open All Channels
seplocked Jita Park Speakers Corner
blankseplocked Candidates, Lets Talk Suicide Ganking and Insurance
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5

Author Topic

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2008.05.03 07:54:00 - [31]
 

If suicide gankers would get no insurance at all, the cost of suicide-ganking would go so high that you'd virtually have no more suicide-ganks at all (or only on especially crazy/careless haulers).
That's just as bad as having too much suicide-ganking.

So actually, the problem is not so much the fact that suicide-gankers get insurance, it's how much it costs them to buy, insure and lose the ship.
Bottom line, it's a problem of how much insurance they get.
Now, would the prices of ships be closer (or even above) the insurance payouts, like it's the case with T2 ships, there would be a serious reduction in suicide-ganking activity.

Now, if anything, you shouldn't be complaining about the seide-effects of imbalances in a system that has its purpose, you should complain about balancing the system properly... then the side-effects will dissapear.
In other words, find a way to have the platinum payout very close in value to the minimal ship purchase value, and then all the rest of the problems suddendly become a lot less of a problem.

Max Torps
Nomadic Conglomerate
Posted - 2008.05.03 09:44:00 - [32]
 

Much like in real life, have a No Claims Bonus for insurance then.

For normal day to day ship loss activity, the no claims bonus is unaffected and your insurance price is as it was.

If you lose a ship due to illegal activity (concorded) then yes, you get a payout. However the next time you go for insurance the premium has risen. This rises on a sliding scale.

If you have insured your ship and the ship has had insurance expire on it, then this is reflected in the insurance premium coming down in price (No Claims Bonus) next time you renew.

This scheme retains the insurance isk faucet. Ensures that activity still occurs. Increases the cost of repeated ganking and allows cool down with a simple, easy to understand mechanism.

Thoughts?

Coco Puff
Posted - 2008.05.03 11:26:00 - [33]
 

Simple solution to this problem is to drastically increase the power of the guns at empire gates, to the point it will insta fry any agressor(s) at the gate. Problem solved.

Katchoo
Insurgent New Eden Tribe
Systematic-Chaos
Posted - 2008.05.03 12:58:00 - [34]
 

Edited by: Katchoo on 03/05/2008 12:58:37
Mhm, after reading the comments, and having some mates that do suicide ganks in empire, I'd still prefer the "no insurance payment for CONCORDoken'ed ships":

  • KISS rule - this is simple than any of the alternatives

  • legality: an insurance company rewarding criminal activity is partaking in the same criminal activity. Should CONCORD go and blow up the insurance agents? (I wouldn't mind some insurance agents ganking in Real Life, though)

  • legality II: ofr those arguing that the incurance company is bound by contract to refund those ships, working around this is as simple as adding a clause to the contract specifying that "this contract will be held invalid in cse of a ship loss due to CONCORD action in Empire Space" - feel free to rephrase it.



Other options would add more Role Playing to the insurance, e.g., having Factional Insurance: Gallente insurance company would not pay for it your ships is blown up by Concord or the Gallente or Minmatarr Navy, while Angels would not pay for losses to Angels and Serpentis, but would pay for losses to Concord.
These are all beyond the point, however, and would do nothing to solve the suicide ganks problem.

ATOM ANT
Posted - 2008.05.03 14:51:00 - [35]
 

Here's my take on Suicide ganking.

Give the suicide ganker a -10 sec rating and remove their ability to get insurance on any ship for a period of time.

Provide better insurance payouts for ships like Hulks which have a very poor insurance return. Covetors are well provided for, why not hulks?

Atom-Ant
CEO Trojan Ink.

Parsec84
Posted - 2008.05.03 15:21:00 - [36]
 

Originally by: Ethaet

Turn warnings on.
If a warning says 'CONCORD will wtfpwn your ship', don't click yes.


The problem with a pop up window is that people are prone to ignore warnings.Just look at all the people getting caught by the Lofty trick if you want evidence.

