These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
123Next pageLast page
 

Sucide Ganking Needs To Be Removed - Below is why.

Author
Jessica Sweetwater
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#1 - 2012-05-19 14:43:11 UTC
Hi

I have spent nearly a week running this over in my mind trying to figure out what this type of game play is allowed. I have researched the amount of ISK lost and looked at kills, tried to contact the players with huge losses, sumtimes his with replys of *had enuff, happend so many times, im quitting* to others saying *it's a shite game mechanic and needs to be removed*

So i then go to thinking on concord on how that would work per system to navy responce etc.

When we declare war we are put into a sub catergory of *yes you can not shoot members from this corp*. Concord has the power to do that. So my question is, in any which way does this type of grief play help the game, and make no mistake, sucide ganking is grief play. So how to stop it

In my research i have come to see that it serves no useful purpose, it does not help the market, it does not help the player base. If anything it harms the game.

So my proposed idea is that the entire mechanic of being able to fire on non aggressed pilots should be disavowed. If Concord has the technology to allow you to fire, then it has the technology to stop you.

i.e - When you target a player in a Torndao fitted for sucide ganking a hauler and you press F1 or *click* your weapons, it should flash up so

*You are not at war with this pilot or his/her corporation and and as such are unable to fire*. I know alot of pvpers who spend alot of time doing this will disagree but the damage that the mechanic is having on the game, is irriversable.

Stats

Market prices are up 50% on almost all Modules/ships
Mining in high sec has falled by 48% (industrial players are becoming scarcer)
Trade runs and delivery pilots have dropped off 72% simply because they cannot guarentee delivery
The rise in gankers is well over 40% in well populated areas and some of our miners have even tried going 10+ jumps away from market areas and are still being targeted.

This mechanic really needs to be addressed because at the current market growth and rise rate, the entire eve market will crash within a year. I work as a finance consultant and i ahve researched all of this and it is pure fact.

CCP why, may i ask, that you allow this to go on. If a market crash happens. The entire game will crash as has happend on other MMOS with player driven economy. This is one of the reasons that Warcraft is stress testing servers to mold upto ten servers into one because of constant market crashes.

I ask CCP to just CONSIDER that this game mechanic may not be in eve's best interest and that it should be sorted and removed.

Jess

No i have not been the victim of a gank, i even tested the theory on 3 Ret's to see how easy it was to gank them in 0.5/0.6 and i was able to get 3 shots of 8 faction ammo off before concord turned up. Which made concord pointless in those systems in the first place.

So why have concord at all? If you support this mechanic, have every region as 5 x safe systems and the rest null sec. Because at present. Even though EvE may be a PvP based game. If you cannot do PvE as you *promote*.

You are leaving yourself open to be sued for false advertising for one and there is no point in even having industrial ships if you cannot make money in high sec doing the VERY thing you advertise to with your very nice trailers.
Corina Jarr
en Welle Shipping Inc.
#2 - 2012-05-19 15:19:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Corina Jarr
Suicide ganking is not grief play. CCP has said this many times (and since it is their game, they get to make the definitions of terms). Therefore your whole post is invalid.

In short, this is not some lame MMO that doesn't allow combat. This is driven by combat, without it, EVE would die.


You want WoW/SWToR/STO/whateverr, go play those.


Also I can mine in any system in HS with 99% safety even with gankers. I have survived several gank attempts, and avoided countless more. You can mine in near perfect safety if you bother to learn.

But, if you wanna be afk/lazy, you deserve what you get.
Jessica Sweetwater
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#3 - 2012-05-19 15:26:20 UTC
Corina Jarr wrote:
Suicide ganking is not grief play. CCP has said this many times (and since it is their game, they get to make the definitions of terms). Therefore your whole post is invalid.

In short, this is not some lame MMO that doesn't allow combat. This is driven by combat, without it, EVE would die.


You want WoW/SWToR/STO/whateverr, go play those.


