# Hmmm.... sec status and ganking

**URL:** <https://forums.eveonline.com/t/hmmm-sec-status-and-ganking/98769>\
**Category:** Player Features & Ideas\
**Created:** [August 17, 2018, 7:57pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/hmmm-sec-status-and-ganking/98769 "2018-08-17T19:57:41Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Scipio\_Artelius](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/scipio_artelius/32/408264_2.png) [@Scipio\_Artelius](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Scipio_Artelius)\
**Post date:** [August 17, 2018, 9:50pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/hmmm-sec-status-and-ganking/98769/21 "2018-08-17T21:50:22Z")

</div>

> [@Dyver\_Phycad](#):
>
> a single suicide frigate trumps the best freighter webber

This isn’t the case at all. It’s an argument that is used in the absence of experience doing it.

If you just go and use webs effectively, you’ll see for yourself that a suicide point doesn’t trump even just an effective Webber, let alone the best.

> [@Mike\_Voidstar](#):
>
> Assuming the webs land before the bumping begins.

There really isn’t any assumption needed in this. It takes just 3 ticks on the server to be in warp from the point of decloak.

Combined with the randomness of spawning, the speed to get to warp means bumpers don’t have sufficient time to bump before the freighter is in warp.

I know both these arguments will be dismissed anyway, so don’t take my written word for anything, just go do it and you’ll see for yourself.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Teckos\_Pech](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/teckos_pech/32/375283_2.png) [@Teckos\_Pech](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Teckos_Pech)\
**Post date:** [August 17, 2018, 10:15pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/hmmm-sec-status-and-ganking/98769/22 "2018-08-17T22:15:58Z")

</div>

> [@Scipio\_Artelius](#):
>
> I know both these arguments will be dismissed anyway, so don’t take my written word for anything, just go do it and you’ll see for yourself.

Don’t worry he won’t. Mike hates PVP.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Teckos\_Pech](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/teckos_pech/32/375283_2.png) [@Teckos\_Pech](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Teckos_Pech)\
**Post date:** [August 17, 2018, 10:27pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/hmmm-sec-status-and-ganking/98769/23 "2018-08-17T22:27:45Z")

</div>

Mike’s view of PvP.

> [@Make Concord Nerf Damage % In Highsec](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/make-concord-nerf-damage-in-highsec/92917/72):
>
> I despise the PvP elements of the game, and am only here for the pretty graphics these days since they hired a bunch of extremists PvP guys from null sec alliances as their Dev team, Oh, 9-10 years ago now?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![z0rberg](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/z0rberg/32/29223_2.png) [@z0rberg](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/z0rberg)\
**Post date:** [August 17, 2018, 10:35pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/hmmm-sec-status-and-ganking/98769/24 "2018-08-17T22:35:43Z")

</div>

From ya post i can tell ya ain’t a suicide ganker, am i right?

yer idea’s horrible game design. every single princess out there’s gonna first and foremost try achievin’ a security status high enough it guarantees ‘em absolute safety for their respective ship class. people will find ways of minmaxin’ the ■■■■ out of it and they’ll gonna be all over themselves after reachin’ a state allowin’ them to be absolutely safe **because CONCORD’s always gonna be fast enough for the players tank and ship class.**

You’d have people spreadin’ this in rookie channels everywhere and they’d spread it like a disease, causin’ new players to go for **safety first** , which’s even worse than them just “levellin’ up their ravens to level 4 missions”. far worse than that.

If ya give people individual CONCORD response times ya can be damn sure as ■■■■ that a huge amount of players gonna aim right there, makin’ killing ‘em so expensive that there’s just no point in doin’ it. And then they’ll fuckin’ spread it.

The long term outcome of this idea is a highsec without suicide gankin’.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Scipio\_Artelius](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/scipio_artelius/32/408264_2.png) [@Scipio\_Artelius](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Scipio_Artelius)\
**Post date:** [August 17, 2018, 11:06pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/hmmm-sec-status-and-ganking/98769/25 "2018-08-17T23:06:05Z")

</div>

Generally if you are flying an industrial of any kind, having a sec status \<= -2.0 hurts.

If you jump into a system where you are a “criminal”, you can’t cloak, so even blockade runners, MWD/Cloak trick and any attempt to hide from the NPC police forces is futile.

