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

Jonah Pod
Gallente
Posted - 2010.02.15 19:55:00 - [91]
 

Originally by: CLETUS DEADMAN
So does the CSM present this to the Eve Devs this week?
How long does it normally take to get a response back?

I am asking simply to try and understand the process.

Thanks....


As long as there is no agenda set up for the summit, we won't know it in advance. Worst case, we'll have to wait for the minutes to be published to know for sure.

However, this is off topic and I would recommend to place questions like this either in the Speakers Corner or directly with your preferred CSM rep.

Anna Lifera
6....
HAWK Alliance
Posted - 2010.02.15 20:29:00 - [92]
 

Edited by: Anna Lifera on 15/02/2010 20:38:31
Originally by: Shandas
Sorry, I had to fix that part of your post as it was a train wreck trying to understand what you were saying.


(skipped this to trim down first post) in the process of your corrections, u somehow managed to miss almost the entire remaining post, which is repeating a certain question for a reason, a question u still have yet to answer.

Originally by: Shandas
All you have done is attack me and make conjecture. How about you actually post something constructive instead of attacking me for my views. You're telling me I have no voice in the EvE community based on where I currently live. You say I must live in Hi-Sec and have been ganked and that's why I'm saying this stuff.

You can believe what you want to believe. Does it matter where I live or what has happened to me in the past? Are we going to base what people can or can't vote on or have a say in based on this?


by debating this, i'm attacking u with words? htfu or just stop posting. one would think in a game like this, words wouldn't even amount to a grain of salt but i guess that's not always the case. u can disprove all the accusations u want 'cause u still haven't disproved my accusation that u never took any precautions to protect your cargo.

Originally by: Shandas
We going to start letting people only have a voice on certain things based on where they live in the world or the color of their skin? Maybe we can base it on their sex and religion too. Then after you're done splitting it up that way then we can look at in game stats for those people and again cut the ones who should have no say. Talk about bringing realism into a game, we have enough of that kind of attitude in the real world why would you want to bring it into EvE too?


totally irrelevant. i never once said u couldn't have an opinion, did i? no i didn't. u just have to actually support it. and that doesn't include not doing anything whatsoever to protect your assets and crying on the forums for ccp to protect u. all u're doing is taking something u completely made up and blow it out of proportion.

Originally by: Shandas
Every post in this thread from you is an attack on someone, I haven't check the forum itself so I have no idea if this is your MO or not.


refer to the top of this post. and another reason why it feels like an "attack" to u... it's because i've had to say something over and over again 'cause u either just won't listen or u just want to avoid answering a valid argument. did... u... take... precautions... to... protect... your... cargo? if not, that's where the laziness, stupidity, and inability to adapt comes in... do u get it now? or r u just gonna continue trolling while going back to accusing me of being one? i'm gonna repeat it again just in case: did u take precautions to protect your cargo?

Originally by: Chal0ner
Agreed. After they nerf insurance payout for suicide ganking.
Then the risk is a bit leveled and then you can come back and cry if high sec dwellers still whine about suicide ganking 200m ships.
They chose to risk their 200m ships knowing full well what would happen if they lost it, you risk your 50m outfit and get almost all back - they don't.

Proposal supported.

And no, I don't live in empire. High sec bores me to tears.


fixed.

De'Veldrin
Minmatar
Norse'Storm Battle Group
Intrepid Crossing
Posted - 2010.02.15 21:16:00 - [93]
 

Originally by: Anna Lifera

here's an idea: why don't u stop avoiding the fact that merely switching from a hulk to a covetor would be nothing more than an inconvenience as well? simple as that--no more 200 mil loss since covetors r t1... is it really that hard for u to do? really? maybe it is. why? u're just avoiding this because u don't want to adapt, just like the rest of them. all u did was restate that the loss of a hulk doesn't bother u but just the recovery stage after it, which is essentially the same exact thing.

so cry me a river 'cause u ain't special either. why should the game cater to your unwillingness to adapt?


And yet, that's exactly what you're saying - that this change shouldn't be approved because gankers don't want to have to adapt to a new modus operandi in how the choose their targets.

So let me toss your own question back at you:
Quote:
why should the game cater to your unwillingness to adapt?

Anna Lifera
6....
HAWK Alliance
Posted - 2010.02.15 21:34:00 - [94]
 

Edited by: Anna Lifera on 15/02/2010 21:49:51
Edited by: Anna Lifera on 15/02/2010 21:43:54
Edited by: Anna Lifera on 15/02/2010 21:42:30
Originally by: De'Veldrin
Originally by: Anna Lifera

here's an idea: why don't u stop avoiding the fact that merely switching from a hulk to a covetor would be nothing more than an inconvenience as well? simple as that--no more 200 mil loss since covetors r t1... is it really that hard for u to do? really? maybe it is. why? u're just avoiding this because u don't want to adapt, just like the rest of them. all u did was restate that the loss of a hulk doesn't bother u but just the recovery stage after it, which is essentially the same exact thing.

so cry me a river 'cause u ain't special either. why should the game cater to your unwillingness to adapt?


And yet, that's exactly what you're saying - that this change shouldn't be approved because gankers don't want to have to adapt to a new modus operandi in how the choose their targets.

So let me toss your own question back at you:
Quote:
why should the game cater to your unwillingness to adapt?



correction: this change shouldn't be approved because u not wanting to adapt is the sole reason for the change. that's where the question "why should the game cater to your unwillingness to adapt?" comes in. because even if this happens, ppl will just use more ppl and cheaper ships to get the same result. so in the end, nothing that u intended to change will change.

Shandas
Gallente
Garoun Investment Bank
Posted - 2010.02.15 22:14:00 - [95]
 

Edited by: Shandas on 15/02/2010 22:57:04
Originally by: Anna Lifera
Originally by: Shandas
Wait maybe they should make damage controls built in on freighters and give 60% resist across the board. They have this in the real world, I know I have been on a freighter before!


again with the realism, only u just want it to accomodate your laziness and stupidity because u never tried anything at all to protect yourself. if u actually have, plz do tell.


Show me where on a ship in the world they have a damage control II that they turn on to increase their shield, armor and hull resists.

You make my point, you're a troll. I'm done with you.

Anna Lifera
6....
HAWK Alliance
Posted - 2010.02.16 00:07:00 - [96]
 

Originally by: Shandas


Show me where on a ship in the world they have a damage control II that they turn on to increase their shield, armor and hull resists.

You make my point, you're a troll. I'm done with you.


dude, u're using real-life references as solutions to your problems in a game. the thing is in a game, u can do things u can't do in the real world... get a grip... damn...

Chal0ner
Amarr
Sons Of 0din
Fatal Ascension
Posted - 2010.02.16 07:02:00 - [97]
 

Edited by: Chal0ner on 16/02/2010 07:07:59
Edited by: Chal0ner on 16/02/2010 07:04:41
Originally by: Anna Lifera

Originally by: Chal0ner
Agreed. After they nerf insurance payout for suicide ganking.
Then the risk is a bit leveled and then you can come back and cry if high sec dwellers still whine about suicide ganking 200m ships.
They chose to risk their 200m ships knowing full well what would happen if they lost it, you risk your 50m outfit and get almost all back - they don't.

Proposal supported.

And no, I don't live in empire. High sec bores me to tears.


fixed.


I notice you fixed something that didn't need fixing as it's totally missing the point made. Of course it makes "discussing" much easier.
The main point is
* carebears live in high sec to be reasonably safe from ganking - of course you can never be entirely safe in this game;
* but if you are ganked you should either get an insurance of equal proportions to that of the ganker, or failing that, the ganker should not get a full recovery on the tool used in a criminal act.

The other main reason that your fix is invalid is that it isn't really a real choice on the ganked player. To play the game as he/she intends (i.e. as a dedicated miner e.g.) you need to get ships of a certain value to make it worthwhile. To gank someone you don't need to make the same investment. And to add insult to injury, they are almost fully reimbursed by game mechanics.

CLETUS DEADMAN
Posted - 2010.02.16 12:59:00 - [98]
 

It seems to me (and this is just my opinion) that the only party here that is going to loose by a rule change is the gankers.
They get their cake and eat it to. It is a reward from the game for being a ganker. Since they get insurance and your loot, it is obvious that the game supports this.

Of course they are going to do everything they can to protect that, I would.

Juht Copur
Caldari
Posted - 2010.02.16 19:32:00 - [99]
 

Edited by: Juht Copur on 16/02/2010 19:35:18
No more riskless suicides. This is getting out of hand.

SliM ru
Posted - 2010.02.16 20:32:00 - [100]
 

Quote:
No more riskless suicides. This is getting out of hand.

+1

Anna Lifera
6....
HAWK Alliance
Posted - 2010.02.16 22:49:00 - [101]
 

Originally by: Chal0ner

I notice you fixed something that didn't need fixing as it's totally missing the point made. Of course it makes "discussing" much easier.
The main point is
* carebears live in high sec to be reasonably safe from ganking - of course you can never be entirely safe in this game;
* but if you are ganked you should either get an insurance of equal proportions to that of the ganker, or failing that, the ganker should not get a full recovery on the tool used in a criminal act.

The other main reason that your fix is invalid is that it isn't really a real choice on the ganked player. To play the game as he/she intends (i.e. as a dedicated miner e.g.) you need to get ships of a certain value to make it worthwhile. To gank someone you don't need to make the same investment. And to add insult to injury, they are almost fully reimbursed by game mechanics.


1. exactly--u cannot be entirely safe in high sec. but here's the thing--it's up to the ganker to decide whether or not to do so. all u have to do is not make yourself a prime target to entice him further. if u don't fly an expensive uninsureable ship, it's within reason to say u won't be worth ganking. a slight effort on your part makes all the difference to be "reasonably safe".
2. this reimbursement policy should change on the sole reason that the system is 0.5+ sec? if it was ccp's intention to take the game in that direction u propose, they would've changed it so u cannot even fire on other players in high sec at all.
3. fix is valid because u do NOT need a T2 200 mil mining ship to "make it worthwhile", especially since u'll be afk making it, so why exaggerate about the rate if u don't even have to do most of the work? u're only letting T2 be your crutch by thinking u have to swear your life by it. guess what? u DON'T. sure u can gamble the 200 mil for little more efficiency, it's your CHOICE... but think about it. u only mine slightly less with a covetor, which is practically zero loss if it gets blown up. and because of that, u don't even need to worry about fitting low slot tank mods and just go for the cargo expanders or even a mining upgrade because it won't even be worth ganking. and whoever still decides to shoot u down is either a moron or u did something to deserve it (in which case, u can either laugh at him or u got what was coming to u, respectively).