Joe Elliot
Aliastra
Posted - 2008.05.03 15:40:00 - [37]
 

Suicide ganking is not a major issue at the moment, EVE is a dangerous place, and players should take care not to present themselves as too much of a valuable target, and not haul huge amounts of valuable stuff in one trip if they are traveling alone, and especially if autopiloted. The only thing I think should be more looked out for, is people recycling alts, but most use their mains and then rat up their sec status later, which is fine.

Dariah Stardweller
Gallente
NO U111 Enterprises
Posted - 2008.05.03 19:03:00 - [38]
 

Originally by: SencneS


Criminal activity should effect the person not just the one ship they did the crime in.
I like your train of thought :)

My views on insurance: it should be nerfed, nerfed, nerfed and then, nerfed again. Laughing

Dariah Stardweller
Gallente
NO U111 Enterprises
Posted - 2008.05.03 19:07:00 - [39]
 

Originally by: Coco Puff
Simple solution to this problem is to drastically increase the power of the guns at empire gates, to the point it will insta fry any agressor(s) at the gate. Problem solved.


That would effectively remove suicide ganking from the game (at least at gates). I see suicide ganking as a interesting gameplay style, it just stings me to see criminals get fat payouts from insurance despite their crimes. Just as insurance fraud stings me irl.

Ankhesentapemkah
Gallente
Posted - 2008.05.03 19:20:00 - [40]
 

Originally by: Coco Puff
Simple solution to this problem is to drastically increase the power of the guns at empire gates, to the point it will insta fry any agressor(s) at the gate. Problem solved.

People ganking (non-afk) miners, random noobs and frigates for fun, and missionrunners for the faction drops are more of a problem to me, and that's something gate guns do not prevent.

Gekkoh
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2008.05.04 01:02:00 - [41]
 

(Disclaimer: I have yet to be hi-sec ganked because I take the proper precautions to avoid it, so my opinion isn’t based on some big loss I’ve suffered – I have yet to lose a single ISK because of this.)

What CCP apparently hasn't grasped yet is that the vast majority of people who play MMO's really don’t like issues like this. When you have sloppy game mechanics that can be abused easily (that's the key word) by someone out to grief, then you're going to get just that.

I don't mind having to watch myself in hisec, and always be thinking about who might attack me at anytime. That's great!

But don't let them do it with cheap use of game mechanics.

Obviously, insurance is there to help players lessen the blow when they lose a ship. It shouldn't enable griefers to run around blowing up other ships in highsec with little to no loss of their own. Death in Eve is supposed to hurt. It SHOULD hurt enough to make a griefer think really hard on whether or not it’s worth the cost to sacrifice his ship for your stuff.

How would I fix this?
1. No insurance for Concord deaths.
2. For some period of time after the kill, looting or salvaging the wreck of a ship that was destroyed by Concord also brings down Concord on you, unless it belongs to you or your corp/alliance. Obviously, we’d need some kind of indicator to flag these types of wrecks, as well as pop the standard warning dialog box. (Seriously, would the police show up to a robbery and not care if the perp handed the goods off to his friend in plain sight? That's just poor AI…)
2a. Touching the loot from said wreck does the same, again with an indicator and dialog box to prevent this mechanic from being used to dupe unsuspecting players. (to prevent some weird chain of handing off items before Concord can show up.)
3. You also lose considerable sec status for 2 or 2a.
4. Kill rights are transferable.

Note that you could still blow up ships and their wrecks, denying your target whatever it is you're trying to deny them... you're just not going to profit from it at all

In addition, I'd handle using newbie corps as safe havens:
1. No player over the age of 1(?) month can remain in a newbie corp.
1a. No player in a newbie corp can learn any spaceship command skill other than frigates and cruisers.
2. Players can have no corp affiliation.
3. Players with no corp affiliation can be declared war upon by any real corporation for 1/10th the cost of declaring war on a corp.
4. 6 days after the war has started, the player without a corp can apply to join a corporation, but cannot actually join until a 24 hour waiting period is over. This will end the war. (Of course, the aggressor can now war dec the corp they joined...)

