These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Crime & Punishment

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

War on Gankers

First post
Author
Amyclas Amatin
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#401 - 2015-01-08 05:39:14 UTC
Thought I would read another anti-ganking rebellion... but it turns out to be folks whining about how ccp should protect them.

For more information on the New Order of High-Sec, please visit: http://www.minerbumping.com/

Remember that whenever you have a bad day in EVE, the correct reponse is "Thank you CCP, may I please have another?"

Leto Thule
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#402 - 2015-01-08 05:45:09 UTC
I don't have rhetoric. I am answering your points.

Safe log off is a way to make sure your ship doesn't hang out in space when you log off. If it were meant to be used in the way you are suggesting, then it would already work that way. The feature isn't new, and has been part of the client for a few years.

For example, I use it when I log out in a wormhole. Its not, and never was, a way to pull the plug and avoid combat.

I'm also not a dedicated ganker, and neither is the other poster.

You are pretty much raging at the entire forum community because you don't understand what the safe log off button is for, we do, and you don't agree.

Thunderdome ringmaster, Community Leader and Lord Inquisitor to the Court of Crime and Punishment

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#403 - 2015-01-08 05:53:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Kaarous Aldurald
Ramcath wrote:

To the previous two posters, you have completely ignored the fact that I said ganking shouldn't be outlawed, or done away with.


No, you instead asked for "just one more nerf", to something that has been nerfed repeatedly throughout the history of the game.


Quote:

Nerfing freighters would only work if the pilot is still active. If he's afk, autopilot, then he's ganked.


Pushing one button for complete safety is not something that should ever exist in this game. Certainly not just because they're expensive, either.


Quote:
I'm all for pvp, fighting, even ganking, but if it becomes to a point where anyone who takes out a freighter in hi sec can't move it then the economy will suffer as well.


I own a freighter, and I use it relatively frequently. I can move things without difficulty. So can Red Frog, along with countless other people.


Quote:

Seeing past your own nose requires you to quit blaming pilots, or ignoring their points of view. My whole previous posts have been about finding solutions within Eve so that CCP doesn't have to make drastic changes.


First of all, making freighters invulnerable is a drastic change, no matter how you might try and justify it.

Secondly, I will happily blame people who get ganked of their own fault, and I will wholeheartedly ignore the point of view of people who can't be bothered to play the game correctly.


Quote:
If that's your point then you will be in for a shock when CCP makes changes that could've been prevented if an honest discussion had taken place. Think about it. Why in the world did CCP make the 'log off safely' feature to begin with??!!??!! Why???


Wow. It's almost hard for me to believe that you are this ignorant. If you don't actually have a clue about the log off features, and it's history of changes, do not dare to come here and preach to real players about it.

But since I'm a generous person, I will go ahead and educate you on the matter.

http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/73996

It is not, nor was it ever intended to allow anyone to escape combat.

And as for you crying about your points being ignored. I for one do this because you are spouting lies, based in pure ignorance of the game mechanics, rooted in risk averse selfishness. You may as well be saying nothing at all, for all that anything you say matters.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Ramcath
Boulder Shoulders Industries
#404 - 2015-01-08 06:00:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Ramcath
Leto Thule wrote:
I don't have rhetoric. I am answering your points.

Safe log off is a way to make sure your ship doesn't hang out in space when you log off. If it were meant to be used in the way you are suggesting, then it would already work that way. The feature isn't new, and has been part of the client for a few years.

For example, I use it when I log out in a wormhole. Its not, and never was, a way to pull the plug and avoid combat.

I'm also not a dedicated ganker, and neither is the other poster.

You are pretty much raging at the entire forum community because you don't understand what the safe log off button is for, we do, and you don't agree.




So if it's not meant to be used that way and is, then that is a form of exploiting the game mechanics. Much the same way a Machariel bumping a freighter is. As for raging, I hardly think so. I'm making points while the coutnerpoints are usually never discussed, just that pilots are dumb.

