Crime & Punishment

And we're going to get those numbers from... where, exactly?



Calls me Gevlon, posts like Goblin.

Your method would tell us nothing. My way may well not be perfect, but it at least takes into account the number available targets that didn't get shot. If anyone wants to have a mature debate about my method then I'm happy to participate and to make sensible changes to give a more accurate picture.

You, however, seem to have come to a wide range of conclusions on everything from ganking to botting to the intentions of Code pilots, have no facts whatsoever to back them up, and don't really seem to care for anyone disagreeing with you.

That sound remarkably like your problem, as you're the one trying to prove that highsec is super safe.

I didn't post any stats or badly analyse anything, I simply stated a method by which you could determine highsec danger levels.

The number of targets not getting shot is fairly irrelevant when determining the level of danger each person is up against, especially when you can't see what jumps are a target and what jump isn't. It might be that every person worth killing that jumped through that day got killed.

Yeah, I know right? Everyone else can have their opinions and conclusions and they don't need anything to back them up, however me using my 9 years of experience in EVE and countless more in other games, development and analytics isn't enough. I need me some more evidence! We both know that the type of evidence being asked for is data neither of us would have access to, and it's demanded as a way to stall the argument.

At the end of the day, If I'm not allowed to claim that ganking is too easy (based on my own personal experience of ganking people, and a general understanding of ganking mechanics), that botters benefit from their competition being removed (based on a basic understanding of economics) and that code are griefers (based on the things they say in local, their blog, their 'tear jar' forum and the countless players claiming harassment) without providing substantial evidence for the claims, then why should I accept your counter claims without the same?

Thanks for the insightful comment.

Again too much Jibba Jabba.

Lucas and experience = rofl

The first option is kind of meaningless. Even if Concord pods Code, theyre just gonna set it up so that their home station is in the same location or directly near their location where they gank.

But the second option is.... Quite stupid. The changes you suggest, ignore the central concept to Eve.

The fact is, that Eve is a game where, no matter what you do, you will never be 100% safe. And the point about safety in eve, is that its balanced between risk and reward.

The problem with what youre suggesting, is that this skews this balance, greatly. A lone ship, with zero tanks, moving through hisec, can never be successfully ganked anymore as long as the pilot isnt afk or just happens to be at the keyboard during autopilot. And thats not how eve is supposed to operate. In eve, youre supposed to have a level of safety that is balanced with the amount of effort you put in. Its why untanked ships are easier to gank, because the pilot has decided to put very little effort in, in order to maximize both risk and reward.

Heres a great example:
http://www.themittani.com/news/alod-bring-me-everyone

With the changes you sugggest, things like these would become impossible. What youre doing, is essentially blaming the gankers for the laziness and perceived entitlement of the freighter pilots. Youre removing the risk, while keeping the reward.

This isnt a game where we reward idiots. This isnt a game where they should be able to decrease the risk, while getting the same level of reward. If they wanted to play a game with little risk and all rewards, they should play Star Trek Online or Hello Kitty island adventure.

And no, pressing a single "esc" key, is not the level of effort that should be enough to escape a gank.

But i wanted to address this aspect of the quote, specifically:


What in the HELL are you talking about!? THEY HAVE A MEANS ALREADY! The fact is, they have the means to scout. They have the means to apply logistics. They have the means to haul less and become less lucrative targets. They have the means to maximize tank.

Every single one of these, are readily available, and readily accessible to every single freighter pilot in eve. The fact that they dont use this, is their fault. And they should be able to cover all of this effort by simply being able to press a single button to log off safely.

Yes, i understand, bringing alts, friends in with logi ships and scouts, is a lot of effort for some people. But thats how the game works. The more effort you put in, the more safer you become. Im sorry, but if you want to do the minimum amount of effort(and yes, i consider staying at your keyboard the bare minimum, you dont see PVP pilots complaining about how they lost their ships despite not being afk), your risk factor is going to be at its highest.

I just want to address this single point for now.

Has it ever occurred to you, that the reason why people keep bringing this point up, is because you keep dismissing it off hand, without addressing the actual arguments presented?

