open All Channels
seplocked Features and Ideas Discussion
blankseplocked Suicid ganking is too easy
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 [2] 3

Author Topic

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2011.02.08 16:47:00 - [31]
 

Originally by: Benjamin Hamburg
Im kinda tired to answer this topic, cause I understand your point but you make no effort to understand mine. CCP WILL NEVER MAKE GANKING EASIER! Do you understand this simple sentence? In fact, the past expansions were FULL of mechanics to render ganking HARDER. (Faster Concord, Stronger Concord, etc).
Yes? Do you know why? Because ganking was simpler back then. So they adjusted it. If it is now too hard, then they will adjust that too.
Quote:
You keep asking why this would need to be harder, and I keep answering you, so I will not feed the troll this time.
You only keep going for the same circular reasoning: it should be harder because it should be harder. I want you to provide some kind of proof that this change is needed. Has the number of ganks suddenly increased? Are people being blown up more? Is it creating problems with the market?

Why should ganking be made harder?

"Because I want to it be" is not an adequate answer. You need to provide a reason why the game would benefit from it, or why it would fix a problem with the current game. You have done neither.
Quote:
Ganking is not illegal, it's a EXPLOIT of game mechanics.
No it is not an exploit.
Quote:
Here is a common definition of what ''EXPLOIT'' mean:

1. To employ to the greatest possible advantage: exploit one's talents.
2. To make use of selfishly or unethically: a country that exploited peasant labor.
Unfortunately, that is not what an "exploit of game mechanics" means. What you're talking about is "playing smart" and is something completely different. Playing smart is encouraged in EVE, and it will solve your little ganking problem in a heartbeat. Both sides can play smart, you know. Exploiting game mechanics, on the other hand, gets you banned.
Quote:
Ganking is selfish, unethically.
Irrelevant. Or wait, no. In fact, that only means that it fits perfectly with EVE and that it should be promoted further.
Quote:
And there is nothing easy in the 0.0 logistics. If you think that, it's clear for that you never been there.
I have. That's why I know it's easy. That's also why they're going to make it harder.
Quote:
you DARE to say that ganking in Jita is hard???
No. You are. You just argued rather vehemently how easy it is to gank in nullsec, so yes, compared to that, ganks in Jita are hard. Also, the low number of ganks that happen there further proves this.

Benjamin Hamburg
Gallente
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.02.08 17:01:00 - [32]
 

Ok again then. Ganking should be maked harder cause:

-It's not the pupose of high-sec

-It's ruins hours and hours of play

-It's totaly selfish and unethic

-It's an abuse of what and how CCP set up high-sec defence methods.

I keep giving you these reasons and you keep asking me WHY?

The fact that you are asking me why doesnt give you a better position either. Like: 'I'm the one who ask so I'm the one made my points''

So explain to me why CCP should make ganking easier? Yeah, give me at least 3 reasons or facts that ganking is good for the game, gameplay and economy. I let you choose. If you can't proove that ganking is good, then you can't proove i'm wrong just by keeping asking why. It's a sophism my friend.

Sophism: 1. a specious argument for displaying ingenuity in reasoning or for deceiving someone.

My reasonment is not circular, your obstination is.

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2011.02.08 17:22:00 - [33]
 

Edited by: Tippia on 08/02/2011 17:23:10
Originally by: Benjamin Hamburg
-It's not the pupose of high-sec
Incorrect. Highsec is just as much an arena for ship destruction as the rest of space.
Quote:
-It's ruins hours and hours of play
So does all ship destruction. It's what gives the destruction meaning.
Quote:
-It's totaly selfish and unethic
So is all PvP.
Quote:
-It's an abuse of what and how CCP set up high-sec defence methods.
How so?
Quote:
I keep giving you these reasons and you keep asking me WHY?
Yes, because even if all of the above is true, it doesn't answer why it needs to be made harder. Unless it has suddenly spiked in relation to the population or has suddenly begun to crash the market, there is very little reason to change it. The previous adjustments to ganking were made to put it on the right level, and it has been a long time since any adjustment was madeÖ so why is one needed now all of a sudden?
Quote:
So explain to me why CCP should make ganking easier?
  • More ships (and modules) need to be destroyed to not just get rid of the oversupply but also to further stimulate production (see latest CSM minutes and QEN).
  • High-sec players have become too complacent and unfamiliar with basic survival skills and game mechanics (see your exploit comment).
  • The many ways to avoid systematically wardecs need to be balanced with methods to systematically kill people anyway.