to suicide someone, it takes lots of combat skillpoints, which doesn't finish in a day, or a LOT of ppl who r willing to do the same thing with u and grind the sec status back up, and i mean actual ppl, NOT the multi-boxing u can do with mining. it may be a different investment, but it's still an investment. and it all hinges an unwitting victim being at the wrong place at the wrong time under the wrong circumstances, not a constant reliable stationary object u can count on to be there all the time to make isk. there's no 100% guarantee that u will down the target or u knowing exactly how much firepower u would need before it's a waste, and every attempt u make comes with a 100% guaranteed penalty. and even if u do down the target, there's no guarantee u'll get the loot before someone else beats u to it either.

one thing that's constant in eve is the risk u take by using a ship or mod that boosts your efficiency by a degree. the higher the efficiency gained by the item, the higher the loss u incur by losing it, even in high sec. the degree of efficiency and risk of keeping that efficiency is your choice.

Anya Synn
Posted - 2010.02.17 01:50:00 - [102]
 

Originally by: Anna Lifera
1. exactly--u cannot be [...] "reasonably safe".

Doesn't work for Hulkageddon (which was hilarious event btw.) and similar for the lulz-gankers. I have a problem with that, and the problem is that they're able to have their lulz for free, with almost no penalty. The "business"-doing suicidegankers also can get away with trivial penalty of kill rights (of one individual) and minor sec status loss. Risk versus reward ratio is even better than with missionrunning or mining, considering that the risk is trivial and reward is potentially huge. (As for why the risk is trivial, you should know by now, but I'll address it later.)
Originally by: Anna Lifera
2. this reimbursement [...] sec at all.

That would make high sec no-risk area. Currently it isn't that for anyone except suicidegankers.
Originally by: Anna Lifera
3. fix is valid [...] to u, respectively).

So you're saying that miners shouldn't try maximize their effectiveness because an unfair and illogical system is used against them? Also, afk-mining isn't any way prohibited. Actually, the way I see it, the current mining system encourages to it, as there's probably no other equally boring (and easily afkable) activity in EVE. If you want afk-mining fixed, you should ask it elsewhere. (And yes, I think something should be done about mining, to make it more interesting, and more attention-intensive. If done right, I might even become interested in mining some day.)
Originally by: Anna Lifera
to suicide someone, [...] u to it either.

I'm pretty sure that it's perfectly possible to train a trial-time toon that can suicidegank with great effectiveness against all but well-tanked targets like transport ships or hardened Hulks. Destroyers are really easy to get into, and you only need the very basic combat skills anyway. Not to say that highly skilled wouldn't be more effective, but low-sp char can be effective enough. When it comes to multi-boxing, I'm pretty sure that not nearly every miner multiboxes, and I'm also quite sure that many suicidegankers use multiple accounts. There's no difference here.

Regarding 100% guarantees, you can be 100% sure that even if you fail, you haven't lost anything, except minimal amount of isk and easily-recoverable amount of sec status. While if you succeed, you can also be 100% sure to have nice loot and one more juicy killmail in your collection. Pirates of all forms seem to value killmails above all else in EVE.
Originally by: Anna Lifera
one thing that's [...] is your choice.[/b]

That's pretty much true, and that way it should be, also for suicidegankers. Destroyer isn't expensive even without insurance, but it's effectiveness is limited. Battlecruiser or battleship brings much more efficiency also in suicideganking, but due to the insurance system, the suicide ganker gets this efficiency increase for free.

---

As for the triviality of sec status loss... Think it this way: how long time does it take to recover the lost sec status? And how long it takes to gather isk to replace a ganked Hulk? Or Industrial-load of lost goods? Or pod+implants lost for lulz-ganking smartbomber? I think the first is in order of hours and certainely no more than a day of ratting in 0.0, if you know what you're doing. I don't think you can get more than few dozen millions per day by just mining in high sec. Even few dozen millions imply highly skilled miner pilot with top-level equipment, which most won't have since you just blew it up. Sure, the miner can also go missioning or ratting to 0.0, but combat is not his profession unlike yours, so he's probably not skilled in it. Also, the lulz-gankers are probably blinky pirates anyway, so sec status loss is meaningless to them, and only way to penalize them is to force them to pay for their lost ships while currently they're offered free ships.

Chal0ner
Amarr
Sons Of 0din
Fatal Ascension
Posted - 2010.02.17 04:52:00 - [103]
 

Edited by: Chal0ner on 17/02/2010 04:57:27
Edited by: Chal0ner on 17/02/2010 04:55:42
Edited by: Chal0ner on 17/02/2010 04:54:21
Originally by: Anna Lifera

1. if u don't fly an expensive uninsureable ship, it's within reason to say u won't be worth ganking. a slight effort on your part makes all the difference to be "reasonably safe".


Invalid. Because; I don't think it's the ship as such you're after (but I might be wrong), but mostly because of

Originally by: Anna Lifera
2. this reimbursement policy should change on the sole reason that the system is 0.5+ sec?


No because the game mechanics are unbalanced strongly in favour of the ganker.

