These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Missions & Complexes

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Very serious danger for all people who like to do missions in faction ships

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Evilishah
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#221 - 2014-02-06 15:30:02 UTC
@DMC

So show me. Facts are verifiable things. I'd also submit that it isn't a fact. It takes coordination, a ship that can drop more isk than the destroyers required to kill it, and a pilot that is blissfully unaware of local/d-scan/his surroundings. Add to that, that the vast majority of high sec players aren't ever going to get suicide ganked, and that CCP has made it harder and less profitable to suicide gank (while making it easier to farm isk in high sec) and your fact begins to look like common whining.

I really am curious, what makes you think that high sec should be 100% safe? Why should it be an isk farm with virtually no risk (level 4s stop becoming challenging the second you can fit a proper ship) easily out performing low sec and occasionally null sec? Remember, you want the status quo changed so provide an argument (you've got the burden of proof here).

I get it. No one likes to lose ships, but I can't see a single reason to change high sec to be more safe. Meanwhile, there is quite a bit of compelling evidence to both leave it as is and nerf its isk gain.
Ayeshah Volfield
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#222 - 2014-02-06 15:37:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Ayeshah Volfield
Though I'm no one important ingame, I'll still drop my .02.

I think the only mechanic that needs any change is NPC corp protecting anyone from wardecs.

Would changing this help solve any of the issues with ganking/ninja salvagers and looters or is it a terrible idea ?

EVE is what happens when the rule of law does not apply and Darwinism is allowed to run freely.
Evilishah
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#223 - 2014-02-06 15:44:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Evilishah
Deleted because I copied the wrong thing...
IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#224 - 2014-02-06 17:39:51 UTC
Ayeshah Volfield wrote:
Though I'm no one important ingame, I'll still drop my .02.

I think the only mechanic that needs any change is NPC corp protecting anyone from wardecs.

Would changing this help solve any of the issues with ganking/ninja salvagers and looters or is it a terrible idea ?


I don't think it would stop war decs because those are two different things. The 11 percent NPC tax was added to discourage people from staying in NPC corps but some still stay. I think it would have to be 25 percent or higher to discourage most.
Ayeshah Volfield
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#225 - 2014-02-06 17:46:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Ayeshah Volfield
IIshira wrote:
Ayeshah Volfield wrote:
Though I'm no one important ingame, I'll still drop my .02.

I think the only mechanic that needs any change is NPC corp protecting anyone from wardecs.

Would changing this help solve any of the issues with ganking/ninja salvagers and looters or is it a terrible idea ?


I don't think it would stop war decs because those are two different things. The 11 percent NPC tax was added to discourage people from staying in NPC corps but some still stay. I think it would have to be 25 percent or higher to discourage most.


I didn't mean stopping wardecs. I meant changing it in some way to stop gankers from enjoying wardec immunity that being in a NPC corp enables. A tax increase would only discourage non gankers, as they could always contract gank ships through an alt to bypass it.

I'm fine with ganks, ninja looting and all that, just not with the fact that, while I am able to defend myself, I can't wardec them at all so I can enjoy concord-free PVP and get even.

It just seems like a loophole to me, though I may be wrong and not seeing this situation clearly.

EVE is what happens when the rule of law does not apply and Darwinism is allowed to run freely.
Estella Osoka
Cranky Bitches Who PMS
#226 - 2014-02-06 22:41:18 UTC
DeMichael Crimson wrote:
Goldiiee wrote:
Estella Osoka wrote:
Ninja Salvaging as a profession: https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Ninja_Salvaging You do not own the mission site. That is like saying the U.S. Military owns Afghanistan because we are conducting missions there. You are in local space that is owned by a faction. That faction owns the space. The agent provides you with a mission objective that you must complete. You have to complete those objectives by defeating the npc rats and any other factors that prevent you from accomplishing your objective. It doesn't matter that the mission site is spawned upon accepting it. You want to do missions and not be harrassed, go to WoW. The mission "invaders" are not scanning down the mission site, they are scanning you down. They do not know you are in a mission site. For all they know you could be in a deep safe. They will not know what you are doing until they warp to you. BTW, the reason there is an increase in mission "invaders" is due to the fact that carebears screamed for an easier way to scan. CCP delivered, and now anybody with about a week of training can scan down ships; whereas before it took some actual skill.
I think the problem here is you are talking about current mechanics and the proposal is taking about possible NEW mechanics. And the ship in a deep safe would not subject an invader to the proposed aggression mechanic since he/she is not in a mission deadspace pocket.
Not to mention that Evelopedia page was created by a player, it's not an Official CCP created page thus it doesn't provide any proof that Ninja Salvaging is endorsed and advertised as an Official Career Path. And the analogy about the Military not owning territory in foreign countries fails since Embassies and Consulates are 'owned' by their respective Governments, regardless of the country in which they are located. Invading and attacking those is an act of war. Same goes for the Diplomatic Motorcades that are en-route. DMC
Professions in EVE do not have to be endorsed by CCP. This is a sandbox environment. I'm sure the Knights of the New Order are not an endorsed profession by CCP. I'm sure lowsec pirates are not an endorsed profession by CCP. Players create content. If that content involves creating a profession that involves ninja salvaging or mission ganking, then that is within the EVE sandbox concept. CCP loves players who create content, as can be seen from the battle in B-5 and the hundreds of thousands of real dollars lost. That battle created content and made the news. Goons create content, minerbumping creates content, Burn Jita creates content. Does everyone like this content? No, but it is what EVE is about. This whole idea is about taking content away and basically goes against what EVE is about.
Goldiiee
Bureau of Astronomical Anomalies
#227 - 2014-02-06 23:36:52 UTC
Criminal Act Confiscation
Here you go one more idea to add, As any criminal act is responded to by Concord I believe Concord deserves payment just like the ganker(s) believe they deserve payment for ridding High sec of Bling Boats. If Concord arrives on the scene to respond to a Criminal Act they then confiscate all loot.

