These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

CCP, why do you allow Hi-Sec to be a haven for gankers

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#81 - 2016-07-25 15:06:08 UTC
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
Lucy Lollipops wrote:
I have the opinion the game would be closed after maybe a couple of month without the income of all the hisec players that I really think are much more than what you imagine.

lead the way!

Don't forget to contract me your stuff before you go
No 'tis mine, I called dibs on it already, along with her SP and corpse Twisted

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack
Nostromo Fidanza
Blueprint Mania
#82 - 2016-07-25 15:06:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Nostromo Fidanza
Plus I don't get the big problem. You can always mine in a Skiff/Procurer and fit it for tank and make it hard to be ganked. CCP has given miners the tools it's not like you have nothing.

I'm not an anti-ganker but lots of people run to two mining accounts at once. So as an example instead of doing that you could have one character mining and another in a falcon with some kind of ecm if a ganker comes in. That might work.
Khan Wrenth
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#83 - 2016-07-25 15:08:03 UTC
Lucy Lollipops wrote:
After I read developers answers like the one above I think they deserve to lose every single hisec miner/social/pve player, I would be extremely curious to see what would happen to this game.

I think developers really deserve it.

We can start with you and see how it goes from there.

Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
Lucy Lollipops
State War Academy
Caldari State
#84 - 2016-07-25 15:08:56 UTC
Maekchu wrote:
Lucy Lollipops wrote:
I have the opinion the game would be closed after maybe a couple of month without the income of all the hisec players that I really think are much more than what you imagine.

Sure, it's all doom and gloom. EvE has been dying since 2003.

The real question is, why do you guys keep playing a game that clearly creates discomfort for you?

Do you like self-inflicted pain and misery? Why don't you just quit and end the suffering, if it really is so bad?




No discomfort.

Simply disgusted by someone's attitude and because it's a forum I want to say it eve if it annoys you ( or even if it's pleasurable for you, I don't care at all )

Sounds simple.
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#85 - 2016-07-25 15:09:09 UTC
Nostromo Fidanza wrote:
Plus I don't get the big problem. You can always mine in a Skiff/Procurer and fit it for tank and make it hard to be ganked. CCP has given miners the tools it's not like you have nothing.

I'm not an anti-ganker but lots of people run to two mining accounts at once. So as an example instead of doing that you could have one character mining and another in a falcon with some kind of ecm if a ganker comes in. That might work.


I think you will find the OP was talking about being ganked in a T1 Indy.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
Nana Skalski
Taisaanat Kotei
EDENCOM DEFENSIVE INITIATIVE
#86 - 2016-07-25 15:13:02 UTC
Maekchu
Doomheim
#87 - 2016-07-25 15:20:45 UTC
Lucy Lollipops wrote:

Simply disgusted by someone's attitude and because it's a forum I want to say it eve if it annoys you ( or even if it's pleasurable for you, I don't care at all )

Disgusted? Maybe that is a bit extreme don't you think.

Some people like mining, some people like suicide ganking. It has become way easier to go about your business safely in highsec, while on the other hand it has become way harder to do activities like suicide-ganking. Yet, highsec players wants even more. They want complete safety. Complete safety would be detrimental for EvEs economy, since destruction creates demand.

Sure, it's sad that the OP got their ship ganked, but as many people have pointed out in this thread, it was the OPs own fault. Many countermeasures could have been taken to avoid this loss. But still it is not enough and we need even more safety mechanics, because for some reason suicide-ganking is not a valid option in a sandbox.

I understand, that you try to say that every way of playing the game is viable. But maybe, some highsec players should see suicide-ganking as a viable way of playing the game as well and consider figuring out ways to avoid losses, instead of crying on the forums for CCP to provide more safety mechanics.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#88 - 2016-07-25 15:21:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
Nana Skalski wrote:
Let ganker gank another ganker for fun for all eternity. \o/

In low sec.


And there it is!

Don't play the way you like, play the way (and in the place) that Nana Skalski prefers you to play. The "playstyle chauvinism" you claimed existed does exist, only it comes from you, not the gankers. You revealed your self with your comment, you are against a totally legal and valid playstyle.

Even when I did play in High Sec, I didn't expect others to stop playing their way because I didn't like it. I knew that it was on me to take care that they didn't kill me.
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
The Conference
#89 - 2016-07-25 15:21:18 UTC
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
Lucy Lollipops wrote:
I have the opinion the game would be closed after maybe a couple of month without the income of all the hisec players that I really think are much more than what you imagine.

lead the way!

