open All Channels
seplocked Assembly Hall
blankseplocked [Proposal] Suicide Ganks
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... : last (17)

Author Topic

Admiral Byng
Posted - 2009.11.29 18:23:00 - [1]

I am sure that this is in here, but it makes sense and I didn't see it in the first 3 pages.

Concorde needs to stop paying out insurance for ships that Concorde killed. I am OK with a group of pirates killing an Itty 5 for the 5 bil in cargo the guy is moving AFK. But 10 people in t1 battleships shouldn't be able to gang up on someone's mission/exploration ship and get virtually all their cost refunded.

Big Bit
Posted - 2009.11.29 19:53:00 - [2]

3 replys behint you Rolling Eyes
[Proposal] Power to CONCORD

Admiral Byng
Posted - 2009.11.29 21:16:00 - [3]

Not quite the same. I don't mind high sec criminals preying on the really lazy or stupid. But the bar needs to be higher

Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2009.11.29 21:43:00 - [4]

Instead of asking CCP to prohibit playstyles you dont happen to like, why not support my proposal to deal with the root cause?

Admiral Byng
Posted - 2009.11.30 01:20:00 - [5]

Edited by: Admiral Byng on 30/11/2009 01:24:43
I supported you. But what I am looking for has more to do with making things interanlly consistant. I don't want the suicide gank to be impossible, but it makes no sense that Concorde would pay insurance for a ship they blew up.

Herschel Yamamoto
Nabaal Syndicate
Posted - 2009.12.01 19:19:00 - [6]

This change does make sense to me, but I don't want to see suicide ganking get nerfed that heavily. I'd only support it if Concord spawn timers were lengthened significantly to compensate.

Drake Draconis
Shadow Cadre
Shadow Confederation
Posted - 2009.12.01 20:34:00 - [7]

No one should be getting insurance on getting CONCORD'd or self destructing.

It's what makes it possible for most people to suicide gank without any loss or cost short of sec rating.

Helicity Boson
The Python Cartel.
The Defenders of Pen Island
Posted - 2010.01.12 16:58:00 - [8]

insurance after being destroyed by concord is silly, and needs to be removed.

Herr Wilkus
Posted - 2010.01.12 19:10:00 - [9]

insurance after being destroyed by concord is silly, and needs to be removed?

Wrong for a lot of reasons. Starting with 'it makes hisec even safer for max-yield, no tank/AFK/macro players' then we'll move along to 'it discourages ships exploding, and drives mineral prices even further down' and finish up with 'it encourages more insurance fraud.'

But lets assume you are right, and it is silly. Time to gore some other oxen.

Insurance after being destroyed in 0.0 space is silly, and needs to be removed.

Take your car into a warzone? Bam, insurance voided.

Insurance after being destroyed while at war is silly, and needs to be removed.

I'm sure Sadddam Husssein (why is this censored? Bizzare) would have loved to have platinum insurance on his T-72s right before George W. Bush sent him to the hot place.

Insurance after being destroyed via self-destruction is silly, and needs to be removed.
Sorry fraudsters, you'll have to find another way to blow up your property. Don't worry, its not hard.

Insurance after being destroyed after initiating combat is silly, and needs to be removed.

"Hello, Pend insurance speaking."
"Yes, you were missioning and someone stole your loot...hmmhmm...WHAT? then you chased him down and ATTACKED him?"
"AND your ship was destroyed as a result of this??"

Good luck with that claim.

"I'm sorry sir, we don't cover individuals who recklessly endanger their own property. Good day."

Drake Draconis
Shadow Cadre
Shadow Confederation
Posted - 2010.01.12 19:17:00 - [10]

Epic Fail at Equivocating

There is a big difference between getting shot down by CONCORD and getting shot down by a Player.

Stop blurring the lines to cover up your pirating/greifing e-peen and start engaging brain before reasoning/arguing.

At least the argument for slowing CONCORD down is rational.. yours is just flat off the wall and dripping with emo.