Also I can mine in any system in HS with 99% safety even with gankers. I have survived several gank attempts, and avoided countless more. You can mine in near perfect safety if you bother to learn.

But, if you wanna be afk/lazy, you deserve what you get.


A prefer reply from a PvP pilot. And judging by your kill record i doubt you have ever mined a day in your life.

Grief play is defined by the action, not the rules, if you had bothered to read past the point where i mentioned wow.

My guess is that you simply wanted to troll because you would disagree. Even a tanked Retriver pilot or even a tanked covetor pilot would not stand up to 3 x dessys fitted to gank.

So again, do not troll my post with stupid facts that you quite clearly made off the top of your head, read past your ego and you would see my point i am trying to make.
Corina Jarr
en Welle Shipping Inc.
#4 - 2012-05-19 15:32:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Corina Jarr
Are you calling me a PvP pilot?
LolLolLolLolLolLolLolLolLolLolLolLol

Must have me confused with someone else, but if you want I can hand you my API and you can see my skillset.

And if you want, we can have some fun. I'll mine in a system for a day (well as long as I last before I get bored/have something better to do), and you can try to gank me. I guarantee, you will not succeed, unless you bring those skilled in the activity.
And no, tank will have nothing to do with it, the key will be, you will never be able to lock onto me.

As for griefing, it is against the EULA, and since suicide ganking is allowed, it is most definitely not griefing. Logic 101.


Also, I bet you 1000 PLEX that the EVE market will be fine within a year.
Farmer McNibbles
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#5 - 2012-05-19 15:36:38 UTC
As it turns out, everything in EVE just happens to cost isk. From the person suicide-murdering to the victim. I find this system is just fine even if I am a boring industrialist who pretty much just works the market now. I don't even bother mining anymore even if I have variable techniques of protection and utilization to defend against proposed attackers. There are countless techniques a mining party can take to remain safe in hi-sec from being ganked, but I do agree that something needs to be done for the following reasons:

1. Botters are being banned left and right, as much as the majority of the game players approve of this, as do I, prices will sky rocket in every single category in the game.
2. Loot Quality and Drop Values overall can be nerfed to depreciate the systematic techniques of making raw isk.
3. Gankers slaughtering everything that cannot shoot back will decrease the imports of raw goods and materials onto the market. Prices will rise to balance out the personal loss.
4. 0.0 and Wormhole instability (only the biggest blobs can barely maintain a steady system of industrialism and ratting to maintain their sov. Players often can only live within their means as smaller alliances who make a go at 0.0 are hammered to oblivion by the largest of opposing forces. No matter the size of the empire, I feel 0.0 is the biggest contributor to all modules and ships built.
5. Ganking is NOT griefing.

With all of these scenarios combined, the market prices will continue to rise and rise, and suicide gankers will also see their costs jump up and their primary income would be spamming missions and ratting to break even.

The entirety of the game is being harmed by the instability and threat to industrialists. With 0.0 alliances unable to effectively hold a sov or even an unclaimbale low-sec or 0.0 system for longer periods of time to get a rorqual and mining op installed indefinitely, the game will shift more and more onto pvp-only and we will lose capital ships altogether. Yes, the death of the Titans. Only a handful of the biggest alliances will have capital pilots left and then they will have no one to fight, leaving those pilots trapped forever as their alliance loses and the purpose of capital ships disappears. You'll see this happen when battleships double in price again.

Someone has to build the ship you're flying. And unfortunately "ganking" is an operation performed by one person targeting who ever happens to be most convenient.

The Carebear population is just as important as anyone else and is also the least appreciated group of players, and without industrialists, you will see the prices of every thing in the game INCLUDING Pilot's License rise without end.

"But its for the luls and the killboard! hulks are such an easy 300mil!"

I do understand the arousing pleasure it must bring to killing a hulk or an orca or a freighter in hi-sec, but I would rather choose other mediums to excite myself, like actual pvp on my pvp account or porn.

