Crime & Punishment

We are mostly in agreement then. I prefer to characterize EVE as "unscripted" rather than "harsh", though of course the results can often be quite harsh in an unscripted universe. On the other hand, players may choose cooperation rather than conflict, or to defend someone weaker rather than prey on them, which can result in a game experience that is not harsh at all, sometimes. This play style and ideology is just as valid as the opposite.

I'll +1, but take away a half point for little girl lips attack. Bad boy, no go to my room.

I'm guessing they were asked to ice mine once, for the bloody carrier. Thus resulting in rage. Apparently, no one told them you can stick your feet up, use one account to mine, while doing stuff with the other while talking with your mates.

Either that or it's the, how come you have more isk then me? I would guess proper planning that others are failing to do, or battleclinic is more addictive then figuring out how to do inventions with blueprints.

No, I definitely don't think that all industry-oriented players go bank diving like Scrooge McDuck. However, I do think that in a game that does a good job of mimicking both organized economics and organized crime, these players should set aside some of their money for a defense budget.

I hate making real-life parallels, but you know how banks and stores have security guards, despite the fact that even without the guards, real-life banks and stores are still pretty safe? Yet in EVE, an objectively more dangerous environment, these players don't want to set aside a single ISK for protection. Isn't that a bit weird?

My pre-Incursion killboard disputes this.


Nope. Read the thread, I'm not explaining it again.


Given that corp-hopping in space is illegal, you've got AT LEAST the time it takes someone to undock and find you to notice there are wartargets in system. Even without corphopping I can use a neutral alt to locate war targets and give me an optimal warp-in as soon as I enter system. In fact, it's probably quicker for me to come through a gate ready to fight than to dock up in system and change corps.


This litany of "you'll get owned in low/null" gets old for those of us who have been out there and not, in fact, been owned. Do you have any new material, or would you like to recycle something else from earlier posters as well?

I should say, my pre-(incursion ganking) killboard. It's short, but my kills most certainly were NOT "shiny defenseless ships" as you characterize. I've spent a lot of time fighting under POS gun fire because that was the only place we could get our enemies to engage.

There were those three Ibis that a wartarget kept undocking while pretending they didn't know why they were being shot. But that was for the lols.



According to CCP, switching corps while docked in system with a wartarget is acceptable and should give the target ample notice. As they've banned in-space corp jumping because it prevents other players from knowing when there are hostiles nearby, I suspect you're mistaken, or encountered a bug.


Seriously. I've already covered this. I was one of the first people saying that CCP should fix logi aggression when this all started, including nerfing the mechanic we were using to kill incursioners. The problem is they didn't fix it, they put a band-aid on it to make the carebears happy. There's a big difference.

If you're so readaverse that you can't bother to know what's already been discussed in a thread before jumping into it, best not to jump in.

That's an interesting analysis. Reasons (3) and (4) in particular explain why some apparently irrational attacks are, in fact, rational. Entertaining yourself with players' crazed rants or the sight of miners/haulers/pimpboats going kaboom is just as valid a play objective as watching the ISK counter on your wallet tick upward, or your color blob on the EVE influence map grow larger.

My original comment was mostly about (2). When you say "You're effecting the game in some way I don't like.", some might conclude that you're not just trying to counter specific in-game tactics, but to drive a certain group of risk-averse players away from EVE. Fewer risk-averse players means fewer voices asking CCP to protect them by changing the rules of the game, the thinking might go. Is that what's going on, at least in the minds of some PvPer's?

I know someone like that too. He spent a lot of effort training his miner alt to improve the tank on his Mackinaw, and was downright giddy when it finally survived a gank attempt.

The op is asking for too little! We PVPers don't have to be on the defending side in this debate. This is OUR game, not theirs.

Let me first get a few things straight: "PVPer" and "carebear" are not different professions. They are different mindsets. A trader, ratter, mission runner or industrial who has the brains and the balls that it takes to survive in this game qualifies as a PVPer. A carebear is a person who talks, thinks, acts, fails and cries like a carebear. Some days ago, I met a carebear with a security status of -3. He used terms such as "leeching" and "my mission" . If you play this game with the one and only right mindset, regardless HOW you play this game and WHAT you DO, then such words do not exist in your vocabulary. Period.

I have been preaching this for years: There is only one way to fix this game for all worthy players and for all legit playing styles and professions, and it is to REMOVE HIGHSEC AND CONCORD. Allow the PLAYERS to defend themselves in the best way possible whenever they need to and provide consequences when they see so fit.

Yes, a lot of people would quit over this change. These are the carebears I am talking about. Good riddance!

Yes, some of them are building the ships that we fly. They are part of the problem! Over-production, dropping prices and availability of nearly all goods in nearly all regions in practically unlimited numbers have made trade and industry professions unattractive to almost all players who are not alts, bots, RMTers or noobs.

Overproduction, low prices, uncontested ISK sources and the practical safety provided by Concord are also the factors which allow gankers to destroy ships for no reason, for no profit, and for nothing else but lulz, ***** & giggles. Yes, that's right, my dear carebears: YOU are building THE GANKERS' ships! Every piece of veldspar you mine might sooner or later shoot at you!

In a hostile environment with permanent shortage of goods, ganking would be much more limited! Gankers couldn't hide, and would have a much harder time resupplying themselves. All players would have the choice between being part of the community, getting along with and trusting each other, or living as outlaws, being hated by almost everyone and forced to kill and steal for profit or mere survival (that's called piracy - the real kind, without the roleplaying - not a sport for the rich and bored mission runner on weekends).

Whether the game would develop in the way I imagine it, I do not know. But why not try it anyway? What do we have to lose? A soon-to-become WoW-in-space that is getting more and more boring and similar to all those other failures called which are called "massively" multipleyer online games only because the term is still selling well? A game, which survives as a niche product only because the industry has to this date failed to deliver an alternative internet spaceship game which doesn't completely suck (favourable market conditions for CCP that can change any day)?

Creating a product that is awesome and will continue to be awesome and attracting players looking for a niche for many years is definitely worth the sacrifice of a few subscriptions. This has been proven by CCP with the launch of Eve and the many years of success that followed. If the company policy of CCP has not changed since then, we can expect them to take another ballsy move to keep this game alive and awesome.

Dare to be bold, CCP!

And remove highsec.
And Concord.
And while we are on it, give us a forum which can be used without the help of an external text editor.

Are you sure getting rid of highsec would help? I thought nullsec was overrun with bots too.