I thought we were talking about tanking the single volley of a Tornado before you warp off?
What you showed is an AFK Hulk getting caught by Catalysts.
Overall the idea seems ridiculous complicated.
The module involved is also ridiculous. We need less of these ridiculous modules, not more.
As Yahamssi asks, what is the purpose of the system? You donât seem to have answered that anywhere.
A safety is not something someone else forces upon you, it is something you activate to not accidentally activate something dangerous. Most noticeably, its a switch most guns have. Yes there currently is some halfassed workaround in game with safety not being possible to turn off. But in my opinion the fix to this issue is simply to change Concord response (follow known mass murderers, response time lower for lower sec levels of the offender etc).
No, we need less of these contradictions not more.
1 Like
As Yahamssi asks, what is the purpose of the system? You donât seem to have answered that anywhere.
Require more ships to gank in high security space
Hopefully more people working together, and disincentivize multiboxers dedicated to ganking
get rid of - 200m in destroyers to gank freighter
Adds a built in response timer that rewards active counter gameplay
Adds some skill requirements to prevent 1 day old characters from participating
Adds more dedicated industry to keep a gameplay loop working
Thereâs a whole list of goals
To add some color here:
But in my opinion the fix to this issue is simply to change Concord response (follow known mass murderers, response time lower for lower sec levels of the offender etc).
Thereâs a new meta of day 1 old characters finding the targets getting the tackle on ships , then groups/multiboxers will warp to them and gank the target. They are currently circumventing any system in place today that provided a consequence to their action.
Just fit some tank on your Hulk and youâll easily survive the volley of half a dozen Tornados.
Even if youâre not fitting mid slots and rigs at all your Hulk will survive the volley of two Tornados. Only untanked T1 haulers and frigates get one-shot by Tornados, which is easily avoided if people would just fit some tank modules.
- Itâs a tanked hulk getting yeeted by catalysts
- In fact thereâs a laundry list of assorted barges tankier than a hulk being yeeted with far less damage than your EHP numbers would specify
- Youâre not surviving today with significantly less isk being utilized to gank you
- If you canât figure out that an alpha tornado isnât great to gank hulks with thatâs your problem not mine.
- Point is, they made a trade off, tank vs mining efficiency, and if you can no longer gank them efficiently because of it good! Thatâs what weâd like to call balance.
If you read my goals youâd realize that, I donât want ganking to disappear. I just want:
- Active counter gameplay that doesnât involve docking up as soon as you see a catalyst on dscan
- All ganking activities in high sec have no gameplay loop in which you can respond, only avoid
- Avoid 1 day old characters from circumventing existing gameplay mechanics to punish you for ganking (sec status and being unable to dock)
- You should be paying for that with in game mechanics like clone tags
- A module to balance the cost in the favor of avoiding pointless ganks like this: Venture | nSubordinate | Killmail | zKillboard
- You should be forced to yeet something more than a few mil to do this, it should be very uneconomical to do so for ships worth a few mil, the risk vs reward is off
- And if weâre looking at billions such as a marauder or a freighter, it should not be my pocket change in exchange for billions of isk:
- A new industry sink that fits the lore with existing pirate factions
This risk vs reward is far better, but this should be a bunch of players coming together, not a multiboxer. At least he wasnât input broadcasting:
- Rhea | Secundus Continuum | Killmail | zKillboard
You are right, I guess the main thing is we are confused because some are ambiguous.
Like âget rid of - 200m in destroyers to gank freighterâ is that because it should increase or lower price?
And how would ganks work in a T3C.
I guess we meant more of an overall goal if this is meant to make it easier or harder to gank.
Concord response time modified by 0 security status and red safety to be max 1.0 seconds, ought to make them stop thinking thats too funny. Without any weird modules.
Yet the discussion was about Tornados. I know Catalysts can kill a Hulk, but thatâs not what we were talking about when you said one Tornado could âyeet a hulkâ and responded âthen bring twoâ when someone said one Tornado wouldnât do anything.
