These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
12Next page
 

Make a ganker status 2 incur costs and greater payouts 4 Bhuntrs in HS

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Nerf Burger
Doomheim
#1 - 2014-06-29 13:33:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Nerf Burger
This is an idea to make suicide gankers desireable targets for bounty hunters. This idea would only pertain to high sec.

Currently many suicide gankers take very little risk and pay very negligible costs for their activities that incur incredible losses upon their victims.

These gankers accumulate huge bounties that do not get depleted because they only ever lose cheap ships when they die to bounty hunters.

I propose making lower sec status suicide receive an exponential isk hit upon death to a bounty hunter and exponentially greater payout to bounty hunters in HS. The system should detect those players who repeatedly die to concord and flag them as suicide gankers. If the cost of the ship a low sec status player loses in high sec does not exceed a TBD percentage of their bounty, isk will be deducted from that players wallet somewhere on their account in order to pay the bounty. If the ganker tries to cheat the system by having no isk on his account, skill points will be deducted instead at a TBD rate, in order to pay out the bounty upon their death, all the way to 0 SP.

This would add some risk to the reward for suicide gankers and make them actually worth going after. The lower the sec status they have, the greater percentage their bountys will be paid out to the person who brought justice to them in high sec.
HiddenPorpoise
Jarlhettur's Drop
United Federation of Conifers
#2 - 2014-06-29 13:56:36 UTC
The instant bounty is over 25% bounty is paying people you hate.
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#3 - 2014-06-29 16:27:05 UTC
Another 'remove ganking' thread?

Yawn.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#4 - 2014-06-29 16:56:15 UTC
Nerf Burger wrote:
This is an idea to make suicide gankers desireable targets for bounty hunters. This idea would only pertain to high sec.

Currently many suicide gankers take very little risk and pay very negligible costs for their activities that incur incredible losses upon their victims.

These gankers accumulate huge bounties that do not get depleted because they only ever lose cheap ships when they die to bounty hunters.

I propose making lower sec status players receive an exponential isk hit upon death to a bounty hunter and exponentially greater payout to bounty hunters in HS. If the cost of the ship a low sec status player loses in high sec does not exceed a TBD percentage of their bounty, isk will be deducted from that players wallet somewhere on their account in order to pay the bounty. If the ganker tries to cheat the system by having no isk on his account, skill points will be deducted instead at a TBD rate, in order to pay out the bounty upon their death, all the way to 0 SP.

This would add some risk to the reward for suicide gankers and make them actually worth going after. The lower the sec status they have, the greater percentage their bountys will be paid out to the person who brought justice to them in high sec.

Yet another player asking for hand holding mechanics, with absolutely no factual justification for it.

If you wish for those of -5 or less to have more risks, then add them. You can shoot them anywhere without risk from Concord, so why would you need this silly idea?

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Bohneik Itohn
10.K
#5 - 2014-06-29 17:49:34 UTC
Sweet Jeebus threads this bad are why bounties will never get fixed...

At least suggest something reasonable, like giving a higher percentage to people who regularly collect bounties, have a license to collect bounties, etc...

Personally I think the current bounty system needs to be removed, and that it needs to be re-implemented with a system that resembles a combination of the features of the kill rights and the contract system.

Wait, CCP kills kittens now too?!  - Freyya

Are you a forum alt? Have you ever wondered why your experience on the forums is always so frustrating and unrewarding? This may help.
Nerf Burger
Doomheim
#6 - 2014-06-30 02:01:45 UTC
So can anyone say why my idea is bad or why EVE should continue to be a bastion for cowards who are afraid of real pvp, aka high sec suicide gankers?

Seems like they are the only ones who are playing EVE without really risking much at all while having the ability to inflict devastating losses on their victims.
HiddenPorpoise
Jarlhettur's Drop
United Federation of Conifers
#7 - 2014-06-30 02:17:14 UTC
Nerf Burger wrote:
So can anyone say why my idea is bad or why EVE should continue to be a bastion for cowards who are afraid of real pvp, aka high sec suicide gankers?

It's bad because you will be PAYING the gankers if you bounty them.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#8 - 2014-06-30 05:18:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Mag's
Nerf Burger wrote:
So can anyone say why my idea is bad or why EVE should continue to be a bastion for cowards who are afraid of real pvp, aka high sec suicide gankers?

Seems like they are the only ones who are playing EVE without really risking much at all while having the ability to inflict devastating losses on their victims.
Real PvP? You mean you're definition I guess, because as far as I am aware it's still player versus player.

