open All Channels
seplocked EVE Information Portal
blankseplocked New Dev Blog: Serious Security
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... : last (22)

Author Topic

Gustav Seriya
Posted - 2008.08.06 09:17:00 - [91]
 

Edited by: Gustav Seriya on 06/08/2008 09:18:01
100% support for this as an all-sec pvp pilot. Suicide ganking is way too easy, and a scheme that relies on insurance payouts to criminals perpetuating crimes is just silly. If you've got a decent supplier than an insured BS with T1 mods is about free; 20 free ships should not be able to inflict billions in damage to some poor sod's undefendable freighter in a 'high security' system. It should cost the ganker something too.

Here's a great suicide gank:
http://kb.souls-of-vengeance.com/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=30724

Someone's clearly staked this guy out, planned a job, laid in wait and executed it for billions in profit. This guy is worth suicide ganking, just as a t1 Industrial slowboating around with a valuable cargo will still be worth suicide ganking, but it should really be the high-end jobs that make this sort of thing worthwhile; suicide ganks should not be a matter of routine.

Dinkytot
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2008.08.06 09:18:00 - [92]
 

good thing.

Crumplecorn
Gallente
Eve Cluster Explorations
Posted - 2008.08.06 09:21:00 - [93]
 

Do you really want to mess around with a core mechanic (Insurance) to fix one little problem?

Also, continued lulz at those who have and will mention "insurance" and "making sense" in the same sentence.

Fuddlesticks
Posted - 2008.08.06 09:28:00 - [94]
 

I like how in one turn, a good bunch of you go "If you have nothing constructive to say, don't hit the post button", and in the next breath you collectively go "CCP caves in to whiners again!"

Look unless you have proof of what you're saying, then honestly you're just ranting and raving because it's the "cool" thing to do, without having any clue whatsoever as to why you're saying the things you are in the first place.
How about a little independant thought with a little common sense on the side? Hm? Or is that too much for ya'll to handle?

Shinigami
Gallente
Shinra
Posted - 2008.08.06 09:30:00 - [95]
 

I love how everyone thinks suicide ganking is insanely profitable. It's not. It might have been before everyone knew of it's existance. I'd love to see some of this research the devs did. I bet none of it includes actual testing on TQ.

BritishInvader
Amarr
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2008.08.06 09:32:00 - [96]
 

Edited by: BritishInvader on 06/08/2008 09:42:01

*Goons announce Suicide Ganking Jihad on EVE*
*Forums explode*
*Suicide Ganking gets nerfed to all hell*

Hilariously, the reason it is so easy to suicide gank is because Battleships are so cheap to lose, they're cheap to lose because you can sit in space and AFK mine minerals to build them.

The thought process behind this is hilarious.

People seem to have issues with people making profit suicide ganking, when in reality it's pretty hard to suicide gank anyone with anything that will give you any form of profit. 99% of the time even if you plan out your attack and the target drops the mods you wanted to make your profit, it won't cover the loss of your ship even counting insurance.

Also, insurance not being paid out in CONCORD events is going to lead to a huge amount of crippled newbies who accidentally shot someone in highsec with their shiny ship, got CONCORDED, and lost all their money.

Economically, this will make everything cheaper, move everyone the hell out of lowsec (Why would you go there when the risk:reward ratio is better in Highsec?) There's no reason to go to lowsec at all now, and rebalance the isk weight around to AFK miners since there'll no longer be any loss.

For some number examples, you can kill an untanked Hulk with a full suicide fit faction ammo Rupture, best named mods and lvl 4 gunnery supports (This is in 0.5). This costs you 4-6m after insurance. Considering the Hulk is untanked, his miners will at best be t2 and won't cover this loss, that is, if they drop.

To kill any form of tanked Hulk you need a Battleship, which will cost you 20m to lose minimum. Again, a loss you'll doubtfully recoup unless said Hulk is rocking some Deadspace faction mods (Which probably won't drop).

People don't suicide gank for profit, they do it for tears. We've run the numbers and decided that the days spent grinding sec status are well worth the chat**** you get on EVE-O and ingame, for every 6 hours of sec grinding, I get 6 minutes of angry pubbie chat.

