open All Channels
seplocked Assembly Hall
blankseplocked CSM - CCP Meeting 001 - 0026 Suicide Ganking
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 [21]

Author Topic

Windjammer
Gallente
Posted - 2008.07.24 07:48:00 - [601]
 

Originally by: Ki An
Originally by: Windjammer
All the people who disagree with you are irrational? That would seem to be a lot of people who aren't being rational. The thread containing the original proposal had 155 thumbs up approvals. The CSM voted unanimously to escalate the issue to the CCP/CSM meeting and CCP had already formed a task force to address the issue. Really? All those people aren't being rational? This would seem to be a good example of circular logic, i.e. you're right because you say you're right.

The only person I saw use the term "knee-jerk reaction" was Avon and he sees the problem, but has a different solution to it. I like his solution, but disagree with him because I feel his solution would virtually eliminate high sec suicide ganking and put a serious kink in low sec suicide ganking. That sound like I'm fanatically biased to my style of game play?

The removal of insurance from suicide gankers is not a bad fix. It's an imcomplete fix. That's why it's only part of a package of fixes rather than trying to stand on its own as a complete fix. As a part of the package of planned changes, it's an important element.

The mechanics of the game may be the same as before, but their usage has changed. I hate to keep hammering on goonswarm.........no really, I do.....honest......but they offer a prime example of the problem with their "jihad"swarm. Blind suicide ganking is another example. In the end.....if you haven't understood the problem by now, you've been wasting everyones time with your posts. You haven't grasped the discussion at all.

When you say, "we have all come to the same conclusion", I have to wonder. Who is this "all" you speak of? Considering what you did in manipulating quotes from the economic report, I'm suspicious. When you say you're the only rational one and everyone else is irrational....because you say so, I start wondering whether or not you need professional assistance.

Windjammer


I think Avon's solution is good too. Funny how that works out, innit?

This is a good example of what I mean by your failure to grasp the discussion. Try reading what I wrote a couple more times. You may eventually understand. If not, you could try to find someone who can explain it to you.

Windjammer

Ki An
Gallente
The Really Awesome Players
Posted - 2008.07.24 08:44:00 - [602]
 

Edited by: Ki An on 24/07/2008 08:45:43
Originally by: Windjammer
This is a good example of what I mean by your failure to grasp the discussion. Try reading what I wrote a couple more times. You may eventually understand. If not, you could try to find someone who can explain it to you.

Windjammer


No I think I grasped it fully. Avon identifies the true problem. If that was fixed I would have no problem removing suicide ganking altogether.

/Edit: if you are trying to get me to reply to the other parts of your post where you accuse me of tampering with numbers and where you fail to realise what I meant in my "rationality-post", I've given up trying to explain them to you.


Maulos
Caldari
Cosmic Encounter
Mayhem.
Posted - 2008.07.24 13:15:00 - [603]
 

I am for stopping insurance payouts for ships destroyed by concord.

Maybe it could be limited on negative security status player, to give a chance to newbies.

Hamfast
Gallente
Posted - 2008.07.24 14:53:00 - [604]
 

Originally by: Maulos
I am for stopping insurance payouts for ships destroyed by concord.

Maybe it could be limited on negative security status player, to give a chance to newbies.


With the ease to repair standing, many Gankers can have a positive standing, so basing the punishment on the standing of the ganker would not work well. <end reply to quote>

It dawned on me as I read the latest added posts on this thread that it all comes down to what you find fun...

Ratting is fun and profitable, for some folks... so needing to rat for a few hours or days to repair your bad security rating should not be "Punishment"... but wait, not all folks like to rat...

When we were young (for some of you, this is only yesterday) and we did something wrong, our parents normally did something to punish us and it often included the requirement to do something distasteful... I do remember getting in more trouble when I tried to rationalize my mis-deeds into something positive..."I broke the window in the garage to let the wasps out so I could get to my bike..."

At this point, the punishment for Suicide Ganking (minor ISK loss for the ship, slight Sec hit) does not fit the crime... Removal of the Insurance Payout would increase the punishment slightly, it would not eliminate the criminal activity, it would just add a slight increase to the punishment...

