{NOTE}
I’m primarily referring to “gank fleets” in high-sec. My primary point is that the ratio of risk to reward for a gank fleet is very much out of balance. In effect, it’s a low-risk, extremely high-reward venture. Alts and corp/alliance partners can easily circumvent the “consequences” that are meant to balance this play style. Juxtapose that with the same ratio for a player attempting to thwart such a fleet, and it’s evident that the risk far outweighs the reward.
There’s also the matter of success rate. A gank-fleet has a natural benefit in their operation: they hide, and undock the fleet simultaneously to engage a single weak target. While to stop them; one must be exposed and coordinate between several targets at once. This is a natural asymmetry, so I’m not proposing that be altered. But due (in part) to that asymmetry, I feel that the risk:reward ratio could be improved.
{END NOTE}
I’d like to propose that the game no longer inequitably favor player piracy, by creating impactful disadvantages for having a low security standing. As it is, the “consequences” of having a low, or very low security status are a complete joke… they’re less “consequences” and more like “negligible inconveniences”.
Kill Rights are good, but they are NOT ENOUGH. What I’m talking about here, is putting an actual “CON” in the “CONsequences” of career piracy.
IF (security status <= -8 AND criminal tag is active) …
- No docking in high-sec stations… not even in a pod…
- You’ll just have to hope anyone you encounter is more merciful than you are, or have a good
hole to hide in for a whopping 15 minutes.
IF (security status <= -9) …
- Zero invulnerability period when undocking from stations…
- Just as these players lay in wait with their 10+ pilots in Catalyst(s), the rest of
us should be able to at least go “Ruby Ridge” on them when they walk out the front door.
It is open season on outlaws at -5. You can shoot them, and CONCORD does not respond to defend them.
Docking restrictions for pilots with low security status already exist that prevent them from docking ships, even if they don’t have a criminal flag. If you mean to prevent them from docking their empty pods so you can shoot them, they would then appear in the station anyway, or self destruct and get the same effect. If you decline to shoot them instead, it’s not much different from waiting out their 15 minute timer.
I almost think that CCP should run an event where everyone’s sec status is set to -5 or less so everyone knows what all the ‘minor’ concequences for it actually are.
I fired upon a -10 after waiting 30 seconds for their invulnerability to drop. Station security one-shot me.
I think pods should be excluded form docking for a short time period as well. And maybe self-destruct is disabled, or logged as a kill for whoever hit them last. Still easily circumventable. But again that speaks to the pros well outweighing the cons.
If you are correct and were shot by NPCs after firing on a -10, you need to file a bug report. Especially if your safety was green. Below -5, capsuleers are free for all targets in highsec.
Well thank you - that lead me to double-check - I was wrong.
I was going for one of Skittle Kittens | Character | zKillboard 's 8x KeyCloned (I’m guessing) characters, all of which (I thought) showed up as -5 in my HUD when they simultaneously exited station.
But apparently not… since I looked at Kill Rights AGAINST ME and the pilot of theirs that has it, somehow still has a +3.3 security status. I happened to target the one drone that had a positive security standing… SMH.
Still, I’ve watched this player pick on other people all day (they haven’t done anything to me personally), and I’m frustrated at the general inability to do anything about it. I’m thinking of camping a cruiser just to bump their fleet as they align to try and give their target a couple extra seconds.
Sounds like I need to adjust my overview and just camp legit-style. But, I doubt I’ll have anything on eight T2 destroyers in perfect synchrony.
Don’t mistake standing -10 for security status -10. That’s a big difference.
That’s not going to illustrate how “minor” the consequences are. Consequences are for pirates and criminals, not for law-abiding, upstanding citizens. If you make everyone a criminal just to show how subjectively unfairly actual criminals are being treated, you are just make a clown of yourself.
Just like CCP made a clown of themselves when they wanted to show everyone how cool No Local in Null sec is.
You know that shooting anyone with -5.0 status is already legal, right?
Criminals also already can’t dock in ships in high-sec so the double condition is pointless (any ships they fly are toast anyway). Although I think I agree capsules shouldn’t be allowed to dock either. Yeah, they can self-destruct or respawn after getting shot, but it’s still inconvenient and limits where they can pick up a new ship.
The invulnerability timer on undocking is there for a good reason, sometimes grid loads slowly or there is lag, so it should stay for everyone.
PS. The formatting of this post is atrocious and almost unreadable on mobile. Why all the double quotes and code blocks?
Disadvantage PvPers… in a PvP game. fine. Let’s also disadvantage PvErs by having NO missions or asteroid fields in Hisec or Lowsec, only in Null and Abyss.
Let’s increase tax rates for Reprocessing by 50% also and while we’re at it we can reduce the Hisec systems to 100 systems only.
That way this game will then definitely suck for everyone equally
They are not disadvantaged. They only have the slightest shred of consequences for their actions in 20 years.
Every time a mission runner undocks their shiny toy in a popular mission system, they have to make a conscious effort to not lose their ship. If they don’t and willy-nilly fling their bling machines around, Thrashers will get them eventually.
Gankers so far did not have to do that at all. They could just go back to their station if a target got away from their bumper tackle. Now they actually have to be certain that they have their target secured and can kill it or else they are stuck.
If anything, this gives people more opportunity for PVP because gankers are now every so slightly more likely to be a target that anti-gankers and other police-rp-afficionados can engage.
Other than a slight increase of risk for gankers and the now need to make more tactical decisions about target engagements, nothing at all has changed. The actual ganking is still just as easy as it was before.
I didn’t say PvPers are at a disadvantage. I responded to
meaning? More disadvantage than already implemented?
I disagree and proposed that if more disadvantage was created against PvP then these disadvantages should also be put in place… it’s a slippery slope that no one wants except those who’d like to see a PvP-less Hisec… then it will be a PvP-less LowSec then Null… then the game suffers.
But I think I was pinged for your post by mistake cause it seems we agree.
That’s exactly what I’m getting at! It’s not a real disadvantage. It doesn’t require any real skill and there is no way to return the hardship.
The other bit that desperately needs changing is the loot. I think that if a peacful pilot is ambushed, they (and their fleet/corp) should be the only pilots that don’t tagged when looting the wreck. If you are not in the same corp/fleet and loot the wreck of a ship that was fired UPON, you should have similar sanctions against you until some time has elapsed. Again, thats more PVP opportunity, and not gankers getting away basically/functionally scott-free.
