Player Features and Ideas Discussion

You asked why he mentioned suicide ganking. There are other ways to become -10 than suicide ganking. But nvm ...


Then DO SO. Go ahead and discuss his statements and don't just throw your usual ganker-copypasta into the thread without even looking what the thread is actually about.

He mentioned suicide ganking explicitly and it having low risk. Here is his first paragraph,



He is talking about criminals and suicide ganking.

I still don't see any problem here. Black Pedro covered it pretty well.

1. We want players to interact.
2. We want players to interact in all areas of the game, HS, LS, NS, and w-space.
3. Interaction can take any form, competitive, cooperative, both hostile and non-hostile.
4. This proposal seeks to restrict player interaction.
5. For what reason? It is too "low risk" to gank freighters (learn to read).
6. The "ease" of ganking freighter is not really "easy" (it takes a f'king fleet, a bumper, a scout, a loot scooper/hauler).
7. Freighter ganking is totally and solely the result of bad decision making on the part of the freighter pilot.
8. Freighter pilots making good decisions solves the OP's "issue".

Nothing to see here, move along.

Seven bill you say?
https://zkillboard.com/kill/61803644/

*popcorn*

CCPlease one more nerf (tm)

Adapt or die.. that's your job
Not CCP's

I'm glad this was brought up. For haulers, the loss is twice manifold should gankers get a decent stab at the loot. If loot is arbitrary (let's say it goes to Concord impound) then people can bid on the spoils in the same toggle used to place bounties. Maximum shade I say!

Killrights alone prevent almost anyone with sense from engaging in a criminal act in highsec if they have any intention to engage in income-generating activities. The 'consequence' of giving up your CONCORD protection, even to one person, or more likely everyone at a small cost, is incredibly harsh from a cost-to-benefit prospective. I will agree that if you live outside of highsec, or don't plan on mining, hauling, missioning or incursioning in highsec for the next 30 days it is less relevant.

For outlaws, it already doesn't matter. A killright means nothing if you are -5 or below, nor does any additional 'consequence' that allows people to shoot you given you are already free-to-shoot.

Well, you could equally argue that -5 characters should not be allowed to sit inside POS force fields. You can argue for more penalties, but it isn't especially fair nor consistent. If a player wants to risk and deploy a citadel that can be used by criminals to tether, then why shouldn't they? It is their station and if you object, you can try to explode it or tell the owner to stop extending tethering rights to them. That is actually player interaction and sort of along the lines of the pirate hideaway idea. If you just make tethering useless for criminals (would this apply in lowsec? nullsec?) then they will just not use them and base out of NPC stations, or safespots and ship hangers or instawarps like they have in the past. Despite the naive belief of some, criminals are not going to sit outside a citadel and let you shoot them like fish in a barrel, and even if they wanted to let you shoot them the faction police would do it before you likely got there. They will just use the next most efficient way to operate, one that can't be wardecced and exploded by other players.

POSes always protected criminals from other players outside the force field. True, not some NPCs, but I'll bet that was not a conscious design intention but rather just a side-effect of the spaghetti POS code and this problem caused by the idiosyncrasies of the force field mechanic which was part of the impetus to remove the whole system. I mean, how does it makes any consistent sense that the lasers from the faction police can passthrough a force field, but not those of a player flying the same ship? If I am wrong though then CCP really should do as you say and keep things consistent and remove tethering for -5 and below, or perhaps to more accurately reflect the previous situation, remove tethering protection against the faction police (just like the current situation where the tether doesn't protect you from CONCORD). But I get the sense that this is how they want things to work and is part of their philosophy of general mechanics being consistent across all spaces.

If you want to make the criminals vulnerable you need to give them something useful to them in space and better yet, the ability to defend it. An Upwell structure with tethering does that, and if you remove the faction police, they could even deploy it themselves and defend it, but even without that they are still deploying them with alts now and nothing is stopping you from shooting them. If you just make in-space infrastructure useless to criminals or impossible to defend, they will just carry on using the time-tested NPC options.

I honestly don't care which way CCP goes. Whether criminals are kept as muggers in alleys who can't give a proper fight or are given more tools to be more like drug kingpins with infrastructure you can attack but who also can defend it, both are viable archetypes of criminals. I think the latter would generate more content and interaction in highsec, but I fully recognize it would put highsec residents at greater risk not to mention require a lot a game design effort to get balanced right. Part of me hopes that some CrimeWatch revamp will be part of this winter's 'Empire' expansion, but the logical part of me knows that it is probably just going to feature some new, smarter PvE that highsec residents say they want but will then promptly ignore and keep running the same old missions because they are not as easy as the content they have run a thousand times. Ah well, good thing I am pretty happy with the status quo.