These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

CSM Campaigns

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Tora Bushido for CSM X - A New High-Sec (No Nerfed Disneyland)

First post First post
Author
Beatrix Dacella
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#61 - 2014-12-04 13:37:58 UTC
I vote no to all of the initial plans outlined on this platform.

Ganking in high-sec

Suicide ganking has been repeatedly nerfed again and again, there is no need for further 'balancing' as you suggest. If people aren't prepared to take simple steps to avoid being ganked, or choose to auto pilot, they have chosen to accept the risk to their assets. I'm not sure what you think your suggested changes would accomplish. What difference does it make whether a ganker is in an NPC corp or not? It's not exactly difficult to make or join one. Not being able to dock or log off for 30 mins and being auto-ejected is also completely dumb. They will not be in an expensive pod, and they will not lose skill points soon so they couldn't care less. They will simply minimise their client and die repeatedly until they can dock up.

Also how would you suggest they make ganked ships drop no more than 25% loot, which by the way is not reducing ganking-for-profit, but removing it entirely? Why should any pilot in eve be able to reduce the loot he drops by simple refusing to engage back, such as those caught in gate camps or pipe bombs.

This section just comes across as a knee jerk grr gankers reaction.

AFK for long time

Whether someone is active when logged into the game or not is nothing to do with you. If someone wants to AFK mine that is their choice to make and they take the risks associated. If someone is AFK while cloaking they are not affecting you, deal with it. A slot machine mining game with a weekly lottery? Seriously?

War decs

The size of a corporation has nothing to do with it's competency, not sure why you think 50+ members suddenly makes a difference. War dec costs do not need to change, not as long as it is so trivial to dodge a dec.

Social Corp / NPC

NO. An undeccable corp is not something I would even entertain thinking about, this undermines the whole concept of eve.

Incursions and PvE

If you have been playing since 2010 then you should at least have some knowledge of the current issues with these topics. This shows a lack of research to me, I would expect a candidate to have some sort of grasp or plan no matter how vague rather than "mail me."

Industry

Grr gankers.

Dreads

Why should Dreads suddenly be exempt from the capital ban in high sec? This won't generate more pos fights, if a corp is going to defend their tower they will do so regardless of a Dread being on field.



No offense but all of your suggestions comes across like the half thought out crap that you would expect to find in the Features & Ideas forum. You don't seem to have any kind of solid understanding about any of the topics you want to change, it comes off as more of a wish list rather than trying to make high sec better.
Tora Bushido
The Marmite Mercenaries
P I R A T
#62 - 2014-12-04 16:04:31 UTC
Justin Zaine wrote:
Contrary to what someone else has said, anybody that supports the idea of content generation and competetive gameplay in HS should NOT vote for Tora.
I am not sure if the industrials in High-sec or any sec would agree with you. It seems its mainly CODE not willing to meet half way. You know there are CSM's that want to completely remove ganking high-sec ? Take your pick which one you want. 100% gone or nerfed.

DELETE THE WEAK, ADAPT OR DIE !

Meta Gaming Level VII, Psycho Warfare Level X, Smack Talk Level VII.

Meilandra Vanderganken
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#63 - 2014-12-04 16:45:22 UTC
Tora Bushido wrote:
Justin Zaine wrote:
Contrary to what someone else has said, anybody that supports the idea of content generation and competetive gameplay in HS should NOT vote for Tora.
I am not sure if the industrials in High-sec or any sec would agree with you. It seems its mainly CODE not willing to meet half way. You know there are CSM's that want to completely remove ganking high-sec ? Take your pick which one you want. 100% gone or nerfed.

As I stated before, your core principles are bad (for reasons stated), it's not a matter of tweaking them a bit and suddenly they will provide vibrant gameplay to all and be (fairly) balanced.

There are also CSM members that want buffs to piracy in hi sec, safe high sec candidates like yourself are also hardly new, they've been around since the start of the CSM.
Justin Zaine
#64 - 2014-12-04 17:08:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Justin Zaine
Tora Bushido wrote:
Justin Zaine wrote:
Contrary to what someone else has said, anybody that supports the idea of content generation and competetive gameplay in HS should NOT vote for Tora.
I am not sure if the industrials in High-sec or any sec would agree with you. It seems its mainly CODE not willing to meet half way. You know there are CSM's that want to completely remove ganking high-sec ? Take your pick which one you want. 100% gone or nerfed.