Were the security level changes to a player based on the system's posted security level (Standing with Concord only), then the other part of the punishment, "Ratting" would then be needed to be done in low sec and/or high sec and take a lot longer... but Pirating in Low Sec would not lower your standing near as fast... in fact Suicide Ganking in .5 space would not lower your standing with concord as much...

Molpadia Devaux
Minmatar
Excessive Intoxication

Posted - 2008.07.24 17:50:00 - [605]
 

What a long and pointless threadful of ego's clashing.

That said, I agree with the premise that the risk/reward balance for suicide ganking is out of balance.

I do not want to see suicide ganking eliminated.

I do want the penalty for the criminal act increased.

Sliding insurance premiums. 1 CONCORD kill = a 10% insurance surcharge, that comes off at renewal, if no more CONCORD kills. 2 kills 20%, 3 kills 30% and no premium available, keep scaling until no insurance is available. In RL an insurance co bases price on risk of payout, Suicide gankers should be a high risk policy.

Faction hits. A criminal operating in a Soverign State would not be allowed the open unfettered access in their space. Also attacking someone with high standing with an NPC corp now has no consequenses, there should be. Security hit, faction hit NPC corp hit.

Much longer timer for theft, in 15 min I won't forget you stole from me. The ganker docks or jumps and the victim has no recourse. How about a 5 day timer for stealing. ( Revenge is a dish best served cold ). Let me go get my BS and hunt you down, only fair I think. ( I forget, gankers only want helpless victims, not someone that can fight back ). Just because I'm in a hauler does not mean thats all I can fly, perhaps I can return the out of the blue attack on you.

Bounty hunter profession, there have been good suggestions to implement this.

Tradeable kill rights.

Fix the problems that allow ganking in the undocking area, a ganker doing this is using an exploit.

None of this would prevent the selfserving claims of justification for suicide ganking ( wardec players in NPC corp for example ), but it would make the criminal think. Random ganking of empty haulers on the chance of a big payoff would have consequenses. Even the common purse snatcher does not run down a street grabbing at every shoulder bag in sight, they pick their victim survey the situation and have an idea of risk vs reward. As now implemented there is too much reward for very little risk.

An AFK hauler moving a couple bil of goods through 0.6 space, deserves to be ganked, hell I might consider it myself. It is the ease of random gankspamming that is out of balance.

I heard it before and I subscribe to it also. ' Don't fly what you can't afford to lose', and 'if you can't do the time, don't do the crime'.

As it now stands, there is no effective risk for the potential reward. The risk factor needs to be brought into balance. I would lose a ship with no insurance reimbursement, take a faction hit and look over my shoulder for a couple days to steal a couple billion, I would not take the risk for an empty hauler.

Hey that would mean the gankers would have to think and maybe even scan their targets first. This would make suicide ganking something other than greiving.


Ji Jiang
Posted - 2008.07.24 18:04:00 - [606]
 

Edited by: Ji Jiang on 24/07/2008 18:11:30
How about both ideas? Something like what Avon suggests and the lack of insurance payout for Concord kills.

I think it'd probably be best if there was some device a player could buy that would alert the player when a cargo scanner was used on his ship. This is optional though.

Have the other half being a "Debris Shield Generator" that runs on Scrap Metal (the background would be that it's basically a hack created by freighter pilots). Yeah, I know that sounds stupid, but let me finish.

It's:

* A kind of "shield" that a freighter can carry where it ejects a large amount of scrap metal from the ship which forms a cocoon that provides like 95% tank against all shield types because weapons are hitting the scrap metal instead of the ship.

* Requires like 100 or 200 or 300 or whatever units of Scrap Metal per second of activation. This would be scaled for average cargohold size. A T1 hauler might require just hundreds per second. A big jump freighter might require thousands of units per second. The rule would be that for 30 seconds of protection you'd have to give up about 70% of the basic cargo space to scrap metal (pre-mods/skills). Edit: Maybe more - perhaps 100% of unmodded cargo space for 30 seconds - we don't want to make suicide ganking impossible, just make the gankers work for it more.