If I wanted to I could say that CODE and other gankers are simply pilots who can't cut it in null sec, I don't because I don't think that's true, even though it could be for some, but certainly not the majority. I don't try to generalize every pilot in eve based on certain aspects of what they do in the game. I think the game's big enough to allow all forms of play and this just doesn't seem to be a mode of thinking for gankers. If anything disrupts their ability to blow up a freighter in hi-sec then the ganker drivel comes flying out, making personal attacks, etc. Not that the previous two posters have made any attacks against me but you don't have to search too far in this thread to find them, or on any forum for that matter for these types of attacks.

That's not a big deal, that's just the internet, but I've yet to see any pro-ganking thread that offered any type of relevant idea beyond the freighter pilots just need to be smarter. If CODE changes the way hi-sec is operated then I say... good. It's great to have villains, but even though gankers don't see their tactics as abusing the game mechanics doesn't mean others do, and if enough of them get their voices heard then CCP may make changes that hurt the game more than help it. I'm not saying my ideas are perfect with no pros and cons, just points of view that should be considered as I try to analyze the entirety of the subject of ganking objectively. As soon as a I read a ganker post that is likewise then I will give it a fair thought.


*** correction, they did get personal... oh well***
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#405 - 2015-01-08 06:21:22 UTC
Ramcath wrote:
I think the game's big enough to allow all forms of play and this just doesn't seem to be a mode of thinking for gankers. If anything disrupts their ability to blow up a freighter in hi-sec then the ganker drivel comes flying out, making personal attacks, etc.


I think the game is big enough to allow for many forms of gameplay. Unfortunately, the moment anything happens that knocks the roid munchers or the afk haulers out of their sleepy reverie, the drivel comes out, making personal attacks and such.



Quote:
I'm not saying my ideas are perfect with no pros and cons, just points of view that should be considered as I try to analyze the entirety of the subject of ganking objectively. As soon as a I read a ganker post that is likewise then I will give it a fair thought.


Get this through your skull.

There isn't really anything wrong with how ganking works right now. No increase in safety is needed, whatsoever. If anything, ganking should be buffed, since barring the largest ganking alliance in the game (who have a frankly staggering SRP for a highsec entity) ganking is an extremely rare occurrence. That goes double for freighters.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

CODE Agent AC
The Conference Elite
Safety.
#406 - 2015-01-08 08:17:37 UTC
I had tacos for dinner.

The Artist Formerly Known As AC. 

The terminal end of the digestive system. 

The Best CSM Candidate

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#407 - 2015-01-08 08:33:35 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Crouching up and down on the corpse of an enemy player is borderline at best. CoD is not designed so a bunch of antisocial basement dwellers can get kicks out of upsetting other people.
Which again, isn't what you were saying. You said shooting. If you want to report someone for t-bagging because it's upset you, go right ahead. Much like in EVE i doubt they'll do much but you have the right to report it.

Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
I don't, I was answering your hypocritical claim that anti ganking petitions can't infringe on my rights as a player. They're malicious abuse of the petition system, they're intended to infringe on my rights as a player.
No, if someone feels like you have griefed them they have the right to report it, it's as simple as that. If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about. The time you have to worry is if CCP feel that the volume of players legitimately upset indicates a problem. That won;t be from the ganking, it will be from the way you troll and grief people.

Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
That's because filing tickets on non reportable behavior is literally against the rules. Apparently you have to have some ulterior motive to enforce the rules, according to you. Why does that not surprise me at all.
Mate, how do you not get it. If you feel like you have been griefed or harassed, you have the right to post a support ticket. It's that simple. It doesn't matter if the behaviour that made you feel that way is within the current rules or not, and CCP will make the decision over whether or not it should be dealt with. This thing that you're doing right now, is EXACTLY what I was talking about before, where beyond griefing players, code players try to convince their victims that they are not allowed to report it. And like I said before, if your sure your behaviour won't be taken into consideration when CCP have it reported, you have nothing to worry about. People could report my trading habits as I routinely crush whole markets for a laugh. People could report me for it, they are well within their rights to do so if they feel it's griefing them. I'm not worried about CCP doing anything to ban my behaviour. If you're arguing this hard that people should not be allowed to report you, then obviously you know what you do is wrong.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Amyclas Amatin
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#408 - 2015-01-08 08:41:50 UTC
CODE Agent AC wrote:
I had tacos for dinner.