I love the danger... I just want it to be less about griefing and more about true PvP (where there are more risks involved in aggressing another party) So, if you want to target a particular corp or person, war dec ‘em. Great, now you're putting yourself at risk of being attacked as well and potentially losing something. And newbie corps shouldn't be a shield for corps running logistics. I hate seeing people in newbie corps flying freighters around hi-sec... that's just contrary to the overall idea of Eve.

Hmm... I wonder what that'd do to empire macro miners (i.e. the ice miners that run 24/7 in Osmon)...

Amaandia
Third Return Inc.
On the Rocks
Posted - 2008.05.04 01:19:00 - [42]
 

Edited by: Amaandia on 04/05/2008 01:42:50
Edited by: Amaandia on 04/05/2008 01:41:59
First of all, all those in favour of removing insurance payouts for shiplosses should look at following thread and give their signature to support the cause :

http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=762981

Second, it would be nice to get support from some of the candidates for CSM to show their support.

It all gets a lot easier if they put their name on paper.


steejans nix
Amarr
Black Core Federation
Posted - 2008.05.04 10:08:00 - [43]
 

Originally by: Max Torps
Much like in real life, have a No Claims Bonus for insurance then.


If you have insured your ship and the ship has had insurance expire on it, then this is reflected in the insurance premium coming down in price (No Claims Bonus) next time you renew.

This scheme retains the insurance isk faucet. Ensures that activity still occurs. Increases the cost of repeated ganking and allows cool down with a simple, easy to understand mechanism.

Thoughts?


Much like in real life where would you find a insurance company who'd insure someone who engages in this activity at all, no chance !!!

Think it's part of the game but need a overhaul, would suggest no insurance payout at all for someone firing on another player's ship wether the other player get blown up or not , then it really would be risk verus reward (or isk verus fun !!).

Max Torps
Nomadic Conglomerate
Posted - 2008.05.04 10:36:00 - [44]
 

Edited by: Max Torps on 04/05/2008 10:39:51
Originally by: steejans nix
Much like in real life where would you find a insurance company who'd insure someone who engages in this activity at all, no chance !!!

Think it's part of the game but need a overhaul, would suggest no insurance payout at all for someone firing on another player's ship wether the other player get blown up or not , then it really would be risk verus reward (or isk verus fun !!).


While I agree with you in principle, I refer you to this post by SencneS.

This is another players opinion that I happen to agree with. If we nerf everything to oblivion, then Eve will become an empty shell of what it is, a dark and dangerous game.

I believe that as soon as you leave a station dock, you should be at risk. This is what Eve is about. I have no doubt that there are areas that need improvement and to make options such as killing people with bounties make sense, anti-pirating and so on and I support those. But to nerf is to start on a long and slippery slope to hello kitty online.

Instead of nerf, punish. The method I like that still gives people choice and provides an isk sink and disincentives, is rising insurance premiums. Not paying insurance won't really affect people if they start swarming in frigates, frigates are practically disposable.

Increasing premiums on every ship that person renews insurance on would hit the wallets harder. There will no longer be a "party time in empire" if the insurance on the players battleship in 0.0 goes through the roof.

I see this as a major consequence of action and thus an effective disincentive rather than just losing one ship with no insurance payout.



Ankhesentapemkah
Gallente
Posted - 2008.05.04 11:19:00 - [45]
 

Originally by: Amaandia
Edited by: Amaandia on 04/05/2008 01:42:50
Edited by: Amaandia on 04/05/2008 01:41:59
First of all, all those in favour of removing insurance payouts for shiplosses should look at following thread and give their signature to support the cause :

http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=762981

Second, it would be nice to get support from some of the candidates for CSM to show their support.

It all gets a lot easier if they put their name on paper.




Posted in that thread of yours, but I doubt it's going to be much help.

