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 : ... 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 ... : last (17)

Author Topic

Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS
IDLE EMPIRE
Posted - 2010.03.08 03:06:00 - [151]
 

I think I supported this a while back but anyways support!

Tehg Rhind
Posted - 2010.04.08 15:50:00 - [152]
 

I wasn't sure if I should just start a new thread, or continue this one, since this is an alternative proposal, but since thus topic generates enough hate I thought I would just stay in this thread. Here are some initial points:

1) limiting suicide ganks actually hurts (some) carebears - Most people can't seem to see past the end of their nose when it comes to long term game design. Limiting the frequency of suicide ganks will increase the amount of inter-regional trading. This increase would even out inter-regional price differences much more rapidly than is currently done. More level inter-regional prices would cut out a lot of income from many traders and haulers.

2) Dont act like you don't don't avoid pvp too - how many of the people talking about carebears tears use alt scouts to dodge gate camps or for all sorts of other pvp metagming?

Anyways. I have nothing against suicide ganking, but I don't think that it's current form makes sense. Here's my proposal.

-allow insurance payouts for gankers. The insurance system already makes about as much business sense as an AIG 5 year plan, and I see no reason why suicide gankers should be treated any different from players that loose ships every other day from pvp. Moreover, the potential affects on the mineral market are confusing at best, and really we don't need any more confounding issues there. Finally I don't think it would make any real difference, as the profitability of suicide ganking vastly outstrips the losses to be had from ganking, insurance or no.

-remove the profitability: what kind of police force sees someone get shot, then shows up and kills the murderer only to see someone else come and pick his pocket, doing nothing? Whatever remains after a suicide gank should have a reasonable chance of ending up in the original owners pockets. How this is done doesn't really matter.

Suicide ganks should be truly suicidal, nothing is gained except the destruction of your enemy. It would still be viable as a way to harass traders, but would be governed by mercenary contracts instead of profitability to the ganker. The trader would still see massive losses, so there would still be reasons to do it, but it would truly be a suicide attack.

By the way, does anyone know if people have bombed Jita gates before? I simply love that idea. Oh yeah and this system should see Jita become less of the ridiculous trade hub it is due to increased hauling, which would be good for server stability and sanity, and maybe trade in general.

MrDiao
Posted - 2010.04.09 01:45:00 - [153]
 

I can still gank hulks with destoryers for fun. But Is there will be a gang gank a charon? lol almost never I think. The Safest transportship shows now.

And there will not necessary to use officers in deep null only.PPl are less likely to gank a 2B equipped target with 10 BSs,for it costs 1B but not sure to drop all the modules.

Have fun with your Gist X-larges! LaughingLaughingLaughing

There is no necessary to join a corp for 00 ratting now.

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2010.04.09 12:03:00 - [154]
 

The upcoming insurance changes should pretty much do what is required anyway.

Everseeker
Caldari
Northgate
Posted - 2010.04.09 16:21:00 - [155]
 

Edited by: Everseeker on 09/04/2010 16:26:15
Supported ORIGINAL thread, no insurance payout for concord kills.

What's the change to Insurance you speak of???

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2010.04.09 16:29:00 - [156]
 

Originally by: Everseeker
Edited by: Everseeker on 09/04/2010 16:26:15
Supported ORIGINAL thread, no insurance payout for concord kills.

What's the change to Insurance you speak of???


Shouldn't you at least find out what's going to happen already before demanding more changes?

In short, insurance values will (in ~1 month) be determined by mineral values, and will be set to pay ~30% less than the mineral cost of the ship. So it will nearly always cost ISK to lose a ship.

Ranka Mei
Caldari
Posted - 2010.05.08 08:54:00 - [157]
 

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.

Quoted for honesty.

Ranka Mei
Caldari
Posted - 2010.05.08 10:03:00 - [158]
 

Originally by: Tehg Rhind
-remove the profitability: what kind of police force sees someone get shot, then shows up and kills the murderer only to see someone else come and pick his pocket, doing nothing? Whatever remains after a suicide gank should have a reasonable chance of ending up in the original owners pockets. How this is done doesn't really matter.

Suicide ganks should be truly suicidal, nothing is gained except the destruction of your enemy. It would still be viable as a way to harass traders, but would be governed by mercenary contracts instead of profitability to the ganker. The trader would still see massive losses, so there would still be reasons to do it, but it would truly be a suicide attack.

