open All Channels
seplocked Assembly Hall
blankseplocked [Proposal] Suicide Ganks
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 : last (17)

Author Topic

Anna Lifera
6....
HAWK Alliance
Posted - 2011.07.29 14:43:00 - [451]
 

Originally by: Kaelie Onren

Careful Anna, your ad hominem arguments (If I can even call them that) are not becoming you. And indeed showing lack of objectivity on your part, detracting credibility from any sound argument that you may have made in the past. I'm going to ignore your points as they were nothing more than unsubstantiated personal jibes directed at me from an uneducated position, made to illicit some emotion response. :)


go right ahead; after all, that is what someone does when she can't refute it. once again, u're not mentally capable of getting the fact that ignoring everything isn't gonna get your self-serving idea considered but hey, maybe u're the one trying to troll so go right ahead. Wink

Originally by: Kaelie Onren
Though on your war zone point. Corps pay concord to be able to fight wars, and fighting a war is not against the rules of concord.


neither is allowing insurance for criminal losses in high sec or low sec; u just simply don't like the high sec part.

Originally by: Kaelie Onren
**Destabilizing change is a sudden jump in mineral prices. But anyway this was a digression. A point I made only to inform one previous poster (wasn't you I believe) that if you killed all the miners, everyone in new eden is affected.


actually, u stated to me the same thing in an earlier post to which i stated time and time again, whatever "depression" scenario u're describing isn't the case with eve, which makes your scenario the digression as u even stated. like i said before, ignoring everything isn't gonna get your idea through but u're here to try and troll, then continue--i'd love to hear it.

Kaelie Onren
Minmatar
Posted - 2011.07.29 15:48:00 - [452]
 

Edited by: Kaelie Onren on 29/07/2011 15:48:51
Originally by: Anna Lifera
Originally by: Kaelie Onren

Careful Anna, your ad hominem arguments (If I can even call them that) are not becoming you. And indeed showing lack of objectivity on your part, detracting credibility from any sound argument that you may have made in the past. I'm going to ignore your points as they were nothing more than unsubstantiated personal jibes directed at me from an uneducated position, made to illicit some emotion response. :)


go right ahead; after all, that is what someone does when she can't refute it. once again, u're not mentally capable of getting the fact that ignoring everything isn't gonna get your self-serving idea considered but hey, maybe u're the one trying to troll so go right ahead. Wink

Originally by: Kaelie Onren
Though on your war zone point. Corps pay concord to be able to fight wars, and fighting a war is not against the rules of concord.


neither is allowing insurance for criminal losses in high sec or low sec; u just simply don't like the high sec part.

Originally by: Kaelie Onren
**Destabilizing change is a sudden jump in mineral prices. But anyway this was a digression. A point I made only to inform one previous poster (wasn't you I believe) that if you killed all the miners, everyone in new eden is affected.


actually, u stated to me the same thing in an earlier post to which i stated time and time again, whatever "depression" scenario u're describing isn't the case with eve, which makes your scenario the digression as u even stated. like i said before, ignoring everything isn't gonna get your idea through but u're here to try and troll, then continue--i'd love to hear it.


No, actually, continually to make meta/personal arguments is exactly what one does when they run out of logical ones, like what you are doing. Please do go on though.

I would like to point out that just because you said that my depression scenario won't work, doesn't mean its true without some backup facts to your counter postulate, for which I am still waiting for.
So what is your reasoning that this won't happen in eve again? Is it (now I'm doing your work for you here by trying to guess what you meant) because eve has 'infinite' minerals? If so, then your argument is on shaky ground, because without miners, all the unmined minerals in the universe can't keep the prices from shooting up. If you do have any other reason that you think so, please do share.

Anna Lifera
6....
HAWK Alliance
Posted - 2011.07.30 00:58:00 - [453]
 

Edited by: Anna Lifera on 30/07/2011 01:07:18
Originally by: Kaelie Onren

No, actually, continually to make meta/personal arguments is exactly what one does when they run out of logical ones, like what you are doing. Please do go on though.


much like what u've been doing when the only flimsy "argument" u have was shot down so early and easily? that's probably why u feel it's so personal when your ignorance is being pointed out.

