These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Advice on avoiding the Suicide gank

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Lady Areola Fappington
#441 - 2014-11-07 20:14:39 UTC
It's pretty much impossible to enact "meaningful punishment" on someone who's dedicated to ganking. If they don't care about the consequences of their actions, piling more of the same on isn't going to do anything.

That is the ultimate thing that the anti-ganking carebear crowd misses. Most gankers aren't playing the same game you are. ISK, sec status, standings, stuff of that nature doesn't matter to a ganker. You'll never be able to make it matter to a ganker.

You'll never be able to make that go away either, not without fundamental changes to the idea of EVE. EVE is a sandbox. We define our own goals. We define our own "win" and "loss" conditions. What a carebear considers a loss condition (losing a ship) is no big deal to a ganker.

The more you try to impose universal "win" and "loss" conditions on EVE, the more you end up taking away from the sandbox.

7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided. --Eve New Player Guide
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#442 - 2014-11-07 20:52:13 UTC
Lady Areola Fappington wrote:
It's pretty much impossible to enact "meaningful punishment" on someone who's dedicated to ganking. If they don't care about the consequences of their actions, piling more of the same on isn't going to do anything.

That is the ultimate thing that the anti-ganking carebear crowd misses. Most gankers aren't playing the same game you are. ISK, sec status, standings, stuff of that nature doesn't matter to a ganker. You'll never be able to make it matter to a ganker.

You'll never be able to make that go away either, not without fundamental changes to the idea of EVE. EVE is a sandbox. We define our own goals. We define our own "win" and "loss" conditions. What a carebear considers a loss condition (losing a ship) is no big deal to a ganker.

The more you try to impose universal "win" and "loss" conditions on EVE, the more you end up taking away from the sandbox.


How about a 6 hour GCC timer for a -10 sec status ganker? Sliding scale downwards depending on sec status. We don't need to make the ganker care, we just need to make ganking painful enough to make the incidence decline.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#443 - 2014-11-07 20:54:26 UTC
Lady Areola Fappington wrote:
It's pretty much impossible to enact "meaningful punishment" on someone who's dedicated to ganking. If they don't care about the consequences of their actions, piling more of the same on isn't going to do anything.

That is the ultimate thing that the anti-ganking carebear crowd misses. Most gankers aren't playing the same game you are. ISK, sec status, standings, stuff of that nature doesn't matter to a ganker. You'll never be able to make it matter to a ganker.

You'll never be able to make that go away either, not without fundamental changes to the idea of EVE. EVE is a sandbox. We define our own goals. We define our own "win" and "loss" conditions. What a carebear considers a loss condition (losing a ship) is no big deal to a ganker.

The more you try to impose universal "win" and "loss" conditions on EVE, the more you end up taking away from the sandbox.


What funny about this is that you can never get people to understand this.

I win against 'gankers' because I understand that what they want (tears). I fit to avoid and deter ganking, but I also present myself as someone who wouldn't cry after a loss. After a guy stole my mission objective once I jsut odcked and quit the mission and didn't fall for his taunting in local, which is probably way more painful to him than me complaining and getting him 'banned' would have been lol.

The anti-gank/anti-awox/anti-'bully' types can't grasp the idea that they don't need to 'meta' the situation and get ccp to intervene, it's already possible though individual action.

These types were SO sure that 'increasing the cost of ganking' was going to have an effect that they rejoiced when CCP took away insurance pay outs for for ganking. Ganking got 'worse'. They were sure that CCP buffing mining ships was going to do it. Ganking got worse (at least in their eyes). They haven't twigged to the idea that everything you try to do against these guys just ticks them off more and makes them do more (miner bumping is one such example).

Add slots to Freighters? no prob, they just gank empty freighters as punishment.

Get rid of inter-corp aggression style awoxxing, these guys will just suicide gank more and if that 'awoxxing' was the cause of people not joining player corps, they will have even less reason to afterwards.

