These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Putting the screwes to highsec gankers

First post
Author
Black Pedro
Mine.
#61 - 2015-01-27 09:28:33 UTC
Misha Tokila wrote:
Lest we forget, the proposal that I put forth does not affect low-sec or null-sec in any way. It does, however, make living in high-sec a little more tedious and dangerous for an individual who has a low security status. Since it was brought up, I'm not trying to support miners/freighters here. But the problem I see with freighter ganking is that you can bump a freighter indefinitely until a gank fleet shows up to make an attempt to kill the freighter, perhaps more than one attempt. I have a couple of ideas for bumping, but I'll leave that for another thread.

Again why do you want to make intended game play more tedious? CCP has spent a lot of effort designing and implementing the Crimewatch system, security status system and CONCORD to specifically allow highsec criminality to exist in this game. Why would they go and now put in new restrictions to make this gameplay less interesting and more boring for players who are "being the villain" and playing the game as highsec criminals like CCP intends?

If you are not trying to support miners/freighters here what are you trying to do? If it is just freighter bumping that bothers you, perhaps you should join the discussion in the appropriate thread.

Tiddle Jr
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#62 - 2015-01-27 09:39:05 UTC
I was thinking to post opposite thread named - "Hammering Nails into Carebears"

EVE is cruel. well know fact no reason to blame gankers for this kind of content, use your brains, develop anti-ganking tacktic, or either ebecame a ganker and have some fun.

Sorry if my word hurt you sweatheart.

"The message is that there are known knowns. There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know" - CCP

Velicitia
XS Tech
#63 - 2015-01-27 10:39:01 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
Vic Jefferson wrote:

Anything any character does at any time basically fits under the umbrella term of 'PvP' in this game. Parsing it into 'real' or 'fake' is fairly meaningless.
Ok, believe what you want. The Alliance Tournament is PvP alright, but it is as real PvP as dueling your corpmate "just until structure" at the sun. It is completely consensual, balanced, and has no meaningful impact on the sandbox that is New Eden so while it is PvP, it barely qualifies as actually playing Eve. It might as well be happening on the test server for all anyone outside it cares.


What is this "just until structure" ? We always did it "until you pop ... and if you don't GTFO, your pod's fair game too"...

One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia

Velicitia
XS Tech
#64 - 2015-01-27 10:54:55 UTC
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
Velicitia wrote:
Orange Something wrote:
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
There is no point asking CCP to do this when every tool and skill required to make it happen already exists.

Normally I would agree with this statement, but as it stands in game there really isn't a reason for miners/industrialists/traders/PvErs to go to low.

[and more stuff about low]


I think you missed the point GP was making

OP --> "CCP, protect us more, there aren't enough NPC penalties for -10 people"

Corraidhin --> "OP, seriously, fit a ship and SHOOT THE -10S!"


Just for full disclosure here I'm not against the current hisec ganking mechanics at all just as I'm fine with the safety balance in hisec :)

There needs to be a balance between valuable target/lol ganking and rampant losec standard destruction of anyone in space otherwise newer players will never learn anything before being vaporized so often they just walk away!



Thing is "rampant killing of everyone" doesn't happen in hisec. most of the -10s I see are either career freighter/orce killers, or are solo/duo exhumer hunters.

None of these ships are for "new" players -- I'll give you "newer", but fact of the matter is, by the time you've spent the 2-3 months it takes to get into one of these boats, you had damn well better know the dynamics of New Eden, even if it's just hearsay from NPC corp members.


So, looking at raw numbers in Uedama (which in my limited experience, seems to be "the system" for freighter murders) for the last 24 hours:

78 (player) ship kills
30 985 jumps

Numbers courtesy of Dotlan.


so, that's one (1) ship loss for every 397 jumps or so. Furthermore, this is counting ship losses incurred by CONCORDOKKEN too. So, let's be REAL generous here and say it takes ten (10) gankers for every freighter.

That's seven (7) freighters in nearly 31k jumps -- or one freighter every 4400 jumps or so. That's damn good odds you're getting through.

One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia

Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#65 - 2015-01-27 11:27:00 UTC
Velicitia wrote:
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
Velicitia wrote:
Orange Something wrote:
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
There is no point asking CCP to do this when every tool and skill required to make it happen already exists.

Normally I would agree with this statement, but as it stands in game there really isn't a reason for miners/industrialists/traders/PvErs to go to low.

[and more stuff about low]


I think you missed the point GP was making

OP --> "CCP, protect us more, there aren't enough NPC penalties for -10 people"

Corraidhin --> "OP, seriously, fit a ship and SHOOT THE -10S!"