Originally by: Kaelie Onren
I would like to point out that just because you said that my depression scenario won't work, doesn't mean its true without some backup facts to your counter postulate, for which I am still waiting for.
So what is your reasoning that this won't happen in eve again? Is it (now I'm doing your work for you here by trying to guess what you meant) because eve has 'infinite' minerals? If so, then your argument is on shaky ground, because without miners, all the unmined minerals in the universe can't keep the prices from shooting up. If you do have any other reason that you think so, please do share.



u know what else isn't true? "if you thin out the miners, workers, farmers, proletariat...", keyword being "if". since a is false, b does not apply and your "argument" hinges completely on a false assumption of the present situation in eve. in case u still don't get it, your entire argument in a nutshell is "if a then b", only a is already false to begin with. at this rate though, u most likely still won't get it and will just try and troll some more after this, so plz continue; your lack of arguments and nothing but continuous complaining will only further prove to ccp the whiny and scared carebears u really r. Laughing

Kaelie Onren
Minmatar
Posted - 2011.07.30 03:45:00 - [454]
 

Originally by: Anna Lifera
Edited by: Anna Lifera on 30/07/2011 01:07:18
Originally by: Kaelie Onren

No, actually, continually to make meta/personal arguments is exactly what one does when they run out of logical ones, like what you are doing. Please do go on though.


much like what u've been doing when the only flimsy "argument" u have was shot down so early and easily? that's probably why u feel it's so personal when your ignorance is being pointed out.

Originally by: Kaelie Onren
I would like to point out that just because you said that my depression scenario won't work, doesn't mean its true without some backup facts to your counter postulate, for which I am still waiting for.
So what is your reasoning that this won't happen in eve again? Is it (now I'm doing your work for you here by trying to guess what you meant) because eve has 'infinite' minerals? If so, then your argument is on shaky ground, because without miners, all the unmined minerals in the universe can't keep the prices from shooting up. If you do have any other reason that you think so, please do share.



u know what else isn't true? "if you thin out the miners, workers, farmers, proletariat...", keyword being "if". since a is false, b does not apply and your "argument" hinges completely on a false assumption of the present situation in eve. in case u still don't get it, your entire argument in a nutshell is "if a then b", only a is already false to begin with. at this rate though, u most likely still won't get it and will just try and troll some more after this, so plz continue; your lack of arguments and nothing but continuous complaining will only further prove to ccp the whiny and scared carebears u really r. Laughing



Girl, please calm yourself. (I'm a carebear? I'll add that to the baseless accusations list. :)

I made an 'argument'? Really, I thought it was just a passing observation that if everyone had a certain attitude towards miners (gank them all, there are too many dumb hulk pilots!) then the economy would suffer. I thought I was just making a plea for sense and non-partisanship and against knee jerk uneducated comments. But if you want to call that an argument, knock yourself out. And I concede to your superior intellect on showing me otherwise :)

Anna Lifera
6....
HAWK Alliance
Posted - 2011.07.30 14:08:00 - [455]
 

Edited by: Anna Lifera on 30/07/2011 14:18:07
Originally by: Kaelie Onren


Girl, please calm yourself. (I'm a carebear? I'll add that to the baseless accusations list. :)

I made an 'argument'? Really, I thought it was just a passing observation that if everyone had a certain attitude towards miners (gank them all, there are too many dumb hulk pilots!) then the economy would suffer. I thought I was just making a plea for sense and non-partisanship and against knee jerk uneducated comments. But if you want to call that an argument, knock yourself out. And I concede to your superior intellect on showing me otherwise :)


1. i'd suggest "moron" as well but u've clearly proven that time and time again.
2. i was merely being lenient when i called them "arguments" because u might wanna try what u call "observing" your own posts; they were about killing off all the miners, not necessarily having a condescending attitude towards them. funny how someone else can "observe" your posts better than u actually know them, which goes back to #1. because even though ppl do look down upon them, i've got good news: the miners r still there and the mineral prices r still low (well it's not really news at this point but for u, it is since apparently u finally got it). but at least u can rest easy with the closure u so desperately needed during your harrowing ordeal with your own imagination. Wink
3. looking back at #1, it's not surprising it had to be broken down to two simple letters before someone like u would finally get it but whatever works, i guess.

Kaelie Onren
Minmatar
Posted - 2011.07.30 17:14:00 - [456]
 

Wow Anna, really, all this anger and hate because of this benign statement?

Quote:
What you are saying are all conceptually true, but you have to make a provision for beginners, who really are just learning their way in the game in highsec and should be entitled to a gank free existence. (though beginners would not likely be flying a hulk) Given they are helping the economy that YOU are benefiting from in the end. Without miners, you would be paying ever increasing costs for your mods and ships, so you should cut them a little proverbial slack. Eventually, a depression would occur if all the miners were thinned out.


Oh.. I know, you must be still a little raw about the gcc joke. <3

Ms Tragula
Posted - 2011.07.31 10:26:00 - [457]
 

Edited by: Ms Tragula on 31/07/2011 10:32:35
Edited by: Ms Tragula on 31/07/2011 10:26:46
/signed for no insurance payouts for ship losses to Concord.

I also think ships destroyed in criminal action should have their wrecks impounded by Concord which then can be purchased back by the victim for a percentage of the market value of the dropped modules.

Suicide ganking should be part of the game, in my opinion it should not be profitable for the gankers or so punitive on the gankees.

Yes I'm a 'carebear' or whatever you want to call me and yes I'm obviously speaking from the position of someone who has been on the wrong side of a suicide gank. I know that EVE is a harsh game, but I think it would still be plenty harsh were it no longer possible for a few people in T1 battleships to destroy my mission running ship worth hundreds of hours intensive ISK grinding in a completely unavoidable attack and actually make a PROFIT from it...???

If I'm honest I couldn't care two flips for the game experience of people who choose to play EVE like this, if I had my way suicide ganking would only be for matters of honour or revenge and you wouldn't make a single ISK from it.


There seems to be a group of people who like to use EVE to indulge in playground bullying simply because they can. They like to pick on carebears and laugh at them when they get upset, then hide behind internet anonymity and the excuse that it's 'just a game'.

If someone spent hundreds of hours making a functioning replica naval warship then took it to the park to sail, would you snatch it out of their hands and stamp on it because it's 'just a toy'? It's scummy behaviour and the people who engage in it are at best extremely thoughtless, and at worst, bullies.

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2011.07.31 11:43:00 - [458]
 

Originally by: Ms Tragula

/signed for no insurance payouts for ship losses to Concord.

I also think ships destroyed in criminal action should have their wrecks impounded by Concord which then can be purchased back by the victim for a percentage of the market value of the dropped modules.

Suicide ganking should be part of the game, in my opinion it should not be profitable for the gankers or so punitive on the gankees.

Yes I'm a 'carebear' or whatever you want to call me and yes I'm obviously speaking from the position of someone who has been on the wrong side of a suicide gank. I know that EVE is a harsh game, but I think it would still be plenty harsh were it no longer possible for a few people in T1 battleships to destroy my mission running ship worth hundreds of hours intensive ISK grinding in a completely unavoidable attack and actually make a PROFIT from it...???

If I'm honest I couldn't care two flips for the game experience of people who choose to play EVE like this, if I had my way suicide ganking would only be for matters of honour or revenge and you wouldn't make a single ISK from it.


Well at least you're honest that you want a completely unbalanced game purely in order to advance your own narrow interests in it. That alone earns you more respect than most of the weasel-wording whiners.

Originally by: Ms Tragula

There seems to be a group of people who like to use EVE to indulge in playground bullying simply because they can. They like to pick on carebears and laugh at them when they get upset, then hide behind internet anonymity and the excuse that it's 'just a game'.

If someone spent hundreds of hours making a functioning replica naval warship then took it to the park to sail, would you snatch it out of their hands and stamp on it because it's 'just a toy'? It's scummy behaviour and the people who engage in it are at best extremely thoughtless, and at worst, bullies.


There seems to be a group of people who think that they should always be allowed to win, and never have to lose. If someone spent hundreds of hours putting together a local baseball league which you then, would you throw a tantrum when you got caught out and your team lost, and threaten to sue the opposing team? Such people are at beat extremely thoughtless, and at worst, childish, entitled losers.

EVE is one of the few games which doesn't tell everyone they're a winner just for trying, it's one of the very few MMOs that it's possible to lose. That's what makes it special and if you dont like that aspect of it, then I can hardly understand why you're playing it.

Anna Lifera
6....
HAWK Alliance
Posted - 2011.07.31 15:03:00 - [459]
 

Originally by: Kaelie Onren
Wow Anna, really, all this anger and hate because of this benign statement?

Oh.. I know, you must be still a little raw about the gcc joke. <3


all i saw from u was nothing but qq about how ganking a few miners somehow leads to the end of the universe.

oh i know--u're slow since it took u so long to finally get it and u don't like being made fun of for it. if it's too much for u, u can tell me to stop and i'll...consider it.Wink

TheExtruder
Caldari
Malicious Destruction
War Against the Manifest
Posted - 2011.07.31 15:52:00 - [460]
 

-1

dont agree

Suicide ganking needs buff, not nerf

Fayetal
Minmatar
Posted - 2011.08.01 07:16:00 - [461]
 

Originally by: Anna Lifera
Originally by: Samican Nutikor

You sound frustrated mate...fearing that you might lose easy profit?

And to use your mirroring EVE with real life:

Rob a bank and get shot - do you really think that your insurance will even pay one cent of the hospital bill???


1. not as easy as preventing yourself from being a stupid victim.
2. so if your bank gets robbed and u get shot, do u expect the swat team to show up in 20 seconds when they're miles away too? and how did they get to the vault so easily since u didn't take enough precautions? sounds like insurance fraud to me. great comparison to real life from a science fiction game u got there...

Originally by: hjgjgfgfgsj

I absolutely support this. Concord shouldn't give suicide-****ers insurance, it doesn't make sense. I'm not anti-suicide-gank. I'm not even pro-carebear. This idea just makes too much sense not to support.


in that case, like ppl said, void insurance entirely--low sec, 0.0, high sec pirate, low sec pirate, everywhere, everyone. no real insurance company would exist to lose more money than they gain, especially if they still have to pay out even if no insurance was purchased. and since u're not partial to either side, there's your sensible solution.


