These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
 

Three New Team Play Anti-Gank Modules

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
davet517
Raata Invicti
#101 - 2015-07-07 15:57:46 UTC  |  Edited by: davet517
Ferrosan wrote:

In my view, a big appeal to ganking is the chance to ruin someone's day whenever you're in the mood. There's 1000s of targets, so a gank fleet can supply, form, wait for the next target, attack, try to loot, hope for tears and have a good laugh, maybe even profit.


It's not "maybe even profit". Much of it is profit motivated. It's consistently more lucrative than low-sec pirating, and its possible to shrug off the consequences and do it day in and day out, and it shouldn't be. Low sec should be low sec, high sec shouldn't be.

Quote:
Also: This is part of the highsec corp frustration with wardecs. The deccing corp goes on the hunt whenever they want to in the week they've paid for. The target corp just loses a week of playtime. I know the wars are required as part of EVE, but the disproportionate impact of these wars has never seemed entirely fair to me.


That's just the kind of game it is, from top to bottom. It tends to herd small fish into the mouths of bigger fish, and new players into the employ of established players. Look at the current state of 0.0. Can't survive anymore, even as a good sized alliance, except in an even larger coalition. It's not a game that's very friendly to a small group of friends who want to join and play the game together, independently, especially if you enjoy PvE more than PvP.

You can do it, but it's going to be frustrating, and you'll log off feeling victimized as often as you feel rewarded. Most folks don't keep coming back to a game where they feel victimized. CCP has made the game far more troll / griefer friendly than most games, and they've paid the price for it player retention wise. They've tried to bandaid that with fancy NPE tools, but it's Eve's culture that turns new players off more than its complex game play. That's been a two edged sword for CCP as a business decision, and it's a direction that is probably too late to change at this stage of the game.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#102 - 2015-07-07 16:14:23 UTC
davet517 wrote:
I think you're working the problem from the wrong direction.

Suicide ganking should be possible, but it shouldn't be a persistent play style. High sec should be just that - high sec, and it makes no game sense that Concord would allow habitual offenders to stick around.

The simple solution is a three strikes law. One gank gets the character excluded from high-sec for a week, the second one a month, the third makes it permanent. The gates simply won't let you in. Sure, the ganker can just train up or buy another character, but that takes subscription time, for which CCP gets money.

Do your job, Concorde. Clean up high-sec.


Says suicide ganking should be possible, posts idea that makes it impossible.

Carebears never change.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#103 - 2015-07-07 16:19:22 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
davet517 wrote:
I think you're working the problem from the wrong direction.

Suicide ganking should be possible, but it shouldn't be a persistent play style. High sec should be just that - high sec, and it makes no game sense that Concord would allow habitual offenders to stick around.

The simple solution is a three strikes law. One gank gets the character excluded from high-sec for a week, the second one a month, the third makes it permanent. The gates simply won't let you in. Sure, the ganker can just train up or buy another character, but that takes subscription time, for which CCP gets money.

Do your job, Concorde. Clean up high-sec.


Says suicide ganking should be possible, posts idea that makes it impossible.

Carebears never change.


Well you kinda have to agree he proposed something that would do just what he said on a technical point. You could gank but only a really small amount of time.

It's still stupid tho...
Ferrosan
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#104 - 2015-07-07 16:29:13 UTC
davet517 wrote:
You can do it, but it's going to be frustrating, and you'll log off feeling victimized as often as you feel rewarded. Most folks don't keep coming back to a game where they feel victimized. CCP has made the game far more troll / griefer friendly than most games, and they've paid the price for it player retention wise. They've tried to bandaid that with fancy NPE tools, but it's Eve's culture that turns new players off more than its complex game play. That's been a two edged sword for CCP as a business decision, and it's a direction that is probably too late to change at this stage of the game.


I dunno if I entirely agree with the frequency you describe. I am often happy with my day-to-day EVE experience. I don't get that sense of true danger in any other game I play. When I undock a slightly blingy PvE ship, I am legitimately worried that someone scanned it a few days back, has been waiting for me to log in, waiting for me to undock, and is going to go for the kill. I am properly suspicious of every other pilot around me, all the time. It's part of why I bought the ship. It's risk. It's invigorating. It's part of loving EVE.

