These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Suicide Ganking: coming to an end?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Lord Mandelor
Oruze Cruise
White Stag Exit Bag
#81 - 2011-11-06 00:57:57 UTC
The age of the stealth bomber is upon us.
Avila Cracko
#82 - 2011-11-06 00:59:02 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Avila Cracko wrote:
well... for ppl that are in jail for mass murder... its very like that...
Only until they get a book deal.


ok... but they cant drive that car anymore anywhere... thats the point...

truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Zions Child
Higashikata Industries
#83 - 2011-11-06 00:59:50 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Avila Cracko wrote:
well... for ppl that are in jail for mass murder... its very like that...
Only until they get a book deal.


QFT
David Grogan
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#84 - 2011-11-06 01:03:20 UTC
Buzzmong wrote:
Hmm.

I wonder if this is a "two birds with one stone" affair and this is the first step.

First up being that getting Concordokened gave you full insurance never sat well as a concept. So, it now makes more logical sense.

But I wonder if it's tied into the Smuggling that CCP were planning on introducing.

For those not remembering the small details, CCP were going to overhaul the smuggling contraband system for illegal goods and put policing in the hands of the players. I think it was to help players RP the police role and make bounter hunters have a bigger role.

I wonder if CCP are indeed planning on removing Concord or at least, limiting its ability and response times.

They could change it so that what would normally trigger a Concord response gets the killer(s) flagged with a new semi-permanent criminal flag, which can only being lifed on ship destruction (or a pod kill), coupled with having what's left of Concord place bounties on the crims so that the players who partake in policing get a payout for their work.

Could be an interesting mechanic if it's not exploitable.

It would also be a rather excellent bit of game design and restore a lot of faith for me that CCP aren't afraid of rocking the boat and have still got balls.



i doubt concord will be completely removed.......... its necessary to protect noobs from being perma griefed.

Everytime you buy something that says "made in china" you are helping the rising unemployment in your own country unless you are from china, Buy locally produced goods and help create more jobs.
Aidan Brooder
Dynasphere Ltd.
#85 - 2011-11-06 01:05:27 UTC
Eh... Really? All this rage and tears because you don't get the bloody insurance money for a suicide ship?

I think it makes sense that you don't get insurance for it, but I don't think it makes much of a difference because such ships are cheap to replace anyway.

Unless your usual kind of brand for a suicide rush is a Tengu of course. Roll

Blog: http://aidanbrooder.wordpress.com My EVE Playlist on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLSNuHY7z8n1q1BdLvW2verIfH8vvWtz_x
Aurelius Valentius
Valentius Corporation
Valentius Corporation Alliance
#86 - 2011-11-06 01:08:11 UTC
Meatbag Pussrocket wrote:
Singularity has some wonderful new ships and textures and nebulae... yes yes, well and good, but did you notice the new policy that appears to be in effect? Namely:

If you get concorded, you get no insurance payout, period.

for better or for worse it looks like CCP is taking a stand on Suicide ganking, hulk-a-geddon, or market manipulation via proxy war on items, or all of the above.

What do you think: is this the end of suicide ganking as we know it, or the beginning of something more devious?

FWIW: i have no horse in this race, but if nothing else it may push those looking for PvP into more desparate measures and might incite some violence in 0.0, and thats always a good thing.


GANKing for ISK is impure!!! GANKING For the sheer joy should be worth that pesky little ISK you lose... come one now... Ganking is not for the money it's for the KM and the happy, happy tears!.... it has to have a cost also or too many people would be enjoying this wonderful sport and that cannot be allowed...

