Crime & Punishment

Damage Control II in a low, 2 medium core defense field extender rigs, adaptive invul field II, T2Therm and EM amplifiers in mids gives a Hulk almost 22K EHP. Hulks have a great tank, players don't fit tanks or halfass the tank

From what I've heard though is.. if your going to be ganked.. it doesn't matter what your fit is on a hulk or any mining ship for that matter. The said miner WILL die, so.. I at least don't see why you would do that if you could just fit the hulk to maximize your profits instead. So with that, it doesn't matter if it has the potential for a great tank, it's just more loot (give or take) for the ganker.

I mean, whats the point anyways? Hulks are terrible HP ships, even with a cruiser's HP the ship would still fall to a large gank. Cruiser level EHP still wouldn't help in that matter either.

It comes down to, ganking these miners makes them discouraged to mine, which then weakens our market slightly. Collectively, over a period of time, and lots of attacks on many mining players would hurt all of us immensely. I like to shoot things, I would especially like to have a career in low sec eventually.. but if this keeps up, what happens to us new players? Do we just say, "screw it" and leave? The mining industry is what keeps the longevity of this game alive from what I understand.. so why flat out try and disrupt it?

People were suicide ganking anyone, miner or not, already back when this game started. It's gotten shitloads harder to do nowadays tho, and the chances of a decent gank with potential profit is alot higher on a regular miner than most combat ships, unfortunately.

Make it easier to gank combat ships again and you might see less mining ganks.

I agree on the need to point out the differences.

Ganking solo miners is just a chance for people to feel big while attacking things that don't attack back, they don't want the challenge of real PVP with someone else fighting.

IRL, it would equate to going to a carnival BB gun shooting booth and trying to tell great stories about hunting later on. Hang that paper with the shot out star on your wall, where real hunters would hang mounted antlers of a head of a nasty beast!

Heh, I want to see someone start bragging about miner ganking then have a SEAL or Ranger walk up and punch them in their bearded neck for being such a bag of douche little pansy.

What do you define a starter area? All of highsec? LOL okay, that's a giant starter area. And how are the ships overpowered when it's not that hard to gank them? If it they were so overpowered then there wouldn't be anywhere near so many kills in hulkageddon, right?

Yes the game contains ganking/griefing/etc but it also includes mission agents and mining belts. So the first time you mine or run a mission you are not allowed to partake in the rest of the game? Or is it that to be one of the cool kids you have to give up everything the current cool kids tell you to give up? Who's the chimp now?

For the record, I think I trained one indy skill, used in one of the starter quests. I am not a miner. I am actually working on learning to better fit and fly PVP ships, I just see no challenge in a ganking. So if the miner is lazy, is it not also kind of the lazy way out to kill something that does not shoot back?

How about nerfing drops and salvage if PVP is one sided?

That means 99.99% of combat drops will be nerfed. It's almost always one sided.

Yes, all of highsec is a start area. Rat bounties, truesec, ore, it's all allways been junk. Only changed when lv4, and later Incursions, were introduced. Indy pilots back when I started, did same as PvP pilots; moved to low- and nullsec ASAP. Unfortunately young pilots today get tricked into believing highsec is an 'alternate lifestyle'. Well, sorry to burst your bubble, but pre-2007 noone would've wasted their time doing such a thing. At least not while expecting to make profit. Even less would they think they were 'safe' or that ganking was too easy.

TL;DR - kids today need a) HTFU and b) have their profits cut by 90-99%, i.e. incentitives to move out in the real game. Low-, nullsec, or WH.

Okay. let me clarify. when I said one sided I meant that only one side was actually engaged in the combat. If they don't fight back, the killers only get 1-10% of the current drop rate. It's the same risk/reward ratio that you suggest.



