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

Ki An
Gallente
The Really Awesome Players
Posted - 2008.05.12 17:42:00 - [121]
 

Originally by: Leandro Salazar
Actually what it boils down to is this:

Should the mission running ship pimp progression playstyle be subject to extreme risk from players as well as NPCs? (And yes I know the risk from NPCs is negligible, and THAT is something that I would actually like to see changed a bit)


The risk cannot by any contrived logic be described as extreme.

Originally by: Leandro Salazar

The mission runners say no, the gankbears say yes. For obviously selfish reasons. The truth lies somewhere in between. Current system totally favors the gankers, some carebears want to be totally immune. Insurance removal for concord victims that actually killed someone would be a good middle ground imho. It would not even fix the problem for good due to the extreme value disparity between battleships and deadspace mods, but a step in the right direction. The reduction in viable targets and profit margins might be enough to scare off the opportunity suiciders and make it the uncommon phenomenon it should be.


This is where our difference of opinion lies. I completely disagree with everything you wrote here. Well, almost everything. The first sentence is correct.

Originally by: Leandro Salazar

And to the people trying to bring in the builders in favor of the gankers, most of the modules lost from suiciding mission runners are NOT built and thus suicide ganking does not benefit builders at all. Might actually hurt them if a victim that used their ammo leaves the game.


Who's saying modules on suicide ships are built? If you are reffering to my post about insurance fuelling the market, you might want to read it again.

Darius JOHNSON
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2008.05.12 17:44:00 - [122]
 

Edited by: Darius JOHNSON on 12/05/2008 17:45:27
Edited by: Darius JOHNSON on 12/05/2008 17:44:05
Originally by: Roy Batty68
Serious questions for the candidates (I'm really not trolling):

1) What are your thoughts on NPC corps in regards to suicide ganking? If suicide ganking is made harder, should NPC corps be nerfed as well?

2) What are your thoughts on isk farmers who abuse NPC corp mechanics to make it harder for players to hunt them? Does this have any baring on your position on suicide ganking?

3) Suicide ganking is obviously tied to the market value of things, something CCP has never had a direct control over. Apparently people are willing to bay a billion+ for pithi x-type shield boosters. If this nerf to insurance goes through and six months from now there is still the same level of complaints about SGs, what would your response be then?

4) Have you ever suicide ganked? What was your setup? How long did you do it? How much did you make?




1) I'm not the hugest fan of NPC corps but they're a necessary evil right now. You can't have players not be in a corp and they need time to find a non-npc one. Unless you're that Dutch chick who's just going to play in an NPC corp for 4 years. Many times the gankees are in npc corps as well so I'm not really sure what you're looking for here.

2) They make me angry v0v. This is part of why NPC corps annoy me. I don't really have an acceptable solution to counter it though atm. Farmers certainly impact my views. In 0.0 they bribe people to let them into corps with standings instead of NPC corps. Wherever there's a system someone will try to game it.

3) The same as now. Eve is a sandbox. Get over it.

4) Yes. Brutix, exact fittings are secret. I did it for a couple days and made nothing.

I see a lot of misguided assumptions in this thread. I saw mention of people hiding from war decs and such... Goonswarm's jihadswarm project involved goonswarm pilots. This is why people were able to hire mercs to defend them which was a proper response, adding some spice to the game. Risk v. reward. Nobody should ever be able to make isk at no risk.

Eve is a cold harsh universe... it's supposed to be.

Esmenet
Gallente
Posted - 2008.05.12 19:42:00 - [123]
 

Originally by: Leandro Salazar

Should the mission running ship pimp progression playstyle be subject to extreme risk from players as well as NPCs? (And yes I know the risk from NPCs is negligible, and THAT is something that I would actually like to see changed a bit)


Its more like zero risk from NPC's and neglible risk from players.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.12 20:00:00 - [124]
 

Originally by: Darius JOHNSON

2) They make me angry v0v. This is part of why NPC corps annoy me. I don't really have an acceptable solution to counter it though atm. Farmers certainly impact my views. In 0.0 they bribe people to let them into corps with standings instead of NPC corps. Wherever there's a system someone will try to game it.