That's fine for me.

Off I go to gank the hell out of everyone before this nerf pops through.

Rhak Amharr
Minmatar
Genos Occidere
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2008.08.06 09:34:00 - [97]
 

Edited by: Rhak Amharr on 06/08/2008 09:36:51
Originally by: Maximillian Power
I don't understand why the criminals whine.

Think this is a good thing myself - Always thought suicide ganking was too easy.

Totally agreed (and you know I'm a criminal :)

Every game mechanic change will trigger whines from the nerfed side. That's just the misery that human race in general is in (not starting RL comparisons here, but you get the point that this is not exclusively done in MMOs).

Suicide ganking is (well, was) too easy. I just did it for the lulz on my alt to suicide nonworthy T1 fitted macro mackinaws (which is a good thing though) with a Moa that cost me like 1 or 2mil after insurance, can't even remember that. I risked less than when I'm baiting in a lowsec belt, and that is what risk/reward in highsec (for the ganker) is all about, it should be more risky for the suicide ganker in highsec than in lowsec.

BUT

What I do see as a valid point of some of the whiners until proven otherwise by CCP is the risk vs. reward of the typical carebear. Level 4 Missions and mining Veldspar are certainly not the most rewarding thing in this game, but their risk vs. reward is far out of line, especially now that suicide ganking has been made more expensive and risky. With the wardec changes, and NPC corps, it makes highsec a place where the risk is steadily decreasing, but the reward stays the same, or even goes up: Veldspar is a too good ore, Level 5 missions were added and sometimes send you to highsec, etc.

This is something I can't for the life of me understand and it would seriously need to be looked at, but it's easier to nerf 10.000 paying customers than 100.000 paying customers.

Edit: tl;dir: If you nerf risk/reward, do it to both sides, cause both are out of line.

maarud
The Scope
Posted - 2008.08.06 09:36:00 - [98]
 

I suppose just fixing the game so that insurance didn't pay out if concord was involved was too much work, so you've opted to make a pirate in low sec's life a living hell now.

Nice work.

Chruker
Posted - 2008.08.06 09:48:00 - [99]
 

hehe, now we just need CONCORD to transfer ISK from the agressor(s)' to the victim's wallet to cover the victims insurrance payout.

Boma Airaken
Seekers of a Silent Paradise
Posted - 2008.08.06 09:52:00 - [100]
 

Tread lightly in lowsec until you make all lowsec lowsec. The fact that we cant do jack **** with 0.4 needs to go.

Korinn
Habitual Euthanasia
Dystopia Alliance
Posted - 2008.08.06 09:57:00 - [101]
 

In many cases, unsuspecting victims have no chance to escape , nor any help from CONCORD.

Easily the best part.

If you're flying around in a ship thats worth someone suicide ganking, maybe you should USE A ****ING SCOUT.

I used to think CCP had a backbone but this and the speed nerf and all the other terrible game design decisions lately pretty much prove that you've got about as much spine as a rubber chicken Neutral

Gustav Seriya
Posted - 2008.08.06 10:09:00 - [102]
 

Originally by: BritishInvader
People seem to have issues with people making profit suicide ganking, when in reality it's pretty hard to suicide gank anyone with anything that will give you any form of profit.


If you spent time on a trade route or hub gate with a ship scanner instead of in asteroid belts looking for hulks you'd have a better chance of profitability. The only problem with this is that there's too much competition about killing the good targets; the reason for which is that suiganks are too easy.

However, I agree highsec/lowsec rewards are way out of whack, the trouble is that lowsec needs to be several times more profitable than highsec because lowsec has an abundance of bored pirates and a great shortage of targets, PVE Raven's lowsec life expectancy is very short indeed.

Esmenet
Gallente
Posted - 2008.08.06 10:14:00 - [103]
 

EVE looking less and less unique and interesting every dev blog these days.