Again, it will take 8 Tornados to one-shot a tanked Hulk. Catalysts are better indeed.
I am aware, but you were the one saying a single Tornado could âyeet a Hulkâ, or âtwoâ when told it couldnât. I was pointing out to you that Tornado Alpha damage of even two ships isnât enough to pop a Hulk.
Iâm glad you realized your error now!
yet another nerf to ganking, one that makes it a lot more complex and does all the things existing rules do already do.
I am no ganker and would be fine with a high sec engagement rule rebalance to make ganking, antiganking and wars more fair and interactive, while also keeping it all possible. Your solution however seems to make things unnecessarily overcomplicated.
Maybe keep it simple?
2 Likes
Thatâs because the damage dealt on zKill is after resists. If my barge has 1000 shield HP and 50% resists, itâll have 2000 EHP but zKill will only show 1000 damage.
1 Like
Indeed, zkillboard only shows hitpoints lost, not effective hitpoints lost.
Depending on how much resistances you have, this can be huge difference.
1 Like
Its been one of the better suggestions to create a viable counterplay to the âI winâ button that is ganking and the increasing use of multiboxing.
Which CCP temporarily disabled
Which are a separate mechanic to the safety system, since a legal war does not predicate agression on a non-green saftey.
Its not about not wanting to be ganked, its about doing something about multiboxers that are almost certainly using input broadcasting.
Han Solo shooting first, right there eh?
Yellow saftey should immediately flag suspect and there would be no need for this module to begin with.
What are you flying that takes more than 3 seconds to lock up a hulk?
Its not like the proposed module is preventing the target from being locked up before warping in, right ?
Pretty sure killrights were removed due to âserver loadâ so its not like CCP hasnât hasnât set a precedent for red safety to be removed temporarily.
The multiboxing problem is more like termites than flies. Look at what happened to the mass AFK cloak campers after the observatory was introduced. Knock it all down and praise those who remain.
A tornado fits 8 guns and can alpha in ishtar. You saying the hulk has more tank than a HAC?
Tell that to the alpha players CCP now stops from going red safety.
Remove the ability to purchase security status with tags/ISK.
It does add another sink to the game though, does it not?
Sadly there has been no real consequence since security status is a function of wealth and essentially amortized as the cost of doing business.
The issue is the asymmetry in cost. Its akin to buying enough lottery tickets to garuntee winning enough to cover purchase price +, and with cargo scan scraping market tools its easy to figure out the potential payday. Sure, people in paper tanked haulers deserve to die, but nobody is using 200 million in destroyers to blow up 4 million in trit.
Set red safety, fire at target?
3 Likes
At least someone gets it.
1 Like
Thank you some sense! 
You are reading far to into one particular comment in a response that is simply meant to communicate âuse something bigger and more expensiveâ.
yet another nerf to ganking, one that makes it a lot more complex and does all the things existing rules do already do.
I am no ganker and would be fine with a high sec engagement rule rebalance to make ganking, antiganking and wars more fair and interactive, while also keeping it all possible. Your solution however seems to make things unnecessarily overcomplicated.
Maybe keep it simple?
I dig the thoughts here now itâs productive.
Your solution however seems to make things unnecessarily overcomplicated
Iâm not entirely sure it does? In practice itâs âi fit a module, I push a button, now I can lock and shoot guns in highsecâ. Maybe to how you get to having a module there but thatâs just eve and the industry loop. But at least now you can introduce a bare minimum cost to a gank to balance risk vs reward here.
Good to know, TIL thanks!
The nerf module takes a gun slot so you can only fit 7 guns unless youâve somehow come into possession of a tornado with 9 high slots.
Unfit at least, yes the hulk has more tank than an ishtar. Ishtar can probably be fit for more tank overall though.
You canât lock a target before warping in. I guess you could start the lock after you land though and go red at the same time. I kinda figured that such wouldnât be possible since otherwise the module just sets your lock time to a floor of 5 seconds apparently.
Well a tornado for instanceâs base scan res takes longer than 3 seconds. It also takes time to drop out of warp onto the target, which increases with a larger hull. Youâre visible to anyone not completely AFK during that time, to say nothing of dscan. (not like carebears bother with that anyway.
Personally, I see no point in nerfing ganking to appease carebears. Theyâre never satisfied; so long as thereâs a way for them to get killed by another player in highsec, theyâll find it and then whine about it.
Banhammer is appropriate for this. In game mechanic changes to try deal with cheatings is not a great idea in my opinion. These very often turn out to harm players who never used any such software. Just to try hit offenders in some rather weak way, that very often can be circumvented by the very same software said offenders already use.
I know a lot of troll screaming is going go up on this but here goes.
A Fast human can do about 180 APM on a computer, Actions Per Minute (180 APM = 3 actions per second), here referring to actual actions and not things certain MMOs counts as actions (you play a game of Star Craft and NEVER trigger some APM spam, this is what you get if fast. Yes fastest is faster than fast, talking about a fast human here, not thee fastest).
ALT TAB would be 1 action, but a particular slow one, as the computer has to respond which takes some time (remember here the average action for a fast person is 0.33 seconds long, if your computer takes 0.1 second to ALT TAB, that is a large portion of the time already used by not the human).
F1 would be 1 action (particular fast one).
Click on target would be 1 action (about average time, and reduced in time if fx put overview at same screen coordinate for all clients, so you donât have to move mouse to do it repeatedly).
(For anyone who havenât noticed, you donât have to target the target (CTRL Click), when the weapon group is activated by F1 you will automatic target the next thing you click, and weapons start firing when the targeting finish).
This means a fast person can start 1-2 catalysts per second. Would seem a reasonable way to start dealing with input broadcasting, would be whenever groups of 4 catalysts is started per server tick, an alarm triggers at CCPâs offices for investigation.
So you shouldnât do anything about anything because 2 groups of people would never be happy and leave it as is? Nahhh, there has to be some give and take here. This gameplay loop has been one sided since the beginning of Eve. Thereâs a quote from Larry David about this: âA good compromise is when both parties are dissatisfiedâ, can definitely say the same thing about game balance.
It needs some form of adjustment and not via concord changes or banning people from docking in highsec. Use some gameplay levers here where you can better control what can gank and let some opportunists make some serious money on the suicide ganking market with a new faction module. If you want to yeet a pod with your thrasher it should cost you more than 5m isk 
. Same with a venture, thereâs no balance here.
Thrashers cost more than pods.
Thrashers also cost more than ventures.
Seems pretty balanced to me.
I donât see the point in making group B mad to do something that wonât make group A happy because they wonât ever be happy, no. I also havenât seen any evidence that ganking is unbalanced.
Thrashers cost more than pods.
Thrashers also cost more than ventures.
sigh, try again.
Seems pretty balanced to me.
I donât see the point in making group B mad to do something that wonât make group A happy because they wonât ever be happy, no. I also havenât seen any evidence that ganking is unbalanced.
Please give me a viable repeatable gameplay loop in which you can actively respond to a ganker in the vast majority of cases that does not involve avoiding the situation to begin with 
Do you think that nature is unbalanced because the mouse does not have a repeatable loop in where he is able to eat the cat? Getting away with PvE is a game of cat and mouse, one of evasion and avoidance. Thatâs true regardless of whatever space youâre in or whatever restrictions you whine for CCP to add. The best way to block a punch is not to be there when it lands.
Yes.
Unfit hulk has 25k EHP with good skills.
Unfit Ishtar has 11k EHP with good skills.
Hulk generally is passive tank fit, so gets more EHP.
PvE Ishtar generally is active fit, so repairs itâs EHP actively, and doesnât have much more than base EHP while the ADC isnât active.
Unless that Ishtar has itâs ADC active at the right time and Ishtar is a lot more vulnerable to getting one-shot than an exhumer.