Difference between revisions of "Suicide Ganking Part 3 (CSM)"
(CSM 4 Issue document) |
(→Summary) |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
== Summary == | == Summary == | ||
| − | This issue has been raised in the past. CCP has increased CONCORD response times and increased the security standing hits, | + | This issue has been raised in the past. CCP has increased CONCORD response times and increased the security standing hits, but to me these are more band-aid fixes than actual solutions.<br/> |
| − | + | ||
| − | but to me these are more band-aid fixes than actual solutions.<br/> | + | |
<br/> | <br/> | ||
| − | One of the issues brought up repeatedly on the forums is the problem with suicide gankers being paid insurance for their | + | One of the issues brought up repeatedly on the forums is the problem with suicide gankers being paid insurance for their ships upon CONCORD destruction, which makes suicide ganking cheap if not free, and that players can board ships in space and thus continue ganking even if they are at -10 security status. Another complaint is people using (recycled) alts in destroyers wreaking havoc, due to the ease to train for destroyers, low price, and large damage output. Doing away with insurance and making the consequences for low sec status more severe won't fix this, for instance.<br/> |
| − | + | ||
| − | ships upon CONCORD destruction, which makes suicide ganking cheap if not free, and that players can board ships in space and | + | |
| − | + | ||
| − | thus continue ganking even if they are at -10 security status. Another complaint is people using (recycled) alts in | + | |
| − | + | ||
| − | destroyers wreaking havoc, due to the ease to train for destroyers, low price, and large damage output. Doing away with | + | |
| − | + | ||
| − | insurance and making the consequences for low sec status more severe won't fix this, for instance.<br/> | + | |
<br/> | <br/> | ||
| − | Instead of proposing solutions, which has already been done in the past, I'd like to have an open discussion with CCP and my | + | Instead of proposing solutions, which has already been done in the past, I'd like to have an open discussion with CCP and my fellow CSM about the current situation of suicide ganking and if any mechanics need changing. I will also gather community |
| − | + | ||
| − | fellow CSM about the current situation of suicide ganking and if any mechanics need changing. I will also gather community | + | |
feedback and relay this to CCP. | feedback and relay this to CCP. | ||
Revision as of 18:59, 2 December 2009
Stats
- Title: Suicide Ganking Part 3
- Raised by: Z0D
- Submission Date: 3 Dec 2009
- Issue ID: ???
Summary
This issue has been raised in the past. CCP has increased CONCORD response times and increased the security standing hits, but to me these are more band-aid fixes than actual solutions.
One of the issues brought up repeatedly on the forums is the problem with suicide gankers being paid insurance for their ships upon CONCORD destruction, which makes suicide ganking cheap if not free, and that players can board ships in space and thus continue ganking even if they are at -10 security status. Another complaint is people using (recycled) alts in destroyers wreaking havoc, due to the ease to train for destroyers, low price, and large damage output. Doing away with insurance and making the consequences for low sec status more severe won't fix this, for instance.
Instead of proposing solutions, which has already been done in the past, I'd like to have an open discussion with CCP and my fellow CSM about the current situation of suicide ganking and if any mechanics need changing. I will also gather community
feedback and relay this to CCP.
Potential Solutions
- Open for discussion with the CSM and CCP.