Why would it disappear? Gankers would still go suspect the moment they start attacking, which means they can be attacked to reduce their DPS. And that’s aside from all of the ones who would already be outlaws.
Don’t think that’s anything new… rng has to hit right so only works sometimes and with some barge types if solo…but nice when it works out…double chance of
salt!
https://www.eveworkbench.com/fitting/tornado/859a4f6a-1be4-40e7-a7e9-08da9326a533
This is an exaple of a gank nado.
So according to PYFA, this fit has an EHP of 9.5k literally.
It has roughly 2k each of shield/armor/hull.
[Catalyst, Alpha Gank]
Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
5MN Y-T8 Compact Microwarpdrive
Initiated Compact Warp Scrambler
Modal Light Neutron Particle Accelerator I, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge S
Modal Light Neutron Particle Accelerator I, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge S
Modal Light Neutron Particle Accelerator I, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge S
Modal Light Neutron Particle Accelerator I, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge S
Modal Light Neutron Particle Accelerator I, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge S
Modal Light Neutron Particle Accelerator I, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge S
Modal Light Neutron Particle Accelerator I, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge S
Modal Light Neutron Particle Accelerator I, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge S
Small Hybrid Collision Accelerator I
[Empty Rig slot]
[Empty Rig slot]
This cata alone has a volley of 828 and a DPS of 388 unheated.
2 alone would be enough to take out the nado.
Hell, you might get it with 1 if lucky or willing to throw more money at it.
The cata costs roughly 10 mil.
The nado costs roughly 85 mil.
Again, it simply shows your lack of PvP understanding and ship fitting 
Today we have 4 possible outcomes, in your model we will have 3.
I’m not seeing what the missing outcome is. Describe it please.
When you gank you should always leave loot for everyone to scoop, because ganking should be about sending message that world in eve is always dangerous, not about ISK, and those who steal loot will become criminals so they can be destroyed too, and it will be even more dangerous.
I like ISK.
1 Like
There’s not just one form of suicide ganking, Like most play in the game, it’s more varied than that. Some of it is easy, some of it requires far more planning, preparation and coordination.
For example, go take your solo catalyst and gank a freighter. You’ll see 100% of the time, that it isn’t as easy as ganking as frigate solo.
It doesnt sound true. And it missed out a huge pile of steps. Dont try making a cup of tea if you are going to go from “buy tea” to “pour into cup”.
How much isk did you make, btw?
Even if we accept it, then you must have a problem with mining because its even easier.
With the whole of my quote in place, your response seems… less valid than when you’re cherrypicking the bit that looks like you have a counter-argument.
With that in mind, however, if the systems surrounding the kill rights are changed, I’d agree that changing them as part of a larger initiative would make sense. But with the current state of the relevant situation surrounding kill rights, they’re providing meaningful access to options which better allow for the hiring of mercenaries for revenge against someone who killed you. On which topic…
I kinda like this idea, even if I agree with the (unfortunate) final line from the above quote, that it probably isn’t going to happen. Something like this change (probably not exactly this, for the stated reason), alongside other reworks of related mechanics, would potentially open up a different kind of environment where kill rights are no longer an applicable factor for these kinds of situations.
So the corporation could choose to stop their members from initiating criminal acts?
I guess that could work!
How about NPC corps, default criminal acts allowed off or on?
I also really like the active CONCORD distress call that is automatically triggered on ship death:
- it allows ganking of any AFK ships (no more strict dps checks for ganking, if an Orca pilot is AFK long enough it could die to a Heron)
- it gives people who are getting attacked more control over the situation (they can choose to call CONCORD and when)
- it gives people the chance to easily get back at gankers by baiting the gankers into thinking you are AFK but pressing the CONCORD signal, which anyone can do regardless of skills or SP; again more tools against gankers
- it could possibly be combined with a slightly faster CONCORD response time (to make up for the reaction time), so it can be introduced as a ‘CONCORD buff’,
In other words, a buff to CONCORD that helps everyone, both gankers and victims, except those that are not paying attention.
I like it.
Disagree.
Killmails are simply a record of a kill, not a reward. Sure, some players see killmails as ‘rewards’, but that doesn’t mean the information of the kill should be tampered with. Someone died and the killmail simply shows all involved parties. (Except logi, when will we finally show up on kills CCP?)
If anything, ask the creator of zkillboard to filter them out or give it an extra tag.
1 Like
Corporations could toggle whether their members are allowed to proactively engage, yes. This would act as a sort of incentive for corporations to open themselves up to war eligibility (since they couldn’t hurt suspects otherwise), but at the same time it might lead to less efficiency in baiting players to engage suspects.
It’s an incomplete idea that still needs more work.
Allowed, since NPC corporations have permanent war immunity by default.
Unfortunately things don’t look so well on the grand scale because we’re already one real-life death threat into this idea.
They already do have those tags. The goal is to eliminate these kill records as a psychological incentive for leeching onto NPC kills, which would hopefully steer people toward more involved aspects of PvP. If someone sees a 2,500 : 33 ratio on their kill board and thinks that they’re an elite PvPer, despite 99% of those kill mails coming from nothing but a single warp disruptor cycle on a Catalyst that’s about to die, they might never have an incentive to go out and actually do things that matter.
