High And Low Ganking, New Content Type, And Pirate - Low sec Fixes

Before we start a few changes to criminal system

  • Criminal actions now result in -1.0 Sec drop
  • Destroying ships in high sec will now result in -1.5 Drop
  • Suspect actions now reduce security standing by 0.15 per an offense
  • Outlaw status changed
    1.0, - 1.25 or below restricted
    0.9, - 1.5 or below restricted
    0.8, -1.75 or below restricted
    0.7, -2.0 or below restricted
    0.6, - 2.25 or below restricted
    0.5, -2.5 or below or restricted

The reason for these changes is to make the drop off to no return security status faster to achieve, and faster to recover from. With close proximity to each other, every action and choice counts making this style of life have accountability, risk, and a challenge to balance it properly

Pirate Ships reworked
in an ongoing effort to make low and high sec more stable, less abusive, and more safe for players, with out removing isk making options for some criminally deranged individuals (like code, the heathens, life to the empire) we will rework pirate ships.

Pirate ships will now gain access to a new module (mid slot) that will enable ships to transport goods off a target. The transporters take 7-9 seconds to lock on and transport the goods over. Some pvers can simply warp away. This module will transport m3 based on the module. there will be sizes for each type of hull, each one caping the amount of size of m3
the transporter can handle.

Pirate ships will obtain a (role bonus) reducing in the power grid requirements for this module, and will only be usable on pirate base ships. Additionally they will obtain a bonus per of the module’s primary skill requirements (undecided what skill is appropriate).

Additionally, new pirate transport ships with exception cargo sizes to them will be able to better pick up more loot from things in larger ships with this new module.

using this module will grant SUSPECT status, and will NOT trigger Concord, however will insecure a penalty.

Additionally, “transport scramblers” Will be added as an option to block these modules, and will work similar to war scrams with 1/2 point game play (ie, transporter may have a power of 1 or 2, and scramblers the same depending on meta / tier level) .

freighters will now provide protection to these types of modules increasing the required time to transport by 250%

New Content Type
Located in low sec there will be events that spawn. These events will be pvp oriented. They will grant the victors that hold the nodes isk per a ship destroyed. As ships die in the area, their value will be added to the cache, and once opened (after the timer expires), the total isk value will be distributed among players that are in the fleet of the group that loots the cache.

Caches will have a cap of 250, 500m or 750m and will start at 25, 50m or 100m base isk. They are on random timers, spawn through low sec on the border of spaces.

Victors will also recover their negative security status by 1 point each time they win the cache. This value is static (non-changeable) and will grant all members in fleet +1 security status.

These events will spawn periodically every 2, 4 or 8 hours.

Note, Values above are subject to change based on testing and feedback

1 Like

So bump a freighter and then laugh your heads off, because you can happily loot them to your hearts content using corvettes and drop the loot into a nearby DST/Freighter who then can’t be attacked…
Can’t possibly see how this could go wrong.

Seriously, stop spamming useless ideas, go and actually learn how to play the game in these areas first.


The “New Content Type” idea is also very easily gamed and people will be able to very easily mess with it with alts or friends to both (1) skyrocket their Security status back up to maximum, and (2) easily make billions of ISK.

Poorly thought out idea that doesn’t do anything to improve the game.

1 Like

This one is so easily gamed that it will make hauling anything valuable in anything other than a freighter near impossible and freighters will be so slow they’ll be easily bumped, even with webbing support.

On top of that, it severely cripples Freighter pilots by reducing their income because they’ll take 2.5x as long to do their work. Someone making 30 million ISK/hr now, will make that over 2.5 hours instead, reducing their income to 12 million ISK/hour, with increased risk of being ganked in the process.

Why do Freighter pilots deserve that nerf?


This doesn’t take into consideration that I can just have 2 characters that I can rotate back and forth. You’re also assuming that every pirate will engage in this activity at the same time giving highsec carebears a moment to rest.

If it’s that low, then why would anyone participate in this activity as opposed to the current mechanic of simply paying with tags to repair their security status? Because if this activity you are suggesting is a waste of time, I’ll just take isk from my farming accounts in nullsec/wormhole space to just pay for tags again.