For me the frustration comes when highsec gankers or griefer corps pick my corp as a target, and I realize I just don't have ANY options. Not only can't I fly my blingy ship during a dec, I can't really mine, or run Level IVs, or anything requires expensive PvE ships. For one week I am essentially defenseless. My corp has strategized ad nauseum over the years on how to gain PvP control of a highsec mining/missioning system or constellation during a dec, and it's either impossible, or our PvP pilots have to spend the week milling around watching a gate. See what I mean? The griefer corp can all log in for four hours of their happy happy fun time hunting all their wardec targets. We have to play THEIR favourite game for the whole week. It's boring as hell and as I said earlier, most highsec corps have learned the hard way that as a policy, fighting back with PvP fleets just makes it worse. As a corp we have ruled out pretty much anything except hiding. The dec forces me to find something else to do for a week so that the deccing corp can play their game for a few hours whenever they want.

The frustration came during Burn Amarr when I had time off work, and I really wanted to sell my compressed ore and buy PLEX that weekend. It was the game I was looking forward to playing when I finally had time. I had a large enough block of time to devote to safely moving the product through Niarja, and discovered that I couldn't. Not that it would be interesting or different that day. Not that I'd need to call on my corp to come help improve my chances that day. No, I was just not able to do it, period. It would've been certain death against the number of Goons involved, no matter how many friends I brought along. So I had to try to find other things to do. That's where the frustration comes from.

I sometimes wonder if gankers were to routinely experience this sense that someone was randomly showing up and ruining their day if their attitude would change. How would they feel if highsec miners could commandeer a CONCORD fleet and just drop on top of them when they were ratting in null between gank sessions? Camp them into the station for the few hours they had to play that day. How would they like that sense of unfair dread where they could expect to be just randomly obliterated on a slow evening when they just wanted to solo rat (gotta pay for those Cats) in their quiet home system for two hours before bed? I don't mean routine PvP vigilance. I have to do that in highsec too. I mean just some arbitrary overpowering interruption of what they felt like doing that day. I suspect many of them would not enjoy this. They'd find this very unfair.

Gankers have chosen to impose this style of play on us in highsec, with CCP's blessing in the name of making the fear of highsec privacy real, but they are not vulnerable to this same frustration in any way.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#105 - 2015-07-07 16:40:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Frostys Virpio
Ferrosan wrote:
davet517 wrote:
You can do it, but it's going to be frustrating, and you'll log off feeling victimized as often as you feel rewarded. Most folks don't keep coming back to a game where they feel victimized. CCP has made the game far more troll / griefer friendly than most games, and they've paid the price for it player retention wise. They've tried to bandaid that with fancy NPE tools, but it's Eve's culture that turns new players off more than its complex game play. That's been a two edged sword for CCP as a business decision, and it's a direction that is probably too late to change at this stage of the game.


I dunno if I entirely agree with the frequency you describe. I am often happy with my day-to-day EVE experience. I don't get that sense of true danger in any other game I play. When I undock a slightly blingy PvE ship, I am legitimately worried that someone scanned it a few days back, has been waiting for me to log in, waiting for me to undock, and is going to go for the kill. I am properly suspicious of every other pilot around me, all the time. It's part of why I bought the ship. It's risk. It's invigorating. It's part of loving EVE.

For me the frustration comes when highsec gankers or griefer corps pick my corp as a target, and I realize I just don't have ANY options. Not only can't I fly my blingy ship during a dec, I can't really mine, or run Level IVs, or anything requires expensive PvE ships. For one week I am essentially defenseless. My corp has strategized ad nauseum over the years on how to gain PvP control of a highsec mining/missioning system or constellation during a dec, and it's either impossible, or our PvP pilots have to spend the week milling around watching a gate. See what I mean? The griefer corp can all log in for four hours of their happy happy fun time hunting all their wardec targets. We have to play THEIR favourite game for the whole week. It's boring as hell and as I said earlier, most highsec corps have learned the hard way that as a policy, fighting back with PvP fleets just makes it worse. As a corp we have ruled out pretty much anything except hiding. The dec forces me to find something else to do for a week so that the deccing corp can play their game for a few hours whenever they want.

