Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Gankers don't have many repercussions?

Because the so called victims refuse to do anything about it. Like any PvP interaction, "consequences" are for the other player to inflict. It doesn't take many Talos to gank a Machariel, especially since the bumping one are absolutely not combat fit. Meanwhile, if anyone pops the freighter's wreck, they have basically ruined the gank post facto.

The repercussions are there. But no one bothers to inflict them.

Your point suggests that people have to become gankers themselves to force repercussions upon the bumpers? And that they'd actually have to become more skilled than the gankers themselves at ganking in hunting a more agile, faster, smaller target that can't be endlessly bumped for an hour.

I don't feel this fits in with any kind of white knight roleplay. Besides which, if enough vigilantes DID decide to act in this way and the machariel losses became high enough then the bumpers would just stop using 'expensive' machs and simply downscale to insurable T1 hulls at which point there really would be no meaningful repercussion for them under the current game rules.

Outside of bumpers, gank alts can freely travel around highsec in pods and shuttles, freely dockup, freely undock (provided they have an instaundock BM and keep moving around the system) and at most put an 80m (already replaced) battlecruiser on the line at a point where they've already factored in it's loss to the activity they're partaking in...and of course, they can just swap to a non criminal alt for the duration of their 15 minute timer.

I like ganking as a part of the game but really it's laughable how easy it is to setup a 30 day gank alt and log it in on request.

Bumping deserves it's place but maybe some suggestions...

1. Active Tactical Ramming Shield Module for bumpers ?
1 per ship. High Slot-Requires Charges......1 Charge per bump.....10 Charges Max depending on the skill level? Can only be reloaded from Depot and Stations.
Bumping can be allowed without this but add in a 25 sec Bumper TImer/Buffer.....1st Bump.....Bumper TImer starts... buffer drops to 75%....another bump within 25 secs, timer resets, buffer to 50% and so on. If Ramming shield NOT active on the final bump...the bumper takes shield damage and becomes suspect. Bump buffer resets, once depleted again its now upgraded to criminal.
Maybe a bonus that once suspect level has been reached, the bumping has dice roll to damage and disable frieghter defenses.

2. Emergency Expanded Defense Shield for freighter
Now this should very limited. And take up a decent amount of cargo space.
More than 50 km from, gate station etc.
Maybe fit 8 charges but only 4 can be used per system.
As each charge is used. ship shield in expanded 1 km for 3-5 secs, blocking other ships from further bumps but depletes shield a certain percentage. If timed correctly, incoming ships within 1 km, with Ramming mod active, the Bump charge surges and mod takes heat damage and dice roll the surge causes 100% damage to mod. Some limitation that the shield has to be 100% to use each charge? Enter some friendly Anti-Gankers for shield reps.
If two or more bumpers join in, bumping timer is already active for another pilot....any further bumpers, start a normal 25 sec timer but buffer starts at 50%. 3rd bumper start 25%. Rare but 4th becomes suspect on the spot. Add a blinking beacon to identify how many timers are active.

If freighter pilot is experienced enough they may be able to time each charge to get themselves free, but will require communication with others and some luck.

These are not perfect, but gankers can get organized and gank well within those 14 bumps.

As far as Looting tactics
With the gank, loot & eject before ship lose tactic. The looted items themselves should be the Suspect trigger, atleast while the original looter is still Suspect for/or Criminal while obtaining them.
If loot is tranferred to a Fleet Hangar...the pilot needs "These items were recently illegally obtained, do you accept the items and consequences that follow, for allowing this transfer to your ship?" IF they accept they go Suspect.

"become gankers" nothing, the sec status loss is completely negligible if they don't pod the guy.

And yes, I am suggesting that if they want to kill a ship that isn't flagged, that they have to do exactly what everybody else does and suicide gank it.

Same thing I have to do if I want to kill a freighter, since they're basically never in player corps.



If by that you mean get within 20km for about twelve seconds, on a target that you know is going to be hanging around within 10km of a gate anyway. Not that high of a bar to jump, if they hate the ebil gankerz as much as they say they do.






I don't feel like that matters. They're players, same as everyone else, have access to the same mechanics and are subject to the same restrictions.

The only valid complaint they have is that facpo does their job better than they ever could.




Which means you would have had an effect, since due to their MUCH lower mass they have a lot less effect on a freighter.

You can't say that it's broken just because other people are allowed to react to your actions.




Just like everybody else who pays a sub, yeah. What's your point?

It's still a loss of security status and giving up kill rights to people who'd be happy to use them. Basically you have to burn an alt to do this in perpetuity or at least stop doing anything in expensive ships until the KR expires. You suffer more repercussions than the people that use disposable alts to do this with.

And I'm perfectly in agreement that people shouldn't be able to hide behind npc corps, that doesn't validate how the current mechanics work or don't work.

Whereas a freighter will be the same distance away from the gate and not as agile...so yes I think you just confirmed that it's easier to get an accurate warp in on and gank a freighter before it aligns away, unlike a machariel with an MWD fitted. I don't consider gankers 'ebil' - just a little lazy and scared of losing the ability to continue with their minimum effort, well oiled routine.

Which says nothing about whether those mechanics are actually any good or not. In features and ideas, generally people are pointing out flaws with current mechanics and suggesting changes. In this thread I disagree with the proposed changes but agree with some of the flaws that have been pointed out.

I'd love to see suicide ganking given a whole rework, including removing some of the ability of webbing freighters directly into warp to increase losses and risk across the board - but I'd also like to see bumping without aggression removed as a pretty lame mechanic.

Ah, so you're unwilling to deal with the exact same mechanical consequences as the gankers do?

If they scare you off, they must be fine then.




Nah, the fact that it's fair and equitable totally does, though. The only reason you see unequal outcomes is because one group of players is bad at the game, and the other is not.

If people wouldn't autopilot, ganking would drop by half overnight. Not one thing needs to be nerfed about a playstyle that basically only exists because haulers are stupid.




Yeah, so we should be nerfed because we're good at the game and have our procedures down.

And as for "effort", you don't get to say a word about that as long as mining and missioning still exist. Ganking is harder, more thoughtful and requires more effort than almost every PvE playstyle in highsec combined.

And hell, that's why ganking exists to begin with. It is 100% avoidable, so the players who fail to put in any effort to defend themselves die. That could not be more working as intended, and I honestly don't care if you think it's "stale" or "boring" or whatever code word you want to use for "it should change because I don't like it", which by the way isn't a reason to change one damned thing about this game.

"More effort for thee but not for me"

~Every carebear

Because they're not flagged. Their actions is explicitly not hostile.




It doesn't disrupt anything. Their warp engines are still online, and they are not scrammed.

It does change their alignment, but that's it.




Yeah, never happening. That currently occurs because of two things.

Facpo being the first, and the 15 min Concord "time out" being the second.

Unless you're willing to part with both of those, you'll never see such gatecamps as you claim you want. It's absolutely not in the cards.

And the ones I'm saying don't. Bumping into somebody else is a very specifically not hostile act. Not only has CCP said that it's beyond them to change that, since it's the base physics engine of the game, but it also does not fit ANY of Concord's definitions of one either, which require the activation of a module that has a deleterious effect on another player.





Incorrect. Their attempt to warp is still there, their ship is unable to complete it because they aren't aligned.

Hence webs.




And like I said, you really aren't going to get it for technical reasons at the very least. They might as well just make a new game as change things that fundamental to the base game.

Hell, it took them the better part of a decade to fix POSes, and they didn't actually fix it, it's still in the game because they can't fix it, they just made a replacement for it.

Blinkered views?

What are my views?