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

Kaker
Waiting for Palli
Posted - 2008.05.09 22:47:00 - [61]
 

Originally by: MirrorGod
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.



/signed
I do it for a living and it's a fine job. If the indy pilot is smart about it he wont get ganked, nuff said.

Little Fistter
Caldari
Ordo Rosa Crux Templaris
Posted - 2008.05.10 00:53:00 - [62]
 

Gankers should be banned from the game. It ruins what otherwise is an excellent game of mega corporation management.

Suicide gankers should be forced to pay reparations to their victoms, and then be banned as well.

PvP is but thinly veiled sanctioned bullying.

PvPers should have completely seperate systems where they can blast away at each other - and be barred from spoiling my game.

Better still, have the game divide into two universes, one for cooperative play and one for being a criminal.

Dianeces
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2008.05.10 07:06:00 - [63]
 

Originally by: Ma Zhiqiang

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.



No, they don't. However, since I'm lazy I won't explain (again) why people do not suicide gank with throwaway alts.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.10 07:15:00 - [64]
 

Originally by: Dianeces
Originally by: Ma Zhiqiang

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.



No, they don't. However, since I'm lazy I won't explain (again) why people do not suicide gank with throwaway alts.


I am not lazy, so I will.

Using a throw-away alt to suicide gank is an exploit. As such it is a bannable offense. Characters are tied to accounts even after they are destroyed. Such anyone doing this that you petition[because say a guy in a noob corp suicide ganks you then disappears from your buddy list 2 weeks later is clearly a throw-away-alt] will be caught and banned if they are partaking in this activity.

Ki An
Gallente
The Really Awesome Players
Posted - 2008.05.10 09:26:00 - [65]
 

This is the key issue for me. Answer wrongly and you won't get my vote.

It pains me to see so many in favor of removing insurance for CONCORD death. It shows how far Eve has been pushed towards WoW-land, and how few people actually stop to think about things.

Idiot King
Posted - 2008.05.10 09:35:00 - [66]
 

Originally by: Little Fistter
Gankers should be banned from the game. It ruins what otherwise is an excellent game of mega corporation management.

Suicide gankers should be forced to pay reparations to their victoms, and then be banned as well.

PvP is but thinly veiled sanctioned bullying.

PvPers should have completely seperate systems where they can blast away at each other - and be barred from spoiling my game.

Better still, have the game divide into two universes, one for cooperative play and one for being a criminal.



This is either an awful troll, or you are playing a completely different game to everyone else (WoW)

Ambien Torca
Posted - 2008.05.10 10:45:00 - [67]
 

Originally by: Ki An
This is the key issue for me. Answer wrongly and you won't get my vote.

It pains me to see so many in favor of removing insurance for CONCORD death. It shows how far Eve has been pushed towards WoW-land, and how few people actually stop to think about things.



Dunno, it just makes game harder so I donīt see why itīs "WoW"ish... I donīt hate suicide ganks myself and believe that anyone whoīs carrying too much loot in their hold or ship should be target. But currently there are probably too many viable targets due to insurance.

Grey Shadow
KIA Corp
KIA Alliance
Posted - 2008.05.10 11:02:00 - [68]
 

Originally by: Synjin Sinner
Dear Candidates

I would like to know where you all stand on suicide ganking and insurance payouts.

Being the Ceo of a fairly large Industrial corp the suicide gankings have hurt our members.... Now Im not opposed to suicide ganking * IF * it falls under the category of risk vs reward like CCP preaches. But currently where is the risk for the agressor when CCP allows insurance to be paid out on this kind of activity.

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.

regards




I'm fully in favour of if you loose your ship due to a criminal act, you forfeit yuor insurance. So, concord kill = no insurance.

I would also like to see no insurance payout in empire systems where your sec status is negative, again as an insurance default.

Suicide ganking itself, well realistically if you have weapons on ships, you cannot stop someone from using tham. Perhaps we should be throwing in concord starting to pod kill characters who have a -ve sec status and commit a criminal act, as a further dis-incentive to suicide ganking.

