Assembly Hall

Oveur clearly uses the term "piracy". Even if you interpret his use of piracy to mean all non-consensual PvP, he says CCP intends for piracy to be "not easy" in highsec. He didn't say "impossible" or "not allowed" or whatever you seem to be interpreting that as.

CCP has always intended for PvP, both consensual and non-consensual, to be possible in highsec, as long as you accept the consequences. That has always been how it works and how it was intended to work.

Your version of reality does not exist. Feel free to make the case that non-consensual PvP is currently "too easy" in highsec, but claiming that highsec was intended to be 100% free of non-consensual PvP, even by your beloved CCP Oveur, is a pure fabrication of yours.

Ms GoodyMake does have a point, but I'd argue the cause-and-effect are backwards. There is a huge amount of stuff being produced in game. HUGE. Go look at CCP Quandt's report for January. There was a massive surge in in-game production without a similar surge in destruction.

The decline, IMO, is related to changes to HS along the lines Ms GoodyMake is suggesting--i.e. Ms GoodyMake's suggestions will not help, but will exacerbate the downward slide.

That is what HS is for. It is the safest space in the game, although it is not "safe" in the sense that if people want to and are willing to face the consequences they can still shoot you. People typically move around HS with little or no interference. This notion that ganking, especially of new players, is rampant is completely unsubstantiated bullshit. In fact, I'm going to go so far as to call it a lie. A blatant bald face lie.

Further, CCP has looked at new player ganking and here are the findings:

1. It is rare. About 1% of players are suicide ganked in their 15 days.
2. Those who are suicide ganked or even killed legally they tend to play longer than those not ganked at all.

Bottom line is that ganking, of new players is both rare and not detrimental.

Here is a presentation of the analysis:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A92Ge2S8M1Y

I know many will try and trash the analysis, but please don't I'm tired of taking apart idiotic arguments from boneheads who know ****-from-shinola when it comes to statistics. For example, this was not a mother fecking survey. If you start talking about a survey you are a moron. If you think 80,000 is too small, you are a moron. If you think that debunking the analysis--i.e. some how coming up with a valid criticism of the analysis makes suicide ganking an issue for new players you are a moron.



There are safe havens in the game, they are called starter systems. CCP takes a dim view of certain activities directed at new players in those systems. Engage in those activities after being warned off you will, in all likelihood, be banned.

Another place where you can go and avoid PvP is the test server. IIRC, there are designated PvP zones, but the rest of the systems are not--i.e. no PvP unless you consent.

And considering the analysis by CCP this notion of "safe havens" is exactly the wrong approach. It is the wrong approach because people who avoid PvP and player interaction in general....they tend to leave the game sooner than later. You have it backwards.

You somehow think there is a problem with people not being save in the early stages of gameplay. Teckos showed you an analysis which basically concludes that people who get blown up are more likely to join. This is very relevant.

I'm not sure why people like you think isolating players for weeks or months from the real game is somehow something a real new player is looking for. Most of them probably get drawn to EVE because the hear about those epic universe shaping battles and not because they think it's an awesome game to mine in perfect safety. So why are you trying to keep them out of the real game?

ok, i will not try to argue whether i think sucide ganking or the actions of Bumbing intill your fleet comes along is allowed or not. i am not good with words and PV players will always argue, and CCP wants PVP actions. it is Simple. Have a 100% Vote in both Alpha and Omega accounts. 100% of the accounts for a 30 Day period. even give some type of award for voteing. and when you give the answer of who voted on what. give the answer of how many % voted based on how many total accutally voted, not how many total accounts polay eve. but ask all the accounts during that 30 nday period, ask how many players think succide ganking showed be allowed. Period. put it up to the player base. and since CCP claims that this is a PVP Game. then the PVP should vote and win. I petrsonally dont think Succide Ganking should be allowed. What % of the Total accounts on the record for a 30 day period. How many accounts want succide ganking not to be legal. of course we are going to argue whether it will be total accounts, one per account to be allowed to vote or one per real person (no matter how many accounts per that person) ius allowe3d to vote. that is another arguement all together.
and if some one want to try to put this in a better describale way, go for it. i will eve read it again and tell ya if that is what I mean to say.

thanks for reading this, and hopefully it will be treated with seriouness.