Krans Hopeson
Coffee Muggers
Posted - 2010.01.12 21:39:00 - [11]

It takes 5 destroyers to take down an untanked Hulk. Total cost of fitting: probably ~5 m. On average, a T2 fit mining min/max Hulk will drop much more than that in loot.

Gankers should HTFU. OP's suggestion makes sense -- all you have to do is pick your targets better, and you can still make a profit from suicide ganking hulks. Just not quite such a big one.

Herr Wilkus
Posted - 2010.01.12 21:42:00 - [12]

You are right, those were mostly BS arguments just to point out the idiotic nature of the proposal. Insurance for crime is just as illogical as insurance for any ship of war.

Look. I can respect someone that says 'remove all insurance'.

Price of T1 ships will drop, artificial mineral floor goes away, insurance fraud goes away, hisec miner and mission runner income will crash. All good things. Of course, then we'd have to deal with miners complaining about how they only make 1M ISK/hr and T2 stuff takes longer to buy.

But people calling for removing insurance for gankers are simply trying to nerf suicide ganking. If insurance is removed, there needs to be other incentives for gankers provided.

a) Perhaps allowing pirates to bribe Concord to raise their security status with ISK.
b) Perhaps, making it possible to escape Concord. (make it a risk, instead of just a cost.)

I'll clue you in: suicide ganking is part of the solution, not part of the problem.

1. Suicide ganking is easy because ships are cheap.
2. Ships are cheap because Eve's economy is flooded in minerals.
3. Minerals are produced by miners and mission runners.

Problem: Too many miners and mission runners producing too many resources with no risk. Violence against the resource producers will decrease supply and increase mineral prices. Further, miners who take precautions (tank, stay at the keyboard watching for hostiles) will survive much more frequently than their AFK, macroing competitors - and will benefit from higher mineral prices.

How do you promote violence against hisec resource producers? Wardecs simply don't work, as all miners and haulers will drop corp. That leaves suicide ganking - and only suicide ganking as a tool for combating rampant hi-sec overproduction.

4. Demand is low. No 'great' wars going on.
5. PVP, ganking and selfdestruction "fraud" are all sources of demand. However, 'fake' self-destructing fraud demand is not desirable.
6. Remove ganking from the equation, you further encourage more insurance fraud, which is already painfully common.

Suicide ganking is commmon because minerals are cheap.

Making life harder on MRs and Miners -
drives up mineral prices by reducing supply.
Encouraging suicide ganking -
drives up mineral prices by increasing demand.

Drive up mineral prices, and ganking becomes more expensive (and less common.) Insurance fraud goes away too. A big nullsec war would help too, but we can't force alliances to duke it out (especially with the screwed up lag situation.)

Drake Draconis
Shadow Cadre
Shadow Confederation
Posted - 2010.01.12 21:53:00 - [13]

Edited by: Drake Draconis on 12/01/2010 22:02:31
Edited by: Drake Draconis on 12/01/2010 21:53:35
Guess again.

Suicide Ganking is easy because you get back the amount of ISK spent for your ship (minus mods if you go all tech 2) via insurance payouts.

lose insurance... now its not cheaper anymore.

No one said you couldn't suicide gank
..... just means it has to take a larger dent to your precious wallet.

Hugo Lordmagnus
Posted - 2010.01.12 22:12:00 - [14]

/support as usual with this topic

Concord paying me for a ship that they blew up is about as illogical as it can get.

Vaal Erit
Science and Trade Institute
Posted - 2010.01.12 22:54:00 - [15]

Originally by: Hugo Lordmagnus
/support as usual with this topic

Concord paying me for a ship that they blew up is about as illogical as it can get.

Concord doesn't pay for insurance. Maybe you should actually try insurance and reading.

Originally by: Drake Draconis

No one said you couldn't suicide gank
..... just means it has to take a larger dent to your precious wallet.

