These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
123Next pageLast page
 

High Sec Ganking - CONCORD Balance request

First post
Author
Erich Einstein
Swoop Salvage
#1 - 2017-02-25 21:05:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Erich Einstein
Edit: PLEASE READ (SKIM THROUGH) WHAT OTHERS HAVE POSTED. AFTER READING, IF YOU STILL HAVE SOMETHING TO COMMENT THAT HAS NOT ALREADY BEEN ADDRESSED OR IS STILL NOT CLEAR, THEN I WELCOME YOUR INPUT. IF IT RELATES TO THE OP IN A LOGICAL WAY, I WILL EDIT THE OP TO ADDRESS YOUR CONCERN.

LOTS OF TROLLING FROM PAGES 40 TO 60. YOU CAN SKIP THOSE PAGES.


Disclaimer: I understand that ganking is a part of the game and I am completely ok with that. I actually like that people in highsec are not completely protected.

Given that, CONCORD (edit: Faction Police) and the security status are completely useless against repeat offenders (mainly -5.0 and lower) who fleet gank every 15min - 24hours a day. Yeah, im talking about those staged up in Jita V - Moon 17 station. Ganking as a profession and source of income should come with the requirement of having to manage and repair your security status based on the system that you are ganking in.

To implement this i propose two changes:

First:
CONCORD (edit: Faction Police) should respond differently if a pilot's security status falls low enough in a particular highsec system. This second phase of aggression would consist of stations and jump gates instantly webbing and warp-disrupting while CONCORD (edit: Faction Police) moves in. This prevents serial criminals from freely moving through highsec and also prevent gank fleets from staging in highsec systems unless they control their security status correctly. Customs officials already behave this way on gates so it makes complete sense to expand this behavior to CONCORD's (edit: Faction Police) abilities. CONCORD (edit: Faction Police) should not be made to look like fools who can be manipulated.

Here is an example of when this second phase would kick in:

1.0 system - CONCORD (edit: Faction Police) phase 2 (-4.0 and lower)
0.9 system - CONCORD (edit: Faction Police) phase 2 (-5.0 and lower)
0.8 system - CONCORD (edit: Faction Police) phase 2 (-6.0 and lower)
0.7 system - CONCORD (edit: Faction Police) phase 2 (-7.0 and lower)
0.6 system - CONCORD (edit: Faction Police) phase 2 (-8.0 and lower)
0.5 system - CONCORD (edit: Faction Police) phase 2 (-9.0 and lower)
0.4 system and lower - not applicable

Second (edit: Optional - only if needed):
To prevent alpha clones from continually being rolled and used as disposable gank toons, I propose that only omega pilots be allowed to set their safety to red, while alpha clones can only set their safety to yellow at most.

(Edit)
Others have said that this might be to harsh for lowsec pirates just because they like to pod. CCP could determine to adjust the penalty for podding in lowsec if necessary.
(/Edit)

I feel that this will balance out the security and safety of highsec without damaging the ability to gank. This change will require gank fleets to put in an effort if they want to treat highsec like a free meal.

This would also bring more meaning to tags, where they can be used to repair status so that mission running is not the only option. Gankers would have to weigh tags cost against target profit to be effective.

CCPlease implement this or something similar so that repeat gank fleets can not freely stage and travel in highsec. If career criminals want to take advantage of major markets like jita and amarr, then they can use an alt or carrier service to get goods. No need for career criminals to even be allowed in highsec. (Edit: Unless they manage their security status properly) That is what a security status is meant to control.
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#2 - 2017-02-25 21:19:27 UTC
Roll
Querns
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#3 - 2017-02-25 21:22:01 UTC
post your lossmail

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

Erich Einstein
Swoop Salvage
#4 - 2017-02-25 21:24:02 UTC
Querns wrote:
post your lossmail


Check my corporation.... I take gank loot, I dont lose it. Dont believe me, see my many videos on twitch: www.twitch.tv/agsperry/
Omnathious Deninard
Ministry of Silly Walks.
The Dead Parrots
#5 - 2017-02-25 21:25:37 UTC
All together now, just one more nerf and it will be balanced.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.

Erich Einstein
Swoop Salvage
#6 - 2017-02-25 21:27:53 UTC
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
All together now, just one more nerf and it will be balanced.


No developer gets it right the first time. Thats why all major games come with patches. Its called reactive development.
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#7 - 2017-02-25 21:28:32 UTC
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
All together now, just one more nerf and it will be balanced.