* So why scrap metal? Because it's bulky and it's cheap and worthless to haul otherwise. The protection doesn't cost money directly - instead it costs the hauler money by forcing him or her to give up cargo space to fit protection. How much protection is up to the hauler: how fast do you think Concord will react?

* The shield has to be turned on and off manually. Your scrap metal supply limits how long you can leave it on. So if you're AFK or just not paying attention you can still be ganked (the cargo scanner alert would help with this - if you're paying attention you might notice you're being cased), otherwise, watch when you see like six Ravens waiting around a gate and turn on your scrap metal ejector.

* The shield isn't so hot in lowsec or nullsec as you can just be webbed and scrambled and the pirates wait for your scrap metal to run out, then gank you - thus it doesn't totally replace luck/savvy in those areas.

* As for station ganking - just make ships leaving a station exit the station on a random vector / speed. It's a little unrealistic, but so is a station tolerating capulseers sitting right outside of a station smartbombing noob frigates and ganking exiting ships, only to get blown up by Concord, then showing up again in a few minutes with a new ship to do it some more. The predictable exit location makes camping easy. Most suicide gankers who are motivated by economics do it for the reward/effort (as there's really little risk at the moment). Sitting in front of Jita 4-4's exit port is easy. Having to watch a 360 sphere around Jita 4-4 would require a lot more work.

Windjammer
Gallente
Posted - 2008.07.25 06:10:00 - [607]
 

Originally by: Molpadia Devaux
What a long and pointless threadful of ego's clashing.

That said, I agree with the premise that the risk/reward balance for suicide ganking is out of balance.

I do not want to see suicide ganking eliminated.

I do want the penalty for the criminal act increased.

Sliding insurance premiums. 1 CONCORD kill = a 10% insurance surcharge, that comes off at renewal, if no more CONCORD kills. 2 kills 20%, 3 kills 30% and no premium available, keep scaling until no insurance is available. In RL an insurance co bases price on risk of payout, Suicide gankers should be a high risk policy.

Faction hits. A criminal operating in a Soverign State would not be allowed the open unfettered access in their space. Also attacking someone with high standing with an NPC corp now has no consequenses, there should be. Security hit, faction hit NPC corp hit.

Much longer timer for theft, in 15 min I won't forget you stole from me. The ganker docks or jumps and the victim has no recourse. How about a 5 day timer for stealing. ( Revenge is a dish best served cold ). Let me go get my BS and hunt you down, only fair I think. ( I forget, gankers only want helpless victims, not someone that can fight back ). Just because I'm in a hauler does not mean thats all I can fly, perhaps I can return the out of the blue attack on you.

Bounty hunter profession, there have been good suggestions to implement this.

Tradeable kill rights.

Fix the problems that allow ganking in the undocking area, a ganker doing this is using an exploit.

None of this would prevent the selfserving claims of justification for suicide ganking ( wardec players in NPC corp for example ), but it would make the criminal think. Random ganking of empty haulers on the chance of a big payoff would have consequenses. Even the common purse snatcher does not run down a street grabbing at every shoulder bag in sight, they pick their victim survey the situation and have an idea of risk vs reward. As now implemented there is too much reward for very little risk.

An AFK hauler moving a couple bil of goods through 0.6 space, deserves to be ganked, hell I might consider it myself. It is the ease of random gankspamming that is out of balance.

I heard it before and I subscribe to it also. ' Don't fly what you can't afford to lose', and 'if you can't do the time, don't do the crime'.

As it now stands, there is no effective risk for the potential reward. The risk factor needs to be brought into balance. I would lose a ship with no insurance reimbursement, take a faction hit and look over my shoulder for a couple days to steal a couple billion, I would not take the risk for an empty hauler.

Hey that would mean the gankers would have to think and maybe even scan their targets first. This would make suicide ganking something other than greiving.


Well said and written.

Windjammer
Gallente
Posted - 2008.07.25 06:19:00 - [608]
 

Originally by: Ji Jiang
Edited by: Ji Jiang on 24/07/2008 18:11:30
How about both ideas? Something like what Avon suggests and the lack of insurance payout for Concord kills.

