These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Possible balanced solution to *excessive* suicide ganking

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Jennifer Starling
Imperial Navy Forum Patrol
#61 - 2011-10-08 10:16:22 UTC
+1

I agree with OP.

My ideas:
a) Remove Insurance altogether. With PvE mostly being so easy and unchallenging it's clear that it's only used to support suicide ganks.
or:
b) Make insurances (and banking) player driven. Let's see how realistic insurances really are.

I'm not at all against the possibility of suicide ganks. But let's try to keep things a bit realistic.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#62 - 2011-10-08 10:24:51 UTC
Jennifer Starling wrote:
+1

I agree with OP.

My ideas:
a) Remove Insurance altogether. With PvE mostly being so easy and unchallenging it's clear that it's only used to support suicide ganks.


Er, you do realise that PvP other than suicide ganking still happens now and then, here and there, right?

Removing insurance altogether would massively alter the cost balance between T1 and T2 ships, which would in turn strongly disadvantage new players. Oh and it would depress the mineral market, giving miners - the ultimate beneficiary of insurance ISK - yet another kick in the balls.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Jennifer Starling
Imperial Navy Forum Patrol
#63 - 2011-10-08 11:44:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Jennifer Starling
Malcanis wrote:
Er, you do realise that PvP other than suicide ganking still happens now and then, here and there, right?

Removing insurance altogether would massively alter the cost balance between T1 and T2 ships, which would in turn strongly disadvantage new players. Oh and it would depress the mineral market, giving miners - the ultimate beneficiary of insurance ISK - yet another kick in the balls.

Yes I do. But how much time and effort does it take to make the ISK to replace a T1 ship by other means then insurance? Not a lot. And for T2 ships you only get a very small part back of the cost anyway so it wouldn't make a lot of difference.

Quote:
Removing insurance altogether would massively alter the cost balance between T1 and T2 ships, which would in turn strongly disadvantage new players. Oh and it would depress the mineral market, giving miners - the ultimate beneficiary of insurance ISK - yet another kick in the balls.

I don't believe that. Suicide gankers and PvP players in general would find other ways to get extra ISK to buy new ships. I doubt it if the industrials would even notice any difference at all.

And it makes no sense to have your ship replaced anyway when you deliberately put it at risk. A real insurance company would change your fee and payout depending on age, loss history and sec status of the systrem where the `accident` took place.

New players, oh well perhaps they can get some compensation based on days/weeks played. My proposed player driven or realistic insurance method would cope with that too. Personally I never had problems making ISK and replacing a ship and when my Tengu was suicide ganked insurance didn´t cover more than like 2% of the cost anyway so what´s the use.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#64 - 2011-10-08 11:57:40 UTC
Jennifer Starling wrote:
I don't believe that. Suicide gankers and PvP players in general would find other ways to get extra ISK to buy new ships. I doubt it if the industrials would even notice any difference at all.
They most certainly noticed the last time insurance was adjusted — unsurprisingly, since it's insurance that gives minerals their base value.

They would also notice that the equilibrium for ganking profitability shifts, leading to them getting killed less…

…and that's a bad thing. If anything, more ships need to explode than what currently happens.
Quote:
And it makes no sense to have your ship replaced anyway when you deliberately put it at risk. A real insurance company
…is of no relevance to the insurance mechanic in EVE, because it's an actual business, not a game mechanic with the sole purpose encouraging the destruction of ships.
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#65 - 2011-10-08 13:52:35 UTC
Jennifer Starling wrote:
+1
My ideas:
a) Remove Insurance altogether. With PvE mostly being so easy and unchallenging it's clear that it's only used to support suicide ganks.

i have never seen a post that so perfectly encapsulates why all pubbies must hang

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#66 - 2011-10-08 13:53:12 UTC
pvp? what's that?

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.
Kengutsi Akira
Doomheim
#67 - 2011-10-08 15:07:22 UTC
no, working as intended
and honestly, can you blame the CSM involved? What would you rather be doing? Beating your head against the brick wall that is CCP and trying to get the game better, or burning it down?
After all. Ppl elected at least mittens "To fix the game or finally break it for good" and thats exactly what he's doing.

how about we fix the excessing ganking on the forums tho?

"Is it fair that CCP can get away with..." :: checks ownership on the box ::

Yes
Tijai Betula
Ontogenic Achronycal PLC
#68 - 2011-10-08 15:16:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Tijai Betula
Vastek Non wrote:
I'm not going to pretend this is entirely my idea, as it has been kicked around before, however this seems like a really good time to return to the subject.
I understand CCP (Hilmar) is considering changing the mechanics of Concorde, and this concerns me. In real life, the police always arrive too late, or at best, well after the event has started. In my opinion, this is the way it should be in EVE. Instant death etc simply won't cut it in our sandbox.