If that seems unfair then a 'tribunal' can be formed to decide on the ownership of the loot. A simple algorithm can be devised that randomly gives the loot to an aggressor, the victim, or it gets lost in the evidence hangar. This would be the equivalent of corruption in the system, with a 5% chance of recovery by either side and a 90% chance of lost evidence. And as all bureaucracies take time I think a 3 week delay on the decision is appropriate.

Gankers can still do what they do best, Carebears and Industrialist still get to do what they were doing, CCP gets a new way to remove ISK from the game and it adheres to a certain 'makes sense' lore.

Things that keep me up at night;  Why do we use a voice communication device to send telegraphs? Moore's Law should state, Once you have paid off the last PC upgrade you will need another.
Estella Osoka
Cranky Bitches Who PMS
#228 - 2014-02-07 00:54:49 UTC
How about you just stop blinging out your mission ship? Then the gankers won't make a profit.
Goldiiee
Bureau of Astronomical Anomalies
#229 - 2014-02-07 01:12:12 UTC
Estella Osoka wrote:
How about you just stop blinging out your mission ship? Then the gankers won't make a profit.

Yeah cause it's all about me, I haven't lost a blingy mission boat, I take the appropriate steps and keep myself protected. I just feel the need to support the cause and reduce the ease of Turret Banking in high sec.

Things that keep me up at night;  Why do we use a voice communication device to send telegraphs? Moore's Law should state, Once you have paid off the last PC upgrade you will need another.
Evilishah
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#230 - 2014-02-07 02:49:06 UTC
Goldiiee wrote:
Criminal Act Confiscation
Here you go one more idea to add, As any criminal act is responded to by Concord I believe Concord deserves payment just like the ganker(s) believe they deserve payment for ridding High sec of Bling Boats. If Concord arrives on the scene to respond to a Criminal Act they then confiscate all loot.

If that seems unfair then a 'tribunal' can be formed to decide on the ownership of the loot. A simple algorithm can be devised that randomly gives the loot to an aggressor, the victim, or it gets lost in the evidence hangar. This would be the equivalent of corruption in the system, with a 5% chance of recovery by either side and a 90% chance of lost evidence. And as all bureaucracies take time I think a 3 week delay on the decision is appropriate.

Gankers can still do what they do best, Carebears and Industrialist still get to do what they were doing, CCP gets a new way to remove ISK from the game and it adheres to a certain 'makes sense' lore.


Since we are playing in "fantasy land", I grant you your zero loot in null sec.

I also say that since the burden will increase on Conchord, then you should have to pay for that protection (50% of your earned isk sounds right).

Or, and this is probably more likely, learn the risks of the game and act accordingly.

Like I have said before, your only real argument is that it is unfair that you can't fly whatever you want where ever you want.
Goldiiee
Bureau of Astronomical Anomalies
#231 - 2014-02-07 03:09:49 UTC
Evilishah wrote:
Goldiiee wrote:
Criminal Act Confiscation
Here you go one more idea to add, As any criminal act is responded to by Concord I believe Concord deserves payment just like the ganker(s) believe they deserve payment for ridding High sec of Bling Boats. If Concord arrives on the scene to respond to a Criminal Act they then confiscate all loot.

