These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Has suicide ganking become a problem? Empty freighters being ganked.

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Xuixien
Solar Winds Security Solutions
#3461 - 2014-09-02 13:50:31 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
You don't define crimes by hypertechnical actions like "activating" a module. You define them by effect like "impairing mobility." It would be like punishing for murder by stabbing and not murder by bludgeoning - it would literally make no sense.


CCP has ruled on the matter that bumping is not a crime (as far as game mechanics go) nor is it against the EULA/TOS. And CCP is the supreme court in the land, so you can sit back down now.

Epic Space Cat, Horsegirl, Philanthropist
Xuixien
Solar Winds Security Solutions
#3462 - 2014-09-02 13:51:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Xuixien
Devils Embrace wrote:
Xuixien wrote:
You know a good idea was raised in this thread, somewhere in the mishmash of shiptoasting and good points, that might change the game in interesting ways.

What if you had to call CONCORD?

Example scenario:


  1. A miner is sitting in a belt - a Catalyst warps in and begins DPSing him illegally.
  2. The CONCORD timer starts, appropriate to the CONCORD response time of that system (let's say 30 seconds).
  3. The miner gets a pop-up: "Send distress signal? Y/N" with the timer counting down from 30. During this time the Catalysts warp engines are disabled.
  4. The miner now has the option - Y, in which case CONCORD almost immediately spawns, or N, in which case CONCORD doesn't apply.
  5. If the timer counts to 0 with no response, or if the target shoots back, CONCORD doesn't apply, and the Catalysts warp engines go back online.
  6. If the target dies before a response or 0 timer, warp engines go back online. If, however, the Catalyst pilot pods the target before 0 timer, CONCORD issues a mandated response, killing the Catalyst.
  7. If no CONCORD, the Catalyst pilot takes a sec hit, and goes criminal, but can dock up after.


This would really punish AFKness in space and make criminal activities more interesting. It would make HiSec a more "seat of your pants" experience but without nerfing CONCORD into uselessness.


GTFO this idea is the same as veers half-baked schemes. Play the game everyone else is playing or quit


lolumad?

You'll be happy to know that I've decided to make a blog post about this. Thank you for your feedback! Bear

Epic Space Cat, Horsegirl, Philanthropist
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#3463 - 2014-09-02 13:52:34 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Nope.

The Nereus can also be quite effective. I saw one take down a battleship in Amarr a few weeks ago but for the life of me can't remember who it was, or the specifics of the KM. I know that particular one was fit with neuts though, and I've seen a few other Nereus' fit for PVP and they can be pretty vicious, especially with the drones.


Oh, wow, the Nereus has fitting room, and an extra mid slot... and a drone bay. That's clearly OP! P

That's fantastic.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Xuixien
Solar Winds Security Solutions
#3464 - 2014-09-02 13:55:23 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:

They will come and blow up the pointers. My solution replicates that, in that they come and "release" the point, allowing you to warp off. Now what is the horrible downside to this?


Because it means CCP is protecting you rather than you protecting yourself.

Do you even know why freighters are bumped?


Yes, to stop the from aligning and warping off. And when CCP comes and blows up people scramming you, isnt that CCP protecting you rather than you protecting yourself?


One time I got scrammed, and CCP Dropbear came and saved me, personally. True story guys!!!

Epic Space Cat, Horsegirl, Philanthropist
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#3465 - 2014-09-02 13:55:44 UTC
Devils Embrace wrote:
Xuixien wrote:
You know a good idea was raised in this thread, somewhere in the mishmash of shiptoasting and good points, that might change the game in interesting ways.

What if you had to call CONCORD?

Example scenario:


  1. A miner is sitting in a belt - a Catalyst warps in and begins DPSing him illegally.
  2. The CONCORD timer starts, appropriate to the CONCORD response time of that system (let's say 30 seconds).
  3. The miner gets a pop-up: "Send distress signal? Y/N" with the timer counting down from 30. During this time the Catalysts warp engines are disabled.
  4. The miner now has the option - Y, in which case CONCORD almost immediately spawns, or N, in which case CONCORD doesn't apply.
  5. If the timer counts to 0 with no response, or if the target shoots back, CONCORD doesn't apply, and the Catalysts warp engines go back online.
  6. If the target dies before a response or 0 timer, warp engines go back online. If, however, the Catalyst pilot pods the target before 0 timer, CONCORD issues a mandated response, killing the Catalyst.
  7. If no CONCORD, the Catalyst pilot takes a sec hit, and goes criminal, but can dock up after.


This would really punish AFKness in space and make criminal activities more interesting. It would make HiSec a more "seat of your pants" experience but without nerfing CONCORD into uselessness.


GTFO this idea is the same as veers half-baked schemes. Play the game everyone else is playing or quit


Now wait on a second.

You're just going to dismiss this so flippantly without even giving it a thought? I'm all for the HTFU factor in EVE online, but in what way does this remove it? This is not the same as a Veers scheme at all, this is actually been thought out for one, and it actually has the potential to generate more high sec conflict.

I can personally +1 this until someone explains to me with good reason instead of flippant, unsubstantiated dismissal, why it would be bad. This is worth discussion, actual discussion.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#3466 - 2014-09-02 13:56:41 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Nope.

The Nereus can also be quite effective. I saw one take down a battleship in Amarr a few weeks ago but for the life of me can't remember who it was, or the specifics of the KM. I know that particular one was fit with neuts though, and I've seen a few other Nereus' fit for PVP and they can be pretty vicious, especially with the drones.


Oh, wow, the Nereus has fitting room, and an extra mid slot... and a drone bay. That's clearly OP! P

That's fantastic.


I've pulled off some amazing tanks on it too, upwards of 20-25K buffer tanks.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#3467 - 2014-09-02 14:00:17 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
I can personally +1 this until someone explains to me with good reason instead of flippant, unsubstantiated dismissal, why it would be bad. This is worth discussion, actual discussion.


Disconnects would suck.

Setting that aside, it also means someone paying attention is literally 100% untouchable, unless they can be vollied.
Archibald Thistlewaite III
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Miners
#3468 - 2014-09-02 14:01:46 UTC
Suicide ganking has not become a problem.


This thread however.....ShockedShocked

User of 'Bumblefck's Luscious & Luminous Mustachio Wax'
Xuixien
Solar Winds Security Solutions
#3469 - 2014-09-02 14:01:48 UTC
afkalt wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
I can personally +1 this until someone explains to me with good reason instead of flippant, unsubstantiated dismissal, why it would be bad. This is worth discussion, actual discussion.


Disconnects would suck.

Setting that aside, it also means someone paying attention is literally 100% untouchable, unless they can be vollied.


Hmm, keep CONCORD response time the same then, just deduct the response time of the pilot from the timer?

Epic Space Cat, Horsegirl, Philanthropist
Devils Embrace
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#3470 - 2014-09-02 14:04:01 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Devils Embrace wrote:
Xuixien wrote:
You know a good idea was raised in this thread, somewhere in the mishmash of shiptoasting and good points, that might change the game in interesting ways.

What if you had to call CONCORD?

Example scenario:


  1. A miner is sitting in a belt - a Catalyst warps in and begins DPSing him illegally.
  2. The CONCORD timer starts, appropriate to the CONCORD response time of that system (let's say 30 seconds).
  3. The miner gets a pop-up: "Send distress signal? Y/N" with the timer counting down from 30. During this time the Catalysts warp engines are disabled.
  4. The miner now has the option - Y, in which case CONCORD almost immediately spawns, or N, in which case CONCORD doesn't apply.
  5. If the timer counts to 0 with no response, or if the target shoots back, CONCORD doesn't apply, and the Catalysts warp engines go back online.
  6. If the target dies before a response or 0 timer, warp engines go back online. If, however, the Catalyst pilot pods the target before 0 timer, CONCORD issues a mandated response, killing the Catalyst.
  7. If no CONCORD, the Catalyst pilot takes a sec hit, and goes criminal, but can dock up after.


This would really punish AFKness in space and make criminal activities more interesting. It would make HiSec a more "seat of your pants" experience but without nerfing CONCORD into uselessness.



GTFO this idea is the same as veers half-baked schemes. Play the game everyone else is playing or quit


Now wait on a second.

You're just going to dismiss this so flippantly without even giving it a thought? I'm all for the HTFU factor in EVE online, but in what way does this remove it? This is not the same as a Veers scheme at all, this is actually been thought out for one, and it actually has the potential to generate more high sec conflict.

I can personally +1 this until someone explains to me with good reason instead of flippant, unsubstantiated dismissal, why it would be bad. This is worth discussion, actual discussion.


Because EXISTING mechanics are not broken and work. Eve is a dark gritty universe and Eve has risks. You want no risk games, hello kitty online is accepting apps

It's like they usually say about fantasy MMO's and men playing female characters: "If I'm going to spend alot of time watching this character, it might as well have a good looking ass".
Omar Alharazaad
New Eden Tech Support
#3471 - 2014-09-02 14:04:19 UTC
there is that. on the other hand while it would make ganks quite a bit more difficult than they are for active and aware targets. it would completely deflate any room for complaint from those who aren't at keys... plus in fact would make the gankers not lose their ships against them at all. Of course they'd still scream like stuck pigs on the forums after it happened, but there would be even less of a leg to stand on.

Come hell or high water, this sick world will know I was here.
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#3472 - 2014-09-02 14:05:01 UTC
afkalt wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
I can personally +1 this until someone explains to me with good reason instead of flippant, unsubstantiated dismissal, why it would be bad. This is worth discussion, actual discussion.


Disconnects would suck.

Setting that aside, it also means someone paying attention is literally 100% untouchable, unless they can be vollied.


Disconnects already suck.

And as it is right now, most ganks I witness are alpha affairs. The rare solo gank I see or do myself is on an afk miner anyway.

So no, I disagree that even someone paying attention would be 100% untouchable. I do see, however, after some thought, how this mechanic could be attributed to the game being what defends you, rather than you putting in the effort to defend yourself.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#3473 - 2014-09-02 14:07:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Remiel Pollard
Devils Embrace wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Devils Embrace wrote:
Xuixien wrote:
You know a good idea was raised in this thread, somewhere in the mishmash of shiptoasting and good points, that might change the game in interesting ways.

What if you had to call CONCORD?

Example scenario:


  1. A miner is sitting in a belt - a Catalyst warps in and begins DPSing him illegally.
  2. The CONCORD timer starts, appropriate to the CONCORD response time of that system (let's say 30 seconds).
  3. The miner gets a pop-up: "Send distress signal? Y/N" with the timer counting down from 30. During this time the Catalysts warp engines are disabled.
  4. The miner now has the option - Y, in which case CONCORD almost immediately spawns, or N, in which case CONCORD doesn't apply.
  5. If the timer counts to 0 with no response, or if the target shoots back, CONCORD doesn't apply, and the Catalysts warp engines go back online.
  6. If the target dies before a response or 0 timer, warp engines go back online. If, however, the Catalyst pilot pods the target before 0 timer, CONCORD issues a mandated response, killing the Catalyst.
  7. If no CONCORD, the Catalyst pilot takes a sec hit, and goes criminal, but can dock up after.


This would really punish AFKness in space and make criminal activities more interesting. It would make HiSec a more "seat of your pants" experience but without nerfing CONCORD into uselessness.



GTFO this idea is the same as veers half-baked schemes. Play the game everyone else is playing or quit


Now wait on a second.

You're just going to dismiss this so flippantly without even giving it a thought? I'm all for the HTFU factor in EVE online, but in what way does this remove it? This is not the same as a Veers scheme at all, this is actually been thought out for one, and it actually has the potential to generate more high sec conflict.

I can personally +1 this until someone explains to me with good reason instead of flippant, unsubstantiated dismissal, why it would be bad. This is worth discussion, actual discussion.


Because EXISTING mechanics are not broken and work. Eve is a dark gritty universe and Eve has risks. You want no risk games, hello kitty online is accepting apps


I never said that, I only took a difference to your outright dismissal of an actual new thought on these forums.

Unless you've seen this suggested before? Please, be a darling and link it so we can all share in your greater wisdom.

Some things are actually, on the surface, worth discussing, even if that discussion leads to the discovery that it's a bad idea. This is how science works, and why we don't try getting into space with hovercraft (and believe me, they discussed it).

It's one thing to tell someone to "get out" because they can't use the forum search function. It's another to do it just cuz you can't stomach an idea that's intuitively against what you 'believe'.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Xuixien
Solar Winds Security Solutions
#3474 - 2014-09-02 14:08:19 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
I do see, however, after some thought, how this mechanic could be attributed to the game being what defends you, rather than you putting in the effort to defend yourself.


Please explain.

Devils Embrace wrote:


Because EXISTING mechanics are not broken and work. Eve is a dark gritty universe and Eve has risks. You want no risk games, hello kitty online is accepting apps


Are you a troll?

Epic Space Cat, Horsegirl, Philanthropist
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#3475 - 2014-09-02 14:09:13 UTC
Xuixien wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
I do see, however, after some thought, how this mechanic could be attributed to the game being what defends you, rather than you putting in the effort to defend yourself.


Please explain.



Push a button, concord comes. That part of the mechanic breaks it for me. It's the "I win" button for miners, and not even a figurative one.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#3476 - 2014-09-02 14:10:23 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
afkalt wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
I can personally +1 this until someone explains to me with good reason instead of flippant, unsubstantiated dismissal, why it would be bad. This is worth discussion, actual discussion.


Disconnects would suck.

Setting that aside, it also means someone paying attention is literally 100% untouchable, unless they can be vollied.


Disconnects already suck.

And as it is right now, most ganks I witness are alpha affairs. The rare solo gank I see or do myself is on an afk miner anyway.

So no, I disagree that even someone paying attention would be 100% untouchable. I do see, however, after some thought, how this mechanic could be attributed to the game being what defends you, rather than you putting in the effort to defend yourself.


I admit I was mostly thinking of the freighter and mission bear ganks (as the former is where the tears come from the most and take a bit of time to pop and the latter can tank a good bit). T1 haulers carrying stupid isk I kinda discount as roadkill Big smile
Xuixien
Solar Winds Security Solutions
#3477 - 2014-09-02 14:10:28 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Xuixien wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
I do see, however, after some thought, how this mechanic could be attributed to the game being what defends you, rather than you putting in the effort to defend yourself.


Please explain.



Push a button, concord comes. That part of the mechanic breaks it for me. It's the "I win" button for miners, and not even a figurative one.


If CONCORD response times were the same, would that alleviate some of this?

Epic Space Cat, Horsegirl, Philanthropist
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#3478 - 2014-09-02 14:15:23 UTC
Xuixien wrote:
If CONCORD response times were the same, would that alleviate some of this?

Then what would be the point?
Xuixien
Solar Winds Security Solutions
#3479 - 2014-09-02 14:19:43 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Xuixien wrote:
If CONCORD response times were the same, would that alleviate some of this?

Then what would be the point?


More aggression in HiSec, deterrent to AFKness, a sense of safety removed, no more automatic I-WIN.

Epic Space Cat, Horsegirl, Philanthropist
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#3480 - 2014-09-02 14:19:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Remiel Pollard
Xuixien wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Xuixien wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
I do see, however, after some thought, how this mechanic could be attributed to the game being what defends you, rather than you putting in the effort to defend yourself.


Please explain.



Push a button, concord comes. That part of the mechanic breaks it for me. It's the "I win" button for miners, and not even a figurative one.


If CONCORD response times were the same, would that alleviate some of this?




Actually, I thought about this some more.

If response times stayed the same, and the result was a miner had to make a distress call for concord to respond, then this would most certainly encourage people to be at their keyboards more often. It wouldn't make ganking harder, only easier if the miner was afk, given that there would be no concord response without a distress call.

I can +1 this.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104