|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Jethro Amar
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
4
   |
Posted - 2015.07.23 08:11:14 -
[1] - Quote
The only change I'd like to see is for concord to "arrest" the pod after action and transport it to nearest lowsec concord station. It doesn't make any real change for the gank itself, but it forces the gankers to play the game and interact with others instead of just "undock, warp, f1". It would force gankers to move through lowsec and hisec to their ganking system and give other players an opportunity to engage. Of course their medical clones would be moved to same lowsec station to avoid podexpress.
what gankers demand from haulers and miners is to scout ahead, be careful and interact. I'm sure they won't mind being held to the same standards as the carebears. |
Jethro Amar
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
4
|
Posted - 2015.07.23 08:27:18 -
[2] - Quote
Gankers dont mind engaging pods, shuttles or unarmed mining barges when it's them doing the shooting and someone else doing the dying, right?
As it is ganking is probably the least demanding job in eve - by design it's 20 seconds action followed by 15 minutes of ship spinning. It's actually more afk than afk mining  as you don't even need to change roids. |
Jethro Amar
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
4
|
Posted - 2015.07.23 09:52:24 -
[3] - Quote
They are allowed to shoot you but they can't really do it if they only have 20seconds.
for example, if a freighter could undock from jita, enter a "special warp" after 20 seconds and arrive in amarr station after 20 minutes you would scream bloody murder about how "op" hauling is and how they cannot possibly be engaged. Yet that's exactly what gankers do. Undock for 20 seconds in a ship that is already dead - the window of vulnerability is almost nonexistent. By removing you from Uedama after every gank I would give the antigankers a chance to engage you before the gank.
Dont get me wrong, i wholeheartedly approve of ganking and James in particular. However i do believe ganking and awoxing is not at it's best right now. Ganking should be made easier on ehp side of the equation but harder on the mechanics.
1. You dont need to find targets - just sit in uedama and freighters have to come to you.
2. You dont need to be ready for quick engagement and focused, as the bumping machariel will provide enough time to ptepare for gank. Bumping a freighter for an hour while the fleet is logging onto their ganking alts is a rubbish idea.
3. You cannot be attacked. By definition your ships are already lost when you undock and the catalysts would have to be destroyed within seconds of landing on grid - nearly impossible task. The only ship that's actually exposed is the bumper in a fast, brick tanked battleship, itself protected by concord.
4. You can do it with no consequences whatsoever. Throwaway alt with minimal sp. Untraceable to your main account and itself worthless, there is no risk to ganking
5. The existing crime prevention mechanics do not work against gankers. Security status does nothing against characters that only undock for 20seconds at a time. Same with killrights. 15 minutes criminal timer slows you down, but the next target can be held by the bumper long enough for it to be irrelevant.
however, if somebody tried to retaliate by attacking the bumper they get a killright themselves. Killrights are huge for anybody who isn't a ganking alt, as they make flying anything larger than a catalyst impossible for a whole freaking month.
6. Any ship that could be used against the gankers effectively is itself even better target for ganks than the freighter. Anything with targeting resolution good enough to make a difference has hp low enough to be easily killable by the catalysts and/or is expensive.
my ideas are to change the mechanics so that gankers must make some meaningful decisions. Mostly: ganking an empty target should mean missing the full freighter that flies past 5 minutes later.
1. Make more hisec connections between empires. Force gankers to scout and seek targets. More radical: allow freighters to jump to gates like jf would jump to cynos so that they can scout and avoid an obvious trap like uedama. This should be balanced towards avoiding ganks and not faster travel.
2. Fix the bumping. If the gankers aren't ready to attack at a moments notice the target escapes. No bumping for hours.
3. Fix the bumper. It's ridiculous that the bumper is protected by concord. I'd add a ticket option that would apply a killright to the bumper if the bumping resulted in a gank. Let's see how eager they will be to undock those machariels without concord protection.
4. Teleport pods out into lowsec so that they have to travel like everyone else. Make them attackable before the gank happens.
5. Criminal flag should last progressively longer the more one ganks. We have space aids, lets add space syphilis for ganking.
6. Add expensive implants that slow concord response. This will create a variable in ganking equation and some level of risk. Losing catalyst does not constitute risk, as it is already accounted for in the gank. This will also make ganking easier. |
Jethro Amar
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
4
|
Posted - 2015.07.23 10:10:13 -
[4] - Quote
What i meant was the nearest lowsec concord "prison" station, not just any lowsec. By the way, that 1 jump to uedama could be very hard to get through if somebody decided to put a few instalocking svipuls there. |
Jethro Amar
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
4
|
Posted - 2015.07.23 10:20:04 -
[5] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:Jethro Amar wrote:What i meant was the nearest lowsec concord "prison" station, not just any lowsec. By the way, that 1 jump to uedama could be very hard to get through if somebody decided to put a few instalocking svipuls there. so really you just want to camp a gate and kill shuttles and pods
Somehow you shooting pods is elite pvp while antigankers shooting pods is not?
camping a gate and shooting unarmed ships is exactly what gankers do.
By the way, i live in nullsec and haven't been doing anything in hisec since new year or so. I have no horse in this race. |
|
|
| |
|