Originally by: Anna Lifera
3. fix is valid because u do NOT need a T2 200 mil mining ship to "make it worthwhile", especially since u'll be afk making it, so why exaggerate about the rate if u don't even have to do most of the work? u're only letting T2 be your crutch by thinking u have to swear your life by it. guess what? u DON'T. sure u can gamble the 200 mil for little more efficiency


Your argument is based on the false notion that the Hulk is only marginally better than the Covetor. It simply isn't true.

Originally by: Anna Lifera
to suicide someone, it takes lots of combat skillpoints, which doesn't finish in a day,


Which is completely beside the point and has nothing whatsoever to do with the proposal at hand. It is - as you are so eager to point out - your choice of using T2 guns and ammo, rather than the marginally less effective T1 Razz

The key point is that the game mechanics in suicide ganking in high sec is strongly biased towards the ganker rather than the ganked. You enjoy all benefits, the ganked faces all the consequences. As someone pointed out, the security hit is easily fixed (feck, I've gained +1 in sec just by clearing belts in 0.0, a total of maybe 20 minutes at most).

Mining (or come to think of it, living) in 0.0 is a constant risk of being shot to itsy bitsy, either by reds or by rats. It's a risk I'm prepared to take. Carebears are not prepared to take the same risk, else they wouldn't be mining crap ore in a silly place Very Happy

Chal0ner
Amarr
Sons Of 0din
Fatal Ascension
Posted - 2010.02.17 05:04:00 - [104]
 

Originally by: Anya Synn
I think the first is in order of hours and certainely no more than a day of ratting in 0.0, if you know what you're doing.


Not to mention you make millions in chaining BS spawns. At the wee risk of getting ganked...Laughing

Anna Lifera
6....
HAWK Alliance
Posted - 2010.02.17 06:28:00 - [105]
 

Originally by: Anya Synn

Doesn't work for Hulkageddon (which was hilarious event btw.) and similar for the lulz-gankers. I have a problem with that, and the problem is that they're able to have their lulz for free, with almost no penalty. The "business"-doing suicidegankers also can get away with trivial penalty of kill rights (of one individual) and minor sec status loss. Risk versus reward ratio is even better than with missionrunning or mining, considering that the risk is trivial and reward is potentially huge. (As for why the risk is trivial, you should know by now, but I'll address it later.)

That would make high sec no-risk area. Currently it isn't that for anyone except suicidegankers.


1. only hulkageddon is broadcasted in advance. if u can't do something as simple as heeding the warning, it's your own fault.
2. as i told u already, the isk/lulz completely hinges on targets that aren't stationary, reliable, inanimate objects that generate a consistent, steady amount of isk. it hinges on other ppl, who have a brain (although not all of them use it). it's those certain victims that just don't learn from their mistakes that makes it look "free". if u have a problem with stupidity being punished, go to world of warcraft.

Originally by: Anya Synn

So you're saying that miners shouldn't try maximize their effectiveness because an unfair and illogical system is used against them? Also, afk-mining isn't any way prohibited. Actually, the way I see it, the current mining system encourages to it, as there's probably no other equally boring (and easily afkable) activity in EVE. If you want afk-mining fixed, you should ask it elsewhere. (And yes, I think something should be done about mining, to make it more interesting, and more attention-intensive. If done right, I might even become interested in mining some day.)


1. no--what i already said was increasing effectiveness comes with more risks. try and put things in perspective for a minute. would u faction fit a ship or even go t3, even in the relative safety of your blob? would u risk a faction battleship or t3 in a lvl 4, hell, lvl 5? ppl do it 'cause they don't mind the risk for that extra effectiveness. it's the same exact concept.
2. u misread because i never said afk-mining should be fixed. in fact, suicide ganking balances afk-mining. and furthermore, it's the ONLY thing balancing afk-mining. u wanna keep badgering about risk vs reward, fine.

advantages: 1. tons of free time 2. steady, consistent isk every few minutes 3. little/no environmental hazards 4. impossible to screw up
disadvantages: it's obviously boring (but that's cancelled by the tons of free time, leaving 2, 3, and 4), and loss from suicide gankers (and that's only if u're flying a t2)

so if u were to describe mining using the words "risk vs reward"...well there's no other risk to it. just rewards. all u're doing is asking ccp to weaken one profession (suicide ganking) for the sole reason to eliminate another profession's only true risk/disadvantage (which u stated u don't even have an interest in), making it all reward, no risk.

and if u want to do make isk in a less boring way, do missions instead of standardizing every profession into one single uniform game mechanic.

Anna Lifera
6....
HAWK Alliance
Posted - 2010.02.17 07:02:00 - [106]
 

Originally by: Anya Synn
I'm pretty sure that it's perfectly possible to train a trial-time toon that can suicidegank with great effectiveness against all but well-tanked targets like transport ships or hardened Hulks. Destroyers are really easy to get into, and you only need the very basic combat skills anyway. Not to say that highly skilled wouldn't be more effective, but low-sp char can be effective enough. When it comes to multi-boxing, I'm pretty sure that not nearly every miner multiboxes, and I'm also quite sure that many suicidegankers use multiple accounts. There's no difference here.


1. what's wrong with anyone shooting down a paper-thin hauler containing a fortune, whose pilot chose to fly a paper-thin hauler to protect that fortune?
2. low sp must be offset by more ppl, which takes coordination and teamwork.
3. there's a big difference between creating alts with several accounts to sink more isk and time to train them as opposed to simultaneously running several accounts at the same time to just generate income.

