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

Author Topic

Herr Wilkus
Posted - 2010.01.13 12:51:00 - [31]
 

Comparing things to real life is nonsense....but....

In 'Real Life' criminals get away with their crimes about 50% of the time. And thats murder cases in the USA, its probably FAR more often in violent places like Colombia or Nigeria. In terms of lesser crimes, escaping punishment is FAR more common.

Does that mean you want people to be able to escape Concord (and all consequences of their actions) at least half the time? Or more? I'd be in favor of that - it would offer 'risk' to the situation, after all - especially if you want to increase the penalty for getting Concorded.




Hugo Lordmagnus
Vexillari
Posted - 2010.01.13 15:38:00 - [32]
 

Originally by: Herr Wilkus
Comparing things to real life is nonsense

I disagree with this. It is the resemblance of real life that allows an immersive environment like EVE to permit a player's suspension of disbelief. The fiction of it makes it gratifying when we can accept it as at least plausible enough to enjoy without doubting the experience. When aspects of a game reach the extremities of believability--the criteria for which we base on our own real-life experiences--then we begin to doubt the game and basically call BS on it. This is where the Concord/insurance problem comes into play: If the police shoot out the tires on my car in a high-speed chase, I seriously doubt that Geico is going pay for the wreck that follows shortly thereafter.

Originally by: Herr Wilkus
In 'Real Life' criminals get away with their crimes about 50% of the time. And thats murder cases in the USA, its probably FAR more often in violent places like Colombia or Nigeria. In terms of lesser crimes, escaping punishment is FAR more common.

Does that mean you want people to be able to escape Concord (and all consequences of their actions) at least half the time? Or more? I'd be in favor of that - it would offer 'risk' to the situation, after all - especially if you want to increase the penalty for getting Concorded.

Not to stray too far off-topic, but I'm heavily in favor of a Concord revamp. I think the current form of Concord is more magic than anything--they can appear anywhere and everywhere, regardless of circumstances. Then they just loiter for a bit and then vanish.

Converting them into some kind of detect-and-pursuit force would add mountains of room for player-pirate creativity. I'm all for it.

Anna Lifera
6....
HAWK Alliance
Posted - 2010.01.13 15:47:00 - [33]
 

Originally by: Arcane Azmadi
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.


once again, it's never free. in addition to the risk of failing, u're already guaranteed to take a security hit the instant u start shooting and it only gets a lot worse if u succeed. and if u fail, the victim will have the lulz at your expense so essentially, u and your fleet r the ones who lost security for his lulz. and regaining that much security lost isn't risk-free either. the same risks and guaranteed penalties go for everyone else that takes part in the suicide gank. and for what? if it's not a hauler carrying valuable loot that's the target but a hulk carrying extremely bulky ore, where's the profit in that?

bottom line is from the instant we accept the concord warning, we're already paying in some way as is and in case u forgot, there's nothing wrong with doing something just for fun--it's still a game.

Skanufacturing
Posted - 2010.01.13 16:38:00 - [34]
 

Edited by: Skanufacturing on 13/01/2010 16:42:11
I support this, and if I wasn't lazy, I'd start up 500 alts and support this as well.

Zero risk ganking of 150-200mil ships is total bs, and hulkageddon benefits from this quite a bit.

Not saying that this is just for Hulkageddon, zero risk ganking is a loophole to be sure.

There should be zero percent insurance payout if Concord asploded said ship. If you're not ganking someone, and you get Concorded, you either got tricked, or failed hard, and you just paid for a lesson.

-Skan

PS. to the poster above me, Anna:
bottom line is from the instant we accept the concord warning, we're already paying in some way as is and in case u forgot, there's nothing wrong with doing something just for fun--it's still a game.

Really? I mean, seriously? 200mil does not equal a sec status hit, plus possibly implants. It's not even, equal, or the the same.

If you need it broken down further, I can try going Barney style, and use one syllable words.

Anna Lifera
6....
HAWK Alliance
Posted - 2010.01.13 17:27:00 - [35]
 

Originally by: Skanufacturing
Edited by: Skanufacturing on 13/01/2010 16:42:11
I support this, and if I wasn't lazy, I'd start up 500 alts and support this as well.

Zero risk ganking of 150-200mil ships is total bs, and hulkageddon benefits from this quite a bit.

Not saying that this is just for Hulkageddon, zero risk ganking is a loophole to be sure.

There should be zero percent insurance payout if Concord asploded said ship. If you're not ganking someone, and you get Concorded, you either got tricked, or failed hard, and you just paid for a lesson.

-Skan

PS. to the poster above me, Anna:
bottom line is from the instant we accept the concord warning, we're already paying in some way as is and in case u forgot, there's nothing wrong with doing something just for fun--it's still a game.