And on and on it will go. The key is understanding gankers (like in real life, the answer to crime isn't throw more people in prison, we tried that, didn't work), not pretending you do while assigning to the the worst possible motivations (ie "they are all sociopath")
McChicken Combo HalfMayo
The Happy Meal
#444 - 2014-11-07 21:02:08 UTC  |  Edited by: McChicken Combo HalfMayo
Lucas Kell wrote:
Hauling (and PI alts, scouts, boosters, etc. as mention below) are side characters, not career paths. It would be lovely not to need alts, but EVE is far too gone for that. Gankers are choosing that as a career for their character, but it's disposable so they dont; care about things like bounties, kill rights, sec status, standings, etc. All other roles within the game have inherent risks and consequences you must face. Gankers were never developed as a core mechanic though, so haven;t evovled in the same way. There's no variance in their play, no unpredictable risks and no consequence.

Career vs Side Character: Both can be one or the other. Goonswarm hulk and ice interdiction was not a career choice, it was to support their own industry. How would mechanics separate the two though?
There are players who are "career" haulers too by the way. Red Frog

Consequences: Both sides are using alts to avoid consequences. Red Frog keep all their haulers out of corp just to avoid the consequence of wardec. They don't face any real risk because they use that web fling to avoid almost all danger. No consequence for monopolizing the courier industry, almost no risk while hauling, linear gameplay.... is this not the same story being layed out against the gankers?

Variance: You can gank for profit, for fun, for territory control, and so on. You can gank haulers, freighters, miners, mission, auto-piloters. Different ships used with different tactics employed. Some require real scouting, some require simple gate camping. Give me a break... it's more variant than every form of PVE.

Unpredictable risks: That is the fault of players mostly let's be real. I have been shut down mid gank before by a Griffin that timed his arrival perfectly. I've been podded by a corp member of a miner after I ganked the barge. As I explained a few pages ago a fleet of logistics battleships can shut down large gank fleets attempting to keel a freighter if the freighter is fit correctly. These are all risks.
Yer, the gank ship is disposable anyways, but that doesn't mean no risk... no, that would be like arguing no one in FW or RvB has risk because they just fly frigs and empty clones and die all the time.

Ganker loss is still a real loss too you should know. I don't bat an eye when CONCORD pops my ship but if some anti-gankers catch me on a gate I'm as affected by the loss as I would be if I got popped somewhere in lowsec. That's not just me. Failing a gank or being caught on the gate/station sucks like any other loss. The risk of that happening is real and almost every ganker who's been at it long enough has been caught at some point.

Lucas Kell wrote:
You don;t brign yourselves up because there's no point. If you are going to continue ganking, sec status is irrelevant. If you ever choose to stop ganking though, then yes, 300m to go -10 to 0 is pocket change, especially when you consider how much grinding you are saving yourself from. If 300m is a significant amount of isk to you, then you need to get better at playing EVE.

Yes there is a point Lucas. It is a lot harder to gank when you are -10. You can't sit in one spot for more than a few seconds. That means gate camping for targets is not possible without using one of a few warp in techniques that need to be timed perfectly and even then don't always work, leaving you exposed to players. FC for -10 fleets is a nightmare!

The cost of tags has to be balanced against players (gankies and lowsex pirates) that use the tags more constantly. You know I was arguing the cost is significant when used constantly so don't strawman and pretend I think that 300m after a long ganking career is a lot.

There are all our dominion

Gate camps: "Its like the lowsec watercooler, just with explosions and boose" - Ralph King-Griffin
McChicken Combo HalfMayo
The Happy Meal
#445 - 2014-11-07 21:13:32 UTC  |  Edited by: McChicken Combo HalfMayo
Veers Belvar wrote:
Lady Areola Fappington wrote:
It's pretty much impossible to enact "meaningful punishment" on someone who's dedicated to ganking. If they don't care about the consequences of their actions, piling more of the same on isn't going to do anything.

That is the ultimate thing that the anti-ganking carebear crowd misses. Most gankers aren't playing the same game you are. ISK, sec status, standings, stuff of that nature doesn't matter to a ganker. You'll never be able to make it matter to a ganker.

You'll never be able to make that go away either, not without fundamental changes to the idea of EVE. EVE is a sandbox. We define our own goals. We define our own "win" and "loss" conditions. What a carebear considers a loss condition (losing a ship) is no big deal to a ganker.

The more you try to impose universal "win" and "loss" conditions on EVE, the more you end up taking away from the sandbox.


How about a 6 hour GCC timer for a -10 sec status ganker? Sliding scale downwards depending on sec status. We don't need to make the ganker care, we just need to make ganking painful enough to make the incidence decline.