First off voting sucks. It is a terrible way to make decisions. There is nothing to say that voting will give a "good" outcome. There have been a number of people who have looked at this (link, link, link, link). Voting should be analyzed via game theory and one thing about game theory is that the optimal outcomes are never ensured. So even if the truly optimal answer is "more suicide ganking" there is no mechanism in voting to ensure this is the outcome.

Second many people who are the subject of suicide ganking have literally zero awareness of what is going on in the wider game. None. Even when Burn Jita is announced weeks ahead, even when people are sitting 1, 2, or 3 jumps from systems where ganks happen...here come the freighters, fat, dumb and often full of loot.

More over, even if the vote is: more suicide ganking, that will do nothing to stop the whiners. They'll be back here whining about how so-and-so was dumb and foolish and put 8 billion ISK in his freighter and clicked undock and flew through Uedama without a scout.

Additionally, the idea of voting and imposing a top down solution is antithetical to the philosophy of the game. This is a game that is an open, classless game--i.e. a sandbox. Players drive the game. If suicide ganking is an issue...players should find the solution. Don't overload your freighter, don't autopillock, use a scout, tank your freighter, use a webber, use standings, use local, stop being a doormat and letting everyone walk all over you. Jump in a combat ship with some friends and gank the bumping macherial. Use your combat ships to try and shoot the gankers, many of whom are -5 or lower in terms of security status. If they have kill rights activate those and shoot them.

Nope, by all means lets vote and remove all that potential content.

One last thing, GTFO. Welcome to New Eden.

Orchestrating a successful freighter gank has a lot more complexity than just simple F1 smashing when descending on the target. There are Logistics, people management, ship distribution, scouting, scanning, warp-in positioning, bumping, etc. And that does not even involve the additional steps and precautions and adjustments you have to take if AG tries to interfere.

To simply state "ganking is easy and should be more complicated/expensive" is not an argument for anything. It is a cheap attempt to misrepresent a game mechanic in order to make some equally silly "fix" seam valid.

There are tons of really simple game mechanics like mining in this game which deserve a lot more attention if you care to make ISK acquiring harder.

Seriously, does anybody think the following is reasonable?

"Some players are foolish and imprudent. They take huge risks, either knowingly or unknowingly. And when it becomes known these players have taken huge risks, other players seek to take advantage of this. This is bad. We need to change the game so that players are protected from their own foolishness and imprudence."--signed every anti-ganker everywhere in game

There are maybe one or two guys in the entire game who are even able to multibox large numbers of gank chars to kill Freighters. To call something easy just because one guy is doing it successfully is just blatant trolling and has nothing to do with a real argument.

They are also not the ones who kill empty Freighters as you can see quite clearly on zkill. Kusion as an example (there isn't probably any other anyway) almost exclusively hits valuable ships.

The only reason why empty freighters are killed are:
- Big events like Burn Jita where people just gank everything for entertainment
- Big fleets with many people where you need to provide content to keep fleet cohesion

Those are very good reasons and unavoidable once you realise that EVE is actually played by people and they are here for entertainment. 20 people will not sit in station for hours just to wait for that one big 20bil ISK fish.


Highsec is so safe it probably takes less time to research how to make your chosen profession gankproof than it took you to write this troll post. CCP provided all the tools to make mining, missioning and hauling so save you are almost completely untouchable. A good PvE player has absolutely nothing to fear from a ganker, since he can completely avoid them with some simple steps which are pretty obvious and well known.

The only people who get ganked are people who are foolish and imprudent and don't invest any effort at all to protect their ships or belongings. It is not CCPs job or in any interest of the game to protect people who are simply just bad at the game especially since this is a multiplayer sandbox which even promotes and encourages piracy gameplay.

So according to you its both extremely hard to set up a gank and only foolish over loaders of cargo get ganked AND at the same time gankers gank empty freighters out of boredom. Also in LaLaLand single pilots multibox freighter ganks not because its easy but because they are amazing and your fleets with 15 to 80 players depending on sec status still find it extremely taxing.

Time to get back to reality. Anything that can be multiboxed by a single player is trivial for a fleet.