These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

I'm worried for the future of CODE and EVE online.

First post
Author
Lin Suizei
#161 - 2015-10-12 12:34:05 UTC
DrysonBennington wrote:
Another solution would be to use Jump Bridges where CODE normally operates at. Since a Jump Bridge allows a ship to jump 5ly it would therefore be possible to establish a Jump Bridge network through High Sector to points across New Eden that the freighters could use for a price of course to avoid CODE altogether.


If only I could like this post more than once...

Lol I can't delete my forum sig.

Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#162 - 2015-10-12 12:34:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
This. CODE is a bit like the Westboro Church.
This coming from somebody who posted that he would laugh if he saw somebody roundhouse kick a certain player in real life...

CODE., with 1 historical exception, keep their shenanigans pretty much ingame; they certainly have never advocated threats of real life harassment and violence unto other players, nor do they laugh about it.

Edit: the person I quoted has eve-mailed me about this post and made accusations of falsehood by myself in my initial statement regarding his previous posting, as well as making thinly veiled threats regarding CCP intervention if I continue to point out his own hypocrisy.

In response I shall leave fellow posters with this link, judge for yourselves whether or not he has the moral high ground to be comparing an ingame organisation to a morally corrupt and reprehensible real life hate group masquerading as a church.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#163 - 2015-10-12 12:34:56 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
roberts dragon wrote:

the future of code reminds me of runescape when they stopped the gankers seal clubbing players , the player base did shrink a lot but game was is still going strong today moral there .


The playerbase back then shrank 40% in a matter of weeks. In fact, Runescape is so desperate that they are opening a full time PvP server. Too little too late, of course.

So be honest. It killed the game.

Just like it killed Ultima Online too. Apparently that's what you people want to have happen to EVE Online, too. But I already knew that, carebears are like locusts, they kill a game then they move on and try to kill more games.


lol Kaarous is being nice by saying locusts rather than Ebola Big smile


I'll be honest, it had crossed my mind. Especially the one guy who went crazy and ran around peeing on people.

"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.

Sibyyl
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#164 - 2015-10-12 12:38:34 UTC

DrysonBennington wrote:
I tried dealing with CODE and had a rather good team of Anti-Code pilots going against them in High Sec.


Dryson,

Yourself and Anti-Ganking lost both the propaganda war and the ISK war against CODEdot.

There are many A-Gers who are excellent pilots and good players (Jennifer, Khergit), but I would argue that A-G is largely (and quite ironically) ignored by the very people you're trying to save. How many Industrial pilots have you tried saving who don't even respond in Local because they're totes AFK? Miners?

You've posted a list of things Haulers can do to avoid being ganked. There is already a well-known, long list of remedies for being ganked. Do we really need to rehash it?

Joffy Aulx-Gao for CSM. Fix links and OGB. Ban stabs from plexes. Fulfill karmic justice.

Salvos Rhoska
#165 - 2015-10-12 12:39:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Sibyyl wrote:


Every single discussion we have on this topic boils down to people remaining in un-wardeccable NPC Corps. Every single one. Every single NPC Corp player who comes into GD will eventually assent and admit that being un-wardeccable is why they stay in the NPC Corp.

This game grew when it fostered the attitude of EVE being harsh and dangerous. It shrinks when CCP attempts to cater to the sort of hisec population that everyone knows will eventually quit the game out of boredom anyway. We have developers from CCP Rise to Falcon insisting with statistics that people don't quit the game over griefing, then instituting policies just to protect the very same fickle-minded playerbase from activities perceived (but not actually responsible) for making them quit.


  1. If you are into PVP, then you know what harsh and dangerous is. I don't think this discussion has anything to do with risk-averseness as far as picking PVP engagements go. That is a completely separate (but important) discussion.
  2. If you are not a PVP player, but you're the kind of player who is perfect for EVE, then you will continue to play EVE even when it becomes super dangerous
  3. If you are not a PVP player and danger is upsetting to you, then EVE isn't the game for you and you would have quit anyway.


When we choose to cater to #3, we lose subscriptions from #1, #2, and #3 because EVE becomes boring. It's as simple as that.