I think it'd probably be best if there was some device a player could buy that would alert the player when a cargo scanner was used on his ship. This is optional though.

Have the other half being a "Debris Shield Generator" that runs on Scrap Metal (the background would be that it's basically a hack created by freighter pilots). Yeah, I know that sounds stupid, but let me finish.

It's:

* A kind of "shield" that a freighter can carry where it ejects a large amount of scrap metal from the ship which forms a cocoon that provides like 95% tank against all shield types because weapons are hitting the scrap metal instead of the ship.

* Requires like 100 or 200 or 300 or whatever units of Scrap Metal per second of activation. This would be scaled for average cargohold size. A T1 hauler might require just hundreds per second. A big jump freighter might require thousands of units per second. The rule would be that for 30 seconds of protection you'd have to give up about 70% of the basic cargo space to scrap metal (pre-mods/skills). Edit: Maybe more - perhaps 100% of unmodded cargo space for 30 seconds - we don't want to make suicide ganking impossible, just make the gankers work for it more.

* So why scrap metal? Because it's bulky and it's cheap and worthless to haul otherwise. The protection doesn't cost money directly - instead it costs the hauler money by forcing him or her to give up cargo space to fit protection. How much protection is up to the hauler: how fast do you think Concord will react?

* The shield has to be turned on and off manually. Your scrap metal supply limits how long you can leave it on. So if you're AFK or just not paying attention you can still be ganked (the cargo scanner alert would help with this - if you're paying attention you might notice you're being cased), otherwise, watch when you see like six Ravens waiting around a gate and turn on your scrap metal ejector.

* The shield isn't so hot in lowsec or nullsec as you can just be webbed and scrambled and the pirates wait for your scrap metal to run out, then gank you - thus it doesn't totally replace luck/savvy in those areas.

* As for station ganking - just make ships leaving a station exit the station on a random vector / speed. It's a little unrealistic, but so is a station tolerating capulseers sitting right outside of a station smartbombing noob frigates and ganking exiting ships, only to get blown up by Concord, then showing up again in a few minutes with a new ship to do it some more. The predictable exit location makes camping easy. Most suicide gankers who are motivated by economics do it for the reward/effort (as there's really little risk at the moment). Sitting in front of Jita 4-4's exit port is easy. Having to watch a 360 sphere around Jita 4-4 would require a lot more work.
In high sec all they'd have to do is bump you till your supply of scrap ran out. This also has the potential for creating a substantial amount of lag depending upon how it's implemented.

The idea of some kind of scan shield is interesting, though, as well as the idea of having some kind of notification that you're being scanned. The sound a scanner makes can be hard to catch in a crowded situation or if you're some distance from the scanning ship.

Windjammer

Jarvis Hellstrom
Gallente
The Flying Tigers
United Front Alliance
Posted - 2008.08.01 22:30:00 - [609]
 

Lots of good ideas, even though I've only read some of it (hey, it's a long thread).

I haven't seen this one here though -

How about effective escorts?

Right now it's basically impossible to 'escort' a freighter successfully. Perhaps something could be done to allow ships which could defend the freighter/hauler. In this way teamwork could play some element in the mix.

In addition, since it isn't simple to defend other ships from massed fire, the theft of cargo could also trigger aggro on the escorts allowing them to defend the loot after Concord shows up. If the theft cannot take readily take place, then much of the ganking will stop.

If that last gets looked it, it'll have to be slower to do a transit of goods or it'll just be 'grab-WARP' and the aggression timer won't help as the ship will be gone. Transferring cargo shouldn't be instantaneous and a timer would help here. Perhaps a certain amount of m3 per second so you could grab and flee with small high value items but not with a hold full of packaged HACs.

I also fully support all of the original suggested solutions by CCP. They sound great to me.