Ki An
Gallente
The Really Awesome Players
Posted - 2008.05.10 11:04:00 - [69]
 

Originally by: Ambien Torca

Dunno, it just makes game harder so I donīt see why itīs "WoW"ish...


No, it makes one specific playstyle harder while making other already easy playstyles a whole lot easier.

Leandro Salazar
Quam Singulari
Posted - 2008.05.10 11:39:00 - [70]
 

Edited by: Leandro Salazar on 10/05/2008 12:10:43
Originally by: Ki An
This is the key issue for me. Answer wrongly and you won't get my vote.

It pains me to see so many in favor of removing insurance for CONCORD death. It shows how far Eve has been pushed towards WoW-land, and how few people actually stop to think about things.



All it shows is that your view about what EVE should be is not the be-all end-all view you and your ilk would like it to be...

Jelek Coro
Erase Rewind
Posted - 2008.05.10 12:10:00 - [71]
 

Originally by: Leandro Salazar
Originally by: Ki An
This is the key issue for me. Answer wrongly and you won't get my vote.

It pains me to see so many in favor of removing insurance for CONCORD death. It shows how far Eve has been pushed towards WoW-land, and how few people actually stop to think about things.



All it shows is that your view about what EVE should be is no the be-all end-all view you and your ilk would like it to be...


Devs have made it quite clear about their vision of the game.

If people insist on flying t1 haulers packed with high value items more fool them. If people insist on flying pimped to the brim mission ships in very busy systems without taking precautions, more fool them.

Greed and refusal to acknowledge you are playing a multi player game where other peoples actions can affect you is no reason to change something.


Leandro Salazar
Quam Singulari
Posted - 2008.05.10 12:21:00 - [72]
 

Originally by: Jelek Coro
If people insist on flying t1 haulers packed with high value items more fool them. If people insist on flying pimped to the brim mission ships in very busy systems without taking precautions, more fool them.


I even agree with you here. The issue is that with the current insurance mechanics, it is not only mission rides pimped to the brim that are at risk, but even your average joes CN-fitted CNR that he has been dreaming of flying for the past 6 months. In fact those are probably more at risk, since I assume that most people who fly really pimped ships (like I do) are aware of the risks and paranoid enough to avoid them, even if it means just not using them for a while as in my case.

All a proper insurance fix should and would do is to raise the threshold at which it becomes profitable to suicide gank. High value hauler ganking would be largely unaffected as that can be done with cruisers where insurance plays only a very small part in the profit equation. But mission runner ganking would become limited to really high profile targets that should only be flown by people who should be 100% aware of the risks they put themselves into (And if they STILL get ganked, they just had it coming). It would not work on your everyday casual player high end mission runner anymore as it does currently.

Ki An
Gallente
The Really Awesome Players
Posted - 2008.05.10 12:41:00 - [73]
 

Originally by: Leandro Salazar

I even agree with you here. The issue is that with the current insurance mechanics, it is not only mission rides pimped to the brim that are at risk, but even your average joes CN-fitted CNR that he has been dreaming of flying for the past 6 months. In fact those are probably more at risk, since I assume that most people who fly really pimped ships (like I do) are aware of the risks and paranoid enough to avoid them, even if it means just not using them for a while as in my case.

All a proper insurance fix should and would do is to raise the threshold at which it becomes profitable to suicide gank. High value hauler ganking would be largely unaffected as that can be done with cruisers where insurance plays only a very small part in the profit equation. But mission runner ganking would become limited to really high profile targets that should only be flown by people who should be 100% aware of the risks they put themselves into (And if they STILL get ganked, they just had it coming). It would not work on your everyday casual player high end mission runner anymore as it does currently.


Oh, so you feel it's ok for careless traders to be suicided, but it's not ok for careless mission runners to get suicided, that about it?

And, how often do CN fitted CNRs get suicided anyway? Has it happened once? Twice? Never? Just because the ghost stories carebears tell each other get scarier every time they are told doesn't mean they are true.

Leandro Salazar
Quam Singulari
Posted - 2008.05.10 16:24:00 - [74]
 

Originally by: Ki An

Oh, so you feel it's ok for careless traders to be suicided, but it's not ok for careless mission runners to get suicided, that about it?