I agree entirely.

I have a post somewhere (dunno where) that addresses this much the same as you do here.

I think NPC corps should be war-decable. Not so you can attack the NPC elements of the corp, but only the capsuleers in it.
I see no reason why players in NPC corps should not also band together against threats, as they would in any other cirp, against mutual aggressors. The one difference being that they cannot declare war on anyone else, as they are merely capsuleers under the auspices of anNPC corp, to which none of them have CEO and executive functions.

One caveat however, is the concern of new players who automatically end up in one of these, and whom would become unduly easy targets. To reconcile that, I recommended new players joining a new "Capsuleer Training Corp"-style universal corp, rather than an NPC one. This creates problems in the traditiinal character generation system though, where players are prompted to choose an NPC faction. But I think this can be re-aligned so that the player is, in his history, FROM that school/NPC corp, and will default to it, once their character has been active for 30 days, from the war-dec immune "Capsuleer Training Corp".

So roughly:
-Choose NPC corp in player generation.
-Upon generation, member in Capsuleer Training Corp (wardec immune).
-30 days ensured in this corp.
-Thereafter player is automatically shifted to NPC corp of their previous choosing. (Wardecable)
(Or join a player corp, before or after).

Do you get what Im saying?

Implementing this creates no problem in regards to existing characters already in NPC corps.
Their only difference, is that they are now vulnerable to wardecs, and have to resort to community action to secure themselves within that corp, same as everyone else.

Id suggest that wardecing these newly open target NPC corps costs substantially more than player corps.
Reason for this, is the huge quantity of targets such a wardec provides, as offset against those capsuleers restricted capacity for operating the NPC corp.
So possible to wardec, yes, but very expensive.
I think thats a fair and equitable result.

(Brb, heading out for more beer and smokes)
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#166 - 2015-10-12 12:46:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
DrysonBennington wrote:
I tried dealing with CODE
By coming up with hilarious and unworkable shitfits that would have absolutley failed to do what you thought they would do?

IIRC you also came up with the "unstoppable" scissors technique, the unstoppable bit referring to the peals of laughter when people read your post about it.

Quote:
and had a rather good team of Anti-Code pilots going against them in High Sec.
Some of the AG guys are indeed good, you weren't one of them and their being good had nothing to do with your "leadership".

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack

Sibyyl
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#167 - 2015-10-12 12:46:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Sibyyl
Salvos,

Make it so that players less than 30 days old (pick a number) in an NPC Corp in EVE are immune to aggression mechanics of wardecs. No special Corp needs to be engineered into the game.

Joffy Aulx-Gao for CSM. Fix links and OGB. Ban stabs from plexes. Fulfill karmic justice.

Anize Oramara
WarpTooZero
#168 - 2015-10-12 12:52:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Anize Oramara
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Sibyyl wrote:


Every single discussion we have on this topic boils down to people remaining in un-wardeccable NPC Corps. Every single one. Every single NPC Corp player who comes into GD will eventually assent and admit that being un-wardeccable is why they stay in the NPC Corp.

This game grew when it fostered the attitude of EVE being harsh and dangerous. It shrinks when CCP attempts to cater to the sort of hisec population that everyone knows will eventually quit the game out of boredom anyway. We have developers from CCP Rise to Falcon insisting with statistics that people don't quit the game over griefing, then instituting policies just to protect the very same fickle-minded playerbase from activities perceived (but not actually responsible) for making them quit.


  1. If you are into PVP, then you know what harsh and dangerous is. I don't think this discussion has anything to do with risk-averseness as far as picking PVP engagements go. That is a completely separate (but important) discussion.
  2. If you are not a PVP player, but you're the kind of player who is perfect for EVE, then you will continue to play EVE even when it becomes super dangerous
  3. If you are not a PVP player and danger is upsetting to you, then EVE isn't the game for you and you would have quit anyway.


When we choose to cater to #3, we lose subscriptions from #1, #2, and #3 because EVE becomes boring. It's as simple as that.


I agree entirely.

I have a post somewhere (dunno where) that addresses this much the same as you do here.