I think Highsec is still a viable lifestyle option. It's a sandbox game, right? Well, to quote a different thread:



So again, it's just gankers who want to dictate to other players what the "correct" way to play is. And they are all full of crap. The game has changed (since 2007, as you say) and the old guard can not accept that it's a different game. If you want it to stay the same maybe we can get a second server that's still running launch code like some other games have done (progression servers, whatever) and the people unable to accept the reality of an ever changing universe can go live in the "good old days" again. I will be here, because I am able to adapt and change to the new environment without being a bittervet.

When I started playing I only had a few hours a week. I didn't want to put up with blob warfare or CTAs or machoman gate camps in my limited time. I have more time now, and I have an account living in a wormhole. I think they should take local away from null to make it less safe, but you don't see me beating my chest telling the world that I need to change the game for a type of play that I don't partake in. I work on getting my stuff where I want it. "Forcing" players into your game style is just running off more paying customers than it's keeping, at least from the people that I know. Running off paying customers that would be helping fund future development while not directly impacting the non-highsec world at all.

Oh, i'm sorry. Ganking for ISK makes you a criminal, if this is your so called profession in eve, i could respect it. Ganking for tears, only to butthurt others is making you scum in my eyes.

Tears without having to put any effort in, or losing isk or sec. Thanks!

Irisandra, two things;

To begin with, it's easier to highlight something by making extreme examples. It will aggravate people but at least it's less chance of getting misunderstood.

When it comes to the systematic grading/safety.. well, one reason I argue complete lack of safety is very simple - it teaches players about EVE. Imagine if you start EVE, play highsec, everything is reasonably safe. But you are told how dangerous low- and nullsec and WH is. First time you go there, you die. You're very put off and most of your highsec carebear friends can't help you either. Alot of players will simply stick to highsec, and one issue with highsec population making isk is that unlike low-, null- and WH players they don't spend nearly as much. They're a liability from an economy viewpoint.

The benefits with the risky EVE is so much greater. Yes, you will lose alot of potential new players on the get-go. But they will be alot less afraid of dying, they won't feel the step to other sec is too great, and they will know that risks is a part of EVE.

Our corp just left an alliance where we were planning on helping them in highsec wars. Like how we used to help indy players back in 2005. You really need/want me to highlight the differences? Let's see:
* Back then our indy pilots were more than happy to pick up weapons and help us fight. Now they don't.
* Back then we did corp ops, both PvP and PvE, and "both sides" participated. Now neither do, everyone is so focused on their own, and they don't want to involve other players either.
* Back then indy pilots would fit PvP ships and follow instructions, now they will fit stuff you tell them not to. Like t1 beam lasers wth cap rechargers and afterburner, "to run cap stable and reach all ranges", rather than actually listening to FC.
* Back then PvP pilots would support indy pilots on their mining ops, to keep them safe. I myself flew tanked PvP ships or Bestowers, for example. Now miners don't want to share their profits, and PvP pilots don't want to help industrialists, this is an issue that kicks back on both sides btw.

A mentality that was prevalent in this alliance we were a member of, was simply put, that industrialists expect to be safe running missions and hauling even during war. "Why does he attack me, I havn't done anything to him". Why is that kind of players even playing EVE? They believe this game is something it isn't - safe. How will he learn, unless he keeps being at risk? And if we make him completely safe, what kind of effects will that have on EVE long-term? Why'd we go to low-, null or WH? Why'd we try own/control space? And more importantly, what happens with the economy with a constant influx of isk/items but noone buying/spending them?

Industrialists and PvPers need eachother, it is that simple. And the best way to keep EVE developing, and to look at EVE's best interests for the future, is to keep highsec a hostile environment. Just like it always was. And all those players who want this game to be something it isn't, really needs to learn to either a) adapt/accept, or b) quit. Oh and; industrialists should have the potential of great profits/income too ofc, it's their main focus, and the tradeoff they get for being 'vulnerable' and putting in an effort. But that income should be when they actually take the risks, no? Someone investing isk, time, and exposing self in hostile space, you should reap the reward, no? The effect of this is that, even if highsec is 'safe', it will still function as a 'starting zone'. It teaches you the basics of EVE, so you can develop, expand/explore, and move out there to the real game.