You people aren’t doing it right.
You want to reduce ganking? How about locking safety settings to green while in highsec?
There, problem solved , but I wonder why CCP has done so already.
5 Likes
Non-consensual PvP is an abuse of language and doesn’t actually exist in any MMO, or any game at all.
What you are refering to is actually called “World PvP”, meaning it can happen anywhere and doesn’t require you to isolate yourself in an Arena, or something similar.
It is NEVER “Non-consensual”. Any game that features it make it known to the players. Therefore, as soon as you decide to play the game, you automatically consent to it.
Well I guess it could be “Non-consensual” if someone pointed a gun at your head and forced you to play the game. But I’m not sure it’s actually a very common situation.
This already exist in the game. When you shoot people, you loose security status, and upon reaching a certain security status, you are attacked on sight by the faction police.
Your proposal would be to “buff” this already existing mechanic to the point of making it ridiculous.
No?
Oh yeah, sure, how about massively reducing the freedom every player has to play the way he want?
I found it pretty amazing how you guys love to defend the “freedom of playing the game as you want” when it suits your agenda, but as soon as a playstyle differ from what YOU love in this game, the beautiful talk about “freedom” disappear and this playstyle should be forbidden.
Hypocrisy at is finest.
Just so you know, in the history of videogames, everytime developpers choosed to impose a massive liberty reduction to all the playerbase because of marginals cases of “abuses”, it only had negatives effects on the game.
Safety settings is an insult to what EvE online is about and should be entirely removed from the game.
5 Likes
Black Pedro is being facetious 
1 Like
Or perhaps he was being helpful. What is the point of these threads? Proposing weird changes to the game to eliminate ganking - without coming right out and admitting that is the goal.
3 Likes
Now we’re getting to the point:
That’s what we’re talking about. Every player should have the freedom to play Eve as they want to.
So, this could as well be said about imposing your playstyle on others, and about preferring your playstyle over all others. You want all safety removed from Eve, so you can shoot everyone without any consequences? And your’re calling ths “freedom”? And you’re also talking about “hypocrisy”? Spare us this nonsense, will you?
Quite to the opposite, the OP doesn’t call for a removal of PvP from game, but a better balance, so different playstyles can coexist.
Eve is not, and has never been (and never will be) some Fortnite in space, but has a huge economy part, even some roleplay elements. Get over it, your playstyle is just one among many. Yes, you’re welcome.
2 Likes
Let me get this straight… You’ve been playing this game for… let me check… WTF? 16 years… 16 YEARS !!!
And after all those years you still think suicide ganking is a “problem” that needs to be “solved”… and that the reason it hasn’t been “solved” yet is… that “many ideas have been given, but nothing works”… as if this was something CCP wanted to “fix” but they haven’t figured how yet…
So here you are, shamelessly coming to a public forum to let everybody know how smart you are by trying to “help” CCP find a “solution” to that pesky “problem” they seem unable to “solve” by themselves…
ROFLMAO
These threads are getting better and better.
EvE deserves a place of honour in human history for making people want to shamelessly come to a public forum to make posts like this again and again.
8 Likes
Has been an issue that CCP and many player talked about for ages.
And CCP has as some put it balance ships to fix this issue, only to throw ship balances out. And not many can count the number of times balance updates have been done.
The solution given in the OP only effects the clone of a player and makes no changes to ship designs or balances.
The hope is if this option is taken up, hopely CCP might revert many update balances they have made over the years to address the ganking issue in Highsec.
Its an lesser evil than continual ship balances to try and fix gankers.
As noted this solution isn’t designed to stop gankers, only to discourage, those that still want to gank can, with full knowledge they will loose skill points and possible skill levels.
I would even suggest that any insurance took while on a player structure 10% of the insurance fee goes to the player structure corp.
Are you really that dense ?
what makes you think that?
and no I won’t get into personal fights, so if that’s your goal forget it before you even start!
You come with a solution, but what exactly is the issue?
How is it an issue that noncombat ships can get ganked in high sec? Isn’t that interaction one of the foundations of the gameplay of EVE?
1 Like
Asbolutely not. I never asked for the removal of any consequences in my post.
Maybe you didn’t understand properly what I was refering to when speaking of “Safety settings”?
This is just the green/yellow/red dot on the top left or your HP bars.