The only thing I could suggest beyond the obvious is,

The current security system works just fine, folks just need to learn to max out their skills, fit their ships with resists so they can survive longer, but even then it just isn't enough to a half-decent ganker. The percentage of success needs to be tweaked. If the success chance wasn't so high, it wouldn't happen. so therefor to my point.

Losing Security Status is not enough, you can get that back. Instead, ganking in hi-sec will also put a cost on the player. An ISK cost. You will be fined for your crimes of performing an unprovoked attack that is based on what exactly it was you attacked (and successfully killed). Take out a hulk worth about 300 million isk and you will owe an addition 50% of that cost to Concord as Concord itself will wardec YOU or until the fine is paid. Sending your character to live in low-sec for good as you are K.O.S. as soon as you enter a 0.5 system. This cost will never go away to the character and the only way to enter hi-sec is in a POD. The 50% payment will go directly to the player whom you killed.

Why 50%? Why not 100%? Because values on ships can be manipulated and this feature would be exploited in a heartbeat. The cost of this fee will have to be MANUALLY tweaked every day based on the average of the four most heavily traded market hubs and would not reflect the value of the modules. So no, you won't be reimbursed for using special modules, just and only the ship (plus insurance)

So there, you can still gank in hi-sec, but you will ruin the character you do it on and will be fined. The payment will have no reflection on what the person is hauling, so if they are in a freighter and hauling 20x plex, gank away!

Or you could just do what I do and not even bother going out into space. I can only mine stuff at 11pm until 8am EST because the population is at the lowest and the ganking population is sleeping or in school. (no, not all of the jerkholes are children.)

Finally, for a player who makes ganking a daily chore, have Concord "flag" that pilot, meaning any system they go to will and any place they warp to will spawn an initial "Concord Observer" which would be an e-war cruiser to stalk the pilot everywhere they go. It is like being on probation in the real world. Like an ankle-monitor.

Just to be clear, I do support every player playing EVE the way they want to, I also enjoy balance to gameplay preferences. If you want to do everything but shoot, there are systems for you to mine in and admire your iteron, but the concord security system is garbage at the current setting. Concord is absolutely useless as it stands.

Recap:
1. Fine a ganker 50% of the ship value that they unprovokingly and successfully killed based on a CCP tweaked number.
2. Stalk known-gankers in hi-sec with an Electronic Warfare cruiser.
3. Increase Concord Response time to instant.
4. 0.0 get your **** together!

- Farmer McNibbles.
Corina Jarr
en Welle Shipping Inc.
#6 - 2012-05-19 15:41:04 UTC
Meh why do I bother to educate folks.


Its called mining aligned (and not that stupid passive concept). If you mine aligned, you can warp off in any ship before the ganker would even finish warping.

Add to that with insta warp undock BMs and using Dscan once in a while, and you are golden.

The only time anyone should be at risk (if they play right) from suicides it after jumping through a gate.
Corina Jarr
en Welle Shipping Inc.
#7 - 2012-05-19 15:54:39 UTC
On a nicer note, you will get a massive amount of trolling and possible flaming for this suggestion. My miner trolling tied with serious comments will be a breath of fresh air after a few days.

Good luck.


Also, CCP doesn't usually look in here much; it isn't called "where ideas go to die" for nothing.

Farmer McNibbles
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#8 - 2012-05-19 15:56:53 UTC
damn I clicked the wrong button and lost what I was about to add. I ran out of space lol. I agree with parts of the initial poster but I agree more with Corina. There are many tactics that can be implemented to a mining fleet. Being someone who runs multiple accounts, here is suggestions I would bring to industrialists:

1. Ewar drones.
2. Ship fitted to tank, not mine.
3. pvp alt with ewar and big guns.
4. Directional Scan will show you when someone is warping towards your location, gives me about 15+ seconds to gtfo.
5. keep your ships ALIGNED and fleeted up to 'warp squad' to safety.
6. blue the folks you know, those who are also mining, and red the folks you know you can't trust.
7. warp out as soon as a nobody jumps in, because that new character is the warp-in to a ganker pilot chilling on the other side of a gate.
8. dont mine next to a low-sec.
9. don't afk mine or idly paying attention. I'm clicking my directional scan and watching local every 3 seconds with my squad commander character having a hand on the warp squad button to the station. if anything that isn't a mining barge of exhumer comes into the belt, I'm out.

Following these steps will protect you. I have had many attempts on my ships and have watched everyone burn by holding them for concord. I don't even fire a shot, I just lock them up from targetting. Sure even with that they get my ships close. closest I got, had a hulk at 5% hull. I was sweating bullets but yea.. heh.

For now, I just don't even bother mining. I make enough money working the market trying to keep the buy orders high and the sell orders low. I love this game because when you fly your ship, you are always at risk regardless of location. The ganking threat is a strong deterrence so those who are willing enough to go mine cautious or not, are at a higher risk. I would suggest you join a corporation of others who mine, just to protect your own self as the number of targets in a belt is increased. Yes, I technically said use the other industrialists as a meat shield... but help them out a bit if they are the ones who get slaughtered.

I don't like to tell a player "No, you cannot do this." I just, like to decrease their willingness to do something, such as the concord fine and faster response time, just to decrease their success ratio.

Meh, these are just ideas. I like the current system but I wouldn't mind partial implementation of my ideas above.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#9 - 2012-05-19 16:03:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Jessica Sweetwater wrote:
I have spent nearly a week running this over in my mind trying to figure out what this type of game play is allowed.
Simple: because everything must be at risk of being destroyed.
Would you prefer having a constant wardec against everyone, because that's the alternative.

Quote:
When we declare war we are put into a sub catergory of *yes you can not shoot members from this corp*. Concord has the power to do that. So my question is, in any which way does this type of grief play help the game, and make no mistake, sucide ganking is grief play.
No, you're making the mistake here. Suicide ganking is not grief play. Suicide ganking is simply a different way of paying the highsec tax on aggression. You can either pay in ISK (wardec) or you can pay in items (suicide gank). Both are just payment schemes. Neither is griefing. Neither has to go or needs to be “solved”. This also answers your question of why have CONCORD: it's not there to protect you — it's just a different form of paying for aggression.

Quote:
CCP why, may i ask, that you allow this to go on.
Because it's what they designed the game for. It's meant to allow exactly this kind of player influence over the game world. The beauty of the EVE economy is that it's an actual economy so the kind of crash you see in other games can't happen. If prices increase, then equipment usage patterns will change to match the new economic reality, which will alter that reality, which will alter the usage patterns (and correspondingly on the industrial side).

And no, they're not engaging in false advertising. Don't be ridiculous. They're advertising exactly this.
Suicide ganking most definitely does not need to be removed unless replaced by something that achieves the exact same thing.
Kusum Fawn
Perkone
Caldari State
#10 - 2012-05-19 16:16:59 UTC
Corina Jarr wrote:
Are you calling me a PvP pilot?

Must have me confused with someone else, but if you want I can hand you my API and you can see my skillset.

And if you want, we can have some fun. I'll mine in a system for a day (well as long as I last before I get bored/have something better to do), and you can try to gank me. I guarantee, you will not succeed, unless you bring those skilled in the activity.
And no, tank will have nothing to do with it, the key will be, you will never be able to lock onto me.

As for griefing, it is against the EULA, and since suicide ganking is allowed, it is most definitely not griefing. Logic 101.


Also, I bet you 1000 PLEX that the EVE market will be fine within a year.

I just want to point out, that suicide ganking in itself is nto griefing, however, continued suicide ganking of a single player by a consistent group/individual is.

CCP has not historically dealt well with this as a mechanic. The line between griefing and legitimate play is one that is very hard to determine. how does one prove that the intentions of the "griefer" are not legitimate? or how does one prove that the intention of the ganker is to grief and not material gain (salvage/loot drops)

This is not to say that every gank is griefing, but the potential is there, and has been abused multiple times before. People have been banned for this.

the lack of continued effects of sec loss or the denial of services to people that have -10 in hisec, are a very strange choices for game development. and the continued lack of penalties for repeat offenders as well as many evasion tactics available to gankers really just point to CCP being ok with the current state of the game.

