EVE Search - Speaking of hi-sec gankers. Let us pay off better people.

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Speaking of hi-sec gankers. Let us pay off better people.

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
FoxFire Ayderan 193	Posted - 2015.01.27 00:14:01 - [1] - Quote So I've noticed that certain hi-sec ganking organizations are offering to leave people alone if they pay a fee (i.e ransom) . Of course it's no guarantee you won't be ganked by these groups. Here is an interesting idea though. Allow players to pay CONCORD a certain fee that will allow them to give you extra special attention. The fee would last a certain period of time (say from a week to a month), and there would be tiers of payment. Each tier would reduce the amount of time it takes for CONCORD to respond when you are being attacked in Hi-Sec, by a certain percentage. Say ranging anywhere from 10% quicker to 90% quicker (at the most expensive end). So I see some gankers charging up to 10 million ISK per year for their 'protection' from them. I should think that the services of a faster responding CONCORD would be significantly more expensive (particularly at the high end of the spectrum). So players would have a choice. Pay the much lower fee to the gankers to 'maybe' avoid being ganked by them. Or, if you're more principled and don't want to pay extortion money, you can pay a higher fee to CONCORD for a faster response time. However, that is still no guarantee you won't be ganked of course. Gankers then would be in the dark as to which level of CONCORD protection you are under (if any). Though maybe there would be a way for them to find out (perhaps for a large bribe to a crooked CONCORD cop) , so they know how many ships they need to bring if they are really determined to gank you. Though it may not be profitable for them, they can still do it for kicks.
Alvatore DiMarco Capricious Endeavours Ltd 3334	Posted - 2015.01.27 00:22:54 - [2] - Quote As long as you edit your bio to include your permit, don't mine/haul while AFK and don't behave in an uncivilized way, the New Order tends to leave you alone ... assuming you actually did buy a permit, of course. Though, that doesn't mean you bought protection from other ganking groups.
Godfrey Silvarna Arctic Light Inc. Arctic Light 235	Posted - 2015.01.27 00:25:12 - [3] - Quote The game needs less NPC interaction and more player driven and player made content. I vote nay to everything that involves services provided by NPC entities.
Ix Method Shadows Legion High-Sec Tomfoolery 391	Posted - 2015.01.27 00:26:46 - [4] - Quote Buy a Skiff. Use Red Frog. Throw disposable ships at wardeccers until they lose a shiny pod or two and **** off. Live a happy, peaceful life. Giving NPCs more magic uber powers isn't the solution to anything. Travelling at the speed of love.
FoxFire Ayderan 193	Posted - 2015.01.27 00:49:06 - [5] - Quote Godfrey Silvarna wrote: The game needs less NPC interaction and more player driven and player made content. . Perhaps. But in situations where you cannot rely on player characters (for instance hiring protection from other players when and where you need it and without getting scammed or just poor performance), I think an NPC option is appropriate. If there are players who want to provide the service cheaper, then that's still available.
Daichi Yamato Xero Security and Technologies 2206	Posted - 2015.01.27 01:02:53 - [6] - Quote trying to get the game to go the OTHER way. Less about NPC mechanics, more about players interacting. Buy player protection, CODE permits or otherwise. If you have no one you can trust, that speaks volumes of your friends and allies or ability to make them. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" "So it will be up to a pilot to remain vigilant wherever they may be flying and be ready for anything at any time"
Kaarous Aldurald Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 11455	Posted - 2015.01.27 01:30:23 - [7] - Quote How about you put some effort into defending yourself instead of asking for the NPCs to do your job for you? "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
FoxFire Ayderan 193	Posted - 2015.01.27 03:00:17 - [8] - Quote Daichi Yamato wrote: trying to get the game to go the OTHER way. Less about NPC mechanics, more about players interacting. Buy player protection, CODE permits or otherwise. If you have no one you can trust, that speaks volumes of your friends and allies or ability to make them. Or it speaks volumes of one's being considerate and not putting friends on the spot to do something boring or at inconvenient times (defending miners or haulers in Hi-sec). Even if the price is right, hanging around rocks all day in combat ships for that rare occasion a miner might be suicide ganked, is not something many would choose to do. That said, this should have little impact on player interactions because generally it should be much cheaper to pay friends, corp-mates (who may even do it for free) or pay a mercenary group for protection, than it would to pay the fee for increased CONCORD protection. Some may choose this route regardless given that CONCORD protection would ultimately be more reliable and there whenever you need it (i.e. faster to respond based on the fee you paid). Still with dedicated player protection you don't need to wait for a response from CONCORD as they are right there, and likely a deterrent for suicide gankers to begin with (when they scout you out and see you are protected.) The point is there are plusses and minuses for either option, and there is still plenty of incentive to use players.