I’m afraid this confusion make the rest of your post a rant against something I never said, so there is not much I can answer.
It part of the natural gameplay of EVE…
…but the amount of Ganking done in highsec is way beyond that of all the other sectors combined. The issue isn’t with Ganking in itself, but in the amount and the lack of risk to these low isk fit Gankers and Suicide Gankers that operate in Highsec.
Gankers in Lowsec and Nulsec are a different bread to those that Gank in Highsec.
And if you read the OP it clearly states this solution isn’t designed to kill ganking, it’s only designed to put more risk back into Ganking to balance the ISK to Risk ratios back to a better level.
It could also help to stop CCP from making ship balancing updates which they believe would help fix this issue, but instead has through ships out of balance everytime they do these balance updates.
I mean, I think too that “death matters” should be a think and was a little sad that CCP wasn’t able to replace the clone grade mechanic with something else that would attach a cost to losing a clone, but if you just want to make ganking more costly, why go through all these hoops?
Why not just reduce CONCORD spawn times and/or increase the EHP of industrial ships to make criminal actions directly cost more?
There was in the early say a death penalty attached to clones.
You paid to insure your clones skill points, and if you didn’t and you died you would loose skill points and skill levels.
Today this is still active with the T3 skill group. So this solution can be made usable. The only thing is for CCP reactive the old clone death coding that applies skill lose and the insurance feature.
Only thing required would be additional coding to allow CONCORD to pod ship killers, but not accidental damage inflictor…
Well, it directly reverts a change CCP made because they thought the clone grade mechanic was not good for the game. I’m not sure why CCP would do that just to target such a niche thing like highsec criminality instead of just targeting that directly if they think that a problem.
Since you are using “ganking” to be beyond suicide ganking, how have you arrived at this conclusion?
Well we know CCP is trying to get ISK usage up, with clone insurance and the threat of loosing skill points on death if not insured, will cause players to invest in clone protection.
Many old players agree that the old clone insurance was a pain the first time you didn’t use it, but they learnt fast to ensure it never happened again. Of those I’ve spoken with believe restating this old feature would bring back a level of play that has been missing for years, where players have no longer the fear of loosing a clone and its skill points/skills, but only the loose of what ever implants are installed.
Now some will hate this idea as already shown in this topic. But the long term benefit would be worth it.
1 Like
CCP has looked into this years ago and found that new players are extremely rarely the target of suicide ganks. In the occasion that they where actually targets of a suicide gank the correlation they found was completely backwards to the assumption that it leads to those players quitting the game.
There are multiple options available from hulls to ship fitting that makes it completely uneconomic and actually requires a substantial fleet that would operate at a heavy loss to suicide gank those ships.
The balance already exists. It requires some minimal thought form the pilot of the “noncombat capable ship”, which can be totally asked of those players as fitting and choosing the right ship is simply a big part of the game.
It should go without saying that if choosing the max yield option instead of the secure option should come at a price, which in this case is more vulnerability to suicide ganks. This is what the balance is all about.
3 Likes
Sorry,
This is just a bad solution. Let’s look at a few points.
First, bringing back clone insurance, which will be an annoying penalizing mechanic for ALL players just to try and punish the gankers is a bad idea. Any time you want to penalize the majority just so you can try to get at a minority is a bad idea.
Second, the standard T1 fit gank catalyst takes less than 1mil SP, and can even be flown by an alpha clone. It has been so long I cannot remember the breakdown, but if I recall the clone upgrade costs didn’t really even kick in under 1mil SP. Even if they did the cost was negligible.
One reason clone upgrades were removed is their confusion and negative impacts, especially on new players. Even today new players will turn off their safeties, not understanding the ramifications and get themselves concorded by accident. Your proposal will exact an extra punishment on them, which is not something we really want to do to new players. Retention in EVE is already low.
Lastly, many ganker groups are funded by the large nullsec blocs, many are bored nullsec pilots. Their primary motivation is not purely risk/reward. They have deep pockets. They won’t care about a little big of extra cost.
2 Likes
Clone-grades weren’t removed because of new players, be because of veterans. The cost of higher-tier clones was so high that people with lot of SP weren’t taking part in different activities due to the danger of losing their clone and having to upgrade it. It was barring veterans from flying frigates, destroyers and even some cruisers due to how easy it is to lose one.
2 Likes