Agreed. Remove insurance entirely. There's your risk distributed equally.

chopper14
Posted - 2011.08.04 05:18:00 - [462]
 

Supported.

This does absolutely nothing to stop suicide ganking.
What it does do is re-focus it.
Hulkagheddon wouldn't die because people do it for the lol's and the prizes. Everyday small target ganking would suffer only mildly.

People would use the same ships with greater patience waiting for targets with better cargos. The miners would become less desirable and the trade ships would become more coveted.

High sec miners despite The common misconception are not rich.
Botters and traders are rich and while most older miners are also traders, the best place to hit them isn't at the belts but at the gates where all their isk is condensed.
As far as botters go they are an exploit that is unavoidable with or withought ganking but taking insurance away doesn't make them untouchable or un-profitable just less profitable. While botters and old traders can afford to replace ships faster than they can ever be ganked. It's the noob miner who suffers the loss of his first hulk that gets punished under the current system. By removing gank insurance it refocuses gank attacks from Joe the plumber to Donald trump hitting him where it hurts more often than now. Meanwhile Joe can go on to grow his small buisiness. Donald will adapt, Joe will emo rage quit.

Here's an analogy.
You have 20 guys digging dirt up with their own shovels into their own wheelbarrows. They then wheel the stuff to a large pile to be scooped up by a tractor into a dump truck. The dump truck takes it to a gardening supplier who packages it as soil and loads it on semi trucks bound for a majior distributor.

Now if the shovels are hulks, the wheel barrows are industrials, the pile and tractor is a npc station, the dump truck is a transport or orca, the gardening supplier being a pos where they build shiney things, the semi trucks being freighters and jump freighters, with the majior distributor being jita; It just beggs the question... why would you bother beating down the looser with the shovel when you can just jump the dump truck?? why bother with the dump truck when you can just ransack the warehouse? or hit the final product before it gets to the main distributor? Dirt isn't worth nearly as much as soil. And a shipment if soil takes up less space than a load of dirt.

All the op is suggesting is lowering the amount of non discriminate attacks against. Younger players and re-focusing them on older ones.

While the miners would produce more minerals gankers would be waiting at the gates more then ever to make sure they are distributed fairly. And while lower mineral prices would drop the amount of money the miner makes per day but would also drop the cost of ships across the board driving inflation down. Meaning they will still be able to buy everything they can buy today. While missioners etc would be able to buy more than they can today.

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2011.08.04 05:53:00 - [463]
 

Edited by: Malcanis on 04/08/2011 05:53:37
Originally by: Fayetal


Agreed. Remove insurance entirely. There's your risk distributed equally.


The downside of this is that mineral prices would fall off a cliff, and miners would suffer far more than they do from an occasional gank.

Another effect would be to remove the comparative advantage of flying a T1 hull in PvP, which is that they can be almost fully insured. This would be a huge nerf to players who can't afford T2/T3s, as even though the outlay price of the hull would fall, the net price would rise (and would therefore disproportionately affect new players). T2/T3 prices would rise due to the increased demand.

PvP of all types would be reduced as the cost of engaging in it increases.

Removing insurance entirely would negatively affect so many other parts of the game that one starts to think that doing so just isn't worth the gain of excusing hi-sec miners and missioners from losing the occasional ship like every one else.

PaulTheConvoluted
Posted - 2011.08.04 10:53:00 - [464]
 

Edited by: PaulTheConvoluted on 04/08/2011 11:01:34
Edited by: PaulTheConvoluted on 04/08/2011 10:53:15
Originally by: Malcanis
Well at least you're honest that you want a completely unbalanced game purely in order to advance your own narrow interests in it. That alone earns you more respect than most of the weasel-wording whiners.
I don't know if I quite follow you, or maybe I just have a wildly different meaning of the word 'unbalanced'. We're all playing a sandbox game, in which we are allowed to do as we please. Except, we aren't, because I cannot do what I want with the ship I've spent hundreds of hours of gametime one, because someone with a ship they spent 30 minutes on can take that away from me, and be reimbursed 15 minutes of that after they get 'punished'.

If anything, most of the forum-warriors that can only troll (ad hominem, drink bleach, whatever) and keep spouting "no" are the ones that want to keep that imbalance (destroy hours or weeks or months of work in seconds) for their own narrow interest (grief, "PvP" the easy targets, whatever).

Any which way you turn it, Eve is not only a harsh place, it is also home to a lot of carebears. Of course they want to have a safer place, it suits their play style. And it's just as obvious the griefers (because I have yet to hear a reason that I deem valid (and yes, I can see what I did there...) why hindering others in their preferred play style is A Good Thing (TM)) will want to keep being able to extract tears.