This is one of the outright removal threads, not one of the begging for nerfs threads.

I'm guessing he lost a jump freighter or something to the latest burn jita.
Erich Einstein
Swoop Salvage
#8 - 2017-02-25 21:31:44 UTC
Danika Princip wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
All together now, just one more nerf and it will be balanced.


This is one of the outright removal threads, not one of the begging for nerfs threads.

I'm guessing he lost a jump freighter or something to the latest burn jita.


.... says a goonswarm career ganker!
Orca Platypus
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#9 - 2017-02-25 21:35:35 UTC
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
All together now, just one more nerf and it will be balanced.

You mean at least one nerf.
All we've seen for years now are buffs, buffs, and more buffs, until the hardest part of ganking became logging in your alpha clone gank alt.
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#10 - 2017-02-25 21:38:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Danika Princip
Erich Einstein wrote:


.... says a goonswarm career ganker!


Prove it.

Orca Platypus wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
All together now, just one more nerf and it will be balanced.

You mean at least one nerf.
All we've seen for years now are buffs, buffs, and more buffs, until the hardest part of ganking became logging in your alpha clone gank alt.


Roll
Asika Koraka
Dragon Factory
#11 - 2017-02-25 21:41:42 UTC
i only agree if offending player not repeately biomass alpha clone or start new one to continue ganking since you can get around 300 dps catalyst on alpha clone .

disabling the safety system change to red for alpha clones is very bad idea if alpha cloe lives in lwosec and want kill pods.
so no for this change. there is other way

to let you know the bad idea could be also by making stargates denying people wwith -10 security status - dont do it the workaround is very easy.

when you gank people in i.e jita your system local security status also drops and once you reach -10 security status you cannot dock to station that you were ganking near. even worse station guns will now keep you ECM jammed so they render you useless as camper,you have to warp out then warp in and do your work.
whats else? make concord static spawns near gates stations and asteroid belts to make ganking harder and requiring you to have eoungh forces. and no the exsisting concord spawns will not increase there could be only 5 frigate 5 cruiser 5 battleships and no more no less, no further extra spawns so you could gank that skiff with 40 talos and outnumber concord agression well when your 40man talos fleet gets criminal flag their warp drive is fully disabled they cant warp cloak jump or any other stuff and group will die slowly acccording to how fast concord destroy your group members and before entire group is defeated by concord your target would be dead aswell.

autopilot should be fully disabled in 0.5 systems and lower, you could activate it on your own risk this but there could be three-warning system before activating autopilot in 0.5 and systems bwlow.
Black Pedro
Mine.
#12 - 2017-02-25 21:44:58 UTC
Erich Einstein wrote:

CONCORD should respond differently if a pilot's security status falls low enough in a particular highsec system. This second phase of aggression would consist of stations and jump gates instantly webbing and warp-disrupting while CONCORD moves in. This prevents serial criminals from freely moving through highsec and also prevent gank fleets from staging in highsec systems unless they control their security status correctly.
If you prevent criminals from moving around highsec, how will they, you know, be criminals?
Erich Einstein
Swoop Salvage
#13 - 2017-02-25 21:47:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Erich Einstein
Black Pedro wrote:
Erich Einstein wrote:

CONCORD should respond differently if a pilot's security status falls low enough in a particular highsec system. This second phase of aggression would consist of stations and jump gates instantly webbing and warp-disrupting while CONCORD moves in. This prevents serial criminals from freely moving through highsec and also prevent gank fleets from staging in highsec systems unless they control their security status correctly.
If you prevent criminals from moving around highsec, how will they, you know, be criminals?


Simple, by managing their security status. This is a phase two concord thing for those career boys.
Locko DeLavida
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#14 - 2017-02-25 21:53:43 UTC
Yea, better nerf things that are actually fun rather than balance broken ships and useless ships. Nice
Black Pedro
Mine.
#15 - 2017-02-25 21:55:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Black Pedro
Erich Einstein wrote:
Black Pedro wrote:
Erich Einstein wrote:

CONCORD should respond differently if a pilot's security status falls low enough in a particular highsec system. This second phase of aggression would consist of stations and jump gates instantly webbing and warp-disrupting while CONCORD moves in. This prevents serial criminals from freely moving through highsec and also prevent gank fleets from staging in highsec systems unless they control their security status correctly.
If you prevent criminals from moving around highsec, how will they, you know, be criminals?