Just for full disclosure here I'm not against the current hisec ganking mechanics at all just as I'm fine with the safety balance in hisec :)

There needs to be a balance between valuable target/lol ganking and rampant losec standard destruction of anyone in space otherwise newer players will never learn anything before being vaporized so often they just walk away!



Thing is "rampant killing of everyone" doesn't happen in hisec. most of the -10s I see are either career freighter/orce killers, or are solo/duo exhumer hunters.

None of these ships are for "new" players -- I'll give you "newer", but fact of the matter is, by the time you've spent the 2-3 months it takes to get into one of these boats, you had damn well better know the dynamics of New Eden, even if it's just hearsay from NPC corp members.


So, looking at raw numbers in Uedama (which in my limited experience, seems to be "the system" for freighter murders) for the last 24 hours:

78 (player) ship kills
30 985 jumps

Numbers courtesy of Dotlan.


so, that's one (1) ship loss for every 397 jumps or so. Furthermore, this is counting ship losses incurred by CONCORDOKKEN too. So, let's be REAL generous here and say it takes ten (10) gankers for every freighter.

That's seven (7) freighters in nearly 31k jumps -- or one freighter every 4400 jumps or so. That's damn good odds you're getting through.


My point was that if restrictions are removed from hisec then everyone is fair game, you back up my statement really that CONCORD will destroy gankers but gankers get their kills. Currently I belive the system is balanced for hisec to make it a reasonable area for new players/those without the time or inclination to go to lower sec areas.. Good stats though, however the number of jumps would need to be tempered by the number of ships missioning/ratting there too that simply pass the gankers by. I often end up going through Uedema multiple times on a coulpe of escalation chases which would skew the numbers of actual players travelling through the system in gank worthy ships.
Velicitia
XS Tech
#66 - 2015-01-27 11:50:56 UTC
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
Velicitia wrote:
(removed because quoting rules)


My point was that if restrictions are removed from hisec then everyone is fair game, you back up my statement really that CONCORD will destroy gankers but gankers get their kills. Currently I belive the system is balanced for hisec to make it a reasonable area for new players/those without the time or inclination to go to lower sec areas.. Good stats though, however the number of jumps would need to be tempered by the number of ships missioning/ratting there too that simply pass the gankers by. I often end up going through Uedema multiple times on a coulpe of escalation chases which would skew the numbers of actual players travelling through the system in gank worthy ships.


What restrictions are getting removed from hisec? Pilots with -10 security status are already fair game to anyone else in hisec, even +10s (with no NPC repercussions to boot). Trouble is, that requires ~effort~ and ~coordination~ ... which are two extremely rare commodities in the general hisec population (generally it is hoarded by the 1% in the "bad guy" groups).

For the numbers - yeah, it's skewed horribly die to "everyone else", but CCP doesn't provide "freighter jumps" and "non-freighter jumps", so it's pretty much impossible. I've personally seen at least 200 unique freighter/orca pilots jump through in a given day (I was gatecamping WT missioners ... and that was only a couple of hours) ... so we're talking about a "huge" risk now of 3.5%. And realistically, by WTZ on the relevant in gate, and having a webber on the other side to get you the hell outta there pretty much drops you to zero.

One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia

Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#67 - 2015-01-27 12:36:56 UTC
Velicitia wrote:
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
Velicitia wrote:
(removed because quoting rules)


My point was that if restrictions are removed from hisec then everyone is fair game, you back up my statement really that CONCORD will destroy gankers but gankers get their kills. Currently I belive the system is balanced for hisec to make it a reasonable area for new players/those without the time or inclination to go to lower sec areas.. Good stats though, however the number of jumps would need to be tempered by the number of ships missioning/ratting there too that simply pass the gankers by. I often end up going through Uedema multiple times on a coulpe of escalation chases which would skew the numbers of actual players travelling through the system in gank worthy ships.


What restrictions are getting removed from hisec? Pilots with -10 security status are already fair game to anyone else in hisec, even +10s (with no NPC repercussions to boot). Trouble is, that requires ~effort~ and ~coordination~ ... which are two extremely rare commodities in the general hisec population (generally it is hoarded by the 1% in the "bad guy" groups).

For the numbers - yeah, it's skewed horribly die to "everyone else", but CCP doesn't provide "freighter jumps" and "non-freighter jumps", so it's pretty much impossible. I've personally seen at least 200 unique freighter/orca pilots jump through in a given day (I was gatecamping WT missioners ... and that was only a couple of hours) ... so we're talking about a "huge" risk now of 3.5%. And realistically, by WTZ on the relevant in gate, and having a webber on the other side to get you the hell outta there pretty much drops you to zero.


