EVE General Discussion

^^Just about exactly like where I grew up, yeah.

It's even less secure than that analogy. You can gank in a crowded place like Jita, with everyone watching, and everyone knowing who you are, and then 15 minutes later come right back to the same system and camp the undock now with protection from CONCORD. There are almost no significant long lasting effects of HS crime (sec status you can now buy tags for, and kill rights you can often clear on your own, the ones that really matter anyway).

The name "high" security space is misleading - it implies some form of reasonable retribution or punishment for crimes (how else would you enforce high security? This is probably a reasonable assumption to make based on the name, as you would do so anywhere else in RL). It should be renamed to "medium" security space or something else to make this more clear - it would definitely change a bunch of people's expectations to be more in line with the actual mechanics. Your ship is generally only safe in HS if there is no entity present that can alpha you before CONCORD saves you.

And again I have had to remove a rule breaking post and those quoting it.

Please people, it's perfectly fine to disagree with each other and to post your opinions or a reaction on the opinion of others without resorting to profanity or personal attacks. In other words, it is possible to do so without breaking the rules.

For example: 'Oh go hang yourself you bloody moron, I'm sick of you blabbering your pigshit all over this thread!' would most certainly get removed. It probably even gets you reported to CCP.
On the other hand 'I can not put forward strongly enough the fact that I totally disagree with your line of thinking. I might even add I would find great difficulty in living with myself if I where to share your point of view!' would not.
And in essence it says the same....

I wanted to revisit this part of your post because it doesn't tell the wholy story.
1. I think CONCORD never assumes that a clone is as bad as its predecessor. There is no assumed guilt, and I think that's a good thing because CONCORD damage is inescapable. I don't think you want to advocate a "no-win" situation for any play style, including ganking.

2. Criminal status -5 or under is free to be shot by anyone. -4.5 or below will invite FacPo to fire and can't be circumvented without extensive BMs or by carefully rationing your undock periods in system. So, there is a large swing of negative sec status values that essentially treat Hisec as nullsec, except that they cannot aggress first.

3. I don't think tags are cheap. I also don't think ganking and then salvaging/looting to recover costs is an easy workflow for a baby ganker. Tags are certainly more convenient than say.. repairing faction standing or gaining standings with corp, but turning sec status repair into laborious PVE arcs removes the essential element of "contested resources" from highsec.

The fact is, suicide ganking is mandated by CCP and EVE's rules.. and gankers seem to be forced to justify something that is mandated and legal against suggestions in this thread that run counter to CCP's position on the matter. I'm just saying the burden should be on someone suggesting rules changes to adequately study and describe the long term and macro-scale impacts of their suggestions before they insist that their direction is supreme.

+1 for the sentiment of the post. +2 for figuring out a use of the word Pigshit.

I love you.

RL police mostly don't prevent crime, they avenge crime after the fact, the awareness of which is the primary means by which their existence prevents crimes.

Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=0

"The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation."

If there's one thing you can always count on in here, it's:

Baltec = It's all high secs fault
Remiel = It's the damn carebears fault
Rhes = It's all because of Incarna
Kaarous = It's the bloody anti ganker's fault

At least they're consistent *) so you don't need to ever actually read what they post.

Mr Epeen



*) *Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal.

You say that as if most of them do so anyway.

So this is an interesting point. Should the tutorials incorporate information about how dangerous EVE is, even in hisec? When talking to Aura it all seems very easy going and cool. You learn how to press buttons, but Aura fails to tell you what a big bad world New Eden is.

I can see how from a scammer's point of view, there should not be easy dissemination of information. Avoiding the scams should be a combination of good researching skills and common sense. Players who inform themselves of the pitfalls of Jita Local should alone be spared of its poison. And the argument goes that players who do this kind of research and exhibit common sense are more of the type of player that will stick around EVE and "create content".

From a ganker's point of view a lack of education might be advantageous. A poorly fit ship makes for an easier target. But at the same time, a lot of the information I picked up as a miner comes from posts and chats done by gankers. For some strange reason these guys talk a lot about game mechanics and even how to counter ganks. Obviously there's a lot of "roleplaying" as people call it, invoking the ganker as a boogieman to players who don't shed blood and name their firstborn "James", but I think it's really hard to ignore information these guys put out to their own detriment (in the interest of "more challenging" content).

I think that like a lot of groups, gankers have some bad apples.. guys who are interested only in the easy kill. Of course that's human nature.

But is it fair to say that the information is out there and easy to access? Maybe. Is EVE Online a huge complicated mess? Sure. Does this complexity lend itself to weeding out the "less diligent" player? Probably. Does the confusion and complexity weed out some players who may have been compatible with EVE in the long run.. this is a good question which I'm not sure we have good data for.