open All Channels
seplocked Crime and Punishment
blankseplocked The actual financials of suicide
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic

Mik Nostrebor
Minmatar
Ex Coelis
Posted - 2010.01.11 05:36:00 - [1]
 

Can anyone give me an idea of what the actual cost vs insurance figures might be for suicide ships? I hear a lot of people saying that a suicide BS or a 5 suicide desties are not a financial loss. I tried to work out basic gank fits and the insurance costs and cannot see where you still take a hit even after the insurance payout. Maybe I am looking at this all wrong...

Clair Bear
Ursine Research and Production
Posted - 2010.01.11 05:45:00 - [2]
 

Actual prices vary. When I was last cooking hundreds of battleships to gank with it looked like this:

Megathron (own BPO): 69M in minerals. 73.5M insurance payout. Guns: 360k each x 7, magstabs: 21k each x 4. Drones: 125k. Total cost after gank: roughly zero.
Abaddon (500k-2M per BPC): 118M in minerals. 126M insurance payout. Smartbombs: 500k x 8. Total cost after gank: negative, up to 4M profit.

Add to that drops from miners (my record is 200M in faction shield booster, ice harvesters and t2 salvage from one gank) and you can quickly see how it's not costly at all. In fact, if it wasn't for sec status, I could probably keep a 40M/hour or so income stream going from mining miners.

Mik Nostrebor
Minmatar
Ex Coelis
Posted - 2010.01.11 05:48:00 - [3]
 

When you say payout, I guess you mean payout less the initial cost of buying the (platinum?) insurance?

Callista Sincera
Amarr
Hedion University
Posted - 2010.01.11 05:48:00 - [4]
 

Originally by: Clair Bear
Abaddon (500k-2M per BPC): 118M in minerals. 126M insurance payout. Smartbombs: 500k x 8. Total cost after gank: negative, up to 4M profit.


Risk vs. reward.... Rolling Eyes

Mik Nostrebor
Minmatar
Ex Coelis
Posted - 2010.01.11 05:56:00 - [5]
 

In any event, thanks for the replies :)

Lady Spank
Amarr
In Praise Of Shadows
Posted - 2010.01.11 07:59:00 - [6]
 

Originally by: Callista Sincera
Originally by: Clair Bear
Abaddon (500k-2M per BPC): 118M in minerals. 126M insurance payout. Smartbombs: 500k x 8. Total cost after gank: negative, up to 4M profit.


Risk vs. reward.... Rolling Eyes


... Doesn't always apply, grow up. Also there's the security loss for some people to risk. For the -10 brigade it can be considered a perk.

Maybe they need to introduce REAL risk, hook us all up so pod death = RL death, then we'd see some real risk vs reward, otherwise its all just a dumb game isn't it Rolling Eyes

Fritzman
Aliastra
Posted - 2010.01.11 08:27:00 - [7]
 

Edited by: Fritzman on 11/01/2010 08:28:19
Edited by: Fritzman on 11/01/2010 08:27:13
Originally by: Lady Spank
Originally by: Callista Sincera
Originally by: Clair Bear
Abaddon (500k-2M per BPC): 118M in minerals. 126M insurance payout. Smartbombs: 500k x 8. Total cost after gank: negative, up to 4M profit.


Risk vs. reward.... Rolling Eyes


... Doesn't always apply, grow up. Also there's the security loss for some people to risk. For the -10 brigade it can be considered a perk.

Maybe they need to introduce REAL risk, hook us all up so pod death = RL death, then we'd see some real risk vs reward, otherwise its all just a dumb game isn't it Rolling Eyes

Ofcourse it's a question of risk VS reward, and the risks are too low at the moment. You can make a lot of isk ganking in hi sec solo even with a t2 fitted, rigged BS now. I wouldn't mind having insurance completely removed for suiciding your ships, I'd still be out there throwing megathrons at Concord every day. This way you'd just have to pick the targets more carefully and weight whether your loss of 100m+ isk is actually worth the financial reward you could possibly get. Suicide ganking is the easiest way to make money in eve at the moment.

Vaerah Vahrokha
Minmatar
Vahrokh Consulting
Posted - 2010.01.11 08:43:00 - [8]
 

Can't remove insurance for suicide ganking. The priority to keep the economy going is to remove minerals out of the game, not to remove ISK (still done, but with less priority). Removing a reason to suicide *hundreds* of battleships removes also the mineral loss they produce (themselves but also their victims, i.e. a freighter plus its load alone is worth a lot of minerals).

Hence CCP will prefer keeping the minerals economy "artificially alive" to having it die because huge stashes of minerals enter the game with no exit.

Now, someone will wonder why not let the demand and offer settle that by themselves and the answer is given by the other MMOs (most of them): resources go down to about zero value. This in WoW or other games has small consequences, because these MMOs have an economy based on player bound drops (can't flood everyone if it's bound) and NPC imposed expenses. In EvE, NPC expenses are quite mild and *everything* rotates about player manufactured, not player bound items. EvE is all about its economy. Kill economy by making anything but missioning worthless (some will argue missioning is bad already at that) and EvE dies.

Lexa Hellfury
Immortal.
Posted - 2010.01.11 09:22:00 - [9]
 

Originally by: Clair Bear
Actual prices vary. When I was last cooking hundreds of battleships to gank with it looked like this:

Megathron (own BPO): 69M in minerals. 73.5M insurance payout. Guns: 360k each x 7, magstabs: 21k each x 4. Drones: 125k. Total cost after gank: roughly zero.
Abaddon (500k-2M per BPC): 118M in minerals. 126M insurance payout. Smartbombs: 500k x 8. Total cost after gank: negative, up to 4M profit.

Add to that drops from miners (my record is 200M in faction shield booster, ice harvesters and t2 salvage from one gank) and you can quickly see how it's not costly at all. In fact, if it wasn't for sec status, I could probably keep a 40M/hour or so income stream going from mining miners.


You forgot to factor in the cost of purchasing the insurance.

Toshiro GreyHawk
Posted - 2010.01.11 12:31:00 - [10]
 

Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha
Can't remove insurance for suicide ganking. The priority to keep the economy going is to remove minerals out of the game, not to remove ISK (still done, but with less priority). Removing a reason to suicide *hundreds* of battleships removes also the mineral loss they produce (themselves but also their victims, i.e. a freighter plus its load alone is worth a lot of minerals).

Hence CCP will prefer keeping the minerals economy "artificially alive" to having it die because huge stashes of minerals enter the game with no exit.

...





Eh ... I think you are over emphasizing the amount of suicide Ganking that goes on and it's importance to the game. Yes - there's a lot going on right now but normally there isn't. When you consider ship loses in RvB, FW, 0.0, Low Sec, and normal pirating - suicide ganking - isn't a dominant factor.

Thus - you can remove insurance for suicide ganking without undermining the game.

If you couldn't remove insurance pay outs for suicide ganking - then there really would be something wrong with the game if it was that dependent on one particular aspect of it's play mechanics.

Why does Concord Destroy your ship?

It does so to provide some type of punishment for a behavior the developers don't want getting out of hand.

If you pay insurance on ships destroyed - then there really isn't much of a penalty.

What you have right now - is rampant ganking because of this event. This demonstrates that the penalties for ganking in High Sec are not much of a dissuasion.

Now - removing the insurance pay out isn't going to stop suicide ganking - it would just make it a little more expensive - which might inhibit to some degree the rampant nature of the suicide ganking currently going on.


No one gives a damn about fairness in EVE - but play balance is another question. So is player retention ... or at least ... account retention.

If you have a situation where players can run amok - as they are now - slaughtering other classes of players then that is an unbalanced situation.

Also - CCP has heavily promoted the purchase of multiple accounts. While macroing is illegal - AFK play is not. If you have multiple accounts - and can't play AFK - to some degree - then you start losing the incentive to pay for those multiple accounts. Of course - there are different degrees of AFK play. Alt Tabbing is semi-AFK as you aren't monitoring your character full time but only checking on them every few minutes.

Mining - is the most productive use of multiple accounts. Thus, a concentrated effort aimed at miners - and which severely inhibits the ability of people to use those multiple accounts they've purchased - may lead them to begin canceling some of them.

Now ... we'll just have to see how all this pans out. A thousand dead Hulks isn't going to matter in the long run - however - if the players who develop a taste for this type of thing keep it up - it might cause a change.

CCP wants High Sec to be "safer" than low sec ... it's just a question of how much safer they want it. Rampant suicide ganking ... would seem to make the game less safe than it was. Jihad Swarm prompted some changes by CCP to mitigate what they were doing.

The thing is - Jihad Swarm was different in several ways.