I like turtle soup.

For more information on the New Order of High-Sec, please visit: http://www.minerbumping.com/

Remember that whenever you have a bad day in EVE, the correct reponse is "Thank you CCP, may I please have another?"

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#409 - 2015-01-08 09:06:29 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
If you're arguing this hard that people should not be allowed to report you, then obviously you know what you do is wrong.


And you got all that from when I simply say that ganking is not reportable.

You must never skip leg day, to be able to make leaps like that.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#410 - 2015-01-08 09:22:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Kaarous Aldurald
Honestly, Lucas, you are really exposing yourself here.

According to you, it is not only acceptable, but also appropriate for miners to abuse the petition system, filing reports en masse to try and force CCP to ban PvP in highsec. Because apparently non consensual PvP in highsec is automatically "griefing" and "harassment", if the victim decides so. **** the EULA, and **** impartiality, they get to decide what griefing is, not CCP's long standing rules.

Not only that, but any attempt to protest this deliberate abuse of the petition system and request that the actual, literal rules of EVE Online be followed instead... is itself admission of being a "griefer".

The pitfall of subjectivity, everybody. Give him a big hand, he's been most helpful in showing us all that carebear sentiment must never be tolerated, because it never fails to lead to Trammel.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Max Deveron
Deveron Shipyards and Technology
Citizen's Star Republic
#411 - 2015-01-08 10:20:29 UTC
Ramcath wrote:
To clarify:

1. If game mechanics is being employed successfully on all fronts then why is there hi-sec? There is an implied safety that comes with being in .5 systems or higher.

2. Why is there Concord? There is an element of game mechanics that CCP intended to prevent people from blowing up ships in high sec.


I had this in a previous post but after reading it I think I need to clarify this, in the hopes that the ganker fan-boys will begin to understand the mind of those who are against the gank. My first point holds true, there is an element of safety that comes with hi-sec, to ignore that is ridiculous. It doesn't mean that you cannot get blow'd up in hi sec, obviously you can. There are duels, war dec's, aggro from stealing from wrecks, etc. However, this is not what is being discussed, we're specifically looking at ganking freighters/haulers. So you cannot say that there is not implied safety due to the fact that you cannot fire on someone else without one of the previous things discussed allowing you to do so. Simply admit there is an element of safety and we can move on.

Concord - Yes, with the implied safety of hi sec, Concord is there to prevent pilots from attacking others without repercussions... why? Because low sec and null sec exist, and this is definitely part of the game mechanics built specifically for those systems. You can still attack, be attacked, etc., in high sec, and no one is clamoring for that aspect to change.

So to all the gankers, very few pilots who are against ganking are specifically saying that ganking should be banned.

I think ganking is just fine, but just not fine the way it is. I don't want to ban ganking, I just think it should be more appropriate towards the level of security system you are in. Removing aggro from a freighter is one idea, and so is reducing the amount of time for the log off safety feature.

Guess what this allows!!! You can still gank, and you'll get freighter pilots who are afk, autopilots, and bot freighters. All this does is allow freighter pilots who are in hi-sec a means of keeping their assets.

The gankers need to start thinking up some ways for an in-between solution to this, because if they rely on CCP to do it then they won't like the result.

Here is possible outcomes that could come down in the future:

1. Concord is allowed to attack pods (this could be a definite since this would not prevent ganking, but a ganking squad would now have to be more than a mere handful of pilots jumping into Catalysts or other cheap destroyers) Remember, there are no more skillpoints to buy for clones, so CCP could view blowing up pods as an even exchange.