Sorry, I wasn't very clear, I meant with regards to the OP suggesting allowing free wardecs on everyone. I'm guessing there were truckloads of jumps but the freighters ganked were the only ones carrying loads making the gank worthwhile.
Velicitia
XS Tech
#68 - 2015-01-28 13:49:58 UTC
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:

Sorry, I wasn't very clear, I meant with regards to the OP suggesting allowing free wardecs on everyone. I'm guessing there were truckloads of jumps but the freighters ganked were the only ones carrying loads making the gank worthwhile.



OK, so either I'm still drunk, or you're crossing this thread with something else. There's nothing in the OP about "free wardecs".

Only ideas I'm seeing are:

1. CONCORD pods "bad guy" if they pod a "neutral guy" (i.e. freighter, anti-ganker, whoever)
2. Something about restricting docking rights in hisec. -5 becomes free target (this is already the case, actually)
3. New / harder belt rats in HS.


Or are you talking about what the original post that started our little (side-)conversation? That one also doesn't say anything about free wardecs -> just a bit about "people having the tools to make stuff happen".

Although, I do admit that I re-read the page, and see you took his statement out of context and he was talking about "the bad guys" having the power to make hisec "harder" instead of the normal line of "carebears having the power to protect themselves". Really now, it changes the whole tone of the side-argument that we're having. With that said, it still doesn't change the point that the guy wasn't advocating for changes to the mechanics of hisec (at least in the quoted post -- if he's doing that somewhere else, I don't recall it).

Hisec should NOT be lowsec (they're two different regions for a reason) ... but there's no way in hell that hisec should become the 100%-safe wonderland that certain types are pushing for.

One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia

Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#69 - 2015-01-28 14:03:42 UTC
Velicitia wrote:
stuff


Nope your right I'm mixing up the threads, the dangers of reading and replying on a smarter-than-its-user phone...
Jenshae Chiroptera
#70 - 2015-01-28 14:44:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenshae Chiroptera
From here

Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
One idea put forward is that -5 and worse security status should bar you from entering a station.
That doesn't stop an alt with an Orca.

So, I started boiling up the soup that fills my skull and came up with something, the closes to this idea I could find, ironically enough was this post.

However, I have a variation on that. What if you couldn't use a gate based on your security status?

Players with -5.1 or worse will be barred from 1.0 systems
Players with -5.5 or worse will be barred from 0.9 systems
Players with -6.0 or worse will be barred from 0.8 systems
Players with -6.5 or worse will be barred from 0.7 systems
Players with -7.0 or worse will be barred from 0.6 systems
Players with -8.5 or worse will be barred from 0.5 systems

When your pod dies with -5.1 or worse; you appear in the nearest low security station and good luck to you! Big smile
(This would mean that carebears killing gankers would mean something)

Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Paranoid Loyd wrote:
You do realize to get above -5 costs about 25 mil to pay for your sec status right?
Further, I can kill you just as easily as someone who is -5, I am actually more likely to be able to kill you, so i'll ask again.

What does this accomplish and why do you feel it is necessary?

The one doing the killing at -5 has killed less or paid for their permit- erm... I mean bought off Concord. That or they went out and killed some rats in low security space with the threat of gangs and fleets coming along to gank them.
They also have to move to a more desireable system.
The frequency of their attacks are delayed.
... and hitting back, killing their pod after they have killed your buddy is not completely meaningless.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.

Antillie Sa'Kan
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#71 - 2015-01-28 15:18:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Antillie Sa'Kan
If you don't like suicide gankers leave hisec. I promise you won't see them out in null.

Or you could just stop being dumb. Smart people almost never get ganked. I ran missions and mined in hisec for years and never once got shot at by a player. You just have to know how to play.
Jenshae Chiroptera
#72 - 2015-01-28 15:23:18 UTC
Antillie Sa'Kan wrote:
If you don't like suicide gankers leave hisec. I promise you won't see them out in null.
We call them by a different name "Spectre fleets" out there. They like to call themselves "NPSI fleets" or something. Blink

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.

Antillie Sa'Kan
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#73 - 2015-01-28 15:26:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Antillie Sa'Kan
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
We call them by a different name "Spectre fleets" out there. They like to call themselves "NPSI fleets" or something. Blink

I wouldn't put them in the same boat as groups like CODE. NPSI fleets shoot anything they can catch, including other pvp gangs. They are usually looking for fights more so than ganks and they don't always die. Suicide gankers rather specifically target miners, haulers, mission runners, idiots, and anyone that has shiny loot. And they do always die.
Velicitia
XS Tech
#74 - 2015-01-28 16:45:57 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Antillie Sa'Kan wrote:
If you don't like suicide gankers leave hisec. I promise you won't see them out in null.
We call them by a different name "Spectre fleets" out there. They like to call themselves "NPSI fleets" or something. Blink


somebody paged Rooks and Kings didn't they?

