafia	Posted - 2008.05.22 16:02:00 - [8] Kill rights should be able to be sold, i.e mission runner/hauler gets ganked, then they can sell the kill rights onto a bounty hunter. Changing insurance payouts would be silly.
Shenko Minara	Posted - 2008.05.22 16:28:00 - [9] Originally by: Leandro Salazar There, fixed it for you. Thanks for that, if you like I can go back and fix your op for you too: "hello, I play Eve but it would be better if it was like WoW and didn't have consequences." There's more I could imply about your lack of willing to explore Eve as a whole, but since we're only making a single alteration to each other's posts... Originally by: Tusko Hopkins Edited by: Tusko Hopkins on 22/05/2008 15:28:27 I support the idea, no insurance payout for high sec gankers, no matter if the gank is successful or not. When a ship is killed by CONCORD, the owner should not receive any kind of insurance payout. It might be interesting to consider returning the insurance fee if there was any, so that it doesnt look like a big SCC ripoff. And suddenly your multi-billion Navy Raven that you care so much about gets blown up by accident because you left a weapon on prefire and Concord don't care... I guess people need to think before they react in these forums, huh? -- 99% of Eve-o posters should stop posting. This probably includes me, but definitely includes you.
Jack Gilligan Dragon's Rage Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2008.05.22 16:35:00 - [10] I agree. This amounts to insurance fraud. If the suiciders want to suicide, fine, they can, but they should lose insurance payouts. This change wouldn't end suiciding, it'd make it more expensive. My opinions are my own and do not reflect those of my corporation or alliance.

agent apple Spartan Industries Cruel Intentions	Posted - 2008.05.22 16:46:00 - [11] No as its a biased idea. If you want more realistic insurance then it goes both ways. Zero payout for criminals + Compulsory insurance for all ships in high sec + Appropriate cost of insurance for high risk ships and pilots While the insurance system does need looking at, and while suicide ganking is far to easy on the criminal party, this is neither the reason to do it or the way to do it.
Leandro Salazar The Blackguard Wolves	Posted - 2008.05.22 16:49:00 - [12] Originally by: Shenko Minara Thanks for that, if you like I can go back and fix your op for you too: "hello, I play Eve but it would be better if it was like WoW and didn't have consequences." There's more I could imply about your lack of willing to explore Eve as a whole, but since we're only making a single alteration to each other's posts... Oh I do explore EVE as a whole, except for those parts where I would visit grief upon people that have not done anything to me, that is just not my cup of tea. But I prefer PvP keeping mostly (note: NOT exclusively) to the areas designed for it, i.e. lowsec and 0.0, and make highsec PvP the exception. This trend for suicide ganking is relatively recent anyway, induced by a number of outside factors such as lack of targets in lowsec, price explosion in deadspace gear, prices for ships and standard fittings dropping to rock bottom, higher player count... What I want is not WOW in space, but the EVE that I played for a good two years, where highsec was actually safer, and not just less unsafe. Quote: And suddenly your multi-billion Navy Raven that you care so much about gets blown up by accident because you left a weapon on prefire and Concord don't care... Well, isn't EVE supposed to be a cold harsh place where mistakes are instantly punished? I just think that running missions in a moderately pimped ship should not be a 'mistake' but actually a common playstyle, while obviously you think the opposite. Make suicide ganking more difficult!
Herschel Yamamoto Bloodmoney Incorporated	Posted - 2008.05.22 16:53:00 - [13] I thought this was going to be a pretty dumb whine thread from the name, but if the suggestion is just to remove insurance from Concord kills, I'm for it. Makes sense inside the universe, doesn't really interfere with a valid part of the game(ganking idiots moving too much stuff in not enough ship) too much, and fixes some really silly possibilities. I'll hardly lose sleep if it doesn't pass, but it's a reasonable option. ------------------ Fix the forums!
Farrqua Turbo Mining Inc.	Posted - 2008.05.22 16:54:00 - [14] Unfortunately it would not make it "expensive", it would just force them to change the tactics and end up netting the same result. And you have to understand the impact it would have on the n00b starting out. Being n00bs they will make mistakes and it would hurt them far more than it would hurt the suicide gankers. In this case we should focus on the act and access the penalties based on that type of action. The penalty should be directed to the character committing the act not creating a global penalty that would affect the innocent noobs that would essentially cripple them in their progression. The denial of the insurance is too much of knee jerk solution and has no consideration of the global affect to others that do not suicide gank. I do not support the insurance solution, but I do support the continue discussion.
Piitaq 19th Star Logistics	Posted - 2008.05.22 17:00:00 - [15] I agree with this. I would even extend it to when people destroy their ship on purpose, they dont get any insurance pay out at all. I mean what insurance company would pay, for someone destroying their insured valuables on purpose?
Leandro Salazar The Blackguard Wolves	Posted - 2008.05.22 17:05:00 - [16] Originally by: Farrqua Unfortunately it would not make it "expensive", it would just force them to change the tactics and end up netting the same result. And you have to understand the impact it would have on the n00b starting out. Being n00bs they will make mistakes and it would hurt them far more than it would hurt the suicide gankers. In this case we should focus on the act and access the penalties based on that type of action. The penalty should be directed to the character committing the act not creating a global penalty that would affect the innocent noobs that would essentially cripple them in their progression. The denial of the insurance is too much of knee jerk solution and has no consideration of the global affect to others that do not suicide gank. I do not support the insurance solution, but I do support the continue discussion. How would it hurt a newbie though? The newbie consideration is the main reason behind only losing insurance when your target is killed, not when you shoot something wrong. Newbie as well as unsuccessful ganker would still get his insurance. Only the successful ganker would not. (Unless the newbie actually one-shots something wrong, which is very very unlikely). Make suicide ganking more difficult!
Farrqua Turbo Mining Inc.	Posted - 2008.05.22 17:28:00 - [17] Originally by: Leandro Salazar Originally by: Farrqua Unfortunately it would not make it "expensive", it would just force them to change the tactics and end up netting the same result. And you have to understand the impact it would have on the n00b starting out. Being n00bs they will make mistakes and it would hurt them far more than it would hurt the suicide gankers. In this case we should focus on the act and access the penalties based on that type of action. The penalty should be directed to the character committing the act not creating a global penalty that would affect the innocent noobs that would essentially cripple them in their progression. The denial of the insurance is too much of knee jerk solution and has no consideration of the global affect to others that do not suicide gank. I do not support the insurance solution, but I do support the continue discussion. How would it hurt a newbie though? The newbie consideration is the main reason behind only losing insurance when your target is killed, not when you shoot something wrong. Newbie as well as unsuccessful ganker would still get his insurance. Only the successful ganker would not. (Unless the newbie actually one-shots something wrong, which is very very unlikely). I was actually responding to the misconception of "make it expensive" or "any one killed by concord" type posts. Hence the reason I support the continuing discussion of this topic, but hopefully on a focused path. I think we need to make it simple and directed at the aggressor not a global punishment that will hurt innocent n00bs. Just sit in a n00b channel for a bit, and you will be surprised how often it happens. It is also a tactic to bait the n00b into getting con-corded. It has been done since the day EvE went on line. Whether or not the criminal act was successful,the penalties should be the same. We just need to find a simple method. With not a lot of conditional results.
Siona Windweaver	Posted - 2008.05.22 17:28:00 - [18] Originally by: Tusko Hopkins Edited by: Tusko Hopkins on 22/05/2008 15:28:27 I support the idea, no insurance payout for high sec gankers, no matter if the gank is successful or not. When a ship is killed by CONCORD, the owner should not receive any kind of insurance payout. It might be interesting to consider returning the insurance fee if there was any, so that it doesnt look like a big SCC ripoff. I agree.
Synjin Sinner The Phalanx Expeditionary Conglomerate The Gemini Project	Posted - 2008.05.22 18:39:00 - [19] I concur Synjin Sinner CEO of TPEC
Zareph Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.05.22 18:45:00 - [20] Your solutions aren't support worthy. However. If one of your solutions was 'the more bad guys attacking a single non ganged target the faster concord can respond' that might be something. For example. one person is running missions. one person is coming through the gate. 5 people open fire. 25s? well since there is 5, lets divide that 25 by 5 and that means concord responds in 5s. anything more than say 10 or 15 and it's instan spawn concord regardless of system sec. Tech2 ships/weaponry mean insta concord, stuff like that. Removing insurance payment is not the option. Maybe at best make it like your car insurance in that if you have repeated claims within a certain period (say, 14 days) the cost of insurance or value of payout goes up/down, but removal isn't good. While all answers are replies, not all replies are answers.

