EVE General Discussion

The target had lots of chances to not make himself a target, and if he didn't want to PvP, he shouldn't have created an account. The target is PvPing as soon as he logs in.
Staying in highsec does not exclude you from PvP — it's just as prevalent there as it is everywhere else in this PvP game. He decided to become a potential target for combat action the second he undocked.
No, it's the other way around: since it is a multiplayer sandbox, you must accept that other players are allowed to do things that you don't want them to do — things like blowing you up. A sandbox does not mean that you can do what you want; it means everyone can do what they want, including things you do not like.

Because it is a sandbox, you are always PvPing. Fortunately, since it is a sandbox, you are given tools to protect yourself from the things you do not like, and it is up to you to choose whether to use them or not. The game will not (and cannot) do it for you.

If you want sandbox game where this is not happening, I would suggest the X series.
No, it is all that matters. The player on the other side has plenty of options to react.
Just because the other guy has chosen to not be attentive doesn't mean there is no interaction going on. So no, ganking “static and harmless ships” is PvP if there is a player at the other end. The gank is still interaction, player versus player.

…oh, and no, passive targeters are important tools for sneaking up on people, so they should stay.

this is what i'm speaking about. I saw you in intel channel. Not sure if it was about rescuing of a carrier or not. Was too lazy to even bother with one more dying carrier.....

and now.... TADAM!!!! Try to do the same with any other "volks" industrial and retriever. Do your magic please.

Since I don't suicide gank, I most certainly don't feel entitled to insurance. However, I think it would be a nice reward for them to entice them to do it more often and with a bit more reckless abandon.
Yes, the idea that it does not effectively change the ISK investment is bullshit. Sure, the accomplished ganker will not care much about that change because either money is no object, or he has it covered through other means… but for the nonaccomplished ganker, it might, and with a bit of incentive, he might grow up to be an accomplished ganker.

At the same time if it truly makes no difference, then there is no reason to remove the insurance, since that only needlessly hurts new players.

And I think your independent sources need to check with their forgers — they're not as reliable as claimed. No-one is taking my insurance away, nor have I ever been a victim of ganks. So I don't quite see why I would shed any tears over either of those. That said, I think I might start to cry from laughter at the utter confusion and bewilderment you guys exhibit as a result of having your prejudices so mercilessly shattered…

I blow up your hauler at a belt. Repeatedly. You give up mining in that locale, and leave. I start mining and sell the minerals you would have sold.

That's player vs player: PVP.

C.

I'm leaning more and more towards trying to dig up that ancient F&I thread about massively buffing the tank on the exhumers and then restricting them to low/nullsec where you might actually need that tank. People who stay in highsec get stuck with a bit lower yield, but also have the full benefit of insurance on their ships so it won't hurt if anyone bothers to blow them up.
They could use a break, like all newbies…
And with a CONCORD nerf, you could make it cold and harsh for them if you think they're having it too easy.

You're quite right of course. Ganking can result in feelings of regret, mental anguish and guilt. Luckily these things can be overcome with rainbows and ponies - perhaps you could volunteer to run the self help group, as you seem to have a good handle on the issues?

C.

check retriever info:
shield 647
armor 1.16k
hull 1.17k
2 high slots
1 mid slot
2 low slots
CPU/PG: 156.3TF/43.75MW
cargo - 2000 m3.

So. your tanked fit please. "Stop being greedy like monkey to use lows for tank". and don't forget: retriever is a MINING BARGE. It makes ore.

What about balance: it should not be present. At least ganker is initiator of "pvp" and not miner. So it is ok for ganker to have bigger loss.

Okay, using your values, since I don't use EFT:

I will use Mechanic 5, Hull Upgrades 4, and Shield Management 4. I will use thermal resistance for armor and shield EHP calculations, as it seems like a decent common ground. I will use level 4 fleet bonuses for armor and shields, as they are quite accessible even for newer players (all you need is a few days of training and a friend/alt in fleet). No implants.


IGNORE
Lows: Damage Control II, Reinforced Bulkheads II
Mids: Variable; I'm unsure if you can fit a medium extender/strip miners, so I'll calculate for a Small Shield Extender II
Rigs: 3x Trimark Armor Pump I

EHP (bold number is the multiplier from resists):

1.17k * 1.25 * 1.25 * 2.5 = 4.57k hull
1.16k * 1.2 * 1.15 * 1.15 * 1.15 * 1.08 * 1.81 = 4.14k armor
(.647k + .263k) * 1.2 * 1.08 * 1.43 = 1.69k shields

Combined total: 10.4k EHP, breaks 5 digits, just like I said before. With the relevant level 5 skills and some cheap implants, it's even higher. You can run it through EFT to check on your own time.
/IGNORE


EDIT: It's been brought to my attention that the ship values this guy gave me are all derped up. Never trust a pubbie to do something right, I guess. Therefore, I've created a new fit. The base hull/armor/shield values are actually 938/625/391, respectively. Will need a PG implant or Shield Upgrades 5.

Lows: F85 Peripheral Damage System I, Co-Processor II
Mids: Medium Azeotropic Ward Salubrity I
Rigs: 3x Core Defence Field Extender I

EHP (bold number is the multiplier from resists):

.938k * 1.25 * 2.174 = 2.549k hull
.625k * 1.2 * 1.08 * 1.748 = 1.416k armor
(.391k + .863k) * 1.2 * 1.15 * 1.15 * 1.15 * 1.08 * 1.381 = 3.413k shields

For a combined total of almost 7.5k thermal EHP. You can squeeze out some more (up to almost 9k) by using higher-level meta gear, training more skills to 5, and using cheap 3% implants. Also, the above setup can be had for less than 10 million if you shop around, with the biggest investment being the rigs. Also, have a flight of EC-300 drones out, set to aggressive. As far as raw hull costs are concerned, the gankers would actually be spending more money. Ain't no single goon Thrasher gonna be ganking that.

Tippia, nice threadnaught you have here. But I would like to show a few reasons why I think you are wrong.

You are advocating easier destruction of ships in high security space because it helps EvE economy and in turn also the miners, etc. itself. That would work if people were forced to stay in EvE.

The main purpose of EvE is to create a revenue for CCP. The more subscriber the better. and as you can see many people actually don't want to engage in ship destruction unless they agree to it. Hence removing gank insurance might get more people to subscribe which is good for CPP and EvE. If it screws the EvE economy, only low number of people will care.

But you need not to overdo it. If you screw too many people they will leave and their opinion will be heard (see incarna).

If you want to have better EvE economy you should be advocating changes which will encourage the original progression concept. Not with stick, but with carrot. Then high sec will be mainly inhabited by new players and more people will be in null sec.