Crime & Punishment

He's got me on ignore, hasn't he?

Oh, Bob, relieve us of these insufferable fools. Could someone point out the following for me?


Thanks in advance.

Oh didn't you hear? I'm literally Hitler.

Makes sense.

Jonah, his name is an anti-semite play on words to say "he is a kike." I know what I see there, I will not debate with scum like that.

So in summary you are suggesting:
- Loss of docking rights for criminals in NPC stations
- CONCORD being toned down so that they have smarter AI and follow you but were not instant-death
- A new flag where if you gank a freighter you are suspect for 2h
- A new flag or status that affects whether people can shoot you in highsec but persists beyond a security status repair to prevent people from repairing their security status easily after ganking
- a mid-slot module that makes freighters immune from destroyers so gankers have to use cruisers or larger to gank them

Do you really think this will balance freighter ganking? Correct me if I am wrong, but aside from special events aren't almost all freighter gankers -10? I know I usually am whenever I gank a freighter. Therefore they are already perma-free-to-shoot so what will more flags do? And does AG have more success stopping Talos or Brutix ganks? Gankers routinely use the Talos these days and while I don't participate enough to have a large sample size, it seems from my experience there is no difference in the success rate of AG whether I am in Catalyst fleets or Talos fleets. And the faction police already force gankers to stay docked up almost all the time and constantly move while in space so why would another NPC doing the same thing change anything?

Locking gankers out of NPC stations, or better yet, encouraging them to voluntarily base out of a new structure I can see making a small difference as it would force criminals to field a structure that is vulnerable. But the lockout is a pretty draconian penalty that will impact lowsec PvPers, and new players just starting out much more than highsec gankers who already use alts for their logistics. But I have a feeling that even if that was implemented, you would still be here claiming that highsec ganking was unbalanced because although you might have a target to retaliate against, the mechanics of the gank itself would still be the same.

Like much combat in Eve, highsec freighter ganking is pretty much pre-determined by the composition of the forces at hand. If the gankers show up with 20 dudes in destroyers to kill a single ship, I don't see how you can, nor why you should, balance the game so that a couple people can stop them.

You are wrong that there is nothing proactive you can do to stop gankers. It is trivial to protect yourself from gankers if you are willing to spend any effort - Red Frog does this everyday and makes over 99.8% of their contracts. I, and every other highsec ganker do it each time we undock our freighters. But that doesn't seem to be enough for you; you seem to want AG to have the ability to stop everyone's fun by protecting every single ship flying through space. Two dudes can already make a single freighter 99%+ safe even from 20 other players. Why should five or ten anti-gankers be able to protect the dozens of AFK freighters passing through Uedama each day?

You are getting an anti-bumping counter in these new T2 destroyers. You should be happy you have a new tool to mess with the gankers. I respectfully suggest that you use that to hurt the gankers in-game instead of continuing to beg CCP to make more changes to the game in your favour. It is a little unseemly.

You have either lost the plot, or judge others by your own standards.

Now pull your head out your arse, take a look at the expression of the character, then say Hi as a kite.
Then you can unblock him and apologise.

I have my doubts you are man enough to admit being wrong. We'll see.

I've gone from being completely un-bothered by the guy blocking me to actively glad that I no longer have the ability to engage with such a nincompoop.

Cripes, don't tell me "poop" can be wildly mis-interpreted as a religious slur? Hang on, the letters o and p are both in the word "pope", so I must obviously be an evil, catholic-hating monster.

Does a bear poop in the woods if the popes hat is available?

FYP