Skip navigation

Hot on the heels of the recent speed changes, the new “Serious Security” dev blog is proposing changes to security penalties for the Autumn release of Empyrean Age 1.1.

Dev Blog Link

As expected this resulted in even more “the sky is falling” posts, and after the chaos following the speed changes the forums are in disarray, with people either in support or “horrified” at CCPs supposed caving in to the care bears of EVE.

But what do the changes really mean?


Firstly, the spawning fleet size is being reduced, which I’m assuming will still have the same firepower while causing a little less lag. This is a good thing.

Secondly, their response time is going up. This is where it gets a bit vague as without being able to test CONCORD’s reaction at the moment, it’s difficult to say if this will have a significant effect on the amount of damage suicide gankers can deal out before being destroyed.

And finally, any ships losses caused by CONCORD will not get an insurance payout. Not a massive loss, because people will just choose not insure them and save about a third on the ship cost, but it will raise the amount of isk lost in a suicide gank.

Yes, this makes it less profitable, but if you’re hitting a ship with hundreds of millions worth of cargo on board it’s not that much of an issue.

Security Penalties

Security hits from attacking, or destroying, another ship is being reduced or increased depending on the security status of the system you are engaging in. Here’s a rough list of the effects stolen from the forums (cheers, Rear Commander):

1.0 = 3x sec loss
.9 = 2.7x sec loss
.8 = 2.4x sec loss
.7 = 2.1x sec loss
.6 = 1.8x sec loss
.5 = 1.5x sec loss
.4 = 1.2x sec loss
.3 = .9x sec loss
.2 = .6x sec loss
.1 = .3x sec loss

Since it was mentioned in the devblog that this system uses the true security status of a system, we can guess that 0.4s will run higher, and lower, than the 1.2x sec loss. Either way, the penalty for attacking in the highest of high sec systems carries a much higher penalty than before.

More importantly, for me at least, the penalties in low sec are less serious than before. As well as this the security hit is also effected by the relative security ratings of the two pilots involved. A pilot with +5.0 security will take a 7% reduction in the penalty for attacking someone with a -2.0 status.

Why is this awesome? It allows pirate hunters to attack pirates with non-outlaw status without taking an equal penalty. Meanwhile, some people just see it as a blanket nerf for high sec ganking that CCP stretched out into low sec for no reason, which is nonsense. Here’s a quote from CCP Fear from the comments thread:

“Some answers to your questions;

These changes are on the test-server right now. So SISI is your way to go for testing this out.

Low security (0,3-0,1) is basically getting a reduction in security penalty from it’s current values. So in essence, the lowest of security, just got harsher.

When we first started with this process, by brainstorming. We decided that it should not completely close off suicide ganking, but to raise the bar, make it so that it can be done, but will require some planning, thought and effort.

This is mainly focused on the no-risk no-thought ganking, that has killed thousands in the last few months.

I am in awe of those who spend weeks in planning, infiltrating, scheming and plotting against another player, just to be able to pop his freighter full of dysprosium. THAT is something i find amazing and i do not want to stop. And the reason for that, is the amount of work that went into the planning. That is cool IMO.

And that is still possible. But we want to discourage people to gank for giggles. It’s just not sporting.

EVE is still harsh, and it punishes you for being careless and AFK. And this change, doesn’t change that.”

In Summary:

Is suicide ganking being erased as a play style? No.

Is the risk involved going up? Yes.

Pirate hunting is going to result in a softened security penalty for the hunters.

Pirating in low sec will see a smaller decrease in sec loss, depending on how far into low sec you are.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: