These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Suicide Ganking: coming to an end?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#61 - 2011-11-06 00:13:05 UTC
DarkAegix wrote:
Finally, suicide gankers need to choose their targets with at least the tiniest degree of caution.

Hah hah! So many suicide-ganker tears in here!

Awesome, EVE is realistic now!

High-sec is meant to be safe! I'm glad CCP changed this.

High-sec is dangerous, and finally suicide-gankers are no longer spoon-fed ISK.

Now CCP just need to make CONCORD pre-empt suicide ganks, and destroy the ganker before they can even get a single shot off.

Miners 1 - Gankers 0

So many ganker tears! I'm sorry that your :elitepvp: is now a dead end! LOL!

Oh no, all the killmail whoring suicide gankers are crying. Somebody call the whaaaambulance.

There sure are a whole lot of 'hardcore pirates' behaving like little children in here.

Finally, the IWIN button of EVE is gone.

/inflammatory comments
Excellent explanation for why this is a very bad change that hurts the game.
Igualmentedos
Perkone
Caldari State
#62 - 2011-11-06 00:13:14 UTC
DarkAegix wrote:
Finally, suicide gankers need to choose their targets with at least the tiniest degree of caution.

Hah hah! So many suicide-ganker tears in here!

High-sec is meant to be safeR! I'm glad CCP changed this.

finally suicide-gankers are no longer spoon-fed ISK.

Miners 1 - Gankers 0 <--- SUCK IT

So many ganker tears! I'm sorry that your :elitepvp: is now a dead end! LOL!

Oh no, all the killmail whoring suicide gankers are crying. Somebody call the whaaaambulance.

There sure are a whole lot of 'hardcore pirates' behaving like little children in here.

/inflammatory comments


FTFY
Joe Skellington
Sarz'na Khumatari
#63 - 2011-11-06 00:14:52 UTC
Tippia wrote:

DarkAegix wrote:
And you must be in tears, presumably?
No. Why would I be?
I'm just exasperated by CCP's decision to make highsec safer when the exact opposite needs to happen.


It's less "safe" for the gankers now, because they actually have to pay the consequences for their actions, instead of milking a bad game mechanic. So your comment is illogical.

Please note that ASCII art is not permitted in the forum signatures. Spitfire
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#64 - 2011-11-06 00:15:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Igualmentedos wrote:
Miners 1 - Gankers 0 <--- SUCK IT
You realise that this makes things worse for miners, don't you? Ugh
Joe Skellington wrote:
It's less "safe" for the gankers now, because they actually have to pay the consequences for their actions, instead of milking a bad game mechanic. So your comment is illogical.
The reason it was “safe” for gankers was because the victims chose to make it safe for them. That's their choice and their problem, not something CCP should unbalance the game for.
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
#65 - 2011-11-06 00:17:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Nova Fox
suicide ganks will still happen just with chepaer ships now.

Also have you considered that maybe the ships are 100 isk each screwing with the values?

Dust 514's CPM 1 Iron Wolf Saber Eve mail me about Dust 514 issues.
Fille Balle
Ballbreakers R us
#66 - 2011-11-06 00:21:50 UTC
Igualmentedos wrote:
Max Von Sydow wrote:
DarkAegix wrote:
Tippia wrote:
DarkAegix wrote:
Excellent, now New Eden makes a little bit more logical sense.
So you're in favour of removing CONCORD, presumably?

And you must be in tears, presumably?

Delicious Tippia tears.


BEST tears! Big smile

-Can we call them Tt's from now on?


Guys, you're doing it wrong. You're supposed to ignore the troll.

And actually, those tears taste rather bitter. Not really my flavor, but each to his/her own I guess.

Stop the spamming, not the scamming!
DarkAegix
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#67 - 2011-11-06 00:22:07 UTC  |  Edited by: DarkAegix
Igualmentedos wrote:
DarkAegix wrote:
Finally, carebear suicide gankers need to choose their targets with at least the tiniest degree of caution. It's a shame most of them are too thick for that!