2. CCP removes all aggro for capital ships in high sec - allowing them to log off safely

I actually think option #1 is the best outcome since it doesn't prevent ganking, it merely changes the size of a required squad, and gives freighter pilots the ability to fit to withstand a larger attack.

All in all, if the only responses from gankers is going to be, "you're stupid, play better. you're dumb, play smarter" then when the changes come there will be a shock. I don't believe for one second that gankers right now will implement self-discipline changes, it will have to come from CCP, but if gankers refuse to view the other side of the coin then they are removing themselves from the changes and discussion that will eventually come.


No, no ,no
you forget or just dont know like so many others of the shadow war between nullsec entities that exisists in Highsec.
For that reason alone....your so called aggro-less freighters can take a leap into jov space for all I care.

Now podding....that sould be up to players....because if Concord is allowed to do this then there is no reason to not let mission rats and incursion rats to do it (whats good for the goose is good for the gander).

Now maybe if some peole would activley pick up a defense doctrine instead of always complaining hoping for someone to do it for them then maybe stupid ideas like this wouldnt develop. In fact I and my CEO had discussed such and idea a mere hour ago....unfortunately I told him his fits and ideas are perfectly fine.....its finding pilots willing to take that level of offense to the target that is the problem. (we were discussing why i felt Astecus and the AG community were such a fail even in its infancy)

And that is the problem....the players attitude.
Of course if the bounty system actually was playable and not broken as always
and maybe if gankers had to be visible enough to give incentive for people to hunt them..........
*shrugs*
but oh well.....your ideas are still anethema to a game i have played for 5 years now....and Im not even a career ganker
Gorila Vengaza
Ol-Silly Basterds
#412 - 2015-01-08 11:20:24 UTC
Amyclas Amatin wrote:
CODE Agent AC wrote:
I had tacos for dinner.


I like turtle soup.



I dined on Scallops with fried mushrooms and onions with a side of pasta.....
Ramcath
Boulder Shoulders Industries
#413 - 2015-01-08 11:35:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Ramcath
No, no ,no
you forget or just dont know like so many others of the shadow war between nullsec entities that exisists in Highsec.
For that reason alone....your so called aggro-less freighters can take a leap into jov space for all I care.

Now podding....that sould be up to players....because if Concord is allowed to do this then there is no reason to not let mission rats and incursion rats to do it (whats good for the goose is good for the gander).

Now maybe if some peole would activley pick up a defense doctrine instead of always complaining hoping for someone to do it for them then maybe stupid ideas like this wouldnt develop. In fact I and my CEO had discussed such and idea a mere hour ago....unfortunately I told him his fits and ideas are perfectly fine.....its finding pilots willing to take that level of offense to the target that is the problem. (we were discussing why i felt Astecus and the AG community were such a fail even in its infancy)

And that is the problem....the players attitude.
Of course if the bounty system actually was playable and not broken as always
and maybe if gankers had to be visible enough to give incentive for people to hunt them..........
*shrugs*
but oh well.....your ideas are still anethema to a game i have played for 5 years now....and Im not even a career ganker[/quote]


Let's be clear, I've played since 2008 with gaps in play time throughout, but unfortunately since 2012 I have been relegated to hi-sec mostly. Not by choice, but my job simply doesn't allow me to be in null which requires a great deal of time to be on comms. Since I can't be on comms, and I've tried to be in null sec without comms, it just doesn't work as well. I've accepted the fact that, for now, I'm more or less in hi-sec but that doesn't mean I don't understand how null sec wars extend to hi-sec. Of course they do, I've been a part of them.

I like how you actually brought up a point about podding, in how it could work but the con is then do you make 'rats' have the ability to pod as well. *Finally someone who is discussing a point rather than just calling people who get ganked stupid... didn't think that would happen. I don't have the answer to whether rats should be able to pod if Concord does, that's a great idea to discuss. The point though is if that were done by CCP then that means ganking wouldn't have to be changed, it simply means it would have to be a bigger fleet that is ganking and not 5 guys with a 'bumper' ship.