Simple, by managing their security status. This is a phase two concord thing for those career boys.

They wouldn't be criminals then now would they?

If CCP is going to build a complicated CrimeWatch mechanic, complete with security status and sliding penalties for repeat offenders, how does it make sense to just lock outlaws out of highsec?

While the Tags4Sec systems was a nice addition to help players outsource the security status grind, it really isn't suppose to be an ongoing cost to deter highsec aggression. If you want to deter highsec aggression by increasing the cost, just do it directly by shortening the CONCORD response or buffing the HP of industrial ships.
Dark Lord Trump
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#16 - 2017-02-25 21:56:12 UTC
Erich Einstein wrote:
Black Pedro wrote:
Erich Einstein wrote:

CONCORD should respond differently if a pilot's security status falls low enough in a particular highsec system. This second phase of aggression would consist of stations and jump gates instantly webbing and warp-disrupting while CONCORD moves in. This prevents serial criminals from freely moving through highsec and also prevent gank fleets from staging in highsec systems unless they control their security status correctly.
If you prevent criminals from moving around highsec, how will they, you know, be criminals?


Simple, by managing their security status. This is a phase two concord thing for those career boys.

And given how fun it is to rat, and how expensive it is to buy tags, why should they? Why do you feel that ganking needs a nerf? Just ganking one player costs you aroudn 26mil to get back to 0, that plus the cost of a T2 catalyst means that you'll be breaking even in terms of ISK destroyed/lost, which isn't terribly fun.

I'm going to build a big wall that will keep the Gallente out, and they're going to pay for it!

Erich Einstein
Swoop Salvage
#17 - 2017-02-25 22:00:42 UTC
Locko DeLavida wrote:
Yea, better nerf things that are actually fun rather than balance broken ships and useless ships. Nice


Its not fun for those getting ganked... their are two sides to every story. Also, the people you are ganking have put in more game time gathering their cargo than you do stealing it. Eve should not be that easy!
Erich Einstein
Swoop Salvage
#18 - 2017-02-25 22:02:14 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
Erich Einstein wrote:
Black Pedro wrote:
Erich Einstein wrote:

CONCORD should respond differently if a pilot's security status falls low enough in a particular highsec system. This second phase of aggression would consist of stations and jump gates instantly webbing and warp-disrupting while CONCORD moves in. This prevents serial criminals from freely moving through highsec and also prevent gank fleets from staging in highsec systems unless they control their security status correctly.
If you prevent criminals from moving around highsec, how will they, you know, be criminals?


Simple, by managing their security status. This is a phase two concord thing for those career boys.

They wouldn't be criminals then now would they?

If CCP is going to build a complicated CrimeWatch mechanic, complete with security status and sliding penalties for repeat offenders, how does it make sense to just lock outlaws out of highsec?

While the Tags4Sec systems was a nice addition to help players outsource the security status grind, it really isn't suppose to be an ongoing cost to deter highsec aggression. If your want to deter highsec aggression by increasing the cost, just do it directly by shortening the CONCORD response or buffing the HP of industrial ships.


Go be criminals in low and nullsec if you dont want to repair your security status. You can still be a criminal, just not a career criminal in highsec without putting in some game time and effort.
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#19 - 2017-02-25 22:02:14 UTC
Erich Einstein wrote:
Locko DeLavida wrote:
Yea, better nerf things that are actually fun rather than balance broken ships and useless ships. Nice


Its not fun for those getting ganked... their are two sides to every story. Also, the people you are ganking have put in more game time gathering their cargo than you do stealing it. Eve should not be that easy!


So why should one person who isn't at their keyboard have nothing to fear from an organised group of twenty?
Erich Einstein
Swoop Salvage
#20 - 2017-02-25 22:05:56 UTC
Danika Princip wrote:
Erich Einstein wrote:
Locko DeLavida wrote:
Yea, better nerf things that are actually fun rather than balance broken ships and useless ships. Nice


Its not fun for those getting ganked... their are two sides to every story. Also, the people you are ganking have put in more game time gathering their cargo than you do stealing it. Eve should not be that easy!


So why should one person who isn't at their keyboard have nothing to fear from an organised group of twenty?


Nothing to fear... Gank all you want! Just make sure you dont get on CONCORDS bad side to often without giving back to them. Why should CONCORD be so nice to you career highsec gankers.
123Next pageLast page