So in the OP, the criteria I would probably change:

_10, all the way to 0.1 – Existing responses in 1.0 through 0.5 sec status space. At 10 you get near immediate concord response, at 0.1 you get the delayed 0.5 response time._

_0 to -4.5, you get concord gate guns and whatever’s already on grid assuming you wouldn’t be shot at for having low status already._

_-4.6 to -10, no concord assistance of any kind, in addition to them shooting you per normal concord behaviour._

The last criteria doesn’t really help anyone much. The hauling pilot is already going to be engaged by NPCs in every system (once at -5.0 sec status), and freely engageable by players once -5 also, so CONCORD already doesn’t assist for most of that group.

I kind of like the concept. It gives players more opportunity to “antigank” effectively if they could, and any gameplay that puts more opportunity in the hands of players as opposed to NPCs is a good thing in my view.

So if this was implemented, I think I’d rather the criteria be:

5.0 sec status = current response times

5.1 - 10.0 = sliding scale of reduced response time. Those that really grind out to get to a 10.0 sec status gain benefit from that effort, where really it doesn’t provide much benefit currently.

4.9 - -1.9 = sliding scale of reduce CONCORD response time

From -2.0 down, no CONCORD assistance.

And I wouldn’t do the scaling linearly. I’d do it as an s-curve like this (this is just a random image off the internet, not scaled appropriately):

 ![responsetime](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/original/3X/4/7/47392b7fc587c6bf8c8dcf705168c60b4f2349be.png)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![z0rberg](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/z0rberg/32/29223_2.png) [@z0rberg](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/z0rberg)\
**Post date:** [August 17, 2018, 11:12pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/hmmm-sec-status-and-ganking/98769/26 "2018-08-17T23:12:20Z")

</div>

i ain’t seein’ how ya post’s addressin’ my primary concern: everyone’s gonna aim for that and it’ll spread like a virus infectin’ new players.

and i haven’t even mentioned how it throws off balance. income’s supposed to be moderately controlled based on a system’s sec level. Ya’rr supposed to be “less safe” in a 0.5 compared to a 1.0 and in return ya’d be makin’ more money per time frame compared to higher levels. havin’ individual sec levels destroys that completely, forcin’ CCP to redo the whole thing.

tell me where i’m wrong or what i’m supposedly missin’. i appreciate you takin’ time writin’ a response. all i’m seein’ here’s a bad outcome in the long term, if not even in the medium term due to it spreadin’ to new players quickly.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Scipio\_Artelius](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/scipio_artelius/32/408264_2.png) [@Scipio\_Artelius](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Scipio_Artelius)\
**Post date:** [August 17, 2018, 11:31pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/hmmm-sec-status-and-ganking/98769/27 "2018-08-17T23:31:37Z")

</div>

> [@z0rberg](#):
>
> Ya’rr supposed to be “less safe” in a 0.5 compared to a 1.0 and in return ya’d be makin’ more money per time frame compared to higher levels.

Probably easier with numbers:

 ![scaledtimes](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/original/3X/8/7/8768c0e1c9e24e66d69c89339498bdde42319f8c.png)

> **[Scaled CONCORD Response Times](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1s1qpuy0P4d5XBH4loC1CxG41pdU4aEy0wp5h0Oiqc-g/edit?usp=sharing)**
>
> Sheet1
> 
> Concord Response Time (in seconds),Player sec...

The values on the left are the current response times (approx) and over on the right, new proposed times based on sec status of the player and system.

But I don’t want to hijack Old Pervert’s thread. Just an alternative to his proposal, that opens up options for player intervention more than there is now.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Marcus\_Gideon](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/marcus_gideon/32/141713_2.png) [@Marcus\_Gideon](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Marcus_Gideon)\
**Post date:** [August 17, 2018, 11:33pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/hmmm-sec-status-and-ganking/98769/28 "2018-08-17T23:33:54Z")

</div>

> [@Old\_Pervert](#):
>
> Tackle is about making it so they can’t run away. With webs, they can still run away. Ergo they are not tackled. With ACTUAL tackle, all the webs in the world won’t let them ignore you.

Tackling is about preventing them from warping off.

If you’re Bumping them, and they don’t have any assistance (such as a bystander willing and able to Web them until their Acceleration is enough to let them warp with any amount of speed), then they’re “tackled”.

If you’re Warp Scrambling them, and they don’t have any assistance (such as Warp Stabilizers), then they’re “tackled”.

“Tackled” does not **just** mean Scrambled. “Scrambled” means Scrambled. “Tackled” just means unable to run away, by your own definition.

