Crime & Punishment

Geez...so many responses, so little content. If you guys could consolidate your posts into one or two mutual bullet points it would def make this easier.

Briefly -

1) Better tanking for more expensive ships would not make everyone fly battleships. In fact we already have this in nullsec - does everybody only fly titans? Simply put, it does not make sense that 20 cheap 10 mil gankalysts can destroy a perfectly fit Machariel in highsec before the police arrive on the scene. As far as CODE threatening to bring bigger ships - Good! That's exactly what should happen. Want to gank a Mach? Bring nados. Sure, it'll cost more, but it will also make the CODE folks more selective about who they gank. And no, I'm not moving to nullsec, I love highsec, I like my CONCORD allies, I like living in an area where there are consequences for criminal actions. And no, I was never rejected from PL. But, like Tora Bushido, like James 315, and like many others I am happy to call highsec my home, and to work to make it a better place.

2. Sandbox, sandbox, blah blah. The penalties for -10 sec status are arbitrarily chosen by CCP, and they can be arbitrarily changed. There is nothing sandbox about that. Come on.

3. Pointing out that the game mechanics let CODE gank expensive ships with cheap ones, and therefore avoid risk, is not complaining about CODE using the right tools. It's demonstrating a problematic aspect of the game mechanics.

And I Plex by the way, not pay cash, thanks.

Par from the course from you.....it makes it easier when there is no content so I don't need to analyze and respond. Now if you could get the other trolls to do the same......

Well, actually I properly analyzed the issues, and suggested specific things to fix them. The fact that you don't like my fixes, and the fact that they endanger your ability to cause cheap PEW PEW BAM EXPLOSION in highsec does not mean that there is no "content." It simply means that you don't like the content, much like I'm sure you didn't like other changes to suicide ganking that have happened over the last few years.

[quote=Ima Wreckyou]

It's like fixing a leaky pipe. You plug one hole and a new one pops up. Literally tens or hundreds of people sit around all day looking for new ways to beat the system and blow up expensive ships in highsec at minimal cost. CCP eventually reacts and closes down one loophole after the next. It's kind of like how the IRS manages the tax code. Part of our job is to help CCP keep on fixing.

Define loophole. What is the final idea, no ganking in Highsec? That would probably be an easy fix. Just get rid of that red setting in the safety settings and you are done. Or is the idea to nerf ganking so much that it is virtually impossible and no one will ever attempt it?

the general idea is to feed him so much that he explodes.

Ignoring bad ideas did not work out in the past.

Well in my view, at least, the amount of effort and isk expended to gank a properly tanked ship in highsec should scale with the size of the ship. So it should take more isk and effort to gank a Mach or Vindi than to gank a Maelstrom or Hurricane. I don't think that a gang of cheap Catalysts should be able to get the job done. I would like to see small turrets having minimal impact on large ships - so for example making it virtually impossible for frigs or dessies to gank battleships. Much like you would not see battleships able to kill a titan. It's not about getting rid of suicide ganking, its about making it take a proper amount of isk and effort.

Yes - Concord do react. But losing your 10 mil catalyst - even for a 2% of chance of killing a 5 bil Machariel is worth it....CONCORD is not imposing a sufficient penalty to force you to actually think before ganking. It's basically automatic and consequence free for you CODE folks.

True fact, CCP could shut down all highsec ganking if the wanted to. The code already exists in the safety settings, they'd just have to kludge in a way to prevent you from going "red" in highsec.

The same with "cheap destroyers blowing up expensive battleships", the code already exists in the titan limitations. You just take that code, flip it around so small ships do infinitesimal damage to larger ones, and roll it out.


CCP hasn't done it. They obviously agree with highsec ganking, and small cheap ships killing big expensive ones. It's one of those central ideas to EVE. They aren't going to implement "levels" that make you immune to those "under" you (Whelp, leveled up to flying battleships, no more risk from those pesky cruisers!).


For the resident carebears, don't fall into the mistake of thinking the game devs are limited in the same way players are. If CCP wanted something to stop happening in eve, if would flat stop happening, via exploit notice then patch. They wouldn't pussyfoot around with nerf here, nerf there, if they didn't want the mechanic to exist.


It's less a matter of "Those dastardly gankers foiled our perfect nerf again! than it is "How do we align gameplay so it fits within our core values as a company?"

Lots of people ask for lots of changes to the game. James 315 ran for CSM on a platform of removing all L3 and L4 mission from highsec and forcing everyone into nullsec. CCP has consistently made it more difficult to suicide gank, and has given ships more fitting options to protect themselves. Eve is a lot less wild than it used to be, and in my view, at least, CCP is headed in the right direction. Make the costs of suicide ganking commensurate with the benefits, and you will see it used as a scalpel, not an axe.

And I do enjoy the game, and as already stated I don't pay 15 bucks a month for it. I do reserve the right to advocate for positive changes in the game, supported by the many highsec mission runners, miners, etc... who you and your allies so malign. It is their game too!

That is risk mitigation.

You are the one demonstrating risk aversion, and a disgusting level of it in fact, by wanting to have your Machariel's tank tripled just because it costs more. Nevermind demonstrating a staggering level of ignorance as to how EVE's cost/benefit ratio works, and the concept of marketing.