Much like anything else in EVE, that would be easily circumventedā¦
Whatās the matter Max? You think being rude in Eve has value? Keep going. The fact you think your statement has any effect is the howler of the day.
Oh, and ganking by definition does not occur anywhere but high sec. Did someone mention āidiotā?
Iām not sure what you feel here is āfully personal attackā? Is it suggesting that you might be lazy greedy and flying solo? Because those were all words taken out of your post where you applied them to an entire swath of the player base. And you literally said you were a solo ganker who couldnāt make much profit on it because you were unable to loot.
At any rate, youāre also confusing a theoretical āthis is how it could workā point with some stance on āthis is how it should workā. I personally donāt believe safe-conduct contracts would be a good development for the game, because we donāt actually want safe conduct to be a common thing.
Thatās why the post says āa possible approachā and āThe aim shouldnāt be to eliminate ganking but simply to expand the list of careers and options available to all players.ā
Good changes are ones that lead to more players engaging in more ways. And good new ideas are normally brought about by discussing lots of different approaches, rather than summarily dismissing everything you donāt understand or that doesnāt benefit you directly.
With respect, how?
I have a genuine interest in amending the gank to make it more exciting after the target dies. As I said, the aggressor wins by dying. Iāve thought through several scenarios but each one Iāve considered could easily be circumvented. Loss of skill points seems to prevent cooperative suiciding.
If my idea doesnāt work (too easily circumvented), so be it, on to the next.
1 Like
I think you would end up with intentional skill point transfers.
How does that sound go in PAC-MAN ?
After Iāve ganked someone, using your idea, I canāt dock, use gates, or log off. All I have to do is have a fleet member who wasnāt part of the gank sitting at a safe spot in an Orca or whatever, jettison me a ship with an MWD, warp to zero on the sun, kick in the MWD and burn inside of the sun. Youāll never catch me because even if you probe me down, Iām still 10,000 km towards the inside of the sun and if you try to warp to me it will just drop you at zero on the sun. You canāt warp directly to someone that is inside of the sun or a planetary boundary, it will just dump you at zero.
I use this same method to jack with players in null sec, because even if they probe me down, they canāt warp to me. Itās quite hilariousā¦
You can burn 100,000 km inside of their sun, cloak up, and they will never be able to find you. Ever.
uhm hey dipshit, what you are talking about is the use of safety redā¦which is used outside of HS as wellā¦
How about you stop posting till you learn the eco system of the game first dumb ass
1 Like
Nice counter. Thanks.
You make me laugh Max. Have a nice day.
Is this implying that there is no criminal timer anymore? Distress signal sounds interesting, people who disconnect should still receive CONCORD service even if it is delayed or the ship is on hull or destroyed or whatever.
About bounties, since insurances are paid by the Secure Commerce Commission that belongs to CONCORD, then insured ships should retain a fraction of the insurance and be converted it as bounty. If there is no insurance or if the the destroyed hull canāt receive insurance because the pilotās actions then there will be no bounty on the people who destroyed it.
My bounty idea in relation to gameplay would let people running bounty hunts to openly shoot whoever owes ISK to the Secure Commerce Commission, since it is part of CONCORD then CONCORD would let people be legally shot.
So bounties put by the Secure Commerce Commission would be closer to a kill rights system than the old bounty systemā¦ the bouny target could be destroyed over and over until all itās debts to the Secure Commerce Commission are paid.
My idea pains me, this would cause problems to me and my associatesā¦ but would be a better andmore fair system than the systems CCP provided.
I have heard all the arguments, for and against, the false assumption of risk. My issues with this evaluation is that the risk for the attacker has all but been eliminated due to the exploitation of concord. You will see every time safety attacks they have a corvette drawing away concord. I have joined their organizations with alts to observe them and that is the method used. CCP indicates that is banable but it happens all the time. You just have to check the killboard. Often times the only ship that dies from the attacker is a corvette.
So letās get real the risk of suicide ganks, you can make that argument but the exploitation of concord you canāt.
We need to end the suicide gank because it has become something different completely. Itās just a /kill exploit without risk, and i see Safety coming on these forums claiming risk and they flat out lie.
1 Like
Where have they indicated this?
Also, why another thread? There are plenty of others to post in.
no all threads are locked on this topic.
Wrong.
Also, where have CCP indicated that pulling CONCORD is bannable?
1 Like
not wrong, and its on the list of bannable offenses.
1 Like
Again merged a Thread with same Theme ā¦
1 Like
Yes wrong (hence why this is now merged with an existing open thread).
Also, no it isnāt on the list of bannable offences. You just clearly donāt understand what you are writing about and need to do some more reading. Itās not hard to search for.
Who hurt you?
The first known exploit is to delay concord, the very thing Safety uses every single time to avoid the consequences of a suicide gank.
2 Likes
Pulling CONCORD is not delaying them. Go read up on what you are posting about before posting. You just look foolish.
2 Likes