Not every CSM candidate wants ganking gone or nerfed. Have you totally forgotten about the masses of people that just so happen to derive their daily content from the very activities that you wish to nerf, or are you just ignorant towards them? CODE. Lords of Midnight. Countless individual miners that mine AFK. Dozens upon dozens of small wardec corps that don't have the ability to bankroll 80+ decs at a time. Need I go on?

In the best case scenario your ideas are bad. In the worst case scenario, the implementation of these ideas could lead to a scenario where the rich get richer, so-to-speak, and the little guys continue to get sh*t on. I see nothing wrong with the Marmite business model, as long as that model does not remain the only viable option for HS predation, and it seems very clear that you wish it to become so. In implementing these changes, you could be taking away content from a lot of HS players, effectively squashing a lot of your competition as the head of Marmite.

You may say that you want these changes made out of a genuine concern for the well-being of HS, but as long as you're:

a. Proposing changes that could work to your own personal advantage,
b. Head of the largest merc corp in the game,

Then you wont get my vote simply out of principal. Not that I would have backed these ideas anyway.

So I restate my previous post: Anyone genuinely concerned in retaining a competitive, dynamic HS should look elsewhere for CSM because the changes proposed here largely benefit only one group of people: Large wardec corps that can easily afford an increase in dec fees, who could easily field dreads in HS, and who would benefit greatly from reduced competition.

He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight.

He will win who, prepared himself, waits to take the enemy unprepared.

Black Pedro
Mine.
#65 - 2014-12-04 17:41:59 UTC
Tora Bushido wrote:
Justin Zaine wrote:
Contrary to what someone else has said, anybody that supports the idea of content generation and competetive gameplay in HS should NOT vote for Tora.
I am not sure if the industrials in High-sec or any sec would agree with you. It seems its mainly CODE not willing to meet half way. You know there are CSM's that want to completely remove ganking high-sec ? Take your pick which one you want. 100% gone or nerfed.

Half-way to what? You want to make criminal gameplay worse (i.e. unfun) for the purpose of reducing the number of people doing it. This is not good game design. If you want less ganking/more protection for industrialists, you should argue for making ganking actually harder, not just more tedious - something like buffing EHP, reducing CONCORD spawn time by half or something. Then at least criminals can still actually play the game as it was designed.

Trying to reduce players from participating in an activity that has been explicitly designed and built into the game from the beginning by making it undoable/painful is not particularly inspired. Your ideas should increase conflict and/or player interaction, not make it more boring for both the locked out ganker and the AFK hauler. They should make the game more fun, ideally for everyone, not punish people for following a career path that is there to make highsec more interesting, and force game decisions.

Of course industrialists don't like getting ganked, but you should ask yourself if there was something that they can do to reasonably prevent it? If there was not, then you have a situation where a balance tweak might be needed or a new game mechanic implement. If they die because they did nothing to protect their ship (whether because they were new and didn't know how, or were taking a calculated risk overloading a hauler, going AFK, or whatever) then that loss is working as intended.

Now, some carebears will go on about how ganking is "too easy" or "no risk". This of course isn't true, and ultimately doesn't matter as the risk is suppose to be on the person pursuing the ISK-making activity, but I will give you some ideas to make ganking more risky you can throw a bone to the carebear demographic you seem to be trying to court. I don't necessary think they are at all good ideas but here they are:
1) Implement a "Pirate hideout" deployable that gankers can use as their base (perhaps a small Criminal Timer reduction is the carrot to get them to use it) that can be attacked
2) Vary CONCORD response time so gankers are less able to judge when they have enough firepower for a successful gank
3) Add some uncertainty to the cargo scanner (like there is for the ship scanner)
4) Allow a mechanism where industrial ships can feed false information to gankers scanners (at a fitting cost)
5) Similarly, allow a mechanism where an industrialist can increase CONCORD response time by a small amount unknown to the ganker (perhaps a module that looks like a mining yield enhancer to a scanner but doesn't do that - it actually decreases CONCORD response time by 10%).

Changes like these actually make the game more interesting while still allowing the criminal gameplay that is suppose to exist in highsec. Punishing criminals with longer lockouts or less loot does not.

