Proposal: Post-Criminal Exposure Window in Highsec 🟥

EVE Technology and Research Center Player Features & Ideas
1

This is not a proposal to remove highsec ganking.

It is a proposal to introduce meaningful reciprocity.

Right now, highsec suicide ganking is mechanically clean:

  • The aggressor chooses the time and target.
  • CONCORD guarantees destruction.
  • The hull loss is pre-budgeted.
  • The event resolves and resets.

There is no sustained exposure beyond the single engagement.

Suggested change:

After a criminal kill in highsec, the attacking character receives a temporary “Empire Marked” status for a fixed duration (for example, 24–72 hours).

During this window:

  • The marked character can be legally engaged anywhere in highsec by anyone.
  • No suspect timer games. No kill right activation required.
  • The flag persists across ships.
  • The timer pauses while offline to prevent simple logout avoidance.

This does not prevent ganking.
It does not alter CONCORD response.
It does not remove disposable hull loss.

It simply creates a post-engagement vulnerability window.

Why this helps:

  • Introduces escalation potential.
  • Makes industrial-scale repetition riskier.
  • Encourages organized retaliation gameplay.
  • Creates actual highsec hunter content.
  • Adds reciprocity without deleting piracy.

Nullsec conflict escalates.
Lowsec conflict escalates.
Wormhole conflict escalates.

Highsec suicide ganking currently resolves instantly and resets.

This proposal adds a structured aftermath without removing the mechanic itself.

Risk versus reward remains.

Reciprocity improves.

1 Like
2

Alts.

1 Like
3

Context.

4

This mechanic already exists in the form of the outlaw status and, to a lesser extent, kill rights. CCP doesn’t want long term punishment for players shooting other players. That’s why they added tags to the game.

1 Like
5

Does this include complete non access to any and all hi sec stations? The entire idea would become moot if the criminals can hide their timer away.

Edit: well yea i guess the guns would take care of that issue.

6

I have a suggestion for you.
If you want to make long term consequence for gankers, have you ever considered ganking them before they gank?

Since you are ignoring my suggestion to watch MacGybo’s videos on stealing loot from gankers, why not fight fire with fire?

Gankers tend to fly cheap destroyers or battle cruisers that are all offense and no defense, right?

Sounds like they should be easy targets!

You have repeatedly stated that ganking is totally reliable and risk-free right?

Why not build a cheaper build than their build and gank the gankers?

If ganking is as you claim it should be easy peasy for you to knock down a squadron of tornadoes and catalysts.

Give it a try. Maybe you could start some type of a corp that specializes in ganking gankers for hire.

1 Like
7

When I say “reliable,” I mean predictable.

The aggressor:

  • Chooses the target.
  • Calculates required DPS.
  • Knows the exact CONCORD response time.
  • Budgets the hull loss in advance.

That makes the outcome highly predictable from their side.

If I shoot their throwaway ship pre-emptively, I get a criminal or suspect timer while they reship and reset. That does not materially disrupt the operation.

So the question isn’t whether they lose ships. They obviously do.

The question is whether there is meaningful counterplay that:

  1. Disrupts the operation before the strike, or
  2. Creates sustained exposure after the strike.

Right now most of the suggested responses are mitigation, not reciprocity.

If you think there is a mechanic that creates real operational disruption rather than just a 15-minute timeout on the defender, I’m open to hearing it.

2 Likes
8

Follow them around with half a dozen blackbirds. Keep them locked. When they start to blink, start jamming.

9

Okay. So if you want to take away something, to keep it balanced you have to offer something. Else it is just another nerf in the disguise of a “smart idea”.

So, please be specific: What buff to their gameplay would you offer gankers in return to have your idea accepted?

10

The assumption here is that adding reciprocity automatically equals taking something away.

It does not.

If highsec ganking remains mechanically identical at the point of engagement, then nothing has been removed from the act itself. The aggressor still chooses the time, target, and fit. CONCORD still responds the same way. The strike still functions.

What changes is the post-engagement environment.

Right now the mechanic is self-contained. It resolves and resets. Adding a temporary exposure window is not subtracting power from the strike. It is introducing sustained interaction afterward.

If you consider any increase in consequence a “nerf,” then by that logic no system can ever evolve toward greater reciprocity.

That said, if the concern is maintaining gameplay depth, the “buff” is simple: more targets.

