Create an *ACTUAL* Downside to Player Piracy

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.

  1. That a ship should have an amount of safety built in in proportion to its value.
  2. 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.

1 Like

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.

1 Like

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?

1 Like

Which is taking the bigger risk?
Why do you think those taking minimal risk should be rewarded?

Taking maximal risks and few precautions shouldn’t be rewarded. Gankers are the risk in risk vs. reward.


Why not?

What are the risks for the gankers?

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.

1 Like

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.

All terrible ideas from someone who has never had negative sec status and demonstrates they don’t know how it works today.

Try hitting -5 a few times and learn the system first, as it’ll lead you to avoiding terrible ideas like these.

1 Like

1 - You don’t know my Alts

2 - My alt is free to do what they want in HS… Lets gank Uedema in a squad some time… no one cares… nothing happens… :slight_smile:

No one cares about your alt since you don’t care enough to post with it.

Everyone can tell your alt with -5 sec status doesn’t exist anyway because several of your proposals are completely redundant with existing mechanics of today. So if it did exist you’d have to have learnt absolutely nothing:

How embarrassing.

1 Like