Do Any CCP Developers Even Pay Attention To This?

It hasn’t been proven, because it hasn’t been attempted. What existed for a short period of time back when the game was weeks old is not proof of anything seventeen years later. CCP just isn’t in the habit of providing innovative design solutions (e.g. look at how stupid “Crimewatch” is).

Lots of options could be attempted. For example, and this is just off the top of my head and spontaneous thinking, all ships could be given a distress beacon button, and an invulnerability core style mechanic. A gank starts to happen, and (assuming they’re not AFK and deserve to die) the target hits the panic button. Now they have a few minutes for someone to show up and try to save them. No one shows up? Oh well, tough ■■■■. Should’ve taken some precautionary steps, chump. But if someone does show up, the odds of the gank being successful decrease dramatically. The protectors can be compensated with a FW-style bounty mechanic, getting a payout proportional to a percentage of the value of the ships they destroy. The viability of this could be compounded by the gankers switching over to using ships with actual combat setups, driving up their costs, and making bigger bounties possible. And finally, if a victim is saved successfully, they should also compensate their protectors with a tip from their own wallet. If someone just saved you from taking a 500 million ISK loss, send them 50 with a thank you note. It’s only fair.

Obviously this system could use more thought than the three minutes I put into it while typing this, but my intent is to show that other solutions are possible.

So a kill trigger, plus profit removal? What’s the point of keeping ganking in the game at all, then? Might as well indeed remove it. This is kind of like the “idea” some people have in which the gank victim receives a payout directly for the value of their loss from the gankers’ wallets. This would eliminate the activity entirely.

And with this you demonstrate you aren’t interested in anything but removing concord, because you are setting up strawmen.
Enjoy, I’m not going to spend more time discussing someone who is clearly debating in bad faith.

2 Likes

What bad faith? I just spent a bunch of time typing up an idea to serve as an example of what the system could become. And you’re so terrified to address an alternative possibility that you immediately jump to accusations of logical fallacies. Pathetic.

A prime example of carebear thinking; refuse to consider any suggestion that serves to lessen the automation of their play style in any way. How’s that for a straw man?

Correct. And, most importantly, the primary reason that it isn’t plausible in the real world is the selfishness of players. It’s not that anti-ganking can’t be done, it’s that too few people are willing to dedicate their time and resources to helping the idiots autopiloting their way to Jita in overloaded freighters.

To be fair, it could be implemented alongside a delay in the kill trigger. If the delay before CONCORD arriving was significantly longer it would create more interesting content. For example, do you go cheap on gank ships and take the minimum, risking player intervention to defend the target? Do you pay more to kill them faster? Do you have a way around the loot tagging? Etc.

I do agree though that adding additional drawbacks to ganking while keeping CONCORD in its present state would not be reasonable.

1 Like

The idiots aren’t willing to help themselves, ergo they aren’t worth helping in the first place.

3 Likes

A delayed kill trigger is still absolute. Making CONCORD not a kill trigger, but compensating for it with mechanics that enable player intervention to a much more effective degree than it exists today (e.g. my invulnerability core panic button/distress beacon idea), would likely lead to much more interesting gameplay. CONCORD could apply initial tackle, and some DPS. Then, over time, additional units could come in and apply additional damage (or use the disintegrator mechanic for a single ship), until even a proper combat setup can no longer tank it. But this would at least create the possibility for the criminal to escape if they play well, and no one comes to assist the target. Imagine a ganker risking a T2-fit battleship, which could pay out nine figures as a bounty for successful intervention (without pushing the payout into exploitation territory). Much more interesting than the linear Catalyst-for-EHP trade mechanic we have today.

When all you do is cry, the only thing you can see is tears, so makes sense.

2 Likes

So basically ganking is uwu? That’s all I got from this post

Oh no. Your words, they cut so deep.

Of course you do, because you like ganking being overpowered. Of course you’re going to oppose any change that seeks balance by doing the thing that gankers usually do which is demand that any negative change comes hand in hand with massive buffs. Eventually though CCP will realise that not only does ganking lose them players who get ganked, it puts players off joining in the first place.

It’s not. You could make an organisation but your failure rate would be through the roof. The best you could do is pick individual targets to defend while gankers ganked other people. If a ganking group is even half awake it’s impossible to do anything to disrupt them. We often see people claim that’s not the case and that it’s just that anti-gankers aren’t good enough, but as of yet noone has taken up the challenge to prove it.

1 Like

What mechanics? What are you talking about.

Those yet not added to the game? :thinking:

Did you bother reading my whole post or did you just want something to rant about

I did read your post and my statement was not a rant by any stretch of the imagination. The only reason antigankers can even get on grid with gankers duing the very short gank window is because most gankers aren’t affected by antigankers being there.

If both sides are putting in full effort, antiganking as a profession is impossible. It is possible for a mass of antigankers to guard a ship and mitigate enough damage to prevent an individual gank, but it’s not possible for a group to successfully prevent ganks overall. People that say it’s possible in theory are just not consdering both sides equally when they look at it theoretically.

1 Like

Why should a group be able to stop all ganking, overall and everywhere?

That seems like a reasonable balance point for a enabling a vibrant amount of piracy in your PvP sandbox game - it’s almost guaranteed with extreme precautions to avoid being ganked; it’s easy for you to take some precautions (mostly not making yourself a profitable target) to avoid most risk of being killed by pirates; and it is quite possible for a small group to shut down gankers operating in a specific place against specific targets. However, it isn’t, nor should it be possible, for a handful of dudes to make it impossible to pirate in highsec at all. Just like it is impossible for a handful of criminals to shutdown mining in all of highsec.

This is intended and expected gameplay. If players could make it impossible, the game would be broken.

3 Likes

You clearly didn’t read my post, since I went onto say it’s impossible in a practical sense. Ranting against me saying it’s theoretically possible is just stupid.

In theory you could sit there with instilock alpha ships ready to swat gankers the second they appear. It can be done, you just have to have inhuman reflexes and sit there all day at every gate they gank at. So it is theoretically possible

Where did I say they should? In my view if both sides put in maximum effort then it should be a 50/50 split. As it stands if gankers put in more than about 10% effort then antiganker can’t touch them, and that’s where the problem is.

Previously my view was that ganking needed to be balanced correctly, but time and time again gankers have declared that any negtive change to ganking or positive change to antiganking is not acceptable, so as a result I think CCP should just junk the mechanic. It make players who are killed leave, it puts off new players who might otherwise join, and it only really benefits a handful of alts of players who get off on causing other players grief. Junk it and replace the loss of destruction with other mechanics.

Not really. Again, it wasn’t a rant, I was simply making a statement that even in theory it’s not possible. Not sure why you’re so upset about that.

1 Like

You are straight up wrong on this.

If you say so.

Sitting there denying reality doesn’t make you look smart, it makes you look stupid.
Yes, the theoretical way of stopping ganking (even at a single gate) is stupidly time consuming and unrealistic. But that doesn’t make it impossible. It just makes it stupidly unpractical.

I’m not denying reality. We weren’t talking about stopping a single gank, we were talking about if it’s theoretically possible to create an antiganking group that’s able to stop ganks. It’s not, because the only way for ganks to be stopped is for gankers to let them be stopped. At most an antiganking group could in theory cause gankers to swap to alternate targets.

1 Like