I like your ideas. :) Suicide ganking should really be suicidal: no seventy virgins for the ganker, just oblivion.

Originally by: Anna Lifera
4. it's an intended mechanic, with sec penalties imposed as its limitation.

The problem with these so-called 'intended game-mechanics' is that all y'all keep massively abusing them. And then CCP has to nerf them. "Let's make a MWD," CCP thought. And then folks began to fit multiple instances, getting up to ridiculous speeds. So CCP had to rein in your abusive behavior. Same with shield/mods, BCU's, etc. In general, the whole 'stacking penalty' system had to be introduced because people always seek to push the envelope of intended game mechanics. I think it's pretty sleasy, but maybe it's just human nature.

Same with suicide ganking: CCP makes you pay a security penalty for doing so. And, instead of doing it less, you find inventive ways around it, like creating disposable destroyer pilots. This is your nature. So be it. But fact also is, that every time you abuse an 'intended game-mechanic,' CCP will have to nerf you. Because 'fair use' to most constitutes finding the absolute limit of where abusing a mechanic become absolute illegal, and then operating just 1 notch under that and yelling 'intended game-mechanics!'

So, I say it's time CCP finally bring down the hammer on suicide ganking. Not saying it should be disallowed, but they should stop allowing you to be abuse the system to get past the imposed penalties. Which is to say, at the very least, 0 insurance pay-out when shot down by Concord, and banning people who use disposable accounts to avoid taking sec damage hits.

Baka Lakadaka
Gallente
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
Posted - 2010.05.08 11:23:00 - [159]
 

Fair enough - RL insurance doesn't pay out if you use your own car for a ram-raid.

Mag's
the united
Negative Ten.
Posted - 2010.05.08 13:31:00 - [160]
 

Originally by: Ranka Mei
Stuff...


You should read more.

Originally by: CSM Summit Minutes
The CSM brought up the issue of suicide ganking and feels it is too easy. The main problem is that this is in effect subsidized by insurance. CCP is aware of the issue and has discussed it at great length in-house. CCP feels it absolutely needs to compensate newbies that attack players by mistake in high-sec. This may get changed in the future but not in the summer expansion. It was made clear that suicide ganking is an accepted game mechanic.


@ Baka Lakadaka, lol fail at RL comparisons.

Grun Orthin
Posted - 2010.05.09 18:34:00 - [161]
 

Suicide Gank all u want. That said, there are all kinds of griefer tactics I donít like and donít use. I think pay outs for concord kills and self-destructs is silly and stopping it wonít stop suicide ganking but needs to be done just for consistencies sake. Criminal behavior should not be insurable.

Some one mentioned jail in an earlier post, Laughing, I like that idea, but I was thinking more like community service, after your ship is Concorded they send u to a prison and u have to mine a volume of trit in a newb ship before u can be released. Repeat offenders would have to mine larger volumes before release.

Resha Tsvort
Posted - 2010.05.09 18:50:00 - [162]
 


Ranka Mei
Caldari
Posted - 2010.05.09 21:57:00 - [163]
 

Originally by: Baka Lakadaka
Fair enough - RL insurance doesn't pay out if you use your own car for a ram-raid.

Much like RL Life Insurance policies are generally voided on suicide.

Anna Lifera
6....
HAWK Alliance
Posted - 2010.05.10 00:58:00 - [164]
 

don't forget voiding insurance everywhere else too--after all, what kind of insurance company reimburses u for getting your vehicle blown up in a war zone? Laughing

Finite Solutions
Posted - 2010.05.11 13:47:00 - [165]
 

Originally by: De'Veldrin
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.


Fit out a Tempest with some Meta 3 guns, four pieces of RF EMP L per gun, some sentry drones "just in case", a rack of sensor booster II's with scan res scripts, a cargo scanner and an even mix of tracking enhancer II's and gyrostabilizer II's in your lows. Then go sit outside of a station undock in a decent trade hub. Wait. Check undocking haulers. When that guy undocks with 500m in loot, shoot him and scoop his wreck with your alt. Hopefully the good stuff didn't die...

I generally get at LEAST one idiot an hour undocking with a cargo hold full of loot and no tank.