No, I just think that while a trader hauling 1 bil worth of goods in a T1 indie on autopilot is indeed careless, a mission runner simply jumping a gate in highsec without using metagaming tactics is NOT careless but playing the game the way it is intended.


Quote:
And, how often do CN fitted CNRs get suicided anyway? Has it happened once? Twice? Never? Just because the ghost stories carebears tell each other get scarier every time they are told doesn't mean they are true.


Doesn't mean they are NOT true either though. And I have to believe the victims over the perpetrators in this issue, simply because I would trust anyone doing or condoning that stuff about as far as I can throw a Leviathan.

Ki An
Gallente
The Really Awesome Players
Posted - 2008.05.10 20:11:00 - [75]
 

Originally by: Leandro Salazar

No, I just think that while a trader hauling 1 bil worth of goods in a T1 indie on autopilot is indeed careless, a mission runner simply jumping a gate in highsec without using metagaming tactics is NOT careless but playing the game the way it is intended.


But you yourself made a distinction of how you take more care when you fly a pimped out raven. Surely every mission runner loaded with even cheaper faction modules should take those same precautions?

Originally by: Leandro Salazar

Doesn't mean they are NOT true either though. And I have to believe the victims over the perpetrators in this issue, simply because I would trust anyone doing or condoning that stuff about as far as I can throw a Leviathan.


Here is my challenge to you. Find one confirmed suicide gank of a mission ship and I'll acknowledge that it happens. Find five and I'll acknowledge that it happens more than I thought. Find ten and I'll acknowledge that there might be a problem. Find none and you'll stfu and stop making up 'problems', k?

Leandro Salazar
Quam Singulari
Posted - 2008.05.10 20:22:00 - [76]
 

Originally by: Ki An
Originally by: Leandro Salazar

No, I just think that while a trader hauling 1 bil worth of goods in a T1 indie on autopilot is indeed careless, a mission runner simply jumping a gate in highsec without using metagaming tactics is NOT careless but playing the game the way it is intended.


But you yourself made a distinction of how you take more care when you fly a pimped out raven. Surely every mission runner loaded with even cheaper faction modules should take those same precautions?


No. Highsec should be a place for casual play where you should not be bothered with such things unless you are REALLY valuable imho.

Quote:
Originally by: Leandro Salazar

Doesn't mean they are NOT true either though. And I have to believe the victims over the perpetrators in this issue, simply because I would trust anyone doing or condoning that stuff about as far as I can throw a Leviathan.


Here is my challenge to you. Find one confirmed suicide gank of a mission ship and I'll acknowledge that it happens. Find five and I'll acknowledge that it happens more than I thought. Find ten and I'll acknowledge that there might be a problem. Find none and you'll stfu and stop making up 'problems', k?



How about 18?

Ki An
Gallente
The Really Awesome Players
Posted - 2008.05.10 20:30:00 - [77]
 

Originally by: Leandro Salazar

No. Highsec should be a place for casual play where you should not be bothered with such things unless you are REALLY valuable imho.


CCP doesn't seem to agree with you there. Nor do I for that matter. High sec should be for playing Eve according to the rules, including shooting other people. Casual players can thrive in Eve if they know what they are doing. Being a "casual player" is no excuse for being lazy or stupid.

Originally by: Leandro Salazar


How about 18?


I'll just go ahead and grant you the point that those are all suicide ganks and not kills using some other mechanic. However, those kills would all fall under the "rediculously pimped" cathegory that you have already acknowledged should be liable to suicide ganks.

How may of the victims there are new players do you think? How many of them are struggling mission runners who just lost all they had to a bunch of griefers? How many of those victims would still have their ships if there was no insurance payout for the attackers? My guess is zero to all questions.

Leandro Salazar
Quam Singulari
Posted - 2008.05.10 20:35:00 - [78]
 

12 more

And thats just those that Tri did.

And at a glimpse, I would say roughly half of them were pimped to a point where they had it coming, the other half was just well equipped.
And I wager quite a few of them had a large part of their assets in their ship. It would be quite interesting to know how many of the victims still pay for their subscription, something CCP might want to look into actually...

