These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page123Next page
 

A Change To Counter Suicide Ganking - Discuss?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Barbara Nichole
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#21 - 2012-05-14 22:55:20 UTC
Corina Jarr wrote:
There is a solution to ganking, one that would make it nearly extinct.

Learn to fly ships right.


If people learned how to fly their ships and be safe, suicide ganking would become the most elite form of PvP in EVE.



hogwash... you know darn well that it doesn't matter how "well" you fly, if they want you dead it's possible to kill you at will unless you choose not to fly at all.

  - remove the cloaked from local; free intel is the real problem, not  "afk" cloaking -

[IMG]http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a208/DawnFrostbringer/consultsig.jpg[/IMG]
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#22 - 2012-05-14 23:33:51 UTC
Sarah Britania wrote:
to me the best way to counter HS ganking suicide is that CCP implant IG a ship module who could brake for a short time (enaffly to warp out) warp jammer.

to me it is not so hard to do it and fastly implanted.


You mean a warp core stabiliser, right?

We already have those.
Lin Gerie
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#23 - 2012-05-14 23:48:19 UTC
This is a bit overbearing of a solution. Honestly you already have all the tools to prevent being suicide ganked at your disposal already.

Check D-scan (or learn what the D-scan is and how to use it)
keep an eye on your overview
if you see someone show up who doesnt head for a rat or an asteroid get the hell outa the way.

I have trouble justifying almost anything to stop suicide ganking when you have just as much control in getting or not getting ganked as the person who is suicide.
Dar Saleem
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#24 - 2012-05-15 02:36:51 UTC
This wont help the ******** people who chose to fly plexs in newbie frigates. But make the insurence payout the the ganked player gets come from the ganker.

So If someone ganks my hulk and I recieve 200 mil insurance payout the ganker (misterdastardlypirate) is billed 200mil.

Just have to sort out something prevent them going into stupidly negative numbers. maybe something like if they neg wallet they cant activate weapon mods

If you like this tell your friends, it think gankers tears would be almost as nice as goon tears
Corina Jarr
en Welle Shipping Inc.
#25 - 2012-05-15 02:47:40 UTC
Barbara Nichole wrote:
Corina Jarr wrote:
There is a solution to ganking, one that would make it nearly extinct.

Learn to fly ships right.


If people learned how to fly their ships and be safe, suicide ganking would become the most elite form of PvP in EVE.



hogwash... you know darn well that it doesn't matter how "well" you fly, if they want you dead it's possible to kill you at will unless you choose not to fly at all.

Completely false.

Survival is easy.

Most gankers are just a little less lazy than the miners who want to be semi-afk all day.
Most will give up and move on after one failed attempt. Very few will stick around after five or six failures (at which point you might have a potential claim of harassment...Lol).

The only time you are truly in danger is after jumping through a gate, because you can't easily warp from a standstill in mining ships.
Draconus Lofwyr
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#26 - 2012-05-15 04:20:01 UTC
While making it a GCC even where concord will intervene is overboard.
Something does need to change. Currently, you can use a passive targeting module to lock someone without their knowledge, ( not a problem in itself ) then use a cargo or ship scanner and the target has no way of knowing he was scanned.
Either change it where activating the scanner notifies the subject via pop up, or some form of notification. Or make the action similar to taking from a jetcan, not hostile of itself, but if you want to nose around in my cargo, you should be subject to retribution of some sort.
I can chose to attack you first. No action without consequences after all. Since there's no real counter to a cargo scanner, it does need some form of change.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#27 - 2012-05-15 10:13:53 UTC
No. CCP have proved tools for you to be safe enough when hauling, I suggest you use them.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Easthir Ravin
Easy Co.
#28 - 2012-05-15 10:27:35 UTC
Tauranon wrote:
You are in public, you can be seen, you can be scanned. It is a normal part of the game.

if you don't want your cargo scanned (or rather you don't want to be ganked), either fly a blockade runner, cloak warp and use undock instas, or use an orcas corp bay, or fly below a reasonable gank limit in your freighter - and use different ships for different loads.

ie what you are proposing is dumb, especially when there are multiple ingame mechanics that allow you to deal with scanning.



Greetings

I guess there are counters to scanners. Space should never be safe. It really grinds my gears that people think High Sec is safe...it is not, there are just consequences to actions.

vr
East

IN THE IMORTAL WORDS OF SOCRATES:  " I drank WHAT?!"
Corina Jarr
en Welle Shipping Inc.
#29 - 2012-05-15 18:52:12 UTC
Draconus Lofwyr wrote:
While making it a GCC even where concord will intervene is overboard.
Something does need to change. Currently, you can use a passive targeting module to lock someone without their knowledge, ( not a problem in itself ) then use a cargo or ship scanner and the target has no way of knowing he was scanned.
Either change it where activating the scanner notifies the subject via pop up, or some form of notification. Or make the action similar to taking from a jetcan, not hostile of itself, but if you want to nose around in my cargo, you should be subject to retribution of some sort.
I can chose to attack you first. No action without consequences after all. Since there's no real counter to a cargo scanner, it does need some form of change.

You know that there is a rather obvious mysterious glowing aura that comes from scanners, right? And it visually hits the target vessel.

So the only way you wouldn't know is if you weren't looking at the screen, and hence a popup would be useless and just annoying for those who actually sit at their computer.
Caleb Ayrania
TarNec
Invisible Exchequer
#30 - 2012-05-15 19:21:50 UTC
Draconus Lofwyr wrote:
While making it a GCC even where concord will intervene is overboard.
Something does need to change. Currently, you can use a passive targeting module to lock someone without their knowledge, ( not a problem in itself ) then use a cargo or ship scanner and the target has no way of knowing he was scanned.
Either change it where activating the scanner notifies the subject via pop up, or some form of notification. Or make the action similar to taking from a jetcan, not hostile of itself, but if you want to nose around in my cargo, you should be subject to retribution of some sort.
I can chose to attack you first. No action without consequences after all. Since there's no real counter to a cargo scanner, it does need some form of change.


I think this is the most valid direction of thinking on this matter. The trench war arguments from tradition is really misplaced in a forum about features and ideas, and suggestions of these..

The ability to scan without notice is needed, but should maybe have some sort of skill based opposed chance of detection. All the arguments about modules etc is kinda off topic, since the example and problem in question is freighters.

What would happen if detected scanning was a retribution action, like can flipping. Well I believe it would finally mak it possible for high sec people to actively counter a lot of mechanics abuse and "griefing".. You cant really do much against an alpha strike, and other denizens cant come to any ones aid, only take part after the fact.. If it was possible to aggress against the criminals "to be" before the fact, it would make things a lot more interesting..

I think empire corps would start offering protection. Where they would be at gates, and freighter pilots could join these fleets and enjoy their protection service. When aggression was allowed the fleet would be at the gates enforcing it, on behalf of the autopiloting freighter. In addition I believe freighters should practically ALWAYS be on autopilot. Since their function is of that nature. Our problems up till now have been the lack of ability to get good defence mechanics. The above could bring such "white knighting" to the table and balance out the griefing.

To those that havent done the math, its a terrible situation in EVE where taking down a freighter with even the lamest content is a resulting net profit. The price to gank is to low, and I prefer not having ccp just turn the concord knob even higher, we need tools to govern things ourselves. I think this direction will be to all players benefit, even those looking for a fight, at leat here they will get one that makes a lot more sense, value and rp wise..
RavenTesio
Liandri Corporation
#31 - 2012-05-15 19:37:33 UTC
I don't know why we don't just split High-Sec.

1.0 - 8.0 (where you can't Anchour Structures) Remains High-Security, here CONCORD has very quick and deadly response.
7.0 - 5.0 (where you can Anchour Structures) Becomes Med-Security, here CONCORD acts how it did when it was first implimented... as in a low-enough Security they are not only Tankable but Beatable.

Honestly with the exception of Trade Hubs this would all but eliminate real Suicide Ganking, making Piracy once again a viable Career without sitting in Low-Sec hoping someone is ******** enough to use a Freighter through gates over a protected Jump Freighter.

I think it would also be a cool idea if instead of Concord simply spawning, they Patrolled a System; with instead of an automatic response players activated "Distress Beacons" (could be located next to the Autopilot) sending the information to Concord who would warp (just like we have to) in to a situation.

Sometimes they might show up in-time to help, other times you might be long since dead. Still this would then add your attackers (possibly their Corporation) to Concords "Suspects" list, so next time you're in system they might tail you or your corpmates movements.