Also the onus is upon you to provide reasons why this is needed. Reasons that are based in fact and take current options into account. So far you haven't done that. How you feel it should be, isn't the same thing.

I will however answer.

Because you seek to punish players with SP loss, for playing the game within the rules.
Because you already have options to A. Give them more risk and B. Reduce their chances of making a profit.
So as those options are already available and because your ideas break the game, they will not see the light of day.

You may not like a style of play, but that's not a reason for nerfing the game, or those playing a style.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Nerf Burger
Doomheim
#9 - 2014-06-30 14:07:48 UTC
HiddenPorpoise wrote:
Nerf Burger wrote:
So can anyone say why my idea is bad or why EVE should continue to be a bastion for cowards who are afraid of real pvp, aka high sec suicide gankers?

It's bad because you will be PAYING the gankers if you bounty them.


how so?
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#10 - 2014-06-30 14:15:49 UTC
Nerf Burger wrote:
HiddenPorpoise wrote:
Nerf Burger wrote:
So can anyone say why my idea is bad or why EVE should continue to be a bastion for cowards who are afraid of real pvp, aka high sec suicide gankers?

It's bad because you will be PAYING the gankers if you bounty them.


how so?




Because they'll insure their ships, kill them with alts and make a profit from it...
Nerf Burger
Doomheim
#11 - 2014-06-30 15:10:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Nerf Burger
Danika Princip wrote:
Nerf Burger wrote:
HiddenPorpoise wrote:
Nerf Burger wrote:
So can anyone say why my idea is bad or why EVE should continue to be a bastion for cowards who are afraid of real pvp, aka high sec suicide gankers?

It's bad because you will be PAYING the gankers if you bounty them.


how so?




Because they'll insure their ships, kill them with alts and make a profit from it...


not if insurance doesn't pay out to low sec status characters or specifically suicide gankers. There could be trackers in the system to keep track of how many times a player dies to concord while damaging another ship. Those players would be identified by the system and be forced to pay greater penalties upon their death. They won't be making a profit if the extra funds made payable to the bounty hunter comes from the suicide gankers wallet or SP pool.

Its pretty messed up how these cowards are allowed to incur devastating losses on other players without taking any real risks themselves and paying very negligible costs upon failure. I just don't see why the most risk averse pvp wanna-bes in EVE should get special treatment when it comes to risk vs reward. Unless EVEs goal is to cater to the lowest common denominator, it doesn't make much sense that suicide gankers, afraid of real pvp and probably previously ****-on from more skill-demanding pvp games, should have such an easy time in EVE.
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#12 - 2014-06-30 15:33:30 UTC
Nerf Burger wrote:


not if insurance doesn't pay out to low sec status characters or specifically suicide gankers. There could be trackers in the system to keep track of how many times a player dies to concord while damaging another ship. Those players would be identified by the system and be forced to pay greater penalties upon their death. They won't be making a profit if the extra funds made payable to the bounty hunter comes from the suicide gankers wallet or SP pool.

Its pretty messed up how these cowards are allowed to incur devastating losses on other players without taking any real risks themselves and paying very negligible costs upon failure. I just don't see why the most risk averse pvp wanna-bes in EVE should get special treatment when it comes to risk vs reward. Unless EVEs goal is to cater to the lowest common denominator, it doesn't make much sense that suicide gankers, afraid of real pvp and probably previously ****-on from more skill-demanding pvp games, should have such an easy time in EVE.



Which adds layer upon layer of complexity to a mechanic apparently designed to punish people for using legitimate game mechanics.

And the way you keep on with the childish insults for suicide gankers makes me thing you've lost a fair few ships to them yourself, care to share the lossmails?

Or to explain, without using a single one of those insults, why suicide ganking is a problem in the first place? or why people should be able to haul billions of ISK around without taking even a single precaution? If you're going to harp on about risk vs reward, please explain where the risk comes from for highsec NPC corp characters if suicide ganking is (effectivley) removed.
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#13 - 2014-06-30 15:43:19 UTC
Speaking as a highsec dweller who has never suicide ganked anyone and is terrible at every other form of PvP..

...how exactly is suicide ganking not "real PvP"? It's an ambush. It's a totally legitimate technique and very much a form of "real PvP".
Nerf Burger
Doomheim
#14 - 2014-06-30 15:58:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Nerf Burger
Do try not to be such a **** poster if you want anyone to take you seriously. This is clearly not a 'remove ganking' thread. And if you can't tell the difference between suicide ganking and real pvp.. sorry, you aren't worth my time.

Currently high sec gankers operate with very negligible costs and almost no risk, and its very easy to do. The bounties they accumulate pay next to nothing because they only ever fly cheap disposable ships, making them not worth going after. Its obviously a issue that needs addressing. Why should people who are afraid of real pvp get special treatment? The risk vs reward is clearly out of whack for this type of activity.
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#15 - 2014-06-30 16:03:44 UTC
Nerf Burger wrote:
Do try not to be such a **** poster if you want anyone to take you seriously. This is clearly not a 'remove ganking' thread.

Currently high sec gankers operate with very negligible costs and almost no risk. The bounties they accumulate pay next to nothing because they only ever fly cheap disposable ships, making them not worth going after. Its obviously a issue that needs addressing. Why should people who are afraid of real pvp get special treatment? The risk vs reward is clearly out of whack for this type of activity.



You are demanding penalties for ganking that will make the playstyle unprofitable and the characters involved all but unplayable. How is that not a remove ganking idea?

And you have never managed to explain why. Why should highsec be 100% risk free?

As you are so fond of asking, why should people (Like yourself, and the vast numbers of highsec players who refuse to take simple precautions) who are afraid of PVP get special treatment?
Nerf Burger
Doomheim
#16 - 2014-06-30 16:06:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Nerf Burger
Danika Princip wrote:
Why should highsec be 100% risk free?




nobody is saying that and nobody is saying to "remove ganking" either.

scroll up, read again, and above all think before you post. I'm just going to ignore you at this point because all you are doing now is shitposting and I can't take you seriously.
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#17 - 2014-06-30 16:09:53 UTC
Nerf Burger wrote:
Danika Princip wrote:
Why should highsec be 100% risk free?




nobody is saying that and nobody is saying to "remove ganking" either.

scroll up, read again, and above all think before you post. I'm just going to ignore you at this point because all you are doing now is shitposting and I can't take you seriously.


The irony is palpable.
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#18 - 2014-06-30 16:10:54 UTC
Nerf Burger wrote:
Danika Princip wrote:
Why should highsec be 100% risk free?




nobody is saying that and nobody is saying to 'remove ganking' either.

scroll up, read again, and above all think before you post. I'm just going to ignore you at this point because all you are doing now is shitposting.



Alright.

Why should the penalties for adding any risk at all to highsec be crippling? Why should I lose SP for killing a freighter containing ten billion ISK of moongoo? Why should you get the contents of my wallet for killing a catalyst?

If someone slaps a fifty billion ISK bounty on me, I will lose SP no matter what I am flying. Explain how this is a good game mechanic.

Conversley, if I were to slap one on a freighter pilot and then gank him, I'd make money AND cost him SP...
Mazzara
Band of the Red Sun
#19 - 2014-06-30 16:27:10 UTC
I feel there should be a bit more risk for the gankers, but in general I don't see anything wrong with it.

OP I get what your saying and what your trying to do with your idea, I just don't foresee the SP idea going anywhere.

As for the people bashing this guys idea, its an idea. High-Sec will never be 100% safe, the game isn't about to be broken, your ganking job isn't going anywhere, so stop crying like its going to happen. Most of you pretend that your some harda$$, than whine and cry when someone suggests an idea you don't like. 

No matter how much you scrub, how hot of water you use, you can't wash shame!
Mag's
Azn Empire
#20 - 2014-06-30 16:50:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Mag's
Mazzara wrote:
I feel there should be a bit more risk for the gankers, but in general I don't see anything wrong with it.

OP I get what your saying and what your trying to do with your idea, I just don't foresee the SP idea going anywhere.

As for the people bashing this guys idea, its an idea. High-Sec will never be 100% safe, the game isn't about to be broken, your ganking job isn't going anywhere, so stop crying like its going to happen. Most of you pretend that your some harda$$, than whine and cry when someone suggests an idea you don't like.
Then add more risk. CCP have provided the tools, it's time people started using them instead of asking for hand holding mechanics.

As far as the idea is concerned, it most definitely does suggest breaking the game and for what reason? Because Nerf Burger doesn't like suicide ganking. I hardly see why calling them out on such a bad idea constitutes us whining or crying. Although that is a rather ironic thing to say, when we consider the OP and it's contents.

Also if the idea had any merit, Nerf Burger wouldn't spend so much time name calling and avoiding answering pertinent questions.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
12Next page