Mind you - making Concord less of a Deus Ex Machina and letting the pirates try and dodge them etc. and players support them would even be a better and more fun solution for all concerned, but that doesn't seem likely.

sukio
Posted - 2008.08.02 01:46:00 - [610]
 

I think there needs to be a confirmation window available to a victim of an attack in case of accidental or unintentional attacks

I was in a group but i wasnt in the same corp as the other guy and he accidently attacked me and was destroyed when nether of us wanted that
there could be cryteria to be meet for the confirmation one of which is if your grouped or have a good sec rating.

I know this can occure alot with power transfers or repair drones because friendly targets and enemy targets are clumped together.

Red Raider
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2008.08.02 04:26:00 - [611]
 

Originally by: sukio
I think there needs to be a confirmation window available to a victim of an attack in case of accidental or unintentional attacks

I was in a group but i wasnt in the same corp as the other guy and he accidently attacked me and was destroyed when nether of us wanted that
there could be cryteria to be meet for the confirmation one of which is if your grouped or have a good sec rating.

I know this can occure alot with power transfers or repair drones because friendly targets and enemy targets are clumped together.


There is a confirmation window. The thing is you can disable it and a lot of people just disable pop-up's without thinking about it and pay the price for it later.

Sounds like your friend did just that.

Sylthi
Minmatar
Coreward Pan-Galactic
Holy Empire of The Unshaven
Posted - 2008.08.02 13:34:00 - [612]
 

If ALL of the changes that are listed in the OP post are implemented, this will be MORE than enough to curb the relentless amount of guttless high-sec ganking that goes on.

Ganking is impotant to stay within Eve, but when 80% of the gates, 10 jumps in any direction from Jita, have ganking teams (or scouts) stationed at them 23/7; yeah, you know this side of the game has gotten WAY too profitable and easily done.

CCP is taking the right approach here, LIMIT ganking, but don't get rid of it. Now, if they could only be this even handed with speed and agility......


Windjammer
Gallente
Posted - 2008.08.03 05:38:00 - [613]
 

Originally by: Red Raider
Originally by: sukio
I think there needs to be a confirmation window available to a victim of an attack in case of accidental or unintentional attacks

I was in a group but i wasnt in the same corp as the other guy and he accidently attacked me and was destroyed when nether of us wanted that
there could be cryteria to be meet for the confirmation one of which is if your grouped or have a good sec rating.

I know this can occure alot with power transfers or repair drones because friendly targets and enemy targets are clumped together.


There is a confirmation window. The thing is you can disable it and a lot of people just disable pop-up's without thinking about it and pay the price for it later.

Sounds like your friend did just that.
There is a confirmation popup window. Not for the victim of the attack, but for the attacker. He is, after all, the one who is going to die if he proceeds in high sec. As posted by another, above, the pop ups can be disabled. They can also be reactivated should you wish to do that after deactivating them. It's like switching the safety off on a gun. If you don't have the safety on, the gun could go off and hurt someone.

Windjammer

Asuri Kinnes
Caldari
Adhocracy Incorporated
Posted - 2008.08.07 14:51:00 - [614]
 

Edited by: Asuri Kinnes on 07/08/2008 14:53:18
Originally by: ElanMorin6
Currently, suicide ganking is the only way to attack large numbers of pod-pilots who intentionally join NPC corps where they cannot be war-deced.

(stuff)

The effort and investment necessary to do so is out of line with the difficulty of ganking in many cases though, which is why things need to be tweaked slightly. However, making empire space too safe brings its own set of problems and would ultimately lead to a much less interesting game.



I agree completely. Hi-sec does not mean "Safe-Sec".

Between Macro-miners, alts and people avoiding (at any cost) war-decs, NPC corps are being exploited.

EVERYONE (at some point) should have to leave NPC corps. NPC corps (imho) exist to provide a safe refuge for new players (and possibly a safe refuge for those burnt out by low-sec, 0.0 space?) - but should not exist as a permanent home.

SP levels can be avoided (by just training up under the limit and stopping).

Time in game would be much harder to avoid, especially for Macro-Miners - they make their money by mining, all the time - take that away from them. After 60 days, move them, their gear and what-not to a war-decable, NPC corp. I stayed in an NPC corp for (i think) about 33 days. Many people stay much less, some quite a bit more for various reasons (RL won't let them log in, whatever). So, 60 days game time? I don't know, but people existing w/o risk of fighting is lame (imho).

