Crime & Punishment

I have a solution. He should create a gank alt, get it to -10, then biomass it. Rinse and repeat this a few times and let us know how he gets on.

All on the same account as Drac of course. After all, what could possibly go wrong?

D for disingenuous.

A bold claim sir, would you be able to prove it?

The isk to replace ships used to spew forth from NPC's, it quite literally was money generated out of thin air. Ganking is now funded by players, as such it is effectively more expensive than it was when you could gank in a Battleship, for free, because the money that you got back was generated out of thin air.

Goons in Titans generally don't run around without support fleets, unlike some hisec capital ship owners.

Do you know how highsec aggression mechanics work? Because this isn't it, especially in relation to drones.

Unless you do something silly to circumvent the drone engagement rules they won't do anything that will put you in a limited engagement unless you expressly tell them to; they'll ignore looters, MTU shooters, etc, even on aggressive. They will engage legitimate targets such as people that have already directly aggressed you.

Repeating it doesn't make it true.

Ok, this is going nowhere. Last post from me in this thread, barring any personal jabs ill have to respond to in kind.

Drav and friends,

You wont see my point of view no matter what. The bottom line is that when you fly large targets of high worth, thats exactly what other players see. Fly it safely, and you wont have a problem. You know the countermeasures, but instead want the game to change to suit your needs. We may lose the hyperdunk mechanic, but the guys who brainstorm tactics will always come up with new tools to get the job done. And you should HOPE they do.

Content man. Its all about content.

Oh... and to respond to your earlier comment about BAW dunking a 50 man fleet....

If you fight a tiger in its den, its likely not going to go well for you. RVB engaging BAW on their own terms is a terrible idea.

Edit: READ THIS IF YOU DONT UNDERSTAND HOW TO EVE

I threw up everywhere a lot of how ignorant one can be.

Just to end all the arguments.

https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Golden_Rules#Consent_to_PvP

So what's the counter-argument now? GTFO of my C&P

How do you prove its a disposable alt made just for ganking, do CCP have the resources to even check it, it is called insufficient resources to check it, perhaps if you had a screen shot and all that rubbish, you jest if you think this is policed at all?

The insurance payment thing was one of the major reasons that ganking got nerfed in a gankers brain, not realising that it made no sense at all in terms of the game design, so a dim wit setup by CCP that should never have been allowed in gets removed and ganking gets nerfed, yeah right. I would suggest that you guys had the advantage from lazy game design for years when you should not have...

Goons made a lot of ISK out of another crass design fault of CCP in terms of moon goo, this is one of the reasons the game is in such a mess as it enabled certain groups to monopolise income and thus become dominant. This moon Goo created such massive war chests that it totally unbalanced the game, so that whelping a fleet had no impact to the people who had those moons making combat at a strategic level worthless. That same distortion enables the Goons to fund CODE and Miniluv, if that had never been set up like that then certain groups would not have such freaking massive war chests.

Titans do drive by DD shootings, some CFC ones were caught in the past doing just that, think again...

I contemplated whether to put that thing in about the drones because it is a good example of baiter mentality of the can flip school, yes CCP have changed it so that the drones do not shoot people who shoot the MTU with the drones set to aggressive, but it was for me an example of not being stupid at that point, if you operate in an area where people bait you set your drones to passive, you can never be certain whether there is a new trick that baiters have found to get you to aggress. Are you telling me that the MTU never had automatic aggro when the MTU was shot, no you are not. Think about it...

The direct aggression reaction of drones is something I pointed out recently to one of my allies, he had put his drones out and I told him to set them to passive, he missed that and of course got aggro which almost cost him a ship. Of course I know how this works, I felt that CCP were dumb for letting the MTU thing getting the drones to aggro, it is another example of ganker advantage...

Of course this is a ridiculous statement, considering the significant community of people doing AG. Less people do hyperdunking, which is obvious when seeing the killboards, because it is a lot difficult to arrange and execute.

Waiting in a channel for someone to ask for help, then hop into a T1 frigate and go help the poor fellow, while ruining the gankers' fun, for which they've been waiting for hours is not difficult at all.

If this seems difficult for you, I really doubt you understand or know EVE at all.

You are just bad at EVE, it's not the fault of the game. I wonder whats left for someone in this game who even fails at antiganking.

You're the one making that claim that CCP don't enforce the rules, the onus is on you to prove it.

None of which alters the truth of what I posted.

I suggest you go back and read what I posted again; the word generally is especially pertinent.

You're correct in that the MTU had a "bug" in the code upon release with relation to drone aggro, one that was removed in short order by CCP.

In hisec setting your drones to passive or aggressive makes no difference at all to the rules of engagement in the drone control code where baiters are concerned. Unless there are overriding flags, such as a Limited Engagement, war target flag and the like, your drones will only engage another player if you tell them to, or if they initiate the engagement and fire directly upon you.

Evidentially you don't, as your misconceptions of how drone aggro works have shown.