As a War Deccer in High Sec I have seen how the game play has shifted since the new changes to war decs. With more people able to hide from a war dec, ganking has increased.
I would like to see more skill involved in ganking in general. Why not give freighters and other ships like this a panic button for anti-ganking. Lots of new players suffer at the hands of ganking and it should offer more skill.
My recommendation would be to give freighters panic buttons.
Which Effects in Detail this Panicbutton should have ?
So i think Newbrows won´t be ganked in Freighters, but in smaler Industrial Ships - so how a Button on Freighters could help them?
hahaha, panic buttons⌠lmao what a ridiculous idea. to what end? so they flash red.
I am more a carebear than anything I dont gank, but really how little thought did you put into that, a panic button .
how would this âincrease skill involvedâ ?
Baiting out a panic button and timing of panic button from those being ganked.
Same as the Roq has or the ADCs.
if you want ganking to take more skill then rather have suaciding in high sec give -1 sec status for killig the ship in high and as long as you have -5 sec status your ship alignâs 25% slower in high.
This will either:
Force gankers to choose targets more carefully.
Pay a lot more for tagâs.
Or chill on -10 and have to sweat worrying about a pvper nearby ready to grabbing their flashy ass while going after their target.
So more like a great train heist 1 mistake and youâre â â â â â â .
so why does the game need this additional skill introduced?
LOL. And what do you propose the panic button should do? I mean, youâre gonna need some time machine stuff too if it has to be able to deal with those pesky TornadosâŚ
Iâm sure this proposal is gonna get the attention from CCP it deserves⌠
Or we could ask CCP to just make Ganking harder! As it stands ganking is far too easy and hardly costs anything.
My idea here add balance to something that is clearly broken 
Wait. Youâre being serious?
If itâs âclearly brokenâ can you explain how it is broken?
From what I see, a large group of players have to coordinate, fit ships, hunt and wait, then spring a proper engagement that acts as a race against time. And regardless of the outcome, they all lose their ships to Concord. On the other side, the freighter pilot is just afk auto-piloting from gate to gate without paying attention.
If anything, it seems unbalanced in favor of the freighter pilot, given how much work the gankers need to put in.
Am I wrong here or am I missing something thatâs âclearly brokenâ?
Though I agree that ganking is cheaper, easier and requires less skills than many other activities, what is your metric for it being âtooâ easy and what is the hard limit after which it becomes âtooâ easy ?
50% chance to function like an ADCU.
50% chance to immediately and irrevocably biomass the toon and leave the freighter floating unpiloted in space.
You know, I think OP might actually be on to something here.
This Topic has been moved to Player Features and Ideas Discussion
I had a similar idea and might have posted about it years ago.
Now that the idea is in the ideas and features section,could everyone help to flesh out the idea and let it grow and save being negative about it for later? You know, I even toy with my own ideas for a while before dismissing them.
So anyway, my concept of a panic button was more like a âsurrender buttonâ. And its COMPLICATED and would probably require several changes rather than be a simple stand-alone feature.
In a nut shell, pushing the button would disable all weapons and propulsion for something like 5 to 15 mintues, and then do something to make the ship nearly impossible to gank, like throwing all power to shields, or preventing all attacks from ships that were attacking at the time the button was hit. SOMETHING like that, but I donât have a clear idea yet. (Help me). Further this could mean that the attacking ship (in hi sec) is no longer targeted by Concord. (Of course, I would like to see Concord taken out of the picture in various ways which would dovetail with this idea).
The point is that the attacking ship would now be able to demand ISK directly. It would make being a true highwayman in EVE possible. It would increase role play. It would add to PVP.
Other points (I did say it was complicated)
â Hitting the panic button could have the effect of shutting down the attacking ships weapons as trained on that ship, followed by a pop up for the attacking pilot which announces the surrender. If the pilot accepts the surrender then weapons stay off. If the pilot declines the surrender then the weapons go right back to firing.