Youre essentially saying that although you accept that there are a myriad of things that a freighter pilot can do to mitigate its chances of being ganked to nearly 0%(Scouts, logi, webber, tanks, etc), its not up to a freighter pilot to employ these means. That a freighter pilot should be able to handle these ganks alone, with minimal effort. And thats just ridiculous.

Those that put in the maximum effort, get the most out of their endeavors. A solo pilot who doesnt ask for logi, who doesnt ask for a scout, who doesnt fit for tank, and simply isnt afk and has a working keyboard, isnt the maximum amount of effort that a freighter pilot can put in.

Fit a tank. Use scouts. Logis. Webber. This is literally the solution to your problem.

You have the means of keeping your assets. Use them. If you dont, you are, by very definition, being an idiot.

Woops, wrong post.

Well, no.

First off, most ganks occur around specific hotspots. Its obvious that flying afk through Uedama isnt a good idea. Most freighters can survive a gank in .9 or .8, because no one thinks about bringing in 50 battlecruisers just to gank a freighter, when they could just as well bring 30 destroyers and gank in a .5 sec system. So you dont need your logis to fly around and gaurd you every second of every jump. When was the last time Code. ganked a freighter in .8 sec space?

But even if that werent the case, the central rule of EVE is not to fly something you cant afford to lose. If youre going to get upset, and if its going to affect you severely, then isnt bringing a couple guys to logi for you, worth it?

As you said, if there is no real benefit for you, then it shouldnt matter. You shouldnt be so pained over the acceptable loss of a ship that has had no real benefit to you.

If your cargo isnt worth the effort to protect, then it shouldnt be worth crying over.

Secondly, it doesnt even have to be a couple guys and logis. If youre moving something that isnt too valuable, but that youd also like to try and keep, all it takes is a scout. A scout that heads out one jump ahead of you, to check and see if there isnt a suspicious Machariel sitting AFK on gate, or 20 Code. pilots in the system who arent flashing red.

Thirdly, this seems to reflect the difference in the amount of effort being placed between gankers and freighter pilots. Youre saying that a freighter pilot shouldnt have to put in the effort of bringing 2-3 guys to help him, while a ganker should put in the effort of bringing 10 guys along? Sure, isk is a factor in the amount of effort being placed, but so is numbers. And there comes a point where the amount of effort in terms of isk, is outweighed by the amount of effort in terms of people. Its why a 10 billion isk Raven cant win against x10 t2 ravens worth 1/50th in isk.



Active method... as in highslots? Turret hardpoints? Midslots? We know they exist in industrial ships, like the Iteron V, and yet they are rarely, if ever, used. These are people who haul hundreds of millions, sometimes even billions, in these ships. They clearly have midslots, highslots, they can even fit turrets. But most people choose not to. What do you think will change if they added Highslots and turret hardpoints to freighters, exactly? They already added lowslots, and yet too many people ignore putting modules that help them defend, in favor of modules that get them faster to their destination.

But, again, i think thats the whole role that the freighters were intended to fulfill. They arent supposed to be Logis. They arent supposed to be warships. They are cargo ships, haulers, freighters. They move things. We know these things exist in real life too, like trucks, and yet, when they contain something valuable, they have escorts. Think about the Brinks trucks, the trucks that carry around money from banks and small businesses. Theyre built to withstand attack, not to actively defend themselves.

Also, when you say "Took fewer gankers but with more risk(i.e. more expensive ships)", isnt the whole point of bringing 30 people, is so that you can do with less expensive ships that deal less DPS? Where it would normally take the DPS of 3 brutixes, you can bring 10 catalysts instead?

EDIT:

Also, just as a sidepoint, i do consider being able to fit for tank, an active role in defense. Its the players choice, he has an active role in choosing whether he wants to fit a tank or fit for yeild/speed. The fact that they neglect this role in defense, in favor of... non-defensive measures, is their problem.

i do love these threads of tears

This is a lie - LucasVeers is the only one telling the truth.