High-sec piracy should be more complex and interesting

BRAVO !

Agree there’s got to be a better gank. I think high-sec ganking is a vital part of Eve. A gankless high-sec would be hideous. But new ideas here are treated with derision time and again. The same crowd of No-No Nannetts emerge each time and wag their crooked fingers such that would make Macbeth proud.

Don’t tell anyone, but I’ve been on a few hi-sec ganks myself…courtesy of an alt. It got old real fast. And they all think mining is boring ??? Ha.

Get in boring Cat. Jump in system. Jump to motionless ship. Shoot guns. Get shot by CONCORD. Sit in station. Look a kill mail. Ohhhh. Ahhhh. Leave station. Get in boring Cat…rinse…repeat.

There is another “change the gank” thread going now and I just made the point there that this game-play can be improved. Many in the same crowd here that found no good to your post, pine endlessly about their pet topics that CCP has failed to address. But that of course is different.

I thought your characterization / analysis of the gank was spot on. Innovators are always derided.

Here’s to the hope for a better gank ! Cheers !

1 Like

Thank you for your service.

Edits made. its still long, since i proposed a lot of changes. Would love to hear what you think if you’re still willing to read.

Thank you, kind sir! Going to change the title of this thread to “There’s got to be a more interesting gank.” Very appropriate. Care to link to other thread? Would love to read that one too.

First and foremost, you have a poor definition for the problem and a pigeonholed solution that doesnt respect the rest of the game.

Doesn’t take into account that align time is a product of your mass and agility, which you need to get under larger ship guns. The change you are proposing is to turn warp disruptors into webs. What you actually want here is to change pvp engagements from all-or-nothing engagements to things you can escape, which you already can as long as you stop assuming that you’re untouchable until its too late. More on this below

Wrong. Being tackled in a greedy shitfit 4bil polarized marauder feels awful, which it should. If you want to deter ganking, stick on a damage control instead of the 4th damage mod, maybe a plate and extender or two, stop sitting next to your mtu that is 20x as easy to scan down, and so on. There are means to avoid suicide ganks already.

Besides, if people lose less marauders, ill make less money from building them.

Now, instaed of looking at what your solution harms or overlooks, lets look at the cases in which it’d benefit.

An align time increase of 1300% (where the ■■■■ is this number even from?) would up your align from, lets say 9s, to 126. Why? This is already way above concord response time. This would be pointless.

This would probably matter in a deadspace pocket, but at that point its still irrelevant since youre most likely 100km off a deadspace warp-in by the time you see combat probes on dscan.

Ok, at this point I can’t be ■■■■■■ compensating for your ideas lack of cohesion. Give a specific problematic case, and give a specific solution.

6 Likes

Link…

The real point of his proposal isn’t to deter ganking, but to turn tackle modules into temporary effects so that there’s a 100% chance to escape if you can tank the attackers for a little bit. The intent here is obviously to become immune to the kind of PvP you can find yourself in when you’re doing PvE, like in low/null-sec, or in high-sec where you get baited or a war target jumps you.

He’s essentially asking for PvP immunity and dressing it up in a change that would result in him requiring only a token amount of effort to effectively mitigate all of the risk.

2 Likes

I can recognize a ■■■■ argument when I see it. No need to put it down even further for me. That said, let the guy give a more specific example and we’ll see whether he either corners himself or whether he comes up with something interesting.

I have some of my own gripes with the current state of carebears vs gankers, (namely the type of crap that current pve encourages), so I’m absolutely keen for some leisure spitballing.

3 Likes

I’m not solving a problem. I’m imagining new content. Yes, I used the word “problem” several times in my post. Don’t take that so literally.

What you actually want here is to change pvp engagements from all-or-nothing engagements to things you can escape

That is correct. I think I waspretty explicit about that.

Except you wouldn’t always be able to escape. That would depend on many factors. Much of the time you would not have time to escape.

An align time increase of 1300% (where the ■■■■ is this number even from?) would up your align from, lets say 9s, to 126. Why? This is already way above concord response time. This would be pointless.

Why? So that there can enough time for hunter/ganker to kill a target. Maybe it would be 126 sec, maybe less. Maybe much more. Depends many factors.

The number came from me. not sue what that question means.

If align time takes longer than concord response time, then gankers would have until concord arrives and kills them to kill their target.

Doesn’t take into account that align time is a product of your mass and agility, which you need to get under larger ship guns.

Don’t understand this comment. elaborate?

The change you are proposing is to turn warp disruptors into webs.

Webs slow targets. Disruptors don’t. Effects from webs would effectively stack on those I’ve proposed. With a web and a disruptor, many targets will be unable to flee before the fight ends… unless they utilize some of the other measures I’ve proposed. Even then, many will still die.

Wrong. Being tackled in a greedy shitfit 4bil polarized marauder feels awful

That’s not wrong. I speak from experience. I think more people would agree with me than you on this.

Give a specific problematic case, and give a specific solution.

No. Like I said, this is an expansion/reimagining of content. Nerfs + Buffs + new mechanics, all (hopefully) balancing each other.

Also, you might have more success wrapping your head around this if you stop assuming I want all pvp to be escapable/ended, or that I want to end ganking/piracy.

Yeah… I’m out.

How boring.