Originally by: Anya Synn
Regarding 100% guarantees, you can be 100% sure that even if you fail, you haven't lost anything, except minimal amount of isk and easily-recoverable amount of sec status. While if you succeed, you can also be 100% sure to have nice loot and one more juicy killmail in your collection. Pirates of all forms seem to value killmails above all else in EVE.


while if u succeed, u can also be 100% sure to have nice loot--wrong. i already told u that a 3rd party could be lying in wait to steal it from u and it's not practical to attack them in advance either.

Originally by: Anya Synn
That's pretty much true, and that way it should be, also for suicidegankers. Destroyer isn't expensive even without insurance, but it's effectiveness is limited. Battlecruiser or battleship brings much more efficiency also in suicideganking, but due to the insurance system, the suicide ganker gets this efficiency increase for free.


nevertheless, there's still limits to their capabilities, which leads to forminng a large fleet, which again, requires a lot of coordination and teamwork. help to this degree is far from free.

Originally by: Anya Synn
As for the triviality of sec status loss... Think it this way: how long time does it take to recover the lost sec status? And how long it takes to gather isk to replace a ganked Hulk? Or Industrial-load of lost goods? Or pod+implants lost for lulz-ganking smartbomber? I think the first is in order of hours and certainely no more than a day of ratting in 0.0, if you know what you're doing. I don't think you can get more than few dozen millions per day by just mining in high sec. Even few dozen millions imply highly skilled miner pilot with top-level equipment, which most won't have since you just blew it up. Sure, the miner can also go missioning or ratting to 0.0, but combat is not his profession unlike yours, so he's probably not skilled in it. Also, the lulz-gankers are probably blinky pirates anyway, so sec status loss is meaningless to them, and only way to penalize them is to force them to pay for their lost ships while currently they're offered free ships.


think of it this way:
1. how hard is it to switch to a covetor and eliminate any possible losses almost entirely for a slight drop in afk income?
2. how hard is it to realize that instead of having to replace that hulk, u could've done #1?
3. how hard is it to use a cloaking transport ship?
4. how hard is it to not autopilot when u're carrying those implants?
5. u act like a few dozen million daily from an afk-profession is so little, considering u can actually afk doing it with no other risks.
6. so far, u've done nothing but ponder what happens when a miner, hauler, or anyone is too lazy/stupid/careless/oblivious to even try to protect his assets.

Anna Lifera
6....
HAWK Alliance
Posted - 2010.02.17 07:40:00 - [107]
 

Originally by: Chal0ner

Invalid. Because; I don't think it's the ship as such you're after (but I might be wrong), but mostly because of


so u're saying i'd attack someone in high sec just because...

Originally by: Chal0ner

No because the game mechanics are unbalanced strongly in favour of the ganker.


so what u want to happen is whoever aggresses anywhere, even 0.0, should lose the possibility of insurance upon loss?

Originally by: Chal0ner

Your argument is based on the false notion that the Hulk is only marginally better than the Covetor. It simply isn't true.


care to elaborate on that? 'cause apparently, u and i have different definitions on "marginally".

Originally by: Chal0ner
Which is completely beside the point and has nothing whatsoever to do with the proposal at hand. It is - as you are so eager to point out - your choice of using T2 guns and ammo, rather than the marginally less effective T1 Razz


yet ppl want to bring up the mechanics of alt training, thinking they know everything there is know about it. and yes, it's one's choice to use t2 guns and ammo, just like hulk vs covetor. everyone has to make these decisions and deal with the risks that come with it.

Originally by: Chal0ner
The key point is that the game mechanics in suicide ganking in high sec is strongly biased towards the ganker rather than the ganked. You enjoy all benefits, the ganked faces all the consequences. As someone pointed out, the security hit is easily fixed (feck, I've gained +1 in sec just by clearing belts in 0.0, a total of maybe 20 minutes at most).


the key point is u're looking at this the wrong way. it's also due to game mechanics that he has to decide whether or not to gank in the first place. if u're not worth ganking, u won't be ganked. that simple rule will steer u clear of any consequences u would've faced otherwise. and of course, u exaggerate sec gains the same way u exaggerate the marginal difference in the ore rate between a hulk and covetor.

Originally by: Chal0ner
Mining (or come to think of it, living) in 0.0 is a constant risk of being shot to itsy bitsy, either by reds or by rats. It's a risk I'm prepared to take. Carebears are not prepared to take the same risk, else they wouldn't be mining crap ore in a silly place Very Happy


only that crap ore is worth more isk per volume than pretty much any low sec ore available and probably 0.0 as well. all reward, no risk. we're merely instilling that risk.

yourdoingitwrong
Posted - 2010.02.17 08:11:00 - [108]
 

thumbs down!

mechanics are working as intended. You want to be completely safe go play a pve game on a multiserver cluster this one is pvp.

this kind of thread has come up lots with very little support for years and nothing has really happened on it at all.

Ill make sure to suicide one hulk for every post in this thread supporting it just for lolz.

Chal0ner
Amarr
Sons Of 0din
Fatal Ascension
Posted - 2010.02.17 09:13:00 - [109]
 

Originally by: Anna Lifera


so what u want to happen is whoever aggresses anywhere, even 0.0, should lose the possibility of insurance upon loss?


