Player Features and Ideas Discussion

This isn't entirely wrong. There are two separate issues when it comes to highsec suicide ganking, the game mechanics that enable one player to destroy another, and the "cops and robbers minigame" that CCP has built to drive conflict between players.

At its simplest, suicide ganking is just a game mechanic where by one player can exchange (or try to exchange) their ship for the contents of another player. It is open to anyone at anytime and whether you are vulnerable to it is completely determined by the potential victim. Even if there was no security status, or Crimewatch mechanics to give players a chance at revenge and the ganker some consequences of the action, it would still be an important part of highsec and is an emergent property from a sandbox game. If a player fits or carries too much ISK than is economically for another player to destroy, they eventually will be destroyed by another looking for profit - that is the game. In terms of balance, all the recent nerfs have made it so it is unprofitable to gank normal T2 fit miners and haulers carrying a reasonable amount of cargo. There is no more room for nerfs here without essentially removing the risk of highsec ganking and the interesting choices it forces and enables players to make.

The second issue is the "highsec criminal" minigame which ideally as Steppa says should drive conflict and emergent gameplay. This has much more room for design and different structures and could be changed completely by CCP if they wanted. The current form does limit emergent gameplay in large part because criminals are limited to small ships and cannot provide "good fights" because of the faction police (see? those "consequences" at work). Locking players out of stations based on standings is a confusing idea that won't on its own increase the amount of conflict between players - it will just decrease it as only the most organized and established players will be able to organize ship drops and it will be much more difficult for new players to get started.

Now if you want to propose a comprehensive overhaul to the system that will drive conflict I am eager to hear it. Perhaps station lockouts would be part of that, but if so, there would need to be some other mechanism to enable players, especially new gankers, to engage in suicide ganking in highsec. Perhaps removal of the faction police plus a deployable would work? But just a straight-up lockout is a significant nerf to suicide gankers, but more importantly, it is a confusing mechanic that would cause all sorts of problems beyond gankers for no benefit. If you just want to nerf suicide gankers there are much simpler ways than station lockouts.

Suicide ganking is suppose to be in the game. You don't have to look further than CCP Falcon's recent posts (as told in entertaining fashion by the Saviour himself) or more dryly in the CSM minutes (like CSM 2010, page 15, or CSM 2012, page 59). The mechanic is intended and therefore changes that are there solely to stop it (like this proposal) are not going to be implemented, especially after the cavalcade of nerfs already implement in recent years. Ganking is at an all-time low (CSM 2012, page 104) so we do not need more direct nerfs to this activity.

They are reactive. Nothing he said is was incorrect. We post it because there are sections of this community, that don't seem to get Eve. Hence that thread, this one and every other thread like it.
But ignore the rest, as it doesn't fit your narrative. Mind you, none of it does.


Why shouldn't you be able to gank for profit? You do know it's possible to stop it yourself, right?
Plus what kind of profit are we talking about here? I see lots of talk about cheap ship, free pod. But nothing much in the way of facts..

Yet another great part about eve... choices

I've already talked about Facpo. The perfect example of NPC mechanics, that actually stop player interaction. What does the OP say about them?


You are correct though. The OP isn't "one more nerf", it's a whole lot of them.

So you say that you avoid being a gank target by fitting T2 and not carrying expensive cargo... yeah, last I checked you can easily double your 'investment' by hitting a T2 fit rettie with a couple cheap catas. Same can be said for haulers, even a couple cheap catas can make nearly any T2 fit hauler, no matter how little the cargo, profitable. So please tell me how the empty freighter pilot or the T2 fitted battleship running missions pilot made themselves a target?

"That's one hell of a wall of text. Format it and I may read it." So that's why you keep getting stuck on thinking we are asking to nerf/remove ganking and buff Concord... Again, all I have been saying this whole time is to think of it as if hi-sec NPCs treated pilot standings the way null sec alliances do, you aren't cool with the owners, sorry about your luck, might want to fix that (and they have made it pretty easy to fix that).

"I've offered a solution, you've chosen to ignore it." Oh, kinda like you ignored most any question or answer anyone but yourself provided. For example you still haven't actually said how people can "deal justice" to criminals...

Precisely, why should a pilot with poor standing with a corp be allowed to dock in their station? So you do agree with me but you can't bring yourself to actually agree. You however seem to think that hi-sec pilots should by default have too poor of standing with low sec NPCs (which quite often happen to be the same NPC corps as hi-sec). And to further that, players who shoot Guristas and Serps all day should be locked out of those stations as well. This applies to all pilots, and I never said it did. You seem to think that since the word "gank" or "criminal" was used I was automatically soley focused on keeping you from docking. EVERYONE has bad standings with some NPC somewhere, yours just happens to be with the police faction, and you can fix that.

I still fail to see how NPCs podding players got into this or has anything to do with having bad standings with NPCs. NPCs podding players is an interesting idea, but again, not part of this thread so pardon me for actually trying to stay on topic.

So requesting that facpo behaving the same across all factions and every encounter is a nerf? Interesting, please explain. Also, asking that facpo escalate if you are surviving their pitiful damage, also a nerf? I guess sleeper sites that escalate are just nerfed as well then. Must be an interesting world you live in.

