Ok so with this response you just shown to us that all you want is to massively nerf ganking, nothing else. Thank you but no, ganking needs to me made easier not harder. If you want nerrf ganking please refer to NERF GANKING MEGATHREAD and avoid creating duplicate threads.
Btw, you came up with such a massive wall of text yet it is clear you don’t understand all aspects of a ganking. I highly suggest you to try it yourself first before actually suggesting anything.
I only actually read the part with CONCORD response rebalance, because I also posted my thoughts on this in multiple threads. Now, your proposal sounds interesting and it might be actually way more fun than it is now. What I like about this idea is that it would discourage multiboxing, if done properly. But on the other hand, if multiboxing ganks will be impossible or much harder than it is now, as much as I hate multiboxing, I fear it might completely kill ganking and we end up with Hello Kitty Online where there is no destruction in highsec, huge overproduction is made and inflation skyrockets. And, this is just an initial thought and in reality it might be as @Syeed_Ameer_Ali wrote.
Anyway, there is one main flaw in your work. It is too complicated. CPP didn’t change ganking for years with exception of removal of a perma bumping freighters which was good change it was unhealthy and worst form of griefing.
There are three reasons for that in my opionion.
They are focused on milking players with new skin, new graphic and new p2w mechanics so they have no resources to actually improve gameplay in any area of the game.
They are perfectly happy with current state of ganking as it enforces players to sub/PLEX horde of alt accounts to multibox. If ganking is made easier, then less accounts are used and less money will CCP grab.
The community is extremely divided and it never came to any agreement. All threads on ganking always ends up with personal attacks, derailing the point, nitpicking and trolling.
Therefore, creating such a massive system rebalance ideas will never work. Even if we all agreed that what you came up with is awesome and CCP should do it, it is too complex so that there is no chance it gets ever implemented.
I would like to think that it might be possible to persuade CCP to make very minor changes to ganking if the community comes to an agreement, but I guess I am too naive…
It’s not true that I only want to nerf ganking. Where you quote me I was being sincere. If CCP were to make all these changes tomorrow high sec would be a less safe place. It would be more fun too. For the record I have read the Nerf ganking mega thread and it all sounds pretty reasonable.
You’re right I don’t understand all aspects of ganking. But that’s okay. This is all just talking on the internet. Nothing will come of it. CCP has demonstrated many times that they don’t actually listen to what players say. I’m just looking for some interesting conversation.
Glad you think my change to Concord response might make things more fun. But I’m confused about how you think this would discourage multi-boxing. Can you elaborate please? Personally I don’t think it would discourage multiboxing.
We definitely don’t want hello Kitty online. In fact one of my other proposals was that we introduce a form of interdiction bubble into high sec (and low sack too I suppose).
And yeah of course there’s no chance this ever gets implemented. The fun for me is in thinking about it and writing it and hopefully getting some interesting responses to it
I am assuming that your proposal requires to PvE the CONCORD in order to get the time we have now to kill our victim. That wasn’t apparent from your post unless you clarified that later which was too much for me to read really.
If this assumption is true, one can simply no longer just throw fleet alt-tab them with CTRL on a target in overview and pressing F1. If we would have to also PvE concord while doing this, then multiboxing ganks would be much harder if not impossible. Of course it highly depends on how would this be designed which you didn’t specify really. Like, would all that is needed be an ecm frigate to use against that CONCORD frigate? And would it even get criminal flag for that? And if the multiboxer choose not to do this, with much less time to do the gank he would have to sub/plex yet another (few) accounts.
The more I think about your suggestion the more unrealistic it seems to me. Did you know that for every single ship commiting a crime their own CONCORD fleet is spawned in the sector? How would you handle this fact in your solution? Would only one frigate came no matter how many attackers there would be?
Now, if your suggestion was meant in a way that - the time we have now will stay as is and if we engage CONCORD and PvE them we get more time than usual then okay, I guess that has no downsides and is a buff to small scale ganks and ganking groups that are not using (excessive) multiboxing although again depends how would that PvE looked like, if all you needed was ECM ship then it would be no problem to multibox that in slightest.
Under my proposal, no Pve versus Concorde would be required. There may be benefits to it for large and well coordinated groups, but gankers can certainly choose to ignore concord just the way they do now. In addition under my proposal gankers would have even more time than they do now pull off their gank.
I definitely think that concord should not get to spawn new fleets for every piracy incident in a system. There should be a set pool of Concord ships in each system. Concord should send ships from that pool to respond to violence. So if 100 ganks happen simultaneously in the same system then yes for many of them only one frigate would show up, or maybe nothing would show up to help the victim.
In addition Concord response should be proportionate to the fleet that the gankers are using. Only two catalysts? Two Concord figs, a destroyer and a cruiser would show up. I’m still imagining that they have Concord weaponry which seems highly Superior to capsular weaponry. So Concord would probably still win that fight against two catalysts. But it wouldn’t be the overwhelming hammer of God that happens currently.
An important point here is that Concord ships should use the same warp mechanics as capsulears. Frigs would a line and warp faster so they would arrive on the scene first. Then cruisers then battleships last, since they both aline and warp more slowly.
Hopefully that clarifies my stance.
To be honest I hadn’t thought about eCM effects against Concord. But it seems like that should be a possible solution for gankers. I would say that Concord ships should probably have Superior signal strength of their ships kind of like they have stronger weapons. But ECM should be an option.
