These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Tabyll Altol
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#101 - 2015-01-30 07:25:51 UTC
Misha Tokila wrote:
Oh yes, it's that kind of post.

Since the punishments that CCP and put in place for gankers with a -10.0 security status doesn't seem to deter them at all, I have a couple of ideas.

So let's do a review of the current system. The ganker already loses their ship in the gank. They are in fact prepared for this and have factored this in. The ganker already loses security status in the gank. This doesn't matter because many are already at -10.0 standing. Because of this, there is no incentive for the ganker to not pod another player because they are losing their ship anyways.

My idea is the following: Implement an eye-for-an-eye system above and beyond what is currently implemented. Since clone grades have been eliminated, the only loss to getting podded these days are the implants. With that in mind, if the ganker actually pods another player, then CONCORD will pod them in return. The counter to this is that gankers would use jump clones to gank in. But the penalty for this is that they have to wait the 24-hours (modified by skills) to jump back into their implant clone.

This leads to my second idea.

Players and NPCs with low security status are considered criminals in game. At -5.0 and lower, they are free targets for every player in all space. So why are they allowed to dock in stations in highsec systems? Since they are criminals, treat them as criminals. They want to dock in a station, they can do it in lowsec. If they want to dock in highsec, then they need to do it at a POS. Something that we can wardec and shoot at instead of playing station games. The security status of the ganker verses the security status of the system would determine if they can dock at stations in that system. The scenario would change to the following:

<-2.00: Can't enter or dock in 1.0 systems.
<-2.50: Can't enter or dock in 0.9 systems.
<-3.00: Can't enter or dock in 0.8 systems.
<-3.50: Can't enter or dock in 0.7 systems.
<-4.00: Can't enter or dock in 0.6 systems.
<-4.50: Can't enter or dock in 0.5 systems.
<-5.00: Free target

If the ganker loses security status such that he/she can't dock at a station where his/her assets are located, then that is too bad for them. Also, if they have a jump clone in a station that they can't dock in, then they should be able to get to that clone, board a ship, and undock. But they won't be able to dock. So get the security status back up so you can access it. Since it has been clearly demonstrated that increasing security status penalties for hostile actions isn't working, as alot of gankers are <-5.00 security status now, let's try increasing the penalties for having a negative security status.

NOTE: I'm not saying we should get rid of suicide ganking, just make the penalties more severe. So those individuals who want to participate in that type of gameplay can still do so, but their will now be more stiff penalties they will have to deal with.

Oh I already know that I'm going to get alot of hate mail from suicide gankers, especially those C**D. guys, but I'm already expecting that.

I do agree that the highsec asteroid belts do need stronger rats as of right now, only 2-3 frigate/destroyer rats spawn. Throw a cruiser in there once in a while to make things a little uncomfortable.




I can´t see the connection between secstatus and docking right. The station are did not belong to Concord so the security status should not be used to deny the docking right. If i got a standing at about 9 by some faction, that would me make like a faction hero. Why would the deny me to dock at their station.

I think they "punishments" that exist now are to light. But you argumentation is bad. And i don´t like the idea.

-1
chaosgrimm
Synth Tech
#102 - 2015-01-30 11:57:36 UTC  |  Edited by: chaosgrimm
Colette Kassia wrote:
chaosgrimm wrote:
The only other 'nerf' I'd have in mind is possibly providing a more structured monetary incentive for killing gankers.

But I mean, I can't image you find it surprising ppl would want to see ganking nerfed. Mechanics are put in place to try to penalize gankers / balance ganking, then poor implemention allows for these penalties to remain mostly circumvented.

im curious if hypothectically, would you believe there would be justification to implement mechanics that made gankers more susceptible to their risks, provided it was possible?

Has there ever been any concerted campaign by hisec industrial types to manipulate upward the price of security tags?

It's well know that many gankers who gank routinely do so using low-skill alts. These low-skill alts are, almost surely, not going out and killing rats to bring their security standings back up the old fashion way. They're likely buying security tags using ISK acquired by their main (or corp).

So, if you and large group of other ganking victims (Red Frog?) decided to manipulate the prices on these tags, you greatly increase the cost of ganking, or force the gankers to spend a lot of time grinding their own low-sec rats. It would cost a LOT of ISK. Looking at Jita, I see that about 100 to 200 Negotiator Tags move every day and at around 16M each. One person isn't going to take on those numbers; but a wealthy alliance most definitely could. It may involve some RL $$$ and PLEX to jack up the prices and keep them high. Would it be worth it? *shrug*

Granted, I don't know much about this facet of Eve, at what frequency the necessary NPCs spawn, of how time-effective it is to deliberately hunt them. Thoughts on viability?


Your average professional ganking alt just skips tags and leaves the sec status low. In a freighter gank, the ganking fleet warps in while the freighter gets held down by a bumper. So the window of time you're given to meaningfully attack them, is between when they land on grid, and when their target dies / til police stop it. And that isn't necessarily an option either because freighters can get alpha'd. (Which is hilarious to see, but the point really being that you potentially don't even get that narrow window to cause them a loss via their sec status 'penalties'. Compared to having high sec status, the difference would be that you would get a concord response if you attacked them while they were locking the target instead of after they fired)

The other issue is that for ganking profession to work, their loss potential must be lower than and themr gain potential must be higher than their targets. So even if you added mechanics that forced gankers to buy tags + manipulated the tag market, you just narrow the scope of their targets. The problem as I see it isn't how frequently the ganks occur, but how difficult it is for a 3rd party to sabotage a ganking operation and cause actual losses to professional gankers. Its difficult due to their very short window of vulnerability.
Agondray
Avenger Mercenaries
VOID Intergalactic Forces
#103 - 2015-01-30 15:19:04 UTC
If you know the loophole that I have learned of a -10 can completely avoid npc forces and sit on a gate for hours at a time.
to many players are afraid of any action so they wont engage a red destroyer no matter what ship they have.
I have seen entire fleets avoid a read that can be insta popped because of reasons.

"Sarcasm is the Recourse of a weak mind." -Dr. Smith
Concord Guy's Cousin
Doomheim
#104 - 2015-01-30 15:36:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Concord Guy's Cousin
Shai'd Hulud wrote:

Why you need a more dangerous highsec ? Ingame you have a lot of places you can make your pew pew (wh, nullsec, lowsec,...)
You neglected to mention hisec, according to CCP the whole of the Eve universe is a place to pew pew, and hisec is part of that universe.

Quote:
Fly safe... in highsec!
It's completely possible to be all but immune to gankers, to be safe in hisec you have to take responsibility for your own safety instead of expecting CCP to do it for you, but for many, including yourself by the sounds of it, that's entirely too much effort.

ISD LackOfFaith ~ "Your Catalyst was a hamster, and your Retriever smelt of elderberries"

NPC Forum Alt, because reasons.
Esmanpir
Raccoon's with LightSabers
#105 - 2015-01-30 23:43:56 UTC
Iain Cariaba wrote:
chaosgrimm wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Guaranteed ship loss, sec loss, chance of gank failure, the inability to roam freely in high sec with a ship when -5 sec or lower, open season to all anywhere any time and kill rights, are not risks that gankers are susceptible to then?

Must be why ganking is so prevalent then. Oh wait....


Your ship loss is a cost of business, similar to pve'er ammo, miner crystals, market fees, etc.

But take gank failure due to a 3rd party thwarting it, or -5 sec, or killrights etc. The amount of time you are required to be exposed to those risks / the window of opportunity a 3rd party has to try to ruin your day is very short, compared to a miner who must remain in a belt for long periods of time, a freighter at risk after every jump in their route, a pver in a mission, a pos doing xyz, a poco, fw plexer, explorer, etc.... As far as money making professions are concerned, your time spent being susceptible is particularly short

Yet their time spent in boredom trying to aquire targets is much greater that any of your provided exampes.

I'm curious, what is the average isk/hr made on a typical miner gank and a typical freighter gank once you factor in all the man hours to find the targets and arrange the gank?


I don't think most gankers have "time spent in boredom trying to aquire targets." Most of the ganking I've seen has been either targets of opportunity or by alts called in when a target is found. And you want to talk about boredom, try mining... Big smile
Misha Tokila
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#106 - 2015-01-31 21:02:11 UTC
Quite a discussion we have going on. Yes, I have read every post on this thread and now I think it's time to add a few more thoughts.

Everyone should be able to use a gate, so I'm against that restriction.

To address the concern that sec status vs. faction standings...

Faction standing won't prevent you from docking in a station. Yes, the corporations that own the stations are all generally independent, but in highsec, they still have to follow the law. It's like a wanted criminal comes into a store were their face is plastered on a wall in the form of a wanted poster. As the proprietor of the store, what are you going to do? For me, I would kick him out and call the police.

So yes, they are completely different things. The way that I view it, security status is what CONCORD thinks of you. Faction/Corp status is what that one group thinks of you. Since CONCORD is basically the police force of highsec, then they should be the ones who determine who can dock where.

This only applies to highsec. As to those who dwell in lowsec and nullsec, it shouldn't affect them unless they have a negative sec status and wonder into highsec.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#107 - 2015-01-31 21:16:20 UTC
Misha Tokila wrote:
Quite a discussion we have going on. Yes, I have read every post on this thread and now I think it's time to add a few more thoughts.

Everyone should be able to use a gate, so I'm against that restriction.

To address the concern that sec status vs. faction standings...

Faction standing won't prevent you from docking in a station. Yes, the corporations that own the stations are all generally independent, but in highsec, they still have to follow the law. It's like a wanted criminal comes into a store were their face is plastered on a wall in the form of a wanted poster. As the proprietor of the store, what are you going to do? For me, I would kick him out and call the police.

So yes, they are completely different things. The way that I view it, security status is what CONCORD thinks of you. Faction/Corp status is what that one group thinks of you. Since CONCORD is basically the police force of highsec, then they should be the ones who determine who can dock where.

This only applies to highsec. As to those who dwell in lowsec and nullsec, it shouldn't affect them unless they have a negative sec status and wonder into highsec.


Most of the pvpers in lowsec will wind up with neg sec and wind up locked out of highsec. Meanwhere the targets of your nerf will continue to gank away and operate out of orcas. So you nerf a lot of people not connected to ganking, the gankers adapt and you start calling for another nerf.

Rather than that how about you start using the many tools and tactics to protect yourself?
Iain Cariaba
#108 - 2015-01-31 23:31:05 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Rather than that how about you start using the many tools and tactics to protect yourself?

Because they'd rather exert ten times the energy sperging on forums to get ganking nerfed, again, that to take one bit of personal responsibility for their own well being.