Also, I think you are correct that if there's a bounty system that worked then you would see more active pilots in hi-sec who would jump at the chance to be escorts. Fixing the bounty system... again, a great point that should be looked at as a way to modify how ganking is done WITHOUT making ganking impossible or removed from Eve.

I'm actually shocked that there were some good points brought up, so thanks for the post. Also... it's anathema, and you didn't really use it correctly but I get your idea. Sorry... it's the college professor in me coming out.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#414 - 2015-01-08 11:46:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Mag's
Ramcath wrote:
.....Far too many words to quote, just take it I am responding to all......
First off, please show me there is a problem. Surely this would manifest itself in a high percentage of freighters being ganked per day. So what is a high percentage to you?
5%? Less? How about 3 or 2?
Does the figure of them dying to suicide ganks come even close to that? You claim there is a problem, I just wonder what you base this on?


Now I have issues with your disingenuous posting. You "don't want to ban ganking", you say no one is saying the solution "is to prevent all or any means of ganking." You say "I think ganking is just fine, but just not fine the way it is."
You then proceed to ask for the removal of aggro from freighters. Allowing them to log off safely.

Well if that isn't the removal of a means of ganking, then what is? Yes here you are telling us ganking is OK, but let's nerf it anyway?

You've even said yourself, pilots would be better off with a scout or in groups. So why do we need a nerf? You seem to want to balance the game around solo play, because it so happens that group play has more power in an MMO. It is a fact that you can move a freighter through high sec with very little risk, with one friend. That's one friend. How the hell is that not acceptable? On what logical basis do we ignore that and then go on to ask for no freighter aggro instead?


Now to Concord and security.

Concord are reactive. They punish acts, they do not prevent you from starting them. If CCP intended on them preventing ganking, they would implement it.
The security is about levels of punishment, as can be seen from the response times of concord within each level of high sec.
They have no interest in the pod, because they just want to stop the crime. Once the ship is gone, their job is done and they place you on watch for a set time.

I did wonder how long it was going to be, before someone asked for Concord to pod gankers after that clone change. No cigar here for you sir, it's already been asked for. But sure why not, we could even include pilots that shoot rats. Have rats shoot mission runners pods etc. I see this has already been brought to your attention.

The concord mechanic was created to differentiate the security of space. It was never intended to stop player interaction, merely to change the level of punishment of no consent, (flagged against the law) boat violence.

Now your talk of Exploits.

It's not unusual to find those claiming to support ganking, then asking for it to be nerfed, to also include some line that claims an exploit or two. Here is yours:
Ramcath wrote:
So if it's not meant to be used that way and is, then that is a form of exploiting the game mechanics. Much the same way a Machariel bumping a freighter is.
Let me make this clear now. You me and every other player, do not decide what is and is not an exploit. You use the term because you seek to elicit a certain response. One I'm giving now perhaps.
So I'll look at both mechanics.

Log off timer.
It wasn't ever a method that CCP deployed, that would allow for what you ask. You have the link, it's quite clear on the subject. But here are some bullet points.

    You cannot be safely logging off while:

  • You have active modules
  • You're ejecting from a ship
  • You have aggression from players or NPCs
  • Your ship is exploding or self-destructing
  • You're issuing movement commands
  • You're launching or jettisoning objects
  • You're joining a fleet
  • You're deploying or reconnecting with drones
  • You have a target lock or are targeted
  • You're warping
  • You're decloaking or under gate cloak


Bumping.
It's not an exploit, whether is be with a Mach, or a noobship. It's been discussed, it's been ruled on. It wasn't ruled solely on mining ships either, which is another line many like to trot out. It's a ruling on bumping ships.

Now I'm sure you'll be wanting to now point out, you merely meant exploiting in the term the dictionary states. But whilst we are discussing game mechanics, the term exploit has certain connotations. You know this, we all know this. It's their game, therefore their use of the term applies to that discussion.