---- Surrender terms could be automatic ISK payment settings, whether as an offer or a demand or both. So perhaps you hit the panic button and offer 10 million to end the attack. The attacker can accept that, in which case their weapons will no longer damage that ship for the next 24 hours or something. Of the attacker can decline and all proceeds as normal (unless the ship got extra tank as part of the feature but with Concord out of the way and the ship immobile with non-functioning weapons, the attacker is going to crack it eventually).
Yeah, I know there are problems and gaps, especially when its considered there may be multiple attackers. But could you all stop giving up so easy? EVE was not buiit in a day and was not buiit on negativity either. It was build on finding a way despite difficulties. You know that right?
So codifying the ransom process that is currently manually done by interested attackers, into a system that attackers or defenders can trigger automatically in some fashion?
As a base concept it sounds interesting as a way for freight bumpers/duel-baiters and mission suspect baiters to offer âhonorableâ ransom opportunities (since the system would enforce making the aggressing ship no longer able to interfere with the defender), but I donât think it would be particularly viable in gank situations as gankers arenât motivated to accept this kind of intervention - they would still be at risk from AG ship attacks, even if CONCORD was called off, and all the delays built into doing the ransom would give time for a response fleet to arrive - plus the complexity of the system handling multiple concurrent aggressors successfully in a scenario where the attackers are intending to essentially alpha the target.
So you say. I would like to see those metrics.
In the main ganking zones, arenât most basing out of citadels by now? Regardless of align wouldnât they be getting tether benefits so I donât know that a longer align matters. Now maybe losing access to tether as a -10 could add to thatâŚ
Pointing out flaws in an idea is not âbeing negativeâ Maybe you could ease up on thinking every pointed out flaw is not an attack. Pointing out flaws helps to flesh out an idea to where it ultimately addresses those flaws or becomes evident it hit a dead end.
And when you do I imagine you consider both the positives and negatives with your own ideas? I mean if so, why are you attacking yourself 
(<â smiles to point out the hopefully obvious non-serious joking aspect of this sentence).
Rather than quote individual sections Iâll just overall through out my concerns with such an idea.
First, any method that would disable the attackers weapons opens a serious can of worms. I"ll keep this to HS as that is where most consider this to be âgankingâ
The attacker goes red by attacking. Concord gets called, and then surrender button is hit. What happens next? If the attacker just has his guns disabled, but is now red, any random could then just open fire and pop them.
Ok so say this surrender button negates the effects of the attack, Concord stops coming, and a random can no longer attack.
Well then whatâs to say a tornado ganker, if heâs fast enough, pops a hauler, then targets his alt on gate, shoots them, their alt hits surrender. He does a 1 isk ransom which has now reset himself and called off concord.
Now this is one example, but I hope it serves to show that there are many potential scenarios that would need to be thought about where the system could be âgamedâ. It also makes HS engagement rules even harder to understand, expecially for new players.
The freighters most commonly ganked are ones that donât have triple bulkheads. If youâre dying frequently in triple bulkheaded freighters in highsec then itâs entirely user error. CCP shouldnât have to baby industrial pilots by giving them Assault Damage Controls or anything like that just because they canât fit their ship properly. Smaller industrials have even less excuse because they can cloak+MWD and be practically untouchable. Highsec wardecs got gutted already, gutting ganking would kill highsec. This feature would damage the economy by making goods easier to transport and freighters have less demand. This is a bad idea.
Great job misrepresenting everything I said and putting words in my mouth. You are doing a great job demonstrating how people need to slow the hell down before posting and have a think.
For one, it takes time for an idea to be fleshed out enough to even say it has flaws. Many here are not allowing an idea to have the time to get fleshed out before being hypernegative with with words like âneverâ, âimpossibleâ, âbad ideaâ, âhorribleâ, etc etc.
And a dead end? Dude, read the bit you quoted from me three times so you might actually absorb what is there. I said, clearly, and you quoted it, âsave being negative for laterâ. Yeah, if you gave it a chance and after thinking about it for a week or so and decided it was a dead end, great. Say so. My issue is people immediately heaping presumptive negativity on an idea before giving it even half a chance. Or even half an hour. Thatâs crap.
Could you just admit thatâs crap and its happening a lot? Could you even go the extra mile and start addressing the peope doing it and HELP ME and all of us rather than criticize me at every step?