1) It was a specific group of people doing it - so they could be war dec'd - and were. Thus the miners could use game mechanics to at least retaliate. With this event - there are a few groups that could be war dec'd but there are a lot of participants who aren't and thus can't be.

2) They kept it up for a several months. Which not only got CCP's attention - but allowed the miners the time to organize some type of collective response.


I have no idea what CCP will do, if anything, in response to this event. If things return to what had become normal after the event is over - possibly nothing. But it does show a vulnerability in their game mechanics.


Severice
Crushed Ambitions
Posted - 2010.01.11 13:08:00 - [11]
 

CCP made a mechanic, we're using it. The miners see it simply as "omg he killed my 185 million isk hulk (lol miners screwing over miners) and made money doing it in high sec! OMG!"

Sooner or later you have to get sec back, it's not like when people were using orcas to jet BC for -10 pilots to jump into and then suicide gank someone. Some people spent a good amount of time building a 5.0 for this event just to trash it killing miners. Suicide ganking isn't a "sustainable" practice. it's a burst practice. This event just causes it to be burst all at once and have an actual effect.

Forranz
Malice.
Tentative Nature
Posted - 2010.01.11 13:40:00 - [12]
 

Originally by: "Toshiro Greyhawk"

What you have right now - is rampant ganking because of this event. This demonstrates that the penalties for ganking in High Sec are not much of a dissuasion.



I beg to differ. I don't think it's safe to say its not a dissuasion, cost is factored into the loss (or in some cases, gain) from loot/salvage. The event goes to show the sheer amount of NPC mining botters there are out there that say "qq we hate pvp because we bot".

This event won't even cover the vast majority of the botters, only a small minority of them. Go to any system with ice in it and you'll find a macro or two (probably more).

Fixes that should come from this:
1. Make NPC Corp for trial accounts only (maybe new sub up to 1.6-2M SP limit?)
2. Make it so you can wardec an individual in a NPC corp. Since the current NPC corp treats each person like their own corp, per se, then let someone wardec them so others can capitalize on their botting and afkness.
3. Make mining much more interactive to make it so you can not afk it or bot it.

Cone Filler
Perkone
Posted - 2010.01.11 14:34:00 - [13]
 

Originally by: Callista Sincera
Originally by: Clair Bear
Abaddon (500k-2M per BPC): 118M in minerals. 126M insurance payout. Smartbombs: 500k x 8. Total cost after gank: negative, up to 4M profit.


Risk vs. reward.... Rolling Eyes


Rolling EyesRolling EyesRolling Eyes

Yes let us mine, haul and mission afk 'cause that isnt a scewed risk vs. reward at all Rolling Eyes

we are doing CCP a favour we are balancing risk vs. reward via game mechanics since they have failed to do this via code

Dreivus
Posted - 2010.01.11 15:18:00 - [14]
 

Hopefully one day CCP will introduce a no insurance payout if your ship is destroyed by concord policy. Suicide ganking in high security systems is indeed an exploit, which is proven by the fact that the police actually exist. If the game had been designed with total cutthroat style in mind, then there would only be 4 high security systems where noobies from the 4 respective factions begin the game, and outside of that, total wild west lawlessness.

I've been a miner, and when one needs to mine a few million units of Veldspar, one switches on ones mining modules and minimizes the game to watch something on Youtube, or goes and has a cup of tea, or a cigarette at the back door, because mining is incredibly boring.

It's a lot like parking your ship in a station after doing 4 or 5 missions in a row, so you can go and do one of the above activities and have a break.

Improve Concord's response time, CCP. Or introduce a no insurance money if you get killed by Concord policy.

ragewind
Caldari
Vale Heavy Industries
Molotov Coalition
Posted - 2010.01.11 16:33:00 - [15]
 

high sec combat is not an exploit ccp have said so before.
concord are a consiquence not a safty net.
if it were banned then ccp would have disabled high sec weapon activation except for war targets and npc's

the solution is quite clear cut improve the T2 barges give them the ability to tank properly
they need to be like the T2 trnsports these are easy to kill if you dont think about tank but if you do fit to live then you can not kill them with a single full T2 BS

exsumers currently have the HP of a soft tomato if they are given the ability to fit for tank and buffer then they can coses to fit and live also for the pilots out there id advice you train ECM drones would rather upset them if they cant lock you while they wait for concord to remove them

Winterjack
Posted - 2010.01.11 16:44:00 - [16]
 

Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha
Can't remove insurance for suicide ganking. The priority to keep the economy going is to remove minerals out of the game, not to remove ISK (still done, but with less priority). Removing a reason to suicide *hundreds* of battleships removes also the mineral loss they produce (themselves but also their victims, i.e. a freighter plus its load alone is worth a lot of minerals).