Lubomir Penev
Dark Nexxus
S I L E N T.
Posted - 2010.05.11 15:59:00 - [166]
 

Originally by: Krans Hopeson
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.


Why would one not tank his Hulk? Ah I see morons. Pilots of untanked ships should not receive insurance either, the same way as in RL you need to take basic protection in order to claim anything (insurance wanting fire detection, approved locks, etc...). Reimbursing the pilot of an untanked barge/hauler is as stupid as reimbursing the killers.

Or we could get rid of insurance altogether, it's a pretty stupid mechanic...


Tadeu718
EXTERMINATUS.
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2010.05.11 17:21:00 - [167]
 

How about stop flying with 500mil+ plus in your hauler on auto pilot = less ganking if your gonna do it expect to be ganked dont blame the gankers when it happens. As for insurance... If you pay for it you get it. Deal with it :P

Slaghead
Posted - 2010.06.03 19:05:00 - [168]
 

I think the whole security status thing needs to be looked at. Basic insurance needs to be taken out entirely. If you didn't buy insurance, you don't get a payout at all. Taking away a minimal insurance payment isn't likely going to help anything by itself when the suicide ganker is likely just an alt of an already rich player. They don't do it for the profit, they do it for the lulz anyway. But yes, I also think it's silly that you get insurance payout (even if you paid for the insurance) if you are killed as an outlaw at all, much less killed by the authorities.

Concord should be changed to simply being an additional police force with multi-system/region jurisdiction. Mortal, so they can be avoided but still powerful and with a longer memory (24hours?) for anyone aggressing towards another player. Stronger and more ships in higher sec systems. Gives pirates more things to do with their D-scanner as they will remain hunted as long as they are in Concord controlled space of any security status.

I would also change this chart from:
Players with -2.0 or worse will be attacked in 1.0 systems
Players with -2.5 or worse will be attacked in 0.9 systems
Players with -3.0 or worse will be attacked in 0.8 systems
Players with -3.5 or worse will be attacked in 0.7 systems
Players with -4.0 or worse will be attacked in 0.6 systems
Players with -4.5 or worse will be attacked in 0.5 systems

To:
Players with <0.0 or worse will be attacked in 1.0 systems
Players with -1.0 or worse will be attacked in 0.9 systems
Players with -2.0 or worse will be attacked in 0.8 systems
Players with -3.0 or worse will be attacked in 0.7 systems
Players with -4.0 or worse will be attacked in 0.6 systems
Players with -4.5 or worse will be attacked in 0.5 systems

I would also alter "Once your security status reaches -5 you are considered an outlaw and can be attacked by players anywhere without CONCORD intervention." so that people with outlaw security status via the prior chart are free game to anyone without CONCORD intevention AND without the risk of a security hit. That would actually make for anti-pirate activity to be worthwhile for players in hi-sec.

Suicide ganking is only effective because nobody can attack the pirate unless they attack someone first and even then, the only person who can attack the pirate is the person who is getting attacked and the pirate has already decided that they are likely to win so that there really is limited risk.

Dorn Val
Posted - 2010.06.04 08:36:00 - [169]
 

Supported -excellent idea!

Cpt Branko
Retired Pirate Club
Posted - 2010.06.04 13:54:00 - [170]
 

Edited by: Cpt Branko on 04/06/2010 13:56:53
Edited by: Cpt Branko on 04/06/2010 13:55:51
Edited by: Cpt Branko on 04/06/2010 13:54:48
Suicide ganking is fine, stop crying and stop putting 500M of stuff in untanked badgers and doing other idiocy of the sort.

The insurance changes mean T1 ships are no longer free. This fixes most of the issues with it.

Originally by: Slaghead
Suicide ganking is only effective because nobody can attack the pirate unless they attack someone first



You can suicide gank them.

Originally by: Slaghead

and even then, the only person who can attack the pirate is the person who is getting attacked and the pirate has already decided that they are likely to win so that there really is limited risk.


The target can be remote repped as well. Some people did this (tanked ganglinked bait hauler + RR logistics) to farm KB stats and harvest suicider tears.

In fact BC has readjusted their ranking so people don't get crazy points for killing suicide gank BS with bait haulers+logistics+concord assistance, because people actually did do that (of course, people with a clue, not carebears with victim mentality, those are never capable of dealing with any problem) to farm battleclinic points (and for the lulz).