I think NPC corps should be war-decable. Not so you can attack the NPC elements of the corp, but only the capsuleers in it.
I see no reason why players in NPC corps should not also band together against threats, as they would in any other cirp, against mutual aggressors. The one difference being that they cannot declare war on anyone else, as they are merely capsuleers under the auspices of anNPC corp, to which none of them have CEO and executive functions.

One caveat however, is the concern of new players who automatically end up in one of these, and whom would become unduly easy targets. To reconcile that, I recommended new players joining a new "Capsuleer Training Corp"-style universal corp, rather than an NPC one. This creates problems in the traditiinal character generation system though, where players are prompted to choose an NPC faction. But I think this can be re-aligned so that the player is, in his history, FROM that school/NPC corp, and will default to it, once their character has been active for 30 days, from the war-dec immune "Capsuleer Training Corp".

So roughly:
-Choose NPC corp in player generation.
-Upon generation, member in Capsuleer Training Corp (wardec immune).
-30 days ensured in this corp.
-Thereafter player is automatically shifted to NPC corp of their previous choosing. (Wardecable)
(Or join a player corp, before or after).

Do you get what Im saying?

Implementing this creates no problem in regards to existing characters already in NPC corps.
Their only difference, is that they are now vulnerable to wardecs, and have to resort to community action to secure themselves within that corp, same as everyone else,

(Brb, heading out for more beer and smokes)

This is a very, very bad idea.

Explain to me why *any* wardec corp would NOT be wardeccing the NPC corps 24/7/365 for access to tens of thousands of easy to kill alt and new bros?

The NPC corps won't be 'wardecable', they will be wardeced every single waking and sleeping second for the rest of eve. People will make thousands of 1 and 2 man corps. heck this might even have a negative effect on the economy as you lose that npc tax isk sink.

Hell you might as well remove concord response for any new character over the age of 30 days.

A guide (Google Doc) to Hi-Sec blitzing and breaking the 200mill ISK/H barrier v1.2.3

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#169 - 2015-10-12 12:54:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Kaarous Aldurald
Yeesh, this ended up in the wrong thread.

Anyway, Dryson is a laughingstock, I have to agree with Jonah on that one.

"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.

Tisiphone Dira
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#170 - 2015-10-12 13:08:00 UTC
Nooo, not me timbers!

There once was a ganker named tisi

A stunningly beautiful missy

To gank a gross miner

There is nothing finer, cept when they get all pissy

Amber Starview
Doomheim
#171 - 2015-10-12 13:45:57 UTC
It's weird to hear people arguing how great high sec pvp is as I have only ever seen it as griefing players who can't/don't know how to fight back properly .
We have other types of space to pvp in so go there ,I'm not against high sec dunks tbh for rare and valuable ships but the ability to junk dunk on noobs then goad them in local because "boredom" is complete bs .

Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
The Conference
#172 - 2015-10-12 13:59:27 UTC
DrysonBennington wrote:

I tried dealing with CODE and had a rather good team of Anti-Code pilots going against them in High Sec.

The thing with CODE is they follow the freighter traffic around so countering them by best done by altering the flight paths of freighters through bottleneck areas.

Another solution would be to use Jump Bridges where CODE normally operates at. Since a Jump Bridge allows a ship to jump 5ly it would therefore be possible to establish a Jump Bridge network through High Sector to points across New Eden that the freighters could use for a price of course to avoid CODE altogether.

One network could be four POS in a system each have a Jump Bridge that are connected to other POS in adjacent systems. This means a Jump Bridge network could be established out of Jita, Uedama, Aufay etc. with local POS. The freighters would receive clearance through the POS shielding only after they have been established to not be CODE...I can see CODE right now setting up covert freighters not assigned to CODE to gain access. This network will have to have the upmost security involved and should only be operated by Corporations who have long known each other and their freighter pilots. Once the network had been established the freighter would Bridge over local CODE bottleneck points to the end point Bridge System POS where Freighter pilot would then ferry their goods to the selling station in smaller Industrials and then return to the POS with goods to be loaded into the freighter for the return haul. This might seem to be a daunting task but it would ensure freighters at least would make it through with their haul.

