Letâs try to keep this thread focused on the specific proposal.
The topic is a post-criminal exposure window in highsec and whether it improves reciprocity without removing ganking.
If you disagree with the idea, thatâs fine. Please explain why the current conflict loop is preferable, or suggest an alternative approach that preserves non-consensual PvP while adding meaningful escalation.
Comments about alts, posting style, or motives donât really help evaluate the design question.
Iâm interested in concrete mechanical objections or improvements to the concept.
Again, this mechanic already exists in the form of the outlaw status. CCP intentionally gave gankers a way to remove this status as many times as they desire.
you forget about all the -10 pirates that undock , zoom to safe, zoom to gate, jump on targetâŠ
your proposal wastes dev time.
will not have any effect.
is easy to work around
and you forget 3 chars per acctâŠif they want they can just play round robin as a work around.
no on cares about your proposal
@ISD_Greenery first name to pop up when i type the isd monikerâŠcan you close this thread it will go no where
You wonât let it though. You are arguing against some people who are pretty anti-ganking and not even winning them over and burying them in AI hallucinations.
The OP wants people to respond directly to ChatGPT:
After a criminal kill in highsec, the attacking character receives a temporary âEmpire Markedâ status for a fixed duration (for example, 24â72 hours). During this window: The marked character can be legally engaged
My fully respectful and detailed response is as follows:
There is no need for this, as the game already includes this feature via the mechanisms which control security status, criminal timers, and killrights. Any expansion of this system would be considered a nerf to ganking, but no evidence has been provided that ganking should be reduced. Expanding the vulnerability timer to three days would unfairly harm new players, who might accidentally trigger CONCORD. It would not be a significant deterrent for experienced gankers, who already deal with this system. While the OP may feel these systems should be adjusted, it is clear the playerbase does not agree. The current post-engagement vulnerability window is sufficient, and no further discussion is needed.
I have now invited ChatGPT to respond to the original post, writing in the âstyleâ of Aiko Danuja (thatâs me). Without further ado, ChatGPT as AikoâŠ
This reads less like a proposal and more like a one-sided framing exercise. You present the current system as âmechanically cleanâ and âresetting,â but that characterization only works if you ignore the actual systems already in place: security status penalties, criminal timers, and killrights. Those are not minor details. They are the reciprocity layer. Omitting them isnât analysis, itâs selective framing.
Your argument is built on an intellectually dishonest omission. Once you define the system as lacking consequence, any added punishment looks like âbalance.â But that premise is not demonstrated, itâs merely asserted (and wrongly so).
You claim this adds âreciprocity,â but what you are really proposing is a blanket, multi-day vulnerability flag that applies universally and without discretion. That is not a refinement of the system. It is a blunt expansion of punishment that disproportionately affects players who are least equipped to manage it, particularly newer players who trigger CONCORD unintentionally. At the same time, experienced gankers, the group you are implicitly targeting, are already structured around existing constraints. This change does little to meaningfully disrupt them while increasing collateral impact elsewhere. Thatâs not good design, itâs misapplied pressure.
More broadly, the post relies heavily on âcleanâ phrasing and structured bullet points, but the underlying reasoning is shallow. The language does more work than the mechanics. This is a common pattern when an argument is assembled to sound balanced rather than to be balanced. If this was intended as a serious systems proposal, it needs to engage with actual game mechanics instead of abstracting them. It reads as obvious bait: a simplified model designed to provoke a predictable response.
Either way, the conclusion doesnât hold. The system already enforces consequence. Expanding it in this way does not improve reciprocity. It just broadens punishment without precision.
The issue is not whether consequences exist. It is whether those consequences create meaningful, asymmetric exposure after the act. If they do not, then they are operating costs.
Iâm not sure who all off the top my head, but I do know that Syzygium is for a safer High Sec in general. I would say that most people arenât anti-ganking in general, but want either more ways to be safe that arenât AFK, or want more ways to disrupt gankers.
I do agree with you though that ganking (or destruction in general) is good for the economy.
If you donât want your ships to ever be destroyed, why arenât you just playing on Serenity? They have a bunch of features like that there, like ship insurance actually gives you the ship and fitting back.