Considering more than half the minerals in eve come from missioning, apparently, you can obtain a much higher level of "economy balance" by reducing the missioning loot mineral rewards.

Now, someone will wonder why not let the demand and offer settle that by themselves and the answer is given by the other MMOs (most of them): resources go down to about zero value.
Quote:
Kill economy by making anything but missioning worthless (some will argue missioning is bad already at that) and EvE dies.


Yes, some will argue that you don't need to support suicide ganking as a game mechanic, especially if done with alts, you just need to make sure you make mining the real source of lo-sec minerals, instead of missioning.
Mining lo-sec will become more profitable, miners will be exposed to more risks, more mining ships will be lost, there will be more work for mercs hired to protect mining ops, there will be more real pvp (as opposed to ganking defenseless ships) and thus more wrecks and litter.
Malthus would be proud of me ;)

Thronde
Navy of Xoc
Wildly Inappropriate.
Posted - 2010.01.11 16:44:00 - [17]
 

Originally by: Dreivus
Hopefully one day CCP will introduce a no insurance payout if your ship is destroyed by concord policy. Suicide ganking in high security systems is indeed an exploit, which is proven by the fact that the police actually exist. If the game had been designed with total cutthroat style in mind, then there would only be 4 high security systems where noobies from the 4 respective factions begin the game, and outside of that, total wild west lawlessness.

I've been a miner, and when one needs to mine a few million units of Veldspar, one switches on ones mining modules and minimizes the game to watch something on Youtube, or goes and has a cup of tea, or a cigarette at the back door, because mining is incredibly boring.

It's a lot like parking your ship in a station after doing 4 or 5 missions in a row, so you can go and do one of the above activities and have a break.

Improve Concord's response time, CCP. Or introduce a no insurance money if you get killed by Concord policy.


Concord is not there a Police. They are not the Town Guards in WOW, they are the consequence for gankers ganking in Hisec. Not to protect and serve. You are obviously missing that point. EVE IS a cutthorat game, and Oveur has been repeatedly quoted throughout history as saying "EVE is primarily a PVP game". That means in efect aspect of it. Including you mining the same rock I could be potentially mining (if I was a miner).

So it time to make the choice to toughen up, or roll with the punches, or to pack up and leave town.

Lubomir Penev
Dark Nexxus
S I L E N T.
Posted - 2010.01.11 16:49:00 - [18]
 

Originally by: Callista Sincera
Originally by: Clair Bear
Abaddon (500k-2M per BPC): 118M in minerals. 126M insurance payout. Smartbombs: 500k x 8. Total cost after gank: negative, up to 4M profit.


Risk vs. reward.... Rolling Eyes


Funnily enough gankers have to thank stupid miners selling mineral below suicide costs, that would be better off building ships and self destructing them themselves.

The fact that insurance and falling mineral prices made the effective cost of T1 hull basically zero is a very good argument in favor of eliminating insurance completely.

Lubomir Penev
Dark Nexxus
S I L E N T.
Posted - 2010.01.11 16:54:00 - [19]
 

Edited by: Lubomir Penev on 11/01/2010 17:04:19
Originally by: Lexa Hellfury
Originally by: Clair Bear
Actual prices vary. When I was last cooking hundreds of battleships to gank with it looked like this:

Megathron (own BPO): 69M in minerals. 73.5M insurance payout. Guns: 360k each x 7, magstabs: 21k each x 4. Drones: 125k. Total cost after gank: roughly zero.
Abaddon (500k-2M per BPC): 118M in minerals. 126M insurance payout. Smartbombs: 500k x 8. Total cost after gank: negative, up to 4M profit.

Add to that drops from miners (my record is 200M in faction shield booster, ice harvesters and t2 salvage from one gank) and you can quickly see how it's not costly at all. In fact, if it wasn't for sec status, I could probably keep a 40M/hour or so income stream going from mining miners.


You forgot to factor in the cost of purchasing the insurance.


