Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Probably, all these ideas have been discussed previously. The purpose of this thread is not to reveal a revolutionary idea, but to pack all those separate good ideas into a mechanic with a good synergy in EVE Online. I am expecting comments for and against but, please, justify your views.

Suicide ganking has its place in EVE Online, I am not asking to remove it but to limit it dynamically according to players actions. If in the real world there are a bunch of criminals assaulting every truck they find on a specific place of the highway, eventually the police will deploy some patrols at that place until the problem is solved (temporally) This would reflect in EVE with a dynamic system to measure crime and Concord presence in highsec. Of course, demanding that Concord pursues players when they come back with another ship to gank again would be game breaking, and unfair. However, giving this task to bounty hunters will increase the appeal of that profession (despite the previous expansion, this profession didn't take off as everybody expected) In bounty hunting, the real problem are the NPC agents, not the system of bounties and kill right selling. Usually, the delay is so high that when you arrive, there's nobody there to hunt. This should be changed to respond dynamically too. If you are a dangerous criminal being hunted for all NPC agents in New Eden, everybody should be looking for you closely. However, if you are comitting a crime for first time, almost nobody should notice it. Not comitting crimes for a time will decrease the heat of your pursuit.

To sum up, these are the changes I am proposing

1) Criminal actions will affect the security status of a system. The more crimes, less the security status (but never enough to transform the system into a lowsec, not yet at least, nor the opposite, lowsecs into highsec) There will be several systems that won't have any change because of lore and technical reasons (assigning CPU to new Jitas appearing randomly would be a nightmare for CCP) Security status will become an indicator of the general security of a system over a period of time (a week, or even a day for example)

2) There will be something new called "Concord's presence". This will be instant, in opposite to security status, since Concord needs time to rank a system with a new security status. The more criminal actions in the system, the more Concord's pressence. The opposite too, the less criminal actions, lesser Concord's presence. This will translate in response times like the current system of security status we have in Tranquility. Concord's presence will be radiated to neighbour systems, since it's quite stupid to have a lot of Concord ships in one system, and nobody watching the other side. Take into account that when I say "in the system" I am not meaning "camping the gate". They still have to arrive to the place where the crime is happening, but they will have forces in that system and some less forces in the neighbours (except in the case those neighbour systems are critical too) The special systems of the point (1) will irradiate Concord's pressence too, but they will have the same Concord's presence always. Don't worry, they will be just a few. There is something I haven't meditated thoroughly which is making the Concord's presence visible or invisible. If it is invisible, gankers will have to guess from security status or check kill mails to have an estimate time of Concord's arrive. This will make the game more random and less a work of calculator.

3) In relation to bounty hunting, the NPC agents will be faster and more accurate if the criminal is very relapsing. Lesser criminals will be pursued with lesser intensity. After a period of not comitting crimes (in highsec and lowsec), the heat of your pursue will decrease (like in GTA) Even Concord could be tipping the punishment of the most dangerous criminals. I am still deciding if it will be possitive or not that agents give the players some statistics of their target. Less accurate if the criminal is less important, and vice versa. Being able to contact the agent remotelly to get new coordinates of your target is another idea, but I am not sure if it will be better to have an alter or a friend in the agent's station doing that work.



To sum up everything. It makes more random the life of everybody in highsec, and at the same time, it boosts the bounty hunter profession. Certaintly, the Concord's pressence should be hidden, it makes everything more interesting and unpredictable.

mmm Those changes look pretty good^^ +1

Gankers don't know how they will end the day either. You don't know if the target has brought ECM friends (so you need ECCM) or logistics (so you need more DPS) or Armor/Shield links (more DPS) or a webber (so you need suicide ECM yourself). Then when you finally destroyed your target, you don't know if you'll be able to pick up loot (Loot-fairy was against you, friends of the target lock/bump your looter, the wreck gets shot, loot gets stolen). There are many variables that make suicide ganking far from easy and predictable. (If it were easy, more freighters would die than a couple a day)

So? If the freighter pilot doesn't want to protect his assets, why should the game help them?



Yes, the drop rate in the long term is 50%. But you still won't be able to get all that loot. Just yesterday we had 1 failed gank (ECM) and 1 gank where 5.5Billion in loot got vaporized because our hauler was repeatedly bumped and kept from looting the freighter.

Can you overcome reps with more people? Yes, of course. Just like in any other PvP, the more DPS you have, the less reps can help, Freighters/Industrials shouldn't need special protection here.

The thing about failed ganks is: You rarely see them sticking out on the killboard. But it is safe to say that a dozen dead freighters in all of eve per day is very very few, compared to the number of freighters moving about. (This includes death to war targets, suspect flags and kills in low- and nullsec, so the number of ganks is lower)



Yes, that fits perfectly in the "just one more nerf" doctrine that has been present in the minds of "carebears". "Just make CONCORD respond faster, then it will be good". CONCORD response times got buffed. "Remove the ability to strike multiple places in one system when ganking in a fast, agile ship, then it will be good". CONCORD now insta-scrambles the moment you gank. "Remove insurance payout from suicide gank ships, then it will be good". Kills by CONCORD don't pay out insurance anymore. "Make barges/exhumers more gank proof, then it will be good". Barges/Exhumers got a huge buff, even introducing a exhumer with battleship like tank.

Before even considering any changes, can the OP explain why suicide ganking even needs limiting?

Good point. Remove any and all Incursions from High-Sec, since I'm pretty sure CONCORD would do anything they can to protect civilians. Or, if CONCORD for whatever reason isn't powerful enough to defeat the Sansha's, remove CONCORD from incursion affected systems.

And when we are at it: It's very unrealistic that CONCORD would allow pirate NPCs to build a presence in high security space: Remove DED complexes and "Shoot Pirates"-missions from high-sec.

Also it's unrealistic to assume that CONCORD would stand idly by when players attack faction ships: Remove security missions from high sec.



When did grrr-Goons do that?



Bounty hunters stalk their target, notice patterns of operations and profit from this knowledge. They can do this already, no need for a mechanics change.

I have tried on Singularity, CONCORD can easily wipe out 12 Battleships in 15 seconds in a incursion system. I don't see why they can't to the same to incursions.



Makes no sense. Why is CONCORD able to come in the deadspace pocket when a criminal action occurs within? They are able to bypass the gate restrictions with ease.



CONCORD is able to detect a criminal act within seconds, but are completely unaware of a large pirate stronghold ($PIRATE extravaganza for example)? Completely unrealistic.

Re: Newbie income
GSF encourages newbies to leave high sec after completing the tutorial and most new players make more ISK/hour salvaging anoms than they could doing level1/2/3 missions.

Re: Freighter ganking income
I'm not saying that it isn't profitable, I'm saying it isn't as profitable as you make it out to be. You can't just look at loot dropped and say: Wow, goons made 5 Billion with 10 people, that's a plex for each, because you don't know how long it took to get the kill or whether they were able to scoop the loot at all.

At some point, logic breaks when you start thinking about a game. Concords can't be gods, although jovian technology helps them a lot. However, this break in the logic can't happen right at the beginning if you want that your game looks reallistic. Having stronger pressence in the most dangerous systems of highsec looks basic to me.

About newbies, is it me or that sounds like "lol, learn to play noob, go to low/null sec and fight like a man"? Even beyond that reason, do you think that the game should FORCE players to abandon highsec? That way, living in highsec doesn't sound like a valid option. It sounds more like "go to the wild west or die of boredom playing this game" (boredom = limiting your options in highsec) Each player should be able to have fun equally by chosing the zone of New Eden they want (highsec, lowsec, null and wormholes) Punishing highsec dwellers for being risk-averse is like punishing nullsec alliances for using titans.

EDIT: There is something I don't like about suicide gank supporters. It's not their play-style, but their mentality. As a player, you shouldn't force other players to follow your steps. If the game have different zones for each type of player, harassing players who chose not to face too many risk sounds like "this is my game, play like I want or go home"

Even with work behind, 200 freighters in a month is an astronomical sum of money. Anyway, if you think there is effort behind ganking massively, I think that it is still less hard than keeping a lot of moon mining poses in nullsec, where you can lose them easily unless you protect them. Considering payout vs effort, ganking freighter is extremely profitable, even losing your ships. That's why the security in highsec needs an update.




I guess that you are thinking that, if lowsec has a lot of crimes, neighbour systems (highsecs) will have stronger police forces. Well, although it sounds coherent, you have to understand that lowsec is beyond the reach of Concord. They record criminal acts there but they don't protect those systems. They leave some Concord forces in the neighbour highsecs to avoid the spread of crime beyond their natural limits. Reinforcing dangerous systems under their jurisdiction is different, it's more like a slap in the face of Concord.

I am afraid you didn't read some changes I did to the paragraph when I was talking about newbies and the edit I did after that. It's not your fault, I was still changing it when you replied. Please, read it.

---

Concord = Police, Police -> Protects, not just avenges. IRL, police tries to suppress crime, not only to punish it. In fact, if they know crime is likely to happen in certain place, they try to go on ahead of it and protect that place.

If you were talking about protecting a freighter in low/null sec, I will totally agree with you. However, in highsec Concord should provide that protection. I have found an excellent comment in other thread which illustrates how unbalanced is that protection you are saying vs suicide ganks

Oh boy, that quote gets quite some stuff wrong about ganking. Probably because they never tried for themselves and just rely on posters on the forums for information.



Here goes:

You can't bump a freighter in ******* shuttles. If the scout sees a Machariel, Stabber or Typhoon (the most common bump ships) sitting at the gate, the freighter should not jump in. Likewise, it's relatively easy to see who in local is a likely suicide ganker, check security status, check kill history of the alliances. If there are 15 GSF people or PIZZA or whatever other gank squads, better don't jump in.

Of course you can counter-bump the bumpers or you can suicide gank them yourself. You always have options.



There seems to be a misunderstanding here. With 3 webs, a freighter warps in less than 2 seconds. The direction the physical model is headed does not matter for align time - this is a very common mistake people make. There is no such thing as "passive alignment" (point into direction you want to go at 0 speed), you will always warp in the same amount of time. No need for safe spots either, as you can warp to station or different stargate directly.



Another grave misunderstanding of game mechanics: Everyone can shoot people that loot your wreck, because they become Suspect flagged. That was another nerf to suicide ganking, introduced in Retribution. And a battle fleet is far from worthless. 4 Blackbirds will easily keep a 15 man BC gang from successfully ganking your freighter. Come Rubicon, the rebalanced EAFs will be immensely useful as defensive options.

If the gankers use catalysts, you can use insta-canes to one-shot them off the grid, they have 0 tank fitted.

Re: ECM-Burst/Smartbombs
You wouldn't use ECM bursts, you would use single-target ECM, same as smartbombs. You use targetted weapons, not AoE weapons.

Re: Remote-Repping
You don't use ******* Battleships for that task, you use the rebalanced tech1 logistics cruisers. Each will negate ~1 gank-Brutix.

To sum it up: The author of that quote has missed most of the changes to the game (or the quote is very old) and has no idea of game mechanics.