So what do we have here? Well you claiming one thing, then go on the say another.
You also claim: "I've yet to see any pro-ganking thread that offered any type of relevant idea beyond the freighter pilots just need to be smarter." (as if that's a bad thing, but I digress.)

That's not been my observation. Take this thread for example.
Or this one.
Both have people offering advice on how to freighter safely. You even talk of some of them yourself.
But it seems to be falling on deaf ears, even with you.

The conclusion to all this is that group play in an MMO, is OP compared to solo play. I hardly call this a revelation, but it seems to be overlooked by many most of the time. But why understand the game, when we can simply run to the forum and ask for a nerf?

Have a great day.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#415 - 2015-01-08 12:26:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Lucas Kell
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
According to you, it is not only acceptable, but also appropriate for miners to abuse the petition system, filing reports en masse to try and force CCP to ban PvP in highsec. Because apparently non consensual PvP in highsec is automatically "griefing" and "harassment", if the victim decides so. **** the EULA, and **** impartiality, they get to decide what griefing is, not CCP's long standing rules.
Wrong. I stated that it's acceptable and appropriate for someone to raised a ticket when they feel they are being griefed or harassed. Code go out of their way to grief players to get as many "tears" as they can get, so it's not surprising that many people feel griefed by that. Only when CCP turn around and say "you're not allowed to make tickets when you feel griefed unless Kaarous says it's OK" will your opinion on whether or not you think their complaint is valid actually matter.

Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Not only that, but any attempt to protest this deliberate abuse of the petition system and request that the actual, literal rules of EVE Online be followed instead... is itself admission of being a "griefer".

The pitfall of subjectivity, everybody. Give him a big hand, he's been most helpful in showing us all that carebear sentiment must never be tolerated, because it never fails to lead to Trammel.
I tell you what, if you don't like it, report me. If you feel me telling the general public that it's OK to raise a ticket if they legitimately feel like they are being griefed is griefing you, then please, by all means report it.

It doesn't change though that at some point, CCP will get fed up with losing subscribers because groups like code want to grief and troll people and humiliate them publicly, and they'll come down harder on the "don't use RP to excuse harassment" rule. And it won;t be the carebears fault, it will be yours. You want to push the boundaries of what is acceptable, and you're the one that will get bitten in the ass when CCP strengthen those boundaries.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Steppa Musana
Doomheim
#416 - 2015-01-08 12:40:49 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Honestly, Lucas, you are really exposing yourself here.

According to you, it is not only acceptable, but also appropriate for miners to abuse the petition system, filing reports en masse to try and force CCP to ban PvP in highsec. Because apparently non consensual PvP in highsec is automatically "griefing" and "harassment", if the victim decides so. **** the EULA, and **** impartiality, they get to decide what griefing is, not CCP's long standing rules.

Not only that, but any attempt to protest this deliberate abuse of the petition system and request that the actual, literal rules of EVE Online be followed instead... is itself admission of being a "griefer".

The pitfall of subjectivity, everybody. Give him a big hand, he's been most helpful in showing us all that carebear sentiment must never be tolerated, because it never fails to lead to Trammel.

You must be a ballerina.
Black Pedro
Mine.
#417 - 2015-01-08 12:47:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Black Pedro
Ramcath wrote:
That's not a big deal, that's just the internet, but I've yet to see any pro-ganking thread that offered any type of relevant idea beyond the freighter pilots just need to be smarter. If CODE changes the way hi-sec is operated then I say... good.

Ok, then what is the problem? Freighter pilots (and other haulers, and miners too) have all the tools to be practically 100% safe in highsec. Even CCP Falcon has explicitly said that freighter pilots are responsible for their own safety. Why are changes or new mechanics needed then if you have all the tools to be safe, and the developers of the game make it clear you are suppose to use them?

Ramcath wrote:
It's great to have villains, but even though gankers don't see their tactics as abusing the game mechanics doesn't mean others do, and if enough of them get their voices heard then CCP may make changes that hurt the game more than help it.