FoxFire Ayderan 193	Posted - 2015.01.27 03:12:00 - [9] - Quote Thinking more of how this system might work, I thought of one way it might. You would pay a tiered fee to CONCORD for increased protection that would go up in price the higher protection you want. Of course these would only be CONCORD responses to things they would normally respond to. It could have a time frame anywhere from 24 hours, to a week or even a month. Maybe any and all of those with increasing prices, but discounts for longer periods (i.e. The one month price is cheaper than buying thirty 24 hour allotments). The payment tiers would increase CONCORD protection by one Security System per tier. So say you pay the lowest tier for a single Security tier (.1) increase in protection. Hence if you are in a 0.5 system CONCORD's response would be like you are in a 0.6 system. If you're in a 0.9 system, it would be as though you were in a 1.0 system. And of course if you are in a 1.0 system it would be as though you're in a 1.1 system! j/k There would of course be no extra benefit, as the highest security is 1.0. The highest and most expensive tier you could buy would be for a 0.5 security rating increase. And given there is no CONCORD response in systems below 0.5, there would be no benefit in systems 0.4 and below.
Dolorous Tremmens The Scope Gallente Federation 130	Posted - 2015.01.27 03:35:50 - [10] - Quote https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3869495# I'll just leave this here, shall I? The first search I tried, and it popped up [b]Get some Eve. Make it yours. [/b]

FoxFire Ayderan 193	Posted - 2015.01.27 04:08:23 - [11] - Quote Dolorous Tremmens wrote: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3869495# I'll just leave this here, shall I? The first search I tried, and it popped up You're VERY good at what you do. In any case. That thread is over a year old and is locked. Furthermore, my idea is similar but clearly has several different aspects to it. Perhaps you misunderstand the 'duplicate thread' stipulation.
Lugh Crow-Slave 595	Posted - 2015.01.27 04:12:18 - [12] - Quote the price would need to be astronomically high as many of the people with mining alts i know make over 2 bill in 3 days with a mix of mining and PI this means either its so high that people chose not to do it meaning only people who have been playing long enough to know how not to get ganked can afford it or its so cheap everyone has it so i propose a better idea pay some real people to sit in the belt with you or join a corp that offers such a service Fuel block colors
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 820	Posted - 2015.01.27 04:18:38 - [13] - Quote I think this is a reasonable idea, OP. You can't pay PVPers to sit in a belt with you, the rate you earn won't keep up with their boredom. As for gankers, I would fly rookie ships only rather than give them one word of my bio or pay them anything. CSM Ten movement for change. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. Status: Rabid carebear Blog
FoxFire Ayderan 193	Posted - 2015.01.27 04:43:42 - [14] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: the price would need to be astronomically high as many of the people with mining alts i know make over 2 bill in 3 days with a mix of mining and PI this means either its so high that people chose not to do it meaning only people who have been playing long enough to know how not to get ganked can afford it or its so cheap everyone has it so i propose a better idea pay some real people to sit in the belt with you or join a corp that offers such a service I find it difficult to believe that any single individual is making that much mining. Unless they are seriously multi-boxing. In which case they are running a full scale mining operation and are probably not getting ganked to begin with. Or can afford to laugh at those who try rather than pay for added CONCORD protection. But I suppose if there are those who are rolling in the dough from mining, there could be a miner's fee of sorts which is a percentage assessment based on how much ore was mined. Someone might not have enough ISK in their account to pay that fee at the end of say a 24 hour period. (Can accounts go negative?) But in that case they would not be able to purchase more protection until they pay off what they owe. Still I think that is overly complicated, unnecessary, and it would only cover miners. I'm envisioning a system which anyone can purchase (Haulers, Auto-piloters, etc...) I suppose there could be multiple systems, and for these people it would be a fee based on the value of their ships and cargo. I prefer my original idea though. CCP can probably come up with a good average (or median) value. That may make it trivial to some players, and too pricey for others, but then that is the way of things in life and in EVE (which is real of course )
FoxFire Ayderan 193	Posted - 2015.01.27 04:45:27 - [15] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: As for gankers, I would fly rookie ships only rather than give them one word of my bio or pay them anything. Indeed. I'm not one for paying extortion money or ransoms, let alone pledging fealty to such people. They don't own Hi-sec. I'm more than willing to pay a fee for mining in player owned territory.