Fining the ganker is the same, orca ship drops aren't dependent on isk. so any -10 ganking alt can have a negative wallet and it doesnt do anything for them, or to them.

Its not possible to please all the people all the time, but it sure as hell is possible to Displease all the people, most of the time.

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#11 - 2012-05-19 16:31:32 UTC
Kusum Fawn wrote:
This is not to say that every gank is griefing, but the potential is there, and has been abused multiple times before. People have been banned for this.
…but that is not a reason to remove ganking since it serves a purpose and since that potential is not unique for ganks. In fact, you can find the same potential in pretty much any mechanic or functionality in the game.
Quote:
the lack of continued effects of sec loss or the denial of services to people that have -10 in hisec, are a very strange choices for game development.
What's strange about it? It's not meant to keep players out of the game — it's to give other players the tools to go after these pirates and deal with them. There's not much reason to punish the gankers further.

It's entirely in keeping with the sandbox principle: give some players the tools to be annoying (ganking) and give other players the tools to solve this annoyance (free-for-all sec status).
Farmer McNibbles
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#12 - 2012-05-19 16:32:42 UTC
Kusum Fawn wrote:


Fining the ganker is the same, orca ship drops aren't dependent on isk. so any -10 ganking alt can have a negative wallet and it doesnt do anything for them, or to them.



That's why perhaps if the player is fined by concord, well, so they don't have any money? Doesn't a real government impound their vehicles and seize their property? I believe that would be going too far, but it is what happens. Concord is useless already, might as well keep them that way in such regards.

And sure a pilot with no money on a fresh gank run taking out an orca and being fined 50% of the ship value thereafter would not suffer. Now give that player another ship that he used to gank worth approximately 11% of the orca, it will instantly disappear to liquidate into direct isk for the ganked pilot. Until the total of the debt is paid, their account will pretty much be useless broke or not with property being seized.

again, I do not agree with what I just suggested, but it is a solid idea. instant impoundment of all property until the fine is paid.

I find that negotiable.

And 50% of the orca/hulk/mackinaw/freighter value may be steep, even 25% would be a powerful deterrence. anything less than that would remain negligible.

This IS a touchy subject, and to change gameplay mechanics to make ganking less desirable really does take out the excitement to industrialists.

The only thing I care about however is my wallet size, and not any kill points. Players just need to learn how to not die and not make themselves vulnerable. The thing that makes me happy the most is when anyone else in EVE spends their money. I'm a station-hugger so the ganking stuff and hulkageddon mean nothing to me, though it is fun to read the posts on them and watch other folks having fun. More killing means more business for me. Hence, why I disagree with most of what I proposed.

Gotta put my two cents in. Its all you'll get out of this jew.
Kusum Fawn
Perkone
Caldari State
#13 - 2012-05-19 16:44:03 UTC
Ah farmer, no, theres a tactic where the neutral alt orca pilot drops a ship for the -10 ganker, who then warps to another alt in a belt to gank a hulk or something.

Because the ganker has no assets in station (other then say a noob ship) it doesn't matter how much isk (or lack of isk) the ganker has. as well as the lack of physical assets to be impounded.

Its not possible to please all the people all the time, but it sure as hell is possible to Displease all the people, most of the time.

Skydell
Bad Girl Posse
Somethin Awfull Forums
#14 - 2012-05-19 16:47:00 UTC
High Sec ganking isn't the problem. I'd hate to see it abolished. EVE has taken a very divisive turn towards conquest and alot of the ships are being used in grief style gaming like suicide hits on high sec target.

The funny part is, the needed buff to hybrid was intended to make them compete in null sec PvP and even still it's all projectile and blobbed missiles. I can get a Vulture to 11km Optimals with T2 Blasters and Void but nobody does it.

