Its a statement of fact that the two positions are not comparable, not a request to change the mechanic.
As before, EHP has a hard cap, DPS does not. The attacker is always going to be in a more advantageous position and the current overall effect is a system inherently biased in the aggressors favour.
That in itself is not a problem, is that there is a total absence of meaningful consequence.
2 Likes
Is a font size increase required?
Remove security status tags
If security tags are 100 trillion isk, and CONCORD pursues gankers into lowsec and pods them even if they flee to nullsec, would that be sufficient consequence - or should CONCORD also hunt down the gankers in wormholes?
What exactly constitutes a “meaingful consequence”?
So what? Analyzing the opponents tactic is part of playing the game. If they have a camp of 50 Talos (extremely unlikely) that cannot be outrepped with any reasonable amount of support, just dodge it. Everyone else in the game, in Lowsec, in Null, in JSpace would dodge this fleet if he has not enough forces to fight them. Or if he does and think he can win, he would know and accept that in the beginning he will suffer some losses before he can turn the tide with a better setup than they have. And that is absolutely no problem. Why should HS get an exception here?
I really have no idea how you construct a problem out of that. Such overwhelming DPS doesn’t magically spawn right next to you. They can’t magically beam your ship into their crosshairs. You can SEE such a camp with a simple scout and then you go around it, wait until they attack someone else or accept that this position is currently held by a superior force that you cannot engage. There is no problem. Know your position. Know your options. Make reasonable decisions. It’s totally easy to handle that. It’s ridiculous to claim we have any kind of problem here. We have not. You don’t have to inevitably die to that “huge DPS ganking fleet that you can’t even remote-repair against any more”. Just don’t jump into it.
3 Likes
He wants to be able to autopilot AFK through the gatecamp.
Are you even trying to understand his perspective?
3 Likes
Cost of ganks drive the list of viable or profitable targets. Higher cost reduces the target list thereby reducing the incidence of ganks, thereby reducing the toxic play style and it’s effects on the community. Logic.
1 Like
You people love to boast about risk in Eve making it special. What are the risks for gankers?
On failure, they lose cheap fitted ships without kill or no cargo drops. On success they gain cargo that could be profitable to ridiculous levels.
The punishment system does not even deter bcos of how easy it is to use the wealth gained from successful ganks to buy back security status. It’s basically the case that concord tolerates the most sadistic mass killers and mayhem piracy bc they paid some monetary fines.
It seems highly disproportionate risk is placed on victims, with a minor slap on the proverbial wrist for the bandits.
3 Likes
Would it be fair to have a cost of 100 trillion per gank? To ensure risk, CCP can use a random number generator: 1-99 the ganker pays 100 trillion, with a 0 the ganker pays 1 quintillion. That way it is risky and yet people can still gank.
2 Likes
Do you know how you could increase the cost of gankers? Blow them up while they still have their suspect timers running. Works wonders and most of the time they aren’t even mad at you.
And before you accuse me of being also a high^sec ganker.. i’m not, i’m just selling exploration permits in JSpace.
The flaw in your idea is that they would have to actually do something for themselves. Why should they play their own game? CCP should modify the game so that they can make all the isk they want with minimal effort.
1 Like
So, uhm…
Why not do exactly what you just said?
Simply apply more remote repair in the same way gankers apply more damage.
What is stopping you?
1 Like
Just use a fitting that get you off that list. You can double, triple or even quadruple most ship’s HP with a good fitting.
Why should CCP do your job?
2 Likes
You’ve been told numerous times that there is no such thing as ‘non consensual PvP’ in EVE. It is explicitly clear in practically every video or text or Wiki on EVE that undocking constitutes consent to PvP. The well worn phrase ‘ don’t undock what you can’t afford to lose ‘ derives directly from that.
If you don’t like that, then the door is that ====> way. I’m sure Farmville would be more to your satisfaction.
1 Like
The risk for gankers is you fitting your ship properly so you are not such an easy kill. Risk in EVE isn’t something CCP dish out…..it is created or reduced by the players themselves. Stop expecting CCP to ‘fix’ everything when they have provided you with the tools to fix things yourself. I mean…that is what the game is all about !
1 Like
That. I once baited Gankers in Uedama to waste 54 Catalysts on a Rattlesnake. It was glorious to see them all go up in flames and quite satisfying to see a plan work out. I even got some gf’s in local from them.
That was pretty expensive if you calc in the sec status loss for 54 characters on top of the destroyed Cats (T2 fitted). Everyone who complains that ganking has low risk can simply increase that risk by sending them a good bait once in a while.
2 Likes
Darn it….someone leaked the script for Stranger Things VI already.
Gankers could be put out of business if everyone just stopped fitting and flying like absolute clowns.
Fortunately for the local royalty, it seems there will always be a subset of players who are genuinely outraged by the idea that they should take any responsibility at all for keeping their ships alive.
6 Likes
I assume you don’t remember the times before security status tags then? Because there were such times, and there was not less ganking. It was a little more tedious to grind up your sec status, and you couldn’t just do it with a pile of ISK, but removing the tags is unlikely to alter the number of ganks.
People could also just buy off all security tags from the market, making prices for them go up to ridiculous amounts. Looking at the total trading volume of those tags in the Universe, even a small group of dedicated people could raise the funds to almost completely remove them from public access.
2 Likes