Ki An
Gallente
The Really Awesome Players
Posted - 2008.05.10 20:44:00 - [79]
 

Originally by: Leandro Salazar
12 more

And thats just those that Tri did.

And at a glimpse, I would say roughly half of them were pimped to a point where they had it coming, the other half was just well equipped.
And I wager quite a few of them had a large part of their assets in their ship. It would be quite interesting to know how many of the victims still pay for their subscription, something CCP might want to look into actually...


Total module value (potential payout:

3,627,890,396.00 + 3,828,412,847.00
1,271,356,242.00 + 1,854,724,127.00
475,402,707.00 + 817,500,379.00
1,144,990,700.00 + 2,718,918,567.00
397,620,355.00 + 571,536,000.00 (extremely low approximation by kb software, f.ex. Caldari Navy Shield Boost Amplifier for 350k)
485,169,551.00 + 316,841,800.00 (same comment as above)
2,739,519,967.00 + 661,198,989.00
99,028,828.00 + 2,186,009,000.00
1,337,480,868.00 + 879,009,756.00

And so on and so on.

Every single one of these kills would be worth it even without insurance. Every single one of these kills (presuming they are indeed all suicide ganks) are against victims that SHOULD have been able to tank the incoming damage if they had been paying attention.

How many of the victims that quit are inconsequencial. They are better off not playing Eve, as every single one of the are stupid beyond belief to load a ship with such value and not even use their pimped out tank when they get attacked.

In fact, what you have provided here is evidence that A: High sec missions need serious nerfing, and B: Suicide ganking is working exactly as intended. Thanks.












Leandro Salazar
Quam Singulari
Posted - 2008.05.10 21:13:00 - [80]
 

Originally by: Ki An
Every single one of these kills would be worth it even without insurance. Every single one of these kills (presuming they are indeed all suicide ganks) are against victims that SHOULD have been able to tank the incoming damage if they had been paying attention.

How many of the victims that quit are inconsequencial. They are better off not playing Eve, as every single one of the are stupid beyond belief to load a ship with such value and not even use their pimped out tank when they get attacked.

In fact, what you have provided here is evidence that A: High sec missions need serious nerfing, and B: Suicide ganking is working exactly as intended. Thanks.


Barring killboard price accuracy, quite a few of them would not have been worth it with no insurance. With most of them it hinges on whether the shield booster survives or not, a gamble that they might be less inclined to do when they get no insurance and thus stand to face an actual loss if lady luck cheats them.

And once the suiciders open fire there is nothing you can do anymore anyway. Whether your tank runs or not is totally inconsequential to the outcome if the suicider gang doesn't mess up.

Of course I don't even know why I bother to argue with you, seeing how you have shown numerous times in the past that your tolerance of not so hardcore playstyles is about zero...

Ki An
Gallente
The Really Awesome Players
Posted - 2008.05.10 21:19:00 - [81]
 

Originally by: Leandro Salazar

Barring killboard price accuracy, quite a few of them would not have been worth it with no insurance. With most of them it hinges on whether the shield booster survives or not, a gamble that they might be less inclined to do when they get no insurance and thus stand to face an actual loss if lady luck cheats them.


Well, killboard accuracy is pretty important here. However, please provide specific examples where it would not have been profitable without insurance.

Originally by: Leandro Salazar

And once the suiciders open fire there is nothing you can do anymore anyway. Whether your tank runs or not is totally inconsequential to the outcome if the suicider gang doesn't mess up.


Say what? What is this super secret module that suiciders use that make their victims unable to tank damage? We are talking faction tanks on marauders here.

Originally by: Leandro Salazar

Of course I don't even know why I bother to argue with you, seeing how you have shown numerous times in the past that your tolerance of not so hardcore playstyles is about zero...


Yes, please attack the messenger when you don't like the message. Quite a candidate you are.

Leandro Salazar
Quam Singulari
Posted - 2008.05.10 21:51:00 - [82]
 

Originally by: Ki An
Well, killboard accuracy is pretty important here. However, please provide specific examples where it would not have been profitable without insurance.