Really? I mean, seriously? 200mil does not equal a sec status hit, plus possibly implants. It's not even, equal, or the the same.

If you need it broken down further, I can try going Barney style, and use one syllable words.


that last part was funny, considering it included something to the effect of "i'm gonna pimp out my clone and hulk with the very best mods i can get and afk mine in a place where i can still be shot at and if anyone does kill me and my pod, it's just wrong." and i assume u're gonna stand there with a "wtf" look on your face when u're ejected into your pod? do u have any idea at all how much the sec loss is from podding? no of course not--that's probably why u factored that in too right? if u need it broken down further, i can trying going barney style and using one syllable words too: that... is... your... own... fault. it's your own fault u loaded your clone and ship with overly expensive mods, it's your own fault u thought u were completely safe when it's called "high security" and not "complete security", and it's your own fault u didn't even attempt to save your pod.

Bhattran
Posted - 2010.01.13 18:41:00 - [36]
 

Supported, suicide ganking should cost the ganker something significant not just a risk of failure; a security hit that can be made up easily farming some decent L4's, and a few million or so for fittings-if that. Suicide should be to impose 'grief' or otherwise strike a target that cannot be hit any other way as it is. Nearly every suiciding player risks practically nothing if they fail and stand to gain if they don't suicide an empty rookie ship or other worthless target which if that is their choice it should cost them much more. With insurance they are free to suicide anyone and anything provided they can gather enough like minded players to join them at minimal costs if the target isn't economically viable.

Barring making new penalties for suicide ganking, removing insurance payouts for doing so meaning concord killed you is the way to go.

Anna Lifera
6....
HAWK Alliance
Posted - 2010.01.13 18:57:00 - [37]
 

only u don't gain security for every single rat u kill in just one system--that includes missions. it's only the highest rat every 15 minutes, give or take, per system. and try high sec ratting just for security and see how long it takes to get your status back from one ship kill.

Herr Wilkus
Posted - 2010.01.13 18:59:00 - [38]
 


I love how all the people complaining about ganking having 'no risk' conveniently forget about kill rights.

Any ganker can be aggressed - and have his ship destroyed for 30 days after a successful gank.

Gankers have to spend some time in space ratting up their sec-status, which means they are often vulnerable to attack in a PVE-fit ship.

My own 'kill-rights' page has nearly 40 people on it. Any one of them could use a tracking agent to find me and get revenge. I mean, they dont - I guess because they would rather spend their time whining on these forums.....but the CCP provides all miners with the tools they need to get their revenge.

So, quit complaining Miners - go find and kill those gankers, quit trying to get CCP to do your work for you.


Shawna Gray
Gallente
Posted - 2010.01.13 23:34:00 - [39]
 

Edited by: Shawna Gray on 13/01/2010 23:42:10
Originally by: Ere Colliseru
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.


Its not realistic that EVE's police force is omniscient and omnipotent.

Its not realistic that anyone in EVE ever gets insurance for any of their ships considering how they are used.

Its not realistic that CONCORD is omniscient when it comes to player pirates but happily ignores the gazillion of rats that run around in highsec missions.

+++++

How about that for realism in this game?

Pharon Reichter
FinFleet
Raiden.
Posted - 2010.01.14 00:29:00 - [40]
 

I'm voting yes.

It's only fair and normal if you hit other players in what is a "relativley" safe area of the game to have a downside. what is out of normal is to do that and proffit from it triple. one in having fun griefing, two in the loot from the poor bastard and third in the form of inshurance.

Fact is that you dont care so much about the min prices as noone really cares. I'm happy with them being low , more bs'es for me. you care only to be helped to keep grief people. And maximise your proffit in that with no actual loss. Well it's time for a change ;)

Spoofeydoo
Caldari
Nova-Tek

Posted - 2010.01.16 17:46:00 - [41]
 

I support no insurance payouts on Concord kills.

Mocam
Posted - 2010.01.17 09:44:00 - [42]
 

Originally by: Herr Wilkus
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.




I don't think you've thought this through as well as you believe.

First -- you're masking issues that are better addressed in other ways than using insurance fraud as a cover.

A mission runner can pull more mineral income than a mining pilot. *I* got 778 Megacyte from level 1 missions when I switched corporations to mission run for a couple days. Not level 4's -- level 1 mission recycling.

Run a single mission as fast as you can, loot everything, head to a base and recycle it all. This is where the bulk of your lowsec/nullsec ores come from in highsec and you sure as hell aren't making a lot of anything without those higher end ores -- which your miners are *NOT* getting in highsec.

If the bottom drops out of the lowest end minerals, who does that hurt? If the bottom keeps dropping on the higher end minerals -- who gets hurt? If trit doubles in price, the impact on low end ship manufacturing will be trivial when 1 megacyte is equal to over 1,000 trit against the cost of manufacturing.