Ganking and collecting Insurance has always seemed illogical to me, so tweaking that seems good to me. Taking out the "ganks for lulz" and replacing it with a more focused "gank for $$$$" seems much more in line with the "spirit" of the game.

AKTwisted Evil

Edit for spelling - posting after a 12 hour shift = fail...

AKTwisted Evil

Windjammer
Gallente
Posted - 2008.08.07 17:28:00 - [615]
 

Originally by: Asuri Kinnes
Ganking and collecting Insurance has always seemed illogical to me, so tweaking that seems good to me. Taking out the "ganks for lulz" and replacing it with a more focused "gank for $$$$" seems much more in line with the "spirit" of the game.

AKTwisted Evil

Edit for spelling - posting after a 12 hour shift = fail...

AKTwisted Evil
I agree. The idea is to balance suicide ganking, not eliminate it.

Windjammer

Elhina Novae
HAMMER -N- SICKEL
Posted - 2008.08.07 17:42:00 - [616]
 

Originally by: Dakry helios
sorry but hav we missed the obviousness of dont give a ganker insurance because obviously he has been shot by concord meaning they obviously commited the crime?
it takes forever to get your sec status back up in th game if your low so having an increased it is just meaning that gankers waste more time.

by bringing in the insurance lost due to concord idea then gankers are not only ratting their sec up but also their isk at the same time so its a double whammy there.

This sounds much like a biased "we have too many players who dont like fighting and think the game should only be industry and good" sorta the forces of good vs the forces of evil.
the criminal records is a nice idea and is ralistic really and will give a slightly nicer edge but bring in the sec hit part and it will turn eve into a crunching game much the same as any other mmorpg out there.

Dak's

Agree'd.

Farrqua
Minmatar
In Igne Morim
Posted - 2008.08.07 18:22:00 - [617]
 

Edited by: Farrqua on 07/08/2008 18:23:22
Change Happens
They Keep Moving The Cheese

Anticipate Change
Get Ready For The Cheese To Move

Monitor Change
Smell The Cheese Often So You Know When It Is Getting Old

Adapt To Change Quickly
The Quicker You Let Go Of Old Cheese, The Sooner You Can Enjoy New Cheese

Change
Move With The Cheese

Enjoy Change!
Savor The Adventure And Enjoy The Taste Of New Cheese!

Be Ready To Change Quickly And Enjoy It Again & Again
They Keep Moving The Cheese.

Excerpt from "Who Moved my cheese"

I am not fond of the all the changes that is being implemented but basically it comes down to what you enjoy doing. Play eve and move with the changes and learn to use them to your advantage or find another type of game that you would enjoy.

I am talking about games here and not some life altering crisis that will affect you directly in life. And this pertains to the gloating carebears ATM. Don't crow to loudly because at some time some one might your cheese and you will most likely get the same crowd of players wielding buckets to catch your tears also.

Ioan Metorsky
Caldari
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2008.08.07 18:41:00 - [618]
 

Originally by: Asuri Kinnes
Taking out the "ganks for lulz" and replacing it with a more focused "gank for $$$$" seems much more in line with the "spirit" of the game.



How is "ganks for lulz" not within the spirit of a society that is practically lawless and populated by immortals, many of who have an excess of time and money on their hands?

Given those conditions, some people are going to go on rampages and kill others just because they can get away with it. (In any case, I don't think the proposed changes will eliminate this kind of suicide ganking anyway, but I wanted to point out that "ganks for lulz" is something that fits within the concept of EVE.)

Blake Rathen
Caldari
Yurai-Tenshin Zaibatsu
Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
Posted - 2008.08.08 15:33:00 - [619]
 

Hopefully this suggestion will be read through the 'haze of whines' as was said earlier in this thread.

1. I see a lot of GOOD constructive ideas in here amidst the complaints and 'discussion'. Thank you those who have actually contributed something of value!

2. Way to go CCP for following through with the CSM process, and your own review of the situation! Can't wait for tradable kill rights.