Fuddlesticks
Posted - 2008.08.06 10:18:00 - [104]
 

Edited by: Fuddlesticks on 06/08/2008 10:26:45
Edited by: Fuddlesticks on 06/08/2008 10:18:26
Originally by: BritishInvader

*Goons announce Suicide Ganking Jihad on EVE*
*Forums explode*
*Suicide Ganking gets nerfed to all hell*



You assume that the nerf is due you/your alliance, but I'm sorry you didn't exactly invent suicide ganking, and I'm fairly certain there are plenty of people out there who aren't goons who suicide gank, who had just as much, if not more influence on this coming change.

Originally by: BritishInvader

The thought process behind this is hilarious.



This thought process being? Please,elaborate..are you saying you have inside information?

Originally by: BritishInvader

People seem to have issues with people making profit suicide ganking, when in reality it's pretty hard to suicide gank anyone with anything that will give you any form of profit. 99% of the time even if you plan out your attack and the target drops the mods you wanted to make your profit, it won't cover the loss of your ship even counting insurance.



No by all means, make profit in doing suicide ganking, I for one endorse it..as long as the system isn't being abused, which it is..cause battleships are being built and fitted specifically to more or less pay for themselves through insurance - It's not a complex equation here, you just want it to be.

Originally by: BritishInvader

Also, insurance not being paid out in CONCORD events is going to lead to a huge amount of crippled newbies who accidentally shot someone in highsec with their shiny ship, got CONCORDED, and lost all their money.



That's what newbie ships are for..If beyond that you still get those accidents and end up with zero money, and for some reason don't have any friends or corp to help you back on your feet, then I'm sorry..you deserve it..even the most vile of personalities, have people who'll lend them a hand if things get rough.

Originally by: BritishInvader

Economically, this will make everything cheaper, move everyone the hell out of lowsec (Why would you go there when the risk:reward ratio is better in Highsec?)....

For some number examples, you can kill an untanked Hulk with a full suicide fit faction ammo Rupture...

People don't suicide gank for profit, they do it for tears. We've run the numbers and decided that the days spent grinding sec status are well worth the chat**** you get on EVE-O and ingame, for every 6 hours of sec grinding, I get 6 minutes of angry pubbie chat....



So you start out by saying how suicide ganking will no longer be feasible pure economically, and somehow this means people won't be in lowsec (as opposed to now where theres plenty of people in lowsec..oh wait), yet you provide no solid basis for this argument..what? Your hulk suicide example? What???
Finally you end your bleeding heart speech(and yes, I do think it was a good speech) by saying economics don't matter, all that matter is, as they say "the lulz" or rather as you say "the tears" or chat**** - I'm sorry what???

Here you are making a dash for an economical argument about these changes, to then habhazardly do a swirly and take a nosedive into a pile of dung..Dude????
I'm sorry but at that point if your final word is you just want tears, then I don't even sympathize, or see how anything has changed for you, as I'm pretty sure plenty of people will always cry when you shoot them..it's the way of the gank.

Originally by: BritishInvader

Off I go to gank the hell out of everyone before this nerf pops through.



That's right! Don't let "The Man" keep you down! REVOLT! Be a rebel! I'm sure the implied hints towards your proverbial disapproval is so vast and numerous in that one liner that it's beyond my comprehension..

Shinigami
Gallente
Shinra
Posted - 2008.08.06 10:25:00 - [105]
 

Edited by: Shinigami on 06/08/2008 10:27:02
Originally by: Esmenet
EVE looking less and less unique and interesting every dev blog these days.


It's only a matter of time before they introduce "podbound" items/ships, and make it possible to opt-out of pvp. Did these new devs get recruited at blizzcon?

CCP Fear? More like CCP FuzzyBunny.

Fuddlesticks
Posted - 2008.08.06 10:28:00 - [106]
 

Originally by: Shinigami
Edited by: Shinigami on 06/08/2008 10:27:02
Originally by: Esmenet
EVE looking less and less unique and interesting every dev blog these days.


It's only a matter of time before they introduce "podbound" items/ships, and make it possible to opt-out of pvp. Did these new devs get recruited at blizzcon?