*THINK* about it... It's not the low end crap that makes it possible to make the ships so cheaply. It's the lower costs on the higher end ores and those are *NOT* being mined in vast amounts by your highsec miners yet it keeps showing up in larger and larger volumes on the market.

Where's this supply coming from? Not miners...

yes -- I support this idea.

Fille Balle
Ballbreakers R us

Posted - 2010.01.17 11:00:00 - [43]
 

Yup, suicide ganking is too profitable atm. And it's not like this would make the tactic obsolete.

Insa Rexion
Minmatar
Fumar Puede Matar
Posted - 2010.01.17 11:30:00 - [44]
 

Originally by: Arcane Azmadi
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.


How is suicide ganking risk free ? It is penalty guaranteed is as much as you will soon be movement restricted or spending considerable time in NPC 0.0 (again risky) grinding up standings.

You are disingenuously considering financial loss as the the sole factor of risk, and as has been previously explained, the reason there is currently no real financial risk is due to over production of minerals by a largely AFK hisec population.

Ere Colliseru
Etoilles Mortant Ltd.
Solyaris Chtonium
Posted - 2010.01.17 13:37:00 - [45]
 

Originally by: Shawna Gray
Edited by: Shawna Gray on 13/01/2010 23:42:10
Originally by: Ere Colliseru
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.


Its not realistic that EVE's police force is omniscient and omnipotent.

Its not realistic that anyone in EVE ever gets insurance for any of their ships considering how they are used.

Its not realistic that CONCORD is omniscient when it comes to player pirates but happily ignores the gazillion of rats that run around in highsec missions.

+++++

How about that for realism in this game?


I think you are mistaken me to support ganks. I do not. At least not in the way it just happens.

After Dominion a Hulk cost nearly 200 million isk. How long would a person who play just the economical part of the game need to afford this? With a Retriever 2 month?
IMHO it would be only fair and realistic if the same amount of time would be necessary for a ganker to do such a thing.
Technically I have no problem with the ganking itself. Just with the considerable timeloss you have. How can it be possible for 4 people save 4 times 600k to buy 4 catalyst and destroy the work of month? And beside the modules get the 600k back?

I read that with the right tactics during HUG2, you were able to restore the standings for one gank in 1 hour. Just 1 hour compared to 2 month?

They say Eve is clearly a game to fight. It may have been so in the beginning or intended to be. But now the economic part has grown so much that it is a symbiotical relationship. If miner would suddenly stop for 1 week or 2 the deliveries for the so beloved tru sec action would stop. And their game would suffer as well.

No insurances for concording. Re-gaining standing to enter high sec must be equal exhausting like the victims effort getting their values back.

De'Veldrin
Minmatar
Norse'Storm Battle Group
Intrepid Crossing
Posted - 2010.01.17 14:18:00 - [46]
 

Please, stop embarrassing yourselves trying to convince the rest of us that this sec status hit is actually a cost. I've read threads in C&P on how to recover single gank sec status loss in under an hour. You show me how to earn enough to replace a 200 million ISK mining ship in an hour, and we'll call that even - until then, don't feed me that crap about how the sec status loss hurts you. It's an inconvenience, nothing more.

AnonyTerrorNinja
Minmatar
Atomic Geese
Posted - 2010.01.17 14:26:00 - [47]
 

Originally by: Admiral Byng
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.


SCC aren't entirely controlled by CONCORD, they are merely supervised and fall under the CONCORD banner.

http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Secure_Commerce_Commission_%28Chronicle%29


As outlined above, there are many situations where the entire concept of Insurance becomes flaky at best, but people still get their payout.

Larkonis TrassIer
State Breast Inspectorate
Posted - 2010.01.17 15:31:00 - [48]
 

Since I started playing suicide ganking has been nerfed at least 3 times. If insurance is removed I'll still do it, everyone else will still do it. Even if it does reduce occurances do you know what?

It still won't be enough for the carebears.

They will lobby more and more for changes and reductions.

Shawna Gray
Gallente
Posted - 2010.01.17 16:34:00 - [49]
 

Originally by: Ere Colliseru
If miner would suddenly stop for 1 week or 2 the deliveries for the so beloved tru sec action would stop. And their game would suffer as well.



No it would not. The minerals from mission runners and 0.0 industrialists/hauler spawn would probably be enough. 0.0 industrialists might even be able to make isk from their ships then.

Maxsim Goratiev
Gallente
Imperial Tau Syndicate
POD-SQUAD
Posted - 2010.01.17 19:22:00 - [50]
 

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

IS mining in high-sec suppose to be a risky activity? What's next, sitting all day in station and trading is risk free, let us shoot through station walls or smartbomb everyone inside?

