These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Putting the screwes to highsec gankers

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Misha Tokila
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#1 - 2015-01-26 03:16:37 UTC
Oh yes, it's that kind of post.

Since the punishments that CCP and put in place for gankers with a -10.0 security status doesn't seem to deter them at all, I have a couple of ideas.

So let's do a review of the current system. The ganker already loses their ship in the gank. They are in fact prepared for this and have factored this in. The ganker already loses security status in the gank. This doesn't matter because many are already at -10.0 standing. Because of this, there is no incentive for the ganker to not pod another player because they are losing their ship anyways.

My idea is the following: Implement an eye-for-an-eye system above and beyond what is currently implemented. Since clone grades have been eliminated, the only loss to getting podded these days are the implants. With that in mind, if the ganker actually pods another player, then CONCORD will pod them in return. The counter to this is that gankers would use jump clones to gank in. But the penalty for this is that they have to wait the 24-hours (modified by skills) to jump back into their implant clone.

This leads to my second idea.

Players and NPCs with low security status are considered criminals in game. At -5.0 and lower, they are free targets for every player in all space. So why are they allowed to dock in stations in highsec systems? Since they are criminals, treat them as criminals. They want to dock in a station, they can do it in lowsec. If they want to dock in highsec, then they need to do it at a POS. Something that we can wardec and shoot at instead of playing station games. The security status of the ganker verses the security status of the system would determine if they can dock at stations in that system. The scenario would change to the following:

<-2.00: Can't enter or dock in 1.0 systems.
<-2.50: Can't enter or dock in 0.9 systems.
<-3.00: Can't enter or dock in 0.8 systems.
<-3.50: Can't enter or dock in 0.7 systems.
<-4.00: Can't enter or dock in 0.6 systems.
<-4.50: Can't enter or dock in 0.5 systems.
<-5.00: Free target

If the ganker loses security status such that he/she can't dock at a station where his/her assets are located, then that is too bad for them. Also, if they have a jump clone in a station that they can't dock in, then they should be able to get to that clone, board a ship, and undock. But they won't be able to dock. So get the security status back up so you can access it. Since it has been clearly demonstrated that increasing security status penalties for hostile actions isn't working, as alot of gankers are <-5.00 security status now, let's try increasing the penalties for having a negative security status.

NOTE: I'm not saying we should get rid of suicide ganking, just make the penalties more severe. So those individuals who want to participate in that type of gameplay can still do so, but their will now be more stiff penalties they will have to deal with.

Oh I already know that I'm going to get alot of hate mail from suicide gankers, especially those C**D. guys, but I'm already expecting that.

I do agree that the highsec asteroid belts do need stronger rats as of right now, only 2-3 frigate/destroyer rats spawn. Throw a cruiser in there once in a while to make things a little uncomfortable.
Mike Adoulin
Happys Happy Hamster Hunting Club
#2 - 2015-01-26 03:22:59 UTC
Ironically it shall be the carebears that will flame you for this.

Everything in EVE is a trap.

And if it isn't, it's your job to make it a trap...:)

You want to know what immorality in EVE Online looks like? Look no further than Ripard "Jester" Teg.

Chribba is the Chuck Norris of EVE.
Orlacc
#3 - 2015-01-26 04:07:20 UTC
Shouldn't this be in the Features and Ideas Forum since it is full of features and ideas?

"Measure Twice, Cut Once."
Kaelynne Rose
WTB Somalians
#4 - 2015-01-26 05:57:52 UTC
So... i can keep my medical clone in Hek.. undock thrasher and gank, let concord pod me back into station cuz clone there and repeat? Nice idea...

Also, i could just fly around in pod and jump in a destroyer that my alt laid at a gate gank ready with no need to ever dock again you know right? Like wtf do i need to dock anyways?

CANT NOBODY STOP THE GANKS!

Ps. Ima gank ur face off fool
Misha Tokila
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#5 - 2015-01-26 06:05:49 UTC
Orlacc wrote:
Shouldn't this be in the Features and Ideas Forum since it is full of features and ideas?


Hmm... I think you are right, this probably should be in the Features & Ideas section.
Misha Tokila
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#6 - 2015-01-26 06:25:37 UTC
Kaelynne Rose wrote:
So... i can keep my medical clone in Hek.. undock thrasher and gank, let concord pod me back into station cuz clone there and repeat? Nice idea...

Also, i could just fly around in pod and jump in a destroyer that my alt laid at a gate gank ready with no need to ever dock again you know right? Like wtf do i need to dock anyways?


This is why we have discussions. Since you brought that up...

I was being merciful, but since you stated your desire to do this... If your medical clone is in a station where your security level doesn't allow you to be, then it will automatically be moved to a random lowsec station. Perhaps the closest one, or even the furthest one. In any case, it would happen when your medical clone is activated. You can always bring your medical clone back to Hek once your security level has reached a satisfactory level.Twisted

Nice idea about leaving a ship in space at a gate. Someone could just show up and steal it, or blow it up. However, your alt will be seen dropping ships at a gate and will be reported, so people will mark your alt as well.

Quote:
Ps. Ima gank ur face off fool


Of course you are welcome to try. But I thank you for your reply.
Leto Thule
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#7 - 2015-01-26 06:58:24 UTC
Oh look, another one.Roll

Thunderdome ringmaster, Community Leader and Lord Inquisitor to the Court of Crime and Punishment
mustafa ahmed han
maharajin
#8 - 2015-01-26 06:59:31 UTC
Mike Adoulin wrote:
Ironically it shall be the carebears that will flame you for this.





i agree Pirate
mustafa ahmed han
maharajin
#9 - 2015-01-26 07:11:26 UTC  |  Edited by: mustafa ahmed han
Misha Tokila wrote:
Oh yes, it's that kind of post.

Since the punishments that CCP and put in place for gankers with a -10.0 security status doesn't seem to deter them at all, I have a couple of ideas.

So let's do a review of the current system. The ganker already loses their ship in the gank. They are in fact prepared for this and have factored this in. The ganker already loses security status in the gank. This doesn't matter because many are already at -10.0 standing. Because of this, there is no incentive for the ganker to not pod another player because they are losing their ship anyways.

My idea is the following: Implement an eye-for-an-eye system above and beyond what is currently implemented. Since clone grades have been eliminated, the only loss to getting podded these days are the implants. With that in mind, if the ganker actually pods another player, then CONCORD will pod them in return. The counter to this is that gankers would use jump clones to gank in. But the penalty for this is that they have to wait the 24-hours (modified by skills) to jump back into their implant clone.

This leads to my second idea.

Players and NPCs with low security status are considered criminals in game. At -5.0 and lower, they are free targets for every player in all space. So why are they allowed to dock in stations in highsec systems? Since they are criminals, treat them as criminals. They want to dock in a station, they can do it in lowsec. If they want to dock in highsec, then they need to do it at a POS. Something that we can wardec and shoot at instead of playing station games. The security status of the ganker verses the security status of the system would determine if they can dock at stations in that system. The scenario would change to the following:

<-2.00: Can't enter or dock in 1.0 systems.
<-2.50: Can't enter or dock in 0.9 systems.
<-3.00: Can't enter or dock in 0.8 systems.
<-3.50: Can't enter or dock in 0.7 systems.
<-4.00: Can't enter or dock in 0.6 systems.
<-4.50: Can't enter or dock in 0.5 systems.
<-5.00: Free target

If the ganker loses security status such that he/she can't dock at a station where his/her assets are located, then that is too bad for them. Also, if they have a jump clone in a station that they can't dock in, then they should be able to get to that clone, board a ship, and undock. But they won't be able to dock. So get the security status back up so you can access it. Since it has been clearly demonstrated that increasing security status penalties for hostile actions isn't working, as alot of gankers are <-5.00 security status now, let's try increasing the penalties for having a negative security status.

NOTE: I'm not saying we should get rid of suicide ganking, just make the penalties more severe. So those individuals who want to participate in that type of gameplay can still do so, but their will now be more stiff penalties they will have to deal with.

Oh I already know that I'm going to get alot of hate mail from suicide gankers, especially those C**D. guys, but I'm already expecting that.

I do agree that the highsec asteroid belts do need stronger rats as of right now, only 2-3 frigate/destroyer rats spawn. Throw a cruiser in there once in a while to make things a little uncomfortable.






The thing in this one is, the corporations that own those stations they act independant from concord or faction police and if you do PVE security missions for them you shoot at anything that moves for them so they must stay independant.
Also it would screw up the repair plan for the real pvp-ers who fight in low or nul and lose sec status. Because of that, they would have a hard way to repair sec status even tho they never ware a part of high sec ganks , they just did pew pew in low or ware in faction warefare and lost sec status because they teleported a clone back to his home station P
Leto Thule
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#10 - 2015-01-26 07:14:59 UTC
mustafa ahmed han wrote:
Misha Tokila wrote:
Oh yes, it's that kind of post.

Since the punishments that CCP and put in place for gankers with a -10.0 security status doesn't seem to deter them at all, I have a couple of ideas.

So let's do a review of the current system. The ganker already loses their ship in the gank. They are in fact prepared for this and have factored this in. The ganker already loses security status in the gank. This doesn't matter because many are already at -10.0 standing. Because of this, there is no incentive for the ganker to not pod another player because they are losing their ship anyways.