However ultimately ganking is going to always appear to be in the advantage of the ganker as you normally only see/hear from the gank victims, not the 99% who the ganker passed over because they were properly tanked, or were never seen in the first place because they used scouts/intel/dscan/bookmarks to stay out of the crosshairs. This of course is the role of the ganker in the design of Eve - to incentivize players to spend the time and effort to protect themselves - which really is a key part of this game. Eve without suicide ganking would be much less interesting - everyone in highsec would use the same max yield/cargo fits and AFK everywhere.

Tora, be a voice to make the game better, and don't pander to those who would make the game less interesting in the pursuit of their self-interest.


Toriessian
Moscato Mania
#66 - 2014-12-04 17:57:32 UTC
Tora what is your opinion on the different proposals that have been floated over time that have suggested incentives for the defender in war decs to mount an actual defense? It seems a common complaint is that defenders in war decs don't have any reason to really defend leading to a decrease in overall PVP. What would be your take on an incentive if in favor?

Every day I'm wafflin!

Dersen Lowery
The Scope
#67 - 2014-12-04 17:58:41 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
However ultimately ganking is going to always appear to be in the advantage of the ganker as you normally only see/hear from the gank victims, not the 99% who the ganker passed over because they were properly tanked, or were never seen in the first place because they used scouts/intel/dscan/bookmarks to stay out of the crosshairs.


The problem with this line of logic is that it doesn't apply consistently enough to matter. Remember that guy who'd been ganked running a purple-fit Raven Navy Issue in a SoE system, and he was so furious because he'd been doing it without issue for five years?

He'd been doing it "wrong" pretty much every day for five years, without interruption. You have to agree that, in terms of consequences, this kind of wrong is hard to distinguish from doing it right. Once in five years, flying a blingmobile in a gank beacon of a system consistently, would lead you to believe that he was incredibly careful. But he wasn't. He was oblivious, and five years of successfully being oblivious had led him to believe, by induction, that he was doing it right. Can you blame him?

This is also most of the freighter pilots in the game. I knew guys--not newbies by any stretch of the imagination, but guys who'd been in ATLAS back in the day--who would set freighters to AFK autopilot through high sec and then go to bed. Nothing ever happened. So can you really say, in terms of the lessons the game actually teaches, that AFK autopiloting a freighter is wrong? Is it actually smart to invest money in an alt, and time in training, and extra attention to flinging your hauler sideways through systems with a dubious mechanical side effect, for what amounts to a marginal increase in safety? Is it smarter than setting autopilot on the thing, figuring that it's NBD if it gets there 10 minutes later, and going off to fly a ship that's actually fun to fly? or just going to bed?

In effect, and regardless of the intentions of the gankers, ganks are generally processed by freighter pilots and mission runners as player-precipitated lightning strikes, and they're right, because the true safety in high sec is in numbers.

Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

I voted in CSM X!

DeathShade7
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#68 - 2014-12-04 18:26:15 UTC
Vegas Mirage should be back pretty soon. Im sure he will vote for you bro. :)
Justin Zaine
#69 - 2014-12-04 18:31:17 UTC
Dersen Lowery wrote:
Black Pedro wrote:
However ultimately ganking is going to always appear to be in the advantage of the ganker as you normally only see/hear from the gank victims, not the 99% who the ganker passed over because they were properly tanked, or were never seen in the first place because they used scouts/intel/dscan/bookmarks to stay out of the crosshairs.


The problem with this line of logic is that it doesn't apply consistently enough to matter. Remember that guy who'd been ganked running a purple-fit Raven Navy Issue in a SoE system, and he was so furious because he'd been doing it without issue for five years?

He'd been doing it "wrong" pretty much every day for five years, without interruption. You have to agree that, in terms of consequences, this kind of wrong is hard to distinguish from doing it right. Once in five years, flying a blingmobile in a gank beacon of a system consistently, would lead you to believe that he was incredibly careful. But he wasn't. He was oblivious, and five years of successfully being oblivious had led him to believe, by induction, that he was doing it right. Can you blame him?

This is also most of the freighter pilots in the game. I knew guys--not newbies by any stretch of the imagination, but guys who'd been in ATLAS back in the day--who would set freighters to AFK autopilot through high sec and then go to bed. Nothing ever happened. So can you really say, in terms of the lessons the game actually teaches, that AFK autopiloting a freighter is wrong? Is it actually smart to invest money in an alt, and time in training, and extra attention to flinging your hauler sideways through systems with a dubious mechanical side effect, for what amounts to a marginal increase in safety? Is it smarter than setting autopilot on the thing, figuring that it's NBD if it gets there 10 minutes later, and going off to fly a ship that's actually fun to fly? or just going to bed?