Finally, you can just pay mercenaries. That bit works as well.

Slaghead
Posted - 2010.06.04 17:49:00 - [171]
 

Originally by: Cpt Branko

You can suicide gank them.


My point is that I am not a pirate and shouldn't have to take a sec hit and be subject to death for taking out an outlaw. The current system is silly, I'm an outlaw with an outrageous bounty but you can't touch me without dying. Rolling Eyes

Originally by: Cpt Branko

The target can be remote repped as well. Some people did this (tanked ganglinked bait hauler + RR logistics) to farm KB stats and harvest suicider tears.

In fact BC has readjusted their ranking so people don't get crazy points for killing suicide gank BS with bait haulers+logistics+concord assistance, because people actually did do that (of course, people with a clue, not carebears with victim mentality, those are never capable of dealing with any problem) to farm battleclinic points (and for the lulz).



Running around with a repper setup to fix afkers is not a reasonable solution. I want to troll highsec with a PvP fit and hunt pirates. Pirates say they want to PvP but can't so they do this because they're bored. So, I'm willing to give them something to fight. But them running around untouchable while they find easy prey is lame. If they're an outlaw, they should be treated as such. It seems like it should give them the excitement they say they desperately crave. And I don't have to worry about being labelled an outlaw for helping to provide that excitement.

Originally by: Cpt Branko

Finally, you can just pay mercenaries. That bit works as well.


I don't run around afk (most of the time) so I'm not really worried about pirates myself. I certainly wouldn't spend isk on getting their suicide ganker alt killed.

Hey, there's Blackbeard in the harbor! I got a rack of cannons with a bead on him.
He hasn't attacked anybody in the last 5 minutes so you can't touch him.

Anna Lifera
6....
HAWK Alliance
Posted - 2010.06.04 19:22:00 - [172]
 

Originally by: Slaghead

My point is that I am not a pirate and shouldn't have to take a sec hit and be subject to death for taking out an outlaw. The current system is silly, I'm an outlaw with an outrageous bounty but you can't touch me without dying. Rolling Eyes


1. it's called kill rights so actually, u CAN touch them; the problem is, u just refuse to utilize it.
2. what? u're not willing to "die" in a GAME to get that much isk? it's u that's the problem because u don't want to take that risk and u want to punish risk-taking. it's the exact same situation as a hauler with expensive cargo, except the target is now the pirate with the high bounty. the only difference is, u're killing for "e-justice" instead of pirating so i'm sure the intention would be to your liking. nevertheless, u know what remains the same? the suicide gankers would take that risk to take out that pirate. and u STILL won't.

Originally by: Slaghead

Running around with a repper setup to fix afkers is not a reasonable solution. I want to troll highsec with a PvP fit and hunt pirates. Pirates say they want to PvP but can't so they do this because they're bored. So, I'm willing to give them something to fight. But them running around untouchable while they find easy prey is lame. If they're an outlaw, they should be treated as such. It seems like it should give them the excitement they say they desperately crave. And I don't have to worry about being labelled an outlaw for helping to provide that excitement.


again, it's called kill rights; use it and stop *****ing.

Originally by: Slaghead

I don't run around afk (most of the time) so I'm not really worried about pirates myself. I certainly wouldn't spend isk on getting their suicide ganker alt killed.

Hey, there's Blackbeard in the harbor! I got a rack of cannons with a bead on him.
He hasn't attacked anybody in the last 5 minutes so you can't touch him.


seriously, u CAN touch him. if they can suicide gank u, *gasp* guess what? u can suicide gank them! Shocked u just don't want to 'cause u don't want to take risks and all u want to do is punish ppl for taking risks. u don't want to take risks, fine. let everyone else play their game while u sit in your station, not knowing how to defend yourself and others 'cause u're too stupid and scared to. or better yet, go back to wow. Arrow

Kaya Divine
Gallente
Kittens Factory
Posted - 2010.06.04 22:10:00 - [173]
 

I support this idea. Im not for security status changes, but if ship is targeted by concord insurance will not be payed and ISK spent to insure ship would be lost. Also, there should be option that player before loosing ship can destroy every module and cargo...not like self destruct...something that will be instant.