You would be limiting (...severely) the gameplay of all the -10 characters who don't "gank for lulz". The guy who wanted to mess up RvB a bit, the guy with the weird corpse roleplay bloh, the guy hired to spend the week podding every AFK miner in a system... you just took a giant crap all over their gameplay all in the name of protecting some lazy prick who wanted to autopilot his shuttle. This would not nerf ganking the way you think it would anyways. At best it would nerf podding. Those gankers would still be blowing up the freighters, the miners, the mission runners, because the sec status hit is small enough to buy back tags to replenish it.

Veers I saw you in the Crime section trumping that you are more or less unstoppable, that you do all your regular activities without disruption despite all those who want your head on a platter. Why demand game mechanics help place other players in that same situation? Why not demand they hold themselves to the same standards you hold yourself to?

If you think the miners have a lot of alts by the way, watch what the gankers do if you impose this change on them.

There are all our dominion

Gate camps: "Its like the lowsec watercooler, just with explosions and boose" - Ralph King-Griffin
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
The Conference
#446 - 2014-11-07 21:52:12 UTC
McChicken Combo HalfMayo wrote:
If you think the miners have a lot of alts by the way, watch what the gankers do if you impose this change on them.

Haha, that was my first thought.

This would probably even have the opposite effect of what he tries to do. A lot of gankers would just create so many alts that they just can gank, logoff and log the next toon on. This would even shrink the GCC for a player. Sure we could do this already, but the 15min are just not as much of an inconvenience to gain a few minutes right now.

I think even a 30min GCC would trigger that change in behavior. I seriously don't care how many accounts I have to sub.

Evil RatKid
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#447 - 2014-11-07 22:45:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Dracvlad
Veers Belvar wrote:
Lady Areola Fappington wrote:
It's pretty much impossible to enact "meaningful punishment" on someone who's dedicated to ganking. If they don't care about the consequences of their actions, piling more of the same on isn't going to do anything.

That is the ultimate thing that the anti-ganking carebear crowd misses. Most gankers aren't playing the same game you are. ISK, sec status, standings, stuff of that nature doesn't matter to a ganker. You'll never be able to make it matter to a ganker.

You'll never be able to make that go away either, not without fundamental changes to the idea of EVE. EVE is a sandbox. We define our own goals. We define our own "win" and "loss" conditions. What a carebear considers a loss condition (losing a ship) is no big deal to a ganker.

The more you try to impose universal "win" and "loss" conditions on EVE, the more you end up taking away from the sandbox.


How about a 6 hour GCC timer for a -10 sec status ganker? Sliding scale downwards depending on sec status. We don't need to make the ganker care, we just need to make ganking painful enough to make the incidence decline.


Actually something a bit smarter would be to do something with docking rights, this will not stop ganking and neither is it intended to, but its like the buff to mining ships, it requires the gankers to make more effort, also here is the important bit, they will perhaps need to setup a POS or position an Orca in the key choak point systems, and at this point perhaps the anti-Gank groups could have something to play with by ganking the Orca or war decc'ing the corp/alliance that owns the POS (expects Goons but what the hell), there you go emergent gameplay, of course they will whine that its too hard, rather like a number did when the mining ships were buffed and then were proved wrong when so many idiots failed to tank them..., but many did not and upped their ganking game, and those I respect. That will make it a bit more of a challenge for the gankers.

Another thing, don't bother arguing with Jenn, its like headbutting a brick wall, pointless and gives you a needless headache!

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
Lady Areola Fappington
#448 - 2014-11-07 22:50:46 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:


How about a 6 hour GCC timer for a -10 sec status ganker? Sliding scale downwards depending on sec status. We don't need to make the ganker care, we just need to make ganking painful enough to make the incidence decline.



All that will do is cause the dedicated ganker to get even more dedicated. With the way things are right now, there are very few "Weekend warrior" gankers. Pretty much anyone active in ganking is dedicated to it.

You roll a 6 hour timer, gankers will roll alts. They will find a way around any mechanic you throw in place, because THAT is the game the ganker is playing. Their win state is "continuing to gank in the face of adversity".