Luckily for those whose play style it suits, the devs are on the Everyone Versus Everyone-side, and the ones who think Eve is not safe enough for their style try to change the game or move on to other games.

Ranka Mei
Caldari
Posted - 2011.08.04 13:03:00 - [465]
 

Edited by: Ranka Mei on 04/08/2011 13:05:09
Originally by: PaulTheConvoluted
Originally by: Malcanis
Well at least you're honest that you want a completely unbalanced game purely in order to advance your own narrow interests in it. That alone earns you more respect than most of the weasel-wording whiners.
I don't know if I quite follow you, or maybe I just have a wildly different meaning of the word 'unbalanced'. We're all playing a sandbox game, in which we are allowed to do as we please. Except, we aren't, because I cannot do what I want with the ship I've spent hundreds of hours of gametime one, because someone with a ship they spent 30 minutes on can take that away from me, and be reimbursed 15 minutes of that after they get 'punished'.

If anything, most of the forum-warriors that can only troll (ad hominem, drink bleach, whatever) and keep spouting "no" are the ones that want to keep that imbalance (destroy hours or weeks or months of work in seconds) for their own narrow interest (grief, "PvP" the easy targets, whatever).

Any which way you turn it, Eve is not only a harsh place, it is also home to a lot of carebears. Of course they want to have a safer place, it suits their play style. And it's just as obvious the griefers (because I have yet to hear a reason that I deem valid (and yes, I can see what I did there...) why hindering others in their preferred play style is A Good Thing (TM)) will want to keep being able to extract tears.

Luckily for those whose play style it suits, the devs are on the Everyone Versus Everyone-side, and the ones who think Eve is not safe enough for their style try to change the game or move on to other games.


A near excellent post! I say 'near', because it's not about wanting a safer place per se, but about wanting a more balanced game mechanic. Concord shouldn't pay out on a suicide gank, pure and simple.

Then what about the noob who accidentally shoots someone else? (because he got targeted, and mistook it for aggression, for instance). Well, for some obsure reason CCP is all panicky about said noob immediately leaving the game if he doesn't equally immediately get his loss reimbursed. I say, f that! Seriously, the game doesn't really shield you from making any other gross mistakes either; so, why be so overprotective in this case?

Or, they could simple make it so that nobody collects insurance when more than 1 party was involved in the killing of someone else. Fixed.

Suicide ganking has always been a thorn in the eye; and slapping a monocle over it is not the solution! CCP, please fix it for real.

Anna Lifera
6....
HAWK Alliance
Posted - 2011.08.04 14:34:00 - [466]
 

Originally by: PaulTheConvoluted
I don't know if I quite follow you, or maybe I just have a wildly different meaning of the word 'unbalanced'. We're all playing a sandbox game, in which we are allowed to do as we please. Except, we aren't, because I cannot do what I want with the ship I've spent hundreds of hours of gametime one, because someone with a ship they spent 30 minutes on can take that away from me, and be reimbursed 15 minutes of that after they get 'punished'.


which is no different than wanting to fly a marauder into 0.0 to claim sovereignty. but using your logic, u'd probably blame the gankers for losing your marauder too 'cause they wouldn't let u do what u want, huh?

Originally by: PaulTheConvoluted
If anything, most of the forum-warriors that can only troll (ad hominem, drink bleach, whatever) and keep spouting "no" are the ones that want to keep that imbalance (destroy hours or weeks or months of work in seconds) for their own narrow interest (grief, "PvP" the easy targets, whatever).


1. no one forced u to fly a hulk--don't fly what u can't afford to lose.
2. "PvP" the easy targets...sounds like most eve pilots in general and many of them aren't suicide gankers either.

Originally by: PaulTheConvoluted
Any which way you turn it, Eve is not only a harsh place, it is also home to a lot of carebears. Of course they want to have a safer place, it suits their play style. And it's just as obvious the griefers (because I have yet to hear a reason that I deem valid (and yes, I can see what I did there...) why hindering others in their preferred play style is A Good Thing (TM)) will want to keep being able to extract tears.


there is a safer place exactly for u--singularity.

Originally by: PaulTheConvoluted
Luckily for those whose play style it suits, the devs are on the Everyone Versus Everyone-side, and the ones who think Eve is not safe enough for their style try to change the game or move on to other games.


or they will continue playing because no other game will allow their pirate main to keep an epeen-raising killboard record by transferring all their risk away from their main and onto their high sec mining alt. and when they do encounter the only risk they'll ever face, they'll continue whining about safety like u do.

