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 : ... 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 ... : last (15)

Author Topic

Jowen Datloran
Caldari
Science and Trade Institute

Posted - 2008.06.01 10:42:00 - [211]
 

No insurance payout for victims killed by CONCORD, signed.

No other changes are needed imo.

Melllo champers
Posted - 2008.06.01 11:13:00 - [212]
 

Screw the Newbs to protect the veterans running top pay out misions in multi billion isk mission ships.

NO THANKS.

Efa Morgan
Posted - 2008.06.02 15:51:00 - [213]
 

supporting

namelessclone01
Caldari
blackbox ops

Posted - 2008.06.02 16:12:00 - [214]
 

  • no insurance to criminals killed by Concord (no matter if they succeeded in killing their target or not) /signed

  • transferrable kill-rights /signed

  • i'd even go as far as paying the gankers' insurance to the victim (this is debatable of course, but.. /signed)



Molarin
Posted - 2008.06.02 22:49:00 - [215]
 

Yep, it is too easy.

Buck Starchaser
Freelancer Union
Unaffiliated
Posted - 2008.06.03 02:35:00 - [216]
 

Nerf it

Dav Varan
Posted - 2008.06.03 15:58:00 - [217]
 

Even a scurvy pirate such as myself can see the sense in this suggestion.

No Insurance payouts for people with concord on there kill mail full stop.

This is not intended as a punishment it is intended as a way to Raise the value of cargo that can be carried before a suicide gank becomes profitable, because at the moment it is way to low.

atm suicide ganking is low risk / high reward and needs a fix and majority of community have been calling for this fix for ages with no response from ccp.

So yes council bring this topic before them.

Mileni
AntiMacro Decimation
Posted - 2008.06.03 19:55:00 - [218]
 

Not supporting.

A: Suiciding macro barges would make it 0 payout at all, since macro's use junk t1 fittings.
B: Folks that fire on mission buddies via accident (happens alot) Lose their ship and get nothing.
C: Most suiciders looking for sheer profits only bother with farmers that buy ISK then snag up faction items for their ship.

If this change is passed, it's yet another confirmation that CCP fully supports the 150,000+ farmer and macro accounts safety and again isn't concerned with the intense lag, server problems and RMT problems Eve has.

Tomo Yamaoka
Gallente
Strix Armaments and Defence
Posted - 2008.06.03 20:10:00 - [219]
 

I'll repost the ideas I put into a similar thread in C&P earlier. Insurance isn't so much the issue as much as there is no punishment to fit the crime. The 4 main empires, the most powerful known governing bodies in New Eden (excluding the Jove of course) would be less lenient about this I would imagine, so if people want to be outlaws and pirates, why not let the empires treat them as one.

The following would apply to any acts of piracy in high sec Empire space:

1. Impounding of ships and goods stored in empire stations until a hefty fine is paid.

2. Seizure of bank personal bank funds.

3. No admittance to Empire stations.

4. No admittance to Empire jump gates.

5. Removal and destruction of clones in Empire clone bays.

6. Offending characters actions effect their corp standings and open the possibility of siezure of corp assets in Empire space.

These seem a bit extreme, but it would open up business opportunities for corps that own POS's and outposts, as well as PC run banking outfits. There are ways around it still, but it would make it a lot less appealing.

/signed either way

Farrqua
Minmatar
In Igne Morim
Posted - 2008.06.03 21:30:00 - [220]
 

Originally by: Tomo Yamaoka
I'll repost the ideas I put into a similar thread in C&P earlier. Insurance isn't so much the issue as much as there is no punishment to fit the crime. The 4 main empires, the most powerful known governing bodies in New Eden (excluding the Jove of course) would be less lenient about this I would imagine, so if people want to be outlaws and pirates, why not let the empires treat them as one.

The following would apply to any acts of piracy in high sec Empire space:

1. Impounding of ships and goods stored in empire stations until a hefty fine is paid.

2. Seizure of bank personal bank funds.

3. No admittance to Empire stations.

4. No admittance to Empire jump gates.

5. Removal and destruction of clones in Empire clone bays.

6. Offending characters actions effect their corp standings and open the possibility of siezure of corp assets in Empire space.

These seem a bit extreme, but it would open up business opportunities for corps that own POS's and outposts, as well as PC run banking outfits. There are ways around it still, but it would make it a lot less appealing.

/signed either way


This suggestion is a veiled attempt to removing it all together. And that wont happen as you know. It does not balance the risk award factor. the balance factor is slowly coming about but this kind of over aggressive stance does not contribute to anything really.

No there has to be something else. We have to be able to give the haulers, miners more options to fit there ships better to give them a chance. Give them better tools to help them to fend for them selves and make it harder for the suicide gankers to succeed.

As far as ratters/mission runners that is another issue. They have to think beyond the the mission and fit them selves for a possible attack against gankers yet still allowing them to finish there mission. Maybe make them harder to find due to some kind of interference to spacial anomaly. Making the aggressor to work harder or have better skills and equipment to to be able to get a better chance of finding the target.

We have to find a balance between the two. One extreme or another does not solve anything.

Leandro Salazar
Quam Singulari
Posted - 2008.06.03 21:37:00 - [221]
 

Originally by: Farrqua
As far as ratters/mission runners that is another issue. They have to think beyond the the mission and fit them selves for a possible attack against gankers yet still allowing them to finish there mission. Maybe make them harder to find due to some kind of interference to spacial anomaly. Making the aggressor to work harder or have better skills and equipment to to be able to get a better chance of finding the target.

We have to find a balance between the two. One extreme or another does not solve anything.


The problem is not mission runners found in a mission (you CAN actually protect against that somewhat by eying local and scanning for probes), but mission runners jumping through a gate. Now if CCP changed every mission to spawn in the agents system, this would be a perfectly fine fix too. But I have the underlying feeling that CCP enjoys subjecting mission runners to stupid idle time sinks like jumping to other systems or traveling 70km to the next gate in a mission where it takes a Velator 20 secs to kill all enemies, so I don't see that happening.

MirrorGod
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2008.06.03 22:18:00 - [222]
 

Thumbs down goes here

Tomo Yamaoka
Gallente
Strix Armaments and Defence
Posted - 2008.06.03 22:26:00 - [223]
 

its not a veiled attempt at anything. It is a solution in line with standard and fairly universal methods of curbing crime. It removes nothing but instead adds to the challenge. Eve thus far is a game that caters more to piracy than to those that wish to peacefully co exist with other players and build and mine and sell....the people that make up the core of New Eden's economy. Capsuleers are valuable assets to the Empires, as well as costly investments, why wouldn't they protect those assets from pirates in their own sovereign space?

I have no probelm with piracy in the game, but with crime should come consequence.

Farrqua
Minmatar
In Igne Morim
Posted - 2008.06.04 01:06:00 - [224]
 

Originally by: Tomo Yamaoka
its not a veiled attempt at anything. It is a solution in line with standard and fairly universal methods of curbing crime. It removes nothing but instead adds to the challenge. Eve thus far is a game that caters more to piracy than to those that wish to peacefully co exist with other players and build and mine and sell....the people that make up the core of New Eden's economy. Capsuleers are valuable assets to the Empires, as well as costly investments, why wouldn't they protect those assets from pirates in their own sovereign space?

I have no probelm with piracy in the game, but with crime should come consequence.


Universal methods of curbing crime? What do you mean by that? I did not realize eve had a universal crime fighting organization.

On the average risk in empire is fairly low any way. Except for the zealots slamming there ships into others trying to get a kill mail or loot.

What you are essentially proposing is to basically kill all forms of risk in empire. No one in their right mind or even a warped one will try anything in empire unless they are quitting anyway, and looking to go out with a bang so to speak.

Hey I don't like the idea of floating in a pod in empire while harvesting a roid or hauling my goodies to make some isk. But this kind of thing pretty much all but kills any sense of what Eve is. So now where is the risk vs. reward?

The "carebear" does not even have to think anymore. Just munch on a hoho, watch cartoons and play the game on auto-pilot.

Tomo Yamaoka
Gallente
Strix Armaments and Defence
Posted - 2008.06.04 06:09:00 - [225]
 

I didn't mention a crime fighting force, unless the x men are joining the game.

High sec is risky for certain professions, and it seems like there are new ways put into practice quite often to circumvent the veil of safety in high sec empire space. My suggestion in no way changes the risk for pilots involved in high sec crime as far as the ship they are in is concerned, all it does is further alienate them from high security empire controlled space. Things like this will add challenge to a profession that is quickly growing repetative and predictible...but its just a suggestion.

Esmenet
Gallente
Posted - 2008.06.04 10:55:00 - [226]
 

Originally by: Tomo Yamaoka
My suggestion in no way changes the risk for pilots involved in high sec crime as far as the ship they are in is concerned, all it does is further alienate them from high security empire controlled space. Things like this will add challenge to a profession that is quickly growing repetative and predictible...but its just a suggestion.



Actually it will completely remove their possibility to be in high sec space, making a already near risk free zone completely safe while still giving very high rewards.

Marara Kovacs
Posted - 2008.06.04 11:21:00 - [227]
 

No insurance payout for being concorded, obvious and simple. It doesnt really need much more than that.

Sir Substance
Minmatar
Suddenly Ninjas
Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
Posted - 2008.06.04 12:02:00 - [228]
 

Originally by: Marara Kovacs
No insurance payout for being concorded, obvious and simple. It doesnt really need much more than that.


exactly. theres no problem with suiciding someone in empire. the problem is that it can be profitable with silly cheap items.

Dray
Caldari
Euphoria Released
HYDRA RELOADED
Posted - 2008.06.04 12:12:00 - [229]
 

Definitely not signed, its so easy to avoid suicide ganking its not even funny, so why should you expect CCP to bail you out of a situation where your too lazy/stupid/greedy to do anything about it.

Just because you want to be greedy and make maximum profit from missions and not work in a group doesn't mean you cant work together as individuals in a system and try to make a gank harder, omg but i might lose a bit of my max isk/time profit ratio, cmon ffs its not rocket science.

No to insurance invalidation, whole bags worms waiting to be opened there.

In fact no to everything that encourages ppl to be hi-sec isk machines that has no risk.

Eve is a MMO, one of those M's is for multiplayer, I dont care how hard you worked for that pimp fit your running, if your stupid enough to assume that concord will take care of you in an area where there is a tangible risk then great, let me and my friends ride you like seabiscuit and in the process increase the average intelligence of the player base, awesome, I'm performing a service and making a profit at the same time.

The question you have to ask is how hard is it to stop suicide ganks, if the answer is that its to difficult within current mechanics then yes there is a problem and it needs fixing, but when the answer is simple there is no justifiable reason to be here, and believe me the answer is so, so simple its incredible your all here asking to be bailed out.

As a side note, it's worth remembering theres a lot of mission runners in low sec who run the risk of ganking every time they undock and they are doing fine.

In summary stop being lazy, analyze the problem and solve it, its doesn't need a nerf, it just requires you think about it, seriously.

Gonetae
Madragore Inc.
Posted - 2008.06.04 13:03:00 - [230]
 

No insurance payouts for those killed by Concord gets a mighty thumbs up from me.

Lex Tael
Caldari
Advanced Defences Research

Posted - 2008.06.04 13:07:00 - [231]
 

/signed

No payout to CONCORD victims.

Suicide ganks for profit are fine.

It's people who don't mind losing ~20mil for a 'cool' faction/T2 ship killmail and some perverted 'fun' (of hurting a real person) that bother me the most. And those are too common right now.


hattifnatt
North Eastern Swat
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2008.06.04 19:44:00 - [232]
 

Lol at all the carebear fgts

SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
Posted - 2008.06.04 21:03:00 - [233]
 

You don't need to cancel insurance or make kill rights tradeable. That is just a band-aid on the issue. Keep in mind if you are going to suicide gank, and you know you're not going to get insurance why insure it to begin with.