This


Assuming the pods were Ravens as well, the loss incurred would have been roughly 500 million. Assuming the CN SBA at 90 mil, we get 480 mil in dropped mods.

This

No shieldbooster drop = roughly -250 mil for the gankers with no insurance.

This

Another -150 mil with no insurance.

This

Some -50 mil with no insurance here.

This

-100 mil here

Enough for now, ok?

Another thing that compounds the issue is the price spike in deadspace gear, it all costs 2-3 times or more than it used to before CCP nerfed static plexes, while ships and gear have become ever cheaper. I never really looked that closely at it since I still had all my stuff from before the price spike, but 600 mil for a corpum EANM or Gist large is truly insane. And no, before you get at that again that does not mean something is wrong with highsec missions, it means something is wrong with GTCs more likely. Not that it can be fixed, but...

Quote:
Say what? What is this super secret module that suiciders use that make their victims unable to tank damage? We are talking faction tanks on marauders here.


We are talking suicide ganks here. 4-10 Gank BS putting all their overheated firepower into one ship in the timespan before concord jams them, some 20 secs. First volley probably arrives before the surprised victim even has time to activate his hardeners. And after that, any tanking he does, deadspace tank or not, is inconsequential compared to the sheer amount of damage incoming.

Quote:
Yes, please attack the messenger when you don't like the message. Quite a candidate you are.


It is more like you are the very message yourself. At least you don't disagree on your level of openmindedness :P

Kaker
Waiting for Palli
Posted - 2008.05.10 22:11:00 - [83]
 

Edited by: Kaker on 10/05/2008 22:17:20
Originally by: Little Fistter
Gankers should be banned from the game. It ruins what otherwise is an excellent game of mega corporation management.

Suicide gankers should be forced to pay reparations to their victoms, and then be banned as well.

PvP is but thinly veiled sanctioned bullying.

PvPers should have completely seperate systems where they can blast away at each other - and be barred from spoiling my game.

Better still, have the game divide into two universes, one for cooperative play and one for being a criminal.


This guy plays WOW. CCP created a game that was meant for diversity. So if i wanted to kill some one in a .5 i could but i would lose my ship, but i would make a point ( he got wtfbbqed). They have said many times that high-sec space is not safe but safer. As for ruining it, thats just the beauty of this great game

edit
PS i love how you link all the Kills to our KB
and you forgot these

1 billion made

This one too




Synjin Sinner
Posted - 2008.05.10 22:39:00 - [84]
 

Edited by: Synjin Sinner on 10/05/2008 22:39:43
And whilst all of you are having a interesting topic discussion on mission ships.... may I please point out that there are frieghters, hulks and macks being blown up too...

the hulks and macks I am failing to see any profit made on killing them with just tech 2 gear... do people really pimp out macks and hulks in empire?

Dianeces
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2008.05.10 23:33:00 - [85]
 

Originally by: Leandro Salazar


How about 18?


Dominix was a war target, so 17. Over the course of 4 months. Plus whatever happened in other systems. I'm not seeing the epidemic.

Venkul Mul
Gallente
Posted - 2008.05.11 07:23:00 - [86]
 

Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Dianeces
Originally by: Ma Zhiqiang

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.



No, they don't. However, since I'm lazy I won't explain (again) why people do not suicide gank with throwaway alts.


I am not lazy, so I will.

Using a throw-away alt to suicide gank is an exploit. As such it is a bannable offense. Characters are tied to accounts even after they are destroyed. Such anyone doing this that you petition[because say a guy in a noob corp suicide ganks you then disappears from your buddy list 2 weeks later is clearly a throw-away-alt] will be caught and banned if they are partaking in this activity.


While I agree that this mechanic is right in theory, what is the percentage of people doing that exploit that is discovered and banned? No one with a little experience in EVE will petition a suicide ganker as it is a totally approved thing. The chances of noticing that he has been trashed after a week are pretty slim.

So maybe a program that check the number of kill rights and sec standing of a character when it is trashed would be a good anti-exploit move to suggest to CCP.

