Create an *ACTUAL* Downside to Player Piracy

[Io_Koval]

I have no idea what you’re talking about. The guy I replied to has — as his first bullet point — a request for a game mechanic that is already how it is in the game. Wish granted.

IDK how IRL taxes has anything to do with this conversation but every year I do 2 quite complex declarations for 2 different countries, so I appreciate your concern and support as I have learned and navigated those on my own with neither country complaining for years (like you I too wish the USA wouldn’t ■■■■ over expats).

[Aiko_Danuja]

Why don’t you use real PvP against the gankers?

[Iceacid_Frostpacker]

Why don’t you use creative mind tricks on them like making them fear of losing their pod to you? They then make it a habit of never being in the same system as you cause the risk of losing their frozen corpse means more to them than you could imagine!

[DrysonBennington]

During WWII, Liberty ships and other transports were armed with guns. So to should freighters.

Everyship manufacturer in New Eden knows that ganks take place everday and in every level of Sec Startus. Manufacturers also know that independent freighter captains usuall dont have the ISK to pay for protection and some dont want to join a corporation because of political b.s.

Ship manufacturers have fallen behind the times and have still live in the mentality of the freighter being too large to be attacked by small frigates and destroyers.

Freighters must be atmed. Giving a freighter four high slots three medium slots and five low slots will make the gankers job more difficult. Gankers should not be able to undock in rookie ships, draw Concord, lose the ship, dock back up, pod to another and then wait to launch their gank with destroyers.

At -7 Sec Status and below, Concord should always follow the ganker, even when in a pod. Concord cant attack the gankers pod, but Concord should be able to dispatch special units to follow the gankers pod in High Sec.

[Vokan_Narkar]

@Qia_Kare

That they are penalized is why you can’t shoot them. The existence of antigankers is rendered almost completely unnecessary by CONCORD and FacPo. If a target would be FFA because of low sec status, FacPo is already going to be on them in a few seconds if they sit in space for you to shoot. If they commit an act of aggression, CONCORD arrives in a few seconds and kills them.

The skill floor to be more effective than these all knowing, tireless NPCs is high just as the skill floor to operate as a ganker under these conditions is high. You can’t have NPC forces that blow up all the easy targets and still have easy targets for player AG forces to shoot at. These solutions are mutually exclusive.

Please pin this and anytime a new thread about antiganking pops out, link it.

[Tec8n0]

I must point out that every sentence in your post contains inaccuracies. Ganking fleets in high-sec are not necessarily an inherently unbalanced risk-to-reward venture, as they are subject to certain limitations and consequences. The asymmetry you mentioned between attackers and defenders is indeed a natural aspect of gameplay and is not meant to be altered.

Your proposal to disadvantage players with low security standings by restricting docking in high-sec stations and removing the invulnerability period is not a viable solution. Such measures would lead to excessive punishment and discourage players from engaging in various aspects of the game, hindering their overall experience.

EVE Online, like many other MMOs, aims to strike a delicate balance between risk and reward for different playstyles, including piracy. The game developers continually assess and adjust the mechanics to create an engaging and enjoyable environment for all players.

Instead of suggesting drastic measures, it’s essential to recognize that ganking and piracy are legitimate gameplay choices within the game’s mechanics. Players can adapt their strategies, collaborate with others, or participate in anti-ganking activities to counter these threats effectively.

Ultimately, EVE Online’s complexity and diversity of playstyles contribute to its unique and challenging gameplay. It’s crucial to embrace these dynamics while providing constructive feedback to the developers for any adjustments that may be needed to maintain a healthy gaming environment.

[Aiko_Danuja]

@DrysonBennington

Giving a freighter four high slots three medium slots and five low slots will make the gankers job more difficult.

Why not five high slots, four medium slots, and sixteen low slots?

[Vokan_Narkar]

@Debrina_Icesteel

As someone who just lost a freighter to a gank squad, to the tune of 4.129 billion isk I agree that the playing field needs to be leveled a little.

So you died and lost and the first that is on your mind is “I am not at fault, the game is unbalanced” and “it’s not fair”.

First of all, you won’t get anywhere with this mindset in EVE. Instead, you need to ask yourself - what could I do differently to avoid losing? I can see a plenty of options looking at your loss at killright starting with actually fitting low slots.

Which is funny - you are proposing to get more slots that can be used to tank your freighter, yet you didn’t bother to use the three low slots you already have. Your low slots were completely empty. I wonder, if freighters had mid slots and rigs if you fitted anything into them or not.

Eitherway - giving freighters mid slots will not change a thing. We already saw it on mining barges and exhumers - CCP buffed their tank extremely, they are now 3 times more tanky than they used to be (except Procurer/Skiff). Peoples still get ganked inside them and still complain on it being unfair and unbalanced and that it should he harder - this thread itself is an evidence.

You all say you want some “active” options to avoid the gank. But how realistic is for 1 mining ship to fight 6 destroyers? Or for 1 freighter to fight 9 attack battlecruisers?

You, the anti-gank crows cried so much that CCP nerfed ganking, buffed your ships and now it requires so many pilots to gank your ship that then you feel you have no chance and that it is unbalanced .

The active options what to do in case of gank exists, in past when miner ganking didn’t require 6 pilots/accounts and one could kill retriever with single catalyst I used to gank them and sometimes it happened that the miner got away from me because it was 1vs1 - since it was 1vs1 he could just fly away with warp stabs (they were passive at that time), or he could burn away from me with overheated afterburner to reduce my DPS, or he could use ECM to stop my warp disruptor and warp away, or he could actually be bait, hull tanked with warp scram/web and he would kill me before I killed him.

By buffing barges so hard that we now need 6 pilots to kill this retriever it is obvious that you won’t be able to win such conflict ever again. Because at that point it is no longer 1vs1 but 6vs1 and it doesn’t make sense for that 1 to have any chance to win.

Tl’dr: Nerfing ganking in any way, but specifically by buffing ships’ tank only leads to more frustration when player in such ship gets ganked because he is facing bigger and bigger ganking fleets which kills any meaningful resistance/options for the target.

[Vokan_Narkar]

@Debrina_Icesteel

The 3 low power slots are basically useless, especilly against a 10 person gate camp team.
It is also funny that my killmail says I lost 4 bil’ I guess that was just the destroyed stuff not the 2.5 bil they were able to steal.

Or so lets say CCP gives you 3 addition midslots on freighter and you do use them along with the low slots to tank your freighter.

What happens?

Safety. will increase their roster with 3 more taloses to ensure they are able to destroy max tank freighter. You still die without being able to do anything about it and come here on forums suggesting that the freighters should have even more mid and low slots and also rigs because you just lost your 4bil freighter and thus ganking is highly unbalanced and too rewarding.

Ultimately you will never be satisfied with the result as long as you lose. Even if the gankers doesn’t make profit on your kill, then you will complain exactly that - that ganking shouldn’t be possible if they don’t make a profit from your kill.

[Wesfahrn]

The answer is communication. A simple chat channel where people can say “hey i just got ganked in x” and link the system and everything. This will make the gankers more on their toes. Btw. this should just be a “global chat channel” not limited to sharing where gankers might be. It should be for anything except perhaps linking contracts and hypernet bs and people join it by default like how they join “Local”. And by the way, they can make local even more local? By making chats that only reach for example the current area. So if for example i am in an asteroid belt, there is a separate chat window for that. Local Local. This way i can have a relatively private conservation with someone else who is mining or whatever in the belt without having to speak in local where everyone in the whole system can see it. It will make the game slightly more intimate. But it could also be annoying if there ends up being 2 more default chat channels

[Aiko_Danuja]

@Wesfahrn

A simple chat channel where people can say “hey i just got ganked in x” and link the system and everything.

Yah, that’s really gonna make a difference for AFK autopiloters.

[JT_Krieger]

@Wesfahrn

A simple chat channel where people can say “hey i just got ganked in x” and link the system and everything.

Amazing idea. You could even call it something catchy like… ummm I dunno, just spit-balling here… “Gank-Intel” perhaps?

[Wesfahrn]

The problem with custom chat channels is that most people dont use them. Especially not newbies. A kind of global chat that everyone joins by default will not have this problem. So it should be more of a global chat than a “gank intel chat”. But of course ganked people will get the idea to “snitch” in the global chat. And maybe anti-gankers will then get the idea to watch the global chat and it becomes among other things the unofficial gank intel chat. yea?

[Vokan_Narkar]

Dude seriously. What an absolute horrible idea. You don’t realize the consequences of what you are suggesting?

Any global chat will become a Jita on steroids. Simply because it has global extent so the spams can reach all players, not just the 1k in Jita.

We definitely don’t need more chats (tabs). I know for sure I wouldn’t want to be any part of the global chat even if it has no spammers (which is inevitable).

Besides, nobody could prove that the newbies are the majority of the gank targets, that newbies are qutting because getting ganked and that ganking is a problem for newbies. Ie. you are trying to solve non-existant issue.

[Io_Koval]

Forced global chat brings back the old „add contact, get notified when they log in“ hunting strategy. Just watch global chat members and when your target logs in they will pop up there.

Whatever „boon“ there is for anti-ganking (there isn’t it’ll just be Jita spam on crack) suddenly every newbie is subject to an old security risk used by gankers and hunters (online status based on chat channel presence) and newbies won’t realize it. I can’t wait for Westfahrn to complain about how newbies need to not be in global chat because they don’t know any better about the dangers of this security risk.

[Iceacid_Frostpacker]

Haulers to pay stargate insurance to concord to protect them every jump by the means of a token pre purchased from the number of concord NPC stations in. Highsec.
These new tokens are rather costly so the hauler must decide to consume them wisely.

[Wanda_Fayne]

@Aiko_Danuja

Why not five high slots, four medium slots, and sixteen low slots?

That’s alot of cargo expanders