If you make it so that it is never reasonable to suicide gank you might as well take out the ability altogether. If you take out insurance from concorded ships, you take out a LOT of the possible targets, including anything larger than a BC and most transport ships. Fleets of destroyers/cruisers can still take out untanked t1 hauler targets but where does it state that suicide ganking must be a group activity or that you shouldn't be able to suicide large targets?

This is a hulkageddon whine. Wah, wah your ship got blown up. This is INTENDED. You are not supposed to be safe in empire or anywhere in space, yes even high security space. Suicide ganking has been the most nerfed mechanic in the game. It is fine to kill expensive, dumbly fit targets who are afk or not paying attention. This is intended. Perhpas YOU need to HTFU.

Hemmo Paskiainen
Posted - 2010.01.12 22:59:00 - [16]

Is space ever safe?

Herr Wilkus
Posted - 2010.01.12 23:18:00 - [17]

Originally by: Drake Draconis

Guess again.

Suicide Ganking is easy because you get back the amount of ISK spent for your ship (minus mods if you go all tech 2) via insurance payouts.

lose insurance... now its not cheaper anymore.

No one said you couldn't suicide gank
..... just means it has to take a larger dent to your precious wallet.

Couple posts ago you were talking like you were smart or something. Engage your brain, you said, or something like that? Take your own advice, please. Try to see the bigger picture, quit focusing on the individual ganker.

I stated that suicide ganking helps solve the current problem with EVE's economy. (too much mineral supply, not enough demand, causing low mineral values and insurance fraud + inflation)

Removing insurance for suicide gankers would only reduce ganking, when in reality, we need MORE of it. (YES, obviously you could 'still do it' at a loss, but in reality, far less people would opt to.) In absence of a major nulsec war driving up demand - less ganking makes the mineral oversupply problem even worse, which leads to MORE insurance fraud and the ISK inflation that goes with it. Don't you notice all the people self-destructing ships outside manufacturing centers? Doesn't this suggest a fundamental problem to you? That a ship, made from T1 minerals, is worth more dead than alive?

Now, suicide ganking doesn't have to be the only solution. Anything that allows people to attack and slow down rampant resource production (miners and mission runners) would work. Unfortunately, wardecs are broken, and suicide ganking is the ONLY way to achieve that end in hi-sec, currently.

And, like I said - if mineral prices were higher it solves all problems: ships are more expensive, carebears make more ISK, insurance fraud goes away, AND ganking also would become more expensive. Cause and effect.

Drake Draconis
Shadow Cadre
Shadow Confederation
Posted - 2010.01.12 23:31:00 - [18]

What's next? Telling me that CONCORD should be removed because they assist in the rising of inflation?

All I see here are pirates/gankers throwing a fit over the increasing potential of insurance getting shut off.

Keep crying... I'll keep collecting your tears.

Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2010.01.12 23:46:00 - [19]

Originally by: Drake Draconis

No one said you couldn't suicide gank[/b]..... just means it has to take a larger dent to your precious wallet.

And why is this necessary?

Suicide ganking affects AFKers, Macroers, multi-boxers more than human, alert, single-client players.

Are you saying the macroers and AFKers need a boost? Are alert miners who know how to align, watch local and tank their ships in need of nerfing? Is mining veld in hi-sec not quite boring and predictable enough for you?

In short: given that suicide ganking is a perfectly legitimate technique, explicitly recognised as such by CCP, what evidence do you have that suicide ganking "needs" to be nerfed?

Herr Wilkus
Posted - 2010.01.12 23:59:00 - [20]

Wait....I'm crying because...I'm pointing out your inability to comprehend economics or English?
As it stands right now, I'm quite happy with the current situation, meaning I have no reason to cry. Why?

I don't seriously think CCP is going to change insurance, for the same reasons I've just expressed. Increased suicide ganking is merely a natural outgrowth of 'too many minerals'. They can't ALL be self-destructed, though I'm guessing thats what you would prefer. Because that is exactly what nerfing suicide ganking would lead to.

