I agree. After a gank in HS. The ganker should not be able to undock for 24 hours.
@CCP_Hellmar 
I’m fine with that as I operate out of a Citadel, but I think you and I have different understandings of what the word “buff” means? Currently the way the game is coded, being in a citadel is considered “in space”. Don’t believe me? Try running a locate on someone you know is docked in a citadel.
Of course. Messing with each others gameplay is fun.
Just get more alts. CCP will love you for that. 
I like this. 
But it’s a tad bit too oppressive for the fragile egos. I would already be happy with them not being allowed to dock, use market services, cloning services, repair services, offices in NPC stations. Force gankers into structures where their assets could be at risk.
1 Like
It’s really interesting to see reactions if a big alliance wardec the perimeter tower.
I don’t think you’re thinking this through all the way. The only thing at risk is the structure and the core. Hypothetically, that’s a sunk cost of about 1.2B per every 7 days, assuming no effort is made to defend the structure. The only practical effect will be that gankers are going to gank slightly more to make up for the shortfall, meaning that the intent to hurt and decrease ganking would actually result in the opposite happening.
Ganking characters already live spartan lifestyles. When the fleet is shelved for the night, they don’t undock in Golems and start running missions. Taking away access to NPC services won’t have any effect aside from making the game ever slightly mroe tedious to play, which is bad game design for everyone, ganker and carebear alike. It’s a cop-out suggestion that feels like it’s made by an aggrieved party in order to “sock it to the griefers” as opposed to improving the game. If you want to actually improve the game, you should be asking for interesting counterplay mechanics instead.
4 Likes
It’s not making the game more tedious to play for people who do not harm the empires and who are not criminals. The only people who would be impacted by this are gankers and other pirates.
Like? There are no effective and feasible counter plays to ganking. Counterganking doesn’t work, ECM does not work, logi does not work, giving ships slots and stats to fight back does not work either. The only counterplay is more tank and that’s easily countercountered by a few more catalysts. So, make a suggestion for a counterplay that is feasible.
Tedious and punishing are two different things. Punishing is cause and effect, but tedious just makes the game not enjoyable. I guess if your intent is to make gankers quit the game, then you’d go for that.
Just off the top of my head an idea I’ve come up with in the last few minutes:
Create point defense weapons for larger ships, like flak, that are effective against smaller caliber weapons, and the more ships are shooting you, the more effective it is (like a chain reaction of sorts). This would push gankers to use large ships against larger targets. Counterbalance this (because of a systemic increase to ganker costs as opposed to a player-driven one) by modifying CONCORD mechanics. First of all, CONCORD has to be summoned via a distress beacon. Until CONCORD arrives and confirms the attack, the gankers are only suspects, and not criminals. However, if anyone attacks the gankers while they’re suspects, CONCORD doesn’t act like a kill trigger, but as very strong NPCs instead.
What this would mean in practice is that AG operations would become viable combat efforts as opposed to CONCORD coattail-riding. Since random neutrals could dog-pile on the gankers, gankers won’t suddenly start using faction-fit battleships to gank (and never losing them), but they will be forced to use larger ships (and actually tank and micromanage them during enagements) for certain ganks. If a gank happens somewhere where there’s no player assistance, then the gankers would still lose their ships to CONCORD, provided the distress beacon is activated. In cases where neutrals do intervene, it would be unlikely for the gankers to survive both the CONCORD NPCs and the players.
Bam, multi-tiered, interesting gameplay that would alleviate Catalyst spam, apply a handicap to AFK players, and turn AG into a respectable, viable mercenary profession. Of course CCP would never do something like this. They just want linear “if A, then B, never C or D” gameplay, and for you to buy more PLEX.
1 Like
A mining permit for only 10 mil ISK per year comes to mind
Mutually exclusive positions there
And if there werent any counterplays already, Id lose a freighter a day on average
Which I dont
That would not push gankers out of the game. Matter of fact is that they use structures already to sit ready on gate pings in tether while they wait for the prey to be bumped or suicide tackled or fall out of autopilot warp on the gate. Structures are ganker friends, as the multitude of CODE related structures in Niarja before the change demonstrated. The only thing this suggestion does is to move their clones and gank assets into the structures as well. That gives people the opportunity to attack them and, for instance, create content around the Fortizar in Uedama, which undoubtedly will create a fight and not just a boring uncontested structure bash.