All that said, I kinda like the idea of Concord caring more about responding to people with higher Sec Status and less for those with less. But that’s a weird way for the “Space Police” to behave. The current system is a lot more… uniform. They patrol a specific solar system with the same thoroughness. If you’re not officially a Criminal yet, then they will protect you no matter what. If you’re +10 or -4.9 they’ll still avenge your death.

My vote is for making Ganks hurt your Sec Status harder. You shouldn’t be able to destroy 50 ships before they finally admit you’re a menace to society. You should’t be able to destroy 10 ships without cause. Clearly you are just out to kill people, and you should be labeled a Criminal a lot quicker.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Mike\_Voidstar](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/mike_voidstar/32/280496_2.png) [@Mike\_Voidstar](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Mike_Voidstar)\
**Post date:** [August 17, 2018, 11:36pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/hmmm-sec-status-and-ganking/98769/29 "2018-08-17T23:36:56Z")

</div>

Nah, I’m with you on the suicide point not making a difference. In the absence of a bumper it dies and off the ship goes, unless there is a whole conga line of suicide points to keep the ship in place. If that’s the case, well… they came prepared to get the job done.

Obviously I don’t agree on the second part. Random Spawning happens to everyone. The webber can help get a ship through, but they do sometimes get caught.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Marcus\_Gideon](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/marcus_gideon/32/141713_2.png) [@Marcus\_Gideon](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Marcus_Gideon)\
**Post date:** [August 17, 2018, 11:37pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/hmmm-sec-status-and-ganking/98769/30 "2018-08-17T23:37:20Z")

</div>

I dunna get why ya type yer words like ya do? I mean I kinna get that yer goin’ fer sum kinna space yokel thang. But its just annoyin’ ta read more’n anythan’.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Mike\_Voidstar](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/mike_voidstar/32/280496_2.png) [@Mike\_Voidstar](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Mike_Voidstar)\
**Post date:** [August 17, 2018, 11:40pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/hmmm-sec-status-and-ganking/98769/31 "2018-08-17T23:40:06Z")

</div>

> [@Marcus\_Gideon](#):
>
> My vote is for making Ganks hurt your Sec Status harder. You shouldn’t be able to destroy 50 ships before they finally admit you’re a menace to society. You should’t be able to destroy 10 ships without cause. Clearly you are just out to kill people, and you should be labeled a Criminal a lot quicker.

Remove being able to buy back sec status with tags, and make criminal flags last days so that real consequences actually fall upon criminals.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![elitatwo](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/elitatwo/32/373473_2.png) [@elitatwo](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/elitatwo)\
**Post date:** [August 17, 2018, 11:40pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/hmmm-sec-status-and-ganking/98769/32 "2018-08-17T23:40:47Z")

</div>

> [@Old\_Pervert](#):
>
> So here is a way that leaves even footing for everyone. Make concord responses dependent on the “victim”'s sec status in highsec space.
> 
> 10, all the way to 0.1 – Existing responses in 1.0 through 0.5 sec status space. At 10 you get near immediate concord response, at 0.1 you get the delayed 0.5 response time.

Sorry to ruin your Friday evening but you cannot reach a security status of 10.0 anymore. The CONCORD agents were retired and only 2 agents remain, both give you a once time level 2 storyline mission which boost your security status from 5.0 to 5.6 after doing the first.

I am not sure how much the second would push you but it’s not 10.0. I which, I could check it out but I can only do the second one and after some minor misunderstandings in lowsec, I lost my 5.6 security status.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Marcus\_Gideon](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/marcus_gideon/32/141713_2.png) [@Marcus\_Gideon](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Marcus_Gideon)\
**Post date:** [August 17, 2018, 11:48pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/hmmm-sec-status-and-ganking/98769/33 "2018-08-17T23:48:00Z")

</div>

That doesn’t make a huge difference, if anything it just shrinks the math involved. So instead of an instant response for 10.0 then you get an instant response for 5.0.

If you really wanted to get into heavy math ([like the math that apparently compares Ganker and Victim Sec Statuses to determine how much Sec Status is lost](https://wiki.eveuniversity.org/Security_Status#Losing_security_status)), you could compare the Ganker and Victim to come up with the timing. The higher the Victim, as well as the lower the Ganker, leads to a faster response time.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Scipio\_Artelius](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/scipio_artelius/32/408264_2.png) [@Scipio\_Artelius](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Scipio_Artelius)\
**Post date:** [August 17, 2018, 11:49pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/hmmm-sec-status-and-ganking/98769/34 "2018-08-17T23:49:35Z")

</div>

> [@Marcus\_Gideon](#):
>
> So instead of an instant response for 10.0 then you get an instant response for 5.0.

That would be too strong.

To balance against that in CCP’s “_we like to pair nerfs to ganking with buffs to ganking_” approach, if you did that, the buff to compensate would be way overpowered also.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Marcus\_Gideon](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/marcus_gideon/32/141713_2.png) [@Marcus\_Gideon](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Marcus_Gideon)\
**Post date:** [August 17, 2018, 11:51pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/hmmm-sec-status-and-ganking/98769/35 "2018-08-17T23:51:18Z")

</div>

Agreed, it was just an initial response.

I think I’d do the comparison that I mentioned afterwards. If the Victim is 5.0, and the Ganker is -5 or worse, then you’d get the fastest response. If the Victim is 0.1 and the Ganker is… whatever, then they’d take their time.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Old\_Pervert](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/old_pervert/32/149708_2.png) [@Old\_Pervert](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Old_Pervert)\
**Post date:** [August 17, 2018, 11:51pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/hmmm-sec-status-and-ganking/98769/36 "2018-08-17T23:51:48Z")

</div>

> [@elitatwo](#):
>
> Sorry to ruin your Friday evening but you cannot reach a security status of 10.0 anymore. The CONCORD agents were retired and only 2 agents remain, both give you a once time level 2 storyline mission which boost your security status from 5.0 to 5.6 after doing the first.
> 
> I am not sure how much the second would push you but it’s not 10.0. I which, I could check it out but I can only do the second one and after some minor misunderstandings in lowsec, I lost my 5.6 security status.

Honestly, never tried to raise my sec status lol. The occasional ratting to finance pvp is enough, and of course the market alt is the one going in and out of Jita/perimeter.

That said, it’s easy to put the cap at +5 for 1.0 response time, scaling down to 0.1 for 0.5 response time.

Overall, the goal of it all is to make suicide ganking harder whilst increasing the number of targets in highsec that can be ganked without concord getting their panties bundled up.

I feel that would make freighter pilots happier (costs more to gank them), gankers happier (more people to shoot at without even losing a ship/sec hit), and PVPers happier (hey that dude’s -1, I’ma shoot him in highsec and nobody’s gonna be able to do a thing about it).

All while making sec status actually mean something beyond trying to make sure you don’t go below -5 on a toon you intend to bring through highsec with any frequency.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![elitatwo](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/elitatwo/32/373473_2.png) [@elitatwo](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/elitatwo)\
**Post date:** [August 18, 2018, 12:07am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/hmmm-sec-status-and-ganking/98769/37 "2018-08-18T00:07:47Z")

</div>

No worries, wasn’t criticism but merely correcting the premise.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Omnathious\_Deninard](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/omnathious_deninard/32/266675_2.png) [@Omnathious\_Deninard](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Omnathious_Deninard)\
**Post date:** [August 18, 2018, 2:28am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/hmmm-sec-status-and-ganking/98769/38 "2018-08-18T02:28:48Z")

</div>

I would like to see players have more control for there own defense, with concord only dealing with the more problematic of capsuleers.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Old\_Pervert](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/old_pervert/32/149708_2.png) [@Old\_Pervert](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Old_Pervert)\
**Post date:** [August 18, 2018, 2:32am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/hmmm-sec-status-and-ganking/98769/39 "2018-08-18T02:32:37Z")

</div>

> [@Omnathious\_Deninard](#):
>
> problematic

Problematic is a point of view 😉

To me gankers, regardless of how often, aren’t a problem they’re a solution. I’d far rather see concord start gibbing highsec miners (they’ll get a few players, but on the same token, solve the highsec mining menace as well).

Kind of joking, kind of not.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Omnathious\_Deninard](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/omnathious_deninard/32/266675_2.png) [@Omnathious\_Deninard](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Omnathious_Deninard)\
**Post date:** [August 18, 2018, 2:37am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/hmmm-sec-status-and-ganking/98769/40 "2018-08-18T02:37:23Z")

</div>

Problematic would refer to the repeat ganker who continually evades “punishment” from players.

To entice player policing a concord issued bounty could be placed on the offender based on the crime, your concord bounty gets too high concord steps in.

[Previous page](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/hmmm-sec-status-and-ganking/98769.md?page=1)

[Next page](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/hmmm-sec-status-and-ganking/98769.md?page=3)