I suppose the real question is:
Why do you want MORE insurance fraud? Are you profiting from it somehow? Don't you think its a bit stupid that thousands upon thousands of battleships are self destructed every day outside stations? Yet, you want to see more of it?

My goal is to increase mineral prices. Yeah, I could fly around in low sec and pop cheaply fit, insured cruisers and BCs. But really, that doesn't accomplish much, especially considering those targets flying T1 become wealthier after I pop them.

The BEST way to increase mineral prices (aside from self destructing battleships all day), is to attack the Hulks and Mission runners that are creating all those minerals.

Hugo Lordmagnus
Posted - 2010.01.13 00:27:00 - [21]

Originally by: Vaal Erit
Originally by: Hugo Lordmagnus
/support as usual with this topic

Concord paying me for a ship that they blew up is about as illogical as it can get.

Concord doesn't pay for insurance. Maybe you should actually try insurance and reading.

Well, I'm actually familiar with insurance in EVE, but the reading thing is new. I gave it a try, and here's what I found:

The CONCORD Assembly alliance includes the corporations: CONCORD, DED, Inner Circle, and Secure Commerce Commission. CONCORD is the corporation that destroys your ship when you do something naughty. The Secure Commerce Commission is who you pay in order to insure a ship (if you read your wallet journal with the Reference Type set to "Insurance," you will see that this is where your payment goes). You are actually correct in that CONCORD specifically does not make the insurance payment--it comes from an entity called "EVE Central Bank," which is not an NPC corporation (there is, however, a player corp by that name, but the entities are not the same).

However, when your ship is destroyed and you receive said insurance payment, you receive an EVE-mail from the SCC that looks something like this:

From: Secure Commerce Commission

RefID:######### Your friendly insurance company has transferred ######### ISK into your account for the recent loss of your ship.

So, Concord blows you up, and the SCC--in the same alliance, the CONCORD Alliance--orders the payment for your ship. Thus, the CONCORD Assembly destroys your ship and orders that you be payed for it. It doesn't pay you specifically, but it is the reason that you get paid.

I submit, again, that this is highly illogical. Do you have any more snide comments or quibbles?

Anya Synn
Posted - 2010.01.13 00:30:00 - [22]

Currently suicide ganking is no risk business. Even less so than mining or missionrunning, there you at least have the small risk of losing your expensive ship and modules and cargo, while suicidegankers can work with free ships and practically free modules. So even if they fail at what they do, they still don't really take any dent in their wallets.

I don't really care how it is done, but zero-risk business practices should be removed. Complete insurance overhaul would be the best solution, but removing insurance from concorded ships would be a start.

Supported for the sake of insurance overhaul, not neccessarily in the way suggested in the OP.

Herr Wilkus
Posted - 2010.01.13 01:02:00 - [23]

Ganking is a no risk business?

Completely not true. Ganks fail all the time, costing the gankers time and sec status (as well as the ship, which IS a cost, when ships costs are higher)

But that said, lets play your game and 'remove insurance from suicide ganking'.
Ganking a Hulk is hardly a profitable enterprise, even now - with cheap T1 ships available.

Removing insurance means it would cost a Battleship/BC ganker (like myself) 30-40M + fittings just to ATTEMPT a gank on a Hulk. Destroyed T2 fit Hulks drop, at best 5-10M in mods.

Result of your nerf? Unless the Hulk was faction fit - there is NO way to profit from ganking one - in fact, it would become a very expensive hobby, at best. Translation: extremely rare, or simply not occurring.

Mining in a Hulk now becomes a completely risk-free business activity.
What were you just saying about that? They should be removed?

OH. You I think you forgot to say that you just meant 'risk free PVP activity' should be removed, while PVE should be all profit, no risk.