So a weapon that intercepts projectiles from small weapons when that small weapon is just meters away from your hull? In theory an intriguing idea but in practice very questionable. I cannot imagine it to be a smartbomblike thing because that would be completely worthless on stations and busy gates, but magically killing gun rounds flying towards your ship is not exactly reasonable.
As for the distress beacon and using larger ships: Taloses already exist and they are much more character-efficient than Catalysts. You only need 7 Taloses to gank a freighter, for instance. Fayle with her 26 chars would just have to create 5 more chars to be able to gank 4 targets at once with using Taloses.
You only use counter plays before the gank. Try them during the gank. Webbers are easily countered by insta lockers, taking different routes only gets you so far, finding direct wormhole connections is a tedious activity and means a lot more effort for no additional rewards.
Eh? What would be the point in that if my pre-emptive counterplays work perfectly well?
You want someone who messes up the first set to get a second chance?
This tilting board against the gankers gets more ridiculous by the second.
Seriously, if you get yourself in position to be ganked, why should you get a second, third etc chance to get out of it ?
You want fair and unfair at the same time.
I dont use any of these, havent needed to yet
But why not attack it today? It’s not like moving ganker clones to citadels would suddenly create a whole lot of new incentives to attack them. And like I said, it would be easy and fairly cheap to keep cycling throwaway structures in order to get around these limitations. It takes a week to kill a structure, which would come out to be slightly north of 150M per day in sunk costs, assuming new structures are attacked immediately. And the gankers could pop the core when it comes out, denying any sort of profit. This proposal would not lead to any more structure fights than it does today, not in any reasonable capacity.
All it would be is an extra inconvenience for gankers, and you have to justify that with more than just “well I don’t like what they do!” because this is a game, and games need balance.
We’re starting to prototype such weapons in real life today. Computers and machines think and move faster than humans. A hypothetical laser PD or flak system in the year 20,000 could be entirely viable. besides this is a game, and the science doesn’t have to make sense. And no, it wouldn’t be an AoE effect like a smartbomb.
Yes, but they’re still disposable ships. Ganking could be turned into actual fights instead of the fee-based system it is today.
I didn’t get the memo.
Oh, that’s easy. The empires just don’t want criminals in their stations any longer. I mean, gankers that just killed a freighter with a pilot from CAS or HU docking up in the next best Caldari Navy facility, even though they got a massive standing hit with these corps? Totally logical, right?
It is not supposed to lead to massively more structure bashes, it is supposed to give people a proper venue for retaliation. Right now there is no reason to attack the CODE fortizar in Uedama. All the good stuff is safe in the LaiDai station in system. Without that safe space, there would be an actual incentive to hire mercs to attack that Fortizar and other structures related to CODE.
Then it would not be ganking anymore but wars without the war dec mechanics hassle. That’s not what gankers want. They don’t look for fights, they look to get a ship killed as quickly as possible to get the loot and tears. If they were after fights, they would instead go suspect bait mission runners or on gates.
Its not what those who feel they should be able to opt out of ship loss want, you mean.
1 Like
Just to destroy their medical clones? This does not make sense. They could easily get around this just by rolling over disposable stations. You would be adding a cost to gankers, as opposed to an incentive for the station bashers, who wouldn’t have any additional reasons to attack those stations over the ones they have today.
No, they would still be ganks, as evident by the still-existing police response in the idea. Last time I checked, being at war didn’t offer anyone the privilege of having an NPC navy back them up.
I did a few PvE missions back in the day, when I was drunk.
I have positive empire standings. When I dock at Jita IV-4 I’m greeted by the commandant, and when I return to Khanid Prime they throw me a military parade.
1 Like
Oh I didn’t know that , thank you
Yeah it’s been an issue since Upwell Structures were introduced. I’ve filed reports and passed the word on to CSM members that claim to have given it to CCP.
Unfortunately it’s one of those things that assists in breaking targeting hunting. Yet another niche activity gone.