If that seems unfair then a 'tribunal' can be formed to decide on the ownership of the loot. A simple algorithm can be devised that randomly gives the loot to an aggressor, the victim, or it gets lost in the evidence hangar. This would be the equivalent of corruption in the system, with a 5% chance of recovery by either side and a 90% chance of lost evidence. And as all bureaucracies take time I think a 3 week delay on the decision is appropriate.

Gankers can still do what they do best, Carebears and Industrialist still get to do what they were doing, CCP gets a new way to remove ISK from the game and it adheres to a certain 'makes sense' lore.


Since we are playing in "fantasy land", I grant you your zero loot in null sec.

I also say that since the burden will increase on Conchord, then you should have to pay for that protection (50% of your earned isk sounds right).

Or, and this is probably more likely, learn the risks of the game and act accordingly.

Like I have said before, your only real argument is that it is unfair that you can't fly whatever you want where ever you want.

You seem to be misunderstanding me, I don't want complete safety I just think the current Risk / Reward for ganking is to high on the reward side. And once again I am not posting as a victim that just lost 10 PLEX worth of loot I bought with mommy's credit card, I haven't lost anything to mission boat Gankers as of yet. I just feel there needs to be some balance put back into the security of High Sec security.

I don't know, something like actual security.

Things that keep me up at night;  Why do we use a voice communication device to send telegraphs? Moore's Law should state, Once you have paid off the last PC upgrade you will need another.
Evilishah
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#232 - 2014-02-07 03:31:40 UTC
Goldiiee wrote:
Evilishah wrote:
Goldiiee wrote:
Criminal Act Confiscation
Here you go one more idea to add, As any criminal act is responded to by Concord I believe Concord deserves payment just like the ganker(s) believe they deserve payment for ridding High sec of Bling Boats. If Concord arrives on the scene to respond to a Criminal Act they then confiscate all loot.

If that seems unfair then a 'tribunal' can be formed to decide on the ownership of the loot. A simple algorithm can be devised that randomly gives the loot to an aggressor, the victim, or it gets lost in the evidence hangar. This would be the equivalent of corruption in the system, with a 5% chance of recovery by either side and a 90% chance of lost evidence. And as all bureaucracies take time I think a 3 week delay on the decision is appropriate.

Gankers can still do what they do best, Carebears and Industrialist still get to do what they were doing, CCP gets a new way to remove ISK from the game and it adheres to a certain 'makes sense' lore.


Since we are playing in "fantasy land", I grant you your zero loot in null sec.

I also say that since the burden will increase on Conchord, then you should have to pay for that protection (50% of your earned isk sounds right).

Or, and this is probably more likely, learn the risks of the game and act accordingly.

Like I have said before, your only real argument is that it is unfair that you can't fly whatever you want where ever you want.

You seem to be misunderstanding me, I don't want complete safety I just think the current Risk / Reward for ganking is to high on the reward side. And once again I am not posting as a victim that just lost 10 PLEX worth of loot I bought with mommy's credit card, I haven't lost anything to mission boat Gankers as of yet. I just feel there needs to be some balance put back into the security of High Sec security.

I don't know, something like actual security.


The risk vs reward is only there when someone decides to jump into a 5 billion isk ship. I don't have numbers, but I imagine the vast majority of bears will never get ganked, and the ones who do are going to be the ones who slowboat their way across 20 jumps or notoriously fly a billion dollar ship.

You act like you want to make reasonable concessions, but you don't. You want to remove high sec ganks entirely (isn't that what your "no loot for you" rule is designed to do)?
Goldiiee
Bureau of Astronomical Anomalies
#233 - 2014-02-07 03:53:17 UTC
Evilishah wrote:
Goldiiee wrote:

You seem to be misunderstanding me, I don't want complete safety I just think the current Risk / Reward for ganking is to high on the reward side. And once again I am not posting as a victim that just lost 10 PLEX worth of loot I bought with mommy's credit card, I haven't lost anything to mission boat Gankers as of yet. I just feel there needs to be some balance put back into the security of High Sec security.

I don't know, something like actual security.


The risk vs reward is only there when someone decides to jump into a 5 billion isk ship. I don't have numbers, but I imagine the vast majority of bears will never get ganked, and the ones who do are going to be the ones who slowboat their way across 20 jumps or notoriously fly a billion dollar ship.

You act like you want to make reasonable concessions, but you don't. You want to remove high sec ganks entirely (isn't that what your "no loot for you" rule is designed to do)?

