Player Features and Ideas Discussion

You see incorrectly. Both suicide ganking and the use of alts have been in the game since the beginning. The only "issue" here is that stupid and/or lazy players are not immune to ganking. IOW, everything working as it should.



That's because your whole idea is a solution in need of a problem. You haven't provided a convincing argument that a problem exists in the first place. You haven't even defined what "excessive" means, or why we should consider that number "excessive" instead of "normal". And the only benefit you've managed to come up with in defense of your idea is that stupid people will get ganked less often, which most of us consider a bad thing.

Actually you haven't provided a single reason, other than your hunch, that they may not have intended this.

I don't think you realize to what extend CCP intended multiboxing. There are mining fleets with 100 chars out there, all controlled by a single guy, full incursion fleets, also controlled by a single guy. The few ganking multiboxers with their 10-15 chars are actually small fry. CCP regularly sells their "power of 2" packages to encourage multiboxing. You are even allowed to use buddy links to sub additional accounts and reap the benefits. There are even game mechanics that require you to multibox if you want to get anything done or want adhere to one of the core principles of this game: trust noone. So it's a bit far-fetched to claim that they didn't intend this.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to defend multiboxing wrt. ganking or otherwise. I'm just telling you how it is. On the contrary, I think that multiboxing makes meaningful balancing of many aspects of this game impossible, as any imposed consequences for an action can be made irrelevant by adding more alts to the mix. That's why we'll never see any meaningful consequences or balance in ganking (or wardeccing e.g.) and any discussion about it is actually a collossal waste of time, as alts/multiboxing blow any consequences out of the water.

Anyone running multi boxing on that level is almost certainly using input broadcasting which is now banned. So there is evidence that CCP have seen problems in some kinda of multi boxing. Since it all has to be manual now someone running 10 or 15 accounts at once is actually the high end.
The gank multiboxing is an issue also, because all you need to do is set it going and then there is no more interaction needed. Which is what allows it to scale to a larger level than almost any other multi boxing.

However the solution is as I posted above, not a change to multiboxing rules or possibilities, but extending the gank timer which means simply pressing 2 buttons and waiting 15 seconds is not all that is involved in a gank, but actually several minutes of fight.
I.E. More interaction, more decisions, better game play (normally)

Just what problem is that? Gates create choke points that players are forced to pass through, which means there are opportunities for interaction. The fact that you can't AFK autopilot a freighter packed full of high-value cargo through the gate system and expect to survive doesn't mean that there's a problem.

There are ways around it but it is far from easy.

All the gibberish aside the reason is, because it's easier, because they cant do it well with one ship, they are generally poor at pvp. That simple and they will defend it because they found their "winning formula".
CCP wont do anything more about it as it's part of the grand douche design. Really now, this is Eve, you have to expect it and either do your own thing that avoids those situations or leave, complaining will just bring out the same crowd, with the same arguments. Really, dont bother.

It's just a hypothetical example (where I didn't say "freighter" specifically), the only point of it being in 0.0 is that CONCORD and sentry fire are not relevant. Feel free to replace it with any alternative: attacking a mining op, etc. The point is that massively increasing ship HP has balance effects far beyond just suicide ganking. For example, your new buffed-HP transports might become ideal cyno ships because of their sheer durability.



It's a bad thing because your plan, which is intended to make ganking harder, makes ganking significantly easier. Right now most combat ships are immune to ganking unless you load them down with high-end faction modules. To kill a T2-fit mission ship before CONCORD arrives requires too many gank ships to make a profit. But if CONCORD is slow enough for your proposal to work suddenly you can profitably gank those cheap-fit ships. You effectively shut down all PvE content above level 2-3 missions in T1 fit newbie cruisers because pretty much any ship can be profitably ganked.

Yes you are. I don't think you really understand what you're proposing. To turn a 15 second gank into a 2 minute gank you need about 8x the EHP. That means turning the ~2,000 raw HP of an Iteron MkV into ~17,000 HP. Contrast that with the ~12,000 HP of a Megathron. You're giving battleship level HP to a basic T1 cargo hauler, which is simply ridiculous.



Active tank isn't really relevant here. Unless you do something insane like giving them battleship-level active tank modules and the capacitor to run them for more than one cycle your active tank isn't going to even come close to keeping up with the incoming damage of the gank ship(s). So that means



Again, I don't think you understand what you're talking about here. You're proposing T1 hauler that tanks like a battleship at the price of a T1 frigate. Of course that's going to become a great cyno ship because of the sheer tank per ISK it offers. The fact that people are eager to engage "defenseless" industrial ships is just a nice bonus.



You're never going to accomplish this goal. Unless you make transport ships capable of fighting like real combat ships (which is absolutely insane) all you're doing is changing the numbers in the math exercise. You add up how much the newly buffed ship can tank, then bring enough gank ships to deliver that damage before CONCORD arrives.



Wrong again. Remember, you just multiplied the effectiveness of gank ships by 8x against everything but haulers and barges. That's a huge difference in the minimum value required for a target to be profitable. Maybe a literal T2 fit battleship isn't going to be that appealing, but even a single low-end faction module certainly will be. And with that kind of buff in effectiveness the "shoot first, see what's in the wreck later" approach becomes a lot more appealing, which means lots of people dying just to see if the ganker can get lucky.

Then of course there's the people who suicide gank just to collect the hatemail. Congratulations, you've massively increased the number of targets they can kill. And you can guarantee they're going to take full advantage of it.

Lolwut? Sustained 100 HP/second shield regen is battleship-level tank. Talking about putting that on a T1 hauler is absolutely ****ing insane.

Unless you're trying to pull a bait and switch here, where I quoted raw HP values and you're quoting EHP after resistances?



IOW: "let me assume that gankers will do something that lets you survive, instead of continuing to bring the ships required to guarantee your death". You can't assume that gankers will act in a way that benefits their targets.



Ok, post the numbers then. At what value of modules is it currently profitable to gank a mission battleship?



And the point is that your proposal makes this situation much, much worse. Now the suicide ganker can gank several times as many ships in the same amount of time, rapidly approaching the point where they're ganking every newbie in a T1 cruiser passing by just because they've killed everything else.

I'm honored. A whole thread for me? You shouldn't have.

Maybe you should get on my level and multibox your own 24 accounts. I don't know what stupid ship you lost, but I'm willing to bet if you had a 15 character support fleet running alongside it you'd have been just fine.