open All Channels
seplocked EVE General Discussion
blankseplocked Suicide Ganking And Insurance Payouts Fix It CCP ASAP
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5

Author Topic

Cambarus
Malicious Destruction
War Against the Manifest
Posted - 2010.02.11 23:37:00 - [91]
 

I agree 100% with the OP, no real life insurance company would pay you because your car got shot up by the police when you were going out killing people.

But then, in real life the police can be evaded, and they don't magically know who's committed what crimes. Remove insta-concord deaths!! They're not realistic!!!!!!!


Seriously though, it's ridiculously easy to avoid suicide gankers if you're willing to put the effort into it, but people aren't willing to put in effort into hauling, are they? They'll take the shortest highsec route to wherever they want to go, they'll autopilot down there, they'll fit tens/hundreds of millions of isk worth of stuff into an 800k hauler, and then when they die, because they refused to take any precautions, they blame it on the horribly broken insurance mechanics.

Want to put an end to suicide ganking? Here's how:

Fly covops haulers. Seriously, you're practically invincible in highsec.
Avoid common ganking systems. IIRC there is a total of ONE 0.5 system between amarr and jita. Guess where's a bad place to be if you're looking to avoid gankers?
DON'T CARRY MORE THAN 10 TIMES THE VALUE OF A SHIP IN IT'S CARGOHOLD!Jesus that one bothers me. People whine about gankers killing people with "only" 20mil of cargo on their ship, but if you're in a <1mil hauler, you're literally carrying more than 20 times the value of your ship in it's cargo bay, that's the haulers fault, not the gankers.
Bringing a scout is also a good way to avoid gankers, they work in teams, so why can't you?

Also, if you're going to mine in an uninsurable, 120+million isk exhumer, don't do it in an easily accessed belt. Probe a hidden belt, or get a friend to churn out level 4s until he gets enemies abound or rogue slave trader (which spawn 1,200,000 and 800,000 omber respectively, and they respawn every day, and can be farmed for a whole week).


Le Skunk
Low Sec Liberators
Chubby Chuppers Chubba Chups
Posted - 2010.02.11 23:53:00 - [92]
 

Ok so we are all agreed then.

1) No inurance for deaths to concord caused by suicide ganking ITS REALISTIC INNIT

2) A chance based concord "detection" roll for each suicide. 70% chance of getting away with each suicide without concord showing up ITS REALISTIC INNIT

Get to it cpp - code these changes

SKUNK

Birdman Ravo
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2010.02.12 00:53:00 - [93]
 

Edited by: Birdman Ravo on 12/02/2010 00:54:01
Originally by: Le Skunk
Ok so we are all agreed then.

1) No inurance for deaths to concord caused by suicide ganking ITS REALISTIC INNIT

2) A chance based concord "detection" roll for each suicide. 70% chance of getting away with each suicide without concord showing up ITS REALISTIC INNIT

Get to it cpp - code these changes

SKUNK

I stopped reading after page two. I disagree with a chance based system because of how much of a deterrent a random uncertainty can be. I think the point isn't to end suicide ganking, but to end it as a zero-loss-lulz act against hi sec targets of opportunity. We don't want to end hulkageddon, we want the rookie in a shiny new frigate to not emoragequit thanks to a suigank.

Ba'Rumph
The Really Awesome Players
Posted - 2010.02.12 05:37:00 - [94]
 

Originally by: Birdman Ravo

I stopped reading after page two. I disagree with a chance based system because of how much of a deterrent a random uncertainty can be. I think the point isn't to end suicide ganking, but to end it as a zero-loss-lulz act against hi sec targets of opportunity. We don't want to end hulkageddon, we want the rookie in a shiny new frigate to not emoragequit thanks to a suigank.


Then find a way to make miners sell their minerals at a higher price.

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2010.02.12 06:26:00 - [95]
 

Originally by: Catherine Frasier
Originally by: Malcanis
If we remove the one in the name of "realism", why should we not remove the other - especially since the other is the cause of the one?
For one thing because game balance trumps "realism". Concord behaviour is in place for very specific reasons as a response and a fix to real problems. There is no similar balance argument to support suicide insurance payouts.



