These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

High Sec Ganking - CONCORD Balance request

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Hiasa Kite
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1001 - 2017-03-02 02:17:10 UTC
Erich Einstein wrote:
Hiasa Kite wrote:

Depending on circumstances, gankers have 2 - 24 seconds to complete their gank from the instant they open fire. Faction police do not impose this limit, CONCORD do and this limit cannot be evaded (doing so is an actionable offence).


Faction Police are the ones who pursue in system based on security status. The issue arises when you have maxed out your security status and you can still warp around, trailing faction police around in Highsec all day long if you desire. Once you go forth with a gank, CONCORD comes in and wrecks, essentially rendering Faction Police useless against "career gankers" who do nothing else but gank all-day everyday every 15min. They are not prevented for staging right in jita so that they can purchase and manufacture new gank ships without every having to jump one gate with their freighter who travels to 4-4 for materials.

Faction Police aren't intended to stop gankers from playing the game. They're there to prevent them from doing anything but flying around and ganking.

That's the entirety of their purpose and it's a stupid one. If gankers could reship and attempt to run some missions, for example, then other players would have opportunity to get some revenge for earlier transgressions, causing the ganker potentially substantial loss.

The solution to your issue with ganking isn't to buff the likes of FacPo, but to nerf or even remove them. Instead of trying to make mechanical fixes to a non-issue, create opportunities for gankers' victims to actually get some meaningful revenge.

"Playing an MMO by yourself is like masturbating in the middle of an orgy." -Jonah Gravenstein
Ajem Hinken
WarFear Gaming
#1002 - 2017-03-02 02:17:24 UTC
Erich Einstein wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
NightmareX wrote:


I know how fast that ship is. I fly a Machariel as a daily basis when i'm in PVP ops and so on.



Clearly you don't, there is no way a mach can get up to speed before a freighter can be webbed into warp aside from gross incompetence.


Yeah NO, freighter pilots should not be required to run a web alt in highsec to be able to not get ganked. CONTROL the rate of criminal behavior in Highsec by any one person is all that is needed.

Consider a t-lock from outside your fleet illegal aggression then and we'd be good. I know a lot of people like to creep me out by t-locking me and then sitting right behind me while I'm scanning. When they can see I have railguns for defense.

Now you understand why.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6875494#post6875494 - Ship mounted explosives. Because explosions and Jita chaos.
NightmareX
Pandemic Horde High Sec Division
#1003 - 2017-03-02 02:17:29 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
NightmareX wrote:


I know how fast that ship is. I fly a Machariel as a daily basis when i'm in PVP ops and so on.



Clearly you don't, there is no way a mach can get up to speed before a freighter can be webbed into warp aside from gross incompetence.

Care to prove that?

Here is a list of my current EVE / PVP videos:

1: Asteroid Madness

2: Clash of the Empires

3: Suddenly Spaceships fighting in Tama
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#1004 - 2017-03-02 02:17:56 UTC
Erich Einstein wrote:
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Why are these consequences for ganking not adequate?

Taking into account the game lore, the game premise, the long standing history of the game and the fact that it is a game; what metric of justice are you using?


Thats like me asking you why are they enough? Please explain in 10 more posts with walls of text.


I can do it one.

Hisec is the highest population area in the game, at its base security level it's pretty safe when compared to the base state of other areas. The list of consequences that you so blithely dismissed is harsh enough that all but a very small minority risk incurring them.

Hisec has an extremely low crime rate, it wouldn't surprise me to find out that on average gankers account for a couple of hundred players online out of a hisec population that numbers in the 10's of thousands at the same time. I don't know, but I don't think I'm far wrong.

That's why the current consequences are enough, they do a good enough job that the vast majority don't want to incur them.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack
Erich Einstein
Swoop Salvage
#1005 - 2017-03-02 02:19:32 UTC
Hiasa Kite wrote:

Faction Police aren't intended to stop gankers from playing the game. They're there to prevent them from doing anything but flying around and ganking.

That's the entirety of their purpose and it's a stupid one. If gankers could reship and attempt to run some missions, for example, then other players would have opportunity to get some revenge for earlier transgressions, causing the ganker potentially substantial loss.

The solution to your issue with ganking isn't to buff the likes of FacPo, but to nerf or even remove them. Instead of trying to make mechanical fixes to a non-issue, create opportunities for gankers' victims to actually get some meaningful revenge.


No ganker is going to stop to go do some mission running in Highsec ... lol, you are a funny guy.
NightmareX
Pandemic Horde High Sec Division
#1006 - 2017-03-02 02:20:37 UTC  |  Edited by: NightmareX
Hiasa Kite wrote:
Doing any one of those things will massively reduce the odds of failure. Hardly working your ass off. Again, we seem to be talking about frieghters, whose death require somewhere in the region of twenty people working together, scouting, gathering intel and of course, warping in and pressing F1 for the kill.

You're attempting to claim that surviving ganks is the most difficult thing in EVE while perpetuating them is the easiest. Not so, they're pretty similar in the effort/difficulty versus reward ratio.

LOL, the fact that you don't know that this system should be there to determine your success rate of doing the actual ganking is the whole point. If you want to have it easy ganking others alot of times, then you should work much more for it. If you don't work for your criminal actions, then you shouldn't expect to get a free pass into high sec easily.

And the rest of you whining / crying is something i'm gonna ignore, because i have answered it a million times already. You don't even know what we are talking about, so no suprises there.

Here is a list of my current EVE / PVP videos:

1: Asteroid Madness

2: Clash of the Empires

3: Suddenly Spaceships fighting in Tama
Erich Einstein
Swoop Salvage
#1007 - 2017-03-02 02:22:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Erich Einstein
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:


Hisec has an extremely low crime rate, it wouldn't surprise me to find out that on average gankers account for a couple of hundred players online out of a hisec population that numbers in the 10's of thousands at the same time. I don't know, but I don't think I'm far wrong.

That's why the current consequences are enough, they do a good enough job that the vast majority don't want to incur them.


Gankers destroy more isk in Highsec alone than all of Black Rise on a given day where there are no major cap battles down in lowsec. Highsec is supposed to be safer than lowsec, yet it is not. If you need your proof, resort to zkill.
Hiasa Kite
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1008 - 2017-03-02 02:24:41 UTC
NightmareX wrote:
Hiasa Kite wrote:
That's not a fact, that's an opinion. I'm of the opinion that the penalties for ganking are overbearing and create a false sense of security amongst the unwary.

It's a fact that the current system treats you as a criminal as 'you are a naught boy for 15 minutes' and that's pretty much it. Doing a criminal act of ganking should gain you way more penalties than just being a naughty boy for 15 mins.

Obligatory: Why?

Quote:
Hiasa Kite wrote:
The 15 minute timer is a game mechanic which CCP controls. The gains from piracy are not, which CCP do not control. You can't fix the latter by tweaking the former.

Yes, the Concord timer is something CCP controls. And they also are the ones who are the ones who can change that for the better if there are many ideas on how to improve it, like this topic is meant for in the first place.

"You can't fix the latter by tweaking the former."

-"OK. Go kill someone that deserves some death in HiSec.
No? Looks like those deterrents are doing something after all."

-"LOL, you didn't even give me an argument on why i was wrong on that one. Does that mean i'm right that the current penalties has no effects on punishing the gankers enough?"
You've missed the point.

Ganking penalties don't exist to prevent chain ganking (save for the 15 minute crim timer, ofc), it exists to provide players with a reason NOT to kill that random guy they spotted at the gate. Take a look around next time you're in HiSec. You'll see systems with dozens, hundreds of players happily sitting next to each other not killing each other - or doing much interaction at all, to be frank.

You have CONCORD to thank for that, plus the associated punishments for ganking. If they were as ineffective as you claim, the systems of HiSec would be a lot less crowded and a lot more violent.

"Ganking is fine which this topic clearly states. But because you are stubborn and can't read, you still haven't figured out that this topic and what i'm saying has nothing to do with the actual ganking in itself, but what kind of penalties and consequences the actual players that DOES a criminal act or ganking should face AFTER the intital ganking has happened."
Oh look, it's the root of the One More Nerf argument: "Ganking is fine, I just think there is an issue with..."

"Do you even read bro?"
Do you? Moreover, do you think about why such a statement is mocked?

"Playing an MMO by yourself is like masturbating in the middle of an orgy." -Jonah Gravenstein
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1009 - 2017-03-02 02:30:44 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
NightmareX wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
NightmareX wrote:


I know how fast that ship is. I fly a Machariel as a daily basis when i'm in PVP ops and so on.



Clearly you don't, there is no way a mach can get up to speed before a freighter can be webbed into warp aside from gross incompetence.

Care to prove that?


Time to get a freighter into warp using duel webs is 2-3 seconds. Time to spool up the MWD on the mach and get up to speed tends to take little over one cycle of the MWD which is 10 seconds. That does not include the few seconds to align the battleship towards the freighter. This also assumes the battleship is within 10km of the target which is rarely will be. Distance can be anything up to 40km so times can and will be far higher to get a bump.
Erich Einstein
Swoop Salvage
#1010 - 2017-03-02 02:30:54 UTC
Hiasa Kite wrote:
NightmareX wrote:
Hiasa Kite wrote:
That's not a fact, that's an opinion. I'm of the opinion that the penalties for ganking are overbearing and create a false sense of security amongst the unwary.

It's a fact that the current system treats you as a criminal as 'you are a naught boy for 15 minutes' and that's pretty much it. Doing a criminal act of ganking should gain you way more penalties than just being a naughty boy for 15 mins.

Obligatory: Why?

Quote:
Hiasa Kite wrote:
The 15 minute timer is a game mechanic which CCP controls. The gains from piracy are not, which CCP do not control. You can't fix the latter by tweaking the former.

Yes, the Concord timer is something CCP controls. And they also are the ones who are the ones who can change that for the better if there are many ideas on how to improve it, like this topic is meant for in the first place.

"You can't fix the latter by tweaking the former."

-"OK. Go kill someone that deserves some death in HiSec.
No? Looks like those deterrents are doing something after all."

-"LOL, you didn't even give me an argument on why i was wrong on that one. Does that mean i'm right that the current penalties has no effects on punishing the gankers enough?"
You've missed the point.

Ganking penalties don't exist to prevent chain ganking (save for the 15 minute crim timer, ofc), it exists to provide players with a reason NOT to kill that random guy they spotted at the gate. Take a look around next time you're in HiSec. You'll see systems with dozens, hundreds of players happily sitting next to each other not killing each other - or doing much interaction at all, to be frank.

You have CONCORD to thank for that, plus the associated punishments for ganking. If they were as ineffective as you claim, the systems of HiSec would be a lot less crowded and a lot more violent.

"Ganking is fine which this topic clearly states. But because you are stubborn and can't read, you still haven't figured out that this topic and what i'm saying has nothing to do with the actual ganking in itself, but what kind of penalties and consequences the actual players that DOES a criminal act or ganking should face AFTER the intital ganking has happened."
Oh look, it's the root of the One More Nerf argument: "Ganking is fine, I just think there is an issue with..."

"Do you even read bro?"
Do you? Moreover, do you think about why such a statement is mocked?

report this guy for continually including random copy and paste text in his posts. Admins will eventually remove him.
Erich Einstein
Swoop Salvage
#1011 - 2017-03-02 02:32:53 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
NightmareX wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
NightmareX wrote:


I know how fast that ship is. I fly a Machariel as a daily basis when i'm in PVP ops and so on.



Clearly you don't, there is no way a mach can get up to speed before a freighter can be webbed into warp aside from gross incompetence.

Care to prove that?


Time to get a freighter into warp using duel webs is 2-3 seconds. Time to spool up the MWD on the mach and get up to speed tends to take little over one cycle of the MWD which is 10 seconds. That does not include the few seconds to align the battleship towards the freighter. This also assumes the battleship will with within 10km of the target which is rarely will be. Distance can be anything up to 40km so times can and will be far higher to get a bump.


So now freighters need two webs ... next its will be three webs and a fleet for protection.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1012 - 2017-03-02 02:35:11 UTC
Erich Einstein wrote:


So now freighters need two webs ... next its will be three webs and a fleet for protection.


You can fit multiple webs to a single ship. Do you seriously need to be told these things?
Erich Einstein
Swoop Salvage
#1013 - 2017-03-02 02:37:32 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Erich Einstein wrote:


So now freighters need two webs ... next its will be three webs and a fleet for protection.


You can fit multiple webs to a single ship. Do you seriously need to be told these things?


Yeah, and when I get ganked still .... You shouldnt have put all your webs on one ships right....
NightmareX
Pandemic Horde High Sec Division
#1014 - 2017-03-02 02:40:08 UTC
Hiasa Kite wrote:
Obligatory: Why?

Because.

It's been explained several times already. I'm not gonna spoonfeed you just because you are lazy reading what i have said.

And again, the rest of your wall of text is nothing more than a lame try to sidetrack what my whole point is, so i'm not gonna bother to answer you more than this because you don't get my points in the first place.

Here is a list of my current EVE / PVP videos:

1: Asteroid Madness

2: Clash of the Empires

3: Suddenly Spaceships fighting in Tama
Hiasa Kite
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1015 - 2017-03-02 02:40:19 UTC
NightmareX wrote:
It's the hard facts that losing a cheap Destroyer and only gets a 15 minute waiting timer isn't considered a punishment for the types of objectives they have.

"It's the hard facts [...] isn't considered."

In. Your. Motherhumping. Opinion.

Quote:
Not even the fact that everyone can shoot you for 15 minutes

Criminals (-5.0 and lower) can be aggressed AT ANY TIME, not just after a gank.

Quote:
either isn't going to make the ganking in it self ANY harder at all, because no one is going to ever catch you in 99.9% of all times you undock and before you do the actial ganking. The only thing that works against the gankers are the 15 minute Concord timer which again is way to little risk compared to what you gain.

And competence. Don't forget competence. A competent pilot seldom dies to ganks.

"I have given an idea on a system that you barely have been able to counter argument against."
You haven't even established a need for the system to exist. We'll get to the flaws with the system once we establish a need exists, first.

"You use a lame and aggressive tone in your discussion here and drags in tons of other things that has nothing to do with the penalties that a criminal should face for doing more and more crimes that is the ONLY thing i'm talking about."
Obligatory: Why?

"My evidences are in what i'm saying about how criminals should be treated as."
That's not evidence, that's opinion. Your inability to tell objective fact from opinion is worrying.

"[i]A criminal shouldn't just be a naughty boy for 15 minutes and then be back doing same crimes over and over without facing more penalties."
Obligatory: Why?

"[i]It's logic that criminals will face harsher penalties the more crimes they do. It's normal practice to do against criminals."
Holy skeezballs, he's attempting to rationalise. After 3 pages over the last couple hours maybe we can start conversing.

In real life, dear, in real life. This is a computer game, one that is balanced around the possibility of conflict.

The OP demands that ganks be way, way more profitable in order to pay for the tags necessary to make the mandatory sec status repairs. Let's say you're repairing sec status for 20mil per gank (I'm not familiar with these prices, so correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure I'm lowballing) and you've called in 20 people for a gank on a freighter. That means the gank costs 400 million across the fleet to pay for its own sec status repair. That means the freighter can now safely carry an extra 800million before becoming profitable to gank - when considering destroyer fleets (but have the lowest cost threshold).

The OP's suggestion significantly increases the safety level for freighters because...

You know what? We're back at that question again, aren't we? Why? Why is this change necessary?

"Playing an MMO by yourself is like masturbating in the middle of an orgy." -Jonah Gravenstein
Hiasa Kite
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1016 - 2017-03-02 02:41:56 UTC
NightmareX wrote:
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Not bad. you forgot about the drop in sec status becoming being shoot on sight due to it, and all the other things that go with it. I'll give you 2.5/10 for including a partial truth.

A drop in sec status wont prevent you in ANY types of form from undocking a new ship and gank someone with a small ship. Sec status doesn't matter in this case. Again, you should work more for your criminal acts.

Obligatory: Why?

Obligatory: If criminal punishments are so ineffective, why isn't HiSec a much more violent place?

Quote:
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
This is opinion, why is yours so much more important than anybody else's?

No, it's a fact that a 15 minute naughty boy timer should be more than just that when you as a ganker don't gain ANY penalties what so ever for what you are doing except for a 15 minute waiting game which isn't a penalty in the first place for you.

In your opinion.

"Playing an MMO by yourself is like masturbating in the middle of an orgy." -Jonah Gravenstein
NightmareX
Pandemic Horde High Sec Division
#1017 - 2017-03-02 02:43:30 UTC  |  Edited by: NightmareX
baltec1 wrote:
Time to get a freighter into warp using duel webs is 2-3 seconds. Time to spool up the MWD on the mach and get up to speed tends to take little over one cycle of the MWD which is 10 seconds. That does not include the few seconds to align the battleship towards the freighter. This also assumes the battleship is within 10km of the target which is rarely will be. Distance can be anything up to 40km so times can and will be far higher to get a bump.

Did you know that a bumping Machariel can use several tries to bump a freighter by just following him for several jumps hoping to land more nearer him when he uncloaks?

And if you land 4km from him when he uncloaks, it's game over for him no matter how many webbers or alts you have with you to protect him.

So again, a Machariel is all that's needed to ruin a freighter pilot for doing his job. And when you also takes into consideration on how many Machariels there are out there, then yeah, it's a mess for the freighter pilots.

Here is a list of my current EVE / PVP videos:

1: Asteroid Madness

2: Clash of the Empires

3: Suddenly Spaceships fighting in Tama
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1018 - 2017-03-02 02:43:55 UTC
Erich Einstein wrote:


Yeah, and when I get ganked still .... You shouldnt have put all your webs on one ships right....


Do you even play this game?
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1019 - 2017-03-02 02:48:46 UTC
NightmareX wrote:

Did you know that a bumping Machariel can use several tries to bump a freighter by just following him for several jumps hoping to land more nearer him when he uncloaks?


Could but they don't. There is a reason why almost all freighter ganks happen in just a handful of systems.
NightmareX wrote:

And if you land 4km from him when he uncloaks, it's game over for him no matter how many webbers or alts you have with you to protect him.


So rare it might as well not happen. Its akin to not being able to cloak because that one ship on gate is withing 2km
NightmareX wrote:

So again, a Machariel is all that's needed to ruin a freighter pilot for doing his job. And when you also takes into consideration on how many Machariels there are out there, then yeah, it's a mess for the freighter pilots.


I literally just told you how this isn't true.
Hiasa Kite
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1020 - 2017-03-02 02:49:34 UTC
NightmareX wrote:
Hiasa Kite wrote:
But it's totally fine to set course, autopilot and AFK to victory. Because that's compelling game play that's totally sustainable.

It's fine as it's part of the game. If a freighter pilot do afk traveling or does it actively, shouldn't prevent the gankers for gaining more penalties the more they gank.

Again, why are you bringing in things that has nothing to do with the criminal system on how that works against gankers?

Are we talking about that or are we talking about being afk or not?

You make a flawed argument, I point out said flaw. In this case, you're trying to reinforce your opinion by stating that ganking is easy. The two-part counter being that 1: So is avoiding ganks and 2: Almost everything in EVE can be considered easy.

"It's not unnecessary when this only will go against those who do more gankings. Doing criminal acts alot shouldn't come cheap or easily. Do you understand that?"
Yes, I understand that. My question is an obligatory: Why?

Hiasa Kite wrote:
A freighter carrying 5bil in goodies attracts ganker attention.

"That's correct. But like i have said, this has nothing to do with what you might find attractive to gank or not. This has only to do with how a system in EVE should treat gankers or criminal players who break the rules of high sec."
It's a hypothetical scenario. I'm explaining that loads of player activity erupts from adversity. When the game isn't easy, when we can actually fail at the things we try to do and in our times of need, we turn to others for help. EVE gives us these challenges by way of asymmetric non-consensual player-driven combat.

You asked me why I felt nerfs to non-consensual PvP was a bad thing. That was my answer. Why are you asking me these questions then berating me for going off-topic? Moreover, why are you accusing me of even going off-topic when I'm countering the notion that we need a change such as that laid out by the OP?

"Playing an MMO by yourself is like masturbating in the middle of an orgy." -Jonah Gravenstein