The carebear squad kind of shot themselves in the foot, demanding more and more difficulty with ganking. Had it stayed relatively easy, you'd be able to corral the weekend warrior types with "normal" gameplay mechanics. By making things hard, you filter it to the truely dedicated, and they'll stop at nothing to keep going.

7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided. --Eve New Player Guide
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
The Conference
#449 - 2014-11-07 23:07:30 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
Actually something a bit smarter would be to do something with docking rights, this will not stop ganking and neither is it intended to, but its like the buff to mining ships, it requires the gankers to make more effort, also here is the important bit, they will perhaps need to setup a POS or position an Orca in the key choak point systems, and at this point perhaps the anti-Gank groups could have something to play with by ganking the Orca or war decc'ing the corp/alliance that owns the POS (expects Goons but what the hell), there you go emergent gameplay, of course they will whine that its too hard, rather like a number did when the mining ships were buffed and then were proved wrong when so many idiots failed to tank them..., but many did not and upped their ganking game, and those I respect. That will make it a bit more of a challenge for the gankers.

An Orca would do just fine. Do you even know how much EHP a maxed tanked Orca has? And it does not even affect the ship maintenance bay if you max tank it. Also how do you want to wardec an Orca alt in an NPC corp? Do you notice something? It's all made possible by carebear tears of the past.

Next idea please, maybe something a bit smarter...

Evil RatKid
Bertrand Butler
Cras es Noster
#450 - 2014-11-07 23:57:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Bertrand Butler
[Orca, High sec]

Reinforced Bulkheads II
Damage Control II

Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Large Shield Extender II
Large Shield Extender II

[Empty High slot]
[Empty High slot]
[Empty High slot]

Large Transverse Bulkhead II
Large Transverse Bulkhead II
Large Transverse Bulkhead II


Fit highs according to preference. Pretty good for medium sized cargo.

[Prowler, High sec]

Nanofiber Internal Structure II
Nanofiber Internal Structure II
Damage Control II

Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I

Covert Ops Cloaking Device II
Core Probe Launcher II, Core Scanner Probe I

Medium Hyperspatial Velocity Optimizer II
Medium Hyperspatial Velocity Optimizer II


Pretty good for cargo up to 4k or so. Can also work in LS.

[Crusader, High sec]

Nanofiber Internal Structure II
Nanofiber Internal Structure II
Local Hull Conversion Inertial Stabilizers I
Damage Control II

Medium Shield Extender II
Medium Shield Extender II

[Empty High slot]
[Empty High slot]
[Empty High slot]
[Empty High slot]

Small Hyperspatial Velocity Optimizer II
Small Hyperspatial Velocity Optimizer II


Decent EHP for the class and sub 2 tick align time. Great for courier jobs, and anything up to 90m3.

In the end though, no specific fit or loadout is going to be much help. The important thing is to understand that:

1. Your best defense against gankers is your mentality, and your actions as a player to fortify your ship.
2. **** happens however cautious you may be.
malcovas Henderson
THoF
#451 - 2014-11-08 02:44:13 UTC  |  Edited by: malcovas Henderson
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
Actually something a bit smarter would be to do something with docking rights, this will not stop ganking and neither is it intended to, but its like the buff to mining ships, it requires the gankers to make more effort, also here is the important bit, they will perhaps need to setup a POS or position an Orca in the key choak point systems, and at this point perhaps the anti-Gank groups could have something to play with by ganking the Orca or war decc'ing the corp/alliance that owns the POS (expects Goons but what the hell), there you go emergent gameplay, of course they will whine that its too hard, rather like a number did when the mining ships were buffed and then were proved wrong when so many idiots failed to tank them..., but many did not and upped their ganking game, and those I respect. That will make it a bit more of a challenge for the gankers.

An Orca would do just fine. Do you even know how much EHP a maxed tanked Orca has? And it does not even affect the ship maintenance bay if you max tank it. Also how do you want to wardec an Orca alt in an NPC corp? Do you notice something? It's all made possible by carebear tears of the past.

Next idea please, maybe something a bit smarter...


I think to be fair, there is not one carebear that realises how much EHP an Orca has. To them it is all about Cargo hold, Yield and Isk per hour. I think it is hilarious that the ones who Gank, know more about the ships they "DONT" use than the people that use those ships.

