open All Channels
seplocked Assembly Hall
blankseplocked Make sucide ganking more difficult
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... : last (15)

Author Topic

Leandro Salazar
Quam Singulari
Posted - 2008.05.22 15:01:00 - [1]
 

Edited by: Leandro Salazar on 23/05/2008 18:02:59
Just to be reiterate things for the uninitiated, the issue at hand is this:

A mission runner in a semi-decently fitted ship is scanned at his mission station using a passive targeter. The gankers find the fitting offers enough profit potential, and thus he makes the list of gankworthy targets or something. Now the systems the agents send people to are well known, so the ganksquad waits on the other side of one of the gates till one worthwhile targets comes by. They open up on him and there is nothing he can do to save himself. Concord takes a merry 25 secs or so before they show up in .5 sec, by that time he is dead just from the fire of about 5 ravens with overheated siege launchers and his loot goes to the gankers, who lose next to nothing thanks to insurance. Same thing happens to haulers on the highways I guess, even though there it is usually untanked industrials carrying valueable cargo on autopilot and thus just inviting disaster.

Now I find this to be very wrong, and while there are many solutions, the one I favor is this:

When you are killed by concord, you do not receive any insurance payout if you actually killed someone with your criminal act. If you did not kill anyone, you get your insurance. This would serve the following:
- Higher margin of value for mission runner/T2 haulers to put on their ships to be safe from gankers out for profit.
- Unsuccessful ganks would still have the same minor consequences they have now.
- People can still gank for grudges or ****s/giggles, but it would cost them something now.
- Paper indies with billions in cargo would remain the gank targets for caracals they are supposed to be

Ok, but I digressed. Whether this or some other solution is implemented, the question is does suicide ganking need a nerf or not?

EDIT: And at the same time as a logical consequence, self destruction should also result in insurance voiding.

Leandro Salazar
Quam Singulari
Posted - 2008.05.22 15:01:00 - [2]
 

And I guess I need to post again for my support...

Shenko Minara
Posted - 2008.05.22 15:08:00 - [3]
 

This topic has been done to death. The only support for this will come from the sheltered folk that aren't interested in the majority of Eve as a game, just pimping out their Ravens to do the same grind everyday.

This forum should also have a "thumbs down" option, since this thread badly needs it.

Leandro Salazar
Quam Singulari
Posted - 2008.05.22 15:25:00 - [4]
 

Edited by: Leandro Salazar on 22/05/2008 15:27:37
Originally by: Shenko Minara
This topic has been done to death. The only support for this will come from the sheltered folk that aren't interested in the majority of Eve as a Shenko Minara's game, just pimping out their Ravens to do the same grind everyday.

This forum should also have a "thumbs down" option, since this thread badly needs it.


There, fixed it for you.

I kinda agree on the thumbs down option, but since according to the current rules issues can only be voted in but not out, it would be kinda pointless anyway...

Tusko Hopkins
HUN Corp.
HUN Reloaded
Posted - 2008.05.22 15:26:00 - [5]
 

Edited by: Tusko Hopkins on 22/05/2008 15:28:27
I support the idea, no insurance payout for high sec gankers, no matter if the gank is successful or not. When a ship is killed by CONCORD, the owner should not receive any kind of insurance payout. It might be interesting to consider returning the insurance fee if there was any, so that it doesnt look like a big SCC ripoff.


Divad Ginleek
Gallente
New Eden Logistics and Trade.

Posted - 2008.05.22 15:37:00 - [6]
 

Yes, suicide ganking needs a nerf. And I think your solution is the first one that seemed to balance the risk with rewards (leaving indies as easy targets and all.)

The main gripe I have with it is the insurance payout. I don't care that they managed to gank a faction fitted CNR in highsec, thats game mechanics and part of the risk you take for flying a bank vault around on missions. What needs to change is the fact that the gankers are actually rewarded for ganking twice, first from the loot and then from the insurance payout that makes their "losses" more like that of an unfitted BC, not a T2 fitted BS.