Nope the quoted number as payout is actually the realy payout minus the cost of purchasing. Platinum payout for a mega is 101M IIRC

Quote:

exsumers currently have the HP of a soft tomato if they are given the ability to fit for tank and buffer then they can coses to fit and live also for the pilots out there id advice you train ECM drones would rather upset them if they cant lock you while they wait for concord to remove them



Most of the dead hulks have really stupid fit. They could easily have 25k EHP before implants and that will easily fend of your regular 4 of 5 catalyst suicide squad.

[Hulk, 25k EHP and can still mine]
Internal Force Field Array I
Mining Laser Upgrade II

Small F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction
Small Azeotropic Ward Salubrity I
Invulnerability Field II
Invulnerability Field II

Modulated Strip Miner II, Veldspar Mining Crystal II
Modulated Strip Miner II, Veldspar Mining Crystal II
Modulated Strip Miner II, Veldspar Mining Crystal II

Medium Core Defence Field Extender I
Medium Core Defence Field Extender I


ragewind
Caldari
Vale Heavy Industries
Molotov Coalition
Posted - 2010.01.11 16:55:00 - [20]
 

Originally by: Forranz
Originally by: "Toshiro Greyhawk"


Fixes that should come from this:
1. Make NPC Corp for trial accounts only (maybe new sub up to 1.6-2M SP limit?)
2. Make it so you can wardec an individual in a NPC corp. Since the current NPC corp treats each person like their own corp, per se, then let someone wardec them so others can capitalize on their botting and afkness.
3. Make mining much more interactive to make it so you can not afk it or bot it.



1) npc corps have many uses first of you need some were for plyers not in playermayed corps to go
- you dont really say whats to replace this but if its an indevidual 1 man corp then lol hope you like a price hike the amoun t of accounts in eve is in the hundreds of thousends so you would creat boat loads more database entrys and require even more resorces to run the game and that costs.

npc corps provide corp chat yes a lot of it is compleet bull but noobs do get some help and advice from them 1-2 sp limit wil kill that.

npc corps tax and remove isk from eve as a counter to isk generated by rats ect this actually help the ecconermy stoping it running away like mad.

2) you say add war decking of indeviduals in npc corps this dosnt add anything just means for a few mill you can war deck an afker and then gank him for no sec loss or for miners make them dock up for a week were is the profet un not being abile to mine

3) how you suck a rock dry with a lazer what can change with thatRolling Eyes as for macroing ect report the fools thats ccp's job

only thing needs fixing is giving exumers the ability to fit to live like transports you can max cargo expand and rig for max space but look at the penaltys loss of hp but on the other hand fit for hp and you cant be ganked

Rosesca
Posted - 2010.01.11 18:20:00 - [21]
 

I'm getting a little tired of this. LOL EVERYONE IS BOTTING!!! I know a few miners, and none of us sit there staring at the screen while the mining laser cycles. I minimize it, read a book, play PSP, read email...tab back in every few minutes to check on things. We're not botting, we're just not sitting there going oh man...better watch my laser cycle.

De'Veldrin
Minmatar
Norse'Storm Battle Group
Intrepid Crossing
Posted - 2010.01.11 19:44:00 - [22]
 

Let's be perfectly clear about 2 things

1. Not all pirates are griefers.
2. Not all miners are botters.

The problem is ones that are get so much bad press and attention that everyone automatically assumes they all are.

Adolf Hood
Posted - 2010.01.11 23:03:00 - [23]
 

If you can't afford to lose it then you can't afford to fly it. A covetor doesn't mine that much more slowly than a hulk and it can pay for itself in a couple of hours. It can also handle high sec rats with ease. You could always fit your hulk for pvp but that just makes a covetor look even better. If it's worth the risk to use a hulk to make a couple mil more per hour then by all means stick with your hulk. Some people might argue that they "deserve" to be able to mine in their hulk. No one is stopping you. Just don't complain when you lose it. On second thought...please do complain. It just encourages the people like the one who killed you to keep doing it.

I mine semi afk. Sometimes I chat. Sometimes I browse the net. Sometimes I read. Sometimes I watch movies. Whatever I'm doing I just make sure that I can regularly glance up at my overview. I haven't lost a ship mining in high sec yet. I have been passed over by suicide gank squads because I was in a covetor. I wouldn't cry if I lost it because insurance would pretty much pay for it, anyway.

Suicide ganking is a big boon to the economy. T1 ships are selling like crazy. Mineral prices have been driven up. Even certain t1 fittings are selling for twice as much as they normally sell for. The people doing it can't do it forever due to sec status. I think that the system is working perfectly. There is risk. People will argue that after insurance these guys are making money. After fittings and buying the insurance in the first place it's not free. The only thing that makes it profitable is the chance that something expensive could drop. Aside from that, the lulz are enough for most people.