That would lessen our time to gank in overall. The way it works now, when each criminal get his CONCORD response fleet, CONCORD is reacting to the criminals in given order. CONCORD spawned for criminal 1 will not engage criminal 2 at least not for while after criminal 1 ship is destroyed.
This allows these massive gank fleets (usually multiboxed) to work as they can’t fire simultanously and it takes some second, say 1 per account to fire. So the criminals are not engaging in the very same time either so how would the system know what to send against them? In second 1 there is one criminal and in second 5 there are 5 criminals and in second 15 there are 15.
So what would have happen under your system is that we would only have 21 seconds in 0.5 and I am already counting with the extra time we are normally getting for spawning/pulling CONCORD) for all our ships. That would be significant nerf and would require many more characters to kill anything that requires 5+ chars.
Right now we have 21 seconds for each ship. That is significant difference and even if the CONCORD under your system spawned later than it is spawning now it couldn’t be really balanced because it would be either big buff to ganking lower EHP targets and a nerf to bigger EHP target. Killing freighters in highsec is already quite hard and this would make it much harder. And those whales needs to die
You’re either new to this or you’re yanking our collective chains cause this type of argument is exactly what any “nerf my opposition, its good for everyone uwu” threads boil down to.
Seriously, lurk the forums. Everyone who makes a suggestion for a drastic change that ultimately impacts the dynamics of this economic sandbox ultimately falls back on “trust me guys it’ll be better for everyne”
I don’t gank. I’m a carebear 99% of the time. I am the sort of person @Vokan_Narkar and @Aiko_Danuja hunt for sport, and even I say that making ganking harder would make the game worse. Theyre there to punish greed and isolation.
This is a god damned MMO.
You want intel? Ask a friend to fly covops.
You want faster freight? Ask a friend to web.
You want more tank? Ask a friend to fleet boost.
You want to break up a gate camp? Uh… i’ll let you guess 3 times.
I’m still thinking that this mechanic can work without reducing ganking time.
To follow your example, if there are one criminal in second one then enough Concord ships to respond to that criminal would begin scanning down that criminal in second one. In second too there is a second criminal and enough Concord ships to kill that second criminal would start scanning down that second criminal in second two. So the 21st criminal would still have as much time as the first, since the ships needed to kill him won’t begin scanning him down until he fires.
To be honest I had not thought specificlly about how this system would allocate Concord response ships based on size of pirate threat, I just imagined it could be done. But this is interesting! It’s something I hadn’t considered that I can now try to account for.
Now that I’ve thought about it I think you would have to manage it the way I’ve just said. So following on from that Concord would allocate ships to individual criminals as they attack until the pool of Concord ships is depleted and then no more responses could be sent. Additionally if you are imagining a large fleet of catalysts then Concorde would allocate all its frigs and cruisers first, so by the time the 21st catalyst fires only BC’s and battleships would be left to respond (depending on the system). These would align and warp more slowly giving additional time to gankers that fired last.
Additionally I am imagining that it will take two Concord frigates and a concord cruiser longer to kill a catalyst then the current Concorde response Fleet would, so ganker DPS would stay on grid longer. As others have pointed out I do not have much experience with ganking so this assumption may be wrong. If it is then let me clarify that my overall position is that less Concorde DPS should land on grid then currently does which would give pirates more time on grid.
One more thing to consider. In my proposal Concorde now has to spend some amount of time scanning down ganks that happen away from Gates. This should probably add 5 to 10 seconds to the overall response time versus what it is now. Additionally Concord ships will spend some non-zero amount of time actually warping, as opposed to where they just jump straight to you. Overall I definitely think Concord response time should be slower than they are currently by 40 to 50%, and that’s on top of them landing less DPS on grid. It is a little difficult to compare warp and scanning time to the current system where Concorde just shows up after a predetermined interval, but I’m sure you could massage the specifics of this mechanic such that Concord responds slower.
So then. Give me another one. Any other problems you see with this mechanic that I can try to fix? Or any of the other ones I proposed? Has what I just wrote addressed your concern?
Well of course I think my way would be more fun. Why else would I write a post like this? Why would anyone suggest any changes if they didn’t think they would improve the game?
And yes I suggested some nerfs to gankers, but like I’ve discussed with others I’m also proposing some pretty massive buffs for them too. In fact I think the buffs I proposed for gankers outweigh the nerfs I’ve proposed for them. That’s why I say hi sec would be more dangerous overall.
Another thing: I don’t have any opposition. I am not a ganker or a Care Bear. I’m just bored at the moment, and wanted to have a chat about and aspect of the game because I’ve had some ideas about it.
I would love to discuss actual ideas but my current problem is that I genuinely can’t find them. Here’s some feedback.
The difference between a book and a wall of text is that books tend to have things like tables of content, chapters, so on. Also your TLDR just says that there’s a suggestion somewhere in the text that was too long to read which is really counterproductive.
Seriously, I’d happily spin your ideas with you if I could find them. Care to give a pointer?
That’s fair. I wrote this whole thing on my phone using talk to text so it’s very stream of consciousness. I also just posted it without bothering to edit. Big mistake. I think I’m going to give it a good edit maybe later today.
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.
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.
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.