The end of suicide ganking

[bhodi]

CCP's heavy handed as usual.

The highlights:
  * Concord comes faster, with two frigates that scrambles/webs (presumably, maybe jam too) and then a battleship that actually destroys you but has a longer lock time.
  * Removal of insurance for concord related events (you get owned by concord you get no insurance payout)
  * A scaling security penalty based on space (you take a larger hit in 1.0 than you do in 0.1, and they are using 0.1-0.3 as the "baseline" of what it is today)
  * Additional modifier based on security standing difference (each whole point of standing difference modifies standing penalty by 1%
  * Additional changes incoming

It's not really going to stop killing t1 tanked haulers with cruisers, and it might make freighter ganking harder... and we'll see about hulk killing. It really depends on if the frigates jam you or not.

The additional concord penalty with everything added in makes it look like suicide ganking got twice as expensive in terms of cash required and also in terms of standing to be earned.

[Slayerik]

Hey, I expected it 5 months ago so.........

Ah who am I kidding, I'm salty.

EDIT: I'm going to go out with a fuckin bang baby :)

[Nerf]

When is this going live? I might need to re-up and get my jollies off a few times before it's gone for good.

[lac]

Its the nerf Slayerik patch.

nerf nano's: check
nerf suicide ganks: check

anything else they can nerf for you while they're at it?

[apocrypha]

Fucks sake. Have I mentioned somewhere before that I think CCP are going down a bad path by just repeatedly caving in to forum whining?

It's funny but these 2 nerfs don't affect me directly at all - I don't nano and I don't suicide gank (tried it, not got the patience!) - but they're really pissing me off. Feels like a dumbing down of EVE. Both were counterable, there was no need for either of these changes IMO.

Also, way to make the newbie experience potentially even worse by removing insurance payout for Concord losses. For years they've said that it was needed because it's so easy to get yourself accidentally concordokkened and now they jsut say "In addition, the highly requested feature of removal of insurance in CONCORD related events will be implemented in the near future." with not even an attempt to soften that for the mistakes that everyone makes sometimes.

Why not a "repeat offenders" clause? One concord death per week = insured, more than that = not insured. Should cover most cases of "oops I shot a non-corp gangmate". When losing your ship in highsec is as simple as hitting F1 by mistake and then clicking on a stargate the penalty shouldn't be so irredeemably high.

[apocrypha]

Gah double post, sorry.

[lac]

Why not a "repeat offenders" clause? One concord death per week = insured, more than that = not insured. Should cover most cases of "oops I shot a non-corp gangmate". When losing your ship in highsec is as simple as hitting F1 by mistake and then clicking on a stargate the penalty shouldn't be so irredeemably high.

I couldn't agree more. I don't mind them making suicide ganking a tad harder, in fact it's probably good to make it only viable for really juicy targets. That way they can avoid three month old casual players getting ganked out of their first hundred mil because they never realized or got explicitly told this sort of thing actually happens in high sec.

They could void insurance when attacking industrials in empire. That way most accidents would still be covered but the bar at which a gank becomes profitable would be raised some.

[eldaec]

In addition, the highly requested feature of removal of insurance in CONCORD related events will be implemented in the near future." with not even an attempt to soften that for the mistakes that everyone makes sometimes.

I'm intrigued, how many people here have been accidentally CONCORDEKKENed in a t1 ship more than once or twice?

[lac]

I'd assume people who do empire wars. (and suck at it)

I've lost two ships to concord. One because I wasn't paying attention (ooh bob guy, oh wait we just jumped into high sec...) and one because I had prefired guns  when I tried to move my ship (I doubleclicked on an invisible drone belonging to somebody in my fleet).

All rather avoidable mistakes of course but still mistakes and it would have hurt my wallet if those ships hadn't been insured.

[apocrypha]

I've lost ships to overview bugs twice during Empire wars. Once by shooting a neutral who was flashing red on my overview and once by unloading on a flashing red stargate. Sigh. Neither reimbursed. I no longer cycle weapons in highsec :D

[Reg]

They should reimburse the first couple of times it happens. If it happens once a week you're obviously doing it on purpose.

[Nerf]

I applaud them taking out insurance payments for CONCORD, if that's all they did I would've resubbed already, less competition means more phat lootz for me!

But all this other shit?  CONCORD showing up faster, a two-tiered dokken, where the first probably jams?  Fucking meh, if they're just going to make it impossible to kill someone in highsec, why not stop you from attacking altogether?

[Predator Irl]

EDIT: I'm going to go out with a fuckin bang baby :)

LoL, I love your attitude! 

This nerfing is becoming a pain in the ass. Whats next from CCP, you won't be able to enable your guns in empire? What they are doing here now is making a mockery of their own system security ratings, instead of 0.0 to 1.0, we will now have none, low or high. 

[Amarr HM]

In addition, the highly requested feature of removal of insurance in CONCORD related events will be implemented in the near future." with not even an attempt to soften that for the mistakes that everyone makes sometimes.

I'm intrigued, how many people here have been accidentally CONCORDEKKENed in a t1 ship more than once or twice?

I remember using smartbombs in a mission very early on in my game playing experience, lost a coercer worth 7 million in my first week to Concord on that occasion. Then I refitted another Coercer waited for the aggro timer to disappear, when I undocked boom Concord struck again.

[Amarr HM]

Actually these changes don't sound so bad, only part that's ridiculous is the removing of insurance this effects everybodies gameplaying experience not just the ganker, this is something I mentioned on the forums repeatedly seems they are doing the same with the nano nerf. EG. Changing everybodies gameplaying experience to cater for a small portion of gameplayers due to whining.

[Comstar]

Sounds like another reason I should start playing EvE again.

[eldaec]

Insurance decision does seem a little odd, Slayer and Nerf would know better than me, but I wouldn't imagine it changes the economics much, I mean the difference between waiting for an afk hauler carrying 100M of loot, and waiting for one carrying 120M of loot doesn't seem like a big deal?

[5150]

Whats next from CCP

Next will be the briefly mentioned high sec war nerf, err I mean changes.

Give that high sec wars is the majority of what me and my guys do I'm more than a little concerned that those juicy carebear industrial corps will be either able to outbid the pirates so the war never happens or sell the war off to a merc corp that isnt going to be profitable for us to engage!

[Slayerik]

Sounds like another reason I should start playing EvE again.

Because of removal of suicide ganking (that would not effect you unless you are an idiot) ? Did a big bad suicide ganker touch you in your no-no place? :P

[ajax34i]

Is it "no insurance payout at all", or is it "default to the 40% return that everyone gets?"

IMO, fair's fair, I think they should make the loot have a higher chance to drop (rather than being destroyed) to balance these changes.

[kildorn]

The concord insurance makes logical sense, I can't see why concord would pay you for the irritation of having to pop you 

Overall I think this is an extension of the direction they wanted with FW. Basically, they a section of space that low-mid SP players can do pointless pvp without getting destroyed. Suicide Ganking wasn't bad, but it impacted that playerbase (the ones who hit autopilot when moving their shit in empire), same with the nano nerf (nano gangs vs random FW t1 gangs is a bit silly).

I think it would be far easier to leave everything in and make FW a jumpclone to a pre fitted battlefield with a monthly cost to join. It would be more Game-esque than EVE's ideal, but it would fix these issues without massive nerfs and leave the intended casual pvp angle.

[Thrawn]

I think we all knew some kind of nerf to it would be coming long before they stated it.  But yeah, this seems a bit heavy-handed.

[lac]

  * Concord comes faster, with two frigates that scrambles/webs (presumably, maybe jam too) and then a battleship that actually destroys you but has a longer lock time.

I would take that 'maybe jam' too with a big grain of salt. It would make sense to have two frigs pop up and scram you immediately, it would make sure you can't run away. The 'killer' ship can then arrive at the appropriate time for the sec level of that system to pop you.

[LC]

The concord insurance makes logical sense, I can't see why concord would pay you for the irritation of having to pop you 

Overall I think this is an extension of the direction they wanted with FW. Basically, they a section of space that low-mid SP players can do pointless pvp without getting destroyed. Suicide Ganking wasn't bad, but it impacted that playerbase (the ones who hit autopilot when moving their shit in empire), same with the nano nerf (nano gangs vs random FW t1 gangs is a bit silly).

I think it would be far easier to leave everything in and make FW a jumpclone to a pre fitted battlefield with a monthly cost to join. It would be more Game-esque than EVE's ideal, but it would fix these issues without massive nerfs and leave the intended casual pvp angle.

Why would they insure ships in 0.0 or low sec either? Do you think anyone would insure a car thats going to be used in a demolition derby? Just remove insurance all together.

[kildorn]

The concord insurance makes logical sense, I can't see why concord would pay you for the irritation of having to pop you 

Overall I think this is an extension of the direction they wanted with FW. Basically, they a section of space that low-mid SP players can do pointless pvp without getting destroyed. Suicide Ganking wasn't bad, but it impacted that playerbase (the ones who hit autopilot when moving their shit in empire), same with the nano nerf (nano gangs vs random FW t1 gangs is a bit silly).

I think it would be far easier to leave everything in and make FW a jumpclone to a pre fitted battlefield with a monthly cost to join. It would be more Game-esque than EVE's ideal, but it would fix these issues without massive nerfs and leave the intended casual pvp angle.

Why would they insure ships in 0.0 or low sec either? Do you think anyone would insure a car thats going to be used in a demolition derby? Just remove insurance all together.

You can get insurance on your car if it's going to be driven into a warzone, it's just expensive. Now it would be funny if insurance rates went up based on the number of payouts in a week, and you'd get a good pilot discount ;)

[apocrypha]

Whats next from CCP

My predictions are level 4 mission nerfs and NPC corp nerfs. I think there's likely to be some pretty huge forum campaigns from people who feel aggrieved about the nano nerf and this ganking nerf, and they'll be demanding all level 4's moving to lowsec and automatic booting people out of NPC corps into wardeccable corps somehow.

Clearly making lots of noise on the forums gets things done in EVE. It might take a while but it does work. CCP will cave in to those demands relatively quickly in an effort to appear impartial :p

[Amarr HM]

Insurance decision does seem a little odd, Slayer and Nerf would know better than me, but I wouldn't imagine it changes the economics much, I mean the difference between waiting for an afk hauler carrying 100M of loot, and waiting for one carrying 120M of loot doesn't seem like a big deal?

Yeh these where the points I made it will effect more in the game than the guys doing the ganking so why bother?

[Amarr HM]

The concord insurance makes logical sense, I can't see why concord would pay you for the irritation of having to pop you 

Sure it makes sense in RL terms but this is a computer game and it won't effect ganking as much as the other changes.

[kildorn]

The concord insurance makes logical sense, I can't see why concord would pay you for the irritation of having to pop you 

Sure it makes sense in RL terms but this is a computer game and it won't effect ganking as much as the other changes.

Oh, I agree, it doesn't do much of shit. Nobody's using a faction fitted CNR to suicide pop haulers or anything stupid. You use cheap ships and go for high value targets. I just always found the concord insurance mail to be hilarious. "you were shot for killing people in protected space... here's a new ship, don't do that again young man!"

[bhodi]

Just as a note, every single one of these changes was recommended by the Dutch CSM girl in Iceland.

[ajax34i]

Were the changes her agenda, or did she just pick them up from the most popular threads in the Assembly Hall, though?

[Kamen]

Just remove insurance all together.

Agreed.  It's an idiotic idea that should have never been implemented in the first place.  I doubt CCP will ever admit it was a mistake and remove it, but I can dream.

[Phred]

In addition, the highly requested feature of removal of insurance in CONCORD related events will be implemented in the near future." with not even an attempt to soften that for the mistakes that everyone makes sometimes.

I'm intrigued, how many people here have been accidentally CONCORDEKKENed in a t1 ship more than once or twice?

Happened to me once when I was a complete noob. It was pretty hard to be that stupid actually. The 3x5 dialog box with blurry hard to read red text made it pretty clear it was a bad thing. (not all newbies shut that off first thing) It was on a mission where I misread the mission and didnt reallize the structure was lootable so I thought I had to shoot it like other missions to get it to drop the item.

[Phildo]

I was concorded once during an empire war for shooting at a BoB cerberus that popped up in the middle of the warzone.

And this is silly, I need insurance payouts to help cover the cost of ship replacement for PvP.  Without them I'd need to spend a lot more time ratting or running missions to recover and that's not fun.  Insurance is good.

[Jayce]

I really don't see this as much of a nerf.  Previously the value prop for suiciding was:  if hauler's loot value > (cost of ship + fittings) - (insurance payout), then it was a good gank.  Now it's just the same without the insurance part.  For haulers worth greater than ~30 mil (BC cost) it will still be worth it.  It's screwing over newbs who mistakenly click something while not really bothering the gankers.

The CONCORD changes are kind of stupid but if you can alpha the hauler, no biggie right? 

So the window has just contracted:  untanked haulers carrying > 30 mil worth of stuff is your new baseline.  Meanwhile, the newbie attrition rate goes up.  Stupid move, but not much of a nerf.