Daichi Yamato Xero Security and Technologies 2208	Posted - 2015.01.27 05:21:51 - [16] - Quote FoxFire Ayderan wrote: Or it speaks volumes of one's being considerate and not putting friends on the spot to do something boring or at inconvenient times (defending miners or haulers in Hi-sec).. Dont lie. The people who'd use this just dont have the friends. You can always arrange times that are mutually convenient. That is unless you are under time constraints or just plain greedy. Most gank victims fall under the latter btw... And having a webbing friend help you through one system takes less than five minutes of his time provided you are punctual. FoxFire Ayderan wrote: Even if the price is right, hanging around rocks all day in combat ships for that rare occasion a miner might be suicide ganked, is not something many would choose to do. That said, this should have little impact on player interactions because generally it should be much cheaper to pay friends, corp-mates (who may even do it for free) or pay a mercenary group for protection, than it would to pay the fee for increased CONCORD protection. If the price was right they wouldnt say no. You either make it worth their time (with isk or by other means) or you dont. How are you going to price the NPC's when you dont even know the price of the players? So you make it really expensive right? So whats the point? It would eat into your margins to the extent that you dont make money. Or is your plan to make it cheap enough that you'd make more money mining in hulks with babysitters than you would skiffs? at which point you'd be removing meaningful choice and breaking game balance. Same goes with hauling. If its cheap enough to make it worth while, your removing meaningful choice from players and allowing them to fit for max profit without the drawbacks. This idea is either useless to miners and regular haulers because it kills their profits. Or it doesnt kill their profits and it breaks game balance. Either way, make some player friends. its more engaging. its more sandbox. Its better. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" "So it will be up to a pilot to remain vigilant wherever they may be flying and be ready for anything at any time"
Zimmer Jones Aliastra Gallente Federation 79	Posted - 2015.01.27 05:21:58 - [17] - Quote Concord are not people, Concord is a game mechanic. The gankers are people, and they are providing content. You wish to bribe a game mechanic to deprive others of content. I don't like their content much, but I would support it even if it were ten times worse over the suggestion that you can pay to win. Paying to win is exactly what it is, because you are paying not to interact with others, or rather, be exempt from interacting with them. Of course, by paying to win, you also pay for them to lose, because instead of hiring real people to fight your battles for you while you play pretend and create content for them( both gankers and guards), you have just paid to push an easy button. Since in game money can be bought with RL money, and subscriptions time can be bought with ISK, It can't be considered anything other than pay to win. If I no longer have to use a tank on my mining fleet, or be cautious in moving around highsec with a bowhead, freighter, orca or any other juicy target, then the risk no longer exists. Without the people, and without the risk, eve is nothing. This would destroy the mineral market and turn hauling into an afk ony trade.
Lugh Crow-Slave 597	Posted - 2015.01.27 05:27:28 - [18] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: I think this is a reasonable idea, OP. You can't pay PVPers to sit in a belt with you, the rate you earn won't keep up with their boredom. I have always been able to find players to watch my newbros mining in belts some split the isk with the miners others simply do it because they have little better to do. no you may not be able to find a stranger that will do it for a reasonable price but that's what a corp is for overall if something can be done by a player it should not be done by an NPC but lets say this idea gets implemented How would it handle when CONCORD is being pulled around system? How would it handle if it was being pulled to some one that hadn't payed for this and when CONCORD was still heading to that grid some one who had payed for this protection fell under attack? Fuel block colors
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 14652	Posted - 2015.01.27 05:47:24 - [19] - Quote FoxFire Ayderan wrote: I cant figure out how to fit a tank or pay attention to my actions. CCP you should protect me from myself. No. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Danika Princip GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 3164	Posted - 2015.01.27 06:05:27 - [20] - Quote FoxFire Ayderan wrote: I'm more than willing to pay a fee for mining in player owned territory. Try this then. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5030122#post5030122 Not going to get ganked by CODE there.