So the Insurance ISK sink is removed from Gankers. This is no good either, although it's a small ISK sink it's a Sink none the less. Let them keep the insurance, don't even worry about tradable kill rights.

What really needs to happen is the frequency in which someone could gank.

You know someone could suicide gank 92 times in a day... That's far too many, potential suicides. I would much rather see the outlaw timer last an hour.

This also forces gankers to be more choosy when it comes to targets, and being an outlaw for an hour drastically cuts down the amount of ganks they can perform, but it still gives them the opportunity and motive to do it.

If they have the balls they can sit on a gate with global countdown and defend themselves from people attacking them. A group of circle jerking remote shield repping Ravens can tank gate guns, so the can still do exactly what they want, they just need to devote more effort to their cause.

If they are solo gankers, they must be more selective on their targets, so it works there too. Also when you consider what effort it would take to implement this for CCP.

Change the timer from 15 minutes, to 60 minutes, but make it so you only get 60 minutes if done in high sec. Low Sec, remove the agro timer completely.

So I'd support, Removal of Timer in Low sec, increase the timer in high-sec.

The reason I'd support removal of Low Sec timer is simply to make ganking in low sec more attractive vs high sec. If you don't want a global counter for 60 minutes go camp a low sec gate.

Junbug
Posted - 2008.06.04 21:41:00 - [234]
 

yes, secure systems should be.. secure.

if suicide ganking are allowed, then the gankers should be put in a 24 hour anyone-can-kill-them mode. or something of the sort

Kailiani
Posted - 2008.06.05 08:42:00 - [235]
 

Originally by: SencneS

So the Insurance ISK sink is removed from Gankers. This is no good either, although it's a small ISK sink it's a Sink none the less. Let them keep the insurance, don't even worry about tradable kill rights.


It's not a ISK sink, its a faucet. Drake platinum insurance costs 12m, and pays out 38m. Injecting 16m isk out of no where.

Quote:
You know someone could suicide gank 92 times in a day... That's far too many, potential suicides. I would much rather see the outlaw timer last an hour.

This also forces gankers to be more choosy when it comes to targets, and being an outlaw for an hour drastically cuts down the amount of ganks they can perform, but it still gives them the opportunity and motive to do it.


This will only lower the amount of ganks able to be done over time but not change the low risk/high reward. Just use a few alts and again you can do it 72 times a day with 2 alts with a 1 hour global countdown.

Quote:
If they have the balls they can sit on a gate with global countdown and defend themselves from people attacking them. A group of circle jerking remote shield repping Ravens can tank gate guns, so the can still do exactly what they want, they just need to devote more effort to their cause.


Tank gates? In lowsec? Not relevant at all to high sec ganking.

Quote:
Change the timer from 15 minutes, to 60 minutes, but make it so you only get 60 minutes if done in high sec. Low Sec, remove the agro timer completely.

So I'd support, Removal of Timer in Low sec, increase the timer in high-sec.

The reason I'd support removal of Low Sec timer is simply to make ganking in low sec more attractive vs high sec. If you don't want a global counter for 60 minutes go camp a low sec gate.


Low sec ganking is a completely different subject really.Shocked

And how is letting pirates shoot people and be free to warp to another gate/station without getting shot at by those sentry guns going to attract the carebears more? I think thats what you mean I hope. If they didn't shoot at all it wouldn't be good. All this would attract is more pirating.


Dray
Caldari
Euphoria Released
HYDRA RELOADED
Posted - 2008.06.05 10:24:00 - [236]
 

To hammer home my earlier point, asking for a change in the game is all well and good if the problem cant be solved because the game is broken, in this case it isn't.

Lets be honest here, its about greed, people don't want to interrupt their isk flow taking a little bit of time to counter the problem.

All together now...