A structured exposure window would create:

  • Highsec bounty hunters.
  • Organized retaliation groups.
  • Active hunting gameplay.
  • More combat outside the initial strike.

That expands content rather than compressing it.

Balance does not always require symmetrical subtraction. Sometimes it requires expanding the interaction surface.

11

You want to add a “consequence” to ganking that currently is not there. Thats the definition of a nerf. You’d consider that logical or justified or whatever, but thats just your personal opinion.

So, unless you offer some pretty nice buff to ganking alongside your nerf, hard no from me. Learning how not to be ganked is incredibly easy so we don’t talk about a “solution for a problem” here, just a change proposal to further limit and oppress a playstile you personally don’t like. I don’t have problems changing mechanics to make them more immersive or interesting, but your idea don’t seem to be what makes EVE a better game to enjoy.

And: nobody wants to read more ChatGPT â– â– â– â– , really.

12

Calling any added consequence a “nerf” assumes the current state is the correct equilibrium.

That is a value judgment, not an objective baseline.

Highsec already imposes consequences on aggression: CONCORD response, security status loss, kill rights. Those are structural constraints, not oppression of a playstyle.

The proposal simply extends consequence beyond the immediate hull loss to create sustained interaction. That does not prevent ganking. It introduces escalation potential.

If your position is that highsec aggression should remain fully self-contained and reset instantly, that is a defensible preference. But it is still a preference.

Saying “learning not to be ganked is easy” does not address the structural point. Mitigation existing does not automatically mean reciprocity exists.

The debate is about whether highsec security tiers should create ongoing exposure beyond a disposable hull. Not whether ganking should be removed.

If you believe the current design is already optimal for long-term gameplay health, explain why insulation is preferable to escalation. That is the actual design question.

1 Like
13

Well ive seen enough.

Mister ChatGPT is bye bye.

Jeez people, if you want to suggest new ideas, then at least use your own brain to suggest them.

I say close this thread now before it starts any brush fires.

2 Likes
14

Logical fallacy.

That never was my position. Disliking your idea and liking the current design are two entirely different pair of shoes. If I have milk and don’t really like milk, then you offer me coffe but I decline because I don’t like coffee either and rather stick with the milk instead, that doesn’t suddenly mean I like milk. I would like water, but that is not what you are offering.

Same here. Logical fallacy, I never said anything about that being my position. Your ChatGPT bot clearly sucks interpreting arguments.

It is an argument that the current state isn’t so bad that a “solution” is needed urgently. So the long term health of HS isn’t relying on accepting your proposal, we can absolutely wait for a better idea. And in the meantime, migitation of dangers is an absolutely valid gameplay strategy, being part of the design and balance of many successful games. Absolutely nothing to worry about it being part of EVE.

Again. Not my position Mr. AI chatbot. A human would have noticed. Stop wasting our time.

15

image
image1900Ă—1374 488 KB

Let’s reset the framing because we’re talking past each other.

You’re not saying the current design is perfect. You’re saying my proposal is not compelling enough to justify change. That’s fair.

But rejecting a proposal does not require reframing it as an attack on a playstyle or an urgent “solution to a crisis.” I’m not arguing highsec is collapsing. I’m arguing that its conflict loop is structurally self-contained.

You’re right that mitigation is valid gameplay. I’ve never disputed that. The question is whether mitigation alone is sufficient design depth for a security tier that is marketed as governed space.

You use the milk/coffee analogy. That’s fine. But that doesn’t make the proposal a logical fallacy. It simply means you don’t find it preferable to the current state. That’s a subjective evaluation, not a proof that additional reciprocity equals oppression.

The only real design question here is this:

Should highsec aggression create sustained interaction beyond the immediate engagement window?

You can answer “no, the current loop is fine.”
You can answer “yes, but not with this idea.”
Both are legitimate positions.

What doesn’t move the discussion forward is dismissing the premise as inherently flawed without explaining why insulation is preferable to escalation.

If you think there is a better approach than mine, propose it. I’m open to alternatives.

2 Likes
16

The outcome it exactly the same for them as it is for you. If they can lose their ship and take a security hit but it doesn’t mean anything for them, why is it onerous for you?

Clearing away a bunch of tornadoes at the gate so you can get your hauler through absolutely disrupts the ganking operation. Is the problem that this does not permanently stop their gameplay? That is what it sounds like you are asking, a way to eliminate the entire play style.