I have a friend that lost his Orca, fully tanked and carrying only 2 billion worth of fittings and ammo, he had a Guardian on it at the time and it still went down in a matter of 15 seconds, and ended up losing the guardian as well. So no 5 bil isn't the limit, and making the ships worth less only lowers the bar and opens up cheaper ships to gank. The problem is it's too easy and too profitable, and there is nothing at all that can be done to prevent it except fly a crappy T2 fit T1 ship. With the latest round of tieracide many ships can barely fit fully T2 they are designed to intentionally need some bling, and therefore intentionally deserve to be ganked. The circular logic here is not to hard to grasp. This seems like a hell of a concession to play the game in High Security space that has virtually no Security against this type of extortionate greifer game play.

I know the response of 'He shouldn't have been hauling 2 bil in an Orca' But really with the current inflation 2 bil can be as little as one module. The Turret Banking needs an answer and as of yet the only response to possible suggestions is HTFU or play smarter. Well HTFU is a wasted comment but when I see people playing smarter and still losing I tend to think we need a change.

Things that keep me up at night;  Why do we use a voice communication device to send telegraphs? Moore's Law should state, Once you have paid off the last PC upgrade you will need another.
Qalix
Long Jump.
#234 - 2014-02-07 04:57:49 UTC
Goldiiee wrote:
Evilishah wrote:
Goldiiee wrote:

You seem to be misunderstanding me, I don't want complete safety I just think the current Risk / Reward for ganking is to high on the reward side. And once again I am not posting as a victim that just lost 10 PLEX worth of loot I bought with mommy's credit card, I haven't lost anything to mission boat Gankers as of yet. I just feel there needs to be some balance put back into the security of High Sec security.

I don't know, something like actual security.


The risk vs reward is only there when someone decides to jump into a 5 billion isk ship. I don't have numbers, but I imagine the vast majority of bears will never get ganked, and the ones who do are going to be the ones who slowboat their way across 20 jumps or notoriously fly a billion dollar ship.

You act like you want to make reasonable concessions, but you don't. You want to remove high sec ganks entirely (isn't that what your "no loot for you" rule is designed to do)?

I have a friend that lost his Orca, fully tanked and carrying only 2 billion worth of fittings and ammo, he had a Guardian on it at the time and it still went down in a matter of 15 seconds, and ended up losing the guardian as well. So no 5 bil isn't the limit, and making the ships worth less only lowers the bar and opens up cheaper ships to gank. The problem is it's too easy and too profitable, and there is nothing at all that can be done to prevent it except fly a crappy T2 fit T1 ship. With the latest round of tieracide many ships can barely fit fully T2 they are designed to intentionally need some bling, and therefore intentionally deserve to be ganked. The circular logic here is not to hard to grasp. This seems like a hell of a concession to play the game in High Security space that has virtually no Security against this type of extortionate greifer game play.

I know the response of 'He shouldn't have been hauling 2 bil in an Orca' But really with the current inflation 2 bil can be as little as one module. The Turret Banking needs an answer and as of yet the only response to possible suggestions is HTFU or play smarter. Well HTFU is a wasted comment but when I see people playing smarter and still losing I tend to think we need a change.

killmail?
Goldiiee
Bureau of Astronomical Anomalies
#235 - 2014-02-07 05:51:07 UTC
Qalix, I didn't save it, go do a search through orca kills I am sure you can find the one that matches, was middle of last week IIRC.

His orca was equipped with a MWD/Cloak but they still managed to bump him before he got into warp, then continued bumping till they got the 10 or 12 Talos's on grid and popped him. I still am wondering if the jettison/anchor cargo in secure anchored cans would stop this or just make them bring more alts to pop the 500k EHP cans.

Things that keep me up at night;  Why do we use a voice communication device to send telegraphs? Moore's Law should state, Once you have paid off the last PC upgrade you will need another.
ashley Eoner
#236 - 2014-02-07 05:59:09 UTC  |  Edited by: ashley Eoner
IIshira wrote:
Ayeshah Volfield wrote:
Though I'm no one important ingame, I'll still drop my .02.

I think the only mechanic that needs any change is NPC corp protecting anyone from wardecs.

Would changing this help solve any of the issues with ganking/ninja salvagers and looters or is it a terrible idea ?


I don't think it would stop war decs because those are two different things. The 11 percent NPC tax was added to discourage people from staying in NPC corps but some still stay. I think it would have to be 25 percent or higher to discourage most.