  • esclavegalllente
    Posted - 2011.02.08 17:22:00 - [34]
     

    i agree with you benjamin, you perfectly describe the principles of the empire, making 4b with only 400m in few second it goes against those principles POINT! 2 days ago the stain empire killed around 20 nightmares in suicide gank... at the gate and during de mission sometimes with only 6 ships ...

    Kim Destein
    Caldari
    Posted - 2011.02.08 17:35:00 - [35]
     

    Its easy for you, Esclave, not for others.

    VTT
    Minmatar
    Posted - 2011.02.08 17:38:00 - [36]
     

    Agree

    Benjamin Hamburg
    Gallente
    Goonswarm Federation
    Posted - 2011.02.08 17:39:00 - [37]
     

    Originally by: Tippia
  • More ships (and modules) need to be destroyed to not just get rid of the oversupply but also to further stimulate production (see latest CSM minutes and QEN).
  • High-sec players have become too complacent and unfamiliar with basic survival skills and game mechanics (see your exploit comment).
  • The many ways to avoid systematically wardecs need to be balanced with methods to systematically kill people anyway.





  • Thank you, this is much better in term of discussion. I agree that there is maybe an oversupply and also that destroying ship could be a way to stimulate production. Here are our first 100% common ground.

    Concerning my exploit comment, know that i'm french and didnt know there were more definition of ''exploit'' than those I had mentionned. For me, in my language and my understanding, an exploit is not something illegal, but an abuse, a way to get around rules or mechanics or the way things are planned to be. It has (again, in my understanding of english) nothing to do with a ''bug exploit'', wich is very different.

    So to return to the oversupply reasons, I would say that there could be more effective way to balance it. This could be the creation of more 0.0 space, or for example, a NPC 0.0 space inside the Empire Space. To bring player there, it could be special lvl4 mission or also Factional Warfare contest, with station conquerable only by faction warfare militia. This would create a huge demand on ship, caps etc, without attacking player in high-sec, wich is not the best gaming experience. (Actually, I could made a separate topic about this idea, wich I will do right away)

    And I agree about wardec, but I think that most gankers actually want more the loot than cause prejudice to an alliance.

    Nirnias Stirrum
    Posted - 2011.02.08 18:08:00 - [38]
     

    Em if you dont like getting sui ganked you should probably take a break from eve next week for about a week.... just saying.

    Also freighters work wonders.

    Amdor Renevat
    Posted - 2011.02.08 18:29:00 - [39]
     

    Originally by: Benjamin Hamburg
    Originally by: Tippia
  • More ships (and modules) need to be destroyed to not just get rid of the oversupply but also to further stimulate production (see latest CSM minutes and QEN).
  • High-sec players have become too complacent and unfamiliar with basic survival skills and game mechanics (see your exploit comment).
  • The many ways to avoid systematically wardecs need to be balanced with methods to systematically kill people anyway.





  • Thank you, this is much better in term of discussion. I agree that there is maybe an oversupply and also that destroying ship could be a way to stimulate production. Here are our first 100% common ground.

    Concerning my exploit comment, know that i'm french and didnt know there were more definition of ''exploit'' than those I had mentionned. For me, in my language and my understanding, an exploit is not something illegal, but an abuse, a way to get around rules or mechanics or the way things are planned to be. It has (again, in my understanding of english) nothing to do with a ''bug exploit'', wich is very different.

    So to return to the oversupply reasons, I would say that there could be more effective way to balance it. This could be the creation of more 0.0 space, or for example, a NPC 0.0 space inside the Empire Space. To bring player there, it could be special lvl4 mission or also Factional Warfare contest, with station conquerable only by faction warfare militia. This would create a huge demand on ship, caps etc, without attacking player in high-sec, wich is not the best gaming experience. (Actually, I could made a separate topic about this idea, wich I will do right away)

    And I agree about wardec, but I think that most gankers actually want more the loot than cause prejudice to an alliance.


    Increase ship destruction through tougher missions, harder complexes placed in high sec and increased sansha incursions. One of the reasons for low ship loss is the lack of tough PVE content to challenge players. Some people think PVP is the only way to lose ships, but add some difficulty to missions and you'll see mission runners losing ships as well, you just have to make the rewards equal to the risk. As long as the missions are in high sec then it's up to the individual player to mostly control the outcome, in low sec the outcome is dependent on the pirates. Remove the risk of gank and the mission runner is in total control of his outcome, which alot of players want.