Yes, actually there is. It's just that you dont like it so you keep ignoring it.

Brechan Skene
Posted - 2010.02.12 10:50:00 - [96]
 

Edited by: Brechan Skene on 12/02/2010 11:15:58
I thought I would add these to the discussion, enjoy.

A Concord meeting. Video 1
Concord after the meeting. Video 2
Concord considering Pod Pilots Opinions. Video 3

Brechan

Haulerboi
Posted - 2010.02.12 14:55:00 - [97]
 

Edited by: Haulerboi on 12/02/2010 15:10:54
Edited by: Haulerboi on 12/02/2010 15:09:28

The cost of insurance could have an index that makes it more expensive the more times you are killed by concord over a period, something like:

Concord Index * Times Concorded / Month

The concord index could be something adjusted by CCP depending on changing conditions of the game to keep the "balance" of suicide ganking cost. There could be also a few "grace kills" in case a noob fat fingers a gun instead of tractor beam like I did Laughing

Jacob Holland
Gallente
Weyland-Vulcan Industries
Posted - 2010.02.12 16:06:00 - [98]
 

Originally by: randomname4me
Regardless of your losses why should someones method of game play be removed from the game?

I'm not certain anyone is suggesting removing Suicide Ganking entirely, they're not even talking about making it non-profitable... Just less profitable.
If one has to make 80mil to cover one's Tempest and fittings then one has to choose ones targets more carefully.

Suicide Ganking is not going anywhere - after all, the recent CONCORD change actually made suicide ganking more economic. Because regardless of the tank you fit the damage is still a heal 0 there is now no point in fitting tank. whereas before the change it made sense to load up on plates and shield extenders to give you those few extra seconds worth of shooting it is now feasible to load up entirely on Heatsinks, Tracking enhancers, Painters...etc.
Not only are these modules cheaper than the old 1600mm plates and LSEs they mean fewer ships need to be risked because all those there can be fitted for full gank.

Le Skunk
Low Sec Liberators
Chubby Chuppers Chubba Chups
Posted - 2010.02.12 16:48:00 - [99]
 

Edited by: Le Skunk on 12/02/2010 16:48:04
Originally by: Jacob Holland
after all, the recent CONCORD change actually made suicide ganking more economic. Because regardless of the tank you fit the damage is still a heal 0 there is now no point in fitting tank. whereas before the change it made sense to load up on plates and shield extenders to give you those few extra seconds worth of shooting it is now feasible to load up entirely on Heatsinks, Tracking enhancers, Painters...etc.
Not only are these modules cheaper than the old 1600mm plates and LSEs they mean fewer ships need to be risked because all those there can be fitted for full gank.


You dont know what your talking about do you

SKUNK

Ba'Rumph
The Really Awesome Players
Posted - 2010.02.12 17:34:00 - [100]
 

Originally by: Le Skunk
Edited by: Le Skunk on 12/02/2010 16:48:04
Originally by: Jacob Holland
after all, the recent CONCORD change actually made suicide ganking more economic. Because regardless of the tank you fit the damage is still a heal 0 there is now no point in fitting tank. whereas before the change it made sense to load up on plates and shield extenders to give you those few extra seconds worth of shooting it is now feasible to load up entirely on Heatsinks, Tracking enhancers, Painters...etc.
Not only are these modules cheaper than the old 1600mm plates and LSEs they mean fewer ships need to be risked because all those there can be fitted for full gank.


You dont know what your talking about do you

SKUNK


This. Shocked

Dek Kato
Amarr
Delusions of Mediocrity
Posted - 2010.02.12 20:48:00 - [101]
 

Edited by: Dek Kato on 12/02/2010 20:49:32
NEW RULE: Every time I see one of these threads about suicide ganking, I go out that night and suicide gank someone. Just for the OP. (After insurance, and if I get a friend to loot them as soon as they pop, I make money at it Twisted Evil)

Nanobotter Mk2
Posted - 2010.02.13 00:40:00 - [102]
 

Edited by: Nanobotter Mk2 on 13/02/2010 00:41:17
Originally by: Ba'Rumph
Originally by: Qui Shon

They're far from rare. Quite the opposite in fact.


I take it you have statistical data to back this up?

Originally by: Qui Shon

Losing a ship should *always* cost you isk. If you disagree, you're a carebear.


You seem to think the word "carebear" means something it doesn't.



You can always tell when someone knows they are wrong and defending something they abuse once the arguement they present travels down the road of obscure completely irrelvant topics to try to rationalize something. Let's clear the air here, the frequency of suicide ganking matters not. No different than a bug that gave a player 999999999 billion only occured 1 per every hundred thousand players would not make said bug irrelvant.

Fact is the premise of eve online and the justification given by suicide gankers is always eve is a dark scary place with heavy risk reward, but somehow the suicide gankers are exempt from this rule, they use alts with cheap throwaway insured ships to potentially reap massive rewards at other players heavy looses.

THAT is what is wrong with suicide ganking. Time for the suiciders to play the same game the rest of us do having to have some risk ( though the insurance loss really is not enough risk something like suicide ganking in empire should be not a little risky BUT VERY risky.

I personally beleive you should require having a signfcant amount of SP before you character is elligible to attack another player in empire space. to help deal with alts, and I also think concord should pod people as well, or that scanning in high sec gets you concorded or some combo to truly put some real risk on players who chose to be criminals which I am all in favor of. I mean I love the idea I could be a criminal, but I hate the fact people get to part time criminal with no risk.

Hell I really want sec status to be for the entire account actually alts removed EVE has no real reason to use alts NONE beyond abusing them to avoid ingame consequences you are supposed to receive. allowing more than 1 character per account was a MASSIVE error that the developers should have the balls to fix imho.

Ba'Rumph
The Really Awesome Players
Posted - 2010.02.13 00:46:00 - [103]
 

Edited by: Ba''Rumph on 13/02/2010 00:47:20
Originally by: Nanobotter Mk2

You can always tell when someone knows they are wrong and defending something they abuse once the arguement they present travels down the road of obscure completely irrelvant topics to try to rationalize something.


And, you can always tell when someone doesn't have a valid argument because he starts labeling the people who disagree with him.

Originally by: Nanobotter Mk2

Let's clear the air here, the frequency of suicide ganking matters not. No different than a bug that gave a player 999999999 billion only occured 1 per every hundred thousand players would not make said bug irrelvant.


Suicide ganking isn't a bug. It's intentional, i.e, a feature.

Originally by: Nanobotter Mk2

Fact is the premise of eve online and the justification given by suicide gankers is always eve is a dark scary place with heavy risk reward, but somehow the suicide gankers are exempt from this rule, they use alts with cheap throwaway insured ships to potentially reap massive rewards at other players heavy looses.


They might use alts, but those alts need training and can't be discarded afterwards. They use ships that are cheap because minerals are cheap. There are other drawbacks for a suicide ganker besides isk-loss.

Originally by: Nanobotter Mk2

THAT is what is wrong with suicide ganking. Time for the suiciders to play the same game the rest of us do having to have some risk ( though the insurance loss really is not enough risk something like suicide ganking in empire should be not a little risky BUT VERY risky.


They do play the same game as the rest of us. They do have risk. The problem lies with low mineral prices and the fact that most gankees don't exercise their killrights, which is part of the risk for the ganker.

Originally by: Nanobotter Mk2

I personally beleive you should require having a signfcant amount of SP before you character is elligible to attack another player in empire space. to help deal with alts, and I also think concord should pod people as well, or that scanning in high sec gets you concorded or some combo to truly put some real risk on players who chose to be criminals which I am all in favor of.


lolwut?

Originally by: Nanobotter Mk2

Hell I really want sec status to be for the entire account actually alts removed EVE has no real reason to use alts NONE beyond abusing them to avoid ingame consequences you are supposed to receive. allowing more than 1 character per account was a MASSIVE error that the developers should have the balls to fix imho.


Sec status over the entire account would mean jack. I don't think anyone uses characters on the same account as their main for ganking. Ganking requires training for the alt, so a second account is more or less required unless you do it on your main.

Thanks for sharing the fact that you don't have any idea what you're talking about, though.

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2010.02.13 00:53:00 - [104]
 

Originally by: Nanobotter Mk2
Fact is the premise of eve online and the justification given by suicide gankers is always eve is a dark scary place with heavy risk reward, but somehow the suicide gankers are exempt from this rule
…because the victims void the risk by consistently refusing to take revenge on their attackers.
Quote:
THAT is what is wrong with suicide ganking.
Yes, people not making use of the various means to get back is a serious problem, as is the lack of options in that area. Want to put some risk into ganking? Badger CCP to give us more options to get even: improved wardecs, tradable killrights, a completely revamped bounty system.

Qolde
Minmatar
the united
Negative Ten.
Posted - 2010.02.13 01:03:00 - [105]
 

If they remove insurance, it would be hilarious to see how low mineral prices would fall below the current artificial floor. This would promote even more suicide ganking when you can get a battlecruiser for 10m, and a full fittings for <2m. How long would it take to replace a hulk with that kind of income? Oh please do remove insurance, I dare you.

One thing that would help the entire situation is if missions did not drop any T1 meta 0 loot. This supplies a huge amount of minerals and should be removed. That would increase the value of minerals alone, and would make suicide ganking have a baseline cost of >0.

The only reason suicide ganking is risk free is because mining is so abused at the moment as a source of income, the market is obviously flooded, and the population is reacting to this in a subconscious attempt to correct the situation. If you remove insurance, mineral prices would simply drop. It's a temporary band-aid that will fail in the long run.

I do agree that insurance should be a sliding scale in correlation with market value at the time of insurance purchase. This would solve a lot of the same problems. Perhaps a platinum payout of 100% of market average across all empire regions.

I also think that it should be impossible to biomass a character who has killrights on him, or even a character who has a -2 or lower sec status. This would solve the whole evasion effort in place by weaklings who dont want to face the consequences of their actions. I suicide gank on my main, and I fly a moderately expensive battleship during missions. Come and get me.

stoicfaux
Gallente
Posted - 2010.02.13 01:44:00 - [106]
 

Random idea:

How about being able to hire 'protection'? Carebear Protection Services Inc. will sell 'buffs' along your route. As you arrive at each gate, a NPC Concord-ish ship will remotely buff your shield capacity, or remotely repair you if you're attacked, impart a speed buff, default to 7.5km instead of 15km when auto-piloting, etc..

Gankers can still gank, Carebears can make it more difficult to be ganked, more isk sinks, etc...

*shrug*

Ba'Rumph
The Really Awesome Players
Posted - 2010.02.13 01:51:00 - [107]
 

Originally by: stoicfaux
Random idea:

How about being able to hire 'protection'? Carebear Protection Services Inc. will sell 'buffs' along your route. As you arrive at each gate, a NPC Concord-ish ship will remotely buff your shield capacity, or remotely repair you if you're attacked, impart a speed buff, default to 7.5km instead of 15km when auto-piloting, etc..

Gankers can still gank, Carebears can make it more difficult to be ganked, more isk sinks, etc...

*shrug*



Apart from the auto pilot thing, you can get players to do that for you. AFK play shouldn't be rewarded anyway.

Anna Lifera
6....
HAWK Alliance
Posted - 2010.02.13 16:41:00 - [108]
 

Originally by: Nanobotter Mk2
You can always tell when someone knows they are wrong and defending something they abuse once the arguement they present travels down the road of obscure completely irrelvant topics to try to rationalize something. Let's clear the air here, the frequency of suicide ganking matters not. No different than a bug that gave a player 999999999 billion only occured 1 per every hundred thousand players would not make said bug irrelvant.

Fact is the premise of eve online and the justification given by suicide gankers is always eve is a dark scary place with heavy risk reward, but somehow the suicide gankers are exempt from this rule, they use alts with cheap throwaway insured ships to potentially reap massive rewards at other players heavy looses.

THAT is what is wrong with suicide ganking. Time for the suiciders to play the same game the rest of us do having to have some risk ( though the insurance loss really is not enough risk something like suicide ganking in empire should be not a little risky BUT VERY risky.

I personally beleive you should require having a signfcant amount of SP before you character is elligible to attack another player in empire space. to help deal with alts, and I also think concord should pod people as well, or that scanning in high sec gets you concorded or some combo to truly put some real risk on players who chose to be criminals which I am all in favor of. I mean I love the idea I could be a criminal, but I hate the fact people get to part time criminal with no risk.

Hell I really want sec status to be for the entire account actually alts removed EVE has no real reason to use alts NONE beyond abusing them to avoid ingame consequences you are supposed to receive. allowing more than 1 character per account was a MASSIVE error that the developers should have the balls to fix imho.


1. if the victim's losses were heavy, then it's his fault he didn't use cloaking transport ships or freighters and the ganker gets his reward for being there and being prepared to capitalize on the victim's mistake.
2. please describe the rules of this "same game" u're playing and how u think this game "should" be played. 'cause last time i checked, there's only one game here and it's eve. and what's more risky than a guaranteed death and a guaranteed sec loss? in case u can't figure it out, that makes it 100% risk.
3. high sp requirement to attack someone in empire? so a newb who's looking for a war or factional warfare has to be at least x months or even x years old before pvping?
4. scanning provoking concord? wtf? so i'm guessing u want this action alone to penalize sec status? because in order to provoke concord, the action has to be considered a crime, which means u take a sec loss for it. what if he was actually pvping? u want every single button click of "scan" to penalize his sec status? sounds like u just want pvp to be removed completely.
5. as mentioned before, removing alts and sec status applying to an entire account won't do anything because ppl don't train every single char on the same exact account. and some ppl do use alts for non-pvp purposes, like 2-box mining with an orca... unless that's griefing to u also, since he's technically competing against u to sell his minerals. Laughing

Wet Ferret
Posted - 2010.02.13 17:59:00 - [109]
 

Edited by: Wet Ferret on 13/02/2010 18:13:50
Originally by: stoicfaux
Random idea:

How about being able to hire 'protection'? Carebear Protection Services Inc. will sell 'buffs' along your route. As you arrive at each gate, a NPC Concord-ish ship will remotely buff your shield capacity, or remotely repair you if you're attacked, impart a speed buff, default to 7.5km instead of 15km when auto-piloting, etc..

Gankers can still gank, Carebears can make it more difficult to be ganked, more isk sinks, etc...

*shrug*



We're not trying to make suicide ganking more difficult (or are we?), but I do like the idea of more ISK sinks. If you like that idea you should be all for removal of gank-surance since, while technically not an isk sink, it would be one less ISK faucet.

Quote:
1. if the victim's losses were heavy, then it's his fault he didn't use cloaking transport ships or freighters and the ganker gets his reward for being there and being prepared to capitalize on the victim's mistake.


What difference does it make if the victim's losses were heavy or not? I think the point is that, almost without exception, they are always greater than the attacker's.

Anna Lifera
6....
HAWK Alliance
Posted - 2010.02.13 18:59:00 - [110]
 

Originally by: Wet Ferret

We're not trying to make suicide ganking more difficult (or are we?), but I do like the idea of more ISK sinks. If you like that idea you should be all for removal of gank-surance since, while technically not an isk sink, it would be one less ISK faucet.


more isk sinks = more time spent isk grinding = less time spent pvping. the only ppl who like this idea r ppl that don't like any pvp at all, like u.

Originally by: Wet Ferret

What difference does it make if the victim's losses were heavy or not? I think the point is that, without exception, they are always greater than the attacker's.


why shouldn't it be greater? that's the whole point. would u gank someone, knowing u'll lose more than he will? and u're only counting isk losses. there's also something called sec status. believe it or not, it counts too.

Cipher Jones
Minmatar
Posted - 2010.02.13 19:47:00 - [111]
 

ALL CAPS BECAUSE PEOPLE DO NOT LISTEN YOU CAN SUICIDE GANK IN SEVERAL FRIGATES WITH SMART BOMBS SO CHANGING THE IN GAME INSURANCE POLICY WILL NOT STOP IT.

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2010.02.13 21:39:00 - [112]
 

I'm fairly sure that although you can try to suicide gank with smartbomb frigates, no one in fact does. At least, not successfully.

I dont suppose you could provide any evidence...?

Zions Child
Caldari
The Resident Haunting
Posted - 2010.02.13 22:00:00 - [113]
 

Honestly, with warp to 0, the only excuse for getting ganked is being afk, which is not a worthwhile excuse. Honestly, click "warp to zero" and then "jump."

Is it possible to be popped while you are aligning for warp? Of course it is, but warp to 0 takes out half the risk. And when you pop out on the other side of the gate, you are cloaked, so you can see if there are gankers waiting for you.

Just wait until someone else comes through and isn't paying attention and they get ganked and warp then. Or change the name of your ship to the gate when you see gankers, and they are less likely to click on your name.

Honestly, compared to the days when you had to buy insta BM's, and even then they only worked half the time, you got it easy. CCP has heard about this a hundred times, and if they felt it was unbalanced, they'd have changed it by now.

Kerfira
Kerfira Corp
Posted - 2010.02.13 22:08:00 - [114]
 

Originally by: Malcanis
I'm fairly sure that although you can try to suicide gank with smartbomb frigates, no one in fact does. At least, not successfully.

I dont suppose you could provide any evidence...?

I'm fairly certain that if you used enough smartbombing frigates, it should be possible to suicide a shuttle Laughing

Birdman Ravo
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2010.02.14 04:50:00 - [115]
 

Originally by: Ba'Rumph
Then find a way to make miners sell their minerals at a higher price.

Hulkageddon! Now every Friday. YARRRR!!

In all honesty, I think this goes a little deeper than just mineral sales. I think it more relates to the value of isk. If every miner out there undercuts one another it drops the price of EVERYTHING BUILT, making isk worth more and keeping a general balance.

While the value of isk varies, the bounties Concord places on rats does not, nor does mission rewards. A mission runner can make 50 million isk a day, if trit is 1.3, 3, or 30 isk each. So while the economic engine turns as it should, we have players with fixed income rates becoming quite rich thanks to the plummeting cost of minerals, ships, and modules.

I'm not sure where I'm going with this as to how it relates to suicide ganking for lulz. Suffice to say that players have so much money to burn because of how the fixed PVE income contrasts to the variable economy that we don't hold any value to the ships we lose. If PVE income were tied to the cost of minerals, this would be different.

Anyway I'm rambling...

Degara Farat
Caldari
Posted - 2010.02.14 09:07:00 - [116]
 

No reason to remove insurance. The real pvp-ers need it to recover some from their losses.

Just add something to insurance. A simple clause in the insurance that there will be no payout if Concord was involved while loosing your ship.

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2010.02.14 09:57:00 - [117]
 

Originally by: Degara Farat
No reason to remove insurance. The real pvp-ers need it to recover some from their losses.

Just add something to insurance. A simple clause in the insurance that there will be no payout if Concord was involved while loosing your ship.


Or better yet, mosey over to the Assembly Hall and support my Insurance Reform proposal which would make sure that it always costs something to lose a ship.

Chesterr theMolester
Posted - 2010.02.14 10:01:00 - [118]
 

I agree with OP .
To the OP don't listen to these morons they are afraid of new things.

Laechyd Eldgorn
Caldari
draketrain
Posted - 2010.02.14 11:34:00 - [119]
 

all ship insurances should be removed. it's not only those cheap t1 gank bc's which need this.

Doctor Mabuse
Posted - 2010.02.14 11:49:00 - [120]
 

Why overcomplicate things?

implement this; any kills made in hi-sec by non war-targets do not drop any loot.

Suicide ganks still provide:

1. A means to interdict hi-sec logistics for corps/alliances involved in 0.0 wars
2. An element of risk for suicide ganker as this act should no longer be profitable
3. Not make suicide ganking ridiculously expensive as ship insurance will still be paid as normal

and the really, really important one:

4. Will retain an element of risk in hi sec, therefore not providing a completely safe area; a concept that goes against everything Eve is designed around

Simples.


Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only