One last thing... you keep acting as if being -10 is permanent and can't be fixed, or that I am requesting CCP to force people to not be -10 anymore. No, thats not it at all. You have stated it yourself, we all have choices. One of the choices you have made it to neglect your security status.

Can't bring myself to agree? Erm I think you'll find I just did, but with the proviso it covers ALL standings. This means including your play style.

I can quote it, if you missed it. Let me know.

I asked to include it. That thread like yours, only goes so far. Odd that isn't it? Well no, but I digress.

If we wish to go for it, then let's go the whole hog. NPC mechanics all the way, just like you want. Screw all the players equally.

That was in reply to another poster. I'll put it in context for you.
They said "This isn't "one more nerf" either", and then talked of removing facpo, in conjunction with station lock out.
I merely pointed out that you on the other hand not only keep facpo, you wish to increase their power. So that "The Navy forces should also escalate after a set amount of time."

Same as before the change = not a nerf to those on the pointy end.
More powerful than before the change = nerf to those on the pointy end.

Indeed Earth is interesting, but I have doubts you're on it. You still don't seem to understand your own idea.

Yes it's a choice and one sanctioned by CCP.
I can at any time, become neutral. I do not wish to do so. I accept the consequences of being -10, you on the other hand do not.

It seems to be CCP's choice to allow ganking and those of us who are -10 to use the games facilities in high sec. It's their game and they want all of us to play it.
So far, you not shown any reason why this should change, unless it's on only your terms. I used your own logic to balance the whole idea across the board. I also wish to include NPC pod shooting, but for both sides.

Your idea, is plainly a nerf. Restricting players, is a nerf. Making it harder to gank, is a nerf. My updated idea using your logic, is a nerf.

Oh my that's it, you're on Planet Nerf.

No sanctuary in highsec npc stations for negative sec status pilots is something that should have been put in place a long time ago. They could still use a POS, which is something that can be attacked through a war dec.

There does need to be that no sanctuary consequence to doing criminal acts in high sec.

I am thinking op needs to move to systems that have a player base that will actually shoot outlaws. Would seem to solve a lot of thier issues.

Flashy red fulltime has consequences. They are open season. Its on the players to partake of the free and sanctioned ship kill. In a system (or systems) they are not seeing people take up the offer....go find a place they do really.

These systems are out there op btw. I have seen outlaws player dropped hard.

Or my usual just avoid the mess. Mining easy...go mission run, in caldari ships (or rattler). Its almost like mining really with the lack of interaction. With guns you have to change positions an get in ranges. My pve tengu as an example I find an object to orbit around really fast and just feed targets and reload ammo really. I do hml still as it makes it for lazy pve which suits me fine.

Hauling I either ninjya transport it (if actually caught one day, kill earned tbh) or outsource to red frog type places for large stuff. Red frog seems to have pilots who know how to get to point B from Point A in one piece. Day comes I get a courier who doesn't....well no skin off my nose with collateral. But the cost you say.....several 10's of millions in fees or 1 dead freighter, your call. I tbh switched to red frog like places from boredom not gank worries. I hated flying my Charon. If red frog charged me say 30 mil...I can make that in mission running in the same time as I'd be slow boating the Charon.

Implies he had any to begin with.

No, you are implicitly trusting him because of a "dev" tag.
I would love to hear your explanation as to how "deterrence" is "reactive".


Please read my post again in context. you will see that im not actually advocating that.



I never once talked about a cheap ship or free pod. I think you are still arguing with your idea of what risk adverse care bear is, instead of what im posting. You can have an actual discussion outside of your head. dont be shy. Here, ill get ya started.


Let's start at a point that we can both agree on:
If you were trying to see whether or not a ship is balanced, you might compare things like:
* DPS
* Projection
* Speed
* Etc

In these categories, for a ship to be balanced you expect a bit of give and take. For example "Ship A" might have better DPS than "Ship B", but "Ship B" might have better projection than "Ship A". This type of give and take across shared characteristics is what people might see as balanced.

Do you at least generally agree with this little section about balance? That 'give and take' is an important part of balance?

Moving on... If we are comparing the balance between professions, we cant use categories like DPS, Projection, Speed, etc. Instead we use categories like:
* Loss potential / Investment (lower is better)
* Gain potential / profit (higher is better)
* The risks that could result in a loss of investment (lower is better)
* The amount of time a professional is required to be susceptible to said risk. (lower is better)

For example, if i was to compare mining to hauling, a general outlook would be:
* Loss Potential: The miner's loss potential is lower than the hauler's
* Gain Potential: miner's potential gains are less than the hauler's
* Risk: The risks between the two are very similar
* Susceptibility: the miner spends more time exposed to those risks (example, a miner is susceptible while mining, while a hauler is only susceptible between jumps)

There is give and take between these professions, you could argue that these professions are balanced if you wanted to.

Are we in agreement at this point?

Now compare the ganking profession to their PvE'er, miner, hauler target:
* Loss Potential: The ganker's potential loss is lower
* Gain Potential: The ganker's potential gain is higher
* Risk: The ganker's risk are lower
* Susceptibility: The ganker spends less time being susceptible to said risks.

Where is the give and take?