One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia

Mag's
Azn Empire
#75 - 2015-01-28 18:21:36 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
One idea put forward is that -5 and worse security status should bar you from entering a station.
That doesn't stop an alt with an Orca.

So, I started boiling up the soup that fills my skull and came up with something, the closes to this idea I could find, ironically enough was this post.

However, I have a variation on that. What if you couldn't use a gate based on your security status?

Players with -5.1 or worse will be barred from 1.0 systems
Players with -5.5 or worse will be barred from 0.9 systems
Players with -6.0 or worse will be barred from 0.8 systems
Players with -6.5 or worse will be barred from 0.7 systems
Players with -7.0 or worse will be barred from 0.6 systems
Players with -8.5 or worse will be barred from 0.5 systems

When your pod dies with -5.1 or worse; you appear in the nearest low security station and good luck to you! Big smile
(This would mean that carebears killing gankers would mean something)
Like I said, your approach to the game is toxic and that's a prime example. It solves nothing and places limits on others play style. You're trying to balance an aspect of the game, that doesn't require it.

It was locked for a reason. It's nothing new and smells of carebear sentimentality.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.

FoxFire Ayderan
#76 - 2015-01-28 21:02:20 UTC

I agree that it's ridiculous that those with a -10 security status can freely roam through Hi-Sec (so long as they avoid sentries).

I think anyone with a -5 security status should have CONCORD on them (under the same timer based on the Security rating of the system).

And for each whole number security status below -5 it's as if they are in the next highest security rated system as to how quickly CONCORD is on them and blowing their ship up. So someone with a -5 Sec Status in a .05 system would have CONCORD on them in the same time as if they had aggressed someone in a .05 (the moment they are in a ship in the system). However if they are at -6 Sec Status CONCORD will arrive and start shooting as if they were in a .06 system. If they are at -10 Sec Status CONCORD arrives as if they were in a 1.0 system.

Of course they can freely move about in a pod without being shot, but as stated are unable to dock up based on the OP's suggestion.

Black Pedro
Mine.
#77 - 2015-01-28 21:12:31 UTC
FoxFire Ayderan wrote:

I agree that it's ridiculous that those with a -10 security status can freely roam through Hi-Sec (so long as they avoid sentries).

I think anyone with a -5 security status should have CONCORD on them (under the same timer based on the Security rating of the system).

And for each whole number security status below -5 it's as if they are in the next highest security rated system as to how quickly CONCORD is on them and blowing their ship up. So someone with a -5 Sec Status in a .05 system would have CONCORD on them in the same time as if they had aggressed someone in a .05 (the moment they are in a ship in the system). However if they are at -6 Sec Status CONCORD will arrive and start shooting as if they were in a .06 system. If they are at -10 Sec Status CONCORD arrives as if they were in a 1.0 system.

Of course they can freely move about in a pod without being shot, but as stated are unable to dock up based on the OP's suggestion.


Of course you do.

If the NPC-based protection was that severe, how would highsec criminals operate at all?

Wouldn't it be easier just for CCP to turn off offensive modules completely in highsec, either for all players or perhaps just for negative security status pilots and/or those with an active killright against them?
chaosgrimm
Synth Tech
#78 - 2015-01-28 21:13:09 UTC
There should be some balance when it comes to the ganking profession. Players should have a means to screw with your money making efforts. The problem with the ganking profession is that any risks you would impose on gankers are instantly mitigated by the time said ganker needs to be exposed to said risks. I'd support something along the lines of security status gradually removing the gankers ability to dock and disappear after logoff relative to the sec status of the system
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#79 - 2015-01-28 21:15:22 UTC
chaosgrimm wrote:
There should be some balance when it comes to the ganking profession. Players should have a means to screw with your money making efforts. The problem with the ganking profession is that any risks you would impose on gankers are instantly mitigated by the time said ganker needs to be exposed to said risks. I'd support something along the lines of security status gradually removing the gankers ability to dock and disappear after logoff relative to the sec status of the system


We adapt by using orcas with pre fitted cats and you start asking for just one more nerf.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#80 - 2015-01-28 21:18:23 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
chaosgrimm wrote:
There should be some balance when it comes to the ganking profession. Players should have a means to screw with your money making efforts. The problem with the ganking profession is that any risks you would impose on gankers are instantly mitigated by the time said ganker needs to be exposed to said risks. I'd support something along the lines of security status gradually removing the gankers ability to dock and disappear after logoff relative to the sec status of the system


We adapt by using orcas with pre fitted cats and you start asking for just one more nerf.
Just one more and it will be balanced, right?

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.