Slaghead
Posted - 2010.06.04 22:35:00 - [174]
 

Edited by: Slaghead on 04/06/2010 22:37:32
Originally by: Anna Lifera


1. it's called kill rights so actually, u CAN touch them; the problem is, u just refuse to utilize it.
2. what? u're not willing to "die" in a GAME to get that much isk? it's u that's the problem because u don't want to take that risk and u want to punish risk-taking. it's the exact same situation as a hauler with expensive cargo, except the target is now the pirate with the high bounty. the only difference is, u're killing for "e-justice" instead of pirating so i'm sure the intention would be to your liking. nevertheless, u know what remains the same? the suicide gankers would take that risk to take out that pirate. and u STILL won't.



1) I am talking about proactively taking them out before they can start their suicide gank. You don't get kill rights unless you get killed by them first. By the time they target you, they already believe they will win and I would expect that they'd be right as they, of course, target PvE players.
2) I'm willing to die if the pirate bests me. I think it's ridiculous that CONDORD would kill an anti-pirate. They should get a sec-boost as well. And it's not a risk. The risk is taking on a PvE'r and losing. Calling certain death at the hands of CONCORD isn't risk. Maybe you should look up the definition. It's not the same situation as a PvP Pirate vs PvE freighter. It would PvP Pirate Hunter vs PvP Pirate. And the suicide ganker probably uses next to worthless gear and no cargo.

Originally by: Anna Lifera

again, it's called kill rights; use it and stop *****ing.



Again, I'm not talking about stalking a guy because he killed me, hoping to catch him before my time runs out. It has nothing to do with me being attacked at all. I just want the opportunity to take out an outlaw in hi-sec before he has the chance of carrying out his suicide or be able to jump in when he has someone under attack.

Originally by: Anna Lifera

seriously, u CAN touch him. if they can suicide gank u, *gasp* guess what? u can suicide gank them! Shocked u just don't want to 'cause u don't want to take risks and all u want to do is punish ppl for taking risks. u don't want to take risks, fine. let everyone else play their game while u sit in your station, not knowing how to defend yourself and others 'cause u're too stupid and scared to. or better yet, go back to wow. Arrow



I don't know what you're talking about here but again you obviously don't know the definition of risk. And I am not advocating a position of staying in station when I'm talking about the ability to anti-pirate. My suggestion makes it so that pirates don't face automatic death at the hands of CONCORD but empowers players to help take up that role.

Being an anti-pirate =/= becoming a pirate which is what someone has to do with the present system.

Pirates can try and suicide on me all day for all I care. Seems like your the one with the sensitivity issues.

Anna Lifera
6....
HAWK Alliance
Posted - 2010.06.05 01:42:00 - [175]
 

Originally by: Slaghead

1) I am talking about proactively taking them out before they can start their suicide gank. You don't get kill rights unless you get killed by them first. By the time they target you, they already believe they will win and I would expect that they'd be right as they, of course, target PvE players.
2) I'm willing to die if the pirate bests me. I think it's ridiculous that CONDORD would kill an anti-pirate. They should get a sec-boost as well. And it's not a risk. The risk is taking on a PvE'r and losing. Calling certain death at the hands of CONCORD isn't risk. Maybe you should look up the definition. It's not the same situation as a PvP Pirate vs PvE freighter. It would PvP Pirate Hunter vs PvP Pirate. And the suicide ganker probably uses next to worthless gear and no cargo.


1. oh right because low sec pirates would never ever attack a pve player right? Rolling Eyes
2. oh ok--"consequence", which is more severe than risk because it's a 100% chance u lose your ship. amazing how idiots like u use "risk" simply because the "consequence" is really worse than risk. Laughing and what's wrong with "worthless" gear? here in eve, gear =/= winning, moron. seriously, go back to wow if u wanna keep your welfare epics.

Originally by: Slaghead
Again, I'm not talking about stalking a guy because he killed me, hoping to catch him before my time runs out. It has nothing to do with me being attacked at all. I just want the opportunity to take out an outlaw in hi-sec before he has the chance of carrying out his suicide or be able to jump in when he has someone under attack.


