Player Features and Ideas Discussion

For lolz...

Imagine a game mechanism that uses KMs against jihaddists.

Their whole existence is driven by the pursuit of good fights and sweet kills of miners or smaller gangs.

What would the response of all these pvpers be, if they had to pay the isk value of destroyed ships, modules, cargo and pods in addition to paying for their concord losses to concord for all their infractions?

Here's the scenario:

Goonswarm has 4 pilots in local in some hi-sec ice system and without wardeccing all the industrial corporations mining ice. They systematically gank mackinaw after mackinaw with the odd orca in between.

Each time the API registers their kill for their killboard, the total value of the loss becomes payable either as a personal or corporate fine. This bill is payable to Concord as an isk sink. So the bill for the orca gank goes to the corp wallet, or gets passed down to the gankers.

I'm sure you could even look at adding a modifier to the total value of a ganked ship depending on the security rating of the system the gank happened in.

I.e. a 1.0 system will have a modifier of +25% to the value of a ship.
a 0.5 system would have a modifier of +5% to the value of the ship.

So an orca gank in 1.0 space would cost the ganking corp an odd 505 million isk for just the hull.
The same gank in 0.5 space would cost the ganking corp an odd 425 mil isk for just the hull.

This modifier would be applicable for the hull, modules, cargo and any implants lost during the gank.

If the fine is issued on a corp level, the corp will be closed down if it cannot pay the fine. To prevent abuse, any corps that refuse to pay or disband prior to payin g these fines will have all members flagged. Upon creating or joining a new corp, these gankers will still be issued with the fines.

Individual players who belong to npc corps will be issued with personal fines that will automatically deduct the isk from their personal wallets (resulting in negative balances if they dont have the isk).

This introduces a new rule alongside only fly what you can afford to lose: "Only kill what you can afford to pay for"

I'm sure this would discourage corps and alliances from ganking outside of wardecs. Won't prevent corps and alliances from doing this, but it sure would hurt them in the process.

I agree with this.

This won't "remove" hi-sec ganking, but it'll de-incentivize it.

I think that:

1) Insurance payouts should be voided for gankers
and
2) They should have to pay a certain fine based on system security status, their security status, their victim's security status, and the ship that was destroyed.



"Don't commit the crime if you can't afford the fine."

I like this new idealogy. It's very fitting to the whole "Actions have consequences in EVE."

^Funny thing: You can make that exact same argument... in the opposite direction.

Needs a bit of fine tuning, but not a bad idea at that.
- The penalty must only be from .5 - 1.0. "Concord can't excessively control the master workings of low-sec to penalize everybody." = Thus does not reduce PvP - Actually increases and pushes Pew Pew out to low/Null.
- The corp shouldn't have to pay for a ganking from a rogue member, so that should only be penalyzed to those involved with the ganking.
- As the market hub's income on taxes increases, part of the tax also gives to the security of the system. Thus make major market hub's a 1.0 system.

- As for the penalty, it should be
5% = 0.5 system - meaning high valued ganking is still quite valuable, and still holds to the "if you can fly it, you can lose it".
10% = 0.6 system
15% = 0.7 system
20% = 0.8 system
25% = 0.9 system
30% = 1.0 system

^^ How will this effect?
For the ganked, and the gankee it will reduce ship loss.. Meaning the prices for all ships/modules of all sizes demand will go down, thus reversing the recent effect and the projected course of rising prices. Making it easier for newcomers to get into the game. As well as sense it removes 1 more way of quick isk, with a short burst of adrenaline. It pushes people to other means, also those that want Pew Pew to get more involved with low-sec/null-sec where the Pew Pew origionally was supposed to be at.
It will reduce the lag ion major market hubs, cause most of the people outside Jita+ are there to gank and scan remove them, you will only have the actual people coming to play the market, or at war. Thus helping to spread the player account to more than just the market hubs. And influence gankers to create there own market hub that is cheaper than the major's. (to influence still gankworthy targets into easier ganking systems)

-Keep the part where if you are acting in a offensive act to concord, that they will remove all reimbursement funds that you are available to.

I would rather see CCP tweaking the War Dec. system into something that actually matters in game. Let's face it, no-ones gonna commit suicide for some barge kills (outside of proving a point) if they can get to the same result through War Dec.

What Goons are doing with Gallente ice-market is exactly how competing for available resources should work. You go in and deny access for others in order to make bigger dime for yourself. Only thing wrong with it is that the only way to actually do what they do is to suicide gank, because other mechanics do not work.

Quite simple, no, we dont need highsec to be safer

NO!

Lemme tell you why...

They beat CCP's Concord System. They should be allowed to do so. Just get smarter and invest more into your ice mining opperations.

If they cant gank you before concord shows up they lose. no more Individual Ice miners going out and just making a killing off selling the Ice thy can pick up alone.

If the market collapses too much off of what goon swarm is doing... then the rest of eve is doing it wrong. ^_^

you're pretty dumb if you think high-sec was ever intended as a no-pvp or "consensual only" area m8

I lolled.

Your pretty dumb if you think that's what I'm proposing.

nah, that's literally what you're proposing