These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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 page123
 

A Change To Counter Suicide Ganking - Discuss?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
#41 - 2012-05-21 18:11:56 UTC
Khoda Khan wrote:
What fantasy land do you people come from? No way to counter suicide ganking? Suicide ganking is remarkably easy to avoid. Don't be dense! Hauling around a large Domination tower in your Itty V? Dense! Carrying dozens of PLEX in a rookie ship? Dense! Transporting high value BPOs in a shuttle? Dense! Basically, if you don't make yourself a worthwhile target then the liklihood of ever being sucide ganked goes down significantly.

It does make me laugh when people say you cannot counter ganking.

All it takes is for them to stick one high scan res tornado of their own in the belt and they could kill all the ganker's destroyers the moment they go GCC. Those ganking destroyers have zero tank, a tornado could split it's guns and take out three of them in one shot.

Hell, they could just use a blackbird if they don't want to use a tier 3 BC. Or they could, you know, have at least one non-AFK player with the ability to fleet warp everyone to safety.

[center]"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings"  -MXZF[/center]
Zyress
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#42 - 2012-05-21 19:51:11 UTC
They could cut down on the anti-ganker whine and leave the mechanic alone if they just made non-combatant ships like exhumers and trasports fully insurable. I could see where it wouldn't be out of line to insure their cargo either for a fair price (a perentage of the cargo value at the place you are insuring it). If they fly smart they won't need the insurance so its another isk drain in most instances and thats a good thing right? They still lose all their modules and have to buy and fit another ship and of course insure it again so there are penalties for not paying attention, but it wouldn't sting as much as it does now. They can still use a mining ship to mine.
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
#43 - 2012-05-21 20:02:06 UTC
Zyress wrote:
They could cut down on the anti-ganker whine and leave the mechanic alone if they just made non-combatant ships like exhumers and trasports fully insurable. I could see where it wouldn't be out of line to insure their cargo either for a fair price (a perentage of the cargo value at the place you are insuring it). If they fly smart they won't need the insurance so its another isk drain in most instances and thats a good thing right? They still lose all their modules and have to buy and fit another ship and of course insure it again so there are penalties for not paying attention, but it wouldn't sting as much as it does now. They can still use a mining ship to mine.

Insurance is an ISK faucet, CCP are trying to remove ISK faucets and add ISK sinks. It also reduces the consequences for losing a ship, CCP are trying to increase the consequences for losing a ship.

It doesn't seem likely that they'll buff t2 insurances and add contents coverage any time soon.

[center]"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings"  -MXZF[/center]
Previous page123