Security status effects tethering

I would love to read your post, but today is Saturday and I got to clean the house and reading a post this long and reflecting about it could take a couple hours.

1 Like

Merged some Threads with same Topic in here.

1 Like

It is…but I’m already taking steps to swap round my Omega scout account with my Alpha ganking account. If CCP thought the changes would mean that I’d Omega the Alpha account…they’d be wrong.

I always say that we gankers will adapt. But if they really disallow alphas to gank ppls, is there anything we can adapt to? Can I adapt by paying 3000 PLEX or 120$ a month more? Is paywall even something one can adapt to?

I don’t understand why they do it? The only reason I can come up with is because it was popular opinion of gank-haters as to how to “fix” ganking. Is there anyone else (ab)using alpha clones for ganking like me? Because I know of noone. Or they are doing it because someone is violating EULA and multiboxing alpha gankers?

So yes the only logical conclusion I see is that they want to do this to cater to carebears yet again.

Well, it doesn’t change anything on the greater scale, it just forces 1 account gankers like me to sub or quit and make new/alpha players unlikely to start a ganker career and thus ganker corps unlikely to train new players into it. But that was certainly such a minority that it doesn’t really matter and 99% of these players couldn’t learn ganking anyway because it was too easy for them. So who cares.

At least I will no longer have to maintain 8 accounts but just 2 or maybe I downgrade to one after my omegas bought for 300 plexes expires. Because the argument I used before will now be twice as valid - the game in current state is not worth its monthly price.

Actually, with my current addiction I would have consider subbing more, but because the way CCP limits us with accounts, that is just total nonsense. Right now I have 1 ganker and 2 logistic chars or 2 gankers at best but positive+negative status. If I would sub another acc it would have to have 3 positive standing gankers that are of value to me right now. But since transferring a character between accounts costs as much or even more than 1 month of omega and I would have to transfer two, that is out of the question. I could workaround this easily by biomassing the old chars, making new with same name of this to-be omega acc and train them from zero again (my usage needs just 3 days training anyway), but that way I would lost their history, apparels and other ■■■■ I value. So I just won’t.

Well I will see how this plays out, if we won’t have to pull concord to offset this I am all for it and I manage, but if all we get are massive nerfs to ganking, then maybe its time to leave the this boat before it sinks and return back to LoL. That would be an adaptation wouldn’t it? :slight_smile:

Think of Game of Thrones in real life and in EVE:

I do enjoy the gank… if I was a CCP dev and the board threw on my table a demand for nerfing the ganks, what would I do?

I would disable safety red on alphas and tell the board I did my job and I would be complimented!
And I would not nerf anything significant to the ganks!!! :partying_face:

Between you and me, we know it’s not a great blow nerfing the alpha, it’s sad that no new gankers will arise by trying out the gank with an alpha… those people feeling the waters with an alpha will cease to exist. So CCP is kinda doing an ethnic cleansing on the player base with such change.

edit: I’m so f****** smart omg

1 Like

I am in love for you, you have such an aggressive mind that I wish I was you.

1 Like

If @Mike_Azariah is correct, that this is not a true “safety locked to green,” then it will just require alpha gankers to go to lowsec after each gank. This is an extra step, not a game killer.

Also, staging suicide gankers out of lowsec could lead to much more interesting counterplay compared to the current (lame) “cloud of -10 sec status tethered catalysts” versus “fleet of skittish anti-ganking risk averse carebears”

2 Likes

I answerd this charade here:

CCP will sanitize the player base by shutting down the gank to new players who never ganked, so in the long there there will be almost no new gankers.

This is so wrong.

When I first started playing 3 years ago, one of the first things I did was get into a cat, and suicide gank a venture.

I was shaking like a leaf. But the thrill! The boom! It was great.

4 Likes

Forced sterilization, I would say!

New players won’t be able to say “my body my rules” anymore.

3 Likes

No. You are arguing against the premise of the game and will be opposed by people like me who understand what you are destroying.

1 Like

In a game with less and less players shutting the door for safety red is for having less new gankers in the long run. This is a big brains move whoever thought of this… I am not saying it’s a good thing, I am just impressed with a move.

I cracked the case.

Or just remove tether completely and unite the docking rules of citadels with stations → ie. you can dock when warp disrupted or warp scrambled. That would be far more logical to me than this nonsense change to deny tether to low security chars no matter that they own the citadel lol.

Why would you have to pay 3000 plex a month more? If you are using alphas you can only use one at a time, so you wouldn’t need to multibox omegas to make up for the inability to gank as an alpha.

