Crime & Punishment

I'm being perfectly honest with you when I tell you that ship has sailed.

You're in the same box as Lucas, Veers, Anslo and the rest as far as I'm concerned.




One wonders why you spent five pages arguing for precisely that, then.

I hate to use RL examples for a game, but banks use armored vehicles to transport money. The drivers of those trucks are armed guards, so if the truck is attacked the men inside can respond back. The transporters themselves can fight back, and this obviously makes sense. Just to give a counter-example, most trains carry lots of freight but usually don't have armed guards, but if there was a rise of modern day train robberies then you could see armed guards on trains in order to help prevent attacks.

Granted... I realize the ganker trolls who have nothing to contribute will latch onto the great train robbery examples to troll to death, but for those of you who are capable of critical thinking just look at my point. Give the freighter the ability to defend itself, that's a compromise that shouldn't cause a panic in Eve. If this were to happen would a freighter be able to withstand a ganking fleet of 5... probably. Could it survive a 20 man fleet, probably not. If this were to be allowed on freighters I think you'd see an influx of people wanting to gank and make freighter pilots more ready to lose their ship since they realize they have no excuse. I think it's a positive for both sides.

First off, please show me there is a problem. Surely this would manifest itself in a high percentage of freighters being ganked per day. So what is a high percentage to you?
5%? Less? How about 3 or 2?
Does the figure of them dying to suicide ganks come even close to that? You claim there is a problem, I just wonder what you base this on?


Now I have issues with your disingenuous posting. You "don't want to ban ganking", you say no one is saying the solution "is to prevent all or any means of ganking." You say "I think ganking is just fine, but just not fine the way it is."
You then proceed to ask for the removal of aggro from freighters. Allowing them to log off safely.

Well if that isn't the removal of a means of ganking, then what is? Yes here you are telling us ganking is OK, but let's nerf it anyway?

You've even said yourself, pilots would be better off with a scout or in groups. So why do we need a nerf? You seem to want to balance the game around solo play, because it so happens that group play has more power in an MMO. It is a fact that you can move a freighter through high sec with very little risk, with one friend. That's one friend. How the hell is that not acceptable? On what logical basis do we ignore that and then go on to ask for no freighter aggro instead?


Now to Concord and security.

Concord are reactive. They punish acts, they do not prevent you from starting them. If CCP intended on them preventing ganking, they would implement it.
The security is about levels of punishment, as can be seen from the response times of concord within each level of high sec.
They have no interest in the pod, because they just want to stop the crime. Once the ship is gone, their job is done and they place you on watch for a set time.

I did wonder how long it was going to be, before someone asked for Concord to pod gankers after that clone change. No cigar here for you sir, it's already been asked for. But sure why not, we could even include pilots that shoot rats. Have rats shoot mission runners pods etc. I see this has already been brought to your attention.

The concord mechanic was created to differentiate the security of space. It was never intended to stop player interaction, merely to change the level of punishment of no consent, (flagged against the law) boat violence.

Now your talk of Exploits.

It's not unusual to find those claiming to support ganking, then asking for it to be nerfed, to also include some line that claims an exploit or two. Here is yours:
Let me make this clear now. You me and every other player, do not decide what is and is not an exploit. You use the term because you seek to elicit a certain response. One I'm giving now perhaps.
So I'll look at both mechanics.

Log off timer.
It wasn't ever a method that CCP deployed, that would allow for what you ask. You have the link, it's quite clear on the subject. But here are some bullet points.

You cannot be safely logging off while:


• You have active modules
• You're ejecting from a ship
• You have aggression from players or NPCs
• Your ship is exploding or self-destructing
• You're issuing movement commands
• You're launching or jettisoning objects
• You're joining a fleet
• You're deploying or reconnecting with drones
• You have a target lock or are targeted
• You're warping
• You're decloaking or under gate cloak

Bumping.
It's not an exploit, whether is be with a Mach, or a noobship. It's been discussed, it's been ruled on. It wasn't ruled solely on mining ships either, which is another line many like to trot out. It's a ruling on bumping ships.

