Is that an “argument”? Like taking a beating is “fending off”? Just asking out of curiosity. But to answer your question (I am a very polite person), no, the writing itself did not take this long. I am watching youtube videos while browsing the forums. Do you need more details?
I mean, there’s really nothing to discuss.
It’s been roughly a week since a Highsec freighter was ganked. They are already too difficult to kill, and nobody is doing it anymore.
So it’s fair to assume freighters aren’t going to get buffed, and whatever arguments you have, it’s all just moot and absolutely nothing is going to change.
If a freighter pilot can’t avoid the non-existent giant ball of Catalysts that basically only sits in one system less than once a month, then that’s really a problem with the freighter pilot’s intelligence. It’s pretty easy to avoid the non-existent gankers.
5 Likes
You don’t need to respond.
Probably right. Not nessessary good.
Sure, I can totally agree with that. I don’t even see a big “problem” with freighters. I just dislike bad design and would like to see improvements here.
I know, but I like to. And I have a posting permit. An unlimited one. 
Yep, this garbage thread is full of bad posts that nobody will ever read.
Enjoy yourself!
I’d just like to interject for a moment. What you’re referring to as ganking, is in fact, Mining permit sales/ganking, or as I’ve recently taken to calling it, mining permit sales plus ganking. Ganking is not a highsec system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning highsec system made useful by the CODE., shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full system of government as defined by political theory.
Many EVE users run a modified version of the Ganking system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of Ganking which is widely used today is often called “Ganking”, and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the Ganking system, developed by the CODE. and Safety. alliances.
There really is a Ganking, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. Ganking is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the highsec’s resources to the other highsecs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of a highsec system of government, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete highsec system of government. Ganking is normally used in combination with the Ganking highsec system of government: the whole system is basically Ganking with Ganking added, or Ganking/Ganking. All the so-called “Ganking” distributions are really distributions of Ganking/Ganking.
1 Like
Ship Prices
CCP already adjusted the build requirements of faction ships, which is why they’re so expensive right now. Moreover, this might be part of the reason why people are complaining so much about ganking, in spite of ganking being in a bad spot right now. Fewer people are getting ganked, but the losses are much more painful, and there is a greater disparity between the cost of ganker and gank victim ships. Now, to be clear, I am not saying that cheaper ships shouldn’t be able to kill more expensive ships, or that ganking should be nerfed in order to fix the problem. I’m saying that the risk to reward ratio of some ships is out of line, and that the solution is to bring their risk to reward ratios back into line by reducing their prices.
Let me put it this way, the most expensive pirate faction frigates are selling for more than the cheapest T2 cruisers. Well yeah, I agree that something is wrong here. Were I disagree with people is on what the solution is. To me, the solution is to bring overpriced ships back into line, not nerf a struggling play style even more, and make it even easier for players to optimize towards boredom.
Instanced Content
Well, first of all, CCP should stop creating new instanced content. Second, Eve has non-instanced content, so there is definitely ways to make it work. The real questions are how much dev time will be involved, and how radically do you want to change things.
Anyway, for the problem you mentioned, you could actually borrow from mechanics that have already existed in abyssal space. Make an outgate that doesn’t open if too many ships are present. Slowly reduce resists so that you don’t end up with stalemates. Adjust clock times, rewards, and or rat difficulty in order to account for the increased danger from PvP. You could also, if you were so inclined, slowly reduce the “grid” or whatever it’s called, to prevent people from being able to use super cheap kitey ships to ransom PvE’ers.
Salvaging
I can’t remember who said it, but I once heard a dev say that he wanted wrecks to be more like whale falls, and wanted them to be something that players would congregate around and fight over. And, that’s more what I would like to see. I’m not opposed to mini games if salvagers like them, or having to balance time with what you get out of the wreck, as long as it organically leads to emergent game play opportunities.
Paladins
Yes, pally’s have cap issues, but you also have a lot of options to help mitigate those issues, and they are still powerful in spite of the fitting trade offs you have to make. Thus, I feel like they are already in a good place in spite of their cap issues, and that giving them more cap might result in them being a little too powerful. And, do note that this is coming from someone whose favorite marauder is a Pally. So, this is kind of like cheap T2 ship prices to me. As a player, I won’t complain too much about the thing that benefits me, but, as an armchair dev, I have some reservations.