My idea is the following: Implement an eye-for-an-eye system above and beyond what is currently implemented. Since clone grades have been eliminated, the only loss to getting podded these days are the implants. With that in mind, if the ganker actually pods another player, then CONCORD will pod them in return. The counter to this is that gankers would use jump clones to gank in. But the penalty for this is that they have to wait the 24-hours (modified by skills) to jump back into their implant clone.

This leads to my second idea.

Players and NPCs with low security status are considered criminals in game. At -5.0 and lower, they are free targets for every player in all space. So why are they allowed to dock in stations in highsec systems? Since they are criminals, treat them as criminals. They want to dock in a station, they can do it in lowsec. If they want to dock in highsec, then they need to do it at a POS. Something that we can wardec and shoot at instead of playing station games. The security status of the ganker verses the security status of the system would determine if they can dock at stations in that system. The scenario would change to the following:

<-2.00: Can't enter or dock in 1.0 systems.
<-2.50: Can't enter or dock in 0.9 systems.
<-3.00: Can't enter or dock in 0.8 systems.
<-3.50: Can't enter or dock in 0.7 systems.
<-4.00: Can't enter or dock in 0.6 systems.
<-4.50: Can't enter or dock in 0.5 systems.
<-5.00: Free target

If the ganker loses security status such that he/she can't dock at a station where his/her assets are located, then that is too bad for them. Also, if they have a jump clone in a station that they can't dock in, then they should be able to get to that clone, board a ship, and undock. But they won't be able to dock. So get the security status back up so you can access it. Since it has been clearly demonstrated that increasing security status penalties for hostile actions isn't working, as alot of gankers are <-5.00 security status now, let's try increasing the penalties for having a negative security status.

NOTE: I'm not saying we should get rid of suicide ganking, just make the penalties more severe. So those individuals who want to participate in that type of gameplay can still do so, but their will now be more stiff penalties they will have to deal with.

Oh I already know that I'm going to get alot of hate mail from suicide gankers, especially those C**D. guys, but I'm already expecting that.

I do agree that the highsec asteroid belts do need stronger rats as of right now, only 2-3 frigate/destroyer rats spawn. Throw a cruiser in there once in a while to make things a little uncomfortable.






The thing in this one is, the corporations that own those stations they act independant from concord or faction police and if you do PVE security missions for them you shoot at anything that moves for them so they must stay independant.
Also it would screw up the repair plan for the real pvp-ers who fight in low or nul and lose sec status becouse that they would have a hard way to repair sec status even tho they never ware a part of high sec ganks , they just did pew pew in low or ware in faction warefare and lost sec status because they teleported a clone back to his home station P



Most carebears can't see that far ahead. They like to assume that the only people with low sec status are gankers.

Thunderdome ringmaster, Community Leader and Lord Inquisitor to the Court of Crime and Punishment
mustafa ahmed han
maharajin
#11 - 2015-01-26 07:20:42 UTC
yeah, but since you forum dweil that much you could have given that usefull comment instead; Oh look, another one
Black Pedro
Mine.
#12 - 2015-01-26 08:29:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Black Pedro
Misha Tokila wrote:
NOTE: I'm not saying we should get rid of suicide ganking, just make the penalties more severe. So those individuals who want to participate in that type of gameplay can still do so, but their will now be more stiff penalties they will have to deal with.


Can you explain why you want to do this? Suicide ganking is an intended part of the game - CCP has confirmed this many times. Further, the ganking of mining ships is near an all-time low.

These changes you propose will do nothing for safety or increase anti-ganker/ganker conflict - the mechanics of the gank will still be the same. It will just make it a little more tedious for current gankers, and raise the bar to new players to get into the activity by requiring them to have a way to deliver ships to the gank system. Making existing, intended gameplay worse for no reason does not seem like a good idea.

Further, this will impact significantly on low sec pirates/FW participants, probably more so than the current gankers who will just use an Orca and alts like many do already. Why should they suffer so you can feel better about yourself after losing your ship due to your inattention?

This "idea" is better off in the Features and Ideas subforum where it can languish with all the others that propose the exact same thing every week. If you want to "put the screwes" to highsec gankers, you are suppose to do it yourself.

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
Futt Isimazu
State War Academy
Caldari State
#13 - 2015-01-26 09:37:57 UTC
'waaah how dare gankers have any difficulty' - Average response ITT
Concord Guy's Cousin
Doomheim
#14 - 2015-01-26 10:38:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Concord Guy's Cousin
Futt Isimazu wrote:
'waaah how dare gankers have any difficulty' - Average response ITT
When the OP basically consists of "waaah why should 'carebears' have to take responsibility for their own safety when they can demand CCP do it for them" it's hardly a surprise, especially when gankers have effectively suffered nerf after nerf in the past while "carebears" have gotten buff after buff.

