# Add Counter Gameplay for Ganking - Safety to Red makes you Suspect **URL:** \ **Category:** Player Features & Ideas\ **Created:** [October 8, 2024, 2:31pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/add-counter-gameplay-for-ganking-safety-to-red-makes-you-suspect/463893 "2024-10-08T14:31:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Kybereck](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/kybereck/32/501833_2.png) [@Kybereck](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Kybereck)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2024, 2:31pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/add-counter-gameplay-for-ganking-safety-to-red-makes-you-suspect/463893/1 "2024-10-08T14:31:31Z")
I’ve been thinking about this a lot and this seems to be the best approach. If we utilize the safety system to allow a ship to be engaged by others due to their intent to break the law, this could lead to meaningful counter gameplay. Summary of the proposed changes: - Changing your safety to red puts a suspect timer on you in high and low security for the duration of your safety being red - there is now a 1 minute limited non-engagement timer when you change your safety to red in high security space. You must declare your intent early, you cannot flip it last second in high security What this does: - gives opportunities to groups to add counter gameplay against intended gankers - Gives meaningful intel to haulers and miners, if someone suspect enters their system they can respond as we can in low or null - Introduces risk to ganking gameplay, ie: your tornados sitting 100 off could get rolled themselves. The lone catalyst trying to gank a miner, the miner has a shot at defending themselves in a group. - Will lead to more engaging gameplay, a miner who choses to fight themselves would die still as the gank turns into what the old “steal the jetcan” games were like, the offender survives via no concord response and the miner is vulnerable for choosing to engage themself, so it would force group gameplay to be able to kill suspect ships before they can make it to your fleet. - A miner not choosing to engage can have a reasonable chance at escape before being blapped Could be fun ---
**Author:** ![Dyver\_Phycad](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/dyver_phycad/32/358575_2.png) [@Dyver\_Phycad](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Dyver_Phycad)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2024, 3:05pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/add-counter-gameplay-for-ganking-safety-to-red-makes-you-suspect/463893/2 "2024-10-08T15:05:46Z")
The only ganking this will make impossible are Gate Tornados. Everything else is already perma-engageable by virtue of their sub -5 sec status. ---
**Author:** ![Srajin](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/srajin/32/378084_2.png) [@Srajin](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Srajin)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2024, 3:26pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/add-counter-gameplay-for-ganking-safety-to-red-makes-you-suspect/463893/3 "2024-10-08T15:26:49Z")
![ThisIsMySafety](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/original/4X/7/9/b/79b4a462ec926b9249aa36a2713cb79bdd8bd3e2.gif) ---
**Author:** ![Woulda\_Coulda\_Shoulda](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/woulda_coulda_shoulda/32/431868_2.png) [@Woulda\_Coulda\_Shoulda](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Woulda_Coulda_Shoulda)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2024, 3:32pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/add-counter-gameplay-for-ganking-safety-to-red-makes-you-suspect/463893/4 "2024-10-08T15:32:43Z")
> [@Kybereck](#): > > there is now a 1 minute limited non-engagement timer when you change your safety to red in high security space. You must declare your intent early, you cannot flip it last second in high security That would be a great idea, because these of us who watch local and others who just walk away wont see it coming. There should be a cool down timer when you flip that switch early. There is many different ideas built on cool-down timers. If there is cool down time for suspect modes. But if you want to go full out there should be a 30 sec to 1 min wait. ---