Would add a nice Cops & Robbers dynamic with no 1 side having a real advantage. Mind haven't had a pirate character since they introduced omnipotent Concord, so perhaps you guys who deal with them could tell me if that'd be a good idea or not.
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#32 - 2012-05-15 19:44:29 UTC
RavenTesio wrote:
I don't know why we don't just split High-Sec.

1.0 - 8.0 (where you can't Anchour Structures) Remains High-Security, here CONCORD has very quick and deadly response.
7.0 - 5.0 (where you can Anchour Structures) Becomes Med-Security, here CONCORD acts how it did when it was first implimented... as in a low-enough Security they are not only Tankable but Beatable.

Honestly with the exception of Trade Hubs this would all but eliminate real Suicide Ganking, making Piracy once again a viable Career without sitting in Low-Sec hoping someone is ******** enough to use a Freighter through gates over a protected Jump Freighter.

I think it would also be a cool idea if instead of Concord simply spawning, they Patrolled a System; with instead of an automatic response players activated "Distress Beacons" (could be located next to the Autopilot) sending the information to Concord who would warp (just like we have to) in to a situation.

Sometimes they might show up in-time to help, other times you might be long since dead. Still this would then add your attackers (possibly their Corporation) to Concords "Suspects" list, so next time you're in system they might tail you or your corpmates movements.

Would add a nice Cops & Robbers dynamic with no 1 side having a real advantage. Mind haven't had a pirate character since they introduced omnipotent Concord, so perhaps you guys who deal with them could tell me if that'd be a good idea or not.


Better idea, remove concord from the lower end entirely, let the faction navies handle it themselves.
Buzzy Warstl
Quantum Flux Foundry
#33 - 2012-05-15 19:49:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Buzzy Warstl
How about allowing shoot first for players whose security status is -(system security) or lower (as in high security status players can shoot first against them without penalty).

That wouldn't stop suicide ganking, but it would make for more entertaining PvP in the belts.

http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm Richard Bartle: Players who suit MUDs
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#34 - 2012-05-15 19:55:04 UTC
Caleb Ayrania wrote:
Draconus Lofwyr wrote:
While making it a GCC even where concord will intervene is overboard.
Something does need to change. Currently, you can use a passive targeting module to lock someone without their knowledge, ( not a problem in itself ) then use a cargo or ship scanner and the target has no way of knowing he was scanned.
Either change it where activating the scanner notifies the subject via pop up, or some form of notification. Or make the action similar to taking from a jetcan, not hostile of itself, but if you want to nose around in my cargo, you should be subject to retribution of some sort.
I can chose to attack you first. No action without consequences after all. Since there's no real counter to a cargo scanner, it does need some form of change.


I think this is the most valid direction of thinking on this matter. The trench war arguments from tradition is really misplaced in a forum about features and ideas, and suggestions of these..

The ability to scan without notice is needed, but should maybe have some sort of skill based opposed chance of detection. All the arguments about modules etc is kinda off topic, since the example and problem in question is freighters.

What would happen if detected scanning was a retribution action, like can flipping. Well I believe it would finally mak it possible for high sec people to actively counter a lot of mechanics abuse and "griefing".. You cant really do much against an alpha strike, and other denizens cant come to any ones aid, only take part after the fact.. If it was possible to aggress against the criminals "to be" before the fact, it would make things a lot more interesting..

I think empire corps would start offering protection. Where they would be at gates, and freighter pilots could join these fleets and enjoy their protection service. When aggression was allowed the fleet would be at the gates enforcing it, on behalf of the autopiloting freighter. In addition I believe freighters should practically ALWAYS be on autopilot. Since their function is of that nature. Our problems up till now have been the lack of ability to get good defence mechanics. The above could bring such "white knighting" to the table and balance out the griefing.

To those that havent done the math, its a terrible situation in EVE where taking down a freighter with even the lamest content is a resulting net profit. The price to gank is to low, and I prefer not having ccp just turn the concord knob even higher, we need tools to govern things ourselves. I think this direction will be to all players benefit, even those looking for a fight, at leat here they will get one that makes a lot more sense, value and rp wise..