Gankers would adapt to the OP's changes, just as they have in the past every time CCP has made changes to the mechanics that affect them; and after they adapt more threads like this would appear asking for CCP to do even more to curtail them.

Ganking is already considerably harder to carry out successfully than it has been at any time in the past, which is why there are very few groups doing it, those few that are doing it have massive ship replacement programs to counter the costs of doing so.

ISD LackOfFaith ~ "Your Catalyst was a hamster, and your Retriever smelt of elderberries"

NPC Forum Alt, because reasons.
Futt Isimazu
State War Academy
Caldari State
#15 - 2015-01-26 10:50:25 UTC
Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:
Futt Isimazu wrote:
'waaah how dare gankers have any difficulty' - Average response ITT
When the OP basically consists of "waaah why should "carebears" have to take responsibility for their own safety when they can demand CCP do it for them" it's hardly a surprise, especially when gankers have effectively suffered nerf after nerf in the past while "carebears" have gotten buff after buff.

Gankers would adapt to the OP's changes, just as they have in the past, every time CCP has made changes to the mechanics that affect them; and after they did more threads like this would appear asking for CCP to do even more to curtail them.

Ganking is already considerably harder to carry out successfully than it has been at any time in the past, which is why there are very few groups doing it, those few that are doing it have massive ship replacement programs to counter the costs of doing so.




'Ganking is very difficult'

Yep So it's hard to go to jita, buy a catalyst, warp into an asteroid belt and blow up a mining barge. /s

I totally like that ganking makes Highsec actually dangerous, It's a pity that only the carebear tards seem to ever make this kind of thread.
Concord Guy's Cousin
Doomheim
#16 - 2015-01-26 11:00:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Concord Guy's Cousin
Futt Isimazu wrote:
'Ganking is very difficult'

Yep So it's hard to go to jita, buy a catalyst, warp into an asteroid belt and blow up a mining barge. /s

I totally like that ganking makes Highsec actually dangerous, It's a pity that only the carebear tards seem to ever make this kind of thread.
If it's so easy, why aren't more people doing it? Why do the few groups that routinely gank people feel the need to run massive ship replacement programs?

The only mining barges that you'll be able to solo in a Catalyst are generally untanked/loltanked and the pilot afk.
Even a squishy Retriever in a 0.5 can be tanked well enough to thwart the efforts of a solo ganker in a T2 fitted Catalyst, and it can still fit some mining laser upgrades into the bargain.

ISD LackOfFaith ~ "Your Catalyst was a hamster, and your Retriever smelt of elderberries"

NPC Forum Alt, because reasons.
prutzilla
Muhajin
#17 - 2015-01-26 11:24:41 UTC
Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:
Futt Isimazu wrote:
'Ganking is very difficult'

Yep So it's hard to go to jita, buy a catalyst, warp into an asteroid belt and blow up a mining barge. /s

I totally like that ganking makes Highsec actually dangerous, It's a pity that only the carebear tards seem to ever make this kind of thread.
If it's so easy, why aren't more people doing it? Why are the few groups that routinely gank people running massive ship replacement programs?

The only mining barges that you'll be able to solo in a Catalyst are generally untanked/loltanked and the pilot afk.
Even a squishy Retriever in a 0.5 can be tanked well enough to thwart the efforts of a ganker in a T2 fitted Catalyst, and it can still fit some mining laser upgrades into the bargain.



Ganking is exhausting, it require alot planning when you go below -5 and most gankers are an alt from high sec status players often 5.0 and they can not live with the pressure it takes to go below -5 and need planning to gank because now more players tank their stuff. if you dont want to go below -5 it require alot grind to gain rep. Since isk/hr ratio and make everything expensive in the game is prior over fun, they cant keep up with it. you see it is not because the nerfs and buffs, it is becouse dedication and burning out from it. or most gankers cant use probes, scans or do math or even fit a ship to gank, some gankers should learn to play eve as well before doin stuff like that. But then again they probably have a main that mines AFK of themself how should they know how to fit a ship or use it.
Ned Thomas
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#18 - 2015-01-26 11:27:38 UTC
So, why should it be harder to be a ganker than it is to be a miner?
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#19 - 2015-01-26 11:39:36 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
Orlacc wrote:
Shouldn't this be in the Features and Ideas Forum since it is full of features and ideas?
Yes, it should.
Moved accordingly to Features & Ideas Discussion.

ISD Ezwal Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Godfrey Silvarna
Arctic Light Inc.
Arctic Light
#20 - 2015-01-26 12:40:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Godfrey Silvarna
What the hell? Highsec risk has been lowered and lowered and lowered countless times already to an extent where mission runners and miners have very little incentive to move to Lowsec or Nullsec at all.

Highsec needs to either be MORE dangerous, or have its content, size and rewards nerfed HARD!
123Next pageLast page