Player Features and Ideas Discussion

This is only because AG has thus far put no effort into stopping them.

That makes more sense then. Wasn't 100% certain on the wreck ownership. Regardless, the main issue long term with antiganking is that it is not sustainable even with changes to Concord response mechanics. People can gank freighters all day long and turn a profit as long as they pick their targets based upon some basic preparation. Antiganking all day long requires someone to bankroll it (unless you hope to re-scoop the original loot but the additional loot fairy makes the ability to break even highly doubtful). There is no cost-neutral or profitable way to counter ganking so in the long term you are reliant on players funding it themselves or the haulers paying for a level of revenge (which basically they need to have prepared to pay in advance to have you there for the antiganking). That is the fundamental problem, not the Concord response times. Even if you do get a large group of pilots keen on the activity in the short term, they cannot afford to sustain it indefinitely.

Oh...a kill right...you mean like the gankers get? Hmmmm....I'm seeing this "gankers have it too easy" slipping further and further away. And they lose that toon for other business....hmmm yet another cost Ganker's "pay". This "gankers have it too easy" is kind of like a wet bar of soap.

And you don't get the loot? So?

You have basically made the argument that baltec1 has been making: AG are not willing to put forth the ISK or accept the consequences to be as effective as the gankers.

And then running to CCP crying like a little *****....yeah, sorry, no sympathy from me.

Yeah, you'll have to convince people you are doing something they'll want to pay for. Kind of like Red Frog and other concerns in game. This is true of many things. You have to incur a cost and then have people buy it at a price that covers your costs and hopefully provides a profit.

I will grant you that the targets of ganks are basically players who just don't seem to realize they are playing an MMO. They don't seem to realize they are playing a game where if you do something imprudent and foolish somebody else will come along and rather unpleasantly show them exactly just how imprudent and foolish they were. And if you try to tell these players they are behaving imprudently and foolishly they'd likely react badly.

Frankly, I don't ge the anti-ganking community. It is like driving around Vegas and reimbursing people who have gambled everything away....then whining when they run out of money.

Here let me help you AG guys out. Lets come up with a motto, I'll start:

Anti-ganking, making stupid okay.

Seconded: what is lacking, is some form of tangible profit.

Any ship required beyond the one hauler is cutting profit margins from 'mediocre' into 'not even worth undocking' -- a point made by Teckos on several occasions. Ironically because not enough freighters die to warrant an escort- fancy that. Oddly, according to Red Frog the cheapest way to haul is still per autopiloting freighter. Simply factor in the de-facto loss every once in a while, and at the end of the month you turn a tiny profit.

Blowing up the wrecks, short-lived as it was, was a neat idea... getting paid for antiganking would be even better... Still, with only a 30 second window at best, one would practically have to camp the pipe to keep it safe. Doing so would mean even less freighter death, and therefore no reward for your trouble at all.

To get decent escorted freight caravans going, there has to be a real risk. Already the risk is too low to cut a webbing buddy in on the profit-- hence why haulers use either their own alts or none at all.

So, while I'm not opposed to ganking, it is very unfortunate it always has to involve cheap tricks, exploits and highly questionable practice.

Not sure if it's worth tweaking any further. Perhaps concord was a bad idea and we should opt for something a little more drastic: keep the starter systems and surroundings "highsec". Turn everything from 0.1 -- 0.8 lowsec, with increasing number of gateguns as the sec level goes up. Cynos prohibited from .5-1.0 (nope, no carriers nor jumpfreighters)

Now before you think I'm trolling, consider this: the higher risk would yield a higher reward. People might be willing to PAY for their hauling needs for a change. Less ore flooding the market might allow miners to earn a buck as well. Wardecs could be dirt cheap again because all they'd do is basically turn off the station/gate guns. I could honestly see this "New" New Eden work. Including escorts, pay, and players policing themselves. You wouldn't even need to resort to catalysts because you could be a proper, real, honest-to-god (figure of speach...) pirate.

As I said ... it's a little more drastic but the endless rules and regulations will eventually leave highsec with nothing but lawyers. Unless perhaps filing spacelawsuits is also emergent gameplay, in which case I urge the forum council to get on with it, hold weekly sessions complete with tribunals, hearings, institute a parliament and watch me bail for the nearest airlock.

Just carve highsec up, turn most of it to lowsec and allow for both PvP and profit to happen? Think about it. Won't take long before peeps get organized I'm thinking ...

Teckos - from your posts one would think I was proposing something to keep idiots alive....

But none of this even begins to come into play until after the initial idiot is dead. They are a non-factor.

This is merely about offering a fair chance for revenge and murder - at the *same* cost that the gankers have to pay instead of a bit more than double the cost (based on the numbers you looked up) - and still with the large added logistical hurdles from having to be a reactionary force and not getting to choose the time or place of the counter-gank attempt. AKA: Still significantly harder and riskier than the initial gank - but *closer* to fair. Possibly even doable. Maybe.

In which case it is nothing but a slight buff to gankers...so why are they the ones opposing it?

Well, I do live in high sec - but I probably don't count. I don't have enough alts to solo-gank a freighter, and I don't care enough about ganking/antiganking to actively participate on either side - I'd happily kill any/all of them if given the opportunity - and their targets too

For me it is more the principle of the thing, and the spirit of the game, rather than an activity I personally would engage in if it were an option...

So yeah, I'd be interested to hear what some people *actually involved* in this ganker/anti-ganker/gankee conflict have to say on the matter - if we can find any to speak up (other than the usual big talking heads of the forums here).

No I was talking about the Anti-Ganking "movement" in general, not your proposal. I see it as a combo of buff and nerf so...I'm more of less fine with it.

Because it fails to meet your goals and can be abused by gankers. This is where the difference in the two camps becomes clear, AG will support anything that hurts gankers no matter what. The bulk of gankers will call out a bad plan even if it would help them because the care about overall game balance.