P.S. Check out mutaplasmids. You can use them to make cheap alternatives to faction mods that can help with cap (i.e. Gravid + compact large cap battery, decayed + restrained MWD). And this is, of course, in addition to all the other fitting mods, rigs, implants, and drugs (FYI, synth boosters got their strength buffed a year or two ago, so Synth Mindflood + Biology V is an affordable and effective option for those that need it.)
Sec Status
You can already freely engage people with low enough sec status. Are you wanting to raise the sec status at which you can engage people?
Facpo
Speaking of which, Facpo does discourage conflict between gankers and AG’s by incentivizing gankers to remain tethered. In fact, Facpo is the reason I don’t want to get rid of tether -it’s because trying to undock a squad of gankers from an NPC station without losing any to facpo ranges from a crap shoot, to literally impossible, depending on how many accounts you have. However, it is important to note that removing Facpo would also make ganking easier in different ways (i.e. easier for gankers to loiter on gates, and they could now chase down ships that are off the beacon in ded space pockets). Personally, I’m open to the idea, but you’re probably going to get a lot of pushback from some people.
The fly never thinks there’s a good reason for there to be less sh1t in the world.
The gankers can up their game, I have seen one ganker use an Eris to gank, you can also switch to a Talos if you do not want to have several accounts. That was the choice AG had forced on them with the EHP of freighter wrecks? Why are gankers different?
I see a lot of miners fitting for yield and relying on their base tank, which means that two Catalysts in 0.5-0.6 systems can blow them up.
This has a tank of sorts.
Had a better tank, took three.
Tell me again that this is incorrect, as this looks fine to me.
Why use six gankers on this?:
I’m not sure that I’m entirely opposed to people doing that, assuming that you couldn’t do it by ganking rookie ships (and probably shuttles), and that it was balanced in such a way that people couldn’t make systems completely safe just by ganking x number of ships in that system every day.
Well, discourse won’t let you just post a quote. You also still have to type something. So…
did you guys know that excel e-sports was a thing?
Insert your own spreadsheets in space joke here.
1 Like
Well, I agree with you on this. However, “mini freighters” would also make highsec logistics a lot more tedious. But, on the plus side, it would probably be a big boon to ganking. I mean, players already overload freighters with too much value as it is, so this would probably lead to increase in the number of loot pinatas.
Hi SJ, I can’t recall where I saw this (might’ve been one of Destiny’s posts), but the poster indicated that if you do this:
< text > (without the spaces before and after the word ‘text’), you’ll have created an empty post.
1 Like
Maybe he had a criminal timer he had to wait out…
…yup.
I’m proposing the security ratings become more dynamic. My understanding is that it’s currently a cut off with high sec low sec. The only difference between the tiers of sec in high sec is when and how soon NPCs will come for you. Well I’ve always been of the belief that the less there is in the hands of NPCs and the more in the hands of players the better.
I don’t think I explained my point well enough on instanced content. My primary concern is on those already using that isk font abusing it further. I wouldn’t want to be the person that said remove their play style entirely but equally speaking it needs a rethink.
Pirate frigates ships costing more than T2 cruisers feels right to me. There are some pretty disgusting pirate frigates. The garmur for instance has no business being priced as a frigate. Yes the pricing on the materials is a problem though. It’s prohibitive to manufacture them at the moment. I used to run the odd Guristas l4 and build worms but it doesn’t seem worth it at the mo.
The Paladin comment was more of a joke. The percentage that means it is the same part of me that will always jump in a vargur when it’s pvp time as it’s hands down the best pvp Marauder imo. If we are looking for a squishy target with multiple marauders on grid we’ll always shoot the Palis first.
I wouldn’t say ganking is in a bad place right now though. I see loads of ganking happening in HS when I pass through it and looking at catalyst kills on Zkill shows no shortage. I think you are suffering from the same thing we all are. A lot of people got their spirit broken by fanfest and even when they are logged on they aren’t in space.
Still war is coming, the goons are on the move, going to be a lot of content very soon.
I wanted CCP to put in a dedicated criminal rating which would enable deputized player characters to hunt them regardless of their security status. And if this started to work then pull back on CONCORD a little. Maybe better just from criminal acts in hisec, or maybe lowsec added to it at a greatly reduced rate, would be great if players were doing security.
I read this as “I don’t have a problem with ganking, but it needs to be nerfed to the ground so nobody does it anymore”.
Can you be more specific? Do you have problem with clone soldier tags? Why? Do you think they are too cheap? Too accessible? Or maybe you think that gankers should be spending hours ratting to be able to go back to ganking?