Shawna Gray
Gallente
Posted - 2010.01.17 20:11:00 - [51]
 

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

IS mining in high-sec suppose to be a risky activity? What's next, sitting all day in station and trading is risk free, let us shoot through station walls or smartbomb everyone inside?


Mining in high sec as it is is hardly a risky activity. With an occasional suicide gank at least there is neglible risk. The problem with mining is probably the extremely low need for any sort of interaction that naturally leads to afk mining/botting and in turn makes you a better target for suicide ganks.

Station trading is risky in the sense that you could lose isk.

SolarKnight
Gallente
ORIGIN SYSTEMS
Posted - 2010.01.17 21:14:00 - [52]
 

Funniest thing is, that a lot of the time, although its profitable, people actually suicide gank to get the hate mail and the tears from the victims, just like in low sec, so unless you have a cure for that, then well, you'll never really stop suicide ganks :)

CLETUS DEADMAN
Posted - 2010.02.12 05:03:00 - [53]
 

Did this go anywhere?

Vaal Erit
Science and Trade Institute
Posted - 2010.02.12 05:50:00 - [54]
 

Originally by: Hugo Lordmagnus
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:

-----
Insurance
From: Secure Commerce Commission
Sent: DATE TIME

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?


This is a good post and yes I'm aware of this too, even the magic corp where the magic insurance money comes from (probably few people cared to dig this deep though)

This is not highly illogical, in fact I'll tell you a true story. Pandemic Legion (Consisiting of corps Snigg and NESW for this example) says not to shoot their friends SoT or else they will punish me. I am a member of Snigg and they insure 100% all of my ships. I kill a SoT member anyways. PL punishes me and they kill my ship. My corporation however doesn't care about all of that, they still pay for my ship because that was the deal they made with me and because they have the right to distribute the isk to their corporation members as they see fit.

Try studying National vs States rights in American History. Member states have the power to control a lot of their own decisions and provide their own programs and the national governement has no say in some cases. Makes perfect sense to me.

Nice try though.

As for all the other whines, I highly suggest you try suicide ganking before you complain. Saying things like "I've heard from some troll on C&P that gaining sec status back is totally easy" makes you look like a complete imbecile. If there wasn't strict rules and punishment for suicide ganking discouraging such behavior, high security space would be dead years ago. You are just attacking one style of play because you are going emo about imaginary space ships on the internet, get a grip it is working as intended as stated by CCP.

Aleena Doran
Posted - 2010.02.12 08:08:00 - [55]
 

I don't see how suicide ganking of miners or haulers can be called PvP or 'combat'. They're attacking defenceless ships. Pretty pathetic really.

Now I've never lost a ship to suicide ganking, but I wonder what goes through the mind of a new player to eve. One who has spent their first few weeks/months mining away, saving up for that hulk of their dreams, never leaving hisec, only to see it destroyed in an instant. I'm sure CCP looses a few subscriptions over this.

Hisec is supposed to be hisec. If people can attack others when not at war without significant consequence, and make a lot of isk from it to the detriment of others, then there's an issue with the concept.

Suicide ganking should be a tactic which costs the attacker, not reward them.

Lucius Rexort
Posted - 2010.02.12 10:18:00 - [56]
 

This change does make sense.

CLETUS DEADMAN
Posted - 2010.02.12 13:38:00 - [57]
 

If you gank someone, your ship will be destroyed; the insurance will cover it. The security standing hit is fixed; you will have to gain it back. The only risk is whether you actually kill your target or they get away. That is the primary reason you find gate camps with 40 plus kills in the same system in high-sec by the same person. The person being attacked is risking everything.
What is the point of recouping your losses when the only thing you have to look forward to is the next high-sec gate camp?
Where is the balance?

CyberGh0st
Minmatar
Blue Republic
RvB - BLUE Republic
Posted - 2010.02.12 14:50:00 - [58]
 

Edited by: CyberGh0st on 12/02/2010 15:01:23

I agree with removing insurance for Concord related events, this has actually been promised by CCP in a devblog, so if CSM raises it again, now with the insurance issues, it may finally come to pass.

Furthermore, suiciding should not be refunded either.

Devblog where CCP Fear promises "removal of insurance in CONCORD related events" :
http://www.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=577


Mistah Ewedynao
Gallente
Posted - 2010.02.12 15:12:00 - [59]
 

I fully support this proposal.

It's really dumb to pay Insurance on Concord kills.

Max Khaos
Norse'Storm Battle Group
Intrepid Crossing
Posted - 2010.02.12 16:08:00 - [60]
 

Currently suicide ganking is free and has no risks.

And in CCP own words "everything" in Eve should have a risk.

The system is broken and needs to be fixed .... easiest way is remove ALL
insurance payouts for ships that are lost to concord / self destruction.

Then CCP go and fix the insurance ammounts.


Pages: first : previous : 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 https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only