That’s exactly what I am talking about, too. Here’s all the ways to defeat the high sec camping gankers:
1 ) Fit for tank
2) Don’t pack up the ship full like a loot pinata
3) Scout the gates ahead
4) Instant web-warp
5) Use insta-dock bookmarks
These are all the ways not to be a >7b killmail worth of untanked, vulnerable, easily scoutable high sec freighter. Which is what you were.
If there were none of those kinds of freighter pilots (ie you), there would be no gankers profiting off of others’ hard work. Where your attitude comes in is me simply starting giving the barest of bare advice at step 1, and you bringing in the attitude and making it a problem by saying “but it only lasted 5 seconds” which only demonstrates to everyone reading that you’ve a complete lack of understanding where the ganking gameplay is fought (hint: it is fought before bullets start flying, so a freighter that dies in 5 seconds or 10 seconds or 60 seconds in high sec does not really matter: it is dead).
This argument comes down to two opposing points of philosophy.
That a ship should have an amount of safety built in in proportion to its value.
or
That the higher a ship’s value in proportion to its defensibility the more attracttive a target it is.
I tend to think that flying ships that are lucrative to destroy is a pilot problem, not a pirate problem. The gameplay tied up in trying to figure out how to fly your goods safely from point A to point B would completely dry up and be lost if we made ships safer because otherwise they’d make attractive targets.
Pirates create opportunity for those smart enough to handle them. They give a reason to think about what you’re doing with the extra added dimension of risk to the raw profit/time/loss formula making for a more dynamic game experience. I liked that.
I personally think this point is absurd. Taken to the extreme, if I shove 100b in PLEX into my freighter I should be invincible right? Since it wouldn’t be fair to have that 100b taken from me by a couple of measly catalysts.
It is absurd, or at least I think so. I am just pointing out this logic. When someone says cheap ships destroy their expensive ones they are saying their ship is entitled to more safety based on its value. Or, if you prefer, I suppose you can say they claim you may only shoot them in a ship or fleet of equal or greater value, but I imagine the point of their contention is more what they lose than it is what the victor ventures.
I run a scorched earth policy, destroy all loot and salvage. I also think to stand a chance vs a phat tech 2 battleship (for example), you should have to bring something similar.
Something something, risk vs reward.
What makes you think that a single player should be able to win against multiple coordinated attackers using tools fit specifically for them, regardless of how much ISK they waste on their ship?
Gankers actually teach Capsuleers not to be lazy with their gameplay.
Making New Eden safe would take the efforts of many like minded Capsuleers to group up and start trusting each other while at the same time stop being greedy when hauling unprotected goods.
I agree this actually would help put some consequences in peoples actions. Massive Gank Fleets do get off free but same time it isnt just gank fleets. I think security requirements should change in general. If you are a criminal in the eyes of Concord you should suffer as such. The system seems pretty useless. These are ONLY for HS. LS/NS… well may god have mercy on your soul. If you find them.
If you are ganked by a fleet of 6 catas, 9/10 times you were Auto Piloting. I’ve seen them gank non Auto Pilot ships or even Maruaders and fail more than succeed. Don’t AFK simple as that.
1 - Security Status <= -6 AND criminal tag is Active.
No Docking High Sec Stations, Including Pod. No Gate Travel.
If Destroyed in Pod you will be sent to a LS Station nearby vice a HS Station regardless where your home is set.
No Invulnerability by tether in HS.
2 - Security Status <=-8.
-Station Tether does not make you invulnerable to target in HS Spaces.
-Player Ran Station Tethers can be disabled for anyone under -6 Security Status. Give players control whom they want to punish. Also if you’re in their HS system, well… it’s their HQ. Might actually provoke Uedema to get more fight who owns it.
3 - Security Status <=-10…
Invulnerability period is required due to latency. NEVER remove this, I am for a fair fight.
Free to be attacked anywhere with no consequences by CONCORD.
Unable to Dock in any NPC HS Station.
-Player Ran Stations can be set to allow or disallow based on Security Status. Again If its their system, well… your choice.
Your suggestion of making pirates „engageable without CONCORD“ at -10 security status makes the community question how that fits with todays mechanic of „freely engage outlaws without CONCORD at -5 security status“.
And what sort of experiences you have with your alts to lead to that suggestion.
Two words: trade embargoes. Make them pay a 30% premium for goods sold and goods bought. Make the 30% fee go to the seller or as discount to the buyer. Simple.
I totally agree with everything, but I would add this too:
Assisting a suicide ganker should result in a criminal flag, and not just a suspect flag.
For a set amount of time after an attack resulting in the destruction of the victim’s ship (i.e. 15 minutes), any player who loots the wreck of the attacker(s) or the victim, except for the victim himself recovering his own wreck, should receive a criminal flag and be considered accomplices. After this period of time has elapsed, players who do it should receive a suspect flag instead. In no circumstances should another player be able to loot the wreck of a recently, illegally killed player without any consequence. This essentially means that hauler alts wouldn’t be able to collect the loot of their kills within a certain period of time without also suffering from the same penalties as their main ganker character.
Criminals should not be able to dock even in a pod, until the criminal timer is over, forcing them to stay around in space to evade retaliation.
Players with low security status shouldn’t be able to raise their security status again until a certain probation period is over, depending on the amount of consecutive illegal kills they have done and their initial security status. That includes all means of raising security status, even exchanging tags. A variant of that would be that you could still do all of the activities to raise your security status, but the points would delayed and not applied until the probation period is over. The probation period in question should be in days, and not just minutes or hours. The effect of this is that a suicide ganking corp wouldn’t be able to run extensive ganking ops for days at a time without having to retreat and sit out their probation period before they can come back and do it again, or just cheat their way back immediately by paying CONDORD. During this time, they can be tracked and hunted down in low-sec or nullsec because that’s where they’ll have to live for a while if they don’t want to be chased by faction police.