Inanna Zuni
Minmatar
The Causality
Electus Matari
Posted - 2008.05.04 11:38:00 - [46]
 

Originally by: Synjin Sinner
I want to know which candidates supports removing the paying of insurance to suicide ganking in empire.

As I said before... im not opposed to this activity as long as there is risk vs reward for the aggressors... currently there is only reward in this current format and no risk with insurance.


I'd have no problem with removing this apparent side-benefit of suicide ganking but I'm not sure it would be that effective. Lower down this thread is the suggestion that suicide gankers - as determined by CONCORD status, etc - should pay more for their replacement ship, yet as we are seeing such actions by major corps/alliances then they will be building those ships and fittings, not buying them, indeed the cost of insurance doesn't really factor into the ccost/rewards structure they are operating under.

Something which equates the activity with security status and hence access to systems might be more effective.

IZ

MirrorGod
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2008.05.04 16:59:00 - [47]
 

Edited by: MirrorGod on 04/05/2008 17:04:32
Let's not, nothing is wrong with the mechanic's of suicide ganking, here's why.

1) It's been clearly stated by GM's that High-sec is not intended to be safe, it's meant to be safer.
And that really says it all

2) The lack of targets in low-sec has driven pirates and profiteers into high-sec.
I personally am still steadfast to low-sec hunting, but I know many a successful pirates who have taken to war-decs, ninja salvaging, and suicide ganking, and they're having a party. They went there because that's where the targets are, they adapted, and they made a wise choice. Have more courage, come to low-sec, fight for dominance. Or go to 0.0. It's more profitable out there. I would encourage CSM candidates wishing to make low-sec missions or minerals more profitable.

3) If you got popped in high-sec, more than likely, you did something to deserve it.
Auto-piloting with 300mil worth of morphite through a .5? Undocking afk in a life-in-a-box indy from jita? Mining in the same damn high-sec belt in a hulk with high-price mining upgrade mods?

4) There's nothing we can do to stop it!
you're not being creative enough

Let's face it, if you put yourself up on a pedastal as a shiny golden pinata, someone's going to take a swing at you. CCP has given you plenty of alternatives. Go mine under the umbrella of a 0.0 alliance and contribute to a smaller, more localized 0.0 economy. When you're flying your corp's blueprint collection, it's probably a better idea to stuff it into an inertia'd interceptor and avoid that auto-pilot button. As a pirate, I have multiple high-sec alts to fuffill my needs. Hauling, missions, some of us, even mining. But when we mine in high-sec, it's in a mission mining area. When we haul alot of loot, it's stabbed with a buffer tank and sometimes scouted.

The current game mechanics encourage the intelligent and cautious, and punish the stupid and arrogant.

Anyone who wishes to change this is simply looking for an easy way out, and there's too many industrialists in the game right now, all you'd really achieve is the curtailing of your own profits by those less intelligent than yourself.

Peri Stark
Gallente
Blood Covenant
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2008.05.05 01:59:00 - [48]
 

I am not sure I see much difference in not getting an insurance payout and raising your rates. Your out the isk either way.

I am in favor of not getting an insurance payout if you are killed by Concord, if Concord is still around after faction warfare. There is also another option that might be worth exploring. Right now you can be shot by anyone in empire if your security status is below -5.0. What about an empire aggression timer that would allow the same thing for a period of time to be determined?

Ben Derindar
Dirty Deeds Corp.
Posted - 2008.05.05 03:18:00 - [49]
 

Originally by: Exodus Alpha
Originally by: Ben Derindar
Regarding risk vs reward, I'm not sure I completely agree with the OP. The risk for the ganker is that the hauler may be sufficiently tanked to be able to survive an attack, or that the hauler's good loot was all in one stash or all in a can that got destroyed so that there's nothing for the ganker to collect.


I don't think your definition of "risk" is so much "risk" as "hey, we might not get as huge a payout this time".

Well, if the target survives the attack, or the target's entire cargo (say, a large single stack of zydrine) is destroyed, that kinda strikes me as more of a "hey, I might not get a payout at all".