It’s the same psochological/mental trap that high-sec miners subject themselves to (i.e. “if I continue mining in my Venture, each of my losses is going to be so minor that I won’t lose any tangible progress” even though doing literally anything else would lead to much greater overall gains). This should be actively discouraged instead of being accepted as a “valid playstyle” just because people want to appear “politically correct” about EVE’s “sandbox” nature.
For the simple reason that there was some merit in what you said, but that I took a grain of exception to the quoted part.
If I were to quote and comment upon every strand of an exchange, each pro, every con, the thing would become unwieldly. Unless you (and I, and all other posters) agreed to the rule of ‘one point per post’. Which, we both know, will not happen.
‘Cherry-picking’, as I’ve already explained to Lucas Kell, is perfectly ok as an editorial technique, where its use is confined to highlighting errors and/or inconsistencies (as opposed to attempts to sweep sound arguments under the carpet).
But all this is woefully off-topic. I’ll continue to root out inaccuracies, inconsistencies and bald lies - as I see them. You and Lucas are welcome to call it ‘cherry-picking’, or whatever you wish! 
1 Like
Which would be fine, if, like in my post now, your criticism was valid when taken in the complete context of how the statement was being made. Your partial quote of my comment didn’t maintain its validity when viewed in context. That’s what differentiattes an appropriate editorial partial quote from cherrypicking. And that’s why your conduct in this instance was cherrypicking and not properly handled partial quoting to dispute a point that stood on its own.
1 Like
Not while there’s still an entitled AFK miner to blow up.
You are not a ‘victim’. The choice to undock in unsafe space ( which is basically everywhere ) in a badly fitted ship and then mine AFK or fail to pay adequate attention is entirely yours. The ‘victim’ has no-one but themselves to blame. I have mined in my mining alt for over a year now and never been ganked. It is actually pretty easy to avoid being ganked while mining. I’ve also never been ganked when transporting expensive cargo…again, a few common sense rules hugely reduce the risk.
2 Likes
Look, there’s the whole quote; I have cherry-picked it from other posts you have made, because I had an interest in your appearing to believe that you ‘don’t see any good reason why it [retribution?] shouldn’t work the way it does.’
It is clear that, if a capsuleer truly dies following an encounter, no kill-right would be necessary, since if it were tied to his character, it could not be actioned. That argument has merit and didn’t warrant my attention. I perfectly understood it.
You go on to assert that, because capsuleers are immortal, they have the ‘right to try and avenge themselves’. Again Omnis, no disagreement from my side, even though your argument is a bit loose, because…
Immortality certain confers upon capsuleers the ability to select from the available options following a violent encounter, one of such options being the use of the kill-right. Again, no strong disagreement from me, just a qualification.
But you didn’t acknowledge the other possible options. I merely took what you said and presented an alternative option, for the sake of broadening what seemed to me to be a narrow view.
I didn’t really understand ‘But there’s still a limit on that’. Unless by that you meant that there are restrictions around the use of kill-rights? There are limits on all interactions in EVE, and elsewhere, so I’m not sure what you meant.
Now, I have explained my approach, and you see what a time and text investment it turned out to be!
I permit you one further rebuttal (to which I shall not, however, respond). Our positions will, by then, be clear to one another.
I shall continue to select parts of posts for comment, and you, no doubt, will continue to accuse me of cherry-picking.
I’ll live, I guess.
Well, I worked in the industry, when we try to expose ideas we work with the scenarios.
Today’s scenarios are:
- target dies
- target kills a few attackers than dies
- target kills a few attackers and survives because enough dps was removed and CONCORD arrives
- target kills all targets before CONCORD shows up and survives
Today we have 2 scenarios in which the target dies and 2 in which the target survives.
In this model you exposed we have:
- target dies
- target kills a few attackers than dies
- target kills all targets and survives
Now we have 2 death scenarios and 1 survival.
Because now if the target shoots back that safety net offered by CONCORD’s will not exist anymore.
It kinda makes sense your idea because having a Limited Engagement Timer should not trigger a criminal just like in low sec.
What would happen if remote assistance is provided?
Can the gank fleet shoot all his logi and his booster? Will they inherit all the target’s combat timers?
If the idea would be PVP than we would need everybody assisting and shooting freely, even all the logi with safety on green, today the logi can get concorded depending on what happens on grid.
I don’t know yet how to put together your idea or what should be changed to make it feasible for CCP and the community.
For now I believe that CCP should give us more opportunities for valid wars, we could gank people as bait in attempt to make them war dec us so we can farm them.
That’s why I believe Faction Police should be removed from the grids where player structures are, stations or pocos, so the negative sec/standings people could fight wars in high sec. The alts could be brought in pods and fight at the HQs, also quick enough ganks would not trigger criminal timers.
I never said a solo Catalyst could gank a freighter. Stick to the argument. Jason Kusion can gank a freighter by himself.
Good point. He does the same thing to me.
CONCORD already shows up too late. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
It’s probably one of Aiko’s alts.
Ok @CCP_Falcon
I don’t think he works for the company any longer, x123zzz…
Falcon was quite a character. He told me off for being a bit spiteful on the forum; I agreed with him.
He also said (wrote)
I agreed with him there, too.
If you undock in unsafe space, knowing that there is a possibility of your being attacked, then you have acknowledged your exposure to that risk. If you’re unwilling to accept the risk, stay docked.
3 Likes