CCP has, in crystal clear fashion, ruled that bumping is not an abuse of game mechanics. Will CCP change their minds at some point in the future if enough players whine? It's possible, but they have been unusually clear on this point so I don't see that happening. You have to play the game based on the actual rules, not what you hope or expect CCP to do in the unpredictable future. Simply just adapt your gameplay to the actual rules of the game to minimize the risk of bumping to your freighter.
Ramcath wrote:

I'm not saying my ideas are perfect with no pros and cons, just points of view that should be considered as I try to analyze the entirety of the subject of ganking objectively. As soon as a I read a ganker post that is likewise then I will give it a fair thought.
Your point of view is noted, but objectively, freighter ganking is an extremely rare event in highsec relative to PvP losses in the game. Further, freighter ganks are intended to be possible as confirmed by CCP many times as is the validity of bumping as a tactic to facilitate those ganks. Therefore, it is my position as a ganker that it is your responsibility to play the game with this rule set and to protect your ships by the several methods at your disposal.

If you spend the effort and avoid the gankers by one of the many strategies available to you are "playing Eve" and that is commendable.

If you come to the forums asking for a button that gets you out of PvP engagements at no cost because you do not want to actually bother spending effort to secure your space assets, you are not "playing Eve". You are just whining.

You are not entitled to press 'Autopilot' before you go out for a pizza, only to come back to find your stuff safely moved across New Eden. Get some escorts, do some scouting, and actually play the game.
admiral root
Red Galaxy
#418 - 2015-01-08 14:06:51 UTC
Steppa Musana wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
*snip*

You must be a ballerina.


You quoted the wrong post there. Pretty sure that should be a reply to Lucas.

I just had a look at the usual 3 systems to see just how dangerous highsec has been in the past 24 hours. It's pretty disgusting, in a not enough ships blowing up kind of way:

Jumps Kills %
Niarja 32,779 109 0.33
Uedama 32,429 101 0.31
Jita 52,974 333 0.63
Totals 118,182 543 0.46

My usual disclaimer: this includes all ship kills, not just ganks. In a shocking development, Marmite have been spotted in Uedama of late, far from the safety of the 4/4 docking ring, so there may be more war target kills in that system as a result.

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#419 - 2015-01-08 14:20:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Lucas Kell
admiral root wrote:
Steppa Musana wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
*snip*

You must be a ballerina.


You quoted the wrong post there. Pretty sure that should be a reply to Lucas.

I just had a look at the usual 3 systems to see just how dangerous highsec has been in the past 24 hours. It's pretty disgusting, in a not enough ships blowing up kind of way:

Jumps Kills %
Niarja 32,779 109 0.33
Uedama 32,429 101 0.31
Jita 52,974 333 0.63
Totals 118,182 543 0.46

My usual disclaimer: this includes all ship kills, not just ganks. In a shocking development, Marmite have been spotted in Uedama of late, far from the safety of the 4/4 docking ring, so there may be more war target kills in that system as a result.
I note that you *still* seem to be making the incorrect assumption I'm talking about people just ganking. Perhaps you need to learn to read a little better, but if you pay close attention, you'll notice that I don't have an issue with players ganking. What I have an issue with is players ganking (or for that matter bumping) specifically to upset, harass and grief another player, then publicly humiliate them. There's a difference between those two you know, and the isk value killed is completely irrelevant to the latter.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

admiral root
Red Galaxy
#420 - 2015-01-08 14:23:51 UTC
Wow. The ballerina comment was definitely aimed at you. I know this will come as a shock to you, LucasVeers, but there are other people posting in this thread. If you took the time to read what others have posted (oh, the humanity!) you'll see there's been discussion of safety in highsec. I have a habit of posting kill stats for the same three systems (for consistancy, and because they're high traffic, high kill systems) when people bring up the subject. The numbers, which are always taken from dotlan, invariably show that highsec is stupidly safe.

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff