These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

"Eve is a game driven by consequences for actions." Not if you're into suicide ganking
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Skunk Gracklaw
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#221 - 2011-10-24 21:15:01 UTC
Christine Cagney wrote:
The Suicide Ganker does NOT risk anything of ‘inestimable’ value to himself. While the person ganked loses something of inestimable value, which no doubt cost him a lot of hard work. This equation is not balanced.

I didn't realize running a mining bot was so much work!
Tanya Fox
Doomheim
#222 - 2011-10-24 21:16:46 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Christine Cagney wrote:
The word “Suicide” means, the Self it worthless.
Congratulations. You just showed that fiddling with insurance will not help ganking victims…

…which, by the way, others have already proposed.




Tippia if it's as worthless as you suggest it is, why do suicide gankers resist getting rid of insurance for them.

Because if it's as worthless as you say then they really should not careless if they can't get insurance.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#223 - 2011-10-24 21:18:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Tanya Fox wrote:
Tippia if it's as worthless as you suggest it is, why do suicide gankers resist getting rid of insurance for them.
I don't think the gankers do. I do, and I don't say that it's worthless. I also want it preserved because I want to see dastardliness in highsec rewarded and further incentivised. It has become far too safe around here, as shown by the shock, horror and confusion people display when it happens — they've become complacent from their safety and forgotten (or never even learned) even the most basic and most highly efficient survival techniques.

At any rate, even if it is worthless, then the question comes back to my annoying “why?” If it doesn't solve the (supposed) problem, then there's no reason to touch it, in particular since doing so would just break a bunch of other things where it most certainly is working as intended.
Tanya Fox
Doomheim
#224 - 2011-10-24 21:22:32 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Tanya Fox wrote:
Tippia if it's as worthless as you suggest it is, why do suicide gankers resist getting rid of insurance for them.
I don't think the gankers do. I do, and I don't say that it's worthless.

At any rate, if it is worthless, then the question comes back to my annoying “why?” If it doesn't solve the (supposed) problem, then there's no reason to touch it, and doing so would just break a bunch of other things where it most certainly is working as intended.




We come back to, if you get killed by Concord you should not receive any insurance payout.

I don't see that breaking anything else, it would work perfectly ok.
Skunk Gracklaw
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#225 - 2011-10-24 22:22:59 UTC
Tanya Fox wrote:
We come back to, if you get killed by Concord you should not receive any insurance payout.

I don't see that breaking anything else, it would work perfectly ok.

What are you going to ask for when that doesn't stop people from ganking miners in highsec?
Tanya Fox
Doomheim
#226 - 2011-10-24 22:30:05 UTC
Skunk Gracklaw wrote:
Tanya Fox wrote:
We come back to, if you get killed by Concord you should not receive any insurance payout.

I don't see that breaking anything else, it would work perfectly ok.

What are you going to ask for when that doesn't stop people from ganking miners in highsec?




Nothing, It won't stop all ganking in high sec, might slow it down a bit, although it could increase initially as some people might try to make some kind of point out of it.


But it would get rid of something a lot of us feel is a ridiculous practice, namely being paid insurance after being killed by Concord.
MeestaPenni
Mercantile and Stuff
#227 - 2011-10-24 22:33:26 UTC
Tanya Fox wrote:

But it would get rid of something a lot of us feel is a ridiculous practice, namely being paid insurance after being killed by Concord.


This.

I haven't read a single instance of anyone advocating for removing the potential for a gank from any part of Eve. Simply the removal of the head spinning illogic of receiving an insurance payout for intentionally using your ship as a large, expendable piece of ordnance.

I am not Prencleeve Grothsmore.
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#228 - 2011-10-24 22:34:00 UTC
Skunk Gracklaw wrote:
Tanya Fox wrote:
We come back to, if you get killed by Concord you should not receive any insurance payout.

I don't see that breaking anything else, it would work perfectly ok.

What are you going to ask for when that doesn't stop people from ganking miners in highsec?


It's not about stopping it, at least for me. It's about adding worthwhile risk to those that do. Whether this happens or not, I really won't concern myself too much with. BUT, this thread proves rather eloquently that those that preach "RISK" and "COLD HARD UNIVERSE" are the most adamant to receiving risk themselves.

