Suicide ganking is way too low risk, change my mind

Communications Center Crime & Punishment
896

I got an idea that would help immensely. Let’s ask another question first: What makes ganking immensely unattractive?

For one, you can’t do it alone, on a single char. And yes I know, you can kill a venture here and there, big whoop, but for 99% of other targets, you’re out, OK? Plus you lose security status and eventually lose the right to dock up. People that are interested in ganking will look at this and say “boy, this ■■■■■■■ sucks” and they’re right, it’s not pretty being a ganker.

You also lose your ship, which means you have to learn very quickly how to be cost-effective, how to maximize DPS for the cheapest available price, and learn how to select your targets. All fine in theory, except for one thing, your ability as a ganker is not capped by your skill, but by your available firepower to win the DPS race against the CONCORD response. This means that virtually every aspect of your ship and flying ability is neglected, only DPS matters, and that also leaves no room for creative fits and tactics.

So what would be the big gamechanger to adress all this?

I think what would truly flip ganking on it’s head, is to make CONCORD surviveable.

Make it possible to just fly away when they land. And you can even let all other characteristics of a criminal offense be as they are. It would open a completely new world to gankers, one where you are now presented with options, room for creative play and tactics, new opportunities and also new dangers.

It would of course impact not only ganking, but the entirety of high sec. And there are a gazillion ways how you could finetune this. One example I’ve been thinking is to let high-sec systems on the upper end, like 0.8 and 0.9, contine to be as they are, but apply the change to systems from 0.7 and below. OR even cooler, give players themselves the ability to upgrade and invest into a system to maintain CONCORD lethality, and give others the ability to undo it.

I’m thinking that this could be like a structure or big beacon that everyone can contribute towards building it, and can also be attacked afterwards. I think this would be particularly interesting to high-sec corps who seek to claim ownership of certain places, and this would be a very close equivalent of a sov-hub.

Of course this can be fine tuned in so many ways that it would fill an entire book to list it all here. But that’s just ONE buff to ganking that came to mind, there are many more ideas out there that would level up ganking completely. So, that’s my answer.

With profound regards
-James Fuchs

2 Likes
897

Hey James, thanks for the insightful suggestions. They’re terrific! I’m going to edit my reply to include some additional thoughts but I wanted to let you know that I think you might be onto something here!

Addendum: Just the odd question or two…
When you say “survive CONCORD”, are you talking about a delay before CONCORD scrams and/or fires on any ganking ships on warping in? If so, how much? Would CONCORD web attackers instead or something else?
With respect to the beacon/structure, is this something you see being deployed system-wide or something more limited in-scale, ie: say an asteroid belt?

898

-10 is not a problem also why do you want to dock on a ship…? It is an incorrect usage of a ship!

899

In regards to CONCORD, this is of course all up for finetuning. Right now, as soon as you engage in a criminal offense, your warp drive is locked and your ship is flagged to be killed by CONCORD. It is even considered an exploit of the game to somehow evade this death. So just being able to evade that destined death, even if all other things stay the same, would be a huge deal. It would allow you to drastically widen your selection of ships, because you CAN keep your ship, and that dramatically enhances your tactical flexibility and depth.

The beacon I would see implemented system wide, to me that makes the most sense. But we got a lot of clever heads around, this concept can still be improved on, I’m sure.

Because it’s ■■■■■■■ annoying, first and foremost. Also, yes, if you build your entire EVE existence around having -10 and have the alts necessary to support it and also have a logistics network in place that can supply ships to whereever you are stationed and got the funds necessary to keep ganking because you literally cannot engage in any other activity in HS, then yeah, it’s manageable.

If you’re a normal player and don’t have all this, you’re just going to hang up the mantel. The question for many interested players is WHY should I go through all the hoops to blow up some half-asleep miners in HS, when I could be doing virtually any other PvP activity, fleet up with members and engage in a wide range of combat without any of the stupid hassle? It’s a legitimate question. Everyone has to find their own answer to that. For most people it’s just “nope”, and so GANKING remains the elusive art of ELITE combat in high sec, practiced only by the most steeled and battle-hardened warriors of all of New Eden.

With ganking regards
-James Fuchs

2 Likes
900

It’s a nice idea James, but I don’t think it will be that effective at encouraging more ganking.

What would really work is insurance payouts for ganking ships.

901

I do it because I’m a LAWFUL PALADIN.

:fire: :princess:t2: :balance_scale:

1 Like
902

This was removed for a reason, yes? (kind of an given) I don’t see it being given back unless something else was offered up (nerf) instead.

903

I’ll nip this in the bud right away: the most expensive thing about ganking ships are the guns. T2 guns, as well as the rigs, is what is shooting up costs for ganking vessels. Insurance only covers the base price of the ship, and guess what, the ship, in most cases, is the cheapest part of it all. So if you’re flying a T2 catalyst, your expenses in total may come up to 12-14 million ISK per ship.
The best possible insurance payout nets you roughly 500k ISK, minus the roughly 150k you need to pay to complete the insurance.

So compared to losing 12 million ISK, that’s literally just pennies you’re getting back. AND it doesn’t address any of the problempoints like negative security completely ■■■■■■■ your day to day life in high sec and everything else that turns off players from comitting to ganking.

With mathematical regards
-James Fuchs

904

You don’t have to use T2 guns.

I used to highsec gank in Ruptures and Hurricanes with a full meta fit, with platinum insurance you were only losing a few million

Really opened up the field on profitable targets.

905

Who the ■■■■ ganks targets with a Hurricane???

With flabbergasted regards
-James Fuchs

906

Well noone, any more, because it’s not economically viable, but it was, because you could insure it.

907

How about solo WHS, the Hurricane hull seams like a good entry ship for pilots visiting worm holes.

908

I’m still trying to understand the appeal of the current system. I mean, it sounds like it’s “feast or famine” (and mostly famine) with everything geared towards maximizing profit to offset ship and security status losses.

What if you could latch onto a ship like a remora (delaying warp for the victim and netting you a suspect flag) and start randomly siphoning off cargo from anything not in a secure container? Ships would need a specific module limited to say frigates and destroyers that would cause tour ship to go suspect when activate

Not as a replacement for your idea but in addition to. Another idea is the ability to use troops to actually takeover a target ship instead of destroying it (maybe with a specialized type of ammunition for the breeching pods).

909

Look man, the last time you ganked was in 1990, when this silly stuff still worked. Nowadays, things are a bit different. And this sounds mean, but when you come in here and say “hey James, your idea won’t work! HERE is what really works!” and you suggest some non-sense from 20 years ago, then this is just taking a dump on my lived experience as a MODERN DAY GANKER.

So please trust me on that. Insurance payout doesn’t solve squat.

With modernized regards
-James Fuchs

1 Like
910

Calm down ganker.

911

:face_blowing_a_kiss: at least I am one.

With loving regards
-James Fuchs

912

Just for discussion purposes… what about removing CONCORD entirely from 0.5 systems and maybe buffing station and gate defenses so they’re not perma-camped?

913

Means that everyone can live in lowsec and enjoy -10. Or be a HS PvE player and shoot a ship after each 30-40 minutes of PVE activity (which they enjoy, SS will stay around -2 + will get more isk than needed for a ganking) or just buy tags if do not afraid to jump out of HS. Can’t see any problems until you want to waste a Tornado each 15 minutes (+undock/warp/lock). Which will be expensive for a common citizen.

914

Lol, no.

With easy regards
-James Fuchs

915

You can always tell who is salty and whom really just doesn’t care about loss of some pixels.