Can’t you obnoxious types fulfill your basic social needs elsewhere?
Many posters are failing to understand the topic and seemingly reacting without reading or thinking. Nobody is asking to remove ganking. Please, just read the first two sentences of the OP at least and try to comprehend that before you respond to this thread.
Try to get it back on track people. How would you like to see FacPO/Concord changed if you think it will be too risky for the poor suicide gankers to be forced to fly more expensive ships?
If the anti-ganker high sec shield idea is implemented, what ship types should be able to penetrate the shield? They need to be expensive enough that affluent suicide gankers will be heavily discouraged from using it as a grief tactic. Its pretty ridiculous that you can go around legit griefing random people for the cost of a catalyst and less, and adds to the list of things that make EVE a joke and not worth playing.
PVP is consented to when you undock. Concord is already a supremely powerful response fleet. More difficult to understand and explain engagement rules do not help. Docking mechanics, gate mechanics, sec level mechanics, citadel mechanics are already complex enough.
NPC corp has nothing to do with anything, if its in a playercorp, it will just dock in a citadel its player corp doesn’t own, because that is exactly how they’ll plan that scenario out.
Gankers are fine with losing sec status, this would be nice for us, and nice for me since I roam in FW space occasionally, but would not affect them. If it really worried them, they’d pvp in null where there is no hit to status, but they already pvp where the status hit is highest.
You locator agent the person that ganked you, and screw up his next ganks. They won’t stop using a character until its plain that consequences are affecting them.
its healthy for players to lose ships. Losing a ship in uedama once or twice helps oblivious people understand when they later move to nullsec that moving ships has risks attached. The game absolutely does not need reductions in ship losses.
You lose your spaceship, and a pile of security status, and you can’t fly another one for 15 minutes without concord coming for it too, the penalty for aggressing in highsec is perfectly fine as is.
I’m still wondering if I would compare zkillboard all isk loses of code and all loot drops from their kills would make an actual business model, which can pay for their employees, their share holders, as well as james the magnificent one to be able to eat his cornflakes in the morning.
Here is an answer of the house if not know how to answer that:
“You are aware zkillboard prices and actually ingame item and ship price does not show an actual realistic value do you right? You can have a kill worth 3 billion on kb but in game is maybe only worth 1,5 Billion in game based on market rates (demand/supply), since you obviously have no understanding that there is huge differences between those I would suggest getting some more experience in eve first before asked these questions which are not worth anyone’s time, perhaps join a pvp alliance first and get the hang on it?”
There are multiple options available to make a gank extremely expensive or just nearly impossible. It is part of the game to plan ahead and protect your stuff. If they ganked you and the gank was cheap and yielded great reward then that was your fault, not the fault of CCP or the game, you chose to make that gank cheap.
Your posting history reveals a pretty toxic personality. I’m pretty glad this keeps people like you away from the game.
No, not necessarily. There are people who would never ever purchase a sub and they will not play EVE if they are forced to pay a sub. Once they are invested in the game there is however a good chance they will pay for more SP, ISK or SKINs, etc.
If you take ganking away from alphas, people interested in it may not become customers in the first place. That is true for every other activity you hide behind the omega paywall
Interesting.
Thats an argument I usually use, but which you have actively resisted.
I agree entirely.
Im a believer that the longer, and the more players you can get invested into the game (especially psst the learning curve) the more likely they are to invest with cash.
However, if there is no incentive to go Omega for ganking, that wont happen for the purposes of ganking. They will just stay Alpha.
No, it is not the same argument. You think EVE should appeal to everyone and every lost subscriber is bad. I highly disagree.
The comment I made is about the fact that a subscription cost is a no-go for a lot of players today. They will probably never go omega, they will however buy PLEX to get SP, ISK or SKINNs.
Hiding features behind a paywall will just appear as a pay2win paywall to this people.
There are and still will be. A solo ganker, even a newly buffed one, isn’t especially useful on it’s own. If you are doing it for profit, a second account to scoop loot is almost mandatory, and the truly dedicated will want to multi-box in an age where gank alts are free courtesy of skill trading. The single log-in alpha restriction is probably all that is need to incentivize gankers to upgrade to Omega.
They still will be able to get a taste for the life as part of a ganking fleet though. I think that is a good thing, but I still remain unconvinced even these more capable Alpha characters will change the criminal balance much in highsec given how badly the one-account login limits things as compared to Omegas.
This I agree with. Who knows what will happen with the upcoming changes. Before the introduction of Alphas last year, many players, including prominent bloggers and CSM members, were busy clutching their pearls about the coming gank-o-geddon Alphas would bring and the amount of ganking has only decreased since their introduction. Still, I am sure CCP will keep an eye on the situation and respond as needed as they said they would in the discussion recorded in last year’s CSM minutes before their original introduction.
