Player Features and Ideas Discussion

So I guess where I'm lost is the fact that the aggressor, if they stick to protected ships, can both be in space waiting for prey without interference AND point and engage a target initially without concord response.

This leaves the same window for white knighting as currently exists, waiting for the trap to close before doing anything about it. That being the case why would gankers respond in any way different than they do currently in overestimating the force needed to eliminate the target to ensure any interference is mitigated? If white knighting works in this case as you suggest it should already work now as it paints the same opportunity. Engaging beforehand only causes the anti-gankers to incur concord's wrath instead.

So why would the white knights engage in that scenario? And knowing this why would the gankers not use that in their favor? And considering the opportunity for successfully stopping the gank is similar to now, how does this encourage more anti-ganking activity? Also how would you expect gank success to deteriorate compared to now when the tools gankers use largely remain ideal but the tools anti-gankers might use would in some cases be restricted by being open for aggression (example: alpha BC's fit to take out smaller gank fleet targets not being able to dwell on grid). Better yet why not switch to cruisers which are still protected and have more tackle fitting capacity making it necessary to potentially need to destroy every member of the gank fleet to enable escape?

I think this is a fundamentally flawed line of thinking in viewing single player activity as something that needs to be eliminated. And all this is is a hostile move towards the single player. It creates no new interaction, but rather attempts to force people into means that some players neither have nor want. If you have the fundamental opinion that the soloist is wrong for wanting to be solo, that could be a reason for removing their content, but I don't feel it's a justifiable position.

Ihave to say here that as a sandbox game playing solo is a perfectly valid choice but should not be as effective as working in a group

Pirates can deal with criminal sec status and faction police by simply using tags. Killrights however are a problem. I'll concede that killrights in their current form (and the form envisioned within the OP) are only effective when the victim actually uses them properly e.g. making them free to claim by all would simply result in the pirate clearing his on KR.

I've mentioned that others have suggested that killrights should remain available until the pirate loses ISK equal to that he's taken from his victim. However, that value for typical HiSec gank activity is so disproportionate that the kill right is essentially always going to last its full duration. It could well be that kill rights in their current form are better off being removed and simply flagging any pirate that gains a criminal flag also gains a suspect flag of considerable length (somewhere between 24 hours and the full month). I haven't thought that concept through and I'm not comfortable with a relative newbie taking part in a gank, only to learn he's faced with a 30 day suspect flag. One mistake early on could potentially cripple him. Of course, this is EVE, a game where players can make mistakes which can inflict far more than 30 days' worth of damage, so maybe it's not so bad. I'm honestly undecided on the matter.


That's just it, though. White knights are significantly more effective under my proposed changes precisely because they don't have to wait for the pirates to spring their trap. They are essentially free to engage pirates at will, while the pirates have no option to support their fleet mates. Any pirate who wishes to survive an attack from a white knight must do so through the merits of his own ship, fitting and of course, skill as a PvPer.

As I said though, the primary factor that allows such a benefit for white knights assumes that a sufficient number of gank victims know enough about kill rights to use them effectively. It's for this reason I'm musing over the suggested change to kill rights.


I don't want solo activity eliminated. I simply don't believe it should be treated favourably at the cost of improvement for the target demographic.

I'm very much interested in a ganker's opinions on this topic. If you don't mind, would you explain how you came to this conclusion?

Please note, while this idea removes CONCORDs influence, it is intended to greatly empower the "white knights" of HiSec and generally better equip players to fend off gank attempts, in addition to creating the opportunity for HiSec criminals to face the justice they deserve. In other words, I'm moving the "power" of HiSec policing from a magic, omnipotent NPC police force to a group of HiSec player heroes.

That's a good point. The bumping change would be somewhat redundant as a smart freighter pilot, certainly after these changes would have an escort capable of providing a very low align.

Maybe it's not actually necessary, then. That's nice to know.

Until such time as the mechanic for killrights is changed to one that universally works we don't have a way of ensuring criminals remain engageable. Thus the ideas of what white knights can and will do in the confines of this idea being dependent on that significantly changes the scope of the idea. As it is now, it just doesn't seem to work.

Also given NPC behavior and the limits of cruisers I don't see how the "target demographic" (which seems fundamentally incorrect here, sandbox mechanics enforce the multiplayer with or without a single players consent to the degree that other players chose within the rules) really profits from this vs just being a lowering of the bar with feasible highsec incomes, still leaving soloist amongst the highest earners proportionally in the same way as now.

Adding emphasis.

So in even numbers the aggressor has a free win, negating the argument that it should only go to the superior numbers. In a true 1v1 there is no numeric superiority. We could argue the freighter should give up and such advantages in that situation as a result of its utility, but I'm sure not everyone agrees.

Just another topic of endless debate I suppose.

With even numbers you have a guy bumping a freighter until he gets bored, I guess. The freighter only gets ganked if he's brought friends.

I don't. I envision a variety of reactions and have simply assumed that the proportion of players that react in any given way is such that these changes remain profitable for the company.

I'm not demanding these changes, nor am I in a position to enact them, I'm simply proposing the concept for CCP's consideration. Part of that consideration is whether or not they believe too many players will simply quit. Just as you said, I have no way of knowing that number, nor you or anyone else, with the only possible exception of CCP.