This can be largely achieved via standings based sales. If you for instance get everyone one to not sell equipment that can be farmed to state war academy via either mechanic[sell only to blues, or not sell to reds], then you will force many of the older players out of NPC corps. Since they can stay in there if they want, but wont have access to higher quality ships. Forcing them into player corps which can be war-deced.

That is a big if, because it requires players as a whole to really take a stand against the practices[an organized effort to not sell minerals and high quality ships/weapons/mining equipment to NPC corps] and then to enforce against those that do not.

But it would be a good start[and enable other very cool things in the game]

Leandro Salazar
Quam Singulari
Posted - 2008.05.12 21:27:00 - [125]
 

Edited by: Leandro Salazar on 12/05/2008 21:28:33
Originally by: Ki An
Originally by: Leandro Salazar
Actually what it boils down to is this:

Should the mission running ship pimp progression playstyle be subject to extreme risk from players as well as NPCs? (And yes I know the risk from NPCs is negligible, and THAT is something that I would actually like to see changed a bit)


The risk cannot by any contrived logic be described as extreme.


Risk the way I see it is comprised of two factors: The chance of something bad actually happening, and the loss you incur if it happens. A 50% chance to lose 10 million everytime you jump through a gate is the same risk as a 0.5% chance to lose 1 billion on every gate jump. But I know that the gankers do not see it that way, they only see the chance, never the loss.

Quote:
Originally by: Leandro Salazar

And to the people trying to bring in the builders in favor of the gankers, most of the modules lost from suiciding mission runners are NOT built and thus suicide ganking does not benefit builders at all. Might actually hurt them if a victim that used their ammo leaves the game.


Who's saying modules on suicide ships are built? If you are reffering to my post about insurance fuelling the market, you might want to read it again.



I was referring to what Lucas Avignon wrote, not to you.

Riddick Valhalla
Caldari
Centermass Solutions
Posted - 2008.05.13 10:21:00 - [126]
 

Perhaps part of the problem could be solved not only by removing the insurance from any concord-related deaths...

But increasing the scope of concord? If you're flagged, wether it's a global criminal flag, or player criminal flag (ie can flippage, SG wreck looting) and concord is within view on the grid... Concord engages you.

Watching out for the cops is something criminals have learned many moons ago in real life, perhaps it's time that they have to do so in-game...

Now, I'm not talking sentry guns (unless you have a global criminal flag) but I am talking simple concord, piloted law enforcement vessels.

What do the candidates have to say about this concept?

Ki An
Gallente
The Really Awesome Players
Posted - 2008.05.13 12:15:00 - [127]
 

Originally by: riddick Valhalla
Perhaps part of the problem could be solved not only by removing the insurance from any concord-related deaths...

But increasing the scope of concord? If you're flagged, wether it's a global criminal flag, or player criminal flag (ie can flippage, SG wreck looting) and concord is within view on the grid... Concord engages you.

Watching out for the cops is something criminals have learned many moons ago in real life, perhaps it's time that they have to do so in-game...

Now, I'm not talking sentry guns (unless you have a global criminal flag) but I am talking simple concord, piloted law enforcement vessels.

What do the candidates have to say about this concept?


Make it possible to outrun CONCORD and I'd be all for this.

Ki An
Gallente
The Really Awesome Players
Posted - 2008.05.13 12:16:00 - [128]
 

Originally by: Leandro Salazar

Risk the way I see it is comprised of two factors: The chance of something bad actually happening, and the loss you incur if it happens. A 50% chance to lose 10 million everytime you jump through a gate is the same risk as a 0.5% chance to lose 1 billion on every gate jump. But I know that the gankers do not see it that way, they only see the chance, never the loss.


But you won't factor in any of the means someone has to mitigate the risk?