Here is my proposal:
- faction police will only start showing up under security status -5
- if player has security status lower than minimum security status of that sector for facpo to chase player currently, ie less than -2 in 1.0, -2.5 in 0.9 etc., then he will be permanently suspect instead - this way he can operate in space, but can be attacked by other players EDIT: from a technical side of the thing, basically as long as player is in such system the suspect flag would keep renewing instantly, if he suddenly left such system and entered a system where his security status is “within bounds” then the suspect flag would start decaying with usual 15 minute timer.
- ideally, faction police won’t appear unless the character under -5 shows up near station, gate, or any other non-cloaked capsuleer, ie. if they will be at safespot, then facpo won’t show up, but that is not that big deal to me
- ideally, and only if 3 is done, then gankers with security status under -5 cannot dock in highsec stations at all, only player citadels
- tethering I don’t care about that, not relevant in this case imo
What is point of my proposal:
It should make life of a -10 ganker more logical and less obnoxious to deal with. It is not logical that they can dock in NPC stations, neither that facpo shows up after 3 seconds no matter where we are.
It should increase the options of anti-gankers or whatever they want to call themselves to engage against gankers.
Now to be more specific, to allow gank-haters to graps my concept as they lack knowledge to understand it:
Right now, there are 2 types of gankers. Those who use clone soldier tags (or PvE) to fix their security status so they can avoid being attacked by players (except killrights) and being harassed by facpo. And those who go all the way to the -10 and avoid any contact with players and facpo either via citadel tethering or by constant rewarping (which is prone to errors) or by staying docked in npc station and undocking just a few seconds before the gank (which is also prone to errors).
Those with -10 are currently forced to staying tethered at citadel, especially if they are multiboxed. And where anti-gankers have hard time to do anything against us (because lets face it, they sucks and they don’t take losing very well).
If my suggestion would come into reality, then we would no longer need to use citadel. I mean sure we would still use it, but in case there is no public citadel available to us and we don’t want or have possibility to deploy our own, then we could stay with our -10 gankers at safespot. And safespot can be probed down by antigankers and they can ambush us there and when they do it, facpo even helps them so in fact single AG would be able to destroy whole fleet of gankers, or at least as many as he can point.
Likewise, those of us who want to gank in systems above 0.5 would have another option - not to fix our security status in exchange for permanent suspect flag. This changes nothing for alpha gankers who wants to stay at station undock or at gate, and it changes nothing for -10 gankers as they are already being hunted by both facpo and players, but yet again, it might incentive -10 gankers to fix their status and stay at -5 at worst so they can stay in safespot instead of tethered. Additionally gankers who likes to roam solo would no longer need to deal with facpo until -5. And I can imagine that lot of players would start commiting crimes just for that permanent suspect flag in highsec. I would definitely do that with at least one alt just for the thrill
1 Like
Wow that’s a lot of text.
None of that was proposed as a nerf to ganking! It was proposed as part of a sub conversation going on about making high sec more interesting.
Gankers don’t have a monopoly on low sec status. There are miners and haulers with yellow skulls on their logos.
It really is just about making the game more dynamic and putting more in the hands of the players.
That being said I’m not an expert game designers I’m sure there are consequences outside both our reality tunnels we aren’t seeing on this and maybe it will as you put it ‘nerf ganking to the ground’.
Seems unlikely as you already have to deal with NPC response teams. In the hands of the players it’s just going to be both patchier and bring more content to you.
Any such method should really only be applied to a small area of space rather than an entire system. To apply it to the entire system would mean people could simply enter via gates the gankers were not active at…yet still gain the reduced Concord time bonus. So it would make more sense to apply it only within maybe 1AU of any gate, asteroid belt, or station where ganking has occurred. There should also be a time duration for the effect…a short one, maybe 15 mins or half an hour. Anyone passing through such an area would get a notice and icon on the screen to the effect of ’ Concord response time is decreased by 10% ( or whatever ) within 1AU of this stargate '.
I agree that highsec needs to me made more dynamic and stimulating, but I don’t think any nerf to ganking is going to achieve that. In fact I think nerfs to ganking will just leave highsec a boring place.
What’s really needed is to re-introduce bounties and widen the scope of wardecs and of duels. I like the idea of having consensual highsec brawls that anyone can get involved in…rather than just 1v1…a sort of extended duel. The highsec equivalent of a bar brawl. No need to be in any particular corp or whatever.