This brings me onto another feature that Ganking has taught me. Fitting my Mining fleet. Just by dropping Cargo Expanders (rigs and modules) An Orca can go from 80k EHP to over 220k EHP. For the princely sum of 60k m3. And a hell of a lot more than that as my Orca pilots are not yet maxxed skilled yet.
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#452 - 2014-11-08 08:16:43 UTC
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
Actually something a bit smarter would be to do something with docking rights, this will not stop ganking and neither is it intended to, but its like the buff to mining ships, it requires the gankers to make more effort, also here is the important bit, they will perhaps need to setup a POS or position an Orca in the key choak point systems, and at this point perhaps the anti-Gank groups could have something to play with by ganking the Orca or war decc'ing the corp/alliance that owns the POS (expects Goons but what the hell), there you go emergent gameplay, of course they will whine that its too hard, rather like a number did when the mining ships were buffed and then were proved wrong when so many idiots failed to tank them..., but many did not and upped their ganking game, and those I respect. That will make it a bit more of a challenge for the gankers.

An Orca would do just fine. Do you even know how much EHP a maxed tanked Orca has? And it does not even affect the ship maintenance bay if you max tank it. Also how do you want to wardec an Orca alt in an NPC corp? Do you notice something? It's all made possible by carebear tears of the past.

Next idea please, maybe something a bit smarter...


Actually I do know how much EHP a properly tanked Orca has 254k EHP and of course the reason I mentioned it was the ship maintenance bay, because that is what you would use, and the obvious suggestion was that you would have it in an NPC corp, but they (the anti-gank players) could gank it if they could get organised enough and up their game. Its nothing to do with mining etc. and everything to do with you having a place to jump into your ganking ships without docking rights...

Stop thinking like a carebear or a gankbear, the suggestion means that you will have to put your stock of ganking ships to be used in system in something that coudl be attacked if they have the guts for it, be it a Orca in an NPC corp in space or a POS which has to be in a corp that can be war decc'd, this is better than teh total immunity you have now isn't it, do you want it easy or more fun?

Of course suggesting that I don't know how to fit an Orca and the carebear comment was intended to downplay the very valid suggestion of removing docking rights for security levels, typical discredit the messenger forum warfare, LMAO!

As for the carebear suggestion, I have 1200 kills over my two mains and done all levels of real PvP in this game apart from Supers and Titans, so think again Gankbear... Big smile

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
Mag's
Azn Empire
#453 - 2014-11-08 08:21:43 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:


How about a 6 hour GCC timer for a -10 sec status ganker? Sliding scale downwards depending on sec status. We don't need to make the ganker care, we just need to make ganking painful enough to make the incidence decline.
Why do we?

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Bertrand Butler
Cras es Noster
#454 - 2014-11-08 08:26:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Bertrand Butler
A max tanked Orca has 430k EHP vs anti/void, 420k against EMP and 445k+ against fusion/quake. Thats before implants, links or heat.
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#455 - 2014-11-08 08:37:27 UTC
Bertrand Butler wrote:
A max tanked Orca has 430k EHP vs anti/void, 420k against EMP and 445k+ against fusion/quake. Thats before implants, links or heat.


I have not checked that recently, I fitted mine up a couple of years ago for tank using shield rigs, though it has a bulkhead module in it, I will check again thanks. However the point is removing docking rights to characters with negative security status linked to some scale that CCP come up with.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
Mag's
Azn Empire
#456 - 2014-11-08 08:41:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Mag's
Dracvlad wrote:
Bertrand Butler wrote:
A max tanked Orca has 430k EHP vs anti/void, 420k against EMP and 445k+ against fusion/quake. Thats before implants, links or heat.


I have not checked that recently, I fitted mine up a couple of years ago for tank using shield rigs, though it has a bulkhead module in it, I will check again thanks. However the point is removing docking rights to characters with negative security status linked to some scale that CCP come up with.
Why should docking rights be removed? You like others, seem to be looking for NPC mechanics, instead of what CCP like to look for which is player driven ones.

It is in large part NPC mechanics, that drive -10 player into dock. Why not simply remove that need to dock, instead of trying to fix an NPC mechanic with another bad one?

