Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Some people really need to learn to read... Honestly I can't see a single way that your comment relates to this thread at all...

Current response time in pulled systems is about this much
1.0 11.5 sec
11.8
13 sec
16 sec
19 sec
24 sec

What you are suggesting is a nerf to ganking that is about as brutal as all nerfs so far put together.
Totally not a nerf gankers thread.

Yup

This ^

Use the higher numbers. Whatever it is right now for systems that have had concord pulled.

The intention is literally to buff ganking. That is it.

The only down-side to gankers comes in if the anti-gankers follow through and *use* the opportunity I think CCP should give them - to target you in turn and attempt to gank your looting ships and your wrecks.

My solution to ganking is literally: More ganking.



Now, I know that the for-profit gankers have a pretty cushy, risk-free setup right now. I get that you don't want to give that up... But I don't believe *anybody* in EVE should be safe, even if they've just pulled concord onto the grid to protect themselves.

I disagree that it is risk free, but that they have learned how to manage the risk. When players learn to do that good on them. That in absolutely no way should necessitate a nerf, IMO.

IMO AG's job should inject some uncertainty into ganking for them. To the extent that AG won't do this is not a game mechanics problem it is a problem of player choice and incentives.

If Brokk can understand this proposal, so can you.

I wouldn't consider a civilian cannon a high-end investment anyway-- might as well let go of the formalities and go for a fixed timer.

Were it up to me, I'd rather make concord a player-run corporation where criminal flags send out a "ping" to which players are supposed to respond-- with no guaranteed response times and in fact no guarantee the "response fleet" will be able to repel the transgressors. Might pay out in concord LP, somewhat akin to factional warfare. Criminal flag generates a bookmark you can warp to and a message in "corp chat" - what more do you need? Undock go go go!

Sounded good in my head. Figured I'd post it. Let the flame war begin.

Given how popular FW is, it might be worth a shot. Farming CODE for LP? Hell yeah!

My fear with such player run police force was not that nobody would be willing to do it (for cash or LP, mind you), but that they wouldn't respond in certain cases. "Screw that guy, I'm not going to bail him out again", or even wind up with half of the police force being ganker alts and getting both the loot AND the payout.

In short, I foresee some problems with it as well but IF they could make that work, I'd happily go police highsec for a bit when I'm early, awaiting the rest of our crew to log on.

I would like to refer you to the ultimatum game.



The point being that people care about fairness and will often incur losses to ensure fairness.

We see it in society as well. Our reactions to violations of cultural norms are often much more extreme than the violation should entail Cutting in line for example is often met with a very strong reaction when in fact it means only a small addition to your wait time. The response is often completely disproportionate to the actual costs these violations cause.

In fact, I'd argue we are seeing the same thing here. Somebody loss some space pixels, due in large part to their own choices, and they come here and want a significant reworking of the very core philosophy of the game. What is that if not disproportionate. Oddly enough though, they do not want to take a disproportionate action in game...probably because it would entail a personal loss, whereas whining to CCP for such a change imposes the losses on others...which makes it an example of truly selfish behavior, IMO.

Basically, a long winded way of saying: your proposal gives the AG community a method by which they can try to gank the wreck without worrying about CONCORD. I think the current estimate for popping the wreck is 15 catalysts, yes? Is that with CONCORD on grid--i.e. say a 9 second response time vs. 19. If so you can drop that 15 down to 8 to be sure. In other words, ganking the wreck just got significantly "cheaper". In fact, one should be able to drop a wreck rather quickly, IMO. They have 15,000 ehp. There are no resists, so the ehp is also 15,000. I can do 585 DPS in a gank catalyst, but lets drop that down to 400 (a nearly 32% decrease). And if we have 5 guys their DPS is now 2,000 and that means in 7.5 seconds the wreck is toast...if CONCORD in a 0.5 system responds when on grid in 9 seconds, that is one dead wreck. Of course, this is all just theory.

If that cost is still "too high" then I'd argue that is on the AG guys.

Edit: Forgot overheating guns. Overheating I'd do 673 DPS. So using the same ratio as above, make it 457 DPS, and with 5 guys it would take about 6.6 seconds to kill a wreck. What is that 40 or so million ISK to blow up 3-4 billion ISK? Granted you get no profit, but neither does the other guy. Sounds like a fine example of the ultimatum game.

The problem with this analysis is that you are looking solely at the cost to gank the wreck in a vacuum. Antiganking is not long term sustainable because there is no loot to offset the loss of the gank ship. Random suicide attacks aside, the vast majority of ganks are done for the profit. They are chose because the loot drop will, on average, offset the cost of the gank ships and then some. Antiganking cannot compete with this in the long run no matter the mechanics changes to Concord.

To be honest I'm not even sure that there should be any changes to the mechanics around these scenarios as they are part of the core of what makes EVE interesting but I can see both sides of the argument and the reality is that ganking is prevealent because the mechanics favour it and it is easy to turn a profit.

IF changes were to be made to the mechanics then rather than screwing around with Concord the simplest solution is to have the ownership of the wreck retained by the gank victim if they are killed by someone who is Concorded (why is Concord giving ownership of the victims possessions to the criminal anyway?). This way mobile tractors wouldn't touch the wreck and the gankers could still scoop the loot but it would make the ship doing the scoop suspect. Counter gankers could then escort haulers in combat ships and if someone ganks them and tries to steal the loot they go suspect in front of a full fit combat ship.

You raise a fair point, but I would argue that you can try to emulate CODE. in at least one respect. Set up an alliance and go to the forums and ask for money like CODE. does. You might have to incur a sunk cost--i.e. spend some ISK first to show you are serious, and to keep the money flowing show some positive results--e.g. dead bumping ships, wrecks being shot (the latter might be an issue if there is no KM...which if you wanted to argue CCP should fix, I'd go along with that), etc.

It may not be "easy" but this notion that it should be easy when CODE. and the likes go to such efforts seems that similar efforts be required on the other side.

As for the ownership of the wreck, it is, unless I am mistaken (and I have never paid attention to this on the few times I have ganked ships--e.g. Burn Jita) it belongs to the person who ganked the ship (again I'm guessing the person who got the final blow) so not the person scooping the loot. Again, CODE. found a solution to that one too. Assuming I have not made a mistake here...CODE. are actually rather innovative players, IMO.

The wreck actually belongs to the original owner alone since they were killed illegally.

And CODE. is just abusing the mechanic that allows a rookie ship to transfer cargo directly into a fleet hangar bay and only suspect flags the rookie ship to loot items they do not own while avoiding the intended consequences. However that issue was raised on a different thread, and ignored.