CCP Fear? More like CCP FuzzyBunny.


Heres your sign..and tinfoil

Haradgrim
Systematic Mercantilism
Posted - 2008.08.06 10:31:00 - [107]
 

Originally by: Shinigami
Edited by: Shinigami on 06/08/2008 06:12:16
CCP will be introducing trammel pretty soon. STAY TUNED!


Too late, this is it. GJ CCP, this will kill low-sec.

Fuddlesticks
Posted - 2008.08.06 10:34:00 - [108]
 

Originally by: Haradgrim
Originally by: Shinigami
Edited by: Shinigami on 06/08/2008 06:12:16
CCP will be introducing trammel pretty soon. STAY TUNED!


Too late, this is it. GJ CCP, this will kill low-sec.


Whats your proof? Or basis for saying that? What's that? You don't have any?..Heres your sign

Miklas Laces
A.N.A.R.C.H.I.C.A
Posted - 2008.08.06 10:34:00 - [109]
 

Edited by: Miklas Laces on 06/08/2008 10:34:21
I agree on removing insurance for suicide-gank, it was long due. But again CCP can't do the simple and right thing. Nooo, we have these new super-cool game designer that want to re-invent the game to prove they're so great, so instead of a simple straightforward fix we get all that crap about more standing loss and fastest concord and additonal penalty here and there and blah blah blah.

Ass-holes

Pesadel0
the muppets
RED.OverLord
Posted - 2008.08.06 10:39:00 - [110]
 

LOl is CCP overrun by carebears now?

Karentaki
Gallente
Oberon Incorporated
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2008.08.06 10:40:00 - [111]
 

I'm sorry, but this change just doesn't work on a purely risk-vs-reward basis. You say you want to move more combat to lowsec, but at the moment only stupid people and pirates even go to lowsec. Lowsec has virtually no profits compared to highsec, but even now, about 100 times the risk.

With the changes you're proposing it won't be worth doing ANYTHING other than running level 4 missions in highsec.Ganking a faction ship will become IMPOSSIBLE (except with prohibitively large numbers of torp ravens) due to the concord response time. This will mean that basically, all those people who sit in NPC corps, running missions in an officer fitted CNR will be INVINCIBLE in game. They will never lose their ship, and they will only work to damage the profitability of the market for newer players.

The only time I would EVER support this change would be if you removed, or at least made less profitable, L4 agents in highsec. Move them all to lowsec, and it will be a huge boost to Piracy. Highsec will have low profits but almost complete safety, while lowsec will be profitable but also risky.

Fuddlesticks
Posted - 2008.08.06 10:40:00 - [112]
 

Originally by: Miklas Laces
Edited by: Miklas Laces on 06/08/2008 10:34:21
I agree on removing insurance for suicide-gank, it was long due. But again CCP can't do the simple and right thing. Nooo, we have these new super-cool game designer that want to re-invent the game to prove they're so great, so instead of a simple straightforward fix we get all that crap about more standing loss and fastest concord and additonal penalty here and there and blah blah blah.

Ass-holes


So..whats the simple straight forward fix?

Esmenet
Gallente
Posted - 2008.08.06 10:41:00 - [113]
 

If you are serious about this stupidity it needs to be accompanied by a severe nerf to high sec missions.

Ki An
Gallente
The Really Awesome Players
Posted - 2008.08.06 10:42:00 - [114]
 

Originally by: Fuddlesticks

So..whats the simple straight forward fix?


God, you're dumb.

Implement one of the other millions solutions dreamed up over the years? Tradeable killrights? Removal of insurance (completely)? Boost to low sec? Convoy system? Ability to mask cargo?

Or why not just simply STOP ****ING FLYING AFK???

Pesadel0
the muppets
RED.OverLord
Posted - 2008.08.06 10:44:00 - [115]
 

Originally by: Ki An
Originally by: Fuddlesticks

So..whats the simple straight forward fix?


God, you're dumb.

Implement one of the other millions solutions dreamed up over the years? Tradeable killrights? Removal of insurance (completely)? Boost to low sec? Convoy system? Ability to mask cargo?