Barges on the other hand would then come under attack for a while until CODE lost more than they were making thus ending the CODE problem in New Eden forever.

This network would be very profitable for the builders as an empire would spring up around them that would include many miners who would be employed to provide the Bridge Network with the necessary fuel it needed to stay online.

CODE would not be able to attack these POS either because they do not have the strengths or numbers to do so as they would lose more ships and ISK in trying to defeat a Large POS than it would be worth to attack it.

At least something good came out of this thread. We got a new hilarious DrysonBennington plan. Big smileBig smileBig smile

I mean how can you not always win (ALWAYS!) if you have such people as opponents? Big smileBig smileBig smile
Salvos Rhoska
#173 - 2015-10-12 14:00:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Anize Oramara wrote:
Explain to me why *any* wardec corp would NOT be wardeccing the NPC corps 24/7/365 for access to tens of thousands of easy to kill alt and new bros?

The NPC corps won't be 'wardecable', they will be wardeced every single waking and sleeping second for the rest of eve. People will make thousands of 1 and 2 man corps. heck this might even have a negative effect on the economy as you lose that npc tax isk sink..


1) Yes, you are right, they would be wardecced constantly (albeit at a greater isk price for doing so, dunno if that edit made it in before your post). Especially if wardec costs/mechanics are changed, as is the word on the grapevine.

2) Yes, you are right, the incentive to make small corps will sky rocket. I dont see a problem with that. I think its a good thing. NPC corp members have three options as a result, a) organize defence within the NPC corp on a player basis b) join an existing player corp c) form their own corp. All three options result in more player based content, than the current status quo. Furthermore, with thousands of 1man player corps, wardecing is reciprocally compromised, according to its existing mechanics, in the sense that i) there are so many wardeccable player corps ii) those corp members can simply create another corp, and continue as before.

You perceive these results as negative, for various unstated reasons but which I can understand and imagine nonetheless.

I, however, see the results as positive.

Yes, my view is a deal more hardcore, unforgiving and demanding than yours.
But I think I am justified, rationally. It will hurt players vested in NPC safety, initially, as they make the transition, but its good for the game overall.

Its a bit like finally, invariably, kicking the kids out of the nest, so they learn to fly on their own and survive in the world.
They might die a bit, but thats ok. They are more resilient than one might think, and will adapt once faced with these adversities.

I see it as a glorious, promising, immediate and enormous increase to player autonomy and content, as thousands of players "fly from the NPC nest" and establish themselves in player corps, or make their own. This is exactly the kind of hard love incentive and action the game needs atm, inorder to promote more playercontent.

Some wont like it, and maybe leave the game. Thats unfortunate. Its certainly a hard chsnge to adapt to. But on the otherhand, the potential diversity in player autonomity and content could herald a new golden age (in HS and elsewhere they might emmigrate to) of independantly motivated individuals shaping and fighting for their future in new ways.

In anycase, the result would be extremely dynamic and change the face of EVE forever, as thousands of players fly out from underneath the NPC cover, and make their future with other players instead. That alone, is a very strong argument for this.

Imo NPC corps should be wardecable (albeit at great cost, considering the amount of targets and essentially inefficient and undynamic NPC corp structure). Imo thats a good thing for the game, and returns PvP to HS. I think players leaving NPC corps to existing player corps, or forming their own, is also a good thing. All of this removes player interacrion from underneath the NPC umbrella, into player based entities.
Anize Oramara
WarpTooZero
#174 - 2015-10-12 14:15:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Anize Oramara
Amber Starview wrote:
It's weird to hear people arguing how great high sec pvp is as I have only ever seen it as griefing players who can't/don't know how to fight back properly .
We have other types of space to pvp in so go there ,I'm not against high sec dunks tbh for rare and valuable ships but the ability to junk dunk on noobs then goad them in local because "boredom" is complete bs .


Organised, bankrolled ganking is a symptom of NS being one giant big blue balldonut

A guide (Google Doc) to Hi-Sec blitzing and breaking the 200mill ISK/H barrier v1.2.3

Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#175 - 2015-10-12 14:22:14 UTC
Anize Oramara wrote:
Amber Starview wrote:
It's weird to hear people arguing how great high sec pvp is as I have only ever seen it as griefing players who can't/don't know how to fight back properly .
We have other types of space to pvp in so go there ,I'm not against high sec dunks tbh for rare and valuable ships but the ability to junk dunk on noobs then goad them in local because "boredom" is complete bs .


Organised, bankrolled ganking is a symptom of NS being one giant big blue balldonut



You cling to that idea, but it's false. It's seated in the idea that people are in high sec ganking because they are bored. It's nonsense, people gank because they either like the activity on it's merits, or they like (love) extracting tears for mentally weak people (or, most likely, a bit of both).

Null is not and has never been 'all blue' despite that complain originating in 2005, and even if it was, it has nothing to do with ganking, gankers exist because high sec exists, and high sec exists because CCP (like other game developers) knows that some people need that level of 'safety' to play a video game. You could make null the most fun thing ever and as long as one 'willing to cry in local' type player exists in high sec, gankers will exist in high sec.
Salvos Rhoska
#176 - 2015-10-12 14:24:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Sibyyl wrote:
Salvos,

Make it so that players less than 30 days old (pick a number) in an NPC Corp in EVE are immune to aggression mechanics of wardecs. No special Corp needs to be engineered into the game.


I understand what you mean, but this is very difficult to implement intuitively and rationally.

How would it be apparent that these <30 day characters, as part of the same NPC corps, are immune to aggression of wardec on the corp?
Would the system flag them as neutral, rather than red, per the NPC wardec? That could work, though its a bit contrived.

There is another reason also why I proposed a proper, separate "Capsuleer Training Corp" as a rookie style corp of first contact and membership. Its so that new players are among their peers, as new players, in that corp, rather than among any number of disinterested members in an NPC corp. I know NPC chats. They are largely silent and very unhelpful to new players.

I dont think new players in a wide spread of NPC corps, is a good thing.
I think its better, if they are all in the same "new player" corp.

There, though they are all noobs, they can together reinvigorate and refresh EVE as a new generation, among their peers.
They have the same problems, issues and concerns. Together, they can form relationships that might result in a new player corp, or in them joining an existing corp togethrr, as allies.

Its about them feeling like they can make their own future, together, with others as new as themselves, rather than existing vets who, more often than not, dont really understand what its like for a new player anymore, and with which the experience/asset/concern differential can be very great.

Remember, also, that this suggestion coincides with NPC corps being wardecable, creating a very strong impetus for leaving them to existing player corps, or forming your own.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#177 - 2015-10-12 14:29:38 UTC
Amber Starview wrote:
It's weird to hear people arguing how great high sec pvp is as I have only ever seen it as griefing players who can't/don't know how to fight back properly .
We have other types of space to pvp in so go there ,I'm not against high sec dunks tbh for rare and valuable ships but the ability to junk dunk on noobs then goad them in local because "boredom" is complete bs .



The idea that gankers only gank out of boredom is wrong.

And I've seen this before, the idea that only 'valuable' ships should be ganked. it's stupid, it's actually an attempt by a person posting that idea to exert control over something they dislike.

Sorry, but you don't get to dictate what other players do or why they do it, and as far as anyone can tell, "dunking on noobs" probably helps player retention rather than hurting it. That's probably because the 'dunked noob' will be angry at being dunked, and many people (especially players mentally suited to EVE online) will seek to learn from that experience or even seek revenge, if not from the player, then vicariously (by becoming someone who 'dunks' as well). An empty ship is still a ship in space in EVE online and thus fair game. Your job is to not get ganked, period.

A mining corp in my alliance ganks people in high sec and then recurits them if they show they aren't stupid cry babies, enhancing their corp AND that player's experience all at the same time.
Anize Oramara
WarpTooZero
#178 - 2015-10-12 14:30:07 UTC
Regarging the wardeccing of NPC corps, what you're effectively doing is removing the one last 'safe' place available to many players. You are forcing a playstyle on to them, you are removing the sand form their sandbox, etc.