Originally by: Exodus Alpha
The Dangerous Act notifications are provided to players for a reason and if they decide to disable them rather than use then as they were meant to be used, I really think that this situation shouldn't affect the larger issue of removing insurance payouts when Concordokkened.

Plus, its not like rookie ships exactly cost much (the actual "rookie ship" is free, and *insert race here*'s base frigate isn't really a bank breaker either), not that that would excuse the situation itself if not for the dialogs that people would first have to willingly choose to ignore (either by not reading them or by clicking Ignore). And for newbies, sometimes the hard way is the best way to learn, even if it costs them a ship. Its not like they won't lose a ship at some point.

Fair call on the notifications, although I sometimes wonder if newbies truly understand what they may be in for when they disable it.

As far as T1 frigs being cheap is concerned, that depends on who you are. I have a friend who's done nothing but run L1 & L2 missions in a vigil for months on end, and he's lost enough of the things to the point where financially he's only really treading water.

My point being, newbies are the ones who can least afford to replace their losses. So I do think it would be unfortunate for them if insurance upon Concordokken was nerfed across the board, as the popular suggestion is atm.

/Ben

Synjin Sinner
Posted - 2008.05.05 10:40:00 - [50]
 

I have read several people comments on this and I think I will wait to hear more to get a broader opinion from everyone...

Its seems as if most people beleive that suicide ganking is part of the game... and I agree it is, and I dont want it removed...

It also seems like most are not into agreement on how to balance it out as risk vs reward... whether its removing insurance for acts that bring concord intervention or some other viable option.

It be nice to see some change atleast discussed

regards




MSC Darklord
Posted - 2008.05.05 12:03:00 - [51]
 

Originally by: Drizit
Originally by: SencneS
Each ship loss = 10% more on insurance costs. If you've died 13 times, it's 130% more then normal etc.

No need to punish low sec pirates when the issue is High Sec Ganking.

One word - Alts.
Yes it takes a long time to train a new alt to fly a BS for genking a freighter but if it gets around the increased insurance for their main, players will do it.

Removal of payouts creates a situation where the gain from the loot has to be worth more than the loss of however many ships it takes to gank the freighter.

I've heard of empty freighters being ganked just to cause massive loss of isk to the owner. The insurance payout for freighter is around half of the cost of a new freighter by the time you add the freighter cost plus insurance cost together. The insurance means the gankers have almost nothing to lose by it so if it has loot in the cargo hold, it's simply a bonus.



So people can't play just to wreak havoc?

Also, people are hired just to do those sort of things. When you declare a war, people are more cautious. So why not just suicide on them? Its a part of the mercenary profession, something that is either illegal or in a very gray area.

I prefer getting clean targets but sometimes you just have to play dirty.
So, insurance should be left as it is.
Should smugglers loose their insurance or have increased insurance cost?

The other side of the coin is that people in 0.0 shouldn't be able to insure according to this "concorded=no insurance". I don't know if you can get a life insurance if you sky-dive daily or are a soldier in a war.

In fact, if you start removing insurance for getting concorded or loosing you stuff in 0.0 you might just as well remove insurance. I mean, you don't tell your insurance agent that you are going to face a gazillion ships that you have a mission for, I think you would not be able to buy an insurance.

Further more, if you frequent low security or have a low security status, you are leading a very risky life and are extremely likely to loose the ship. Insurance fee should be increased for those players.

What is left are high security traders, haulers, miners and manufacturers.
Sure, they are fine to insure, little risk of loosing their ships, and the insurance company wins, the person with the insurance wins but everyone else suffers.
If you really want the authentic feeling, upon a ship destruction an insurance agent shows up, looks at the scene and if he considers that it was your fault (character using boosters etc) or that you simply forgot to put the drones out or that you were sleeping (afk) would render the insurance contract void.

I know this silly example is not doable in game and time terms but once you start making something more authentic you must look at the big picture. It sucks really bad loosing a ship in high sec to suicide gankers, I know, but you can't just expect to make a game change that only benefits you without having a radical change on the game as whole.