Katsumi Kaede
Posted - 2010.01.13 02:29:00 - [24]

This should not be about suicide ganking.
Lets face it, the insurance pay for a destroyer is small compared to the possible gain by suicide ganking, so I do not think it would have a very large effect on it.
People will still suicide gank and make profit from it.
Those who support suicide ganking must still admit it does not make sense for an ally of Concord to pay out for ships destroyed in criminal activity.
The points made about inflation and insurance fraud are good ones.
That does not change the fact that this insurance issue makes no sense.
I think the only way to fix the problems that generate the need for suicide ganking is to fix the problems with War Decs.
Either way, I dont think making this change to insurance pay would have that big an effect, though I do agree there might be a small amount of reduction in suicide ganking.
But I would also point out that there are tons of things in Eve that are there for balanced gameplay, and that dont make sense, I dont know if this particular issue is where I would make my stand on what should be realistic or not.

Anna Lifera
HAWK Alliance
Posted - 2010.01.13 02:50:00 - [25]

for those complaining about logic in terms of concord paying for suicide gank insurance, consider this:
* u can hear guns and missiles when they're being shot and explosions, yet there's no air in space to carry the sound waves
* one little frigate is strong enough to warp jam and webify a huge battleship, hell, even a carrier or dreadnought
* u can warp through any object, whether it's a station, planet, or asteroid unharmed but on conventional drives, it would be like hitting a wall and u cannot start warp like this either
* u cannot warp in a random direction because u have to align to a celestial object "for your warp drives to lock onto it"
* u cannot lock onto another ship to warp to it, even if it's not moving at all
* u can only warp into the deadspace "entrance" but u can warp out of deadspace no matter how deep u r in it
* microwarpdrives still function inside a warp bubble but not deadspace
* the sling bubble effect

the list goes on and on--my point is logic, in terms of realism, shouldn't be a basis for debating this because the creators can shape that aspect to their liking, whether it would be for uniqueness or balance. it's science FICTION, after all.

Davina Lee
Posted - 2010.01.13 02:51:00 - [26]

Supported, no insurance payout for concord kills.

Arcane Azmadi
First Flying Wing Inc
Posted - 2010.01.13 05:37:00 - [27]

What gets me is that all the pirates who trumpet about "risk vs reward" being such a big part of EVE and constantly call for carebearing aspects to be nerfed because they're too "rewarding" without being "risky" enough want to be able to effectively suicide gank for free because, uh...

...I'm sure a reason will come up soon...

Admit it, pirates; you just want suicide ganking to be free so you can continue to do it for the lulz rather than for profit.

Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2010.01.13 10:39:00 - [28]

Suicide ganking is "free" because there is an oversupply of minerals.

If you want to actually help miners, you will look at why this is so. And consider the fact that mining doesn't even supply 50% of the minerals produced in the game.

When I started playing EVE, a Raven cost ~134 million ISK, so it cost something like 40-50 mill to lose one after insurance. Consequently, battleships were rarely used for suicide ganking.

Ere Colliseru
Etoilles Mortant Ltd.
Solyaris Chtonium
Posted - 2010.01.13 11:41:00 - [29]

It is widely talked about that Eve is like real life and therefore not safe.

In real life if someone is caught by police he not only get a punishment (in our case its the loss of the ship), but also he is not insured anymore (would need to be introduced) AND if he has got the money he as to pay the damage he caused (i.e. not only the truck but also the freight i.e. other cars).

This would mirror life more realistic. Thats no whining, just pure facts.
So if someone ganks a Iteron 5 with 6 Catalyst in a Myrm he should loose insurance for the myrm, pay the Iteron (probably with or without rigs) and the cargo. At least in 0.5-1.
In low sec there should be only the loss of insurance as its more like wild west (but still you loose insurance cause of "improper use".

Posted - 2010.01.13 12:43:00 - [30]

I agree with the proposal.
It is not suicide ganks I have an issue with, but being able to suicide gank with no risk of loss to yourself is a bit much.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... : last (17)

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to

These forums are archived and read-only