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

Author Topic

Mr Stark
Posted - 2008.05.23 15:47:00 - [61]
 

Supported, cancel insurance if concorded.

Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.05.23 16:04:00 - [62]
 

Originally by: Stakhanov
Why should the game pay insurance on self-destruct then ?


It shouldn't (IMO) good point.


Hamfast
Gallente
Posted - 2008.05.23 17:50:00 - [63]
 

Originally by: Jade Constantine
Originally by: Stakhanov
Why should the game pay insurance on self-destruct then ?


It shouldn't (IMO) good point.




How about we change the point that any action taken by the pilot that will guarantee the ship will be destroyed will void all insurance...

This would only cover Concord and Self Destruct as when you jump into Combat (PvP or a PvE), while you may expect to lose the ship, you are not guaranteed you will lose it.

Leandro Salazar
Quam Singulari
Posted - 2008.05.23 18:03:00 - [64]
 

Originally by: Hamfast
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Originally by: Stakhanov
Why should the game pay insurance on self-destruct then ?


It shouldn't (IMO) good point.




How about we change the point that any action taken by the pilot that will guarantee the ship will be destroyed will void all insurance...

This would only cover Concord and Self Destruct as when you jump into Combat (PvP or a PvE), while you may expect to lose the ship, you are not guaranteed you will lose it.



I endorse this and amended the OP in that regard.

Gentle Miner
School of Applied Knowledge
Posted - 2008.05.23 18:40:00 - [65]
 

Edited by: Gentle Miner on 23/05/2008 19:10:05
I support no insurance pay out for CONCORD related ship loss.

Additionally I believe there should be some counter to ship / cargo scanning, maybe a warning or alert letting you know when you get scanned like a module you can fit that detects the scanners signal or something.

MaoTseTong
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2008.05.23 18:53:00 - [66]
 

Originally by: Scatim Helicon
Edited by: Scatim Helicon on 22/05/2008 22:59:05
Originally by: Why'dyou HitMe
Agree, they should pay a wardec fee to gank in empire like we do.

How does one go about wardeccing State War Academy, exactly? (Seriously, if we could do that it'd be the most fun ever).

Removing insurance for gankers benefits nobody except the 4-year NPC corp players running level 4s in their Navy Ravens 23/7, as it protects them from all but the wealthiest or most determined attackers and allows them to carry on happily isk-farming in even greater safety. Any solution to the suicide ganking 'problem' lies in repairing the bounty hunting and kill rights system to encourage the white knight/anti-pirate career option. This would give those players actually prepared to interact with other human beings the tools to retaliate against the gankers, rather than handing extra protection to those who treat EVE as a single player shoot em up game with their wallet standing in for the high score table.

So: making the game itself harder for suicide gankers? No. Enabling players so that they have the opportunity to defend themselves from pirates and suicide attacks if they are smart and organised? Hell yes.


I think this guy is onto something. You all might want to read what he says.

Belmarduk
Amarr
Imperial Shipment
Posted - 2008.05.23 19:00:00 - [67]
 

This is eve - I dont suicide gank and am against it
BUT
this is eve - therefor I have no problem with suicide ganking.

BUT

Make it so that if a ship is killed by concord there is NO INSURANCE payout !!!!!!!!!

MaoTseTong
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2008.05.23 19:03:00 - [68]
 

Originally by: Leandro Salazar
Originally by: Vaal Erit
Originally by: Leandro Salazar
Paper indies with billions in cargo would remain the gank targets for caracals they are supposed to be


I find this very interesting. How is solo-suiciding a hauler with a caracal A-OK but using a team to group-suicide a mission runner not ok?

You are simply stating that it is ok for one playstyle but not ok for another. Hypocrisy at its finest.


I just think that the mission running ship pimping progression way is a valid playstyle. Even if you hate it, that is how many people (yes gankman, this playstyle is very very popular) enjoy the game.
While hauling a billion in a T1 indie is not a playstyle but simple stupidity.

I see a big difference between putting the best gear available onto the best ships available, and putting the most valuabe cargo available onto the worst ship available. The latter should make you an easy and juicy target, the former should not (well unless you exaggerate with all Estamel or something).

The indie hauler could avoid his fate usually by simply not being AFK, or by using a better ship. Does the mission runner have these options? No. He can only avoid it by using a WORSE ship, or by metagaming with alts. And I think this is simply wrong.


I think you kinda contradict yourself here. Hauling your bazillion iski stuff in a normal hauler is a playstyle. Stupid or not isn't really whats the issue here is it?

I can easily call you flying a CNR loaded out with bazillions isk worth of gear in predictable patterns stupid just the same. Playstyle or not doesn't matter. Really. I could say suicide ganking for isk is a playstyle.

Your arguement about making suicide ganking in empire more painful is something I could listen to, until you start to say that we should support your playstyle cause you think its right, and mine isn't.

To me, you making a loot pinata out of your CNR is no different than someone doing the same with a hauler or a freighter. I just have to bring a bigger stick to break yours.

You had me considering for a moment, up until you said X kind of suicide ganking is ok cause the gankee is stupid, but ganking me isn't cause I have a 'playstyle'. I now suggest you 'smarten up your playstyle'.

lecrotta
Minmatar
lecrotta Corp
Posted - 2008.05.23 19:06:00 - [69]
 

Originally by: Leandro Salazar

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.


The gankers are taking a big risk as it is not certain that the high isk value items will drop so unless the target is flying with a minimum of a billion isk module on every slot the odds are that the gankers will actually lose money.

Zanpt
Caldari
Posted - 2008.05.23 19:09:00 - [70]
 

I support making suicide ganking much more costly to the perpetrators.

Veryez
Posted - 2008.05.23 19:25:00 - [71]
 

I wholeheartedly support this idea. I would also like to see greater security hits for repeat offenders, making it harder to regain security status by ratting in 0.0/losec.

This wasn't that big a problem when static complexes were still around and deadspace stuff was more plentiful. By removing them the cost of deadspace stuff more than tripled in many cases - making suicide ganks profitable if done correctly. CCP should have placed some compensation in place to account for this, but they didn't. I don't want to end suicide ganking, but adding more risk to the situation is fair compensation in my mind.

Besides what is more fun than flying through empire in a cheap hauler w/ a can labeled BPO (loaded with a few 1 run bpc's) knowing some fool will attack you. Laughing

Phelan Driscoll
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2008.05.23 19:30:00 - [72]
 

Edited by: Phelan Driscoll on 23/05/2008 19:30:24
ccp should just make it so guns don't work unless youre targetting a war target tbqh

Dramaticus
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2008.05.23 19:38:00 - [73]
 

Remove insurance if we can wardec the NPC corps for no cost.

Efdi
The Illuminati.
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2008.05.23 20:56:00 - [74]
 

Originally by: Veryez

Besides what is more fun than flying through empire in a cheap hauler w/ a can labeled BPO (loaded with a few 1 run bpc's) knowing some fool will attack you. Laughing


Too bad ship scanners don't see cargo cans.

Admiral Feelgood
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2008.05.23 21:50:00 - [75]
 

Go play WoW you whiny babies.

Exodus Alpha
EVE University
Ivy League
Posted - 2008.05.23 22:11:00 - [76]
 

Edited by: Exodus Alpha on 29/05/2008 20:10:25
Originally by: Leandro Salazar
I endorse this and amended the OP in that regard.


With this amendment, I can wholeheartedly give my /support for this.

Rawr Cristina
Caldari
Naqam
Posted - 2008.05.24 02:36:00 - [77]
 

Originally by: Stakhanov
Why should the game pay insurance on self-destruct then ?

Suicide ganking is balanced when you consider the current conditions. It is the most costly way of attacking another player. Engaging in 0.0 is free , engaging in lowsec costs cap boosters at best , and highsec offers options ranging from free (can baiting) to expensive (alliance wardec) but none as expensive and restricting as suicide ganking. Loss of ship + loss of sec status + crim flag that prevents you from doing anything for 15 minutes + killrights that allow the target to fight back later on. No other form of pvp cumulates those penalties.

The increase in suicide ganking only highlights a different risk/reward imbalance. Highsec being way too profitable compared to lowsec and even 0.0 , giving players the option to avoid interacting with others entirely - run level 4 missions in Motsu , stay in NPC corp , don't talk with anyone , only loot your own wrecks and watch the ISK pile up. Besides suicide ganking , there is no way of impacting them. And they do impact us by flooding the economy with ISK , modules and high end minerals in effect mass produced in highsec.


pretty much this IMO. When I want to make ISK I jumpclone to my Crystal hi-sec clone and pretty much AFK L4s without a concern in the world.

L4 Mission Ships are subjected to essentially zero-risk, and as a result are often pimped out with over 1b ISK worth of deadspace mods, because they know they won't lose them.

Is the fact it takes six battleships to suicide in 0.5 to kill one of these all that unbalanced, really?

Tommy TenKreds
Animal Mercantile Executive
Posted - 2008.05.24 02:43:00 - [78]
 

I'm not sure about this issue. I feel that it requires wider discussion and alternative suggestions before I could support it.

I am a firm supporter of removing ALL NPC insurance from the game, however, and I feel that would go a long way towards rebalancing suicide ganking.

I don't think I can support the proposal that suicide ganking needs a nerf, for its own sake.

Congratulations on a well presented proposal though OP. Very Happy

xena zena
The Money Shot Inc.
Posted - 2008.05.24 02:46:00 - [79]
 

CCP has stated numerous times that suicide ganking is a valid legal gaming tactic, that is there by design. I don't see any chance of them nerfing it.

Don't want to die in your precious fittings? don't fly alone in them. You don't need 5 billion isk ship to do missions. Rolling Eyes

Draygo Korvan
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2008.05.24 02:47:00 - [80]
 

Originally by: xena zena
CCP has stated numerous times that suicide ganking is a valid legal gaming tactic, that is there by design. I don't see any chance of them nerfing it.

Don't want to die in your precious fittings? don't fly alone in them. You don't need 5 billion isk ship to do missions. Rolling Eyes

Quoting this and posting to say no support for the op.

Vaal Erit
Science and Trade Institute
Posted - 2008.05.24 02:55:00 - [81]
 

Originally by: MaoTseTong

You had me considering for a moment, up until you said X kind of suicide ganking is ok cause the gankee is stupid, but ganking me isn't cause I have a 'playstyle'. I now suggest you 'smarten up your playstyle'.


I think you misunderstand. The orignal poster is stating that it is ok to suicide on haulers but not mission runners. I don't agree with that. I agree with you. Suicide ganking should be equal opportunity ganker.

Vaal Erit
Science and Trade Institute
Posted - 2008.05.24 03:09:00 - [82]
 

Originally by: Jade Constantine
presenting a reasonable risk/reward environment. Sorry but its ridiculous that you can effectively bypass concord protection for free with a tech1 fitted fully insured (and payed out) battleship. The game should not be paying out insurance on these actions.




Okay, if insurance is gone from suiciding in high sec. Then why should it be allowed on -10.0 secutity status pirates? Why should insurance be given out on anyone who shoots in low sec and gets gate guns on them? Why should insurance on an Amarr BS be given to a Minmatar pilot in FW? Why should you pay insurance on any ship that is used to conquer space in 0.0? Why give out insurance to can flippers? Why give out insurance to people who declare war on high sec corps? Doesn't war declarations bypass CONCORD? I guess wars on next on the chopping block, huh jade?

If I get 10x T1 insured ravens and 'suicide' on people on low sec on gates, then shouldn't I get my insurance taken awawy? I mean for god's sake I am using a FREE SHIP and bypassing gate guns.

EVE is a harsh place (as stated by the devs many, amny times) If you have an expensive ship fit with billions worth of modules, then how about you act like it is worth something and protect it. Go to any mission hub and see for yourself how many CNRs/rattlesnakes/golems/super faction fit faction BS there are and then come back and tell me that risk v reward is balanced in high sec.

Kailiani
Posted - 2008.05.24 04:50:00 - [83]
 

Edited by: Kailiani on 24/05/2008 05:27:31
Edited by: Kailiani on 24/05/2008 05:24:33
Using 5 battleships to gank a mission runner costs approximately 100 million isk or less after insurance.


This means you have 10 attempts before you would break even, if you somehow did NOT get the deadspace module on the first 9 attempts!


Quote:
Why should insurance be given out on anyone who shoots in low sec and gets gate guns on them? Why should insurance on an Amarr BS be given to a Minmatar pilot in FW? Why should you pay insurance on any ship that is used to conquer space in 0.0? Why give out insurance to can flippers? Why give out insurance to people who declare war on high sec corps? Doesn't war declarations bypass CONCORD? I guess wars on next on the chopping block, huh jade?


Its not supposed to make sense. Otherwise a list of 1000 things could be listed that isn't just right. It all basically boils down to risk vs reward.

None of the stuff you stated could make a group of players rich without risk.

Like I stated above you have 10 attempts currently to get a 1 billion isk deadspace module using 5 battleships just to break even!



Is the fact it takes six battleships to suicide in 0.5 to kill one of these all that unbalanced, really?


I've seen a CNR get ganked by 5 suicide torp ravens which are about 20 mill each, in 0.7 security space.

If insurance was removed you would have 2 attempts to cash in on ganking 1.5billion isk ships, and 3 to break even. Even if the deadspace booster does not drop, the faction gear can help cover the costs of the gank.