Please do not try to derail the thread with off topic discussion, especially with nonsense like this.

1 Like

He has a broader agenda that he thinks this is serving.

By deliberately provoking responses, he thinks he can gather evidence that will have people banned and provide material for a viral article on EVE abuses that will change the game (he tried having people spam links to his articles last week, thinking he had an internet sensation because of Google feed) and get CCP employees fired.

HIs off topic rubbish is just that. Rubbish not worth directly replying to.

It’s why he’s positing deliberately stupid suggestions. Even he isn’t dumb enough to think these are good ideas. He’s just spamming for screenshots.


Oh look, more narcissism and terrible ideas for turning highsec into your risk-free PvE farming space. Do we really need another of your threads on this subject?

1 Like

Of course it does not “invalidate” the idea. The point of discussion on the forums is to bring up considerations where your suggestions can be abused or made to perform in an unintended manner. I thought this was obvious.

I’m going to ignore the personal attack because I know you can be better than that.

That being said, you cannot claim your idea is sufficiently balanced simply by saying “Oh, well the developers will handle it.” There are a lot of assumptions that take place there, but one that sticks out most is that you are expecting CCP to blindly accept this suggestion without you having put thought into the numbers.

I will agree, it may be possible that CCP will be able to fine tune and tweak the numbers over time. But that’s not the point at issue. The point is that you, yourself, have not done the planning to anticipate how this change may impact the game.

I think it is a mark of poor ideas for you to suggest something, and then place the burden on CCP to fine tune it into a workable product. At the very least, you should be ready and willing to have considered the finer details instead of simply saying “I don’t know, CCP, you figure it out!”

1 Like

Contrary to your belief, this is actually not “checkmate.” This is me bringing up an aspect of you “suggestion” that you have not thought about. I had initially expected you to be able consider all of this, but since you haven’t, I’m bringing it up for you instead. :slight_smile:

I’m going to ignore everything after this, because again, personal attacks are off topic, and I don’t want you to derail your own thread. :slight_smile:

1 Like

The problem here is that you are simply telling CCP “do this, and figure out how to fine tune it yourself” but you never actually explain why they should adopt your idea in the first place. You did not take the time to factor in how this kind suggestion would impact (or in this case, not impact, because it’ll still be easier to recover security status with tags) the game. :slight_smile:

You seem to have difficulty understanding your own idea. This is fine. Let me explain: You explained how your system works. You did not explain why the game would benefit with your system in place.

Yes, the changes may cause your Security Status to rise and fall faster. But you don’t explain WHY Security Status needs to rise and fall faster in accordance with your specific idea.

I would say that the changes to Security Status as they are right now, are more than sufficient, and that they don’t really need changing.

I hope you are able to understand this. :slight_smile:

1 Like

Did you again, for the second time not read this?

I did actually,

In all this reading, did you not get the point of largely invalidating suicide ganking?

No they are not.
Plenty of threads around of people complaining about it. Someone just started in eve, dropped a grand and lost all his injectors.

and iv witnessed people spamming money into eve to try to “beat” people in pvp.

Ah, is this the primary reason?
Well, then I have to disagree with most of the thing said here.

I cannot support an idea whose underlying purpose is to try and make EVE Online safer for the worst types of players in the game. EVE is a dangerous game that should not allow for high sec carebears to live peacefully.

I’m sorry, but if the purpose of this changes is to invalidate suicide ganking, I cannot support it. :slight_smile:

1 Like

16 years of EVE Online history says otherwise. But this is off topic. Let’s try to stay on topic, shall we? :slight_smile:


Capitals have not been in eve (specifically flying around) for 16 years.
Psst, just fyi.

Psst, they also have not been spamming 500 super cap fleets smart bombing 300 man fleets into oblivion. If we removed the original aoe dd for this, smart bombs need to go (at least off caps)

I’m sorry. What does this have to do with these new low sec pirate sites that you are suggestion?


Tip to all of you; STOP FEEDING the troll. Just leave him be. No offense. Peace.


Considering the fact you required your corp members to give you donations …

… you are!