Originally by: Leandro Salazar

I was referring to what Lucas Avignon wrote, not to you.


Fair enough.

Doxs Roxs
Black Omega Security
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2008.05.15 10:02:00 - [129]
 

Just give us tradeable killrights and all will be fine. Got my alt suicide ganked a while back, nothing big, was my own fault but it would have been fun to come back with my main char and blow up the gankers.

I can imagine a system as follows:

If your ship is killed in highsec (suicide ganked) you get a ship killright and a pod killright.
If someone steals from your can or wreck you only recieve a ship killright.
Killrights will ofcourse be time restricted just like they are today.

These killrights can then be used or traded between any character.
It should be in the form of an item that is tradeable, and to use it you would just right click it and choose to register for it.
This would add it to your current killrights in the character sheet.

If you require outside help I would like to see a bounty office.
There killrights could be listed (for a small fee ofcourse) and bounties could be added on killrights. (killright item should be used up when listed in the bounty office)

People could then browse the available killrights and register to get the killright in the character sheet (again, for a small fee). The killright would stay in the system untill the person is killed or its time runs out. Thus several people could register to kill the same person.

The first to make the kill would get the bounty and the killright would be removed from peoples character sheets.

If there are several killrights for the same person in the bounty office, unused killrights would ofcourse stay. (the killright with the highest bounty would be used first so the bountyhunter gets the most pay for it)

There are probably some kinks to sort, but I think this would create a whole new profession where people can actually play as bounty hunters. Incidently it would also be a small isk sink due to the fees from the bounty office.

The only thing I havnt quite figured out is how to prevent the suicide ganker from claiming the killright from the bounty office with an alt and then jump into a noob ship to use up the killright...

Regards
/Doxs

Riddick Valhalla
Caldari
Centermass Solutions
Posted - 2008.05.15 11:35:00 - [130]
 

Originally by: Ki An


Make it possible to outrun CONCORD and I'd be all for this.



Wouldn't be that hard, there are already different levels of CONCORD, ie SWAT etc... just toss in lock time for concord... regular concord takes say 10 seconds, SWAT instalocks... SWAT responds to the regular "calls" CONCORD already shows up for, "regular" concord patrols systems and eat the doughnuts we have to find a place in the pod for after clone jumping...


Inertial
Did I just do that
Test Alliance Please Ignore
Posted - 2008.05.15 11:50:00 - [131]
 

For those who says:
"No insurance to those that loose their ship while commiting a criminal act" I got this comment:

"No insurance for those that loose their ship while doing something stupid"

Like:

Travelling on a route where suicide ganks are frequent

Travelling trough a often camped gate

Fighting dozens of rats, hellbent on your destruction.

Fighting in a fleet battle.

Undocking.


No insurance company would give your Ford Escort insurance if you take it into a war zone, and EVE is a warzone.

No insurance when you suicide gank = No insurane.

Bambi
Existentialist Collective
Posted - 2008.05.15 13:30:00 - [132]
 

I can understand people not wanting concord intervention when you gank a mission runner after scanning down his deadspace area, but for concord to pay out insurance for a group of gankers who are camping Jita 4 4 station seems wrong.

A criminal act far off from anyone else isnt going to draw much attention, but a 10 BS gank squad right outside the busiest station in the universe is going to attract some heat.

Removing the insurance payouts would help stop the mindless ganking of empty ships just to get a kill mail to make you look l33t on your killboard, but ganking a freighter with a few billion of cargo is still worth the loss in ships.

Just my 0.02 ISK

Domosan
Caldari
Middleton and Mercer LLP
Consortium.
Posted - 2008.05.15 19:21:00 - [133]
 

I think the better solution to this problem is to take the insurance business out of the hands of CCP and put it into the hands of the players.

Have CCP design a system whereby players can create insurance companies/contracts

Let supply and demand rule the world of insurance payouts just as it now does in other parts of the eve economy

Kind regards


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