High enough to deter its use as a common grief tactictactic. Iif you want to blow up an easy target like a high sec miner then you should be willing to lose 10x more than they are. We have low and null that are supposed to provide risky environment for players who want it and there aren’t any good reasons why high sec should be the nearly the same as them and greater in terms of risk, as is often said. Suicide gankers don’t make eve interesting nearly as much as they make it tedious, anoyying and not worth playing, especially due to the gross enequities.
Its possible to create changes that dont impair gankers, but do enable AG.
In HS mechanics, both on the part of gankers and AG, we are talking about the most artificially restricted/limted space in all of EVE in terms of non-consensual aggression and the means to do so.
AG is a emergent content, however are saddled by systemic complications that gankers dont have.
Ideally, I want to see gankers be concerned with AG and player action/intervention, rather than running their numbers/efficiency purely against a CONCORD AI reaction.
The targets that gankers choose to engage, are chosen on a set calculation of risk/reward as gauged against CONCORDs NPC reaction, rather than intervention by a 3rd player party ingame, such as AG.
That irks me and chafes me wrong.
The primary threat to gankers in HS should be other players, not an NPC CONCORD.
Gankers should be worried about players interfering, rather than the inevitable NPC based, and measurable/calculable CONCORD reaction.
As we all know, NPCs are ■■■■-bad at providing content compared to players. NPCs just provide the backdrop/context in the sandbox which hopefully leads to player engagements/competition.
1 Like
Salvos, I agree with so much of what you said in that post.
My only real criteria are:
Does it have a Permit?
Can I gank it?
Seriously, if ag were to just use the stuff they have, things could be so different. For a start - ignoring all mechanics - I can’t understand why they’re so poorly supported; numbers would make a hell of a difference straight away. Some of the top people in ag do have years of EVE experience, and the knowledge gained from a very broad understanding of the game.
One of the problems is that white-knighting itself isn’t a very popular activity. Think about it; white knights have to wait around until something happens or, using intel, try to arrive before something happens, or organise themselves into a reliable and battle-ready force, or something. You won’t get many folks who’re willing to spend their EVE-time doing that without considerable compensation.
We suicide-gankers, on the other hand, have built for ourselves an effective organisation, with a real presence in the region.
The primary threat to us should indeed be other players, as you say. I can’t stress it enough; we strongly support the maintenance of a PvP environment in Highsec.
EDIT: Removed ‘Wardec CODE.’ LOL…
“High enough” is a judgement. Two reasonable people could disagree entirely on how low or how high “high enough” is. One person could say 100,000 ISK for every 1,000,000 ISK they gank while another might want them to pay 1,100,000 ISK for every 1,000,000 ISK they destroy, and they might both have good reasons for thinking so. Let’s just look at it as a ratio.
- Should the ganker have to incur less risk, more risk, or roughly the same amount of risk as the victim to gank them successfully?
- Should the ganker have to do less work, more work, or roughly the same amount of work as the victim to gank them successfully?
- Should the ganker have to spend less ISK, more ISK, or roughly the same amount of ISK as the victim to gank them successfully?
- Should the ganker have to have less knowledge, more knowledge, or roughly the same amount of knowledge as the victim to gank them successfully?
- Etc.
And then, once we answer all those questions, there is the little matter of how to even make it happen that way.
Gankers are worried about such things. Ok, perhaps worry is too strong a choice of word, but their operations are very much shaped by avoiding and minimizing the threat other players present. I agree though, that in many places (e.g. the Faction Police) the NPCs do a better job than any vigilante could ever hope to do which doesn’t leave much room for player interaction.
With little room for interaction, and no room for escalation, I agree the criminal mechanics are less than perfect. Arguably though, with evasion and staying docked so easy in this game, this is a problem everywhere. In most places in Eve, it is deception through baiting and surprise that gets the fight, tactics AG seem unwilling or unable to employ. They seem much more to prefer playing the role of the white-knighted hero saving someone from an attack in progress which of course is a difficult proposition, especially when outgunned.
Some of my most memorable (attempted) ganks were the rare times I was baited or led into a trap and failed. This happened first early on in my criminal career just after Mobile Depots were released and a miner refit to full tank after I had landed and gone criminal. I gave him a ‘gf’ and we both had a good laugh over it and he even contracted me back my drops. But that hasn’t happened a single time since in hundreds of ganks that a miner has baited me, or even tried to bait me, with a nearby depot to refit (although it has a couple times with a nearby Orca).
Was that a complete outlier or a last interaction with one of the old guard of Eve that have mostly left the game? I don’t know, but there are ways to mess with criminals but most players would rather prefer to complain the game is “unbalanced” or “broken” because they have to defend themselves or don’t have an automatic ‘get revenge’ button. I have been caught on gates, baited into attacking something, and jammed by good samaritans multiple times. Can you shut criminals down completely? Not really, as you can’t be everywhere at once nor would it be especially good game design if you could lock criminals completely out of a system or playing the game but you are not helpless against criminals.
Operating as a criminal requires me to spend significant effort to reduce the risk the game puts me at to other players. That risk also keeps me in cheap ships which I see may not be especially satisfying for the ISK-obsessed to explode, but someone definitely can apply enough pressure on me to make me move elsewhere or call it quits for the day.
Usually though, most players would rather go back to their Netflix and mining or focus on maximizing their ISK/h than hunting/baiting criminals. A shame really.
2 Likes
The mechanics of aggression in HS work against AG.
Whereas gankers select high value targets, and organise/expend accordingly as calculated against the inevitable/predictable CONCORDOKKEN, AG have to deal with a wide spread of low value targets whom they cannot aggress pre-emprively of a gank without resulting in the same CONCORDOKKEN, or getting wrecked by the gank fleet once they initiate illegal aggression on a known ganker.
The numbers and costs dont add up. Even if an AG fleet of equivalent players
/ships/cost matches up against a gank fleet, they will cause loss at maximum only equal to their own loss (as ensured by CONCORD).
In other words, in current mechanics, gankers are far favored in terms of initiating aggression, than AG, due to NPC involvement.
TLDR:
-The cost of HS ganking is weighed against the reward from a high value target.
-The cost of AG action is weighed against the value of the gank fleet, which is always nominally as low as possible.
This is a problem, as it relegates AG action to an NPC CONCORD after the gank/illegal aggression, rather than a player based interference in the gank before it is successful.
AG cant make a profit, whereas gankers only deploy/commit when they can.
3 Likes
i’m gathering more information to fill in my post, and then i’ll turn it into a petition.
I think people should have the power to vote for banning people, as long as justifying evidence is being presented. This thread doesn’t deserve the attention it gets. the person who made this thread is a bad person, who constantly lies, insults, belittles and wants to get rid of people like us.
You guys should consider that, and put it above your silly quabbles.
Do what you feel you must.
This thread is still exploring the initial premise as it has evolved through discussion.
I dont think you will be successful in shutting down this thread, despite your meta agenda for doing so.
Imo, we are finally nearing real talk about the issues underlying ganking vs AG, and associated restrictive mechanics in HS.
Nobody is breaking rules here, and if they have, their individual posts can be removed and the poster punished, without need to lock the thread.
Nobody is forcing you to read or participate in this thread, either.
There are thousands of other threads you can read/participate in instead, or start your own.
2 Likes
Again, what content do you mean? To shoot our citadel or to completely remove us from a system?
Good point about initiating aggression (we do, ag don’t, because discouraged by current mechanics).
You could initiate aggression if our reputation with the FacPo didn’t urge us to spend as little time as possible idling about in space. Some of your supporters want to deny us docking rights, partially or completely, but you could have what you want (easier access to us) simply by CCP removing the FacPo. It’s a compromise I’d certainly be willing to make. Greater freedom of movement with increased opportunities to get blasted by ag. Fine!
In all fairness, shouldn’t we be able to re-ship using our criminal characters while our GCC ticks down? You do want something to shoot at, don’t you?
EDIT: Wrongly attributed our vulnerability to being -10 rather than the FacPo.
1 Like
Does it matter, I think content that re-invigorates hisec…
Well I was thinking more along the lines of removing Facpol in terms of a balance against removing bumping when I was trying to work back how to not kill freighter ganks with bumping changes.
I’ just curious. Is the reason -10 players should not be able to dock at NPC stations that you can shoot their citadels or is the rason that you can remove them completely from a system?
1 Like
The problem with you is that you are too often nasty sarc, so trying to work out whether it is a genuine question or not is rather difficult, or you might be trying to make a gotcha point of some sorts.
I am looking at a conflict driver more than anything else that pushes people to gang up and work together for benefits, so removing a CODE base in a system would have value, but I would not expect that this would completely remove you from a system, you run around in fast aligning ships most of the time so it is not really going to happen. I am expecting you to make some sort of negative comment about people in hisec will not shoot citadels, and currently you would be right, but if there is a value to doing so then it might change and in doing so change hisec.
Blimey you are very up yourself.
Im not AG.
I do however agree that a criminally flagged player in HS should not be able to dock at an NPC station, or a player owned station.
As to the rest of your post, I think the impact of security status should be more pronounced in HS, so as to allow lawful aggression against low security status players.
I just tried to find out if you really think this will change something, which you do it seams, or if you just fan for a change to slap some gankers with the nerf bat.
I’m kinda against this as it will obviously not only have an effect on freighter gankers. It will probably have a lot more effects everywhere else except for freighter gankers, because they are organized the best.
Freughter ganking is also not very common. There are only a hand full of corps doing it. So I kinda don’t get how making it more difficult and potentialy more expensive in exchange for nothing will bring more content in the end. If you want more content try to find ways to lower the cost and make it easier so more people will do it and ag has more potential targets. Everything else makes no sense in my opinion.
Improving the AG situation, does not mean it nerfs gankers.
At best, it just means that player have more opportunity to interfere/intervene in ganking, rather than the entire system relying on an after-the-fact NPC reaction via CONCORD.
The core issue is enabling PLAYERS to act, rather than just shrugging it all off to an inevitable NPC based CONCORD reaction.
2 Likes
which will make it more dificult and expensive and lesser people will gank.
If you want more content, maybe try to not kill the content.
No.
It will just result in player intervention on ganks, rather than CONCORD.
From the perspective of EVE, it is always better that players create content, not NPCs.
3 Likes
Hisec has to have better game play that rewards people for ganging up against a common foe, this is not about nerfing ganking.
It is supposed to create more localized combat where fighting has a benefit, and you have to work your logistics a bit.
That is not the point, I don’t expect that it will have any impact at all on freighter ganking, but what it will do is enable people to fight to lock down a system against people like you because there is a benefit for fighting.
1 Like
i’m not attempting to shut this thread down. no point in that, because it’s meaningless. when it’s always the same people posting (let’s say 95%), then there isn’t much of a discussion, or finding of insights, happening. i know, it’s a forum and you do what you do. that’s great, and 99% of the people aren’t ill willied.
i do what i do, which is looking at what people actually do here, and not just what they say. and sometimes part of the game is attempting cutting out a meta gaming, with ebola infected, toxic cancer who fails at disguising himself as part of the immune system.
vOv