NOTE: I don't want suicide ganking removed. I only feel that exploiting alts for it is bad.

Ki An
Gallente
The Really Awesome Players
Posted - 2008.05.11 07:56:00 - [87]
 

Originally by: Leandro Salazar


This


Assuming the pods were Ravens as well, the loss incurred would have been roughly 500 million. Assuming the CN SBA at 90 mil, we get 480 mil in dropped mods.

This

No shieldbooster drop = roughly -250 mil for the gankers with no insurance.

This

Another -150 mil with no insurance.

This

Some -50 mil with no insurance here.

This

-100 mil here

Enough for now, ok?


All of these have a much higher potential drop than what actually dropped. All of them could still have been profitable without insurance. But, I'd like to get back to an issue you touched earlier. You spoke of outrageously pimped ships being suicided as fine. Where's the limit? I'd say all of these are outrageously pimped, as no lvl 4 mission or lower requires any of this expensive gear to be soloable, nor does it require a CNR.

Originally by: Leandro Salazar

Another thing that compounds the issue is the price spike in deadspace gear, it all costs 2-3 times or more than it used to before CCP nerfed static plexes, while ships and gear have become ever cheaper. I never really looked that closely at it since I still had all my stuff from before the price spike, but 600 mil for a corpum EANM or Gist large is truly insane. And no, before you get at that again that does not mean something is wrong with highsec missions, it means something is wrong with GTCs more likely. Not that it can be fixed, but...


Then chose to fly without deadspace gear if you're missioning and don't want to be suicided. It's not necessary.

Originally by: Leandro Salazar

We are talking suicide ganks here. 4-10 Gank BS putting all their overheated firepower into one ship in the timespan before concord jams them, some 20 secs. First volley probably arrives before the surprised victim even has time to activate his hardeners. And after that, any tanking he does, deadspace tank or not, is inconsequential compared to the sheer amount of damage incoming.


And you know this because you've tried it? I'd say most, if not all of these would have survived if they had activated their tank.

Originally by: Leandro Salazar

It is more like you are the very message yourself. At least you don't disagree on your level of openmindedness :P


I am the message? Heh, my message is for people not to vote for you and your carebear minded policies.

Leandro Salazar
Quam Singulari
Posted - 2008.05.11 07:58:00 - [88]
 

Edited by: Leandro Salazar on 11/05/2008 07:58:57
Originally by: Kaker
This guy plays WOW. CCP created a game that was meant for diversity. So if i wanted to kill some one in a .5 i could but i would lose my ship, but i would make a point ( he got wtfbbqed). They have said many times that high-sec space is not safe but safer. As for ruining it, thats just the beauty of this great game


And an insurance nerf would do absolutely nothing to change this. You could still gank ANYONE to make a point. Just it might now actually have financial consequences for you. Which of course you don't like...

And while ruining the game for others might be the beauty of this game for YOU, it is not the beauty of this game for everyone. Not that I expect you to be able to understand that...


Quote:

edit
PS i love how you link all the Kills to our KB
and you forgot these



I never intended to link ALL the kills from your kb, just some examples...

Leandro Salazar
Quam Singulari
Posted - 2008.05.11 08:39:00 - [89]
 

Edited by: Leandro Salazar on 11/05/2008 08:44:08
Edited by: Leandro Salazar on 11/05/2008 08:43:45
Originally by: Ki An

All of these have a much higher potential drop than what actually dropped. All of them could still have been profitable without insurance. But, I'd like to get back to an issue you touched earlier. You spoke of outrageously pimped ships being suicided as fine. Where's the limit? I'd say all of these are outrageously pimped, as no lvl 4 mission or lower requires any of this expensive gear to be soloable, nor does it require a CNR.


It is not about being able to do the missions, it is about having fun playing the game this way (I know, another concept beyond your grasp). You start with L1s, go to L4s, and from then on the progression is to pimp out your ship to maximize completion times. Which is quite fun if that is your cup of tea. I would draw the line at roughly 1.5 billion in fitting that should be viable without danger of suicide ganks. Not that that is possible even with insurance seeing how all you need is 4-5 Ravens to gank any pimp mission ship...