Don't forget to contract me your stuff before you go
No 'tis mine, I called dibs on it already, along with her SP and corpse Twisted

Meh, I am always too late :-) . Are you really sure you want to inject part of here brain into yours?

Evil RatKid
Ramses Davaham
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#90 - 2016-07-25 15:22:48 UTC
Lucy Lollipops wrote:
Ramses Davaham wrote:
Lucy Lollipops wrote:
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
Lucy Lollipops wrote:
This is the reason I think it would be well deserved if all hisec players would go "on strike" for some months or leave the game.

I would probably start mining since the ore would now be much more valuable.

On the other hand there are a lot of highsec miners and industrialists which are perfectly capable of operating with gankers in the system. They are even glad we kill of their stupid competition who are too dumb to play the game and get killed in their untanked and unprepared ships. I don't know how many times I got a stack of free Catalysts and a thank you from a happy local highsec industrialist.


Only in your dreams.

I have the opinion the game would be closed after maybe a couple of month without the income of all the hisec players that I really think are much more than what you imagine.


An opinion is not a fact.....good thing too considering how utterly moronic it is.


Moronic you say to your mother....


That's what someone says when they have noting to show for it....keep on trolling.....it's what your good at when you get ganked after all.
Nana Skalski
Taisaanat Kotei
EDENCOM DEFENSIVE INITIATIVE
#91 - 2016-07-25 15:25:32 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Nana Skalski wrote:
Let ganker gank another ganker for fun for all eternity. \o/

In low sec.


And there it is. Don't play the way you like, play the way (and in the place) that Nana Skalski prefers you to play. The "playstyle chauvinism" you claimed existed does exist, only it comes from you, not the gankers. You revealed your self with your comment, you are against a totally legal and valid playstyle.

Even when i did play in High Sec, I didn't expect others to stop playing their way because I didn't like it. I knew that it was on me to take care that they didn't kill me.

Not chauvinism at all, compromise. They will play like they want, only change will be where. Twisted
Gankers will gank, carebears will care, averyone happy. Lol

ᴇᴠᴇʀʏ ᴘᴀʀᴛ ᴏғ ᴀ ɢᴀᴍᴇ ʜᴇʟᴘs ᴛᴏ ᴛᴇʟʟ ᴀ sᴛᴏʀʏ 📕

ᴡʜᴇʀᴇ ɪs ᴀɴɢʀʏ ᴄᴏɴᴄᴏʀᴅ ɢᴜʏ ᴡʜᴇɴ ʏᴏᴜ ɴᴇᴇᴅ ʜɪᴍ

ᴏsᴘʀᴇʏ 🚀

≡⋁≡ ♥
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#92 - 2016-07-25 15:27:32 UTC
Nana Skalski wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Nana Skalski wrote:
Let ganker gank another ganker for fun for all eternity. \o/

In low sec.


And there it is. Don't play the way you like, play the way (and in the place) that Nana Skalski prefers you to play. The "playstyle chauvinism" you claimed existed does exist, only it comes from you, not the gankers. You revealed your self with your comment, you are against a totally legal and valid playstyle.

Even when i did play in High Sec, I didn't expect others to stop playing their way because I didn't like it. I knew that it was on me to take care that they didn't kill me.

Not chauvinism at all, compromise. They will play like they want, only change will be where. Twisted
Gankers will gank, carebears will care, averyone happy. Lol
'

So, your idea of "compromise" if you get what you want and the people you don't like get screwed? Sounds a whole lot lie something a guy we all know would say. A guy whose name Starts with T...


...And suitibly ends with "Rump".
Sonya Corvinus
Grant Village
#93 - 2016-07-25 15:30:02 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
So, your idea of "compromise" if you get what you want and the people you don't like get screwed? Sounds a whole lot lie something a guy we all know would say. A guy whose name Starts with T...

...And suitibly ends with "Rump".


But how can anyone get screwed? We're going to make America great again. I heard it on TV. It has to be true if it was on TV.
Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#94 - 2016-07-25 15:32:50 UTC
Nana Skalski wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Nana Skalski wrote:
Let ganker gank another ganker for fun for all eternity. \o/

In low sec.


And there it is. Don't play the way you like, play the way (and in the place) that Nana Skalski prefers you to play. The "playstyle chauvinism" you claimed existed does exist, only it comes from you, not the gankers. You revealed your self with your comment, you are against a totally legal and valid playstyle.

Even when i did play in High Sec, I didn't expect others to stop playing their way because I didn't like it. I knew that it was on me to take care that they didn't kill me.

Not chauvinism at all, compromise. They will play like they want, only change will be where. Twisted
Gankers will gank, carebears will care, averyone happy. Lol

throwing the "undesirables" out of your sec isnt a compromise, its about as far from a compromise as is possible.