Also what you did not address was the issue that you effectively removed concord for any player over the age of 30 days. On the other hand the amount of dodging of wardecs will increase by a mind boggling amount. You also have the current NPC corp channels that will be disrupted, making the game less social. So many knock on effects here that ranges from slightly annoying to full scale abuse of current mechanics.

I can't predict where it'll end, what equilibrium will be achieved, only the various possible events (None of them good mind you) between this suggested change and whatever that end is for no positive gain, unlike either of the two sec status changes suggested. Those effect only people breaking the law (as laughable as it is), while this effect people who have committed no crime other than subbing an account and logging in (despicable as THAT is).

A guide (Google Doc) to Hi-Sec blitzing and breaking the 200mill ISK/H barrier v1.2.3

Anize Oramara
WarpTooZero
#179 - 2015-10-12 14:34:23 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Amber Starview wrote:
It's weird to hear people arguing how great high sec pvp is as I have only ever seen it as griefing players who can't/don't know how to fight back properly .
We have other types of space to pvp in so go there ,I'm not against high sec dunks tbh for rare and valuable ships but the ability to junk dunk on noobs then goad them in local because "boredom" is complete bs .



The idea that gankers only gank out of boredom is wrong.

And I've seen this before, the idea that only 'valuable' ships should be ganked. it's stupid, it's actually an attempt by a person posting that idea to exert control over something they dislike.

Sorry, but you don't get to dictate what other players do or why they do it, and as far as anyone can tell, "dunking on noobs" probably helps player retention rather than hurting it. That's probably because the 'dunked noob' will be angry at being dunked, and many people (especially players mentally suited to EVE online) will seek to learn from that experience or even seek revenge, if not from the player, then vicariously (by becoming someone who 'dunks' as well). An empty ship is still a ship in space in EVE online and thus fair game. Your job is to not get ganked, period.

A mining corp in my alliance ganks people in high sec and then recurits them if they show they aren't stupid cry babies, enhancing their corp AND that player's experience all at the same time.

Oh please, nullsec is nothing but one giant crying whining ball of tears over how boring it is and how bad fozzie sov is and how boring it is to grind indexes (even though those exact mechanics were suggested by those exact same people) and how there's no big fights anymore and how everyone is blueballing everyone etc.

Don't get me wrong, there's plenty of small ganks and some minor escalations here and there. Hell I was part of a fleet the other day where there were people form the same alliance on BOTH sides of the fight. People are literally baiting ganking their own supercaps they're that bored.

A guide (Google Doc) to Hi-Sec blitzing and breaking the 200mill ISK/H barrier v1.2.3

Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#180 - 2015-10-12 14:43:49 UTC
Anize Oramara wrote:

Oh please, nullsec is nothing but one giant crying whining ball of tears over how boring it is and how bad fozzie sov is and how boring it is to grind indexes (even though those exact mechanics were suggested by those exact same people) and how there's no big fights anymore and how everyone is blueballing everyone etc.


You must not live on earth then, because people have incorrect perceptions of things all the time on earth. You are aware that the vast majority of people who play this game don't post on forums and such right, that the 'whinning' you hear is isolated to the people who whine, right?

Oh, and fozzie sov has nothing to do with it, before fozzie sov people we claiming people gnaked in hgih sec because of dominion grinding. Same during pos/constellation sov.

The real truth is that people tend to misunderstand the motivations of others when they don't share those motivations. CODE and people like that don't exist because they are bored, they exist because people uniquley suited to provide the kind of entertainment they desire exist. In other words, they like tears and people who cry those tears tend to stick to high sec.

Quote:

Don't get me wrong, there's plenty of small ganks and some minor escalations here and there. Hell I was part of a fleet the other day where there were people form the same alliance on BOTH sides of the fight. People are literally baiting ganking their own supercaps they're that bored.


I'm sure someone somewhere is bored. That has nothing to do with ganking in high sec, as people have been doing that since 2003. The fact here, though, is that you are clinging to a simplistic explanation for something you don't like because that explanation fits into your preconceived notions and biases. That's not a very smart way to be.