1. lol u REALLY don't even know what kill rights r and here u r, crying about something u know nothing about. /facepalm
2. "outlaw" = red. if he's not red, he's either "safe" enough for now or he put enough effort to "atone" which leads to:

Originally by: Slaghead
I don't know what you're talking about here but again you obviously don't know the definition of risk. And I am not advocating a position of staying in station when I'm talking about the ability to anti-pirate. My suggestion makes it so that pirates don't face automatic death at the hands of CONCORD but empowers players to help take up that role.

Being an anti-pirate =/= becoming a pirate which is what someone has to do with the present system.

Pirates can try and suicide on me all day for all I care. Seems like your the one with the sensitivity issues.


lmfao your suggestion is seriously the most ******ed idea ever, especially to nerf suicide ganking. in fact, it would end up buffing suicide ganking to the point where it isn't even suicide! Shocked 'cause lemme get this straight--u're gonna weaken concord to be destroyable and let the players do the policing, who can then take advantage of that by blobbing and killing concord and everyone in high sec. that's when it actually becomes unsafe for everyone. wasn't it like that years ago when ppl would just tank/kill concord and meanwhile, kill whoever they wanted? yeah, great idea to really turn high sec into low sec... now ppl can clear entire belts worth of miners, gate camp, and attack marauders long enough to blow them up...and still live. u're lucky i can't sig that entire "suggestion" of yours 'cause u just made my day. Laughing

Mrs Libra
Posted - 2010.06.05 14:37:00 - [176]
 


Slaghead
Posted - 2010.06.07 18:09:00 - [177]
 

Originally by: Anna Lifera



1. oh right because low sec pirates would never ever attack a pve player right? Rolling Eyes
2. oh ok--"consequence", which is more severe than risk because it's a 100% chance u lose your ship. amazing how idiots like u use "risk" simply because the "consequence" is really worse than risk. Laughing and what's wrong with "worthless" gear? here in eve, gear =/= winning, moron. seriously, go back to wow if u wanna keep your welfare epics.



1) Well, low-sec is low-sec and I think low-sec is fine for the most part. I don't have a problem with it and I don't go through there unless I'm prepared. That should be true for anybody.
2) I already have my own gear. But it would be pointless to take out a pirate because his stuff is WORTHless. What would I get out of attacking a pirate? Nothing, it would be a net loss 95+% of the time. Pirates target ships where they think they can get more out of it than they lose, assuming that they aren't just bored. And what the heck does WoW have to do with anything? You seem to know a lot more about it than I do.

Originally by: Anna Lifera

1. lol u REALLY don't even know what kill rights r and here u r, crying about something u know nothing about. /facepalm
2. "outlaw" = red. if he's not red, he's either "safe" enough for now or he put enough effort to "atone" which leads to:



1) Correct me if I am wrong about kill rights. I have 30 days to track down and kill the pirate who destroyed my ship. But I have honestly never seen anyone who attacked me again in that time-frame that I recognized so kill rights are relatively worthless in my eyes.
2) Right, outlaw = red. I thought that was clear in my original post that I understood that, thus the reason for wanting to shift the limits for when pirates become outlaws.

Originally by: Anna Lifera

lmfao your suggestion is seriously the most ******ed idea ever, especially to nerf suicide ganking. in fact, it would end up buffing suicide ganking to the point where it isn't even suicide! Shocked 'cause lemme get this straight--u're gonna weaken concord to be destroyable and let the players do the policing, who can then take advantage of that by blobbing and killing concord and everyone in high sec. that's when it actually becomes unsafe for everyone. wasn't it like that years ago when ppl would just tank/kill concord and meanwhile, kill whoever they wanted? yeah, great idea to really turn high sec into low sec... now ppl can clear entire belts worth of miners, gate camp, and attack marauders long enough to blow them up...and still live. u're lucky i can't sig that entire "suggestion" of yours 'cause u just made my day. Laughing


Yeah, well, that is the way it was. I preferred it, but there weren't enough anti-pirate players to actually be effective. I think the idea is that CONCORD would bring a giant task force if a pirate blob were to form (infinite tank for example). Especially if they lose a ship to a blob. I am not looking to nerf CONCORD into uselessness, I just don't like the current system, I think it's really lacking. I was more looking at giving the pirates a chance to evade certain death. At least then they might fit a ship worth losing a ship for if nothing else. Then you would have a risk:reward ratio.
My suggestion actually does buff pirating in high-sec so I am surprised that my suggestion is viewed as screwing over pirates. I really thought the station huggers would have been the ones to object but instead I'm called a station hugger. Neutral