1.) Freighters already have a method to counter ship scanners. It's called double wrapping!!! Ship scanners see through one layer of cargo, meaning if you put items in a cargo contanier, and someone ship scans you, they get a list of everything in your cargohold, and everything in the cargo container. However, if you put items in a cargo container, and then courier contract it, the resulting "plastic wrapped" package is double wrapped. Ship scanners will not be able to tell what's inside the second container.

2.) The autopilot will now dock in a station. If you use this feature, it means people have to catch you enroute, and you are no longer vulernable at the destination... I know this doesn't prevent them from ganking you en route, but it still to your advantage.

3.) Think outside the box. Rather than complaining about how people use the game mechanics to create an advantageous line of work that victimizes you, and suggesting it be nerfed or your ship be buffed to effectively nerf the activity, you really should look for options to defend yourself. You will find most of the time, those options already exist!! (example: Tanking your hulk, transporting stuff in a tanked BS, using cloaky transports, double-wrapping packages, limiting the value of your haul, have an escort, etc..) In the case of freighters, which have no extra fitting options, there was a thread a while back that would also help you out: Decoy Cargo Contianer
Serphas Tisamon
Deadman W0nderland
#35 - 2012-05-15 19:57:11 UTC
Go live in Nullsec... not just travel through but live there... learn to build/fly properly... pay attention to whats going on and quit complaining to try to make your life easier....
Caleb Ayrania
TarNec
Invisible Exchequer
#36 - 2012-05-20 18:42:38 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Caleb Ayrania wrote:
Draconus Lofwyr wrote:
While making it a GCC even where concord will intervene is overboard.
Something does need to change. Currently, you can use a passive targeting module to lock someone without their knowledge, ( not a problem in itself ) then use a cargo or ship scanner and the target has no way of knowing he was scanned.
Either change it where activating the scanner notifies the subject via pop up, or some form of notification. Or make the action similar to taking from a jetcan, not hostile of itself, but if you want to nose around in my cargo, you should be subject to retribution of some sort.
I can chose to attack you first. No action without consequences after all. Since there's no real counter to a cargo scanner, it does need some form of change.


I think this is the most valid direction of thinking on this matter. The trench war arguments from tradition is really misplaced in a forum about features and ideas, and suggestions of these..

The ability to scan without notice is needed, but should maybe have some sort of skill based opposed chance of detection. All the arguments about modules etc is kinda off topic, since the example and problem in question is freighters.

What would happen if detected scanning was a retribution action, like can flipping. Well I believe it would finally mak it possible for high sec people to actively counter a lot of mechanics abuse and "griefing".. You cant really do much against an alpha strike, and other denizens cant come to any ones aid, only take part after the fact.. If it was possible to aggress against the criminals "to be" before the fact, it would make things a lot more interesting..

I think empire corps would start offering protection. Where they would be at gates, and freighter pilots could join these fleets and enjoy their protection service. When aggression was allowed the fleet would be at the gates enforcing it, on behalf of the autopiloting freighter. In addition I believe freighters should practically ALWAYS be on autopilot. Since their function is of that nature. Our problems up till now have been the lack of ability to get good defence mechanics. The above could bring such "white knighting" to the table and balance out the griefing.

To those that havent done the math, its a terrible situation in EVE where taking down a freighter with even the lamest content is a resulting net profit. The price to gank is to low, and I prefer not having ccp just turn the concord knob even higher, we need tools to govern things ourselves. I think this direction will be to all players benefit, even those looking for a fight, at leat here they will get one that makes a lot more sense, value and rp wise..




1.) Freighters already have a method to counter ship scanners. It's called double wrapping!!! Ship scanners see through one layer of cargo, meaning if you put items in a cargo contanier, and someone ship scans you, they get a list of everything in your cargohold, and everything in the cargo container. However, if you put items in a cargo container, and then courier contract it, the resulting "plastic wrapped" package is double wrapped. Ship scanners will not be able to tell what's inside the second container.

2.) The autopilot will now dock in a station. If you use this feature, it means people have to catch you enroute, and you are no longer vulernable at the destination... I know this doesn't prevent them from ganking you en route, but it still to your advantage.

3.) Think outside the box. Rather than complaining about how people use the game mechanics to create an advantageous line of work that victimizes you, and suggesting it be nerfed or your ship be buffed to effectively nerf the activity, you really should look for options to defend yourself. You will find most of the time, those options already exist!! (example: Tanking your hulk, transporting stuff in a tanked BS, using cloaky transports, double-wrapping packages, limiting the value of your haul, have an escort, etc..) In the case of freighters, which have no extra fitting options, there was a thread a while back that would also help you out: Decoy Cargo Contianer


This type of argument from tradition is becoming one of the main reasons EVE is so terrible in regards to old flawed mechanics..

You can NOT claim that the double wrap, the Orca/Cap secret transporting, the alpha strike aggressor benefit; that these things are WORKING as INTENDED.. Claiming that this is how CCP wanted it to work is simply stupidity, or some weird obfuscating way of saying I like these flaws, since I know how to work around the problem..

The worst thing these days is that CCP will not make a nice collected list of problems they acknowledge as lacking or flawed. That is why we still have to suffer posters with these strange comments.

EVE is a 10 year old game, and it has more quirks and old ailments then my gramps.. The High sec griefer/ganking is a problem, not because pvp in high sec is a problem, but because its currently way off balance wise. When we look at all these small issues and weird workarounds it becomes rather clear that the problem is not simply one little mechanics, its the sum of al the papercuts that kills.
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
#37 - 2012-05-20 18:47:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Simi Kusoni
ABLOO BLOO

Caleb Ayrania wrote:
The worst thing these days is that CCP will not make a nice collected list of problems they acknowledge as lacking or flawed. That is why we still have to suffer posters with these strange comments.


I concur, they need a list of list of things that are "working as intended". Then they need to put ganking at the top, and lock these obnoxious threads and tell the OPs to HTFU and learn to play.

[center]"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings"  -MXZF[/center]
RavenTesio
Liandri Corporation
#38 - 2012-05-21 02:33:44 UTC
Simi Kusoni wrote:
ABLOO BLOO

Caleb Ayrania wrote:
The worst thing these days is that CCP will not make a nice collected list of problems they acknowledge as lacking or flawed. That is why we still have to suffer posters with these strange comments.


I concur, they need a list of list of things that are "working as intended". Then they need to put ganking at the top, and lock these obnoxious threads and tell the OPs to HTFU and learn to play.


Which would countermand what was said at Fanfest about how Suicide Ganking wasn't so much an issue but rather a broken mechanic that needed to be sorted out... hense the current threat of a Giant Death Ray, which will be oh so damn realistic that it won't break our fragile layer of immersion.

As I said above though, I've never had major issues with suicide gankers; tbh what pisses me off more are those dicks who ninja something just to get a fight then ship up and have like 10 mates in system with a neutral boosting alt and RRs.

That to me is just playing a ******* broken system, more so as these guys aren't man enough to travel in to low-sec to get real PvP but instead slime their way around High-Sec bothering miners and mission runners all day for "consentual PvP because he took back the stuff I stole"

I mean come-the-****-on, if you can't handle fighting people who know how to fight... GTFO of EVE imo.
Khoda Khan
Vatlaa Corporation
#39 - 2012-05-21 16:57:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Khoda Khan
Maximus Aerelius wrote:

So here's the proposal:

To counter Suicide Ganking a change could be made to Cargo Scanning\Usage of Cargo Scanners whereby activating the module on any ship is the same as activating any other weapon\Warp Scrambling\Area of Effect (AoE)\ECM e.t.c. and should incur the same penalties e.g. Concord and\or Sentry Gun response.

This would exclude NPC Convoys as they are obviously a valid target all over the EVE Universe.


Perhaps you haven't heard, but this is EVE. All ships, everywhere, are valid targets. At all times. Yours included.

Maximus Aerelius wrote:
My thoughts behind this are you can cargo scan any ship you like and pick the "cherry's from the tree". This is all well and good except that High Security Systems are not High Security with Suicide Ganking being so prolific and nothing to counter.


What fantasy land do you people come from? No way to counter suicide ganking? Suicide ganking is remarkably easy to avoid. Don't be dense! Hauling around a large Domination tower in your Itty V? Dense! Carrying dozens of PLEX in a rookie ship? Dense! Transporting high value BPOs in a shuttle? Dense! Basically, if you don't make yourself a worthwhile target then the liklihood of ever being sucide ganked goes down significantly.

But what about miners and our undertanked Hulks and those mean terrible people who participate in Hulkageddon, Mr Khan?