3. One more suggestion for review by CCP: what if Concord were to assist those being attacked through shield transfer? Would it not be more realistic to have only a few proportional response craft as opposed to a gargantuan concordokken blob?

Picture it, Concord vessels shield transfer to the ship in distress so it doesn't die immediately, a web/scram of the attackers, and an actual Fight between the offenders and Concord. If the battle goes sour for the pirates (gankers), they can leave. If more gankers join the fight, Concord can warp in more reinforcements. This would depend, of course, on Balance. The Concord response would have to match both the dps of the agressors and/or their ship type(s).

Good points of my idea: people get their PvP (pirats versus Concord), more 'realistic' defense for the defending ship (I say 'realistic' because the likelihood of an infinite number of uber-powerful Concord vessels waiting to be deployed seems far-fetched).

Bad points of my idea: hard to balance properly so that gankers still have a chance to obtain the benefit for their risk (i.e. pop the target ship).

Alternative option: Once the agressors engage, anyone with a positive sec status in-system gets a free agro and bookmark on the attacker(s) for the duration of the battle (until attackers die or escape). This would increase the PvP, increase the defender's chances and decrease boring automated police who remove the fun/benefit of being a pirate.

Okay - discuss! (Interested to hear feedback from both sides of the fence) :)

Windjammer
Gallente
Posted - 2008.08.08 20:57:00 - [620]
 

Originally by: Blake Rathen
3. One more suggestion for review by CCP: what if Concord were to assist those being attacked through shield transfer? Would it not be more realistic to have only a few proportional response craft as opposed to a gargantuan concordokken blob?

Picture it, Concord vessels shield transfer to the ship in distress so it doesn't die immediately, a web/scram of the attackers, and an actual Fight between the offenders and Concord. If the battle goes sour for the pirates (gankers), they can leave. If more gankers join the fight, Concord can warp in more reinforcements. This would depend, of course, on Balance. The Concord response would have to match both the dps of the agressors and/or their ship type(s).
Interesting idea, but if I'm not mistaken Concord already has something of a proportional response based upon the level of solar system sec and on the persistence of the attack.

Where this idea really breaks down is in forgetting about Concord response time. Current response times allow the suicide attacker to obliterate the attacked ship before Concord arrives and kills the suicider. If the attacked ship is already dead, it isn't going to benefit from a Concord offer of shield transfer.
Originally by: Blake Rathen
Alternative option: Once the agressors engage, anyone with a positive sec status in-system gets a free agro and bookmark on the attacker(s) for the duration of the battle (until attackers die or escape). This would increase the PvP, increase the defender's chances and decrease boring automated police who remove the fun/benefit of being a pirate.
I don't quite see how this would work well. The whole point of suicide ganks is to kill the target in seconds before Concord can kill the suicider. There's very little chance other players will be able to get to the suicider before Concord, unless the player happens to already be on scene, and once Concord does respond it's usually with a lot more force than a player can bring to bear.

Windjammer

Blake Rathen
Caldari
Yurai-Tenshin Zaibatsu
Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
Posted - 2008.08.13 18:16:00 - [621]
 

Originally by: Windjammer
Current response times allow the suicide attacker to obliterate the attacked ship before Concord arrives and kills the suicider. If the attacked ship is already dead, it isn't going to benefit from a Concord offer of shield transfer.

I don't quite see how this would work well. The whole point of suicide ganks is to kill the target in seconds before Concord can kill the suicider.


Good points Windjammer. ;)

I suppose my idea would require lighting-fast response times of the shield transfer ship, and that would also probably be 'unrealistic'. Which goes against my purpose of getting a more 'realistic' scenario. Rolling Eyes But if this DID happen, at least the above scenarios would provide for more PvP action. In the end, I think tradable kill rights will give the best solution.

Here's another thought - and intermediate 'kill right' option: Low-sec sheriffs! Empire factions could dispense sheriff licenses (for a fee of course and requiring a very high sec status), giving the pilot the right to agress Concord's enemies in low-sec space.