Anna Lifera
6....
HAWK Alliance
Posted - 2010.06.07 19:03:00 - [178]
 

Edited by: Anna Lifera on 07/06/2010 19:11:41
Originally by: Slaghead

1) Well, low-sec is low-sec and I think low-sec is fine for the most part. I don't have a problem with it and I don't go through there unless I'm prepared. That should be true for anybody.
2) I already have my own gear. But it would be pointless to take out a pirate because his stuff is WORTHless. What would I get out of attacking a pirate? Nothing, it would be a net loss 95+% of the time. Pirates target ships where they think they can get more out of it than they lose, assuming that they aren't just bored. And what the heck does WoW have to do with anything? You seem to know a lot more about it than I do.


1. u said that suicide gankers should be punished even more simply because they target pve players. what difference does it make whether it's done in high sec or low sec?
2. what's wrong with pirates picking targets if it's no different than u not picking certain targets? why is it only okay for u? Rolling Eyes
3. some ppl here want high sec to be 100% safe so they can operate in complete safety, just like in wow.

Originally by: Slaghead

1) Correct me if I am wrong about kill rights. I have 30 days to track down and kill the pirate who destroyed my ship. But I have honestly never seen anyone who attacked me again in that time-frame that I recognized so kill rights are relatively worthless in my eyes.
2) Right, outlaw = red. I thought that was clear in my original post that I understood that, thus the reason for wanting to shift the limits for when pirates become outlaws.


1. what u were describing in a previous post was the aggression timer. and don't tell me u were blindly flying around with absolutely no clue where the pirate was... ugh
2. which once again goes to:

Originally by: Slaghead

Yeah, well, that is the way it was. I preferred it, but there weren't enough anti-pirate players to actually be effective. I think the idea is that CONCORD would bring a giant task force if a pirate blob were to form (infinite tank for example). Especially if they lose a ship to a blob. I am not looking to nerf CONCORD into uselessness, I just don't like the current system, I think it's really lacking. I was more looking at giving the pirates a chance to evade certain death. At least then they might fit a ship worth losing a ship for if nothing else. Then you would have a risk:reward ratio.
My suggestion actually does buff pirating in high-sec so I am surprised that my suggestion is viewed as screwing over pirates. I really thought the station huggers would have been the ones to object but instead I'm called a station hugger. Neutral




1. u already wanted concord to be destroyable, now u don't. can u even make a proposal that actually works or r u just gonna keep twisting it to your convenience?
2. as long as concord is anything less than omnipotent, it will turn into low sec because when players r given the opportunity to kill in high sec with impunity, they have 1 of 2 options: a. babysit your whiny ass or b. kill u for your whiny tears. take a wild guess what they're gonna do... YARRRR!! under this new system, not even newbies would be safe as they would under the current system.

in conclusion, your fail proposal fails so miserably that after i pointed out that it would indeed buff pirating too much, u're trying to rename it to a fail pro-pirate proposal to save face. way to go...way to fail...again. but plz continue 'cause u've just made my day...again! Laughing

Slaghead
Posted - 2010.06.07 19:46:00 - [179]
 

Originally by: Anna Lifera


1. u said that suicide gankers should be punished even more simply because they target pve players. what difference does it make whether it's done in high sec or low sec?
2. what's wrong with pirates picking targets if it's no different than u not picking certain targets? why is it only okay for u? Rolling Eyes
3. some ppl here want high sec to be 100% safe so they can operate in complete safely, just like in wow.


1) I don't think anyone should be punished. Pirating is a profession in EVE, even high-sec pirating qualifies as such.
2) I don't have a problem with pirates picking targets. Pirates since their inception have preyed on merchant ships while running from anti-pirate warships. The differentiation is that they have a risk:reward ratio to work out whereas an anti-pirate has zero reason to proactively stop a pirate. They get all of the security penalties, ship loss, etc. with a negative payoff.
3) I think I was asking for high-sec to be more risky for both pirates and station huggers. The whole high-sec/low-sec .5/.4 cutoff is just too abrupt for both parties.