Currently it's feasible to gank a 300-500 million isk ship and make a little profit, if 250m drops you could split that into 50m per ganker which would be easy a target to find, do that a few times and then rat to gain more ISK/sec status and repeat. Which IMHO should be too low to be considered gankable.

lecrotta
Minmatar
lecrotta Corp
Posted - 2008.05.24 10:08:00 - [84]
 

Originally by: Kailiani


Using 5 battleships to gank a mission runner costs approximately 100 million isk or less after insurance.


Wrong it actually costs between 40 and 50 million per ship after insurance so 6 ships = 240-300 million.

Now if you consider that most target ships have one or maybe two billion isk modules at most the risk of those high value assets being destroyed is very probable. Plus you must also take into account the time spent scanning ships (hours tbh) and finding one worth ganking.

All in all id say things are perfectly balanced and if the faction fitted CNR pilots want to avoid getting ganked theres a sure fired way of doing it but im not telling.WinkYARRRR!!

Leandro Salazar
Quam Singulari
Posted - 2008.05.24 11:12:00 - [85]
 

Originally by: lecrotta
Originally by: Kailiani


Using 5 battleships to gank a mission runner costs approximately 100 million isk or less after insurance.


Wrong it actually costs between 40 and 50 million per ship after insurance so 6 ships = 240-300 million.

Now if you consider that most target ships have one or maybe two billion isk modules at most the risk of those high value assets being destroyed is very probable. Plus you must also take into account the time spent scanning ships (hours tbh) and finding one worth ganking.

All in all id say things are perfectly balanced and if the faction fitted CNR pilots want to avoid getting ganked theres a sure fired way of doing it but im not telling.WinkYARRRR!!


A sucide gank Raven costs nowhere near that. 20 mil is probably fairly accurate. Fittings are virtually free, ship is maybe 15 mil loss after insurance.

Also, the gank targets drop other faction modules too, not just the boosters. And these other modules pretty much guarantee that almost every gank will at least break even, more likely make a small profit. And on average every other gank hits the mother lode.
And finding targets in mission hubs really is a non issue.

lecrotta
Minmatar
lecrotta Corp
Posted - 2008.05.24 12:04:00 - [86]
 

Originally by: Leandro Salazar
Originally by: lecrotta
Originally by: Kailiani


Using 5 battleships to gank a mission runner costs approximately 100 million isk or less after insurance.


Wrong it actually costs between 40 and 50 million per ship after insurance so 6 ships = 240-300 million.

Now if you consider that most target ships have one or maybe two billion isk modules at most the risk of those high value assets being destroyed is very probable. Plus you must also take into account the time spent scanning ships (hours tbh) and finding one worth ganking.

All in all id say things are perfectly balanced and if the faction fitted CNR pilots want to avoid getting ganked theres a sure fired way of doing it but im not telling.WinkYARRRR!!


A sucide gank Raven costs nowhere near that. 20 mil is probably fairly accurate. Fittings are virtually free, ship is maybe 15 mil loss after insurance.

Also, the gank targets drop other faction modules too, not just the boosters. And these other modules pretty much guarantee that almost every gank will at least break even, more likely make a small profit. And on average every other gank hits the mother lode.
And finding targets in mission hubs really is a non issue.


The voice of somebody who has obviously never done it.

I along with several others have spent hours waiting for a CNR or even standard raven to gank that is worth the cost/reward ratio in some of the busiest mission hubs in eve. Any anybody who does it to "just break even" is a fool.

Also id love you to show me where you get your fittings for free and how you can guarantee that enough high isk value loot drops to make it worthwhile as fitting the basic t1 crap will sometimes not get the job done.


Etil DeLaFuente
Posted - 2008.05.24 12:08:00 - [87]
 

Quote:
When you are killed by concord, you do not receive any insurance payout.


fully supported

Karando
Random Goods
Posted - 2008.05.24 12:21:00 - [88]
 

Originally by: Leandro Salazar
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.


Forget about that, I am WAY too paranoid for that to happen.

LOL. When you can deal with the issue by being paranoid enough, where's the problem?
No support.

Sang Jin
Gallente
Heretic Army
B A N E
Posted - 2008.05.24 12:24:00 - [89]
 

I don't see how protecting macro miners helps the game in any way what so ever.

Leandro Salazar
Quam Singulari
Posted - 2008.05.24 12:37:00 - [90]
 

Originally by: Karando
Originally by: Leandro Salazar
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.


Forget about that, I am WAY too paranoid for that to happen.

LOL. When you can deal with the issue by being paranoid enough, where's the problem?
No support.


The problem is that I think it should not be neccessary to be this paranoid in highsec. Especially since a good deal of that paranoia is simply not playing at all. Of course I understand that most of the suicide supporters probably think it would be better if pimp mission runners DID not play at all.


Pages: first : previous : 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