1 Like

You’re talking about what you see as the premise of the game. I don’t accept your view of that.

all I know is security status effecting DOCKING has been needed for a VERY LONG TIME.

if you want to gank in high sec… GO AHEAD but you should be treated as the pirate you are… last i check blood raiders are not allowed to dock at jita/amarr…

the alpha account not be able to to go red mode was needed not because it was a good change, but because everyone and their mom abuses the system for cata gank squad multibox drones instead of you know actually bringing some friends?

3 Likes

Because I found usage for alpha gankers. I won’t reveal this just yet, as this hasn’t been confirmed, but if it goes live I reveal what I was doing with alphas and what was possibly the reason for this change :smiley:

So yes I am only using single character at the same time, yet I am using several alpha gankers extensively. If I want to keep using them in same way I have to either:

  • sub/plex 6 more accounts/month
  • make like 12 character transfers (+ a lot of biomassing of my logistic alts to make slots as you cannot swap 2 characters with character transfer) and then sub just 2 new accounts (this is a bit cheaper in long term, than subbing 6 of which I only use 1 char and only rarely, but still way too expensive for me to consider + can be only paid by cash)
  • biomass those characters I need to transfer, biomass my logistic alts, and create them again with same name on the new accounts so I can have all 3 slots filled with gankers hence I can sub/plex just 2 more accounts a month - but I dislike this option because I want to preserve characters history of player interactions and other stuff

I’ve been using an Alpha. I wouldn’t say ‘abusing’ as it takes twice as long to skill ( 12 days at the minimum ) and with Alpha you cannot get level V on some of the important skills. Plus…you cannot multibox with Alphas.

The irony is that when I swap round my Omega scout to be my ganker instead…that ganker will be able to have level V skills ( surgical strike, etc )…and so will be more effective ! So, eat your heart out anti-gankers.

1 Like

By abusing I mean “using dozen(s) of them” at the times. Not multiboxing obviously.

For example, during the faction events I was using 3 different alpha gankers to effectively bypass the criminal timer and gank those festival sites non-stop. That is just one of the ways you can “abuse” it.

As a casual player who plays few weeks per year, just seeing recently that even T2 marauders get ganked, I am leaning towards nerfing ganking since if empty or T2 fitted ships are getting blown up, situation is getting a bit out of hand, no? Anyways, both sides can be debated into infinity, however, there are few things in this topic that really irked me as arguments that make no sense.

The argument that economy would stagnate and that highsec ganking will lead to slow down or death of industry…

Let’s take a look as zkillboard with assumption of somewhat being representative source to at least a degree. CCP surely has more accurate numbers.

Last 90 days Highsec (Ganks only) Highsec (all) Lowsec (all) Nullsec (all) WH (all)
Killmails 1,720 150,165 255,459 491,117 108,288
ISK 2.24t 16.62t 27.12t 57.64t 18.49t

So let’s put this in perspective a bit

Ganks in highsec vs all kills in highsec account for

  • 1.15% of all kills of all kills in highsec, 0.17% of all kills in EVE
  • 13.47% of all value of all kills in highsec, 3.59% of all value of all kills in EVE
  • Average gank is destroying 581 million ISK, where as average kill in whole EVE is worth 120 million.

So with complete ban on ganking, only 3.6% impact on value, and even that is debatable, since this also includes goods which would end up in other regions that would get destroyed anyways (freighter content on it’s way from or to any other region that gets ganked would end up in other categories as fitted modules).

So you could say that ganking on terms of efficiency is great on average, 1 gank is worth 5 kills in other categories, but only 1 gank happens for each 588 other kills.

Yea, economy would be fine without ganking. Yea, ganking is minority of all kills, but it seems like gankers are just super loud minority. Either way in grand scheme, from industry perspective, it makes little difference if they are in the game or not. 3% will be swallowed by inflation alone in few months.

Ultimately, we don’t know how many players unsub or stop playing when they get ganked, so if a minority of players are driving away more subs than they actually use, then yea, they should be nerfed, CCP is business after all.

The argument was made before that if they save 1 freighter with 1 alt, but loose 20 alts from a ganker, it’s bad for business. The question is, how many 1 freighters with 1 alt stop playing during a year vs those 20 ganker alts. If it’s less than 10 people, sure, but if it’s more, well, math is simple. Also how many people stop playing due to ganking even before they have a chance to even have a freighter. And that is the answer only CCP can provide if they choose so.

So yea, in the end this is just about
Is ganking viable gameplay stlye?
It’s same as crabbing, it’s same as manufacturing, it’s same as PI, it’s same as blueprint copying, some people like it and play that style, some people don’t. Doesn’t even matter if you support or not support different gameplay styles.

Then the final question is
“Is ganking as gameplay style detracting CCP’s profits or adding to them?”

2 Likes