How in [fav diety]s name did you read that into it?
We were, I think disucssing suicide ganking in high sec?


Originally by: Anna Lifera

care to elaborate on that? 'cause apparently, u and i have different definitions on "marginally".



No really, read Haladas mining guide.

Originally by: Chal0ner
Which is completely beside the point and has nothing whatsoever to do with the proposal at hand. It is - as you are so eager to point out - your choice of using T2 guns and ammo, rather than the marginally less effective T1 Razz



Originally by: Anna Lifera
yet ppl want to bring up the mechanics of alt training,



I haven't as far as I am aware. It's still beside the point.

Originally by: Chal0ner
The key point is that the game mechanics in suicide ganking in high sec is strongly biased towards the ganker rather than the ganked. You enjoy all benefits, the ganked faces all the consequences. As someone pointed out, the security hit is easily fixed (feck, I've gained +1 in sec just by clearing belts in 0.0, a total of maybe 20 minutes at most).



Originally by: Anna Lifera
the key point is u're looking at this a different way. it's also due to game mechanics that he has to decide whether or not to gank in the first place.



Fixed that.


Originally by: Anna Lifera

if u're not worth ganking, u won't be ganked. that simple rule will steer u clear of any consequences u would've faced otherwise. and of course, u exaggerate sec gains the same way u exaggerate the marginal difference in the ore rate between a hulk and covetor.



I've not said don't gank. Ever.
My alt would shoot me for it. =)
I couldn't find all the itsy bitsy to put the victims together again anyway so what the f...

You basically want to keep your full re-imbursment in insurance. Cool. I think it's unbalanced. Nothing prevents you from suiciding you carebears even if you won't get insurance for your ship. You'll just have to experience how fun it is losing a ship without getting any where close to the cost of a new ship.

Originally by: Chal0ner
Mining (or come to think of it, living) in 0.0 is a constant risk of being shot to itsy bitsy, either by reds or by rats. It's a risk I'm prepared to take. Carebears are not prepared to take the same risk, else they wouldn't be mining crap ore in a silly place Very Happy



Originally by: Anna Lifera

only that crap ore is worth more isk per volume than pretty much any low sec ore available and probably 0.0 as well. all reward, no risk. we're merely instilling that risk.


Not really no. Haven't got the figures at work so can't check.

Flying ZombieJesus
Posted - 2010.02.17 14:55:00 - [110]
 

There is an easy, in game fix that has already been implemented.

Miners: pay attention to local; put on a DCII & shield extenders. It wont save you from a half dozen thoraxes, but it will save you from three.
... or you can join a corp that mines in nullsec/wh and have some protection.

The Jita Ganked:

Don't carry so much crap in T1 haulers. Pretty much any T1 hauler can be one shotted by a properly skilled tempest. If you max out Shield extenders, hardeners, and a DCII, it may take two tempests.

If you're carrying upwards of 300 mil in your T1 hauler, you're a target. Max out your shields so it wont be worth it for TWO people to shoot you.

Anywhere near 500mil and you should be in a transport with extenders and resists. I've seen a transport take 3 tempests and a mega and fly away in structure. Yes, 5 Tempests will gank any fit you have, so make sure whatever you're carrying isnt worth it for FIVE people to lose sec and their BS.

After that you get in a freighter.

Its about not playing stupid - not whining to the dev's to allow for stupid play.

If you have a 2bil item that's 5m3, why do you load it into your cargo-maxed iteron V? Put it in a t1 frig. No one scans those - and even if they do, you can align faster than they can lock and shoot.

If whatever you're carrying is valuable, maybe you should get a better ship to carry it - or at least remove the cargo space you're not using and put a frigging tank on. I know i've chosen not to shoot targets because they've got too much tank.

In conclusion, I wish I could contract your tears; they're more valuable than anything else in eve.

Anna Lifera
6....
HAWK Alliance
Posted - 2010.02.17 16:15:00 - [111]
 

Originally by: Chal0ner

How in [fav diety]s name did you read that into it?
We were, I think disucssing suicide ganking in high sec?


because high sec is simply only one area of the game. the basis for your argument lie in treating high sec as a special place completely separated from the rest of eve that it's supposed to be some type of sanctuary. guess what--it's NOT or else, like i said before, shooting other players wouldn't be allowed at all. that's why the mechanics favoring the attacker isn't something exclusive to high sec either. it applies to all of eve.

Originally by: Chal0ner

No really, read Haladas mining guide.


if u're gonna continue to nitpick, ***** and moan about afk income in the first place, u might want to try a profession that doesn't allow u to afk as much... just to put things in perspective.

Originally by: Chal0ner

I haven't as far as I am aware. It's still beside the point.


it's not beside the point if i'm addressing someone else's argument. it IS beside the point when as i'm doing so, u think i was talking to u when i obviously wasn't.

Originally by: Chal0ner
Fixed that.


u forgot the second part of that... then again, that part's fine the way it is anyway.

Originally by: Chal0ner
I've not said don't gank. Ever.
My alt would shoot me for it. =)
I couldn't find all the itsy bitsy to put the victims together again anyway so what the f...


u don't have to directly say it. no one else did. what u and the others did was put yourself in a situation where u don't do anything about it... well of course it's gonna happen. and it'll continue because u refuse to use the tools and mechanics that r already set.