Hah hah! So many suicide-ganker tears in here! Grow up! You're playing with the pros now.

High-sec is meant to be safeR! I'm glad CCP changed this, and am looking forward to further improvements to EVE later.

finally suicide-gankers are no longer spoon-fed ISK. Whatever will they do now? Probably run level 1 missions because any degree of skill is too much for them

Miners 1 - Gankers 0 <--- SUCK IT YOU USELESS BABY GANKERS

So many wimpish ganker tears! I'm reeaallly sorry that your :elitepvp: is now a dead end! Welcome to EVE. Now there's danger in what you do. LOL!

Oh no, all the killmail whoring incompetant baby suicide gankers are crying. Somebody call the whaaaambulance! I'm literally drowning in tears over here.

There sure are a whole lot of 'hardcore pirates' behaving like little children in here. This is where we discover that suicide gankers are carebears, and miners are elite EVE pros.

/inflammatory comments


FTFY

Moar fixin' done.
More is still required, though.
Dondoran
Why So Sage
Dracarys.
#68 - 2011-11-06 00:22:27 UTC
Anyway you want to look at this the simple facts remain tier 3 BC gank machines and real destroyers need to have something balancing them even if you don’t agree Tippia.
Zions Child
Higashikata Industries
#69 - 2011-11-06 00:27:05 UTC
Eh, I don't really care much about this change. Destroyers are cheap. Hulkageddon is still fun. Gankers do it for the lulz, not for the profits (that's just an enjoyable side benefit). Probably won't do it in a battleship, but que sera sera. Also, EVE players are immortals, when did blowing up a ship become murder (and no, crew don't count because they're not people)?

Beeteedubs miners: Ships getting blown up is good for business.
Nypheas Azurai
Azimuth Enterprises
#70 - 2011-11-06 00:29:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Nypheas Azurai
I'm also enjoying some of the tears from indy-hate here. While I enjoy seeing a certain individual constantly challenging the obvious - why an insurance company wouldn't pay out for ships lost in criminal acts - I'll concede the point: let gameplay trump over realism & credulity... right?

(because an argument for insurance payouts from criminal activity certainly can't be made from a credibility standpoint, otherwise anyone arguing that has a severe lack of understanding on how insurance works).

So let's examine the current disparity that results in the gameplay:
Haulers are told: don't haul what you can't afford to lose. (there's always an alpha strike that will guarantee loss despite any "smart" hauler fit)
Gankers are told: don't gank with what you can't afford to lose... MINUS the generous payout from your favorite Insurance Company.

See the problem here? "Don't fly what you can't afford to lose" is the universal principle, the equalizer among all EVE pilots, so why does it seem to favour the ganker in that they can afford to lose more than what they fly since they get it back whereas the indy must obey the rule and lose all of his/her cargo?

I propose then equal-opportunity insurance:
Insurance for haulers that INCLUDES cargo insurance.

Now both parties can gank and be ganked to their hearts content!
(I'm not actually proposing this, just showing the holes in the pro-insurance argument when it's applied equally)
Avila Cracko
#71 - 2011-11-06 00:31:35 UTC
i will read all your tears when you find me one real insurance company which wont call ER to throw you in madhouse when you tell them they must pay you for damages when police shoot your car after you killed few hundred persons with it and dont want to stop...

truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
David Grogan
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#72 - 2011-11-06 00:38:08 UTC
i'd love to see concord introduced to low sec BUT the low sec concord are players not npc.

they would have free reign to gank any pirate with a -2.5 or worse sec status.

they would get missions to find and take out pirates.

Everytime you buy something that says "made in china" you are helping the rising unemployment in your own country unless you are from china, Buy locally produced goods and help create more jobs.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#73 - 2011-11-06 00:39:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Avila Cracko wrote:
i will read all your tears when you find me one real insurance company which wont call ER to throw you in madhouse when you tell them they must pay you for damages when police shoot your car after you killed few hundred persons with it and dont want to stop...
So you agree, then, that CONCORD should be removed?
Dondoran wrote:
The new battle cruisers would mean solo ganking is cheaper as thay will cost less than a BS. The more powerfull destroyers will mean less are needed to gank a target all of which benefits gankers greatly. How is this lost on you?
It's not lost on me. It's just not something I see as a balancing problem. Where is the imbalance?
Avila Cracko
#74 - 2011-11-06 00:44:02 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Avila Cracko wrote:
i will read all your tears when you find me one real insurance company which wont call ER to throw you in madhouse when you tell them they must pay you for damages when police shoot your car after you killed few hundred persons with it and dont want to stop...
So you agree, then, that CONCORD should be removed?


only if, when police catch you you are thrown in jail for few real weeks... that would be reality then... if you want it all...
and its easy for CCP to make a jail... we have CQ... just remove the door...

truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Buzzmong
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#75 - 2011-11-06 00:45:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Buzzmong
Hmm.

I wonder if this is a "two birds with one stone" affair and this is the first step.

First up being that getting Concordokened gave you full insurance never sat well as a concept. So, it now makes more logical sense.

But I wonder if it's tied into the Smuggling that CCP were planning on introducing.

For those not remembering the small details, CCP were going to overhaul the smuggling contraband system for illegal goods and put policing in the hands of the players. I think it was to help players RP the police role and make bounter hunters have a bigger role.

I wonder if CCP are indeed planning on removing Concord or at least, limiting its ability and response times.

They could change it so that what would normally trigger a Concord response gets the killer(s) flagged with a new semi-permanent criminal flag, which can only being lifed on ship destruction (or a pod kill), coupled with having what's left of Concord place bounties on the crims so that the players who partake in policing get a payout for their work.

Could be an interesting mechanic if it's not exploitable.

It would also be a rather excellent bit of game design and restore a lot of faith for me that CCP aren't afraid of rocking the boat and have still got balls.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#76 - 2011-11-06 00:46:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Avila Cracko wrote:
only if, when police catch you you are thrown in jail for few real weeks... that would be reality then... if you want it all...
So, basically, drastically increase the sec status loss and/or drastically slow down the ability to earn back sec status?
DarkAegix wrote:
So you agree, then, that you must be in tears right now?
No, why would I? Do I have a history of agreeing with unfounded assumptions?
And why would I be in tears? You never managed to answer that…
Avila Cracko
#77 - 2011-11-06 00:51:01 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Avila Cracko wrote:
only if, when police catch you you are thrown in jail for few real weeks... that would be reality then... if you want it all...
So, basically, drastically increase the sec status loss and/or drastically slow down the ability to earn back sec status?
DarkAegix wrote:
[So you agree, then, that you must be in tears right now?
No, why would I?
And why would I be in tears? You never managed to answer that…



no no no... that would me only deportation to country of third world where is no law... and thats not real world case... in real world when you are in jail you cant influence on anything outside jail walls...

truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#78 - 2011-11-06 00:53:11 UTC
Avila Cracko wrote:
no no no... that would me only deportation to country of third world where is no law... and thats not real world case... in real world when you are in jail you cant influence on anything outside jail walls...
Weeeell… that's not really how the real world, works, no, unless you're talking about some feel-good happy-end Hollywood version of jail. Blink
Avila Cracko
#79 - 2011-11-06 00:55:06 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Avila Cracko wrote:
no no no... that would me only deportation to country of third world where is no law... and thats not real world case... in real world when you are in jail you cant influence on anything outside jail walls...
Weeeell… that's not really how the real world, works, no, unless you're talking about some feel-good happy-end Hollywood version of jail. Blink



well... for ppl that are in jail for mass murder... its very like that...

truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#80 - 2011-11-06 00:56:27 UTC
Avila Cracko wrote:
well... for ppl that are in jail for mass murder... its very like that...
Only until they get a book deal.