10/10 I support a No Insurance for CONCORDED ships - this works for me!!!!... seperates the wannabies from the TRUE GANKERS... be a man and take it on the wallet for your profession... oh the sweet tears in local... WHAAAAA.... that RAVEN killed my WALLET!!!!... oooh carebears do love the sound of the tears!!! Big smileBig smileBig smileBig smileBig smileBig smile
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#87 - 2011-11-06 01:08:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Aidan Brooder wrote:
Eh... Really? All this rage and tears because you don't get the bloody insurance money for a suicide ship?
No, not really. Largely because there's no rage or tears. Rather, it's just some kind of sigh and eye-roll at CCP ruining the game further for miners and needlessly making highsec safer when it would be served well by a decent increase in danger.
DarkAegix wrote:
Why would I be in tears? I honestly don't get it. If you want to troll me, you need to at least explain that part, or I won't be able to be angry with you — just confused. Ugh
Are you trying to rile me up by agreeing with me? Is that it? If so, it's a very weird tactic…
ACE McFACE
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#88 - 2011-11-06 01:09:38 UTC
pfft, i forget to insure all the time, this hardly effects me and when I occassionally find a mack to gank

Now, more than ever, we need a dislike button.
Aidan Brooder
Dynasphere Ltd.
#89 - 2011-11-06 01:11:20 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Aidan Brooder wrote:
Eh... Really? All this rage and tears because you don't get the bloody insurance money for a suicide ship?
No, not really. Largely because there's no rage or tears. Rather, it's just some kind of sigh and eye-roll at CCP ruining the game further for miners and needlessly making highsec safer when it would be served well by a decent increase in danger.
DarkAegix wrote:
Why would I be in tears? I honestly don't get it. If you want to troll me, you need to at least explain that part, or I won't be able to be angry with you — just confused. Ugh


They should fix corp wars then, as in: You can't just jump corp.
But suicide ganking en masse is lame. Anyone can do it with an alt.

Blog: http://aidanbrooder.wordpress.com My EVE Playlist on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLSNuHY7z8n1q1BdLvW2verIfH8vvWtz_x
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#90 - 2011-11-06 01:15:38 UTC
Aidan Brooder wrote:
They should fix corp wars then, as in: You can't just jump corp.
But suicide ganking en masse is lame. Anyone can do it with an alt.
That's the problem: they just did the opposite. The rendered corp wars completely obsolete since you don't even need to jump corp any more to get rid of them.

This leaves ganking as the only available means of attacking people, for whatever reason, and if this change is intentional, they're breaking the balance of that tactic as well. Ugh

Oh well… with a bit of luck, it's just a bug (and with a bit more luck, they'll reverse that policy change once it gets abused enough).
DarkAegix
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#91 - 2011-11-06 01:22:23 UTC
Tippia wrote:
DarkAegix wrote:
Why am I in tears? I can't control them. You're trolling me into an endless spiral of confusion Shocked
You're succeeding in riling me up by leaving me utterly flabbergasted. Is that it? If so, it's a very effective tactic…

You're finally starting to see it.
I'm leaving now. Hopefully we've all learned something today. I know I have.
Aidan Brooder
Dynasphere Ltd.
#92 - 2011-11-06 01:23:21 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Aidan Brooder wrote:
They should fix corp wars then, as in: You can't just jump corp.
But suicide ganking en masse is lame. Anyone can do it with an alt.
That's the problem: they just did the opposite. The rendered corp wars completely obsolete since you don't even need to jump corp any more to get rid of them.

This leaves ganking as the only available means of attacking people, for whatever reason, and if this change is intentional, they're breaking the balance of that tactic as well. Ugh

Oh well… with a bit of luck, it's just a bug (and with a bit more luck, they'll reverse that policy change once it gets abused enough).


The suicide tactic is stupid, you have to admit that. And yes, there are human crews on the bigger ships, too. Who cares? And losing the few ISK for a BC ain't the world anyway.

But: Instead they should make better (programatic) rules for corp warfare. And make NPC corp players targets if they hang around for too long. (FW? Twisted)

Blog: http://aidanbrooder.wordpress.com My EVE Playlist on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLSNuHY7z8n1q1BdLvW2verIfH8vvWtz_x
Ludi Burek
The Player Haters Corp
#93 - 2011-11-06 01:25:48 UTC
Before all these furries and mad bot owners get too carried away:


A catalyst can gank a mackinaw RIGHT NOW, before patch boost Big smile and who the hell insures destroyers as it is. Trashers will still hunt yo tard bombers and cov ops.