Ganker and carebear alike should see that this is a hole in the system that needs to be patched. People say your whining if you complain that you got suicided, but the fact is its a one sided system. the victim stands to lose everything with little chance of escape, and the attacker stands to lose what, 20 mil for fittings? heavily offset by the hundreds of millions, or even billions they can make off the loot. EVE is a harsh game, keep it that way. just make it harsh for everyone. as it stands now, it seems the highsec suicide gangs are the only real carebears having their hands held by the corrupt insurance system.

(For the record, I have never been suicided, and I actually come down on the side of the ganker on most cases, untanked industrials on autopilot, for example. those need to be blown up just to teach a lesson. I just don't like seeing plot holes in movies, book, or MMOs Very Happy)

Moridrex
Posted - 2008.05.22 15:40:00 - [7]
 

Voting for loss of insurance to people who get concordokken, and transferable killrights for the gank victim. Reason being dedicated miners typically do not have the skills to defend themselves; being able to transfer their kill right to mercs would be far more useful and make the ganksquads think about whether it's REALLY worth suiciding that target....

Paaaulo
Minmatar Mafia
Posted - 2008.05.22 16:02:00 - [8]
 

Kill rights should be able to be sold, i.e mission runner/hauler gets ganked, then they can sell the kill rights onto a bounty hunter. Changing insurance payouts would be silly.

Shenko Minara
Posted - 2008.05.22 16:28:00 - [9]
 

Originally by: Leandro Salazar
There, fixed it for you.

Thanks for that, if you like I can go back and fix your op for you too: "hello, I play Eve but it would be better if it was like WoW and didn't have consequences." There's more I could imply about your lack of willing to explore Eve as a whole, but since we're only making a single alteration to each other's posts...

Originally by: Tusko Hopkins
Edited by: Tusko Hopkins on 22/05/2008 15:28:27
I support the idea, no insurance payout for high sec gankers, no matter if the gank is successful or not. When a ship is killed by CONCORD, the owner should not receive any kind of insurance payout. It might be interesting to consider returning the insurance fee if there was any, so that it doesnt look like a big SCC ripoff.

And suddenly your multi-billion Navy Raven that you care so much about gets blown up by accident because you left a weapon on prefire and Concord don't care... I guess people need to think before they react in these forums, huh?

Jack Gilligan
Caldari Provisions

Posted - 2008.05.22 16:35:00 - [10]
 

I agree. This amounts to insurance fraud. If the suiciders want to suicide, fine, they can, but they should lose insurance payouts.

This change wouldn't end suiciding, it'd make it more expensive.

agent apple
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2008.05.22 16:46:00 - [11]
 

No as its a biased idea. If you want more realistic insurance then it goes both ways.

Zero payout for criminals +
Compulsory insurance for all ships in high sec +
Appropriate cost of insurance for high risk ships and pilots

While the insurance system does need looking at, and while suicide ganking is far to easy on the criminal party, this is neither the reason to do it or the way to do it.

Leandro Salazar
Quam Singulari
Posted - 2008.05.22 16:49:00 - [12]
 

Originally by: Shenko Minara
Thanks for that, if you like I can go back and fix your op for you too: "hello, I play Eve but it would be better if it was like WoW and didn't have consequences." There's more I could imply about your lack of willing to explore Eve as a whole, but since we're only making a single alteration to each other's posts...


Oh I do explore EVE as a whole, except for those parts where I would visit grief upon people that have not done anything to me, that is just not my cup of tea.
But I prefer PvP keeping mostly (note: NOT exclusively) to the areas designed for it, i.e. lowsec and 0.0, and make highsec PvP the exception.

This trend for suicide ganking is relatively recent anyway, induced by a number of outside factors such as lack of targets in lowsec, price explosion in deadspace gear, prices for ships and standard fittings dropping to rock bottom, higher player count...

What I want is not WOW in space, but the EVE that I played for a good two years, where highsec was actually safer, and not just less unsafe.

Quote:
And suddenly your multi-billion Navy Raven that you care so much about gets blown up by accident because you left a weapon on prefire and Concord don't care...


Well, isn't EVE supposed to be a cold harsh place where mistakes are instantly punished? I just think that running missions in a moderately pimped ship should not be a 'mistake' but actually a common playstyle, while obviously you think the opposite.

Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
Nabaal Syndicate
Posted - 2008.05.22 16:53:00 - [13]
 

I thought this was going to be a pretty dumb whine thread from the name, but if the suggestion is just to remove insurance from Concord kills, I'm for it. Makes sense inside the universe, doesn't really interfere with a valid part of the game(ganking idiots moving too much stuff in not enough ship) too much, and fixes some really silly possibilities. I'll hardly lose sleep if it doesn't pass, but it's a reasonable option.

Farrqua
Minmatar
In Igne Morim

Posted - 2008.05.22 16:54:00 - [14]
 

Unfortunately it would not make it "expensive", it would just force them to change the tactics and end up netting the same result. And you have to understand the impact it would have on the n00b starting out. Being n00bs they will make mistakes and it would hurt them far more than it would hurt the suicide gankers.

In this case we should focus on the act and access the penalties based on that type of action. The penalty should be directed to the character committing the act not creating a global penalty that would affect the innocent noobs that would essentially cripple them in their progression.

The denial of the insurance is too much of knee jerk solution and has no consideration of the global affect to others that do not suicide gank.

I do not support the insurance solution, but I do support the continue discussion.

Piitaq
Gallente
19th Star Logistics
Posted - 2008.05.22 17:00:00 - [15]
 

I agree with this. I would even extend it to when people destroy their ship on purpose, they dont get any insurance pay out at all.

I mean what insurance company would pay, for someone destroying their insured valuables on purpose?

Leandro Salazar
Quam Singulari
Posted - 2008.05.22 17:05:00 - [16]
 

Originally by: Farrqua
Unfortunately it would not make it "expensive", it would just force them to change the tactics and end up netting the same result. And you have to understand the impact it would have on the n00b starting out. Being n00bs they will make mistakes and it would hurt them far more than it would hurt the suicide gankers.

In this case we should focus on the act and access the penalties based on that type of action. The penalty should be directed to the character committing the act not creating a global penalty that would affect the innocent noobs that would essentially cripple them in their progression.

The denial of the insurance is too much of knee jerk solution and has no consideration of the global affect to others that do not suicide gank.

I do not support the insurance solution, but I do support the continue discussion.


How would it hurt a newbie though? The newbie consideration is the main reason behind only losing insurance when your target is killed, not when you shoot something wrong. Newbie as well as unsuccessful ganker would still get his insurance. Only the successful ganker would not. (Unless the newbie actually one-shots something wrong, which is very very unlikely).

Farrqua
Minmatar
In Igne Morim
Posted - 2008.05.22 17:28:00 - [17]
 

Originally by: Leandro Salazar
Originally by: Farrqua
Unfortunately it would not make it "expensive", it would just force them to change the tactics and end up netting the same result. And you have to understand the impact it would have on the n00b starting out. Being n00bs they will make mistakes and it would hurt them far more than it would hurt the suicide gankers.

In this case we should focus on the act and access the penalties based on that type of action. The penalty should be directed to the character committing the act not creating a global penalty that would affect the innocent noobs that would essentially cripple them in their progression.

The denial of the insurance is too much of knee jerk solution and has no consideration of the global affect to others that do not suicide gank.

I do not support the insurance solution, but I do support the continue discussion.


How would it hurt a newbie though? The newbie consideration is the main reason behind only losing insurance when your target is killed, not when you shoot something wrong. Newbie as well as unsuccessful ganker would still get his insurance. Only the successful ganker would not. (Unless the newbie actually one-shots something wrong, which is very very unlikely).


I was actually responding to the misconception of "make it expensive" or "any one killed by concord" type posts. Hence the reason I support the continuing discussion of this topic, but hopefully on a focused path.

I think we need to make it simple and directed at the aggressor not a global punishment that will hurt innocent n00bs. Just sit in a n00b channel for a bit, and you will be surprised how often it happens. It is also a tactic to bait the n00b into getting con-corded. It has been done since the day EvE went on line.

Whether or not the criminal act was successful,the penalties should be the same. We just need to find a simple method. With not a lot of conditional results.

