Assembly Hall

CSM,

I'm after the summit so this may be after the point and an old topic but I would encourage a look at bumping in EVE.

Please consider:
1. If one were to impact or ram another's vessel in reality it would most certainly be considered a hostile act.
1a. I get it, EVE is not reality.
1b. Should bumping be a "Concordable" offense?
2. Sometimes people get bumped by friendlies on purpose to help align time.
2a. Exempt criminal status when in a fleet with the impacting vessel.
3. Sometimes newbro's accidentally bump other players.
3a. Can there be a way to have a box pop up that says "Vessel Impact Detected" and give options of "forgive" or "report"?
3b. In this way AFK players could still be "coded."

Thanks for all you do!

JoE

Why should it have a disincentive? New Eden was specifically designed as a full-time, PvP sandbox with no safe spaces. Why should intended game play be discouraged through disincentives?

But regardless, the consequences for being a highsec criminal are extremely harsh, so harsh that most players (at least highsec residents used to their NPC-enforced safety) flat out refuse to ever commit a criminal act. The consequences for becoming an outlaw prevent the pirate from doing anything at all in highsec but constantly moving about in small ships: no PvE, no other PvP, no resource gathering, or even just acting as a scout in space. Even for non-outlaws, illegal aggression earns you a 30-day kill right that forfeits your free, NPC-enforced safety blanket which many players are not willing to give up. I would say that is not marginal.

What is marginal is the "value" you say they earn. Killboard stats are not valuable — they have no direct in-game impact on the game. Killmails the same, they are just a record of an event. They may motivate some players, but they have no effect on the game itself. Even things of real value in-game, like say the cargo of an overloaded freighter, are not "generated" by ganking. Those assets are just transferred from one player to another as a consequence of a PvP encounter.

This is not just a semantic distinction. Risk vs. reward is an important idea to balance resource generation in a single-universe sandbox game. Generating resources like ISK and minerals into the universe devalues everyone else's resources. Balancing the effort and risk of generating things against the risk of loss (and vulnerability to the other players) is necessary to prevent hyperinflation and to give meaning to these industrial activities (and to generate content). Piracy has none of these issues — it only destroys virtual items while creating content. From a purely economic view, it is only a good thing as it stimulates the economy.

Why should CCP lock out players from playing the game as they intend for it to work? It's doesn't seem wise to straight-out mechanically bar your paying customers from playing the game as you built and sold it to them. If CCP decides they don't want players shooting each other in highsec, wouldn't it be easier to just lock out the ability to illegally activate weapons against other players in highsec? Then the pirates could at least go on and do something else in the game other than sit in a station unable to undock for most of their game time.

Outlaws are already free-to-shoot and enjoy no "highsec protections". You don't need a wardec at all — just go shoot them.

This isn't really the thread to rehash the "one more nerf and it will now be balanced" debate. The round-table is, I assume over, as is the CSM summit. However, I will point out that the existence of highsec piracy is very much intended by CCP. The fact another player can attack you in highsec is not an oversight or exploit, but an intended profession and feature of the game which CCP developers spent significant development time coding into the game. Whether or not you think it fair, other players have the option of accepting the consequences of illegal aggression and exploding you and taking your stuff. They can do that for in-game profit, for intangibles like a killboard, as part of a greater sandbox cause, or just for fun. It is up to you to use one of the many tools CCP has given you to protect yourself from them (and this is where you should focus your concerns about ganking if you have any — the fact you can be attacked is not a problem and completely intentional but if you feel there are not sufficient tools to mitigate and counter those attacks, that would be of valid concern to the game developers). They have deliberately made you content, like they have of all of us, as that is the game.

So I suggest you play that game and use the many methods provided to mitigate the risk from other players instead of coming to the CSM and asking them to petition CCP to tilt their PvP game in your personal favour at no cost or effort for yourself. That is just a waste of time for all concerned.

Highsec is most certainly high security. It is not "safe security" as you seem to imply, but it never was intended to be.

High security space is exactly that: highly secure. Red Frog Freight makes 99.83% of its deliveries. CCP Quant's numbers show that destruction in highsec makes up ~0.2% of the value goods imported/exported from the various highsec regions (and that is from all causes, not just ganking). The chance of you losing a ship to criminals is extremely small under most circumstances, probably approaching zero if you stay at your keyboard and spend any effort to defend yourself. The few situations that put you at great risk — making yourself a valuable target by carrying too much cargo for instance — are completely within your control and these risks are easily mitigated by various fits, ships or behaviours.

I am not sure how much safer you want highsec to be before you consider it high security. A 0.001% chance of losing a ship? 0.00001%?

Actually I do know the answer: zero. You won't be happy until non-consensual PvP is not possible in highsec. If that is the case, I can only say that you should consider whether a PvP sandbox game that features non-consensual PvP everywhere by design is really the game for you.

In any case, this has nothing to do with the OP so I am done here. Present your ideas in the appropriate forum if you wish to continue a discussion.

The Idea of Combat ships attacking Non-Combat ships is a part of the bigger problem. As all Indy type ships (miners, haulers, freighters, etc) are designed so that they perform in a task with no thought of full combat capabilities. A way to fix A lot of the problems is to just create these ships with combat in mind.

Consider that all combat ships now can be outfitted for different role types except the Indies. Take any combat ship and it has multiple bonus that allow it to be configured for different Roles/Jobs. Take that same concept applied to Indies. They could have options to run a build set up for either great defense or offense, or have them ewar to confuse there attackers and allow escape. Or they could run a build set up for max proficiencies on their particular job (mine, haul).

There is no reason that any of the Races in EVE, after years of wars and pirates and other such combative events would not have by now updated there ships to reflect the environment they work and live in. In all arms races guns get bigger, and armor gets better. From sticks and stones to guns and bombs, to nuclear warheads and unmanned drones. How is it that the indies are the only ships in EVE that have not evolved with the game? You see all kinds of advancements with new technologies and such from the different races on how they build there combat ships but Indies are just the same or worse off from 2003. seriously???

If Indies were able to have options to get creative with their builds like others are, there would be incentives to learn combat playstyles more than just the basics, they would provide a more lucrative target because they would carry modules other than freight, mining upgrades. Ganking would not be consider such a unfair and unskilled possible harassing play style.
(I know this will get some peoples hair standing up, I don't mean it is truly unskilled but most serious Low/Null sec and PVP players don't think taking toss away ships and ganking unarmed Indies is a skill worth learning. It does take some effort to organize and equate gain Vs Loss on the gank runs. But the combat effort is warp in, stop Indy from moving, then just wait untill it goes pop.)
If Indy pilots and high sec players were able to fight back, then it would not be so much of an issue about unfairness but more about a learn 2 play because they were ganked. And we all know Gankerz are going to Gank.

There is no reason why not to do this.

Think about it for a moment, so many players have posted that Eve is PVP and that has to be accepted when you undock. Eve is not a single player game, interactions will happen whether you want it or not. Not only would this make a better way of "Content Creation" but it would add fun to the ganker with more challenge and to the Indy who wants to fight back and or protect his assets. This would force everyone to learn combat for self defense not just for mission running. By incentivizing Indys with combat capable ships they would need to get("GUD") proper skills to fight. As it is no Indy really needs to train out side of their profession.

Would this make it harder to gank? No, not really. Player will adapt and overcome by changing tactics to still get the achieved effect of a gank. Look at all of the Ganking over all, I would say that anything out side of high sec cant be considered ganking as it is open season down there and everyone accepts that. So that leaves the real issue only in High sec, and OVER 75% ganks involve Indy ships. Then my question is why wouldn't those people have outfitted their professional ships for such an extremely dangerous job with combat upgraded versions or something?

We used to have ..I believe Frigates, cruisers, and battle ships with mining options. So this is not a new concept and its not totally an alien one either.

I am not saying to make these ships the best at any particular combat style like solo gank, group buff, or what ever. What I am thinking is that it would have bonuses that would allow it to either fit for its INDY profession or have other bonus toward combat that allow it make combat builds to either flee, defend itself, or stand and fight.

Give Indys a choice that everyone else already has. With the new update for barges and exhumers maybe there is some possibilities there, but in reality you still cant truly defend yourself from other players or even attack players with any of those. Even so that is not comparable to full choice when looking at all other ships in the game and then looking back at the Indy line and seeing how poorly they have evolved with the game.

There is no reason I can think off that this should not be done. If you can please let me know.

Remember this is EVE and combat is in every part of Eve. It was in its conception, its in its creation, it's always going to be a part of Eve. Anyone who has visited or lived in Eve knows this is true.

Combat and PVP is a huge part of Eve, NO ONE can say that is not true. So if it is such a big part of eve, why then do Indies not get to be part of it? Give Indies combat capable ships that perform career specific roles and you will see a better overall Eve.

Honestly what do you think?

A freighter was bumped for 5 or 6 hours earlier this week and there was no gank attempt against the freighter. It was only freed from the bumping when the second bumper disconnected from the game.

At what point is the ganker community going to collectively admit that bump-tackling *while defended by concord* is absolutely broken?

Jin'taan, in a probably futile effort to get this thread back on a semblance of topic (seriously people, make a new thread for your latest "nerf ganking" idea), I would like to ask you if you could provide any information or feedback that came out of this roundtable, and the first one as well.

Reading the CSM minutes, it seems that highsec criminal mechanics were not discussed at all outside of the impact of alpha clones on the practice. The only discussion of the actual mechanics of highsec crime (that made it into the minutes at least) seems to be a completely inaccurate graph showing the number of attackers vs. ISK Lost. Almost certainly that shows all highsec freighter losses, not just those due to suicide ganks (given you can't gank a Rhea with 4 attackers), and since wardec losses make up a large fraction of highsec freighter kills, especially jump freighter kills, the graph is really not useful.

Regardless, I would appreciate it if you could find the time to report what feedback you collected on this issue from your two roundtables whether or not you had the opportunity to present it to CCP.