    I wouldn't call ganking an exploit, but I would definetly call it a negative action. The only proof you need for that is the security hit you take for doing it. However I realize that it's almost impossible to change someone's opinion of ethics so there is no real point in arguing the right/wrong of allowing ganking. The vast majority of players in high sec do not like ganking, so I think appeasing these players has merit all on it's own. Besides there is that whole low/null sec space if you want to pvp.

    It's not so much that high sec players are complacent, it's that most don't have alot of interest in PVP. Alot of gamers enjoy PVE, this is proven by the number of non PVP servers in other games. Eve has slowly been catering more and more to this segment and the population has slowly been increasing. Maybe, more people want the PVE Eve has to offer and if the dev's provided it then the total subscriptions would increase.

    esclavegalllente
    Posted - 2011.02.09 11:28:00 - [40]
     

    Originally by: Kim Destein
    Its easy for you, Esclave, not for others.

    Explain why it's not easy ... i have arguement you don't

    Jamaican Herbsman
    I Love You Mary Jane
    Posted - 2011.02.09 12:05:00 - [41]
     

    Originally by: Benjamin Hamburg


    And there is nothing easy in the 0.0 logistics. If you think that, it's clear for that you never been there. 0.0 is the place where the game shine, and if you think ganking is hard in Jita (LOL) try to pass with a Transport Ship (Yes, even the cloaky one) trough 6 or more hostile systems, where gate can be bubbled, where you doenst know if there will be a Thanatos on the next gate, where people can insta kill you with a bomb, where raven camp gate with smartbomb... and you DARE to say that ganking in Jita is hard??? Really guys, start palying the game for real...




    I have lived in 0.0 about 3 years and for the last year I've been living in npc 0.0, where there are plenty of hostiles. With a scout, corp mate or alt, doesnt matter, you can get anything through. Even if I get caught by a camp, I usually get away, especially in a BR. I have never been bombed during my hauls. I've encountered smartbombing ship during my hauls like 2 times, both times ineffective. If there's a solo thanatos at a gate it won't catch anything.

    I bet suicide ganking in Jita is usually easy, yes, and I think most of the pilots suicide ganking are sitting at Jita 4-4 station or New Caldari gate, with a gankship and an alt to scoop the loot and to scan ships.

    Still, many times it may involve careful planning and skillful coordination. Anyone can suicide gank Iteron 5 which is autopiloting through space. Try suicide ganking manually warping BR, using a scout and using insta warping bookmarks at undocking. Much harder.


    Belfelmalak
    Posted - 2011.02.10 03:41:00 - [42]
     

    Edited by: Belfelmalak on 10/02/2011 03:52:41
    Get rid of Insurance payouts for everyone. It will make anyone who loses a ship feel the pain equally.

    Gankers will have to pay for their losses; carebears will have to pay for their losses. PvPers will have to pay for their losses. I major ISK faucet will be plugged.

    It hurts everyone equally

    Selinate
    Amarr
    Posted - 2011.02.10 03:51:00 - [43]
     

    insurance payouts for those who suicide gank in high sec should be nulled. This doesn't make sense in the first place. Let it be confiscated by concord, or something, but folks should at least pay the price of their ship instead of a fraction of that price.

    It would cut down a good deal on griefing as defined by CCP.

    DrDooma
    Posted - 2011.02.10 04:53:00 - [44]
     

    If its so easy why donít you do it? Or alternatively travel with logistic support. You could move to 0.0 and all your problems will be over.

    When you jump through you do not appear on the other side for over 20 seconds. Thatís enough time to load most high sec systems at the busiest of times.

    If you silly enough not to know how to transport your goods safely you donít need the isk anyway.

    Misanthra
    Posted - 2011.02.10 06:01:00 - [45]
     

    Edited by: Misanthra on 10/02/2011 06:02:02
    Originally by: Benjamin Hamburg
    Ok again then. Ganking should be maked harder cause:

    -It's not the pupose of high-sec

    -It's totaly selfish and unethic

    -It's an abuse of what and how CCP set up high-sec defence methods.

    I keep giving you these reasons and you keep asking me WHY?




    Don't know where you are getting empire is not meant for it.

    You do know hulkageddon (an event celebrating ganking) is a player invented, run, and supported event that has the full support of ccp, right? A mod last year even came in miner whine thread and said they loved the idea. Freeds the rocks from the oppression of the miners to add some roleplay element to but not come off as dorky as most rp stuff does.