The frustration came during Burn Amarr when I had time off work, and I really wanted to sell my compressed ore and buy PLEX that weekend. It was the game I was looking forward to playing when I finally had time. I had a large enough block of time to devote to safely moving the product through Niarja, and discovered that I couldn't. Not that it would be interesting or different that day. Not that I'd need to call on my corp to come help improve my chances that day. No, I was just not able to do it, period. It would've been certain death against the number of Goons involved, no matter how many friends I brought along. So I had to try to find other things to do. That's where the frustration comes from.

I sometimes wonder if gankers were to routinely experience this sense that someone was randomly showing up and ruining their day if their attitude would change. How would they feel if highsec miners could commandeer a CONCORD fleet and just drop on top of them when they were ratting in null between gank sessions? Camp them into the station for the few hours they had to play that day. How would they like that sense of unfair dread where they could expect to be just randomly obliterated on a slow evening when they just wanted to solo rat (gotta pay for those Cats) in their quiet home system for two hours before bed? I don't mean routine PvP vigilance. I have to do that in highsec too. I mean just some arbitrary overpowering interruption of what they felt like doing that day. I suspect many of them would not enjoy this. They'd find this very unfair.

Gankers have chosen to impose this style of play on us in highsec, with CCP's blessing in the name of making the fear of highsec privacy real, but they are not vulnerable to this same frustration in any way.


You can already interact with them to ruin their gank. Why do you need to get a concord fleet to prove your point? Just use the already established rules. If every damn gank fleet had to deal with a bunch of falcons jamming them and logi repping their target, you would be pissing in their cherios bolw too. The problem is no-one want to put the effort into it.

[Falcon, Because falcons]

'Hypnos' Signal Distortion Amplifier I
'Hypnos' Signal Distortion Amplifier I
'Hypnos' Signal Distortion Amplifier I

'Hypnos' Ion Field ECM I
'Hypnos' Ion Field ECM I
'Hypnos' Ion Field ECM I
'Hypnos' Ion Field ECM I
'Hypnos' Ion Field ECM I
'Hypnos' Ion Field ECM I
50MN Microwarpdrive II

Covert Ops Cloaking Device II
[Empty High slot]
[Empty High slot]
[Empty High slot]

Medium Particle Dispersion Augmentor I
Medium Particle Dispersion Augmentor I

The bumper can still do his job but the dps will probably hate you if you keep it up.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#106 - 2015-07-07 17:18:02 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Burn amarr/jita happens for one weekend once a year and costs a lot of isk and time to do it.
Ferrosan
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#107 - 2015-07-07 18:09:12 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Burn amarr/jita happens for one weekend once a year and costs a lot of isk and time to do it.


... and as the "other side" of that content I'd like to participate next time, in a way that make sense for an industrial highsec pilot.

Your comment is in the same vein that I'm complaining about: "Just wait until we're done our fun then you can start doing your fun again." I don't think that's fair. I think I should be able to respond to the increased danger and be part of it somehow.

I have paid attention to the posts in this thread regarding remote reps and ECM to ruin the gank. I suspect that in practice it's still impossible for any number of pilots to save a freighter from 300 Goons with so much alpha. I am going to discuss with my corp some of these ideas to have "shipping days" where we do escort duty through Niarja for freighter pilots. There are some interesting ideas here. My guess is that engaging with gankers will just give them more gank targets and probably lead to a wardec out of spite, which my corp won't risk, so I'm not hopeful.

I think some new avenues to counter the bumping strategy that was used would be fun. A new tool to involve more pilots in countering alpha could add new dimensions of play. Being able to help a high priority target escape to warp despite being pointed by multiple enemies at some risk to the smaller ships involved would be very interesting.

