Player Features and Ideas Discussion

You don't have to pay for it, first off. Second, the benefit could be reduced response times. Right now in a 0.5 system it takes about 18 seconds for CONCORD to respond. If you buy the package you could get a substantial reduction in that response time, say down to 3-4 seconds meaning ganking would be much harder for such situations...it could still be done, but they'd need a much, much larger group of players.

If you want somebody to sit and hold your [insert appendage here] while you play, wrong game. Overall, not a fan of the idea. I'd have it scale with SP as well more SP the bigger the multiplier. There'd also have to be something to account for fleets as well. One dude who gets in fleet with this and then have it provide enhanced response times for everyone in fleet would strike me as a problem...so multiply it the number of people in fleet too. Make this a really good isk sink. Which is about the only good aspect of it I see. But hey, if people want to dump a big chunk of their income into the coffers of CONCORD...whatever v0v.

By the way, people here do understand the concept of an arms race in the context of a dynamic game...right? You make a change and those on the other side will change their strategies. Changes to ganking have been made over the years...and players who gank have adapted. This is why Mag's has those dismissive posts up above. So ask yourselves these questions:

1. Is ganking in its current state balanced?
2. What can be done to improve the balance?

Nobody appears to have asked the first question and made it a topic of serious discussion...it is simply assumed. "Something has to be done about ganking!" Why? Are too many people being ganked? Is there some other indication it is unbalanced? I don't see any discussion of this let alone evidence. You guys all skip 1 and proceed right to 2. It would also be nice if you guys were honest and stated whether or not you think ganking should be allowed in high security space.

Edit:
There are a couple of interesting points to those questions by the way. First, ganking could be too hard. So the answer to 1 is no, and we need to make ganking MORE of a thing. The other thing is virtually all posts in this forum usually assume the answer to 1 is no, and that for 2 it must require a nerf to ganking. This is biased thinking. People who are biased in their thinking don't really deserve to be taken too seriously.

First off you missed the point. It was stated that players should have to pay for a Concord protection package and yet there was no protection package offered. In fact what was offered for our weekly fee was longer response times than we currently get from Concord, and those response times get worse as your character ages Where is the protection package in that proposal? To sum up, all I see is me having to pay for less than what I get now and that can only be considered as a buff to ganking.

Now to your specific idea as quoted above., this would be a great starting point for a proper discussion about this type of change. And I would counter your by making it better / worse for all parties involved. Basic response times should start at 10 seconds in a 1.0 system and then progress downward until you get to 20 seconds in a .5 and based on my experiences this is about the same as it is now. Players could then have the option to buy improved "protections" for a fee, those packages would then shorten the Concord response time by a percentage. As a hobby programmer I am all for percentages in these things as they are easier to code over the wide range of possible situations the client / server may encounter.


Been in this game for more than 5 years I do not want someone holding my hand and I have never asked for it. What I want is for CCP to keep the game in a reasonably balanced place, and by balanced I mean CCP is the ones who decide what is and is not balanced.

Since Concord is a high sec only reality I disagree with fleets presenting a problem. Since players in high sec cannot band together to protect fleet or corp mates Concord would need to treat each fleet member as if they were a solo player.


1. Only CCP can decide this one, as players have a vested interest in things changing to benefit them. Gankers want more and easier targets, others want more controls placed to limit ganking.

2. Again only CCP can really decide this one.
I have stated this on many occasions but I will restate it here. I have no idea if ganking is in a balanced place in this game right now. What I have are these facts.
A. CCP has steadily changed the game since I started playing and ALL of those changes have made ganking harder.
B. It is time for CCP to take a serious look at ganking and decide if it should be in the game at all, and what changes need to be made.
In a final analysis since all of the changes CCP has made make it more difficult to gank I have to believe that CCP did not consider ganking to be balanced in times past. Is it balance now, we will see as changes continue to roll out.


Please do not lump me in together with the rest of the anti ganking crowd. Search and you will not find anyplace on these forums where I have called for the elimination of ganking, a total review and adjustments as needed by CCP yes, a call to remove it never.