In effect, and regardless of the intentions of the gankers, ganks are generally processed by freighter pilots and mission runners as player-precipitated lightning strikes, and they're right, because the true safety in high sec is in numbers.


Everything in Eve, as in life, is a calculated risk. RL research has shown that people have an "Accepted" level of risk that they're subconsciously willing to take on a day-to-day basis. It's why people drive without their seatbelts on, text while they're driving, don't put winter tires on their vehicle or partake in any number of other activities with an associated risk without taking every possible precaution to ensure their total safety while doing so.

To say that an experienced, AFK'ing freighter pilot chooses to AFK because he genuinely think's that he's safe, is wrong. Rather, he know's that there's a risk, however small that risk may be, but that he's choosing to take the calculated risk of AFK'ing with the knowledge that while he may be ganked, the odds are in his favor that he won't be.

He's entitled to take that calculated risk just as the gankers are entitled to take advantage of any oversights he may make. Just like anybody else that gets in an accident after rolling through an intersection due to not having winter tires on their car, he'll be pissed off that he lost his ship but that doesn't change the fact that he took a knowing, calculated risk. He could have taken steps to avoid the loss, but he didn't.

I've done a lot of freighter hauling in my time and the only time i've ever lost a hauler (A T1 hauler at that,) was the day I was Awoxed bringing fuel to my POS. Since then I've stopped autopiloting my haulers and you wouldn't believe the difference that makes Roll If someone isn't going to spend the time to make sure that their ship arrives safely at the destination, then I have no problem separating him from his ship as it's clearly not worth his time anyway.

He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight.

He will win who, prepared himself, waits to take the enemy unprepared.

Gevlon Goblin
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#70 - 2014-12-04 18:32:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Gevlon Goblin
While its clear that only CODE members oppose Tora, let me explain why the eject from station feature would be great, despite being rationally useless (empty pod, no clone costs).

Most ganks are done for tears. If everyone would just shrug and replace the losses, CODE would be disbanded in a week. But we know that EVE is full of people who cry a river for losing a $0.5 retriever. They do so in impotency: they don't know anything of PvP and have no idea how could they defend themselves. All they experience that some "veteran" just came out of the blue and destroyed something that was theirs and they have no clue how did it happen. This is why I linked a why was I ganked guide to every target I ganked and Surprise! I barely got tears, despite I popped 124+140B of miners in two months before I got bored.

The eject feature would give them the chance to "fight back". They could fly to the station and shoot the big bad ganker. Sure, it would make no sense. But hey, ganking a Venture makes no sense and CODE had a competition for it. The guy would get "revenge", the thrill of winning in PvP. He might even try again, against a ship and before he'd notice, he'd be flying in lowsec looking for fights.

The point isn't to remove ganking. It's to remove the "I can't do anything against these gankers" feeling from the carebears, give them a symbolic chance to hit back.

EDIT: there is a way to improve it. Instead of making the GCC longer, keep it just 15 mins, but reset it to 15 mins whenever the ganker is podded. So anti-gankers could stop a ganker by repeatedly podding him. So they could fight back meaningfully and force the "bad criminal" to run and hide.

My blog: greedygoblin.blogspot.com

Dersen Lowery
The Scope
#71 - 2014-12-04 18:49:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Dersen Lowery
Justin Zaine wrote:
To say that an experienced, AFK'ing freighter pilot chooses to AFK because he genuinely think's that he's safe, is wrong. Rather, he know's that there's a risk, however small that risk may be, but that he's choosing to take the calculated risk of AFK'ing with the knowledge that while he may be ganked, the odds are in his favor that he won't be.

He's entitled to take that calculated risk just as the gankers are entitled to take advantage of any oversights he may make. Just like anybody else that gets in an accident after rolling through an intersection due to not having winter tires on their car, he'll be pissed off that he lost his ship but that doesn't change the fact that he took a knowing, calculated risk. He could have taken steps to avoid the loss, but he didn't.


Yes, my point exactly: I used the mission runner as an example of how you can do this for so long that you don't even know there are risks. The point of establishing that the freighter pilots were nullsec veterans is that they knew exactly what the risks were, and they still did it, and their calculations were accurate enough that they had no incentive to change their behavior.

I personally have railed against autopilot. I hate it and I don't use it. But then, I don't fly freighters either. If AFK autopiloting freighters is the norm, then it's what makes sense to most people, and I know enough veterans who do it to believe that it's the result of a rational risk/reward calculation (combined with the fact that, if the freighter is attacked, oh, well--no benefit to being ATK for that, either). So the obvious conclusion is that high sec freighter logistics naturally and rationally gravitates toward AFK gameplay, and if you're concerned about that, that's the place to look. Ganking has just about nothing to do with it.

Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

I voted in CSM X!

Tyr Sigmundr
Cruisers Crew
Aggressively Average
#72 - 2014-12-04 18:56:09 UTC
Tora Bushido wrote:
Justin Zaine wrote:
Contrary to what someone else has said, anybody that supports the idea of content generation and competetive gameplay in HS should NOT vote for Tora.
I am not sure if the industrials in High-sec or any sec would agree with you. It seems its mainly CODE not willing to meet half way. You know there are CSM's that want to completely remove ganking high-sec ? Take your pick which one you want. 100% gone or nerfed.


You couldn't be more wrong here Tora. We just don't see nerfs to ganking as providing any productive solution. Make life easier and more exciting for White Knights, ganking will suffer slightly, but in ways that make everything more exciting for everyone involved. Take a look at the proposal put forward by BeBop and know that I think it's a wonderful idea that would provide a better chance for players to fight back against ganking, make ganking more interesting and exciting, and make Eve a MORE dangerous place, instead of your proposal to make it safer.

Sabriz for CSMX! A vote for Tora is a vote for Theme Park High Sec.

Justin Zaine
#73 - 2014-12-04 19:07:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Justin Zaine
Quote:
While its clear that only CODE members oppose Tora,


I've been part of CODE. for two weeks, I haven't ganked a single ship in my life and If I was gone tomorrow, bad ideas would still be bad ideas. It has nothing to do with bias or politics. I live in HS because I enjoy the target/player-rich environment. Tora wants to bring safety to HS and I oppose it. It contradicts everything that Eve stands for.

He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight.

He will win who, prepared himself, waits to take the enemy unprepared.

Tyr Sigmundr
Cruisers Crew
Aggressively Average
#74 - 2014-12-04 19:16:59 UTC
Tora Bushido wrote:
Ganking in high-sec
I would like to see people still able to gank, but only when you aren’t in an NPC corp and when you do, you will not be able to dock / logoff for at least 30 minutes. If you get podded and wake up in station, the station auto kicks you out till the 30m timer runs out. I also want the ganked ship, not to drop more then 25% of the loot. This way the ‘good’ guys at least have some way to get revenge and ganking for profit is reduced.

Killing an implantless clone that the ganker pays nothing for doesn't really count as 'revenge.' Pod killing is about to become laughably irrelevant and anyone who will brag about killing someones pod will be made fun of incessantly. The loot drop change would not 'reduce' ganking for profit, it will remove it from the game except in the most extreme circumstances like a JF full of PLEX.
I don't see how this would increase player interactions or make Eve a better game for anyone. Currently the only thing that can be ganked for profit (with any kind of reliability) is freighters and JF's being flown by people so are so sure of their safety that they pack them full of more isk than they should by any stretch of the imagination, all this change will do is protect fools from the foolishness of their actions. If you think freighters and JF's are too easy to gank, well that's a different issue, but hitting ganking as a whole square in the jaw with a nerf bat is a pretty terrible way of dealing with it.
Tora Bushido wrote:
AFK for a long time
If you’re logged in, I think you should also be active behind the keyboard. AFK cloakers and miners should press a notification button every 20 minutes, which appears randomly on the screen. One of the reasons I think people go AFK while mining, is because it’s boring to watch the screen while doing so. I want to add a mini game for the miners. A slot game which you pay for with Ore-points. You’ll get them for the time you spend mining. You use them for the slot machine and hopefully win more while doing so. These Ore-points you can trade or sell. All mining belts should be connected to each other in one big network. And once a week, the network picks a random winner for the Ore-Point-Jackpot.

The popup idea is one of the worst I've ever seen.
The slot machine game while mining... weird, but I think I see where you're trying to go with it and maybe something different can achieve the same goals (increase player interactivity while mining) without coming across as arbitrary 'features.' Personally I hate slot machines and slot machine style games and would ignore such a feature altogether.
Tora Bushido wrote:
War decs
The war dec system needs to change. To many new corps in high-sec are destroyed by war decs, which is bad for keeping people motivated to stay in high-sec or even in Eve itself. Once they are a bit bigger (50+), they at least have a chance fighting. High-sec isn’t for pussies, so let’s not do more then really needed or we will nerf the game to death. I would suggest, double the war dec costs for the first group (up to 50 players). and let the rest as it is. Making the costs go from 50M to 100M might not seem much, but I can tell you from experience it’s a lot when you have so many wars running as we have or when you are a small briefer corp.

I'm sorry Tora but this comes across as a thinly veiled attempt to destroy your competition in the war dec aspect of Eve. I don't know why you think this is a good idea but maybe if you can explain I'll change my mind. This is especially terrible while it remains so stupidly simple to simple ignore a war dec by closing corp and reforming. How many of these corps that you are claiming are 'killed by war decs' are reformed minutes or hours later under a new name? This fixes nothing and wrecks a lot of things.
Tora Bushido wrote:
Social Corp/ NPC
NPC should be removed. Players should be able to create small social corps with max 15 players in it, which can’t be war decced. But they also can’t own a pos, poco or future structure and they can’t war dec someone else. This might look bad, as they can freely do anything they want, but if you look at it more closely, they can still do the same things as they could do in an NPC corp. Only this way they have the chance to build up a corp.

I'm not entirely against this as it does encourage player interaction which is always positive (even when it's destructive). NPC corps will never completely go away as mechanically you need a place for players to go when they leave a player corp.
Tora Bushido wrote:
Dont nerf Eve to death
Sometimes nerfs are needed, but let's not kill Eve with to many.

You say this and yet it seems to be the direction your suggestions lead.

Sorry Tora, but if your position on some of these topics remains as it currently seems to be, I do not want you representing me on the CSM.
I love you, but I cannot vote for you in good conscience.
Whatever happened to Delete the weak? You may need to change your signature to Protect the Weak.

Sabriz for CSMX! A vote for Tora is a vote for Theme Park High Sec.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#75 - 2014-12-04 19:22:13 UTC
Gevlon Goblin wrote:
While its clear that only CODE members oppose Tora, let me explain why the eject from station feature would be great, despite being rationally useless (empty pod, no clone costs).
I'm not a CODE member (I in fact have an incredible dislike for CODE) and I oppose Tora. By the way, literally anything that comes from your mouth will be detrimental to Tora's campaign.

Gevlon Goblin wrote:
The eject feature would give them the chance to "fight back". They could fly to the station and shoot the big bad ganker. Sure, it would make no sense. But hey, ganking a Venture makes no sense and CODE had a competition for it. The guy would get "revenge", the thrill of winning in PvP. He might even try again, against a ship and before he'd notice, he'd be flying in lowsec looking for fights.
Except they wouldn't go to the station and fight. For starters, they would have just been ganked and potentially podded. By the time a non-PvP pilot kits up a PvP ship and heads out to the ganker, the ganker would be long gone.

Secondly, the ganker, once podded, could be anywhere. The gankee would need to track them down in order to "fight back" which would take longer than they would be on a timer.

Thirdly, killing them would be pointless. They would undoubtedly be in an empty clone, so you could pod them over and over again, and they wouldn't care (bear in mind that by the time this were implemented, clone upgrades would be long gone, so they wouldn't even lose SP).

Gevlon Goblin wrote:
there is a way to improve it. Instead of making the GCC longer, keep it just 15 mins, but reset it to 15 mins whenever the ganker is podded. So anti-gankers could stop a ganker by repeatedly podding him. So they could fight back meaningfully and force the "bad criminal" to run and hide.
Except a ganker would only need to escape once then you'd never catch the pod. Even if he was terrible and couldn't escape, he could just log on different character and continue to gank.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Tyr Sigmundr
Cruisers Crew
Aggressively Average
#76 - 2014-12-04 19:25:27 UTC
Dersen Lowery wrote:
Justin Zaine wrote:
To say that an experienced, AFK'ing freighter pilot chooses to AFK because he genuinely think's that he's safe, is wrong. Rather, he know's that there's a risk, however small that risk may be, but that he's choosing to take the calculated risk of AFK'ing with the knowledge that while he may be ganked, the odds are in his favor that he won't be.

He's entitled to take that calculated risk just as the gankers are entitled to take advantage of any oversights he may make. Just like anybody else that gets in an accident after rolling through an intersection due to not having winter tires on their car, he'll be pissed off that he lost his ship but that doesn't change the fact that he took a knowing, calculated risk. He could have taken steps to avoid the loss, but he didn't.


Yes, my point exactly: I used the mission runner as an example of how you can do this for so long that you don't even know there are risks. The point of establishing that the freighter pilots were nullsec veterans is that they knew exactly what the risks were, and they still did it, and their calculations were accurate enough that they had no incentive to change their behavior.

I personally have railed against autopilot. I hate it and I don't use it. But then, I don't fly freighters either. If AFK autopiloting freighters is the norm, then it's what makes sense to most people, and I know enough veterans who do it to believe that it's the result of a rational risk/reward calculation (combined with the fact that, if the freighter is attacked, oh, well--no benefit to being ATK for that, either). So the obvious conclusion is that high sec freighter logistics naturally and rationally gravitates toward AFK gameplay, and if you're concerned about that, that's the place to look. Ganking has just about nothing to do with it.


Well almost, the ganking is really the only threat facing the AFK pilot. If ganking freighters is made more difficult, this choice will be made even more obvious, every single freighter in HS would be AFK all the time. This isn't good for anyone. Rather than attacking ganking, I would say find ways to encourage players to be at their keyboards in ways that would protect them if a gank attempt were to occur.

Sabriz for CSMX! A vote for Tora is a vote for Theme Park High Sec.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#77 - 2014-12-04 19:27:17 UTC
Tora Bushido wrote:
Justin Zaine wrote:
Contrary to what someone else has said, anybody that supports the idea of content generation and competetive gameplay in HS should NOT vote for Tora.
I am not sure if the industrials in High-sec or any sec would agree with you. It seems its mainly CODE not willing to meet half way. You know there are CSM's that want to completely remove ganking high-sec ? Take your pick which one you want. 100% gone or nerfed.
I'm sure industrialists in high sec are more likely to push against wardecs from people like you, who farm non-combat targets for killboard efficiency, than gankers who they have a fraction of a chance of being ganked by if they happen to carry too much in the wrong place.

You're really running the wrong group if you're trying to win over the highsec non-PvP vote.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
#78 - 2014-12-04 19:29:03 UTC
I have removed a rule breaking post and those quoting it. As always I let some edge cases stay.
Please people, keep it on topic and above all civil!

The Rules:
4. Personal attacks are prohibited.

Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not beneficial to the community spirit that CCP promote and as such they will not be tolerated.

ISD Ezwal Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Dersen Lowery
The Scope
#79 - 2014-12-04 19:50:22 UTC
Tyr Sigmundr wrote:
Well almost, the ganking is really the only threat facing the AFK pilot.


I believe we're in violent agreement. And it's not enough of a threat to keep people from gravitating toward the direction that the intrinsic gameplay of freighter piloting encourages, which is to set, forget, and go do something else. Some people even remember to keep the value of their cargo down. I don't have a strong opinion about people being AFK for whatever reason, but it seems to me like the intrinsic gameplay shouldn't encourage it, especially when there's real-time, on-grid conflict between players.

I also think that a lot of the problem goes way deeper, to the fact that there's very little incidental socialization in EVE. Except for Local and (LOL) Constellation, all chat channels and certainly all voice comms are little walled gardens. Even the public chat channels are almost impossible to find until someone tells you about them, and then you have to remember the name. So we're at a point now where there are two camps, and each has a contemptuous opinion of the other, and each one doubles down on their position in response to any criticism. There are exceptions, of course, but not enough of them. If there is any medium of communication between strangers, it's text, which is famously bad at communicating tone and intent.

I mean, think about it: wouldn't it be the most obvious thing to be able to easily communicate with other ships on grid? And we can, clumsily, with technology that dates back to the 1970s. Doesn't that seem odd? (He says, in a CSM candidacy thread Blink).

Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

I voted in CSM X!

Tengu Grib
Cruisers Crew
Aggressively Average
#80 - 2014-12-04 20:39:17 UTC
Dersen Lowery wrote:
Lots of valid words.

So should ganking become even more common then?

Rabble Rabble Rabble

Praise James, Supreme Protector of High Sec.