Or why not just simply STOP ****ING FLYING AFK???



Word ,stop being stupid is a start to fix high sec ganking.

Hiro Nagamura
Amarr
eXceed Inc.
Posted - 2008.08.06 10:49:00 - [116]
 

I hear that CCP has a professional, honest-to-god academic economist on staff.

I'd like to hear his take on this, because I think care-bears really screw with the economy a lot.

Fuddlesticks
Posted - 2008.08.06 10:51:00 - [117]
 

Edited by: Fuddlesticks on 06/08/2008 10:55:12
Originally by: Ki An
Originally by: Fuddlesticks

So..whats the simple straight forward fix?


God, you're dumb.

Implement one of the other millions solutions dreamed up over the years? Tradeable killrights? Removal of insurance (completely)? Boost to low sec? Convoy system? Ability to mask cargo?

So I ask again..What's the simple straight forward fix?

Or why not just simply STOP ****ING FLYING AFK???



So whats the simple straight forward fix?
None of that sounds simple, or straight forward...No, seriously, they don't..tradeable killrights? Think about that for awhile, it's far from simple, or straight forward.

Removal of insurance?
Originally by: CCP Fear

In addition, the highly requested feature of removal of insurance in CONCORD related events will be implemented in the near future.



Boost to low sec? That's the most ambiguous "fix" I have ever set eyes on..In other words, it's completely useless.

Convoy system? Now I'm assuming you got that off a much more elaborate idea somewhere, fine..but it's not simple, I guarentee it, nor is it straight forward..thing like that would need balancing, tweaking and most of all, implementation with existing systems.

Cargo masking..what's the counter for that? There has to be, remember? No counter, well there goes suicide ganking completely.
Okay so we make a counter for it..what's that? We're back where we started? Well whadda ya know.

Miklas Laces
A.N.A.R.C.H.I.C.A
Posted - 2008.08.06 10:51:00 - [118]
 

Edited by: Miklas Laces on 06/08/2008 10:53:44
Originally by: Fuddlesticks
Originally by: Miklas Laces
Edited by: Miklas Laces on 06/08/2008 10:34:21
I agree on removing insurance for suicide-gank, it was long due. But again CCP can't do the simple and right thing. Nooo, we have these new super-cool game designer that want to re-invent the game to prove they're so great, so instead of a simple straightforward fix we get all that crap about more standing loss and fastest concord and additonal penalty here and there and blah blah blah.

Ass-holes


So..whats the simple straight forward fix?


Remove insurance when concord is involved, period. No need for all that pile of crap in the dev blog, it's over-complicated, unnecessary, a fix to things that aint broken, go away



CCP Fear

Posted - 2008.08.06 10:54:00 - [119]
 

Some answers to your questions;

These changes are on the test-server right now. So SISI is your way to go for testing this out.

Low security (0,3-0,1) is basically getting a reduction in security penalty from it's current values. So in essence, the lowest of security, just got harsher.

When we first started with this process, by brainstorming. We decided that it should not completely close off suicide ganking, but to raise the bar, make it so that it can be done, but will require some planning, thought and effort.

This is mainly focused on the no-risk no-thought ganking, that has killed thousands in the last few months.

I am in awe of those who spend weeks in planning, infiltrating, scheming and plotting against another player, just to be able to pop his freighter full of dysprosium. THAT is something i find amazing and i do not want to stop. And the reason for that, is the amount of work that went into the planning. That is cool IMO.

And that is still possible. But we want to discourage people to gank for giggles. It's just not sporting.

EVE is still harsh, and it punishes you for being careless and AFK. And this change, doesn't change that.

NeoTheo
M'8'S
Posted - 2008.08.06 10:55:00 - [120]
 

Edited by: NeoTheo on 06/08/2008 10:57:02

totally stupid, this will just mean that less people go to lowsec, and there is STILL no reason to. now there is even less reason to.

not only that you could have fixed this by just removing insurace where concorden was involved.

way to go ccp, daft daft silly change.


Pages: first : previous : 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... : last (22)

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