If CCP really want to make EVE a full on PvP game, every ship in EVE needs to be capable of fitting a buffer tank. Put an extra 100 power grid on the barges. If people insist on fitting them to max mine, they can lose them. Right now though, you don't have the choice. Resist tanks fail and thats the only option you have.
Lunkwill Khashour
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#15 - 2012-05-19 16:50:58 UTC
Jessica Sweetwater wrote:

So my proposed idea is that the entire mechanic of being able to fire on non aggressed pilots should be disavowed.

disavowing things does not fit with the sandbox. It should be possible and allowed. You could argument the penalties associated with suicide ganking are not harsh enough


Quote:

Market prices are up 50% on almost all Modules/ships
Mining in high sec has falled by 48% (industrial players are becoming scarcer)
Trade runs and delivery pilots have dropped off 72% simply because they cannot guarentee delivery
The rise in gankers is well over 40% in well populated areas and some of our miners have even tried going 10+ jumps away from market areas and are still being targeted.

This mechanic really needs to be addressed because at the current market growth and rise rate, the entire eve market will crash within a year. I work as a finance consultant and i ahve researched all of this and it is pure fact.

The market prices are up due to bot banning, gun mining nerfs and OTEC. This might crash the market in a year but suicide ganking is not responsible.

Some of the others stats you list are due to Hulkageddon, a player-driven event which doesn't have a lasting impact. I would agree that the Hulk and most industrial ships could benefit from some powergrid to bring their tanks up to par without making them better at what they do (mining yield and/or cargohold)

Having said that, I use courier contracts with a certain corporation and they have been as fast as ever delivering my stuff.

TL,DR: the market is under pressure and suicide ganking may be too easy but these aren't related.
Farmer McNibbles
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#16 - 2012-05-19 16:52:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Farmer McNibbles
Kusum Fawn wrote:
Ah farmer, no, theres a tactic where the neutral alt orca pilot drops a ship for the -10 ganker, who then warps to another alt in a belt to gank a hulk or something.

Because the ganker has no assets in station (other then say a noob ship) it doesn't matter how much isk (or lack of isk) the ganker has. as well as the lack of physical assets to be impounded.



OooohhHHHHHhhhh I see what you mean, yea that's clever.. But you could also contact the direct "supplier" and that as soon as the -10 ganker gets into the ship, the Ewar Cruiser that is stalking that -10 pilot everywhere he or she goes, will then jump the gun and target the person and lock them down with the message:

"You are in violation of Concord Corrections, as your Probation Supervisor I will be taking your ship and impounding the orca pilot who gave it to you for assisting a known criminal!"

Forced ejection of both pilots or as soon as the ships dock they are taken, the orca would only be held for a duraction of, say... 1 day and then returned. no biggie.

Now again, I disagree with this idea of mine, but it is a decent suggestion, I don't like the idea of having a player disabled for any circumstances related to game mechanics.

Hmm.. perhaps Crime and Punishment may need to be revamped in hi-sec, but only minor revamping tweaks or just a new implementation of something I disagree with.

Man this is like me agreeing with a politicians words as a good idea but then saying I personally don't like it...

I'm confusing myself.

As for Skydell's approach, giving a mining barge or exhumer 100 more powergrid would make the properties of Mining Upgrades meaningless. You would have to make Mining Upgrades take up substantially more powergrid to balance giving the ships more stats keeping the full-on mining fit the approx. same ratio, but then if you didn't put in mining upgrades and instead tanked out, you would be able to fit a nice and modest tank worthy of ratting a level 2 mission. This is something I would find funny.. a hulk doing level 2 or even level 3 missions >_> strange... I think I'll stop talking now.
Daria Meridian Carlile
Necromatic Inc.
#17 - 2012-05-19 16:59:19 UTC
Short story: Eve is supposed to be a sandbox, which means people can do what they want..
Deal with it or go play Hello Kitty Online
beor oranes
Annihilate.
Strictly Unprofessional
#18 - 2012-05-19 17:10:52 UTC
It has to be said 'Concord does not provide protection, it provides punishment'. They are the Space Police. The real police cannot stop someone walking down a street and stabbing a billionaire (lots of money doesn't help if you are alone) and taking his wallet with a £1 knife but they (hopefully) will catch them and punish them. Now if that billionaire had body guards, they would probably stop the man killing the billionaire and taking his wallet. Condord works in the same way.

Now suicide ganking someone repeatedly so they quit that's griefing and against the EULA, that I don't support.

Please don't try and make highsec like every other theme park MMO. Learn to stay out of trouble and not cause attention. Find friends to protect you, move out of highsec to 0.0 (its actually safer out there without Concord if you listen to intel channels), there are many ways to avoid suicide ganking if you USE COMMON SENSE.

Also as it has been said, Eve is a sandbox, if people want to suicide gank they should be allowed too, just like you choose to be a miner. And to your point about the price of things going up that has more to do with the Drone Region changes and the CFC controlling Tech rather than Hulkageddon.
Aqriue
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#19 - 2012-05-19 17:20:40 UTC
Best fix, improve CONCORD response time like its 1.0 all the way to down to .5 and ships will still blow up even with the CONCORD inquisition to appear in 1 second (because nobody expects CONCORD to not show up on time Roll).

I **** you not...if a dude can be popped in .9 outside Jita then a Hulk will be popped in .5 space even with 1 second response time. Only requires all the pussies in destroyers to nut up/off, double down, and fly a bigger ship...enough DPS and a hulk will still pop in a really short time span. Yep, and the best part of this suggestion if it takes a battleship to destroyer a hulk then it is infact a buff for mining as more minerals are removed from game at a faster rate and more hulk losses mean better killmails when suddenly they cost almost a billion (assuming anyone can bother to lose 300+ million isk for a lone hulk and the number of hulks on the market is kept low to control the price in this scenario).

Before anyone says this is stupid...there is infact nothing that prevents a ship from being destroyed. There is no offswitch...at all. Its just the human weakness between the keyboard and the chair that can't take a significant loss of their own like a risk adverse hairless ape that we all are.
Kusum Fawn
Perkone
Caldari State
#20 - 2012-05-19 17:29:41 UTC
Farmer McNibbles wrote:
Kusum Fawn wrote:
Ah farmer, no, theres a tactic where the neutral alt orca pilot drops a ship for the -10 ganker, who then warps to another alt in a belt to gank a hulk or something.

Because the ganker has no assets in station (other then say a noob ship) it doesn't matter how much isk (or lack of isk) the ganker has. as well as the lack of physical assets to be impounded.



OooohhHHHHHhhhh I see what you mean, yea that's clever.. But you could also contact the direct "supplier" and that as soon as the -10 ganker gets into the ship, the Ewar Cruiser that is stalking that -10 pilot everywhere he or she goes, will then jump the gun and target the person and lock them down with the message:

"You are in violation of Concord Corrections, as your Probation Supervisor I will be taking your ship and impounding the orca pilot who gave it to you for assisting a known criminal!"

Forced ejection of both pilots or as soon as the ships dock they are taken, the orca would only be held for a duraction of, say... 1 day and then returned. no biggie.

Now again, I disagree with this idea of mine, but it is a decent suggestion, I don't like the idea of having a player disabled for any circumstances related to game mechanics.

Hmm.. perhaps Crime and Punishment may need to be revamped in hi-sec, but only minor revamping tweaks or just a new implementation of something I disagree with.

Man this is like me agreeing with a politicians words as a good idea but then saying I personally don't like it...

I'm confusing myself.

there are enough ways around that mechanic that its not even useful to implement, orcas are only used because of ship holding capacity, not for any other reason, an alt could eject from a ship all the same.

Its not possible to please all the people all the time, but it sure as hell is possible to Displease all the people, most of the time.

123Next pageLast page