Yes. The gate guns that routinely get ignored are one such limitation, that one happens to exist in low sec and is part of the overall design that seperates High, Low, and Null sec regions.
It’s not like you have to choose to fight under those guns rather than looking for people doing exploration, faction war, missions or who knows what else.
I’m aware that Concord does not prevent PvP, merely raises the barrier to entry. That’s what I’m trying to explain to Raw Materials. Your comprehension impediment is hurting your own case here.
I never said that. Do people even read things posted here? I am starting to think no one actually does.
I put it simple: PvP in high-sec is fine, however the risk should be on the side of the attacker, not the side of the defender. If ppl gank in Jita it’s not nice, but if you fly there you know what you are up to. If people start to randomly gank you everywhere in high-sec then the system is broken and needs a fix.
I have to agree that concord is pretty useless in its current state and theres a need to rething security status restrictions as well.
Its a bit funny that you with -10 sec status can sit into a 3 milion worth of Catalyst. And with 10-20 other dedicated hardcore gankers can ruin the game for 1 person to a point where they quit the game.
Its not even about the value of the cargo. We can ignore that. You get 20 dudes and gank empty freighters just for the fun of it. And while it costs you what? 20 milion isk a gank. It costs 1.2b for that 1 guy. So eventually you are isk effective ganking in HS. Not talking about the loot.
Point is theres definiately something to change. Either dont allow players with -10 sec status to undock in anything other than a pod in HS/agress in hs or make ganking a lot harder. Because currently you can kill anything with ease.
How concord currently works is a joke with the baiting them to a station with a rookie ship and ganking again in same system. Like come on. Its like going into a paintshop in GTA in front of the cops to come out them not chasing you anymore. Cant get stupider than that.
CONCORD works 100% effectively at what it is suppose to do: impose a cost on illegal aggression in highsec. There are no ways around this, nor does it ever fail and if a player finds a way to avoid paying this cost it is deemed an exploit an punishable by CCP.
Maybe there is a conversation to be had that this cost needs to be adjusted for some reason, but to claim that CONCORD is ineffective is wrong. Just because ships can be exploded by players willing to pay the cost is not proof that anything is wrong.
CCP spent years tweaking the mechanics with nerf after nerf to suicide ganking to get to where we are now where it almost always cost more to illegally explode a ship in highsec than it is worth, taking a normally fit T2 ship, and to requires a small fleet for all but the weakest of ships. Clearly this is influenced by how ships are fit, but most ships are unprofitable and fully tanked ships are hilariously expensive to gank. You only make yourself a target by fitting expensive modules or carrying expensive cargo which is honestly the perfect way to balance risk in highsec - rich and established players are targets for pirates while newbros in cheap T1 and T2 ships aren’t worth exploding.
As for security status it is also working as intended. The mechanic isn’t there to prevent player interaction. It is there to remove CONCORD protection from career criminals and put them at risk to the other players. It does this just fine, and even more by keeping criminals in check with NPC police and limiting what they can do in highsec. But it isn’t suppose to keep them away from you, otherwise how would you shoot them and how would they shoot you?
For highsec to not be safesec there needs to be some risk of the other players shooting you. If a 5B ISK missioning ship is not going to be at risk, I don’t know what should be then. The cost imposed by CONCORD keeps 99%+ of highsec players safe, and puts the richest players at the most risk so I’d say it is working fine. If you fly aware and prudently CONCORD protection is the most powerful tool you have to stay safe in the game.
Sadly for a Gank member whos only 1 guy it costs 3 milion isk to be in that gank.
For the Target who is ganked it can cost billions of isk.
And yes while there is the need to 20 guys to work together and gank the target. On the individual level is only costs that 3 milion isk hes “sacrificing” to the brutally efficient CONCORD.
If you dont see the problem here that is really sad. CCP will never release a graph about “Players leaving the game forever after the first HS gank they recieve” with an isk counter attached.
So we are potentially talking about having someone leave the game forever for 3 milion isk while they were doing their “High Security” stuff and trying to get somwhere in the game.
Take code whos ganking miners for “not having a permit” sounds fun right?
Take the player who used his money on a trade opportunity to try and make 5% profit just to find himself ganked midway and stop the game forever. Sounds fun right?
The problem is that concord and HS as it is now is as broken as it can be. If a 100man rich group decides to ■■■■ ■■■■ up and gank every 2. ship becase why not. They could jsut do it. Losing 100 catalyst still comes up to 300m on the individual level. You can now guess how much damage 10.000 catalyst would inflict in a day of ganking. for a mere 300m a pop per person.
If you think this is not a broken mechanic then i dont know what is.
I still don’t see why that is sad. The amount of ISK a player carries is completely under the control of the player. Most ships, even battleships cost only a few hundred million ISK. If a player wants to take a risk to earn more by fitting expensive modules, they take the chance someone will pay the cost to CONCORD and try to take their stuff.
That doesn’t sound sad to me. That sounds like a game. Risk vs. reward.
Everything CCP has released about ganking and new players shows it isn’t a problem. New players are rarely ganked - which makes sense as they have nothing worth taking - and almost no one cites ship loss as a reason they are quitting. The MER shows that 99.8%+ of ships reach their destination safely in highsec, and even of those that are lost most aren’t due to suicide ganking. Highsec is objectively incredibly safe.
I get that players don’t like losing stuff to other players but piracy is an intended feature in this game. I don’t find that sad at all.
You clearly have no real understanding of the cost and effort that goes into ganking. Almost every ship is a loss to gank in highsec, or is uncatchable if the pilot does anything, even in a cheap destroyer. If it was that easy, highsec would be shutdown, yet almost everybody all the time is left alone. The facts don’t match this narrative you are painting that ganking is a cheap and effortless activity.
Ganking is only an issue for the complacent and rich, not new players, and even then it is easy to mitigate. There are professional hauling companies that move billions of ISK every day without incident. There are careful mission and incursion runners who fly expensive ships attentively every day without loss. Yes, there is nowhere that is perfectly safe in this game as was intended from the beginning, but that doesn’t mean there is nothing you can do to keep your assets safe. Everyone is going to experience a loss from time to time, whether to other players or NPCs, but that’s why we have the Golden Rules.
Highsec works perfectly fine to keep most people safe most of the time. Unless you think highsec should be perfectly safe and you free to fly 10B ISK mission ships or freighters with no worry, then I don’t know how you can claim that it is “broken”. You are basically only at risk of people taking your stuff if several people gang up on you after you made yourself a profitable target, and made several other mistakes on top of that, and probably also were very unlucky to be noticed at all in the first place.
Why do you think that this is a problem? EVE is not a game for everyone. If you don’t like the fact that you’re playing a PvP game then leaving forever is the best outcome.
No they wouldn’t, because smart players are impossible to gank profitably. If you understand the risks and fit only T2 modules on your mission ship there is no point in suicide ganking you, the cost of the ships required is more than the value of your expected loot drop. Attempting to gank everyone who is PvE fitted would be a spectacular waste of money, and you’ll never convince that many people to throw away money out of pure spite.
The only people who are at risk of ganking are the stupid players who fit billions of ISK on fragile ships and then fly around obliviously like they’re playing WoW in space instead of a PvP game. Don’t follow their example and you have nothing to fear.
I did, I said the same thing in both quotes, you simply didn’t understand them.
The attacker chooses the target, so the smart ones pick those with a high chance of good modules drop. The risk that all modules explode is like 1 in a million.
Idiots who fit their ships with expensive modules and fly around obliviously are at a high risk of ganking because their overpriced loot crate is almost guaranteed to be a profitable kill.
Smart people who fit T2 modules are at a very low risk of ganking because the odds of a profitable kill are very small.
Why do you guys talk about smart kids and stupid kids. Or Profit and lootdrops. Does it even matter? It is in fact too easy to gank. It doesnt matter what you carry or how you fit. A pimp ship is just as easy to kill as a Meta fitted one. Its not about how much profit the attacker makes. Its about the effort the attacker need to put into a given gank. Which is potentially zero. And being paranoid even is hisec… thats a gameplan.
In quote 1 you said that PvP in High Sec must be Rare, thus not OK.
In quote 2 you said that PvP in High Sec was fine.
So is it a problem that PvP happens in High Sec, or is it not? Pick one.
You should understand… I am a huge carebear. All I do is 'bear it up, 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?
Almost all PvE development was dropped, and that which remained has been carefully turned into a bait and switch to provide soft targets for the type a personality predatory pvp players.
But… I understand what it is. I play knowing that. I will be sad when the servers shut down because of it. The death knell sounded the day they finally managed to convert the game to the free to play, pay to win model of Alpha Clones and Skill Injectors. It may take a while yet, but EVE isn’t what it was.
But at no point, even with a fresh set of devs do I ever expect PvP to not be an aspect of the game—at best we can hope the rest of the game eventually gets some development to match it, but it’s not going away.
PvP in high-sec is fine as long as it is rare and controlled.
Jita is controlled PvP because it only happens in Jita, you know it will happen if you have expensive stuff with you, therefore you can prepare for it. If that spreads to random high systems we have a problem.
I can kinda justify fitting the Inertia stabilizers, basically the idea is the less time you sped aligning, the less exposed you are to the risk. It is true, just not always. The cargo expanders though …
The High Sec PvP mechanics really need to change. First and foremost what needs to happen is that if you are partied up with someone prior to engagement / combat starting, then that person or people, should be able to engage the people shooting their friend without getting concordokken. It can’t be just limited to buffs via battlecruisers or reps. It needs to be actually viable counter play. That right there would help a lot. And of course the wardec mechanics need a rework.
I don’t think its a good idea for players damage to be reduced if they have a bad faction with whatever territory they are in, doesn’t make sense. But, what could be cool, is if there is someone with negative faction standing, then perhaps the territories navy could respond a lot faster the worse their faction is. That would actually make sense.
Hell, why not just nerf it by 100%? Then we can all prance around with unicorns in fields of glitter flowers and slide down rainbows sipping our pumpkin spice lattes
It takes several days just to be able to FLY tornado. Add to this all the support skills, gunnery skills and some others and you end up with at least 2 months of training.
Wait, are you telling people don’t do that? I always activated my resists mods… even when I just started the game - are you telling me that raven is going to run out of cap due to resists mods?
Last time I checked 3*20 = 60. I also doubt that 20 t1 catas can dunk freighter - for reference I have about 180K ehp in antitanked fenrir. Assuming 450dps it is 9K dps for whole gank squad - in pulled 0.5 they can do 234K dps, of which about 60% is kinetic (so 140.4K kinetic and 93.6K thermal - this has big effect on how much dmg they effectively do, antitanked fenrir has about 181K ehp vs cata, w/o implants that will change ehp). The problem? Assuming everything goes well they may be able to bring down antitanked fenrir… in pulled 0.5 - which basically means ueadama/niarja - and if you fly antitanked freighter w/o cover through these 2 systems don’t be surprised when you lose it.
More typical gank squad against a freighter would consist of mostly t2 catas/thrashers (10M each) and likely some bombers/nadoes (~70-100M each).