Hamfast	Posted - 2008.05.22 18:49:00 - [21] While I would rather have no insurance pay out for anyone popped by concord, regardless of the outcome of their attack, half a loaf is better then none. Removing the insurance makes the risk of loss somewhat bigger... Gankers could still gank, but they would have a tad bit more risk then they do now... --------*****-------- Learn and be informed, because a Politicians worst nightmare is an informed voter... So choose your CSM Candidates wisely
Quaxtl	Posted - 2008.05.22 18:58:00 - [22] I agree with no insurance pay outs for people destroyed by concord. But thats it. Suicide ganking is part of the game. Thats the way it was intended and thats the way it will stay.
Why'dyou HitMe Privateers Privateer Alliance	Posted - 2008.05.22 19:13:00 - [23] Agree, they should pay a wardec fee to gank in empire like we do.
Kenji Kikuta	Posted - 2008.05.22 19:36:00 - [24] Any solution which makes life harder for suicide gankers is a solution I support.
Sariyah HUN Corp. HUN Reloaded	Posted - 2008.05.22 19:45:00 - [25] While from the OPs tone I can feel his pimp ship was ganked ( ) generally yes there should be a higher fee. It should be still worth ganking the players in untanked indies and pimped faction Raven isk farmers.
Jalmari Huitsikko Karjala Inc.	Posted - 2008.05.22 19:48:00 - [26] remove insurance if you had criminal status when getting popped = good.
Leandro Salazar The Blackguard Wolves	Posted - 2008.05.22 20:48:00 - [27] Originally by: Sariyah While from the OPs tone I can feel his pimp ship was ganked ( ) generally yes there should be a higher fee. It should be still worth ganking the players in untanked indies and pimped faction Raven isk farmers. Forget about that, I am WAY too paranoid for that to happen. But I don't think it should be required to be this paranoid in highsec, at least not when your ship is only slightly pimped. For the record, I was suicide ganked twice, once successful while I was stupidly semi-AFK-hauling something moderately valuable in a (not well enough)tanked indie, the other time semi-afk in my hauling Jaguar which resulted in a dead suicider and a scratch in my ships armor. The successful gank would still happen under the no-insurance system as it should, the other one would not have happened, so nothing would have changed for me if the change is projected onto the past. Make suicide ganking more difficult!
Frecator Dementa	Posted - 2008.05.22 21:03:00 - [28] agree ----------------------- forum ate my post again
cimmaron Warp Riders Fang Alliance	Posted - 2008.05.22 21:18:00 - [29] Support making suidice ganking more difficult.
Scagga Laebetrovo Delictum 23216 San Matari.	Posted - 2008.05.22 22:10:00 - [30] I support your approach in dealing with this problem. Insurance payouts shouldn't be payed out to ships lost to CONCORD. San Matari Official forums



Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 :: 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.