Murderers of Negotiable Motivations

=]|[=
Keebler Wizard
Skew The Suits
#95 - 2016-07-25 15:40:19 UTC
The right ship with the right fit would help? A 93k ehp passive occator will make a pretty rough time for anyone trying to gank it. I've yet to see one person try. Hauls 61k m3
Chronos Thiesant
Deep Sky Enterprises
#96 - 2016-07-25 15:48:41 UTC
Nana Skalski wrote:
Let ganker gank another ganker for fun for all eternity. \o/

In low sec.


Just going to throw this out there, most gankers gank for more than just "lulz". If I were a ganker would I prefer to go after a freighter hauling a billion in loot, or a fellow ganker in low?

One is pointless meaningless arena style pvp, the other is appropriating a players hard work through valid mechanics. Mechanics which, as this thread shows, are endorsed by the Devs.
FearlessLittleToaster
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#97 - 2016-07-25 15:55:31 UTC
CCP Falcon wrote:

In a sandbox game that's designed purely around player interaction, cause and effect, action and reaction, why should the game provide you with a 100% safe option, and why should there be a position in EVE where you're isolated from interaction with other players?


So that being said will you go talk with the design team about bubble immune insta-warping interceptors please? I can unflag myself for PvP for about 25m Isk.

And yes, I know I'm a jackass for beating this dead horse. But it makes me so mad I just have to keep kicking it to see if it will twitch.
Chopper Rollins
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
#98 - 2016-07-25 15:59:01 UTC
I've just been looking at the news.
Then i skimmed this thread.
The people complaining about hisec need to shut up.


Goggles. Making me look good. Making you look good.
Sarah Flynt
Red Cross Mercenaries
Silent Infinity
#99 - 2016-07-25 15:59:23 UTC
CCP Falcon wrote:
In a sandbox game that's designed purely around player interaction, cause and effect, action and reaction, why should the game provide you with a 100% safe option, and why should there be a position in EVE where you're isolated from interaction with other players?
That goes both ways however. When glaring loopholes in the mechanics of looting in highsec are left wide open for years and on top of it the survivability of the wreck gets the mother of all buffs, I can see how some people get the impression of favouritism taking place.

Sick of High-Sec gankers? Join the public channel Anti-ganking and the dedicated intel channel Gank-Intel !
Skettis Arthie
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#100 - 2016-07-25 16:02:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Skettis Arthie
CCP Falcon wrote:
So again with this topic coming up, I have to ask the super simple question that I ask many of our players who are unhappy with highsec ganking:

In a sandbox game that's designed purely around player interaction, cause and effect, action and reaction, why should the game provide you with a 100% safe option, and why should there be a position in EVE where you're isolated from interaction with other players?

I don't see the logic in CONCORD being anything more than a deterrent, the same way as any real world law enforcement agency operates. They're punitive rather than than proactive in their law enforcement, just the same as real world law works. They act on the principle of an eye for an eye, actually a lot more severe than real world law enforcement.

The issue here isn't the mechanics of the game, but as people have pointed out, the fact that you put too many eggs in one undefended paper thin basket and didn't appropriately protect and secure it.

The in game map, as well as word of mouth, your overview, enabling sound and a myriad of other tools in game can assist you in avoiding taking a loss like this in future. Some of those options are available solo if that's how you choose to play, or you can look to hire a scout or be part of an organization that will in the very minimum of circumstances give you safety in numbers.

You should take this as an expensive lesson, and make sure that you fit appropriately to carry valuable cargo in future. Smile



Comparision between real-(life|law) and eve is stupid at best, eve is a game and it should be fun and satisfying for gamers who play it.

Game mechanics allows a criminal to use hisec empire stations (home), allows a criminal to use hisec empire clone bays - that is very wrong! If a player is an outlaw then restrict his access to empire stations and services, that would be logical! Make them pay for tags in order to fix their sec-status or be on-the-run all the time in order to not get blapped by faction militia - it will be costly and challenging, it will not stop hisec ganking but won't be stupid as it's now.

The OP is very right, CCP is actively protecting hisec gankers giving them (by game mechanics) same rights and benefits as a law-abiding citizen of new eden.

If I'm in the mood, I could easily buy 100 catalysts and ship them to systems surrounding rookie systems and just pop the new players like flyes and still be in order with EULA and station services. That would cost me just around 200M isk which is ... very affordable to do it daily without any issues.


In every single MMO out there if you're an outlaw then you're on your own (even in the old space sim Freelancer), in EVE ... gankers are protected by the "sandbox".