**Author:** ![Sasha\_Nemtsov](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/sasha_nemtsov/32/393707_2.png) [@Sasha\_Nemtsov](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Sasha_Nemtsov)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2024, 4:05pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/add-counter-gameplay-for-ganking-safety-to-red-makes-you-suspect/463893/5 "2024-10-08T16:05:06Z")
It seems to me that this is all about giving a heads-up to gank targets. They shouldn’t need it if they’re paying attention and adopting others of the many ways to avoid being ganked in Highsec. The additional putative benefit of encouraging ‘groups’ to attack suspects has already proven to be no incentive at all. Even out-and-out criminals fly about largely unmolested. You want to make life easier for miners, haulers and the small number of anti-gank pilots - I get it. However, what you’re suggesting doesn’t persuade me that it will achieve what you desire for it. You mention ‘counterplay’ as if there did not already exist a number of counterplays to ganking. That you don’t seem to rate them particularly highly, is unimportant. They exist, and while they do so CCP is unlikely to assign valuable time and resources to add yet more features which will be underused. Remember, CCP is all about ‘balance’. What you’re suggesting directly nerfs ganking without (as far as I can see) offering the ganker anything remotely resembling a buff. That is hardly a balanced approach. You really shouldn’t need to be reminded of these rather obvious points, Kybereck. ---
**Author:** ![Kybereck](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/kybereck/32/501833_2.png) [@Kybereck](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Kybereck)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2024, 4:23pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/add-counter-gameplay-for-ganking-safety-to-red-makes-you-suspect/463893/6 "2024-10-08T16:23:56Z")
Not just a heads up, but gives a chance for the following gameplay loop that doesn’t exist today: - Allows for a corp to put combat ships on grid - Combat ship can choose to engage the suspect ganker(s), web, scram, pew - Combat ship is now in a limited engagement timer, the ganker _could_ blow up the combat ship if desired it gives meaningful _risky_ gameplay to counter ganking ---
**Author:** ![Sasha\_Nemtsov](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/sasha_nemtsov/32/393707_2.png) [@Sasha\_Nemtsov](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Sasha_Nemtsov)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2024, 4:45pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/add-counter-gameplay-for-ganking-safety-to-red-makes-you-suspect/463893/7 "2024-10-08T16:45:24Z")
> [@Kybereck](#): > > Allows for a corp to put combat ships on grid They can already do this, using the Wardec feature. I don’t like it, but if Corps want to fight in Highsec they already have the means. If they want to attack gankers (many of whom don’t care about being Suspects or Flashy Red), then, as I say, the means already exist. What you seem to be trying to do is to make it easier for the anti-gankers, so that they will feel encouraged. > [@Kybereck](#): > > the ganker _could_ blow up the combat ship if desired If ganking was not designed to be a stealthy and overwhelming assault, this would appear to make sense. Ganking, however, is predicated upon surprise, dispatch and the inevitable and decisive intervention of CONCORD. Gankers will simply continue to gank as they have done in the past. I don’t think you’ll strike fear into them with these proposals. Opportunities for anti-gankers may tempt some souls out of the cupboard, but I doubt whether many will take it up. I could be wrong. I’m all for bringing more interesting combat opportunities to Highsec, but unless such a feature is fully and evenly balanced it looks like a ‘swatting the gankers’ drive. Besides that, it would require a change to the current Crimewatch mechanics. I’ve long advocated a re-write but it seems that CCP is currently unwilling to take it on. I’ll be interested to read what others think of your suggestions. ---
**Author:** ![Akkar\_Kardashev](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/akkar_kardashev/32/514189_2.png) [@Akkar\_Kardashev](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Akkar_Kardashev)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2024, 5:39pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/add-counter-gameplay-for-ganking-safety-to-red-makes-you-suspect/463893/8 "2024-10-08T17:39:17Z")
I swear this thread already got did recently ---
**Author:** ![Srajin](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/srajin/32/378084_2.png) [@Srajin](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Srajin)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2024, 7:41pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/add-counter-gameplay-for-ganking-safety-to-red-makes-you-suspect/463893/9 "2024-10-08T19:41:25Z")
Was it deleted? Can’t imagine why. @Aiko_Danuja doesn’t like it when people come up with ideas to counter gankers. ---
**Author:** ![QuakeGod](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/quakegod/32/480339_2.png) [@QuakeGod](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/QuakeGod)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2024, 8:40pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/add-counter-gameplay-for-ganking-safety-to-red-makes-you-suspect/463893/10 "2024-10-08T20:40:03Z")
Yet another ganking whine thread. Yawn. The only “counterplay” you need against ganking is paying attention and not flying stupid. Don’t mine AFK. Don’t haul 137 trillion ISK worth of random crap in a piss-poor tanked T1 hauler. Don’t run L4 missions in a blinged-out Marauder in popular hubs. It’s that simple… ---
**Author:** ![Akkar\_Kardashev](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/akkar_kardashev/32/514189_2.png) [@Akkar\_Kardashev](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Akkar_Kardashev)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2024, 8:50pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/add-counter-gameplay-for-ganking-safety-to-red-makes-you-suspect/463893/11 "2024-10-08T20:50:25Z")
> [@QuakeGod](#): > > Don’t haul 137 trillion ISK worth of random crap in a piss-poor tanked T1 hauler. Don’t listen to that Negative Nick, you absolutely should do exactly this. Repeatedly and often. Also go one better and make sure your Iteron Mark V is fully kitted with cargo expander IIs in the lows and cargohold optimization II rigs. ---
**Author:** ![Srajin](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/srajin/32/378084_2.png) [@Srajin](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Srajin)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2024, 9:41pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/add-counter-gameplay-for-ganking-safety-to-red-makes-you-suspect/463893/12 "2024-10-08T21:41:31Z")
> [@Akkar\_Kardashev](#): > > Also go one better and make sure your Iteron Mark V is fully kitted with cargo expander IIs in the lows and cargohold optimization II rigs. Can confirm. This is the best way to haul skill injectors in bulk. ![KnowWhatIMean](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/original/4X/c/4/6/c4684c945a069c04d0b09ad3a12e0385b29adda4.jpeg) ---
**Author:** ![0ptimus\_Swine](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/0ptimus_swine/32/385816_2.png) [@0ptimus\_Swine](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/0ptimus_Swine)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2024, 11:14pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/add-counter-gameplay-for-ganking-safety-to-red-makes-you-suspect/463893/13 "2024-10-08T23:14:55Z")
Make structures suspect that tether criminals. ---
**Author:** ![Gerard\_Amatin](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/gerard_amatin/32/481361_2.png) [@Gerard\_Amatin](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Gerard_Amatin)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2024, 7:37am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/add-counter-gameplay-for-ganking-safety-to-red-makes-you-suspect/463893/14 "2024-10-09T07:37:55Z")
I have a different idea. One buff to counter ganking gameplay I would like to see is an increase of the window of opportunity for counterganking. Not only would a later arrival time of CONCORD make counter ganking more acessible for players, it also makes counter ganking much more impactful. ---
**Author:** ![Vokan\_Narkar](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/vokan_narkar/32/326293_2.png) [@Vokan\_Narkar](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Vokan_Narkar)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2024, 8:49pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/add-counter-gameplay-for-ganking-safety-to-red-makes-you-suspect/463893/15 "2024-10-09T20:49:10Z")
This will kill majority of ganking. It would not be possible to camp trade hubs for example. This is because we absolutely need a glass cannon max dps fits because we have little time to kill our target, but these can be easily oneshot. > [@Gerard\_Amatin](#): > > I have a different idea. One buff to counter ganking gameplay I would like to see is an increase of the window of opportunity for counterganking. > > Not only would a later arrival time of CONCORD make counter ganking more accessible for players, it also makes counter ganking much more impactful. That could actually work, especially because, if gankers have more time they will go “cheaper” and that means the gank will take longer to execute and that means higher chance for antigankers to make a difference. But then the gank haters will complain that we can kill our targets with cheaper ships. Also, the gank haters crowd will never allow any buff to ganking and this is a buff. What if there wouldn’t be the mystical warp failure after getting criminal? Just not be able to dock and not be able to take gate. Then the antigankers can have their revenge and hunting, it would no longer be whoring (in most cases) as the ship wouldn’t be automatically dead and gankers who gank with 1 account could use much more expensive ships to gank, as if I kill my target before CONCORD arrives I can run away and not lose my ship. With a risk that some antiganker probes me on safespot where I hide of course. ---
**Author:** ![Akkar\_Kardashev](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/akkar_kardashev/32/514189_2.png) [@Akkar\_Kardashev](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Akkar_Kardashev)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2024, 8:53pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/add-counter-gameplay-for-ganking-safety-to-red-makes-you-suspect/463893/16 "2024-10-09T20:53:48Z")
I am on on-board with the idea of a longer response time for CONCORD, I think that’s the first “idea” in one of these threads I’ve actually agreed with on principle. Can still see the gankers trotting out the max dps rather than taking the slow-but-tanked approach, they’ll just use the additional time to bail after. ---
**Author:** ![Vokan\_Narkar](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/vokan_narkar/32/326293_2.png) [@Vokan\_Narkar](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Vokan_Narkar)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2024, 9:18pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/add-counter-gameplay-for-ganking-safety-to-red-makes-you-suspect/463893/17 "2024-10-09T21:18:39Z")
I am time from time lobbying for CONCORD changes in a way that their response will be by default as if they were already spawned in the system and that they would despawn automatically after all criminal ships on the grid are eliminated. And every time the gank haters will show up and mass reject the idea (the typical argument is that ganking is wrong and gankers are bad players so they can never have any buff ever). Since the other gankers never back me up, it then looks like as that nobody wants this. And that is not even extending the time of the gank, that is just a QoL change. Last 3 years ever since I came back, we are only gettings nerfs to suicide ganking every year. I don’t expect that to change… Gank hates are simply more vocal and more visible and they have even support in CSM. ---
**Author:** ![Arthur\_Aihaken](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/arthur_aihaken/32/504104_2.png) [@Arthur\_Aihaken](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Arthur_Aihaken)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2024, 5:02am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/add-counter-gameplay-for-ganking-safety-to-red-makes-you-suspect/463893/18 "2024-10-10T05:02:38Z")
I like this idea (change my mind). I imagine Jita would turn into the wild-wild west (kind of an interesting prospect, to be honest). ---
**Author:** ![Kybereck](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/kybereck/32/501833_2.png) [@Kybereck](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Kybereck)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2024, 1:38am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/add-counter-gameplay-for-ganking-safety-to-red-makes-you-suspect/463893/19 "2024-11-08T01:38:16Z")
> [@Sasha\_Nemtsov](#): > > They can already do this, using the Wardec feature. I don’t like it, but if Corps want to fight in Highsec they already have the means No, many gankers are often in NPC corps or in corps with shell corps for structure usage. > [@Sasha\_Nemtsov](#): > > If ganking was not designed to be a stealthy and overwhelming assault, this would appear to make sense. Ganking, however, is predicated upon surprise, dispatch and the inevitable and decisive intervention of CONCORD. Gankers will simply continue to gank as they have done in the past. I don’t think you’ll strike fear into them with these proposals. Well good because that’s not my intention. My intention is to just give meaningful risky gameplay to counter ganking other than _avoid playing the game_ ---
**Author:** ![Kybereck](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/kybereck/32/501833_2.png) [@Kybereck](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Kybereck)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2024, 1:39am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/add-counter-gameplay-for-ganking-safety-to-red-makes-you-suspect/463893/20 "2024-11-08T01:39:37Z")
> [@QuakeGod](#): > > Yet another ganking whine thread. Yawn. The only “counterplay” you need against ganking is paying attention and not flying stupid Not whining at all 🙂 just looking for options that aren’t _do not engage with others_ [Next page](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/add-counter-gameplay-for-ganking-safety-to-red-makes-you-suspect/463893.md?page=2)