PaulTheConvoluted
Posted - 2011.08.04 15:16:00 - [467]
 

Originally by: Anna Lifera
which is no different than wanting to fly a marauder into 0.0 to claim sovereignty. but using your logic, u'd probably blame the gankers for losing your marauder too 'cause they wouldn't let u do what u want, huh?
Ah, the straw man, hadn't named that one specifically yet, I will in the future.
Originally by: Anna Lifera
1. no one forced u to fly a hulk--don't fly what u can't afford to lose.
Assumptions... The point is still valid, it takes a lot of time to get, and very little time to lose anything in Eve.
Originally by: Anna Lifera
2. "PvP" the easy targets...sounds like most eve pilots in general and many of them aren't suicide gankers either.
Thank you for agreeing with me: You want to shoot stuff, preferably without being blown to internet spaceship pixels yourself :) It may come as a surprise (though it should not, you probably have been on these forums long enough): Not everyone wants to be shot at, and that's why we have high-sec. Not to offer a place where you can't be shot, but to offer a place where you won't be shot as often.

Now that we have that out of the way we can come to the point: suicide ganking is a risk/reward issue, as with everything else. What we are trying to establish is: Is suicide ganking in its current form and shape correctly positioned in the risk versus reward graph. Is it balanced enough? (I avoid using 'fair' here, as that will only derail my argument as you will then probably leech onto that word to say Eve isn't supposed to be fair).

I think, as it is now, suicide ganking is cheap enough to grief, and grief often. I don't oppose to suicide ganking as a whole, but I do oppose to the mentality that extracting tears is a good thing, and suicide ganking is an excellent way to grief. We are all civilized human beings, and part of that is not causing undue grief without cause.

If there is something to gain (for instance, a hauler at a gate or whatever), by all means, go gank. But what do you win by ganking a hulk? A strip miner, some ore and (if you have a salvager equipped) a molten capacitor or two, if that. Especially if you then see the wreck, floating in space, cargo undisturbed... I still haven't read what your reward is.
Originally by: Anna Lifera
whining about safety like u do.
I would read my post again if I were you. I am not advocating safety, I'm (imo) objectively trying to show there are two sides to the medallion, and those two will never reach an agreement as they both want the opposite.

What I am advocating however, is a stop to grieving for grieving sake, and the way I see it, most of the suicide ganks don't have net reward already (which makes it grieving in my book), so might as well try and make it a less feasible way to have "fun".

You could construe that as "wah wah make high sec safer", that is of course up to you, but then we best agree to disagree as I am obviously unable to explain to you what I mean.

Anna Lifera
6....
HAWK Alliance
Posted - 2011.08.05 00:55:00 - [468]
 

Edited by: Anna Lifera on 05/08/2011 01:14:48
Originally by: PaulTheConvoluted
Ah, the straw man, hadn't named that one specifically yet, I will in the future.


it's all relative--u want to be left alone, play a single player game.

Originally by: PaulTheConvoluted
Assumptions... The point is still valid, it takes a lot of time to get, and very little time to lose anything in Eve.


if by "assumption", u mean the mantra that most eve players go by then yes the point is still valid--don't fly what u can't afford to lose.

Originally by: PaulTheConvoluted
Thank you for agreeing with me: You want to shoot stuff, preferably without being blown to internet spaceship pixels yourself :)


u were saying, straw man? especially since attempting a suicide gank = automatic ship loss. u were saying?

Originally by: PaulTheConvoluted
It may come as a surprise (though it should not, you probably have been on these forums long enough): Not everyone wants to be shot at, and that's why we have high-sec. Not to offer a place where you can't be shot, but to offer a place where you won't be shot as often.


though u actually got the "not as often" part correct, that still begs the question: why r u still complaining then?

Originally by: PaulTheConvoluted
Now that we have that out of the way we can come to the point: suicide ganking is a risk/reward issue, as with everything else. What we are trying to establish is: Is suicide ganking in its current form and shape correctly positioned in the risk versus reward graph. Is it balanced enough? (I avoid using 'fair' here, as that will only derail my argument as you will then probably leech onto that word to say Eve isn't supposed to be fair).


u can play semantics all u want 'cause the fact remains: high sec isn't deserted like low sec. in fact, plenty of exhumers piloted by high sec alts of pirates still mine there and there r plenty of tears shed by them, namely u. so yes it is balanced enough. Wink

Originally by: PaulTheConvoluted
I think, as it is now, suicide ganking is cheap enough to grief, and grief often. I don't oppose to suicide ganking as a whole, but I do oppose to the mentality that extracting tears is a good thing, and suicide ganking is an excellent way to grief. We are all civilized human beings, and part of that is not causing undue grief without cause.


so u oppose all pirating? because there's nothing cheaper than not losing your ship from what u call "griefing" in low sec/0.0.

Originally by: PaulTheConvoluted
If there is something to gain (for instance, a hauler at a gate or whatever), by all means, go gank. But what do you win by ganking a hulk? A strip miner, some ore and (if you have a salvager equipped) a molten capacitor or two, if that. Especially if you then see the wreck, floating in space, cargo undisturbed... I still haven't read what your reward is.


the reward is the same as any other gank outside high sec. and i still haven't read a decent excuse from u.