This would jive with the backstory concept of factions 'out sourcing' customs officers, and FW fighters, and would give another PvP opportunity. Just as the wild west needed sheriffs to tame the lawless bordertowns, factions could hire pilots to 'laid down the law' in low-sec systems beyond their control. Instead of gate campers you could have gate keepers who protect passing ships from attacks. Anyone getting Concord aggro with an unprovoked attack would also get the aggro of any sherrifs in the system who could have 15-30 mins to hunt down the agressor, or at the very least protect the wreck (could get agro for wreck thieves as well). Of course the Sheriff would lose his/her license and get a hefty sec hit for abusing their powers such as stealing the wreckage themselves or colluding with the gankers, etc.

Okay, shoot away.

Drake Draconis
Minmatar
Shadow Cadre
Shadow Confederation
Posted - 2008.08.13 20:31:00 - [622]
 

First off... let me apologize if I step on anyone's toes or failed to read the thousands upon thousands of words in this thread... I got as far as 2 Pages before I saw a repeating pattern of...well you know the deal already.

But a few things didn't get mentioned.

A: your focusing on the ganker... aren't you forgetting about the alt's and the people who loot? Who gives a flying rip about the ganker if your going to ignore the real problem of the looters. I mean all it takes is one stupid frigate or something to start firing on a defenseless freighter/indy and then all those fun little battle cruisers show up and loot the tar out of you.
Personally I think the CONCORD strike/penalty should extend to them as well... but I have no idea how that could be implimeneted from a programming standpoint... so scratch that one.

B: Insruance being "nerfed" wouldn't do much... you need to remember that the ganker dosen't care about his ship... he's not even likely to insure unless its a bit spendy anyway... if you really want to have an impact... then you could take away his insurance rights for the... say the sovereign nation of the region? But would that really have an impact? The insurance is given by a particular NPC Corp is it not? Surely they can slap a standing on you as well. Im sure they don't appreicate you blowing there money away without some sort of... uh... kick back. That could work too... large fines and penalties or something.

C: Now I'm going to admit there are valid reasons for the ganking... but you need to remember something folks.... the issue is not the "legitmate" tactical manuvers of ganking. Its every tom **** and moron who dosen't give a rip about what you think and just want to make money the cheap and easy way... they dont give a rip about the honor of combat.... they do so under the false pretense of "it would ruin the game if it was otherwise" and blah blah blah cry me a river type of attitude. And what do you get for your trouble? nothing... except more trouble. New gamers who show up and try to play the game aren't going to tolerate excuses by saying this is the way of the game when they just started playing for a month or so... hell I'd be ****ed too. While I happen to agree that High Sec shouldn't be impervious... the penalties for scerwing around in high security should be obsencely higher... oh sure you can do what you want... just be prepaired for consequnces of your actions.

Personally that kind of behaivour is dishonoable and cowardly... at least the piracey that takes place in low sec has the intent of taking you out and flying off with your goods with its ship in tact. Somehow I doubt the true nature of pirates didn't count on "respawning".
If you get killed... you lose the "game" so to speak.... its just stupid to exploit a CONCORD attack where your forcing the gankee to have no choice but to just curl up and die. Because in reallity thats what your doing. Oh sure... you can buy ships that can handle it.. but only if your a frakking billonare. Ever look at a Fenrir? That big freighter is sweet for hauling crud... but you can't outfit that thing...and even if you could... won't amount to much.

Escorts? Won't work in High Sec... as you already know... CONCORD will fire on them too if they do not have kill rights.... now if killrights where granted to members of the Fleet... thats different.... but still.

Personally I'm agianst ganking because its not my style... but should it be taken away?
Nope.
Should it be stopped? Hard to do.

But for us pilots who want to enjoy the game and not worried about some lame cheapskate.. would be nice not to worry about that in high security space.

Hopefully we can spend more time working on a solution... and less time defending the right to _______....

Oh and again... I'm just sharing my 2 cents... after all I bought the game.. Id like to have a say in this mess too.

I like honorable combat.... and a fighting chance... bankrupting the gankee isn't nice.


Pages: first : previous : ... 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 [21]

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