Quote:
Then chose to fly without deadspace gear if you're missioning and don't want to be suicided. It's not necessary.


Then please PvP with T1 ships and modules only as T2 is also not neccessary for PvP. What, it is more fun and more efficient with T2? Oh my!

Quote:
And you know this because you've tried it? I'd say most, if not all of these would have survived if they had activated their tank.


Simple math. They hit the weakest resistance because they scanned their target. So lets assume a CNR with 70% weakest resist in EM and a damage control fitted. That is 104000 effective HP against EM damage.
A high end gank raven with rage torps, sentries and 2 volley damage weaps in the extra highs has roughly 7000 volley damage and a RoF of just below 5 secs when overheated. For the benefit of the suiciders lets assume their Ravens are not optimally skilled and fitted and only do 5000 Volley damage.
5 such Ravens thus put out 25K damage every 5 secs. With a Gist X XL booster our CNR tanks 900 HP every 4 secs, thats 3000 EHP. With tank running, after the first volley the CNR has 79K left. After second volley, 5 secs into the concord timer, 57K. 3rd Volley, 35K. 4th volley, 12K. 5th Volley, 20 secs and still no concord, and the CNR at -13000 HP. With a running tank and a DC. If the weakest resist is something other than EM, it is even easier. More so if there was no DC on the target or if he did not manage to activate his hardeners before the first volley.

Quote:
I am the message? Heh, my message is for people not to vote for you and your carebear minded policies.



The people interested in your message would not vote for me anyway. And I am not carebear minded, I want to strike a balance between carebears and gankers. While you want the game totally biased in favor of the gankers.

Ki An
Gallente
The Really Awesome Players
Posted - 2008.05.11 10:39:00 - [90]
 

Originally by: Leandro Salazar

It is not about being able to do the missions, it is about having fun playing the game this way (I know, another concept beyond your grasp). You start with L1s, go to L4s, and from then on the progression is to pimp out your ship to maximize completion times. Which is quite fun if that is your cup of tea. I would draw the line at roughly 1.5 billion in fitting that should be viable without danger of suicide ganks. Not that that is possible even with insurance seeing how all you need is 4-5 Ravens to gank any pimp mission ship...


First, it's quite possible to have fun playing the game that way now. It's evident by the amount of people doing it. However, it's the "without fear of suicide ganks" that strikes me as contrary to what Eve should be about. Space should always be dangerous. You can take steps to mitigate the risk. In this case those steps involve fitting cheaper stuff.

Originally by: Leandro Salazar

Then please PvP with T1 ships and modules only as T2 is also not neccessary for PvP. What, it is more fun and more efficient with T2? Oh my!


T2 = Faction and officer fits now?

Originally by: Leandro Salazar

Simple math. They hit the weakest resistance because they scanned their target. So lets assume a CNR with 70% weakest resist in EM and a damage control fitted. That is 104000 effective HP against EM damage.
A high end gank raven with rage torps, sentries and 2 volley damage weaps in the extra highs has roughly 7000 volley damage and a RoF of just below 5 secs when overheated. For the benefit of the suiciders lets assume their Ravens are not optimally skilled and fitted and only do 5000 Volley damage.
5 such Ravens thus put out 25K damage every 5 secs. With a Gist X XL booster our CNR tanks 900 HP every 4 secs, thats 3000 EHP. With tank running, after the first volley the CNR has 79K left. After second volley, 5 secs into the concord timer, 57K. 3rd Volley, 35K. 4th volley, 12K. 5th Volley, 20 secs and still no concord, and the CNR at -13000 HP. With a running tank and a DC. If the weakest resist is something other than EM, it is even easier. More so if there was no DC on the target or if he did not manage to activate his hardeners before the first volley.


Avoid .5 systems if you want to pimp out your ship without risk of suicide gank?

Originally by: Leandro Salazar

The people interested in your message would not vote for me anyway. And I am not carebear minded, I want to strike a balance between carebears and gankers. While you want the game totally biased in favor of the gankers.


No, I want the status quo that is now to remain. It is quite balanced. This is evident by the amount of whining from both sides.


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