Originally by: PaulTheConvoluted
I would read my post again if I were you. I am not advocating safety, I'm (imo) objectively trying to show there are two sides to the medallion, and those two will never reach an agreement as they both want the opposite.

What I am advocating however, is a stop to grieving for grieving sake, and the way I see it, most of the suicide ganks don't have net reward already (which makes it grieving in my book), so might as well try and make it a less feasible way to have "fun".

You could construe that as "wah wah make high sec safer", that is of course up to you, but then we best agree to disagree as I am obviously unable to explain to you what I mean.


why construe when i can quote:

Quote:
Of course they want to have a safer place, it suits their play style...

Quote:
...and the ones who think Eve is not safe enough for their style...


...describes u perfectly. so u wanna try that again because i'd love to hear it. Laughing

PaulTheConvoluted
Posted - 2011.08.05 07:46:00 - [469]
 

Originally by: Anna Lifera
so u wanna try that again because i'd love to hear it. Laughing
No, I will just smile at your youthful enthusiasm, warily shaking my head about kids these days.

Please, try again, this time without making assumptions about me. I'll give you a head start:
1) I don't fly a Hulk.
2) I can afford to lose it if I did.

Now mind you, those are far from the only assumptions you made about me. Let's see if you can spot the most obvious one that is left.

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2011.08.05 12:38:00 - [470]
 

Originally by: Ranka Mei

Suicide ganking has always been a thorn in the eye; and slapping a monocle over it is not the solution! CCP, please fix it for real.


Honestly, I agree with this if nothing else. Suicide ganking as such isn't really good gameplay. It exists to balance out CONCORD - which also isn't a good gameplay feature either. What we actually need is a CONCORD that is less omnipotent, which it is not an exploit (but still difficult!) to avoid.

This means that instead of using extremely cheap, disposable ships, people will have an incentive to use expensive, purposefull fitted ships to commit crimes, that give them a chance to escape, but which will have a real cost if lost.

In addition, we need a properly working bounty system with transferrable killrights to allow those who do get ganked to leverage their wealth to get revenge. That's the real problem here: not that the NPC response is inadequate, but that the tools for PLAYER response are inadequate.

However what we can't have is a situation where it's economically unviable to attack people in empire. That's just an ISK farmer's charter, and it would shatter the EVE economy.

Paul believes he deserves more (free) protection because he's spent so much on his over-fitted mission-mobile, while the plebs in T2-fit drakes are ignored by the gankers. It doesn't take much thought to see why this might cause problems - especially for the plebs in T2 Drakes trying to compete with the officer-fitted Nightmares.

In conclusion: dont cry for more NPC protection to add more layers of forced behaviour, ask for better tools to provide gameplay solutions to gameplay problems.

Anna Lifera
6....
HAWK Alliance
Posted - 2011.08.05 13:49:00 - [471]
 

Edited by: Anna Lifera on 05/08/2011 14:05:13
Originally by: PaulTheConvoluted
No, I will just smile at your youthful enthusiasm, warily shaking my head about kids these days.

Please, try again, this time without making assumptions about me. I'll give you a head start:
1) I don't fly a Hulk.
2) I can afford to lose it if I did.

Now mind you, those are far from the only assumptions you made about me. Let's see if you can spot the most obvious one that is left.


u're still trying and failing--that's why i'd love to hear it. because judging from 1 and 2, u're flying something else that u cannot afford to lose or else u would not be crying.
Quote:
...and the ones who think Eve is not safe enough for their style...

Quote:
...I am not advocating safety...

Quote:
Of course they want to have a safer place, it suits their play style...

Quote:
...I cannot do what I want with the ship I've spent hundreds of hours of gametime...

u say u don't wanna get shot at yet u say u're not advocating for safety so i'll assume u're a moron as well. the carebear angle has been tried and it failed miserably every time, just like u, so like i said, plz continue--i'd love to hear it.

PaulTheConvoluted
Posted - 2011.08.05 14:03:00 - [472]
 

Originally by: Anna Lifera
u're flying something [..] that u cannot afford to lose
Assumption...
Quote:
crying
Assumption...
Quote:
u say u don't wanna get shot at
False...

Well, technically, the last part is not false per sť, I don't really want to be shot at, but nowhere in my posts I have said anything towards that end.

If you could put aside your preconceptions and read what I actually wrote instead of what you think it is saying, maybe we'll be getting somewhere.

I do feel I have to clarify one small thing a bit more: When I say I don't advocate safety I mean I don't advocate Hello kitty 100% resist 100k HP shield regen/sec safety, but I kind of thought that would be obvious; mea culpa.

Anna Lifera
6....
HAWK Alliance
Posted - 2011.08.05 14:25:00 - [473]
 

Originally by: PaulTheConvoluted
Assumption...