Originally by: Chal0ner
You basically want to keep your full re-imbursment in insurance. Cool. I think it's unbalanced. Nothing prevents you from suiciding you carebears even if you won't get insurance for your ship. You'll just have to experience how fun it is losing a ship without getting any where close to the cost of a new ship.


yes because like i said before, high sec is only one facet of eve, not a completely separate area that serves as a sanctuary. that's why insurance is re-imbursed no matter the location. it's an intended mechanic. and the fun of losing that much... guess what? u've just experienced what many combat pilots went through when they took the risk of using a t2 ship. u're not exempt from this 'cause it's still eve, especially considering the nature of your profession.

Originally by: Chal0ner
Not really no. Haven't got the figures at work so can't check.



"not really no" but u can't back that up? here's an idea: go to the forge region and compare the isk per volume on all the existing minerals. notice a certain "crap ore" on top of that list?

Chal0ner
Amarr
Sons Of 0din
Fatal Ascension
Posted - 2010.02.17 18:32:00 - [112]
 

Edited by: Chal0ner on 17/02/2010 18:47:54
Edited by: Chal0ner on 17/02/2010 18:37:52
OK, I'll stop here. You are taking it against me as a personally so it won't be interesting to feed the troll.

*I* never complained about being ganked. All times but one Chal0ner has been ganked it was due to my own stupidity more or less. *I* have ganked other players in low sec (not as this character, but as my -2 something alt). I don't grief carebears, it's boring...I've lived the last several months in wh/0.0-space so it becomes pretty pathetic when you argue against me as against high sec living carebears, which only shows how much you care about what other people argue.

*I've* never, ever afk mined anything. I don't condone, and if Hulkageddon clears the macro miners from the game I won't shed tears.
You still don't get the point people are making, and you probably never will see the illogical mechanism in killing the gankers ships in high sec and then pay them back in full through insurance. And yes, high sec is a bit special as that will not happen in low sec (unless you are badly tanked near gate guns and such) and definately not in 0.0. If the whole point of EVE was too grief miners anywhere, there wouldn't be any point in having Concord methinks.

I still think suicide ganking in high sec shouldn't be fully re-imbursed. Nothing you've actually said in this argument has convinced me the game mechanism is fair towards carebears.

Anna Lifera
6....
HAWK Alliance
Posted - 2010.02.17 20:20:00 - [113]
 

Edited by: Anna Lifera on 17/02/2010 20:56:17
Edited by: Anna Lifera on 17/02/2010 20:41:18
Originally by: Chal0ner
Edited by: Chal0ner on 17/02/2010 18:37:52
OK, I'll stop here. You are taking it against me as a personally so it won't be interesting to feed the troll.

*I* never complained about being ganked. All times but one Chal0ner has been ganked it was due to my own stupidity more or less. *I* have ganked other players in low sec (not as this character, but as my -2 something alt). I don't grief carebears, it's boring...
*I've* never, ever afk mined anything. I don't like it, and if Hulkageddon clears the macro miners from the game I won't shed tears.

You still don't get the point people are making, and you probably never will see the illogical mechanism in killing the gankers ships in high sec and then pay them back in full through insurance. And yes, high sec is a bit special as that will not happen in low sec (unless you are badly tanked near gate guns and such) and definately not in 0.0.

I still think suicide ganking in high sec shouldn't be fully re-imbursed. Nothing you've actually said in this argument about has convinced me the game mechanism is fair towards carebears.


1. no--i'm just merely clarifying that what u're really doing is asking to being pampered in safety, despite your profession (being automated as it is) not having any natural drawbacks, especially in a game where pvp is a major facet. furthermore, the only measure u have to take to afk in safety and still reap in the isk is a slight downgrade to eliminate any possible losses. i'm not attacking u by making valid points; u just refuse to listen.
2. so u've never complained about being ganked... u're only doing the carebear's complaining for them?
3. it doesn't matter if u've never afk mined anything--the fact is, it can be done, it has been done, it's being done, and it probably will continue.
4. wow... u can't be serious... Laughing u're complaining of something that can't happen in low sec/0.0 simply because a lot worse things can happen in there, like oh... getting blown up no matter what? and u're calling me a troll?
5. u're not "convinced"? more like u just want high sec to be special because u want everything to be handed to u on a silver platter--maximum ore rate, complete safety, and to top it all off, afk time. u don't grief carebears because u r one in disguise, just like the others. if u want everything, u'll end up with nothing.

Imnota alt
Gallente
Satan's Protegees
Posted - 2010.02.18 01:37:00 - [114]
 

At the risk of sounding like ccp; Ganking is working as intended
1. Non-Freighter Ganks (and this post) Smileare almost always for lols and tears
2. Concord has nothing to do with the scc at all
3. Sandbox, player to player interactions is a inherent and vitapart of such system.
4. ganking isnt risk free
5. their is simple steps you can take to avoid it

Shivani
Posted - 2010.02.18 11:14:00 - [115]
 

Edited by: Shivani on 18/02/2010 11:15:46
Originally by: Flying ZombieJesus
The Jita Ganked:

Don't carry so much crap in T1 haulers. Pretty much any T1 hauler can be one shotted by a properly skilled tempest. If you max out Shield extenders, hardeners, and a DCII, it may take two tempests.