You can't keep the cake and eat it.

Tusko Hopkins
HUN Corp.
HUN Reloaded
Posted - 2008.05.05 12:32:00 - [52]
 

I generally dont oppose suicide ganking but the current game mechanics do not punish a suicide gankers enough.
I completely support the idea of SCC not paying insurance for ships popped by CONCORD or faction sentries, furthermore support the increase of sec status penalty by at least factor 2 for acts of aggression in hi sec space. I do not see why suicide hi sec shooty shooty is not more penalized than doing the same in policeless low sec.


Divad Ginleek
Gallente
New Eden Logistics and Trade.
Posted - 2008.05.05 12:35:00 - [53]
 

Edited by: Divad Ginleek on 05/05/2008 12:37:25
I think Insurance could use some tweaking, but not a total removal. As others have pointed out, if you remove the risk of suicide ganks, you turn the game into AFK Online. Not a pretty picture, since the atmosphere of paranoia is one of the things that makes the game fun.

There is no simple way to make things harder on gankers while keeping the element in the game. I can only think of 2 ideas at the moment:

1: Bulk up haulers and mining barges/exhumers. Have you ever seen a dragline or a mining dump truck? I don't think a truck loaded with as much explosive as a suicide bomber could get his hands on would even scratch the paint on one of those monsters. So why, in the harsh vacuum of space, is our mining equipment made out of match sticks and paper? Same goes for industrials... they are "industrial" ships... that implies heavy metal and over-engineered construction. Its almost like CCP is handing mining and industrial ships over to anyone in a cruiser who wants to blow something up. Turn that around. Make it the gankers job to create enough DPS. Not the miner/haulers job to desperately try to tank a ship that does not fit RP. Hulks move like battleships... but have the tank of a cruiser.

2: Improve/change the criminal tagging system, and create a new profession of bounty hunting. This would have the desired effect of creating more non-war PVP in high-sec, and put a real, but possibly desired, negative side effect on suicide ganking. Say, 5 concord kills and you become killable by anyone in 1.0-0.9 sec. 20 kills and you become killable in 0.9-0.7, 50 kills and your killable in 0.7-0.5. (but you can only be targeted by up to 2 people at a time, this way hunters can work in packs, but the hunted still has a chance, and everyone in the system cant just jump in and start attacking.)

This, coupled with an improvement in mining/hauling ships will reduce the ease with which gankers operate. also, you will need a good battleship and lvl 5 skills, and probably named fittings and faction ammo to have a prayer of solo ganking, so there is little chance of throwaway alts being abused to get around empire killabillity. And just to add icing to the cake, create special haul missions to erase the concord kill count (force the ganker to become the gank-ee at some point, in other words... for the sake of karma)

Farmina
Lightspeed Enterprises
Posted - 2008.05.05 12:53:00 - [54]
 


Sakura Nihil
Selective Pressure
Rote Kapelle
Posted - 2008.05.06 12:54:00 - [55]
 

Originally by: MirrorGod
Let's face it, if you put yourself up on a pedastal as a shiny golden pinata, someone's going to take a swing at you. CCP has given you plenty of alternatives. Go mine under the umbrella of a 0.0 alliance and contribute to a smaller, more localized 0.0 economy. When you're flying your corp's blueprint collection, it's probably a better idea to stuff it into an inertia'd interceptor and avoid that auto-pilot button. As a pirate, I have multiple high-sec alts to fuffill my needs. Hauling, missions, some of us, even mining. But when we mine in high-sec, it's in a mission mining area. When we haul alot of loot, it's stabbed with a buffer tank and sometimes scouted.

The current game mechanics encourage the intelligent and cautious, and punish the stupid and arrogant.

Anyone who wishes to change this is simply looking for an easy way out, and there's too many industrialists in the game right now, all you'd really achieve is the curtailing of your own profits by those less intelligent than yourself.

This.

PVE, at least in sectors like mining, trading, and manufacturing, as just as much of a player versus player situation as proper PVP combat. If you are an intelligent, situationally aware industrialist (a.k.a., the "good kind"), you have an advantage over your less intelligent brethren. When they do something stupid, like AFK hauling the same T2 goods you produce, when they're called on it and die, that's less competition the "good kinds" will have to face, increasing or maintaining profits. Protect your competition, and you hurt yourself.

Its a dog-eat-dog world out there, and it should be.

TeddyBr FTW
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2008.05.06 13:08:00 - [56]
 

Please notice the LACK of any Goon person making comments here. They are the major violator of this aspect of the game and yet they are silant.

Miner's and Industrialist’s. Look to other candidates then Goons to be fair an impartial towards your goals and needs in the game of Eve.

Ma Zhiqiang
Minmatar
Huang Yinglong
Posted - 2008.05.06 13:31:00 - [57]
 

There's a another issue here about suicide gankings - Concord tankers. I have heard about incidents where pirates/players in high sec has organised themselves to attack people in high sec, such as ganking Freighters coming out of stations, by having multiple fleet members engaged by Concord, and quite so, being able to tank them for a good while.

One problem is many uses alts to do their mains "dirty work", often hiding them within NPC corps. So they take no real consequences. Changing PVP in general, by adding more hitpoints to ships, could be one solution, especially for industrial ships, as mentioned above.

In the case of such a high sec ship kill, the crime should follow the wreck. If anyone loots from it rather than corp members, they should get a Global Criminal Flag as well.


Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.06 14:20:00 - [58]
 

Edited by: Goumindong on 06/05/2008 14:21:12
Originally by: Ma Zhiqiang
There's a another issue here about suicide gankings - Concord tankers. I have heard about incidents where pirates/players in high sec has organised themselves to attack people in high sec, such as ganking Freighters coming out of stations, by having multiple fleet members engaged by Concord, and quite so, being able to tank them for a good while.



I wanted to chime in here and say that this is not possible. Concord spawns for each individual attacker and cannot be tanked by any ship in the game short of capitals which are not allowed in high-sec]. You're all going to die and the time it takes for you to die is independent of the number of other attackers.

Sakura Nihil
Selective Pressure
Rote Kapelle
Posted - 2008.05.06 14:48:00 - [59]
 

Originally by: Goumindong
Edited by: Goumindong on 06/05/2008 14:21:12
Originally by: Ma Zhiqiang
There's a another issue here about suicide gankings - Concord tankers. I have heard about incidents where pirates/players in high sec has organised themselves to attack people in high sec, such as ganking Freighters coming out of stations, by having multiple fleet members engaged by Concord, and quite so, being able to tank them for a good while.



I wanted to chime in here and say that this is not possible. Concord spawns for each individual attacker and cannot be tanked by any ship in the game short of capitals which are not allowed in high-sec]. You're all going to die and the time it takes for you to die is independent of the number of other attackers.


Confirmed.

Hardin
Amarr
Imperial Dreams
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
Posted - 2008.05.06 15:01:00 - [60]
 

I believe that if you are killed by Concord you do not get an insurance payout.

Yes that is harsh on those who make innocent mistakes (hell I have lost plenty of ships to Concord in my time) however I believe it ensures that 'suicide gankers' have to have a REAL ISK motivation to gank someone in Empire - rather than simply using the mechanic to grief and ruin people's day.

Will the loss of Insurance payment halt suicide ganking? No it wont - but it will at least make some potential suicide gankers that bit more discerning and choosy about their targets.

At the end of the day, if anyone really chooses to load their ship with multi-billions ISK worth of stuff and then travel afk, then they are getting what they deserve if they are ganked.

So in summary - suicide ganking is legitimate - but it should be made more expensive than it currently is in order that it requires more planning and cunning in order to turn a profit! This in turn makes the 'smart' hauler less likely to be ganked - a reward for not simply being lazy!




Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5

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