Lyra Gerie Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation 43	Posted - 2015.01.27 07:01:32 - [21] - Quote Godfrey Silvarna wrote: The game needs less NPC interaction and more player driven and player made content. I vote nay to everything that involves services provided by NPC entities. Given the recent boost to AI behaviors showcased in the new sleeper ships NPC interaction can still be interesting. So long as this idea was combined with high CONCORD standings and a potential tax both on isk made and ore mined I wouldn't see a huge problem with it. Even more so if affording said protections weakened CONCORDs presence in the rest of the system, constellation or even region. This would actually add more content as industrial groups would now be directly competing with one another for additional protection and cause conflict should one group monopolize CONCORD attention in a constellation. It would also boost ganker gameplay in this case as well should they follow who has CONCORD in their pocket more as they could then move to prey on other groups within the constellation. There are already systems in place to track similar things used in FW and system wide effects like those that appear during incursions so I don't think it would be too difficult to accomplish and could really shake up high sec in a way that doesn't directly involve combat but would still instill territorial conflict for HS inhabitants.
Daichi Yamato Xero Security and Technologies 2209	Posted - 2015.01.27 07:23:58 - [22] - Quote Lyra Gerie wrote: Godfrey Silvarna wrote: The game needs less NPC interaction and more player driven and player made content. I vote nay to everything that involves services provided by NPC entities. Given the recent boost to AI behaviors showcased in the new sleeper ships NPC interaction can still be interesting. So long as this idea was combined with high CONCORD standings and a potential tax both on isk made and ore mined I wouldn't see a huge problem with it. Even more so if affording said protections weakened CONCORDs presence in the rest of the system, constellation or even region. This would actually add more content as industrial groups would now be directly competing with one another for additional protection and cause conflict should one group monopolize CONCORD attention in a constellation. It would also boost ganker gameplay in this case as well should they follow who has CONCORD in their pocket more as they could then move to prey on other groups within the constellation. There are already systems in place to track similar things used in FW and system wide effects like those that appear during incursions so I don't think it would be too difficult to accomplish and could really shake up high sec in a way that doesn't directly involve combat but would still instill territorial conflict for HS inhabitants. - If buying CONCORD weakens it else where, who do you thinks going to buy up all the protection? CODE with their billions, or new players, casual players and space poor miners/haulers? - Industrial groups are already competing with each other by fighting over rocks, competing on the market, surviving ganks and war decs and not being bumped. Yes, Ganking is healthy danger that promotes competition. - If you want to shake up high sec, promote mechanics that enable destruction to fuel the economy, promote mechanics that enable ganking, promote mechanics that enable war decs. High sec is allegedly the tamest its ever been and now we have rumors of subscriptions falling. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" "So it will be up to a pilot to remain vigilant wherever they may be flying and be ready for anything at any time"
Lyra Gerie Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation 43	Posted - 2015.01.27 19:28:53 - [23] - Quote If it was done based on standings it might rule out groups like CODE for at least a little while but that is a good point. I constantly forget that those in HS tend to be small groups afraid of reaching out to others. That is the main problem here more then anything else. CODE is organized where as miners tend to be a lot of small groups that keep to themselves. It's hard to find a solution to that, though boosting ganking isn't the solution either.
FoxFire Ayderan 193	Posted - 2015.01.27 19:54:09 - [24] - Quote Lyra Gerie wrote: If it was done based on standings it might rule out groups like CODE for at least a little while but that is a good point. I constantly forget that those in HS tend to be small groups afraid of reaching out to others. That is the main problem here more then anything else. CODE is organized where as miners tend to be a lot of small groups that keep to themselves. It's hard to find a solution to that, though boosting ganking isn't the solution either. A lot of solo hi-sec miners I think are here because they enjoy the atmosphere of the game, they enjoy being part of it, and providing valuable resources to other players, but are the sorts of players who don't have the ability to provide the intent focus that other activities (like PvP) require. They may need to multi-task while playing, they may have too many external distractions and occasions to need to go AFK for a few minutes (whether they dock up or not). They may only be able to log in at unscheduled inconsistent times. These are things which do not lend themselves well to many other group activities within EVE, many of which again require much more focus to not only be successful with but to not aggravate your fellow group members. If they find they can't do this in somewhat relative peace and safety (without completely eliminating risk of course), then they may become frustrated and leave. Ganking should always be a possibility, but it should become much more risky, deleterious, and costly to the gankers than it currently is. This idea I proposed puts this in the players hands to not only better mitigate their risks if they choose (beyond what they can already do), but increases the uncertainty and risk to potential gankers.