Just because you can fly a ship doesn't mean that you should. Just because you get a really expensive item doesn't mean that it's yours forever. Suicide ganking isn't nearly the problem that some people are making it out to be. At first I thought that the no insurance payouts for Concordukens was a good idea but then I started looking at the arguments and thinking about the unintended consequences. It would just take the game one step closer to all of the other dumbed down mmos on the market.

Discrodia
Gallente
Symbiosis International
Moose Alliance
Posted - 2010.01.11 23:56:00 - [24]
 

Hell, I have 3-5 corpmates whose only activity in this game is suiciding BS's in Jita. And they have billions upon billions of ISK. I'm pretty sure that's not a balanced game mechanic.

Leocadminone
Posted - 2010.01.12 00:39:00 - [25]
 

Most of the suicide DD loadouts I've seen were total cost (at JITA pricing) of close to 1 million, usually less. Net insurance payout on a Cormorant is 589k I suspect the other DDs are close to that figure.

Insurance payout on battleships varies widely, Rokh is the highest Caldari at 115.5 million (very close to Jita pricing, then put a couple mill into guns/ammo/weapon upgrades and you end up getting well over 90% back on a suicide fit).

This does NOT factor in the possibility of being able to recover some of your gear from your wreck, possibly being able to recover equipment from the wreck of a dead target, or salvage on those wrecks. Can't COUNT on those unless you have an alt right there to guarentee you get to them first, AND there is nobody else close enough to beat you to them.

If you build the things yourself or get them at raw material cost, you can probably make a PROFIT on blowing up a typical Suicide ship (minerals are NOT free, you lose the price you would have sold them for had you not made something with them).

Leocadminone
Posted - 2010.01.12 00:54:00 - [26]
 

Edited by: Leocadminone on 12/01/2010 02:36:58
Edited by: Leocadminone on 12/01/2010 02:19:40
Edited by: Leocadminone on 12/01/2010 00:55:51
> A covetor doesn't mine that much more slowly than a hulk

Actually, given that a Coveter is even more fitting limited than a Hulk (which is a major PITA to experienced Hulk pilots), it DOES end up mining quite a bit less than a Hulk when you have max or near-max mining skills.

It's ONLY saving grace is being a lot cheaper (especially after factoring in the JOKE insurance payout on T2 ships in general and Hulks in specific).

(first edit)

> Most of the dead hulks have really stupid fit.

Not really, they're fit for "handle rats and max mining". Most of them are probably macro-miner boats intended to be as cheap as possible while returning max throughput - and there are a LOT of folks in any game that don't bother reading forums for the game, they'd rather get their info from friends that they TRUST to give them the straight scoop - and therefore might not have heard about Hulkageddon yet.

I personally never heard about the original one - but was quite busy mining in Empire space at the time somewhere. Just wasn't anywhere near Jita as all of those systems are too crowded and run out of rocks too fast for me and the roomies (my corp consists of me, my alts, and 6 of my 7 roomates).

(looks at the suggested hulk fitting) hmmm, no DC II. Dunno if that would work better or not, have to play with EFT some more.


(edit) hmm, nope, DCII is better but that Internal FF array is lower skill requirement and mighty close. Think I'd stick with a F85 if cost AND skills is an issue though.

Roxy Miner
Posted - 2010.01.12 01:10:00 - [27]
 

Originally by: Dreivus

Improve Concord's response time, CCP. Or introduce a no insurance money if you get killed by Concord policy.


All I am seeing here from the miners is "cry cry cry, I got killed in high sec, my Hulk/Retriever was destroyed".

We don't expect you to agree with the Hulkageddon purpose, infact we are counting on you not agreeing with it.

I see viability in sui ganking year round realistically. This character is an alt which takes 2 days to train to Sui Ganking, I might have to buy ships, weapons, and ammo, but my industrial main takes care of that and insurance helps soften the blow.

Yes, Yes. I am an industrial main. So why the Sui Ganking?
It's fun, it's in the spirit of the game's purpose (realistic space warfare), and I am sick of lowering prices because the ore market is flooded and more so sick of macro miners forcing the cost of minerals down.