Now I'm sure you'll be wanting to now point out, you merely meant exploiting in the term the dictionary states. But whilst we are discussing game mechanics, the term exploit has certain connotations. You know this, we all know this. It's their game, therefore their use of the term applies to that discussion.


So what do we have here? Well you claiming one thing, then go on the say another.
You also claim: "I've yet to see any pro-ganking thread that offered any type of relevant idea beyond the freighter pilots just need to be smarter." (as if that's a bad thing, but I digress.)

That's not been my observation. Take this thread for example.
Or this one.
Both have people offering advice on how to freighter safely. You even talk of some of them yourself.
But it seems to be falling on deaf ears, even with you.

The conclusion to all this is that group play in an MMO, is OP compared to solo play. I hardly call this a revelation, but it seems to be overlooked by many most of the time. But why understand the game, when we can simply run to the forum and ask for a nerf?

Have a great day.

Do me a favor Mag, since I have spent more time than I care on this subject I honestly don't feel like going through your whole post to pick out every point you're making, just copy/paste small sections or ask some specifics without quoting the whole passage. I had to delete part of this post just to write this section, so that validates why I'm not wanting to go back through the whole thing. I grade enough papers as it is so give me the bullet points on a fresh post and I'd be happy to banter with you. I do apologize for not responding before.

Since you offer absolutely nothing substantial to any discussion then you are also in your own ship that is sailing down the river "(crying... weeping...) pppllleeaasseee don't take my ability to gank a defenseless ship... how I love it so..."

As for spending five pages on it I was trying to show exactly how a game mechanic that is used can be used a way that it shouldn't. Doesn't mean it's not done, but it certainly wouldn't be the intention of CCP for the 'log off safely' feature to be used. Since 'bumpers' are almost always in NPC corps so they can't get war dec'd and can sit on gates all day long with no fear of being ganked themselves, I would say that a log off safety feature could be used to simply counter that. Should it? No... I don't think it should. Exploiting game mechanics doesn't make someone a bad Eve player, they're simply using what is given, even in ways it wasn't intended. Learn to distinguish the point of an argument instead of simply picking and choosing quotes that are taken out of context. I've made it very clear my feelings on ganking, how it should be allowed, it's part of Eve, etc. Your failure to recognize this is why I think you need to get off the forums and back to your homework.

I said that your post was so long it prevented me from typing more than a few words, and that's why I requested you take your points and cut/copy/paste them. If I could see them clearly, perhaps in a bullet format this would've helped, because I didn't want to delete any of your points and inadvertently skip one or two. I even apologized for not responding sooner, and I honestly forgot to from responding to other posts and you got lost in the shuffle. Since it seems that the following two posts which followed yours were in an effort to simply disparage my honest attempts at a dialogue I no longer see the point in responding further to any of you. I've made my points and everyone is free to review them on their own. Arguing on the forums at times is pointless and we seem to have reached that impasse, so for those of you who tried to have a civil debate on ganking, thank you, and for those of you who would rather flex your internet muscles with condescending troll posts that show nothing more than your total and complete lack of critical thinking and cognizant thought... adieu.

There seems to be this pervasive notion that the advice that gankers give to their victims is either a trap or otherwise disingenuous. The funny thing is that the exact opposite is true. Over the years I've seen ganker after ganker give EXACTLY the SAME advice over and over again, only to be met with the same skepticism or flat out disbelief. PVE players cannot seem to grok that those who just insinkerated their boat and then summarily podsploded them might actually be willing to share true insight on how to not have it happen again.
The same tired excuses come up in response... over and over again.
Being unwilling to be get out of your proverbial chair to do ANYTHING to try and ensure your own safety is not the same as being defenseless or 'helpless'. It's tiring to hear, and to be honest it robs you and your fellows of any modicum of sympathy or respect you may feel yourselves to be entitled to from your erstwhile peers and foes.