Siona Windweaver
Placeholder Holdings
Posted - 2008.05.22 17:28:00 - [18]
 

Originally by: Tusko Hopkins
Edited by: Tusko Hopkins on 22/05/2008 15:28:27
I support the idea, no insurance payout for high sec gankers, no matter if the gank is successful or not. When a ship is killed by CONCORD, the owner should not receive any kind of insurance payout. It might be interesting to consider returning the insurance fee if there was any, so that it doesnt look like a big SCC ripoff.



I agree.

Synjin Sinner
Posted - 2008.05.22 18:39:00 - [19]
 

I concur

Zareph
Merch Industrial
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2008.05.22 18:45:00 - [20]
 

Your solutions aren't support worthy.

However.

If one of your solutions was 'the more bad guys attacking a single non ganged target the faster concord can respond' that might be something.

For example.

one person is running missions. one person is coming through the gate. 5 people open fire.

25s? well since there is 5, lets divide that 25 by 5 and that means concord responds in 5s.

anything more than say 10 or 15 and it's instan spawn concord regardless of system sec. Tech2 ships/weaponry mean insta concord, stuff like that.

Removing insurance payment is not the option. Maybe at best make it like your car insurance in that if you have repeated claims within a certain period (say, 14 days) the cost of insurance or value of payout goes up/down, but removal isn't good.

Hamfast
Gallente

Posted - 2008.05.22 18:49:00 - [21]
 

While I would rather have no insurance pay out for anyone popped by concord, regardless of the outcome of their attack, half a loaf is better then none.

Removing the insurance makes the risk of loss somewhat bigger... Gankers could still gank, but they would have a tad bit more risk then they do now...

Quaxtl
Posted - 2008.05.22 18:58:00 - [22]
 

I agree with no insurance pay outs for people destroyed by concord.
But thats it.

Suicide ganking is part of the game. Thats the way it was intended and thats the way it will stay.

Why'dyou HitMe
Minmatar
KAOS.
Imperial Republic Of the North
Posted - 2008.05.22 19:13:00 - [23]
 

Agree, they should pay a wardec fee to gank in empire like we do.

Kenji Kikuta
Posted - 2008.05.22 19:36:00 - [24]
 

Any solution which makes life harder for suicide gankers is a solution I support.

Sariyah
HUN Corp.
HUN Reloaded
Posted - 2008.05.22 19:45:00 - [25]
 

While from the OPs tone I can feel his pimp ship was ganked ( Laughing YARRRR!! ) generally yes there should be a higher fee.
It should be still worth ganking the players in untanked indies and pimped faction Raven isk farmers.

Jalmari Huitsikko
Caldari
draketrain

Posted - 2008.05.22 19:48:00 - [26]
 

remove insurance if you had criminal status when getting popped = good.

Leandro Salazar
Quam Singulari
Posted - 2008.05.22 20:48:00 - [27]
 

Originally by: Sariyah
While from the OPs tone I can feel his pimp ship was ganked ( Laughing YARRRR!! ) generally yes there should be a higher fee.
It should be still worth ganking the players in untanked indies and pimped faction Raven isk farmers.


Forget about that, I am WAY too paranoid for that to happen. But I don't think it should be required to be this paranoid in highsec, at least not when your ship is only slightly pimped.

For the record, I was suicide ganked twice, once successful while I was stupidly semi-AFK-hauling something moderately valuable in a (not well enough)tanked indie, the other time semi-afk in my hauling Jaguar which resulted in a dead suicider and a scratch in my ships armor. The successful gank would still happen under the no-insurance system as it should, the other one would not have happened, so nothing would have changed for me if the change is projected onto the past.

Frecator Dementa
Caldari
Perkone
Posted - 2008.05.22 21:03:00 - [28]
 

agree

cimmaron
Caldari
Dragon's Rage
Intrepid Crossing
Posted - 2008.05.22 21:18:00 - [29]
 

Support making suidice ganking more difficult.

Scagga Laebetrovo
Failure Assured

Posted - 2008.05.22 22:10:00 - [30]
 

I support your approach in dealing with this problem.

Insurance payouts shouldn't be payed out to ships lost to CONCORD.


Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... : last (15)

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