I don’t believe any of our collective negative sentiment is meant as an attack, or trying to point out fallacies or ways that this new idea can be abused or twisted – the larger issue is that it contradicts what eve is about. Special rules for high sec and modules working differently sort of thing really should be a hard no. That is trying to take things in a very bad direction. A layer of band-aids is not the correct way to go about fixing issues caused by a previous band-aid not fixing the core issue.

some changes in Concord mechanics with a change up to the current catalyst gank meta are well in order, yes.
Also are changes to the sec status system to better allow folks to suicide gank without being forced to use a throw-away alt that is pigeon holed such that it is the ONLY thing that the character will be allowed within reason to do.

Make recovering sec status and faction standing from suicide ganking more realistically feasible, which would probably align with some changes to the ye olden mission system that is desperately in need of an overhaul (burners were a nice addition, but that is really just for lvl 4 mission runners and does not help the level 1 through level 3 mission stuff).

It’s not really the gank part that I dislike as much as the type of fits and behavior that pve encourages. The assumption that a pve fit cant match a pvp fit is rampant, and most pve is very rudimentary to the point where people run incursions and iirc triglavian farming in polarized marauders or fleets thereof.

I have a bit of somewhat recent experience of trying to bully pve players in a deimos, and honestly if pve content encourage pvp-capable fits (as opposed to the dumb ■■■■ that burners warrant for example), coupled with gankers not being forced to only go for targets they know they can kill, I think it would result in situations where pve players would actually get proper pvp experience from the wrong end of the barrel as opposed to just giving up all hope as soon as they see a scram icon.

I’d also like to mention that the easy nature of pve is what fosters this solo lvl4 farmer playerbase, where people just make tax evasion corps and run blockades until they burn out. Make ganks more prevalent, but also encourage people to group up to fend them off, and all the carebears will ideally understand that the stale playstyle isn’t sustainable and actually do something about it. In other words, make both ganking and dealing with ganks more accessable. THIS is the type of idea I’d happily explore.

For the record, the above pvp experience involved stealing event reward cans from battlecruisers. They didn’t have scrams and I couldnt fight them in a deimos cause go figure, battlecruisers eat cruisers. Point is, this was far more educational than the total time i spent in nul, plus neither party died… though I had a similar case when both me and the other guy burnt out our guns in a plex, not that it was educational or anything.

A similar view, but not exactly the same as yours.

As a newbie 10 years ago I was taught/mentored by other players that every fit is a PVP fit, and a “PVE fit” is just a PVP fit that trades off PVP capabilities for greedy optimization of whatever content is being done. Thus it is part of that risk/reward.

So now by default when I hear “PVE fit” I think “very risky PVP fit”, but I can see why people that only do PVE content and only in high sec don’t tend to think this way.

2 Likes

I think the reason pve carebears like myself dont think this way is because they lack any sort of understanding of what a fit might be capable of. I just now did a few frig duels with a buddy and was surprised that the fight took 50 seconds, which is vastly different to that one time i got mangled by a garmur on a plex.

From an economical point, I really don’t know where the compromise ought to be made. If we say that the problem is pve encourages greedy fits, then either pve should have more edge cases that warrant pvp prepwork like buffer/active mixing, MWD rats (which somewhat exists in the later pve content) or the edge case that is pvp should be more prevalent so greedy carebears need to account for it.

I think eve just needs to become more dangerous and (personal bias) cater a bit more towards smaller groups. Could probably help the economy too.

From an economical point, people who approach the fitting problem rationally will take all factors into account when doing their PvE, including ‘risk of getting into PvP’.

If a small change to the fit can result in surviving a few possible PvP encounters at the cost of being slightly slower in PvE, that could be a good choice for people optimizing their fits, depending on the cost of slower ISK generation versus the gain of not having to pay for a new ship every X hours.

Many PvE players however do not seem to take PvP into account, optimize their fit purely for their expected PvE and then complain whenever they get caught and killed in PvP.

PvP is a part of the game. Fit for it. Or don’t, but that’s your choice.

Someone in my alliance uses to tell a nice story about how they used to carrier rat some time ago. And how they chose not to fit for PvP at all, but went for maximum PvE effectiveness, pure greed, so that whenever they do get caught and die in PvP they have at least made a lot of ISK.

It’s a valid strategy. Just be aware that you’re making a choice to fit that way.

3 Likes

I chose to go with the pve fits. But coming from a pvp background gave me the experience to look over my shoulder enough to not get caught most of the tine. I lost far more ships trying to push hac’s to do more than they were designed to do!

More players should start with pvp so when they go pve, the’ll know which shoulder to look over.

1 Like

Its a great idea , one or two events ago , we as a corp notice the event came under attack from loot thieves and gankers, so we did it in T1 cruises with 2 Logistics, great fun doing the event like that, then a Loki dropped in on us and started taking our loot :face_with_hand_over_mouth:.

He was dead in no time. Oh pvp ships doing the event he said followed by some obscenities.

I do think isk per hour can ruin gameplay sometimes.

1 Like

I have an idea about piracy, hacking other people’s ships for disabling a module.

Don’t have the DPS to kill an afk orca? Hop in your exploration frigate and disable all his modules one by one, when he returns to check how much ISK he made he will have a surprise. This is 100% worth a suspect flag, I’m in for that.

1 Like

Imagine you could hack them so their mining gear transfers every mined cycle into your own cargo hold. :face_with_hand_over_mouth:

3 Likes