Or remove one before adding the other, if NPC hand holding is what you really need. But let's face it, it wouldn't stop anything. It merely adds yet more pointless restrictions, which are easy to circumvent.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Kimmi Chan
Tastes Like Purple
#457 - 2014-11-08 08:42:38 UTC
Hilti Enaka wrote:
Would appreciate some advice on how to avoid this from happening. cheers


I've not read the 23 pages of what I am sure is riveting advice on this subject but I have one piece of advice. Ironically, it applies to all facets of life including not only this game, but all games.

DON'T SUCK.

You're welcome.

"Grr Kimmi  Nerf Chans!" ~Jenn aSide

www.eve-radio.com  Join Eve Radio channel in game!
Bibosikus
Air
#458 - 2014-11-08 10:08:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Bibosikus
StraightPlayers are more space rich than ever. Occasionally - or even daily - forking out 100m on a ganking nado for the sh*ts and giggles is increasingly considered to be a fun investment. Ganking is a challenge. Frankly the odds are stacked more in favour of an alert freighter pilot. I've been on a few gank teams in the past and it was a craic. I never saw one isk of the recovered loot and I didn't care.

It was just the satisfaction of beating the system.

Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
The Conference
#459 - 2014-11-08 10:39:38 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
Actually I do know how much EHP a properly tanked Orca has 254k EHP and of course the reason I mentioned it was the ship maintenance bay, because that is what you would use, and the obvious suggestion was that you would have it in an NPC corp, but they (the anti-gank players) could gank it if they could get organised enough and up their game. Its nothing to do with mining etc. and everything to do with you having a place to jump into your ganking ships without docking rights...

Looks to me like you don't know how much EHP an Orca can have. It was buffed to a level that makes it almost ungankable even for large corporations who specialize in ganking. Who would try to gank it? the anti-ganker community? You? LOL

Dracvlad wrote:
Stop thinking like a carebear or a gankbear, the suggestion means that you will have to put your stock of ganking ships to be used in system in something that coudl be attacked if they have the guts for it, be it a Orca in an NPC corp in space or a POS which has to be in a corp that can be war decc'd, this is better than teh total immunity you have now isn't it, do you want it easy or more fun?

If we setup a POS and let them reinforce it so it's invulnerable for over a day, what do we care? If they kill it afterwards, a small POS tower is cheaper than a Talos... After this change you would simply come back and cry once more "they expect to lose the tower, there is no risk.. blablabla". It would change nothing.

Also it takes 24h until you can fight in a wardec. Plenty of time to setup a POS, gank, tear down the POS and use the non-exploit to reform the corp.

Dracvlad wrote:
Of course suggesting that I don't know how to fit an Orca and the carebear comment was intended to downplay the very valid suggestion of removing docking rights for security levels, typical discredit the messenger forum warfare, LMAO!

I did not suggest it, you demonstrated that you can't fit an Orca or that your argument about forcing us to use an Orca is based on pre buff information, which is just hilarious if you are the one asking for a nerf against the people who usually gank Orcas. I also demonstrated how we would be able to circumvent your changes just like that. Your "fixes" to a non existing problem are useless. Call me "carebear" and "gankbear" all you want, it does not make your bad idea look better.

Dracvlad wrote:
As for the carebear suggestion, I have 1200 kills over my two mains and done all levels of real PvP in this game apart from Supers and Titans, so think again Gankbear... Big smile

Only 1200 kills yes? You just started? Also post with your main! Your reputation in nullsec does not make you a specialist in highsec warfare. The game mechanics and tactics used are completely different.

I don't even care if this stupid idea gets implemented. I just wrote to tell you that we are not the ones that will be affected by the change, but probably a lot of other people who are not ganking in Higshec.,

Evil RatKid
McChicken Combo HalfMayo
The Happy Meal
#460 - 2014-11-08 10:46:53 UTC  |  Edited by: McChicken Combo HalfMayo
Dracvlad wrote:
...the suggestion means that you will have to put your stock of ganking ships to be used in system in something that coudl be attacked if they have the guts for it, be it a Orca in an NPC corp in space or a POS which has to be in a corp that can be war decc'd

No this would not work. An alt can grab the ship from the station and eject it in a safe point for the ganker to board.

There are all our dominion

Gate camps: "Its like the lowsec watercooler, just with explosions and boose" - Ralph King-Griffin