Same theory applies. Don't be dense! I know (non-dense) miners who have been happily mining away for years without ever losing a Hulk. I also know plenty of (dense) miners who can't seem to go a day without losing a Hulk. Of course, there was that corpmate who lost two Hulks at once, but he was sitting on a gate AFK in a Itty with two packaged Hulks in his hold and I thought I better get them into a hanger (hopefully) before someone else could. Fate being the fickle ***** she is, neither survived. Even dense corpmates deserve to lose their ships.

Maximus Aerelius wrote:
Now I know a lot of comments will say "Well don't AFK jump" e.t.c e.t.c but you know sometimes RL does impact on GL. An example would be that your doorbell rings, your phone goes, a pipe bursts in the kitchen, you have a chronic case of diarrhoea but just gotta get that mission finished or for a more pressing matter which personally happened to me: your girlfriend comes to you, bent double in pain and you have to rush her to A&E. Now given any one of the situations (especially the last) the last thing on my mind was to dock up. Some things in RL just can't wait!


If RL is impacting on GL, log out. Dock up. Don't expect to go AFK and come back to your intact Itty hauling far more value than it costs a player to destroy it or a Hulk left unbroken by some tear-seeking "griefer". If you go AFK in space then you're doing something dense and you deserve to lose your ship. CTRL-Q is a good method of logging out quickly. And safely, long as you don't have a timer.

Maximus Aerelius wrote:
So why not make it a little more Secure in "High Security" space and make Cargo Scanning an offence just as any other act that interferes with a ship does.


High Security space is (reasonably) safe. The thing that affects your safety the most in highsec is your own decisions. Bad decisions reduce your safety. Good decisions increase it, though admittedly you can never be a hundred percent safe.

Maximus Aerelius wrote:
A Target Painter will not harm a ship, cause it to lose functionality or affect it in any way. However it is still an action that is criminalized by Concord and I think Cargo Scanning should fall into the same category. This would mean that gankers come better prepared or have to get more people together to actually suicide gank Capsuleers...more risk = more thought.


So basically you just want to remove the cargo scanner from the game? Because it's only real use is the use that you want to take away from it. Why didn't you just say so? I'm sorry, I can't support the removal of cargo scanners from EVE. I've never fit one to a ship but I still find myself having a sentimental connection to anything that assists in the sandbox play of EVE.
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
#40 - 2012-05-21 18:04:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Simi Kusoni
RavenTesio wrote:
Simi Kusoni wrote:
ABLOO BLOO

Caleb Ayrania wrote:
The worst thing these days is that CCP will not make a nice collected list of problems they acknowledge as lacking or flawed. That is why we still have to suffer posters with these strange comments.


I concur, they need a list of list of things that are "working as intended". Then they need to put ganking at the top, and lock these obnoxious threads and tell the OPs to HTFU and learn to play.


Which would countermand what was said at Fanfest about how Suicide Ganking wasn't so much an issue but rather a broken mechanic that needed to be sorted out... hense the current threat of a Giant Death Ray, which will be oh so damn realistic that it won't break our fragile layer of immersion.

As I said above though, I've never had major issues with suicide gankers; tbh what pisses me off more are those dicks who ninja something just to get a fight then ship up and have like 10 mates in system with a neutral boosting alt and RRs.

That to me is just playing a ******* broken system, more so as these guys aren't man enough to travel in to low-sec to get real PvP but instead slime their way around High-Sec bothering miners and mission runners all day for "consentual PvP because he took back the stuff I stole"

I mean come-the-****-on, if you can't handle fighting people who know how to fight... GTFO of EVE imo.

You mean when he mentioned a Concord death ray as a possibility, and there was a sudden intake of breath and everyone in the room stared at him like he was crazy?

Yeah, I'm sure they'll go through with that plan.

Having said that I do PvP purely in low, null and wormholes. But I support high sec gankers all the same, and I vehemently disagree with any nerfs to ganking in high sec until they either:

a) Nerf high sec into the ground.

b) Fix the war dec system so it isn't so easy to evade wars.

c) Nerf high sec into the ground a little more.

If people want suicide ganking gone then either high sec should become a zero profit trading/newbie hub or risk should be reintroduced via a war dec system that doesn't suck.

(Just before someone brings it up, tomorrow's war dec system is a perfect example of a war dec system that still sucks.)

[center]"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings"  -MXZF[/center]
Previous page123Next page