Hauler targets of around 100-ish mil will still be viable with hurricanes even uninsured.

Alpha Battleships are rarely used for less than 200-300 mil but the tier 3 BCs will offset the no insurance cost to the ganker since they be cheaper Lol

And guess what, Smartbomb ganks are often used for LOLS and you can't put a price on the LOLS.

I do give you one though, hulk ganking with a BC might wear on the wallet but on the positive side, that's why there's dessies and friends or alts.


Now that is placed in perspective... U MAD?
Mag's
Azn Empire
#94 - 2011-11-06 01:29:52 UTC
I hope this is true. It's something I actually wanted for some time ago, mostly because of the shock when suiciding doesn't actually stop. Oh there will be tears. LolLol

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Handsome Hussein
#95 - 2011-11-06 01:32:35 UTC
Mag's wrote:
I hope this is true. It's something I actually wanted for some time ago, mostly because of the shock when suiciding doesn't actually stop. Oh there will be tears. LolLol

This, really. And the complacency of high-seccers will make it even easier.

Leaves only the fresh scent of pine.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#96 - 2011-11-06 01:33:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
DarkAegix wrote:
You're finally starting to see it.
Am I? I'm just getting more confused with your trolls… that is what they are, right? You said so before, but maybe that was the troll…

…in which case, that's probably the first paradox-meta-troll I've ever seen. Impressive (of a sort). I'm still more confused than riled up, though, and I still don't get what the tears are supposed to be about. Ugh

I suppose I could shed a tear for the poor miners who get screwed over once again if this goes live, but not being one myself, it's not something I'm particularly affected by so you won't get much more than a slight sympathetic sniffle out of it.
Aidan Brooder wrote:
The suicide tactic is stupid, you have to admit that. And yes, there are human crews on the bigger ships, too. Who cares? And losing the few ISK for a BC ain't the world anyway.
I agree that replacing wardecs with mandatory suicide ganks (and then disincentivising those ganks) is pretty stupid. There should definitely be some way of deal with your opponents/enemies/competitors that is more formalised than that.

At the same time, ganks most definitely need to remain as a constant threat for the careless and inattentive.
Quote:
But: Instead they should make better (programatic) rules for corp warfare. And make NPC corp players targets if they hang around for too long. (FW? )
Weeeell… I'm not entirely convinced that pushing NPC corpers into some FW-like arrangement is a good way to go. They already pay a hefty price for that membership in terms of what they are allowed to do, and there are were still ways of getting to them. It's not as horrid a solution as forcing them into player corps, but it just seems a bit heavy-handed. I'd rather move in the direction of more restrictions and/or higher costs for a wider range of activities.

Put another way: I don't really see much of a case for any change to begin with, and adding in a whole bunch of after-the-fact patching to plug the various leaks that sprung up rather suggests that the first “fix” was rather ill-conceived.
Selinate
#97 - 2011-11-06 01:38:48 UTC
Mag's wrote:
I hope this is true. It's something I actually wanted for some time ago, mostly because of the shock when suiciding doesn't actually stop. Oh there will be tears. LolLol


I think most people realize that suicide ganking won't stop because of this, but the world WILL make a little more sense after this change.
LuminousAxle
24th Imperial Crusade
Amarr Empire
#98 - 2011-11-06 01:41:53 UTC
Would this change also act as an isk sink?
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#99 - 2011-11-06 01:42:58 UTC
LuminousAxle wrote:
Would this change also act as an isk sink?
Nope.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#100 - 2011-11-06 01:48:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Mag's
Selinate wrote:
Mag's wrote:
I hope this is true. It's something I actually wanted for some time ago, mostly because of the shock when suiciding doesn't actually stop. Oh there will be tears. LolLol


I think most people realize that suicide ganking won't stop because of this, but the world WILL make a little more sense after this change.
Please don't try to bring sense into this. We are talking about a game mechanic, not a RL one. Many things in Eve don't make sense, but they are there because it aids the game.

I do actually like this change if true, but not for some spurious makes sense argument.

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