No one has explained why any of these are gamebreaking. They just say "you can't nerf pirates because CCP loves us best". No imagination at all.
davet517
Raata Invicti
#108 - 2015-07-07 18:43:14 UTC  |  Edited by: davet517
baltec1 wrote:
davet517 wrote:
I think you're working the problem from the wrong direction.

Suicide ganking should be possible, but it shouldn't be a persistent play style. High sec should be just that - high sec, and it makes no game sense that Concord would allow habitual offenders to stick around.

The simple solution is a three strikes law. One gank gets the character excluded from high-sec for a week, the second one a month, the third makes it permanent. The gates simply won't let you in. Sure, the ganker can just train up or buy another character, but that takes subscription time, for which CCP gets money.

Do your job, Concorde. Clean up high-sec.


Says suicide ganking should be possible, posts idea that makes it impossible.

Carebears never change.


Nah, making it impossible would be popping up a message that says "You can't do that in high-sec". There's a difference between being able to do it, and being able to do it FOR A LIVING in high-sec, because the consequences are inconsequential. Piracy, and suicide ganking is just a crude form of piracy, shouldn't be a high-sec profession that you can engage in indefinitely. If you can, high-sec isn't high-sec anymore. If you want to be a pirate, go to low-sec.
Amanda Chan
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#109 - 2015-07-07 19:12:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Amanda Chan
davet517 wrote:


Nah, making it impossible would be popping up a message that says "You can't do that in high-sec". There's a difference between being able to do it, and being able to do it FOR A LIVING in high-sec, because the consequences are inconsequential. Piracy, and suicide ganking is just a crude form of piracy, shouldn't be a high-sec profession that you can engage in indefinitely. If you can, high-sec isn't high-sec anymore. If you want to be a pirate, go to low-sec.


-10 security status is certainly not inconsequential. Eve is about freedom, choices and consequences... and you should never be content starvedwith what you want to do , baring malicious gameplay(no random suicide ganking is not malicious but extensive use of tracking agents to repeatedly kill 1 person is, etc.). So yes, I believe that hi-sec suicide ganking should be legal gameplay. However, I'm finding the npcs lacking. The thing your looking for is faction police stepping it up a notch. Heck, I'd be all for concord, faction police or Any npc rat podding you after a few seconds, no more then 5 seconds and especially if they don't like you(i.e corporation standing of rats or security status for concord.
Ferrosan
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#110 - 2015-07-07 19:24:20 UTC
Amanda Chan wrote:
davet517 wrote:


Nah, making it impossible would be popping up a message that says "You can't do that in high-sec". There's a difference between being able to do it, and being able to do it FOR A LIVING in high-sec, because the consequences are inconsequential. Piracy, and suicide ganking is just a crude form of piracy, shouldn't be a high-sec profession that you can engage in indefinitely. If you can, high-sec isn't high-sec anymore. If you want to be a pirate, go to low-sec.


-10 security status is certainly not inconsequential. Eve is about freedom, choices and consequences... and you should never be content starvedwith what you want to do , baring malicious gameplay(no random suicide ganking is not malicious but extensive use of tracking agents to repeatedly kill 1 person is, etc.). So yes, I believe that hi-sec suicide ganking should be legal gameplay. However, I'm finding the npcs lacking. The thing your looking for is faction police stepping it up a notch. Heck, I'd be all for concord, faction police or Any npc rat podding you after a few seconds, no more then 5 seconds and especially if they don't like you(i.e corporation standing of rats or security status for concord.


I like the idea that a -10 pod just cruising through highsec is vulnerable to the police in some way. It should just get gradually harder as your secstatus goes down to get into highsec at all. Possible, but harder.

I've never had a low secstatus, obviously, so I'm unclear on one point. If you're -10 and heading to Niarja in your pod, you are totally immune, right? Only killrights / decs can attack your pod, and only if they can catch it? A little more risk in this area for dedicated gankers would seem reasonable to me. Maybe gates remain locked if you're not in a ship, so you really have to sneak your way in?
Amanda Chan
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#111 - 2015-07-07 19:31:21 UTC
Ferrosan wrote:
]

I like the idea that a -10 pod just cruising through highsec is vulnerable to the police in some way. It should just get gradually harder as your secstatus goes down to get into highsec at all. Possible, but harder.

I've never had a low secstatus, obviously, so I'm unclear on one point. If you're -10 and heading to Niarja in your pod, you are totally immune, right? Only killrights / decs can attack your pod, and only if they can catch it? A little more risk in this area for dedicated gankers would seem reasonable to me. Maybe gates remain locked if you're not in a ship, so you really have to sneak your way in?


I'm a carebear and never had low sec status either but iirc after -5 anybody can attack you in high sec without concord intervention.
https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Security_status. Npcs just don't attack pods which I believe they should, just after a few seconds.
Kenrailae
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#112 - 2015-07-07 19:39:22 UTC
If you want to impose your fun on 300 goons, I suggest you find 449 other like minded people and ruin Goons fun. Otherwise, sit tight while the larger group putting in more effort does their thing.

The Law is a point of View

The NPE IS a big deal
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#113 - 2015-07-07 19:39:27 UTC
Ferrosan wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Burn amarr/jita happens for one weekend once a year and costs a lot of isk and time to do it.


... and as the "other side" of that content I'd like to participate next time, in a way that make sense for an industrial highsec pilot.

Your comment is in the same vein that I'm complaining about: "Just wait until we're done our fun then you can start doing your fun again." I don't think that's fair. I think I should be able to respond to the increased danger and be part of it somehow.

I have paid attention to the posts in this thread regarding remote reps and ECM to ruin the gank. I suspect that in practice it's still impossible for any number of pilots to save a freighter from 300 Goons with so much alpha. I am going to discuss with my corp some of these ideas to have "shipping days" where we do escort duty through Niarja for freighter pilots. There are some interesting ideas here. My guess is that engaging with gankers will just give them more gank targets and probably lead to a wardec out of spite, which my corp won't risk, so I'm not hopeful.

I think some new avenues to counter the bumping strategy that was used would be fun. A new tool to involve more pilots in countering alpha could add new dimensions of play. Being able to help a high priority target escape to warp despite being pointed by multiple enemies at some risk to the smaller ships involved would be very interesting.

No one has explained why any of these are gamebreaking. They just say "you can't nerf pirates because CCP loves us best". No imagination at all.


You have yet to explain why you need more tools. You already have several tools and tactics for countering bumping, use them.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#114 - 2015-07-07 22:20:07 UTC
We've now circled back to the old saying. "Just one more nerf and it will be balanced!"

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Ferrosan
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#115 - 2015-07-07 23:49:56 UTC
Mag's wrote:
We've now circled back to the old saying. "Just one more nerf and it will be balanced!"


You're attributing to me something you've been arguing with other people, apparently. I have no interests in nerfing. I'm proposing new modules that do new things. That's new gameplay, new emergent behaviour, new strategies. No one has even begun to explain the pros and cons of the specific modules. ONE post in this thread said some of them might be fun to mess with people. That's it. Every other post has been by gankers/griefers trying to ensure their game is left exactly like it is. I am not even interested in stopping you, I just think there are ways to make things more interesting, give defensive-style players more ways to counter the gank approach, etc.

I begin to see why my corpmates say these forums are hopeless. No one actually discusses the subject at hand.

baltec1 wrote:
You have yet to explain why you need more tools. You already have several tools and tactics for countering bumping, use them.


Proposing new gameplay options, new mechanics, etc., shouldn't need explanation. Instead the conversation should be whether they break the game or actually constitute a nerf to your gameplay, which I don't think they do. They're just different and give me more options on how to approach running the gauntlet you create for my shipping.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#116 - 2015-07-08 03:02:59 UTC
Ferrosan wrote:


Proposing new gameplay options, new mechanics, etc., shouldn't need explanation. Instead the conversation should be whether they break the game or actually constitute a nerf to your gameplay, which I don't think they do. They're just different and give me more options on how to approach running the gauntlet you create for my shipping.