See, here is the problem: Even if that one hauler is hauling stuff worth only little, the inssurance will reimburse any Ganking BS lost in the process and the loss of the gankers will be minimal.
Hell, people only gank just for giggles and don't lose much.

Quote:
If you're carrying upwards of 300 mil in your T1 hauler, you're a target. Max out your shields so it wont be worth it for TWO people to shoot you.


Again: Insurrance payout is too high, regardless of what the victim is carrying in the cargohold.

Quote:
Anywhere near 500mil and you should be in a transport with extenders and resists. I've seen a transport take 3 tempests and a mega and fly away in structure. Yes, 5 Tempests will gank any fit you have, so make sure whatever you're carrying isnt worth it for FIVE people to lose sec and their BS.


And once again. The inssurnace will cover the loss of ships. (Imnsurrance fraud). Ppl don't need to haul around 500 millione to make it worthwhile for 5 Tempest to gank them.

Quote:
In conclusion, I wish I could contract your tears; they're more valuable than anything else in eve.


In conclusion: You did not understand the core problem. Insurrance payout is too high for gankers, making it a valuable business even when ganking empty haulers.

dichanglow
Posted - 2010.02.18 12:54:00 - [116]
 

I think My Torp Raven needs a BIGGER alfa
and I think those 2 Ions do make a difference

o yea more target painters!YARRRR!!YARRRR!!YARRRR!!

Flying ZombieJesus
Posted - 2010.02.18 13:56:00 - [117]
 

Edited by: Flying ZombieJesus on 18/02/2010 13:55:51
Originally by: Shivani

See, here is the problem: Even if that one hauler is hauling stuff worth only little, the inssurance will reimburse any Ganking BS lost in the process and the loss of the gankers will be minimal.
Hell, people only gank just for giggles and don't lose much.



For haulers, they gank for isk. I know because I do it.

With a slightly positive sec you get about four ganks before you have to go back and grind your sec. That part sucks, and I hate doing it. So no, you wouldn't waste a gank on something that wasn't going to pay off - anything under 200 mil is not a target to me. Some guys will go for it, sure, but most wont. Too big a risk that something will not drop, and 200mil isn't worth it.

The ones you wait for are the 300mil+ untanked t1 haulers that undock. And there's plenty of those. Fix the stupid problem first, and the rest will take care of itself.

I'm trying to fix the stupid problem by learning these people a lesson, but theres just so much stupid in eve I don't think I'll ever be done.

girdy
Posted - 2010.02.18 14:45:00 - [118]
 

the issue i have with the suicide gankers is that the whole insurance setup is needing a make over with t3 ships costing millions and the subsys as well and if u go to insure it they insure it for 12mil how can a t3 cruiser be in the same insurance band as a normal cruiser that would be like saying a porsche is the same as a polo they need to insure the ships correctly or do away with it period as it is senceless spending even more isk at it to get less back and as for suicide gankers yes i agree self destruct or ships killed by the police shouldnt get insurance

Anna Lifera
6....
HAWK Alliance
Posted - 2010.02.18 14:50:00 - [119]
 

Originally by: Shivani
See, here is the problem: Even if that one hauler is hauling stuff worth only little, the inssurance will reimburse any Ganking BS lost in the process and the loss of the gankers will be minimal.
Hell, people only gank just for giggles and don't lose much.

Again: Insurrance payout is too high, regardless of what the victim is carrying in the cargohold.

And once again. The inssurnace will cover the loss of ships. (Imnsurrance fraud). Ppl don't need to haul around 500 millione to make it worthwhile for 5 Tempest to gank them.

In conclusion: You did not understand the core problem. Insurrance payout is too high for gankers, making it a valuable business even when ganking empty haulers.


1. u're not understanding that insurance applies because it's an intended game mechanic. i already said that high sec is NOT a completely separate entity that doubles as a sanctuary. it's just another part of the eve universe.
2. and no one suicide ganks empty haulers. i've autopiloted empty haulers (or even with worthless cargo) on long trips simply because i had to get something done around the house and i've never been suicide ganked for it. so no, it's not valuable or smart to suicide a hauler that's not worth it. those decisions to hold back tells anyone with a brain that the sec status penalties do have an impact, despite what the carebears think.

Anna Lifera
6....
HAWK Alliance
Posted - 2010.02.18 15:12:00 - [120]
 

Originally by: girdy
the issue i have with the suicide gankers is that the whole insurance setup is needing a make over with t3 ships costing millions and the subsys as well and if u go to insure it they insure it for 12mil how can a t3 cruiser be in the same insurance band as a normal cruiser that would be like saying a porsche is the same as a polo they need to insure the ships correctly or do away with it period as it is senceless spending even more isk at it to get less back and as for suicide gankers yes i agree self destruct or ships killed by the police shouldnt get insurance


t2 and especially t3 r supposed to be better than t1. that's why they have little/no insurance for it to compensate--more power = more responsibility. here's the thing in eve: to be able to wield that much power comes with a risk, just like any t2 ship or faction mod, the risk of the lack of insurance if u lose it. this is NOT world of warcraft, where u're supposed to acquire all your epic gear for keeps--that's not how it works here. if u can't pilot/fit a t3 or even t2 well enough to not lose it, then u're either rich, u took a gamble and lost, and/or u're probably not rdy to fly one.


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