Falling asleep at the Jita/Perimeter gate with a 6B cargo while flying an Ibis needs to have consequences. If you are lucky, arriving at your stop in a pod to the jeers of New Eden!


However, consider real life. You find yourself short of cash, or disgruntled with a shop owner, and decide to drive your car through the front of the shop to get revenge/pillage the contents or so on. The police nab you and in your one call after arrest you call the insurance company and demand your payment. If they work out you are actually serious, they will laugh.

Why should EVE be different. Why should 7 pilots in Battleships be given 100% payouts for destroying a Orca in a criminal act, as I saw recently happened somewhere in Gallente territory?
I am certainly not suggesting that the gank should not be possible, in the sandbox if you are determined enough all things should be possible, however you should expect to bear the financial penalty in addition to the standings loss, for what that is worth.

The current situation only tells me that CCP originally didn't have the capacity, or will, to code in that Concorde kill = 0% payout overriding the insurance payout, as it is completely ludicrous.

Edit: I don't know that such a mechanic would be appropriate to low/null. The circumstances are entirely different. This relates entirely to HS Empire.




I like this.

No payout for concord Kills BUT......

Concord takes longer to arrive relative to security of system.

...even better Concord warps in 2 waves at undertermined times but within an overall time limit (so you never know if second wave is in 5 seconds or 20 later) + only second wave has Warp scram.
this gives the perp chance to escape, which is possible but slim due to customs police on gate.

..Its almost like some kind of gameplay feature :)
Bloody Wench
#69 - 2011-10-08 15:19:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Bloody Wench
Always remember that the Police are not here to protect you. They are there to provide consequences to an offender.

Likewise insurance should never pay out when the vehicle is used in the commission of a crime.

[u]**Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote: **[/u]  CCP should not only make local delayed in highsec, but they should also require one be undocked to use it. Then, even the local spammers have some skin in the game. Support a High Resolution Texture Pack
Spr09
Abyssal Echoes
Invidia Gloriae Comes
#70 - 2011-10-08 15:22:33 UTC
Zenith Intaki wrote:
Just make it so that outlaws can't activate any gates inside high sec and make concord spawn and pod outlaws.

There is no reason why outlaws can travel through lowsec in pod or in fast aligning ship.

I don't have any problem with suicide ganking when ganker has positive sec status. But being able to do continous ganks without any real penalty is just bad for the game.

they can travel through anywhere they want, and podding for low sec status in low sec is a terrible idea.

i agree with the insurance fraud, getting killed by concord and getting payed to do it is a broken mechanic.
Cozmik R5
Chez Stan
#71 - 2011-10-08 15:26:12 UTC
0August0 wrote:
I'd like to see the Ganker automatically relocated to the nearest low security system.


Somebody is playing the wrong game.

Try not. Do. Or do not. There is no try.
Xython
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#72 - 2011-10-08 16:15:21 UTC
Cozmik R5 wrote:
0August0 wrote:
I'd like to see the Ganker automatically relocated to the nearest low security system.


Somebody is playing the wrong game.


I was going to make a joke about Progress Quest and link to it but...

Why ISN'T there an EVE Themed Progress Quest?
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#73 - 2011-10-08 16:21:16 UTC
Jennifer Starling wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Er, you do realise that PvP other than suicide ganking still happens now and then, here and there, right?

Removing insurance altogether would massively alter the cost balance between T1 and T2 ships, which would in turn strongly disadvantage new players. Oh and it would depress the mineral market, giving miners - the ultimate beneficiary of insurance ISK - yet another kick in the balls.

Yes I do. But how much time and effort does it take to make the ISK to replace a T1 ship by other means then insurance? Not a lot. And for T2 ships you only get a very small part back of the cost anyway so it wouldn't make a lot of difference.



Way to avoid the issue. A tier 3 batleship costs >130mill. The fit costs ~100 mill or so. Remove insurance and ypu effecticely double the cost of PvPing in a battleship. That's a major consequence of removing insurance.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
#74 - 2011-10-08 16:43:40 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Jennifer Starling wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Er, you do realise that PvP other than suicide ganking still happens now and then, here and there, right?

Removing insurance altogether would massively alter the cost balance between T1 and T2 ships, which would in turn strongly disadvantage new players. Oh and it would depress the mineral market, giving miners - the ultimate beneficiary of insurance ISK - yet another kick in the balls.

Yes I do. But how much time and effort does it take to make the ISK to replace a T1 ship by other means then insurance? Not a lot. And for T2 ships you only get a very small part back of the cost anyway so it wouldn't make a lot of difference.



Way to avoid the issue. A tier 3 batleship costs >130mill. The fit costs ~100 mill or so. Remove insurance and ypu effecticely double the cost of PvPing in a battleship. That's a major consequence of removing insurance.


And we wouldn't want to have a major consequence for anything, would we MalcanisRoll

So It's all fine and dandy when the EVE is unforgiving BS is used as an excuse for destroying noobs and carebears, but as soon as someone suggests applying it to griefers it's suddenly a bad thing?

First rule of EVE, remember. If you can't afford to lose your gank ship then don't be ganking.

Calling EVE unforgiving and then fully reimbursing ship losses is a joke. And a bad one, at that.

Mr Epeen Cool
Rakshasa Taisab
Sane Industries Inc.
#75 - 2011-10-08 17:18:41 UTC
The Apostle wrote:
Hey y'all. Easy fixed.

If Concord is called in, an attendance fee is charged to the ganker/s account and the gankee get's the cash.

THAT would make ganking fun, for BOTH parties.

This is the best idea in the thread, and a proper solution to suicide ganking.

Really, why should CONCORD work for free? A service provided should cost, and thus the one who makes use of their services should pay some ISK.

Perhaps something like 50m each time CONCORD gets summoned to protect you? Or we might base it off SP.

Nyan
Di Mulle
#76 - 2011-10-08 17:24:10 UTC
Vastek Non wrote:


FYI, actual insurance companies refuse to insure those who are constantly claiming - they actually want to make a profit, not a loss.


FYI, "actual insurance companies" or even anything distantly resembling them aren't represented in EVE. And were never intended to.

The purpose of insurance in EVE is directly opposite - to encourage loss.
<<Insert some waste of screen space here>>
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#77 - 2011-10-08 17:32:27 UTC
Mr Epeen wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Jennifer Starling wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Er, you do realise that PvP other than suicide ganking still happens now and then, here and there, right?

Removing insurance altogether would massively alter the cost balance between T1 and T2 ships, which would in turn strongly disadvantage new players. Oh and it would depress the mineral market, giving miners - the ultimate beneficiary of insurance ISK - yet another kick in the balls.

Yes I do. But how much time and effort does it take to make the ISK to replace a T1 ship by other means then insurance? Not a lot. And for T2 ships you only get a very small part back of the cost anyway so it wouldn't make a lot of difference.



Way to avoid the issue. A tier 3 batleship costs >130mill. The fit costs ~100 mill or so. Remove insurance and ypu effecticely double the cost of PvPing in a battleship. That's a major consequence of removing insurance.


And we wouldn't want to have a major consequence for anything, would we MalcanisRoll

So It's all fine and dandy when the EVE is unforgiving BS is used as an excuse for destroying noobs and carebears, but as soon as someone suggests applying it to griefers it's suddenly a bad thing?

First rule of EVE, remember. If you can't afford to lose your gank ship then don't be ganking.

Calling EVE unforgiving and then fully reimbursing ship losses is a joke. And a bad one, at that.

Mr Epeen Cool


You know, if you want to make yourself look stupid or ignorant, it's much easier than the way you're doing it now. Just type "I am stupid/ignorant", and we'll get the message.

Try reading my original post: "Insurance" for deliberately suicided ships makes no sense, but it's a gameplay necessity caused by an inescapable CONCORD. Make CONCORD evadeable and you can reasonably get rid of insurance for "criminals".

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Di Mulle
#78 - 2011-10-08 17:33:06 UTC
Jennifer Starling wrote:

b) Make insurances (and banking) player driven. Let's see how realistic insurances really are.



By the very definition making something "player driven" depends mostly on players, huh? And nothing stops you from starting that business like right now, or, say, yesterday. You can apply whatever rules you want.

Player run banks were unheard just for you, I guess. They usually ended not so well, but this is another story.
<<Insert some waste of screen space here>>
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#79 - 2011-10-08 17:33:16 UTC
Rakshasa Taisab wrote:
The Apostle wrote:
Hey y'all. Easy fixed.

If Concord is called in, an attendance fee is charged to the ganker/s account and the gankee get's the cash.

THAT would make ganking fun, for BOTH parties.

This is the best idea in the thread, and a proper solution to suicide ganking.

Really, why should CONCORD work for free? A service provided should cost, and thus the one who makes use of their services should pay some ISK.

Perhaps something like 50m each time CONCORD gets summoned to protect you? Or we might base it off SP.


Why would the ganker pay CONCORD to kill him? CONCORD should charge the guy they protect.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#80 - 2011-10-08 17:34:39 UTC
Rakshasa Taisab wrote:
This is the best idea in the thread, and a proper solution to suicide ganking.
Great. Now you just need to find a problem that the solution solves.