Zethro
Posted - 2010.01.12 01:12:00 - [28]
 

To all you carebears out there who hate this hulkaggedon thing why dont you guys raise the price of the ore and mats if the ore goes up enough it will cost to much to to build there ships dont you get it think about if it cost 10 mill to buy a distoryer and it only pays out 1.5 mill do you think there would be all this ganking RAISE THE PRICE GUYS IF YOU WANT THEM TO STOP KILLING YOU RAISE THE PRICE

Toshiro GreyHawk
Posted - 2010.01.12 13:16:00 - [29]
 

Edited by: Toshiro GreyHawk on 12/01/2010 13:31:08
Originally by: Forranz
Originally by: "Toshiro Greyhawk"

What you have right now - is rampant ganking because of this event. This demonstrates that the penalties for ganking in High Sec are not much of a dissuasion.



I beg to differ. I don't think it's safe to say its not a dissuasion, cost is factored into the loss (or in some cases, gain) from loot/salvage.

...


Fixes that should come from this:
1. Make NPC Corp for trial accounts only (maybe new sub up to 1.6-2M SP limit?)
2. Make it so you can wardec an individual in a NPC corp. Since the current NPC corp treats each person like their own corp, per se, then let someone wardec them so others can capitalize on their botting and afkness.
3. Make mining much more interactive to make it so you can not afk it or bot it.




Sorry man but a thousand dead hulks in a few days is rampant ganking, undissuaded by anything in place now.

None of your suggestions would work but I don't see any point in arguing about it. It doesn't matter what you or I think - just what - if anything, CCP does.

I will point out however, since greater interaction in the mining process has been discussed else where - that if CCP does make an effort to make AFK mining more difficult - then they are going to lose a bunch of accounts since that is what those accounts do. If they want to sacrifice that money ... it's their call ... but that is what's going to happen if they do that. People created those accounts with AFK mining in mind - and if they can't do it - why would they keep paying for accounts that have become OBE?

And ... as I said ... while botting is illegal - AFK play is not. As long as you are manually controlling all your characters, even if you turn on the Mining Lasers and leave them working some big rock on their own - you are not botting.

Playing AFK is just as legal as ganking people who are AFK. Chancing a gank is just part of the risk.


Someone made a point about ganking being a burst effect as the gankers have to get their sec status up, which is accurate but what we have here is people making alts to do it.

One thing those people should be aware of - it is my understanding - that deleting a character simply because their security status is low is considered an offense CCP will take action against.

Commenting further on that subject might get into discussing aspects of exploits game companies tend to frown on so I'll just let it go at that ....

*shrug*


One last comment here ...

As is typical, in crime or medicine ... people always blame the victim. It's always - "Oh ... well he died because he didn't do this or that ..." or "He got robbed because he didn't do this or that" or "He got ganked because he didn't do this or that" when the truth is - he died, got robbed or ganked because - he died, got robbed or ganked.

People always do that.

It's like "Fighter Pilots Denial" - "He died because he did something wrong but that won't happen to me because I'm smarter/tougher/quicker/..."

The variation being "if I'd been all those guys getting ganked it wouldn't have happened to me because I'd have done xyz ..." which is all horse ****. It's always funny to listen to people who don't do something trying to tell the people that do it how they should be playing - and use the fact that these people aren't doing things their way as justification for ganking them.

What's really stupid about that - is that there is no justification required for ganking them.

The thing is, people develop their game play styles based on what works. The people getting ganked right now have been playing the same way for a good long period of time and it has worked for them - or they would have changed their play style earlier. If this type of thing continues ... then maybe they'll change their ways and start carrying more of a tank - which may or may not do them any good depending on the circumstances of their gank.

*shrug*

Oh well ... we'll see what happens ..


Lubomir Penev
Dark Nexxus
S I L E N T.
Posted - 2010.01.12 13:22:00 - [30]
 

Originally by: Leocadminone

(looks at the suggested hulk fitting) hmmm, no DC II. Dunno if that would work better or not, have to play with EFT some more.


(edit) hmm, nope, DCII is better but that Internal FF array is lower skill requirement and mighty close. Think I'd stick with a F85 if cost AND skills is an issue though.



If you talk about the setup I posted it's because I posted an implantless fit in which the DC II won't fit (0.12 CPY free with the IFF). If you start using implants or use an expensive mining upgrade instead of the cheap mining upgrade II you can have more EHP. I tried to be cost effective and an expensive Internal Force Field Array is not out of place on such an expensive hull.


Pages: [1] 2

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