Player Features and Ideas Discussion

when the winter patch details leaked showing the removal of destroyers ROF penalty and seeing the potential of tier 3 BCs i suggested this before.
CCP adjust the timer upwards to increase Concords response time to bring ganking BACK in line with what is was pre incarna
and before anyone QQ's and moans from the ganking community i am NOT saying do away with ganking just bring it back to pre incarna levels, ie tinkering with the concord timer negates the ROF change on destroyers (catalysts for example) but still keeps things within pre incarna levels

and before anyone says "HTFU" or "go tank a hulk" i've seen solo catalysts gank a tanked hulk, dont believe me, look on eve-kill.net.

adjusting the concord timer ONLY effects HS and does NOT necessitate CCP then having to tinker with things else where in eve, ask yourself this would you like it if CCP tinkers with something and it screws something in nullsec or sov up? :)

Reason enough to disregard this post methinks.

u dont get it that ccp dudes think assplodin hulks is teh funs 8) and stoopid miners playing and paying on is even moar funz, must be lotsa laughing at ccp headquarters 8)

I agree, CCP should increase Concord response time so gankers have longer to kill their target.

1. Because they didn't remove the drawbacks thinking "hey lets get rid of the drawback to make ganking easier"

It was more to make destroyers worth something.

2. Adjusting timers would make the price of ganking rise as it may require a bit more to make a gank worth the effort. As it stands, it takes little effort to train any character to fly a gank destroyer.

3. I guess CCP has adjusted concord according to balance, so what is right is what will achieve the proper balance.

…and now they are, so why should they undo that?

So? Why should they adjust the timer? Why do ganks need to be made more expensive? Why does it need to take more effort to train a gank-destroyer character (never mind that destroyers can't gank a tanked Hulk to begin with)?

So what is “right”? why should they adjust it to Incarna levels rather than, say, Trinity levels?

…aside from not presenting any reasons or argument. That makes it a rather unreasonable request.

Show me the KM where a catalyst soloed a tanked hulk in 0.5 or higher. Until then, tank your hulk.

Hisec ganking is what it is. You might interpret it as futile expressions of sexually frustrated basement virgins, or as a noble service to the mining community. Regardless of your interpretation (aka "The Truth"), the facts are that even with the indefinite extension of the Goonswarm bounty on exhumers it is possible to mine in safety if you take some simple precautions.

Precaution 1: tank your hulk. The people who are determined to kill you are going to kill you regardless of what you do. Tanking your hulk at least raises the barrier for entry into the "getting my hulk on a KM" stakes.

Precaution 2: pay attention to who is doing ganking in your system. Set them and their corp to red standings. Keep a timer for when they've blown someone up, so you know you have 10 minutes of breathing space.

Precaution 3: have support: an orca on-grid will act like a good lock and security screen: the solo ganker will go try some softer targets. Of course, you will want to tank your Orca too.

...precisely. That's actually an argument against your own position. It's not "working as intended" because an impact on ganking had nothing to do with the intention of the changes. Regardless, a point like that, even if you had formulated it properly, wouldn't be enough to qualify something as "unreasonable", so you're doubly wrong.

Where it falls through for me personally is then where does CCP draw the line for considering the impacts of ship changes on ganking? I think it would set a precedent that would just be more time wasted and more restrictions when balancing ships for actual combat, which are far more important than the ultimately minor impact on the world of hisec ganking.

Both "completely unrelated" and "senseless" are farcically hyperbolic terms to use. I personally don't think it's related enough for it to be sensible, but your attempt to put the concept right outside the purview of reason itself is ridiculous.

It's not hyperbole. It's not even an exaggeration. It's a pretty accurate description of the mechanics involved and the result of the OP's suggestion if you take him at his words.

The OP's premise is fundamentally flawed: changing the CONCORD timers because of an unrelated and successful ship revision does not return ganking to its Incarna state, unless we also adjust all other ships to match the new timers. This means giving all ships (and drones) a 20% RoF bonus and/or a flat 25% damage bonus to maintain the suicide gank abilities they had in Incarna, which in turn affects the non-suicide ganking so that it no longer works as it did in Incarna unless we give all ships a 25% HP bonus, which in turn means that we need to give all ships yet another 25% damage bonus so they can maintain that kill speed when under threat from CONCORD, which in turn… [etc]. The OP effectively suggests an infinite loop of buffs to all ships just because hulks suddenly can still cannot be ganked by destroyers.

Even if we remove the non-suicide gank part, the OP is still asking for a complete revision of every ship in the game and a drastic balance shift to fix some players' inability to fit their ships properly. Even on its own merits, that's about as senseless as it gets.


Gankers got new tools. This is not a problem, and even if it were, adjusting an completely separate mechanic does not solve this supposed problem: CONCORD response times have exactly zero to do with the offensive capabilities of destroyers.