Originally by: Anna Lifera

1. what u were describing in a previous post was the aggression timer. and don't tell me u were blindly flying around with absolutely no clue where the pirate was... ugh
2. which once again goes to:



1) Apologies if I wasn't more clear. I think the aggression timer should be longer, yes. I think I did mention that. But if you are a good pirate and can elude long enough to get to low-sec... Unfortunately, CONCORD doesn't allow anyone to stay alive to make the outlaw tag upon the inception of violence meaningful either.

Originally by: Anna Lifera

1. u already wanted concord to be destroyable, now u don't. can u even make a proposal that actually works or r u just gonna keep twisting it to your convenience?
2. as long as concord is anything less than omnipotent, it will turn into low sec because when players r given the opportunity to kill in high sec with impunity, they have 1 of 2 options: a. babysit your whiny ass or b. kill u for your whiny tears. take a wild guess what they're gonna do... YARRRR!! under this new system, not even newbies would be safe as they would under the current system.

in conclusion, your fail proposal fails so miserably, u're trying to rename it to a fail pro-pirate proposal to save face. way to go. Laughing

1) I think that there is a big difference between making CONCORD instapop anyone and making them a high-sec rat. If a bunch of pirates start to blob, then yeah, there are no players that are likely to try engaging them. So, as soon as CONCORD loses a ship, then absolutely making CONCORD invincible would be a valid game mechanic. I haven't twisted anything. You brought up a scenario and I elaborated. I still don't think that CONCORD should be able to instapop any ship they don't like. But if you destroy one of their ships, then you and your gang better be heading for the exit.
2) You are sadly quite right I'm afraid. I'm not sure what the outcome of my idea would be, but it could make things worse for sure. Which only sucks, because it completely eliminates 'legitimate' pirating outside of low-sec which is seriously uninteresting and creates the current suicide ganker activities which are really quite stupid. No real-life pirate would consider this a positive nor workable strategy.

Anna Lifera
6....
HAWK Alliance
Posted - 2010.06.08 05:25:00 - [180]
 

Originally by: Slaghead

1) I don't think anyone should be punished. Pirating is a profession in EVE, even high-sec pirating qualifies as such.
2) I don't have a problem with pirates picking targets. Pirates since their inception have preyed on merchant ships while running from anti-pirate warships. The differentiation is that they have consequences that work out whereas an anti-pirate has zero reason to proactively stop a pirate. They get all of the security penalties, ship loss, etc. with a negative payoff.
3) I think I was asking for high-sec to be more risky for both pirates and station huggers. The whole high-sec/low-sec .5/.4 cutoff is just too abrupt for both parties.


1. good--then quit trying to push a fail proposal that only upsets the balance of the game.
2. fixed in bold.
3. what's more risky than consequences?

Originally by: Slaghead

1) Apologies if I wasn't more clear. I think the aggression timer should be longer, yes. I think I did mention that. But if you are a good pirate and can elude long enough to get to low-sec... Unfortunately, CONCORD doesn't allow anyone to stay alive to make the outlaw tag upon the inception of violence meaningful either.


that's because it's supposed to be a consequence to suicide gank, not a risk. if it was a risk...

Originally by: Slaghead
1) I think that there is a big difference between making CONCORD instapop anyone and making them a high-sec rat. If a bunch of pirates start to blob, then yeah, there are no players that are likely to try engaging them. So, as soon as CONCORD loses a ship, then absolutely making CONCORD invincible would be a valid game mechanic. I haven't twisted anything. You brought up a scenario and I elaborated. I still don't think that CONCORD should be able to instapop any ship they don't like. But if you destroy one of their ships, then you and your gang better be heading for the exit.
2) You are sadly quite right I'm afraid. I'm not sure what the outcome of my idea would be, but it could make things worse for sure. Which only sucks, because it completely eliminates 'legitimate' pirating outside of low-sec which is seriously uninteresting and creates the current suicide ganker activities which are really quite stupid. No real-life pirate would consider this a positive nor workable strategy.


1. ...then they'll just rr the dps from concord, while still killing everything they want. they have no reason to run when there's no instant-killing concord. and why would they even bother destroying concord, knowing it's only gonna bring more enemy dps to them, when they can already tank the current dps as is? the only elaboration u're doing is trying to save face...miserably. Laughing
2. no ****. Rolling Eyes


Pages: first : previous : ... 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 ... : 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