Daichi Yamato Xero Security and Technologies 2227	Posted - 2015.01.27 20:11:16 - [25] - Quote Tying it to the standing system would mean CODE just make alts and grind. Not to mention its a horrible system. We should be taking things out of the standing system (like they did with POS's), not putting more things in. It still would not help miners who dont even grind missions, new players that have no standings, and casual players who do not want to grind endlessly. FoxFire Ayderan wrote: Ganking should always be a possibility, but it should become much more risky, deleterious, and costly to the gankers than it currently is. This idea I proposed puts this in the players hands to not only better mitigate their risks if they choose (beyond what they can already do), but increases the uncertainty and risk to potential gankers. Why? ganking, by your own admission, is RARE. in fact, it has never been so infrequent. And now we're supposedly losing subs because the game is so boring. Defence against ganking is already in the hands of the defenders. They can already make themselves immune to profitable ganking, and they can already reduce certainty for a successful gank. They can use ECM drones on a barge that the ganker can not see until the miner deploys them (they've been 100% successful for me) and they can use warfare boosts to add huge amounts to their ehp, again, that the ganker cannot see. You dont need the protection of NPC's. The methods for preventing/avoiding/foiling ganks are already there. I got through four years of this game without being ganked. Its not a problem unless you are lazy, greedy and complacent. You are asking for a hand holding mechanic. Why not instead; learn2eve? EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" "So it will be up to a pilot to remain vigilant wherever they may be flying and be ready for anything at any time"
Emperor Norton Hedion University Amarr Empire 0	Posted - 2015.01.27 20:58:07 - [26] - Quote The OP's post is based on the assumption that there something wrong with current hisec ganking mechanics that in turn needs to be fixed. I find this assumption to be flawed. As the true ruler of the Amarr Empire my word on this matter is final.
Orange Something Shadow Garrison 8	Posted - 2015.01.27 22:01:15 - [27] - Quote Quote: If there are players who want to provide the service cheaper, then that's still available. You already stated the solution to your own problem. Or conversely, you can just go grab a venture/skiff and mine in a dead low/null system.
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 524	Posted - 2015.01.27 22:12:33 - [28] - Quote FoxFire Ayderan wrote: If they find they can't do this in somewhat relative peace and safety (without completely eliminating risk of course), then they may become frustrated and leave. Ganking should always be a possibility, but it should become much more risky, deleterious, and costly to the gankers than it currently is. This idea I proposed puts this in the players hands to not only better mitigate their risks if they choose (beyond what they can already do), but increases the uncertainty and risk to potential gankers. They already have all the tools needed to mitigate risk. A tanked skiff is comically unprofitable to gank and your chances of losing it to gankers are indistinguishable from zero. This proposal is just "ISK-tanking" and would provide protection to older, established players leaving the poor new player more vulnerable to gankers. Ganking of miners, even untanked ones, is already unprofitable or just marginally profitable in almost all cases. How much more "costly" do you want to make it? Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10 is a good idea.
Alvatore DiMarco Capricious Endeavours Ltd 3348	Posted - 2015.01.27 22:13:52 - [29] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: Ganking of miners, even untanked ones, is already unprofitable or just marginally profitable in almost all cases. How much more "costly" do you want to make it? Come now, Mr. Pedro. You know the answer to that question.
Drez Arthie Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 6	Posted - 2015.01.27 22:26:17 - [30] - Quote OP, I'm somewhat sympathetic, but I agree with other posters that NPC intervention isn't the answer. How about this?: Holoprojection Module I: your ship appears to be of a different model and fit to all observers both visually and on scans. The effect is canceled by any hostile action on your part. So you can take your favorite PvP-fitted, expendable ship and make it look like an untanked, mining-optimized AFK Hulk. When the ganker comes along and targets you, SURPRISE!!



Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.