    Only ruins the game if you violate the cardinal rule of eve....don't fly what you can't afford to lose.

    eve is not an ethical game...get over it. Closest you get is pilots like who do not gank in empire. Stumble into 0.0 on my tours out there, I do not care if you have no money to replace your ship. You or I are losing a ship...tbh honest Ima try like hell to make sure its you. Not shooting blues as close as I get to ethics. And if a tard who ignores repeated "hey jackass stop shooting me" in comms keeps shooting that could go out the window as well.


    Mikalya
    Amarr
    Interstellar Brotherhood of Gravediggers
    The 0rphanage
    Posted - 2011.02.10 06:25:00 - [46]
     

    Funny thing, suiciding a freighter. I mean someone will take the largest ship in High Sec, put billions of credits of stuff in it, and wander alone through space. What do you think would happen if you were in say, Chicago or New York, driving a gold-plated bus with bags of money showing through the windows, at night in the poorest sections of town? You would get ganked.

    The means exists to take care of this issue already, within the rules and spirit of the game. Eve was not intended to be a safe solo adventure, it is built on strife. It is against the spirit of the game to have its largest ships wandering around safe from harm. But by working together you can be almost perfectly safe....

    We were sitting at a gate watching for war targets coming into empire from 0.0 when local jumped buy a good 20 people. Shortly afterwards 15 or so logistics ships landed right next to the gate. A few minutes (yes minutes) three freighters landed also. The Logistics immediately locked and started repping although no one had aggressed. Shortly afterwards, all three freighters jumped out, with their escort.

    I doubt they were going to lose those ships to a suicide Wink Seemed pretty safe to me....

    Ephraim Glass
    Posted - 2011.02.10 06:55:00 - [47]
     

    You said:
    Originally by: Benjamin Hamburg

    -It's not the pupose of high-sec
    -It's ruins hours and hours of play
    -It's totaly selfish and unethic[al]
    -It's an abuse of what and how CCP set up high-sec defence methods.
    ...
    ...an exploit is not something illegal, but an abuse, a way to get around rules or mechanics or the way things are planned to be.


    Your position on this matter appears to be based on a philosophical difference. Many of the people who have responded to your claims, myself among them, believe that your perception of the situation is incorrect.
    First and foremost, we disagree with your claims regarding the PURPOSE of high-sec or what constitutes the rules of conduct in high-sec. It should be very clear: If CCP wanted to make it impossible to attack or kill somebody in high-sec space, they could do so easily. The fact that they have not done so is prima facie evidence that they endorse some risk, even in high-sec. The various parties involved: pirates, carebears, developers, etc. may disagree about what constitutes the correct amount of risk but I don't think it's possible to argue that CCP intends high-sec to be entirely free of risk. Therefore, your statement that suicide-ganking is "an abuse, a way to get around rules or mechanics or the way things are planned to be." is insupportable.

    You might argue that the fact that Concord arrives and kills the offender is evidence that CCP intended high-sec to be a safe place for everybody. Certainly Concord disapproves of ganking but this point is very important: CONCORD IS NOT CCP. Concord is an in-game mechanic. CCP has tuned Concord's speed and firepower to provide some measure of response to ganking. As stated before, if it were CCP's intention to prevent suicide ganking altogether, they could easily do so. It stands to reason, therefore, that any in-game method that allows one to kill one's target before getting destroyed by Concord is endorsed as fair play by CCP.

    Finally, you remark that it is unethical, selfish, and ruins many hours of somebody else's gaming. I agree with two of those statements: It is selfish and ruins somebody else's gaming. It is not, however, unethical. If I'm playing StarCraft with somebody and after an hour of playing, he takes advantage of a weakness in my defenses and overruns my base, is that unethical? No, of course not! We were playing a competitive game and he beat me. Whether you think it should be or not, it is a fact that EVE IS A COMPETITIVE GAME. No matter where in space you are located, no matter what activity you are engaged in, somebody may view you as a competitor. And if you're smart, you'll view them as competitors too. If this were real life and people were actually dying or losing their life savings because of these actions, I'd feel a lot of sympathy. This is not real life. This is a game that simulates a ruthless and amoral world.

    This is where the advice, "Don't be an easy target" becomes so important. The gankers are clearly doing risk-reward analysis. They're determining whether they can profitably destroy a target. If you're playing EVE, you have to play ALL of the game. It's a multiplayer game. You can't pick and choose. And that means playing the risk-reward game. If you can't tank the assault of a gank, then beat them at the risk-reward game. Know how much it would cost to destroy your ship and always carry cargo of lesser value. If CCP changes the mechanics of high-sec in one direction or another, everybody's risk-reward calculations will change but they will never go away. Nor should they.

    Frank Shitlitz
    Posted - 2011.02.10 07:52:00 - [48]
     

    OP brings up a good point about the possible monetary reward being much larger than the monetary risk. The sheer volume of damage in terms of ISK can be staggering.... imagine a frig filled with PLEX being ganked by a single volley from a trasher.

    Given the nerf's to suicide ganking that have taken place over the years (faster/more powerful CONCORD, dramatically increased sec hits, insurance nerfs, etc...) it is clear that "more of the same" will not work. Making it harder or more expensive for the suicider only moves the ISK threshhold up, but does nothing to prevent huge disparities in reward and risk.

    What seems to be a much easier and elegant way of narrowing the risk/reward gap is to limit the "supply" side of the equation. Therefore, I suggest that CCP place a limit on the value of ISK that can be placed in the cargo hold. This value will be based on the insurance price of the hauling ship. If you have a t1 industrial worth 100k in insurance- you can only carry 100k worth of items in the hold. If you are using a ship with a 100mil insurance value than you could carry 100mil worth of stuff in the hold.

    THere! Now there cannot be a huge disparity in the monetary risk/reward of ganking. Problem solved! Now we can move on to more important problems like how to get blood stains out of a clown suit.

    Psihius
    Caldari
    Anarchist Dawn
    U N K N O W N
    Posted - 2011.02.10 09:20:00 - [49]
     

    How not to be ganked:

    1. Try not to haul cargo worth billions in a ship that can be blown up with 2 battleships - it's a straight path to be ganked. Use orca if have to - corporate hangars cannot be scanned.
    2. Do not autopilot. Seriously!
    3. When jumping to other system - wait a few seconds until everything loads.
    4. Fit tank. If active, then do it like this: Select destination, warp to (when you press it - you start to uncloack and there is a delay between everyone starts to see you and are able to lock your ship, here where the shortcuts come it) and at that moment enable ALL active tank modules - use shortcuts to do that, it's much faster that pressing via mouse. If you do it right - you will be shot at when your tank is active.

    Follow this rules and mostly you will be safe.

    Korg Leaf
    Super Batungwaa Ninja Warriors
    0ccupational Hazzard
    Posted - 2011.02.10 09:41:00 - [50]
     

    So what if you can make 4 billion whilst only outlaying 400 million, thats doable whilst station trading. That same 400 million could also make ) blowing up the same ship next time due to the loot drop system.

    If insurance gets removed, it should be removed from everything. No rl insurance company would insure any ship in EvE. Also its a stupid isk faucet

    chrisss0r
    The Lowbirds
    Posted - 2011.02.10 12:33:00 - [51]
     

    i love how everyone is complaining about ebil isk faucets in an economy which is facing deflation

    Hyacinthine
    Posted - 2011.02.10 12:41:00 - [52]
     

    Never understood why CONCORD takes more than three seconds to respond to an aggressive act - speeding up the response fixes any possible complaints about ganking in highsec, and would make them actually look effective at their role.

    Korg Leaf
    Super Batungwaa Ninja Warriors
    0ccupational Hazzard
    Posted - 2011.02.10 12:46:00 - [53]
     

    Originally by: Hyacinthine
    Never understood why CONCORD takes more than three seconds to respond to an aggressive act - speeding up the response fixes any possible complaints about ganking in highsec, and would make them actually look effective at their role.


    Speeding them up wouldnt stop suicide ganking at all, alpha boats only need to fire once

    Tippia
    Caldari
    Sunshine and Lollipops
    Posted - 2011.02.10 14:25:00 - [54]
     

    Originally by: Hyacinthine
    Never understood why CONCORD takes more than three seconds to respond to an aggressive act
    Quite simple: to give suicide gankers time enough to do their thing.

    Suiginryou Hitaiga
    Caldari
    Posted - 2011.02.11 02:53:00 - [55]
     

    - NO to TS's arugments, though YES to gankers risk being too low.
    - YES to insurance void if concordokkened.

    Ranka Mei
    Caldari
    Posted - 2011.02.11 03:46:00 - [56]
     

    Originally by: Mograph

    The risks from suicide ganking are
    Not killing the target because it has a tank, never catching a target becuase they are moving too fast and warping to 0 and losing your ship and sec status, they have nerfed insurance payouts so you lose money doing it.

    Yeah, I'm calling BS on this one (and I don't mean Battle Ship).

    Only a grossly incompetent suicide gang would bring too little Alpha strike to finish the job.

    Quote:

    I'm fed up of people in this game whining and complaining about PvP, the original box art for eve had the line "Be the pirate you wanted to be." the game is designed purely around PvP - yes theres some PvE stuff but it has never, and will never be anything other than a PvP game, if you cant handle the fact that people want to blow your **** up, and take it from you please play something else.

    And I am fed up with so-called pirates lecturing 'carebears' on the harsh world of EVE and consequences, while their own suicidal acts come with virtually no consequence at all. All y'all get pampered by a Concord subsidized insurance scam, which actually pays for your crimes (how insane is that?!).

    If it were up to me, you'd get no insurance payout at all. Zilch, nada, nothing, niks. And you'd get like a -1.0 security penalty to boot, per offence. Be the pirate you wanted to be! Seriously. But do so in low-sec or null sec. In highsec, however, there should be real consequences -- you know, something that actually stings.

    Also, on a more abstract level, what's the point of training/buying all this cool faction/deadspace gear, if the upshot of it all is that you can never really fly it? I have the most beautiful fits, giving me supertank + awesome pwnage DPS. And yet, I'm stuck with lousy T2 items because CCP doesn't want to punish suicide gankers; so those cool fits never see the light of day.

    So-called pirates are always on about 'risk vs. reward.' Yet there's no real risk involved in high-sec suicide ganking: just reward. That ain't right.

    Suiginryou Hitaiga
    Caldari
    Posted - 2011.02.11 03:51:00 - [57]
     

    Edited by: Suiginryou Hitaiga on 11/02/2011 03:51:35
    Edited by: Suiginryou Hitaiga on 11/02/2011 03:51:16
    Originally by: Ranka Mei
    Only a grossly incompetent suicide gang would bring too little Alpha strike to finish the job.

    This.

    Originally by: Ranka Mei
    If it were up to me, you'd get no insurance payout at all. Zilch, nada, nothing, niks. And you'd get like a -1.0 security penalty to boot, per offence. Be the pirate you wanted to be! Seriously. But do so in low-sec or null sec. In highsec, however, there should be real consequences -- you know, something that actually stings.

    This.

    Originally by: Ranka Mei
    So-called pirates are always on about 'risk vs. reward.' Yet there's no real risk involved in high-sec suicide ganking: just reward. That ain't right.

    And this.



    Totally agreed.

    Space Tarantula Haklar
    Posted - 2011.02.11 06:18:00 - [58]
     

    Edited by: Space Tarantula Haklar on 11/02/2011 06:19:22
    Originally by: Ranka Mei
    (...)

    So-called pirates are always on about 'risk vs. reward.' Yet there's no real risk involved in high-sec suicide ganking: just reward. That ain't right.


    And you could add that allmost all of them are then fielding some "neutral" alt to lessen even more the consequences of their actions. Yup! They surely can give lessons. But only about how abusing game mechanics.

    Ydyp Ieva
    Caldari
    Amarrian Retribution
    Posted - 2011.02.11 07:53:00 - [59]
     

    The problem with suicide ganking in highsec is a problem with the current haulers. Even if you stuff a full T1 hauler with the worst crap you can find a suicide gank is profitable because the change to the insurance wasn't enough to cut it.

    I'm all for removing the insurance from suicide ganking, at least new players that haven't had the time yet to train for transports and buy one, are still able to move some basic stuff around. Of course moving billions of isk around in a T1 hauler should still have it risks of being suicide ganking, which it still would have when insurance is removed.

    Barbara Nichole
    Cryogenic Consultancy
    Black Sun Alliance
    Posted - 2011.02.11 08:07:00 - [60]
     

    Quote:
    Dont wanna be suicide ganked? fit your ship propperly, dont autopilot. and turn your tanks on



    Are you trying to be funny? What tank can you "fit" on a freighter exactly? You can't even fit a rig... and yes auto pilot is trouble but flying a freighter is almost as bad as autopiloting anything else since they take nearly year to get into warp.


    Pages: 1 [2] 3

    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