You seem to be using words in nonstandard way. Using the mwd/cloak trick to be away before you are targeted disrupts the gank before the strike. Ganking threatening ships at a gate disrupts the operation before the strike. If no strike occurs, then by definition the strike has been disrupted.

Ganking Ganker’s ships in wonderful petty revenge clearly creates sustained exposure after the strike. At least as long as you can sustain it.

What does mitigation and reciprocity mean to you? You are clearly not using the common definitions of the words. Using dscan to get off grid before the gankers get your barge is the counterplay to ganking. Reciprocity is a tit for tat action. Stealing the loot from gankers is clearly that. Preemptive ganking is clearly that.

If the rabbit consistently escapes the cat’s claws the mama cat’s kittens starve and the forest runs out of cats. If haulers and miners consistently get away, they are making a profit while the gankers are not. I can’t think of a better form of winning for a pve player than that.

A fifteen-minute time out should be more than enough time to get your hauler through. It is enough time to get your barge home. It is enough time to get your marauder home. You are profiting and they are not. I accused you of wanted to end someone else’s playstyle earlier. I say that again. What is it that you want? A way to make the gankers cry and apologies to you and never gank again? You do want to end a popular and long held game style because it inconveniences you from running with all cargo expanders.

Too bad, in a free for al sandbox game you are not free from other people’s actions.

EvE is one of the last few non-consentual pvp games on the market. Please quit trying to nerf other people’s game play @Gasephed_Sinak. It is amazingly rude and inconsiderate.

Your tyranny of rabbits will only drive more people away from this game.

17

We are not disagreeing about whether mitigation exists. It obviously does.

Cloak/MWD, d-scan, scouting, pre-clearing Tornadoes, stealing loot, counter-ganking — all of that is valid gameplay. I have never claimed otherwise.

The distinction I am making is this:

Mitigation reduces the probability of a successful strike.

Reciprocity imposes structured consequence on the aggressor after a strike occurs.

Those are not the same thing.

If I avoid the gank, nothing changes for the attacker except variance. Their operational model remains intact. They reship and try again. That is not sustained exposure; it is cost of doing business.

If I counter-gank them preemptively, I take a criminal or suspect flag in highsec unless I carefully engineer it. That asymmetry is part of the design.

Stealing loot or petty revenge is emergent gameplay, yes. But it is not structurally supported escalation. It requires voluntary commitment from the defender, not systemic exposure from the aggressor.

You ask what I want.

I do not want ganking removed.

I am questioning whether highsec — marketed as governed space — should produce conflict loops that resolve instantly and reset, rather than escalate.

You say fifteen minutes is enough.

Enough for what?

Enough to move your own ship.
Not enough to create ongoing interaction between aggressor and defender.

If your position is that highsec conflict should primarily be about avoidance and profit efficiency, that is coherent.

My position is that governed space could support more structured escalation without removing non-consensual PvP.

That is not ending a playstyle. It is asking whether the loop is insulated by design.

If you think insulation is preferable to escalation, explain why that produces better long-term gameplay.

That is the design question.

1 Like
18

Quit fear mongering @Gasephed_Sinak. Its driving away new players.

2 Likes
19

We can stop here because you seem to lack knowledge about the game.

Migitation is of course not the only way to counter ganking. It is just the easiest one, available to everyone.

  • you can also bait the gankers into attacking you and fail
  • you can bring in support ships that help you to tank during a gank
  • you can bring in support ships that kill them faster than they can kill you
  • you can bring in support ships that scare off gankers so they don’t target you
  • you can use available killrights to flag them suspect, allowing others to freely attack them. doing so right before a valuable target comes along denies them the kill
  • you can harass their camps with instalock EWAR ships or bumpers, significantly weakening their efficiency if you know what your are doing, while under the same CONCORD protection they use (this is literally what they pay the tags for)
  • you can countergank them, Tornados can be easily killed

So, don’t act as if “running and hiding” is the only option. It isn’t. Most people are simply too lazy to learn how to interact with gankers.

What I have said is moving the discussion forward by pointing out that what you propose is a simple nerf and before we use that proposal, we should wait for a better one.

I don’t need to be a cook to judge if a meal is tasty. Your idea isn’t something I like because I think it lacks balance and would simply lead to making life for gankers harder. Which is the primary intention imho, you probably won’t convince me otherwise. And thats not an approach I like.

2 Likes
20

Just say NO to fear mongering!

Its driving away new players…

3 Likes