They are yet another safety net to allow you to deal an entire fleet solo with zero effort. Yes its a nerf to ganking.

Again you already have the tools and tactics to counter us, use them.
Ferrosan
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#117 - 2015-07-08 04:31:06 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Ferrosan wrote:


Proposing new gameplay options, new mechanics, etc., shouldn't need explanation. Instead the conversation should be whether they break the game or actually constitute a nerf to your gameplay, which I don't think they do. They're just different and give me more options on how to approach running the gauntlet you create for my shipping.



They are yet another safety net to allow you to deal an entire fleet solo with zero effort. Yes its a nerf to ganking.

Again you already have the tools and tactics to counter us, use them.


Solo? Each mod I suggested can only be used by teammates. I begin to wonder if anyone actually reads the posts here or just copy/pastes ganker propaganda like an automaton.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#118 - 2015-07-08 04:56:11 UTC
Ferrosan wrote:


Solo? Each mod I suggested can only be used by teammates. I begin to wonder if anyone actually reads the posts here or just copy/pastes ganker propaganda like an automaton.


What propaganda?

Its a fact that there are a number of tactics and mods/ships currently available that people such as yourself simply ignore. Meanwhile gankers have seen their options ever more reduced.

You do not need more options, you need to start using the ones you already have.
Kenrailae
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#119 - 2015-07-08 05:22:58 UTC
Ferrosan wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Ferrosan wrote:


Proposing new gameplay options, new mechanics, etc., shouldn't need explanation. Instead the conversation should be whether they break the game or actually constitute a nerf to your gameplay, which I don't think they do. They're just different and give me more options on how to approach running the gauntlet you create for my shipping.



They are yet another safety net to allow you to deal an entire fleet solo with zero effort. Yes its a nerf to ganking.

Again you already have the tools and tactics to counter us, use them.


Solo? Each mod I suggested can only be used by teammates. I begin to wonder if anyone actually reads the posts here or just copy/pastes ganker propaganda like an automaton.



I just don't get why you are so staunchly defending supposed 'fleet' modules when there are already more than sufficient fleet mechanics in place. I mean, you do realize that each gank catalyst usually has a scram on it right? That gives them twice the warp scramble strength than/as the number of ships they have. You would need need a huge amount of mid slots to overcome that.


Of your 3 modules, that is the only one that makes any sort of sense. How does me turning something on stop you from being bumped out of alignment? And the HP sacrifice mod is SOOOOOOO ready for abuse. It is so much easier to just get a friend or alt to web you and do some remote reps than any of these proposals.

And that's before we even get into the 'nerf ganking' discussion. Yeah, I think ganking is a bit too easy right now. I got pod killed 4 times the other day autopiloting empty pods I had named 'Empty. Seriously' I get why the did it though. I mailed them after the fact and told them my pods would be empty all day and to not waste the time on them, go for something else. Some did, some didn't. But they did it because people are stupid. People autopilot 2 billion isk pods through high sec. People take untanked, unwebbed, unsupported freighters through high sec with many billions of stuff in them. They do it because people give them MORE than enough reason to. Take that reason away, ganking will become less prevalent. Die off? No, but become less of a thing. It will be a very sad day for the future of Eve the day ganking dies or is made illegal. As it is, I do feel it is too common, but I absolutely disagree that it is the gankers fault. Stupidity is the root cause. Suggest nerfs to stupid, not to valid, emergent, frankly hilarious, gameplay. But CCP cannot patch stupid. So now suggest ways YOU can use what you have to make sure you're not stupid.

The Law is a point of View

The NPE IS a big deal
admiral root
Red Galaxy
#120 - 2015-07-08 05:29:36 UTC
Ferrosan wrote:
I suspect that in practice it's still impossible for any number of pilots to save a freighter from 300 Goons with so much alpha.


I suspect if you brought 300 friends you'd have a fighting chance.

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff