CONCORD insurance for High Sec ganks


(Lukett MyDabb) #1

Here’s one for all those who get salt to the max when your trying to fly home in your freighter and get scrapped by a gatecamp in (insert HS system here), how about full payment of the killmail courtesy-

“BUT THAT WOULD MEAN RUNAWAY INFLATION.”

… let me finish, COURTESY of the final blow of your gank. CONCORD, after wiping the floor of everyone involved, deducts that full amount of the killmail from the ganker to the ganked.

“but… can’t he just-”

no, gankers who can’t exactly foot the bill (maybe moved all the isk to their alt) get a negative wallet, 'nuff said. If you want to make it even more grievous a blow to the ganker, you can stop them from accepting contracts or gifted isk with a negative wallet so they gotta A, work for a positive isk wallet, or B, have that money on them so they don’t have to worry about it. burn Jita i’d think will still be a thing (pretty sure it’s an unofficial sport), and CODE are so dedicated they’ll still be CODE, but it stops the whole idea that you can do it in HS and profit.


(Nevyn Auscent) #2

Except piracy/ganking is meant to be viable as a way to make a living.
EVE is not meant to be safe.

While sure, I argue constantly that the mechanics and design of ganking currently are bad, it’s an important part of the game and ganking for profit should always remain viable and sensible.


(Lugh Crow-Slave) #3

g8b8m8


(Jonah Gravenstein) #4


(Lukett MyDabb) #5

I’m not saying Lowsechnaya sholupen or PIRAT should screw off, but make people who do actual ganking in hs do it for a hobby, the affluent EVE player can gank left and right because the gank fit ships are probably chump change and a billion dollar freighter kill wouldn’t be the end of their isk, by a long shot.


(Nevyn Auscent) #6

No, you are proposing that ganking as a lifestyle be killed, utterly.
When the whole point of it is that CCP want ganking to be viable.

I have complaints over the ‘how’ it works, but not that it is possible to turn a good profit by ganking people.
And trying to kill ganking as a lifestyle like this is just going to get you laughed at for not understanding EVE.


(Scipio Artelius) #7

HTFU.

Take some responsibility and avoid the gank in the first place.

TBH, the way this idea is proposed, it should be the other way around. If you’re lazy enough to be ganked in a freighter, you should instantly lose all your possessions to CONCORD, since you didn’t deserve any of them to begin with.


(Black Pedro) #8

Which is sort of the point of the activity. Highsec piracy is intended game play that forces choices and provides game play to players. How would it be better to reduce highsec conflict to literally just highsec griefing?

Now, practicalities aside (undock shuttle full of valuables, gank with disposable alpha account, print ISK) what I don’t get is why players like yourself, either because of a case of butthurt or some genuine but misguided view that a perfectly safe highsec would be better for the game, don’t just ask for ganking to be turned off in highsec? CCP can do it now, with just a single line of code, by locking out the red safety setting in highsec. That would turn off piracy, as you want, and straight out random griefing which I personally would think the type of interaction most people would prefer to remove. It is easy, simple and clean solution.

Be honest with yourself. I think deep down you realize that Eve is a better game if there is some risk and actual game play going on in highsec. That’s why you propose such a convoluted and broken solution to what you say you want to achieve in a futile attempt to satisfy both your goals: preventing yourself from losing to another player again while keeping the illusion that you are playing a competitive game.

Piracy is suppose to be a thing. It has been repeatedly nerfed over the years to the point that over-loaded haulers are pretty much the only viable target in highsec (and some bling fit mission/Incursion boats). But do you know what don’t usually get ganked in highsec? Prudently loaded and flown haulers who move trillions of ISK around highsec each month according to the MER numbers.

That’s all fine and working as intended. I am sure there are some tweaks to criminal game play that could be made and I would love to see a complete re-imagining of how things work, but whatever those changes are they will still provide risk for everyone in highsec as this game is suppose to work and your proposal isn’t that.

So I am afraid I have to give a big -1 to your proposal.


(Arcanith Lionheart) #9

What? CONCORD isn’t there to Pay you, they are there to Punish! And the punishment for the ganked is a note:

CONCORD needs the money to pay their super weapons, so you are lucky they don’t ask YOU to pay for the usage of their equipment instead.


(Tragot Gomndor) #10

Also -1 and i was already here when ganking was easier, where you basically just needed a solo Thorax to kill about everything (t2 barge, industrials), you could even gank Procurers with 1 Rifter for the LOLz.

You gank-targets have all protection at your command, use it, HTFU or if you simply are not able to use it, use RED FROG, or some other freight service. They know what they are doing.

Highsec ganking is and (hopefully) will always be a valid gameplaystyle.

(even those thrashers that kill autopiloting dudes for the lulz :wink: )


(Max Deveron) #11

No,
This is idea is ludicrous, not only would it kill the ganking profession (as in no longer fun) it makes it way to easy for some one to game the system with a (empty) hauler or what not besides creating conflict with collateral on courier contracts and the like.


(Daichi Yamato) #12

Don’t even know why op is still here…

Why wouldn’t we want gankers to profit? Or even sustain themselves?

Ganking is good for business.


(Lugh Crow-Slave) #13

Because people are still taking his bait


(March rabbit) #14

Does it tho? Could you provide link or something as proof?

Afaik removing of insurance for gankers tells otherwise.


(yellow parasol) #15

They removed insurance, because it made no logical sense.

tell me, why should an actual ingame feature not be viable? does that thought really make sense to you?


(March rabbit) #16

Most of game mechanics does not make any sense already. It’s not what needed from it.

My alpha alt mostly kills mobile depots around (just for fun). And she does not get any rewards from it! Glad she is Amarr so she does not have ammo expenses!
This is one example of non-“viable” feature…

Another one: exploration. Put aside relic/data and combat sites (which has nothing with exploration itself) this activity does not provide any material rewards. You might end in wreck and cloning facility instead.

So yes, i don’t think ANYTHING in the game should be “viable”. Because it’s not the purpose of ingame activities to be “viable”. The real purpose is to provide fun.

Which ganking does well. It provides fun, killmails and tears. And (if you are lucky) you get additional bonus - loot. But this is not requirement.


(Black Pedro) #17

From the 2012 CSM minutes discussing kill rights shortly after the insurance nerf:

SoniClover pointed out that kill rights have already been made more severe and that a change allowing kill rights to potentially be used for several kills would go against the original “eye for an eye” concept. He said out that suicide gankers are already feeling pressure with the new changes and was worried further penalties could result in an unhealthy reduction in suicide ganking. He went on to affirm that suicide ganking is needed to make sure highsec is not completely safe, which elicited a nod from Soundwave.

There are more references to CCP’s concern for suicide ganking in various minutes, although you do have to go back a bit as both crime and wars have barely been mentioned in recent years which may has something to so with the general decline in both. I guess CCP Soniclover was right to be concerned back then.

:man_shrugging:t2:


(March rabbit) #18

It’s little different tho. This quote tells that suicide ganking needs to be preserved. While we talking about viability of it.


(Black Pedro) #19

Who would suicide gank if it wasn’t viable?

If you made suicide ganking completely non-viable in a realistic way - say making nothing drop from a criminal action in highsec - no one would do it. I mean, practically no one does it now because the drops usually don’t cover the cost of the ship sacrificed to CONCORD in most situations, but if you made it so nothing could be gained by piracy, piracy would de facto not be a thing in the game anymore.

The only reason freighters explode semi-regularly is because there is profit to be had when someone gets greedy and overloads one. Remove profit, and they will just never explode. Suicide ganking would all but stop.

If you want to remove highsec piracy, just turn off the ability to set the red safety. Why play silly games like pretending highsec is at all dangerous by removing the profit motive to be a criminal?


(March rabbit) #20

I don’t know about high-seccers but in other parts of cluster…

When you are one of many in big fight you almost never get any loot. You lucky when you do not end in cloning facility.
But yeah, people do it!

When you roam you almost never have opportunity to plunder (example - killing carrier or rorqual with their capital-sized modules). And even when you can you often end up losing it.
But yeah, people do it!

When you catch and kill venture harvesting gas in WH the loot you can get does not worth looting.
Will you let it mine peacefully?

I remember me being killed first time in WH, i was n00b and all my stuff was worth couple millions. It didn’t safe me tho.

Even in high-sec:
When you suicide gank pods you get nothing out of it except killmail and security status hit.
People still do it.

So yeah, i don’t see “viability” as requirement.