"...I cannot do what I want with the ship I've spent hundreds of hours of gametime..." so unless u're gonna state what u're flying, i'm gonna assume u're just crying for the sake of crying.

Originally by: PaulTheConvoluted
False...

Well, technically, the last part is not false per sť, I don't really want to be shot at, but nowhere in my posts I have said anything towards that end.


and i quote:

Quote:
Not everyone wants to be shot at, and that's why we have high-sec.


u just stated it twice now.

Originally by: PaulTheConvoluted
If you could put aside your preconceptions and read what I actually wrote instead of what you think it is saying, maybe we'll be getting somewhere.


only i'm reading your posts better than u're reading your own.

Originally by: PaulTheConvoluted
I do feel I have to clarify one small thing a bit more: When I say I don't advocate safety I mean I don't advocate Hello kitty 100% resist 100k HP shield regen/sec safety, but I kind of thought that would be obvious; mea culpa.


see above. plz continue. /popcorn

PaulTheConvoluted
Posted - 2011.08.05 14:37:00 - [474]
 

Aw, you ran out of popcorn, sorry to hear that.

Well, while you go look up where I said [b]I[/] or where I'm crying I will get you some more popcorn. It might take a while though.

Anna Lifera
6....
HAWK Alliance
Posted - 2011.08.05 15:05:00 - [475]
 

Edited by: Anna Lifera on 05/08/2011 15:09:30
Originally by: PaulTheConvoluted
Aw, you ran out of popcorn, sorry to hear that.

Well, while you go look up where I said [b]I[/] or where I'm crying I will get you some more popcorn. It might take a while though.


how about the fact that u're still crying even after i've reduced your arguments down to just that above (if that even is one)? but plz continue if u think u can somehow save face by looking even worse than u do right now. Laughing

PaulTheConvoluted
Posted - 2011.08.05 15:15:00 - [476]
 

No need, I will let my arguments and your ad hominem stand as they are, I have no need to explain myself further to someone who does not read (or comprehend, which amounts to the same thing).

Anna Lifera
6....
HAWK Alliance
Posted - 2011.08.05 15:36:00 - [477]
 

Edited by: Anna Lifera on 05/08/2011 15:39:52
Originally by: PaulTheConvoluted
No need, I will let my arguments and your ad hominem stand as they are, I have no need to explain myself further to someone who does not read (or comprehend, which amounts to the same thing).


yes 'cause your many self-conflicting statements and threats to EZ the game til u like it or ragequit r so convincing while u still wonder why u're being treated as such. but plz continue 'cause your carebear angle didn't work before so magically, it's gotta somehow work now right? Laughing

Mag's
the united
Negative Ten.
Posted - 2011.08.05 16:38:00 - [478]
 

I didn't like the idea of removing insurance from suicide ganking, I did and still do to a large extent, believe it's a good thing to keep.
But I've been thinking about this some more over time and I've started to change my mind.

Now before those that want this changing, because they feel it would balance some sort of injustice, start thinking that's my reason it isn't.
The more I think about this, then more I think it could work to the gankers advantage.

If this changes, then many many of those who feel high sec should be safer, would think this had done just that.
The tears would be epic.

I can't remember the last time I insured anything other than a Battleship. I wouldn't bother with the tiny amount of ISK needed for smaller ships, it's not even on my radar.

The more I think about this change, the more I like it. Twisted Evil
I may even give it my thumbs up. YARRRR!!

Punko LeGrand
Posted - 2011.08.05 20:45:00 - [479]
 

My two cents?

Allow transfer of kill rights. You kill me, I transfer the kill rights to someone and they get to kill you. The bounty hunter gets the wreck, you get satisfaction, and copy of the killmail for job well done. The bounty hunter gets an extended period of time to find you in your incursion boat.

You can still gank like you did before, just not get away without penalty. Unless you crafty (or just an alt) and can hide, or tough that you kill bounty hunters by the score. Who knows? I see an increase in play styles available for folks.

Just enable the transfer of kill rights, and extend the aggression timer (perhaps at a fee to the victim) out for at least a few days.

Payback doensn't have to be quick.

Oh, and for pete's sake, flag neutral reppers. Helping someone brings you into the fight. Period. Include repping AND fleet boosting.



Earl Comstock
Science and Trade Institute
Posted - 2011.08.06 10:55:00 - [480]
 

Edited by: Earl Comstock on 06/08/2011 11:05:07
Originally by: Herr Wilkus

But people calling for removing insurance for gankers are simply trying to nerf suicide ganking.



So what?
Originally by: Herr Wilkus

If insurance is removed, there needs to be other incentives for gankers provided.



No, there actually doesn't.

Your economic analysis is sophomoric, a transparent attempt to affix some sort of nobility to suicide ganking. If mineral prices were to suddenly rise, insurance payouts would rise with them, and suicide ganking would not be affected.


Pages: first : previous : ... 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 : last (17)

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