Then we can enjoy billions of one man corps. I guess at that point we'd have to institute a week long wait in order to leave a corp. That would be the only way to deal with people wanting to bypass the taxes and the war mechanic. In that case though have fun with the AWOXER that's stuck in your corp for the next week.
Anize Oramara
WarpTooZero
#237 - 2014-02-07 08:38:33 UTC
look at red frog. they transport trillions of a year. if high sec ganking was such a rampant issue as you suggest then I bet they must be the victim of hundreds of ganks right?

turns out they are not. they make all their numbers including ganks suffered publicly available.

in their annual report for 2012 red frog alone completed over a hundred THOUSAND contracts. that is over 250 trips A DAY. they moved over 75 TRILLION isk in collateral. try wrapping you brain around that number.

you know how many ganks they suffered? 25. and that was primarily because they were carrying more than one double wrapped package at a time. basically asking for it (they changed their policy on double wrapping)

anything you can say in the face of these facts will only sound like you being a whiny little child crying that the world isnt fair and honestly is music to highsec pirates ears. you are a joke, a fool to be pitied and a source of income for those smarter and less lazy than you.

you are nothing more than food for the higher life forms above you so sit down and accept your place in the food chain.

although I bet most pirates like their food to squirm as it goes down.




A guide (Google Doc) to Hi-Sec blitzing and breaking the 200mill ISK/H barrier v1.2.3
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#238 - 2014-02-07 13:50:40 UTC
I have removed a rule breaking post and the one quoting it.

The rules:
2. Be respectful toward others at all times.

The purpose of the EVE Online forums is to provide a platform for exchange of ideas, and a venue for the discussion of EVE Online. Occasionally there will be conflicts that arise when people voice opinions. Forum users are expected to be courteous when disagreeing with others.

6. Racism and discrimination are prohibited.

Racism, gender stereotyping and hate speech are not permitted on the EVE Online Forums. Derogatory posting that includes race, religion or sexual preference based personal attacks and trolling can result in immediate suspension of forum posting privileges.

ISD Ezwal Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#239 - 2014-02-07 14:26:00 UTC  |  Edited by: IIshira
Ayeshah Volfield wrote:
IIshira wrote:
Ayeshah Volfield wrote:
Though I'm no one important ingame, I'll still drop my .02.

I think the only mechanic that needs any change is NPC corp protecting anyone from wardecs.

Would changing this help solve any of the issues with ganking/ninja salvagers and looters or is it a terrible idea ?


I don't think it would stop war decs because those are two different things. The 11 percent NPC tax was added to discourage people from staying in NPC corps but some still stay. I think it would have to be 25 percent or higher to discourage most.


I didn't mean stopping wardecs. I meant changing it in some way to stop gankers from enjoying wardec immunity that being in a NPC corp enables. A tax increase would only discourage non gankers, as they could always contract gank ships through an alt to bypass it.

I'm fine with ganks, ninja looting and all that, just not with the fact that, while I am able to defend myself, I can't wardec them at all so I can enjoy concord-free PVP and get even.

It just seems like a loophole to me, though I may be wrong and not seeing this situation clearly.


I meant to say "I don't think it would stop ganking" but lack of sleep...

The biggest problem with war dec'ing gankers is security status. While some that do ganking on the side actually try to keep their sec status up a pilot that is a dedicated ganker is -10. A pilot that's -10 is killable by anyone everywhere even if he's in the NPC corp so a wardec would not change anything.

Some people play Eve to gank but many of them are alts. It doesn't take long to train a thrasher pilot for ganking.P. Now you don't even have to pay the transfer fee because you just activate second character training with PLEX on your main account, get it to where you want it then stop training.
Estella Osoka
Cranky Bitches Who PMS
#240 - 2014-02-07 14:33:04 UTC
Don't fly a blingy ship, you have less chance of being ganked. The gankers go after ships with lots of expensive mods on them. If you are flying a Macherial with to A-type Invulns, 4 faction gyros, faction tracking computer, deadspace shield repper, and 2 faction tracking enhancers; you run a high risk of being ganked. More blingy = more chance of faction loot. Less blingy = less chance of faction loot.

And what is really insane is that most people who get ganked are not fitting a damage control, sitting at zero on the warpin, and not watching d-scan.

If you walk around with a gold iPhone, wearing a Rolex, with a fat wallet, in an Armani suit in the bad part of town; what do you think will happen? You will get robbed. This is what is happening, and is entirely within the sandbox concept of EVE.

People overcompnesate with bling to make their ship better, when they should be training certain skills higher to get the most out of their ship. Stop fitting faction gyros, and train large guns up to 5. Stop using 1bil isk invulns and train the shield resist skills to 5. Stop fitting faction tracking enhancers/computers and train the gunnery support skills to 5. Sure it takes time, but it is so worth it; and you won't have to bling out your mission ship to get over 1000 dps.