This all goes back to my answer to question #1 above. Since the players on both sides have a vested interest in the game changing and those changes would have the game change in opposit directions then CCP is the only group that can decide.

CCP has posted some indicators that ganking is not a "major" factor in player retention, beyond that they have been relatively silent. It would be interesting to see some of the numbers they have collected on ganking but I would especailly like to see the total ISK loses including the gankers ships as a percentage of the total value of the EvE markets. This one would give us a clue as to how much if any affect ganking really has on the markets and that seems to be one of the bigger reasons gankers like to tout as a benefit to the game of their actions.

Just throwing this out here:

During the last EVE meetup (in my area) I talked with a guy who went to the latest Fanfest. Apparently, CCP gave out some stats regarding ganking at one of the roundtable events. I think the number was... ~7000 ganks over the past year or so?
It would be nice to confirm this.


*IF* this number turns out to be true...

That is 7000 suicide ganks over the course of 365 days. That's an average of 19 to 20 ganks a day. Out of an average of 15 to 25k players who play daily... or ~400k subscribed players.

That is a PATHETICALLY low number when looked at it from a wider perspective.
The average death-rate in a single medium-traffic low-sec system is higher than the suicide-gank rate for WHOLE of high-sec.

I personally think that number is low. There are probably 19-20 ganks every few hours just in Jita 4-4 alone.

That sounds a little low. The killboards show about 3000-5000 kills per month for the CODE. Alliance alone. Assuming the majority of those are ganks, you get to 7000 pretty quickly. Maybe that was 7000 from Jan 1st until Fanfest?

In any case, CCP Quant did show that graph of the damage done by CONCORD as compared to other damage like PvP or against NPCs and it was barely noticeable on the same scale. While whether the amount of ganking in the game is too much is quite subjective, it is objectively true that as compared to most other metrics like total damage done or ganks as a fraction of total kills, the number is minuscule. Under most circumstances, your chances of getting ganked are incredibly small, and can be virtually eliminated by just spending a small amount of effort.

Highsec has never been safer. With nullsec getting an extra dose of risk added in June, is highsec next in line for an injection of danger?

Please tell me you're joking.

Good thing the governments of new Eden are not moral enough to not let something as simple as a few thousand deaths stand in the way of progress.

Ahem.

Ah but it is "fact", and the relentless flood of anti-ganking threads and the venomous attacks against those who post them is proof positive as they say that it IS TIME for CCP to look again at ganking. If for no other reason they need to do it and very openly and publicly as a way of trying to calm the tensions between players on both sides.


If as you state CCP is good with the state of ganking, and that it is here to stay in this game then you and all others on the pro-ganking side of the debate have nothing to fear and therefore should openly encourage and fully support a call for a review as it would only serve to prove what you think is the truth of the matter, and yet you are very resistant to such a review why?


Why do all of you think I am anti-ganking simply because I call for a review of the situation?
It seems that you have become so hyper sensitive to the situation that anyone who does not agree with you is instantly against you no matter what they state or what actions they propose.


Not that any of you will read this or give a damn because it goes against what you have already decided about me. But for the record here are my PERSONAL views on ganking.

At this point in the game I am comfortable with the state of ganking and all that surrounds it, personally I think it is in a reasonably balanced place.
Even so it is time for CCP to review the ganking situation and make whatever changes they deem appropriate and yes you touchy ones that means NO CHANGES AT ALL if that is what CCP decides is proper.

Ganking always was and always will be a hyper sensitive issue in this game and as such it is a component of the game that should be reviewed on a recurring basis and the results of those reviews should be made available to the entire gaming community and linked on the launcher where they are visible and accessible to everyone that plays the game. And as a result of these on going reviews CCP should make any changes / or no changes as they deem appropriate and post that information as well.

Not to mention that real world cops don't show up instantly by magic, if they aren't on the scene, they have to be called in.

But remember, this crowd only wants realism that benefits them. You know, hypocrisy.

Their reply.




You don't get it, do you? You lose, stfu.