This isn't anything new. I just find it hilarious that the idiots spouting making high sec more dangerous really mean making it easier for themselves to irritate and grief others. There's a reason why goons usually come in huge numbers to defend grief play, and it has zero to do with common sense.

Every single time that someone proposes increasing even a tiny bit of risk to the schadenfreude crowd their tears start rolling. Funny, considering they're supposed to be the tear collectors.

Successfully doinitwrong™ since 2006.
Skunk Gracklaw
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#229 - 2011-10-24 22:35:08 UTC
I hope they do it just so you guys can cry even more when it doesn't stop people from blowing up your exhumers.
David Cedarbridge
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#230 - 2011-10-24 22:36:12 UTC
Avril Dewar wrote:
I'm going to have to follow your own rhetorical tactic here and ask you to demonstrate that this would be optimal for the game as a whole.


And thus was the day found where use of proof and demonstrable logic was considered a rhetorical tactic specific to only one person and characteristic of their style. :cripes:
Skunk Gracklaw
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#231 - 2011-10-24 22:38:25 UTC
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:
There's a reason why goons usually come in huge numbers to defend grief play, and it has zero to do with common sense.

We get reimbursed by the alliance for our losses and get a bounty for killing miners. The insurance money is nice but not necessary so you won't see many goons getting too worked up about insurance being removed. The only reason you see us comment on it is because we're drawn to any thread where this is this much whining.
FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#232 - 2011-10-24 22:42:10 UTC
Imagine the minerals market without us getting so much stuff blown up every day.

Your precious isk machine would slow way, way down.

Also, don't autopilot. Ever.

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#233 - 2011-10-24 22:47:30 UTC  |  Edited by: MatrixSkye Mk2
Skunk Gracklaw wrote:
The only reason you see us comment on it is because we're drawn to any thread where this is this much whining.


No way! A goon with Schadenfreude? Why I would have never.

The funny thing is when goons get "ganked" you flood the forums with more tears than I have ever seen shed by any other alliance. But your level of intelligence pretty much makes it impossible for you to see the irony in that.

Successfully doinitwrong™ since 2006.
Skunk Gracklaw
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#234 - 2011-10-24 22:50:52 UTC
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:
Skunk Gracklaw wrote:
The only reason you see us comment on it is because we're drawn to any thread where this is this much whining.


No way! A goon with Schadenfreude? Why I would have never.

The funny thing is when goons are "ganked" you flood the forums with more tears that I have seen shed by any other alliance. But your level of intelligence pretty much makes it impossible for you to see the irony in that.

You wound me with your posting
Tanya Fox
Doomheim
#235 - 2011-10-24 22:51:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Tanya Fox
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:


Also, don't autopilot. Ever.




That's very good advice, recommend that to everyone. Anyway autopilot is too slow.


Edit : Ofc for any new player reading this, use autopilot to set the route then fly it manually.
Hrald
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#236 - 2011-10-24 22:57:40 UTC
so much shitposting
Tanya Fox
Doomheim
#237 - 2011-10-24 23:02:51 UTC
Hrald wrote:
so much shitposting




Yeah, yours is a prime example.


If you're going to post at least give it some content.
Jovan Geldon
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#238 - 2011-10-24 23:57:09 UTC
Funny how every "waah waah Goons waah waah" thread is started by an NPC corp character. You can shitpost all you like from behind an alt, and you don't even need to pay ISK for the privilege. How's that for "consequences", you damm hypocrites.
Tanya Fox
Doomheim
#239 - 2011-10-25 00:05:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Tanya Fox
Jovan Geldon wrote:
Funny how every "waah waah Goons waah waah" thread is started by an NPC corp character. You can shitpost all you like from behind an alt, and you don't even need to pay ISK for the privilege. How's that for "consequences", you damm hypocrites.





This is my main character, my other accounts are not even active.


So I'm in an NPC corp, not much fun in single player corp unless all you are trying to do is dodge taxes.



Edit: Actually you're a bit out-of-date NPC corp tax is 11%
Captain BlueBeard
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#240 - 2011-10-25 00:05:45 UTC
MOO played within the rules. They were nerfed.

The Privateers played within the rules. They were nerfed.

Goons are playing within the rules. Will they be nerfed?

The question becomes; Are the Goons actions falling under the same category as the Privateers and MOO?

As far as I can tell, yes.