EVE General Discussion

Not sure anyone has mentioned this before, but what i would like to see is a more robust system that actually make ransoming as a pirate working. The idea would be that there is a distinct differentiation between "murder" someone and "pirating" someone. I would like to see more actual "pirating" instead of this "suicide ganking". So basically the pirating frequency in hi-sec/low-sec should go up, while the "murders" should go down.

I'm not sure how to accomplish this, but i guess u could work around special contracts and items that will ensure safety travel if u pay and some form of pirate "organization" that if joined, provides advantages, but u have to life with its "code of honor".

Basically i can life to pay pirates or even have some long term contracts to buy me safe passage for a region, but i need some systems that actually makes sense for me to pay. So the goal would be that actually ransoming in hi-sec needs to-be more profitable and viable than actually killing the target. I also would like to see some actual interaction between those 2 opposing groups, i think here something like romantic "mafia" systems. I pay for "safety" and gain a advantage over other traders, to use the shorter trade routes or know a Cartel "owns/operates" in a region i do business so i can buy a "member" item and know there "code or rules" are enforced.

So i would like to see more "suicide gankers" converted to actually robbers, thief's instead of murders and have a very distinct difference between those 2 groups.


Hope this makes sense :p

bye Andy


PS: The same goes for wardecs, most would actually like to pay, but paying makes no logical sense in the current from, for various reasons. If i can pay and actually buy me "freedom" for X amount of time, that cant be circumvented i would pay! I would even go this far and allow a % based system to pay every month, so i can operate in a low-sec system of my choice where i know those pirates are actually more like a "mafia" and wont bother me if i keep paying my "fees", but only if the system is robust enough so it makes sense for me.

no grinding required, merely another alt with a relatively short training time to get back out and do it again. (correct me if i'm wrong)

i am curious though as to how many times you can gank people before you can't exist in high sec. (i.e. please tell me)

No, I don't. Why do you make presumptions like that? I live in a wormhole filled with enemies while I colonize their planets, mine their gas and kill their sleepers; all along I am severely underskilled compared to their tengus and whatnot. I have no interest in an easy game, but you seem to want it to be easy for gankers. I take a risk and I make money because of it, something I am aware of (I don't understand why anyone would actually want to mine in high sec when you can find 100m worth of asteroids in C3 while you let passive income from PI come, and find gas which also has a lot of worth, but it's not up to me to judge where they wish to mine - it's a sandbox).

I created this thread because I was annoyed by the unintellectual, verbal war raging between one side and the other. I have never seen such a community filled with so much hate. What really bothers me, though, is that I can't remember this attitude from when I played in 2010, so even since then I have recommended EVE not because of its sandbox, but because of its community. Trust me, I won't make that mistake again.

Putting aside the immature behavior of the forum users in general, the fact still remains that a majority of people in this thread obviously dislike the idea that it should be more costly to gank simply because it would make life easier for the gankee, but that's not the point; a ganker should have consequences because death should have consequences in EVE. This is what EVE promotes: what you do will have consequences, and getting your cheap ganker-ship blown up and losing a million in clone-cost, is not a consequence which a player can feel.

Consequences shouldn't be only for miners and industrialists. EVE should be hard on everyone regardless if you put your SP in industry, mining or gunnery.

I don't think the penalty for suicide ganking is too low. I think it is too predictable.
Right now ganking isn't about skills or equipment, it is about maths. You know exactly what is your ship worth, you know exactly how much will you get from the killed wreck. You know exactly when the condord will show up. You don't play the game, you just count.
No risk, just a job. Repetitive and somehow boring.

I don't have an exact suggestion on how to make it more fun and more "random", but if the suicide ganking should be changed in a way, i suggest it should make it less predictable. Less math, more skill, more ... more fun.

Mallak Azaria <---you mean that part?

TROLL-B-GONE

define cleansing

Suicide ganking is fine and many who die, deserve to.


What's wrong then?

Two details:

1) EvE is much self patting on the shoulder about being player driven but then uses NPCs to rule and police hi sec PvP like WoW.

This creates a quite stupid situation, where the gankers are doing their job unhindered (they can fully take the kill before being concorded) while the target are hard coded into a prey little box.
How are them hard coded to be prey? Because they are only given the option to "take". Their options are passive, like going away, overtank, survive till Concord kills the attacker and so on.

Instead, targets should be able to withdraw Concord / NPC protection and hire willing "gankee" helpers, something like war decs allies but on a personal level.

At this point, both parties are fully player driven like EvE is meant to be and both can rip each other a new one. *Both* is the keyword. Opponents, not canned "predator vs prey".


2) You have seen how CCP need to implement a new hi sec aggression mechanic. Why? Because the old one was 1 v 1 centered. Being the emergent playerbase we are, it took short time before somebody figured out how to circumvent the system and basically keep the defendant stuck to the 1 v 1 paradygm while the attacker enjoyed many vs 1. Thus neutral RR was born and other similar "outplay the system" gameplay.

Now, the same happened with Concord. Stuck at an ancient "you are bad pirate we send police to kill you" mechanic, it partially scales to blob ganking (see freighter ganks) but does not scale AT ALL against vast scale organized ganking.

This is the case of these days. A 0.0 alliance decided to industrially boycott the whole hi sec mining and Concord won't scale to deal with it, nor the very EvE economy model supports diminishing returns to make it increasingly harder to keep up with the huge costs involved.
If Goons wanted, they could forever finance a complete and permanent stranglehold of any kind of miners (including the big tank ones) plus every high traffic trade route.

This is bad game design, as no PvP games can allow a permanent stalemate. When you win your battleground, you get a "you won, game over" cutscene or similar, then the thing is reset. In EvE it's not reset so we are all stuck to their "you won" cutscene, including themselves and they probably wonder what to do next.

And no, we won't get some white knights going to displace them in the next month, keep dreaming.

admittance that tanking the ship would have little to no effect and that alot of suicide ganking is little more than greifing

Will someone please address me the issue of the cost difference between the ganker and gankee as well as my issue with juszt creating a new alt to get around the security status drop?

Cost difference is not an issue. Cost is not a balancing factor. You pay exponentially increasing costs for marginal improvements in ability, and if the ability you're buying isn't survivability, then that increasing cost will approach ∞ without any change whatsoever in how easy the ship is to gank.

Not an issue, as long as you don't biomass those alts. More to the point though, there is no reason to create new alts to get around the drop — it's actually quite counterproductive to do so, since it's just a waste of time for little to no benefit.