THE SOLUTION IS SIMPLE....
THE SOLUTION IS SIMPLE....
THE SOLUTION IS SIMPLE....

Repeat to fade.

Somatic Neuron
Posted - 2008.06.05 10:52:00 - [237]
 

I agree with the OP's concept of not providing insurance to criminals when they engage in criminal activity. So, basically, if you perform an action which flags you as a criminal, and your action directly or indirectly results in the loss of another person's ship, and you lose your ship within the agression timer, your insurance payment becomes null and void.

Dray
Caldari
Euphoria Released
HYDRA RELOADED
Posted - 2008.06.05 11:08:00 - [238]
 

Voiding the insurance wont solve the problem, believe me, it wouldn't stop me, what does stop me tho is my targets showing a little bit of savvy and realizing how easy it is to counter a gank.

Somatic Neuron
Posted - 2008.06.05 11:15:00 - [239]
 

Originally by: Dray
Voiding the insurance wont solve the problem, believe me, it wouldn't stop me, what does stop me tho is my targets showing a little bit of savvy and realizing how easy it is to counter a gank.


It solves the WIN-WIN situation that currently exists, which I think is what this is really about. I don't think anybody is in favor of removing the ability of the suicide gankers, as they play an important role in the game

abbagabba
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2008.06.05 11:52:00 - [240]
 

Edited by: abbagabba on 05/06/2008 11:52:36
Not signed. You seem to be missing the bigger picture and are focused on your paticular playstyle, pimped mission running.

A few points:

1) It already takes 6+ battleships to take down a raven. If we void insurance that will cost 400M-600M making a break even gank target 800-1200M in modules with a large risk of a massive isk loss. If you fly your mission ship in a 0.7 or 0.8 with a DC II you are looking at probably 1.8B isk just to break even. When you factor in the time costs of waiting, raising security, organising the gang, selling the loot and fitting the ships up then you will want a target of at least 3B. So is that the point at which you should become a target to suicide gankers? Seems awfully high to me.

2) You are ignoring how this change will effect the suiciding of haulers and miners. The question is, is there a problem at the moment, do we need to make ganking more difficult because it is unbalancing the economy? Are price differentials between different regions huge because of the extreme risk of hauling goods. Are traders and haulers claiming they can't make a profit because their goods get vaporised the second they undock? Are meta loot prices skyrocketing because it can't be safely brought to market? Is the isk faucet of high sec ganking and the wholescale destruction of loot causing hyperinflation? No, at the moment smart haulers are making money, those who aren't aware of the risks or aren't competent to deal with them are losing money. This is good, no?

3) You want to void insurance for successfull ganks, which encourages a scatter gun approach to ganking and rewards sloppy gankers.

4) You completely ignore the major cost of ganking which is the security status hit. Even with good 0.0 access a freighter hit takes upwards of 7 man hours of ratting to raise, a battleship hit 4 and a hauler hit 0.5-1 hour. These are not insignificant time costs and whilst you do earn isk when doing it you earn a lot less when you are concentrating on raising sec status.

5) Insurance system is broken because the market is flooded with cheap minerals. This is a problem for all EVE not just ganking. How do you break a corporation that can just undock one 'throwaway' BS after another. How do you clear out low sec pirates who camp in cheap fit BS. So why is the market flooded with cheap minerals and arby siege launchers. Maybe we need less people running missions and high sec mining and more people getting cheap ships blown up to drive up the prices of minerals.

6) Ganking is a self balancing system. There are no NPC haulers who ram tech I haulers full of nice loot and then AFK to their destination. There are only so many mission runners with pimped ships to kill and only so many X-type boosters to be destroyed. Whining that some gankers can make billions of isk is like whining that traders can do likewise. It is pvp and if it is extremely profitable get your slice of the pie until it is not so profitable anymore (either from competition from other gankers or victims wising up, this has noticably happened with CNRs in the last few months imo). If you do will probably find that good gankers work hard and show teamwork to make a decent hourly return.


Pages: first : previous : ... 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 ... : 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