These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page12
 

Tougher penalties on Suicide Gankers
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#21 - 2011-10-31 09:59:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Robert Caldera
Wot I Think wrote:
The following is the mandatory minimum penalty for suicide ganking:

Instant locking CONCORD.
Instant jamming CONCORD.
Instant neuting CONCORD.
Instant gibbing CONCORD.


why not just guns getting deactivated and the gun buttons grayed out when the concord delay timer expires, so we can omit those white crosses in space and concord ship models in space for less lag??
Guns deactivate and ship just instapops after timer expiration, much easier.
Borlag Crendraven
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#22 - 2011-10-31 10:53:25 UTC
Rather see a change in the other direction entirely. Make Concord killable, but with a change that the "cop killer" attracts even more Concord, essentially making you able to fight back but with even higher security status loss for each Concord ship you kill. Additionally the removal of insurance payment for ganking. Both changes to promote at least some form of realism.

While still protecting the helpless industrials, this would still result in at least slightly more interesting times for the pirates and gankers, thus not shutting out any play style entirely. Just making it so that the would be ganker has to pick their targets better in order to determine whether it's worth it or not. With the upcoming changes to destroyers and the tier 3 battlecruisers, I feel it's crucial that there is some kind of change against the gankers that still doesn't take away their play style for good.
Pent'nor
#23 - 2011-10-31 11:19:02 UTC
Borlag Crendraven wrote:
Rather see a change in the other direction entirely. Make Concord killable, but with a change that the "cop killer" attracts even more Concord, essentially making you able to fight back but with even higher security status loss for each Concord ship you kill. Additionally the removal of insurance payment for ganking. Both changes to promote at least some form of realism.



If they could actually kill concord, then I would expect to see fleets of people controlling areas instead of just a few suicide gankers. Unless I'm misunderstanding that. Also someone here pointed out that there are loopholes in the security status system as it stands now. I'd like to see the loop holes closed and have the sec status work as intended. I'm not sure what would be a good fix for it, but thats probably another thread.
Borlag Crendraven
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#24 - 2011-10-31 11:24:39 UTC
Pent'nor wrote:
Borlag Crendraven wrote:
Rather see a change in the other direction entirely. Make Concord killable, but with a change that the "cop killer" attracts even more Concord, essentially making you able to fight back but with even higher security status loss for each Concord ship you kill. Additionally the removal of insurance payment for ganking. Both changes to promote at least some form of realism.



If they could actually kill concord, then I would expect to see fleets of people controlling areas instead of just a few suicide gankers. Unless I'm misunderstanding that. Also someone here pointed out that there are loopholes in the security status system as it stands now. I'd like to see the loop holes closed and have the sec status work as intended. I'm not sure what would be a good fix for it, but thats probably another thread.


Obviously that could happen, but at the same time that's exactly what I meant by it having the possibility of making the life of a pirate/ganker more interesting as well. Agreed on this kind of suggestion being better served with its own thread. As I haven't really put that much thought into it, and weighted the possible benefits against the drawbacks, I'm not that comfortable in making it a proper suggestion yet. Just throwing the idea out incase someone's interested in expanding on it.
Previous page12