EVE General Discussion

You really need to improve your quoting style because I have no idea what you're responding to half of the time. Anyway…

Yes it is. Your security is your concern and yours alone. If you want to secure space by keeping people out, it's your job to make sure they can't enter that space. NPCs are not there to enforce those kinds of restrictions — it's up to you to create and enforce them.

Better than “automatic death and being a free-for-all target”? If the penalty is low, it's because players choose to make it low because they choose to not do their job at securing the space they're in. If players can't be arsed with it, the NPCs most certainly shouldn't step in and do it for them. Quite the opposite: the situation should deteriorate to the point where the players realise that they need to step up to the plate and provide the security they feel they need.

No, quite the opposite: I'm looking at it from the perspective of players responding to changes by altering what they do and how. I also don't see any fault in the gameplay. I particularly don't see it as a flaw when people refuse to adapt even when there is ample room to do so and plenty of tools available. That means the fault is not in the design but in the player decisions.

No, I really don't. I could just as well view it from the perspective that highsec is simply a place where aggression comes at a cost, and CONCORD and the different factions are simply mechanics to enforce this design.

No we are not. You might be, but you are not “we”. Also, RP is secondary tertiary dead last as far as game mechanics considerations go. If you want to balance the risk/reward ratio — something that is almost entirely player-created, then go do so. You are a player; create the risk and reward you think is suitable.

Oh, trolling goons! Me not surprised.

Are you as incapable of thinking as I have come to believe you are, or is it simply lack of proper English which makes you unable to comprehend large bits of text? That "tl;dr"-version was all for you, my sweet, tear-dripping little bunnies. You're in my thoughts, not unlike the mentally challenged children in the day-care next to the bus-station where I live.

The RP part of EVE is definitely dead, and has been for a long time. People need to understand that todays EVE is just an FPS without the first person mechanics and with a terrible interface. In fact, it's more like an RTS, only without the skill involved.

But yes, I agree the penalties are too low. Suicide gankers should be forced into hard labour chain gangs and made to mine 20 million m³ of veldspar in a Procurer for each ship they gank, and their victims should be able to throw snowballs at them and mock them incessantly.

Only then will there be true justice in EVE.

CONCORD exists to punish, not to protect. I think the OP is missing this small but important fact of CONCORD's existence.

Miners do not have a right to CONCORD protection. CONCORD will punish those who disobey high-sec rules, but if the gankers are willing to accept the punishment that CONCORD doles out, it is up to the miners and not CCP to increase the risk of ganking.

If you want to make mining less risky, make yourself harder to gank. Get a friend in a Scimitar and some escort ships to run security for you; gankers don't like the idea that they could get blown up before they get their juicy kill.

That's why I wrote at the top of the post that I couldn't post the post because I had too many quotes; of course the result would be incoherent - I'll try to adapt from now on.

Indeed, and I agree, my security is my responsibility, but I'm talking about the penalty of committing murder.


I disagree. In my opinion, the different security systems fills an essential purpose to New Eden; it makes it diverse and full of life. I can choose to stay in high security space or I can choose to join an alliance in null; either way, I should feel an obvious difference rather than the lacking of useless NPC's and a failed story-line.

You are correct that the players against e.g. hulkageddon need to step up and fight back, because CONCORD shouldn't fight their war, but CONCORD should have a will to protect CONCORD space from undesirables, and equally so should the factions.

There is a saying in EVE that our actions have consequences. I guess I really don't see what harsh consequences suicide-gankers have when breaking laws in empire.


I agree about the need to adapt, which I have previously mentioned, and I think it's a fantastic tool offered to us by the system, but I also believe, like I've said, that the security status of the systems should play a greater impact; it's important to allow diverse, sandbox-gameplay, and it would balance an unbalanced equation between industrialists and suicide-gankers.


Yes, you really do, because that is what it says it is - but it doesn't live up to the image.

CCP has a hard time with this; of course they don't want all of New Eden to be null, because then it would only be you, your friends and your friends alts in the game, but neither do they want to punish you too hard when you attack high sec. It's hard for CCP, which I understand, but I believe this needs a bit of balancing.


Yes, we are, because that is what EVE says it is; we don't have control over empire space.

Yes, it is dead, which is my point; it shouldn't be dead. I'm not talking about RP, though, but more logic and consideration of the story-line.

Damnit Tippia, every time I see your corporation name I hear this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9riCK5ivhis

Ah grasshopper you so missed the opportunity before you. If it were the broad side of a barn I think you still would have missed it.

The title is: Is the penalty for suicide-ganking too low?

The assumption is maybe CCP will change Suicide ganking.

My point number 3. is CCP has a lot of latitude when making changes to suicide ganking ie. they already removed insurance payouts from suicide gankers. A step which is reducing ISK from the game during this activity which did not happen before infernos release by comparison. So relative to pre inferno they already have taken a step to reduce ISK from the game during this activity. But so much more can be done. And then your statement is wrong in context to pre inferno relative to post inferno.

Next the action of suicide ganking is not putting the ISK into their pockets. It is the action of the miners when they buy a new hulk that is putting ISk into their pockets do not confuse those two very different things as one in the same.

You got it in one there. CCP Likes Suicide Ganking, as it's helping flush all the illegal botter isk out of the economy. Just wait until the great minerals crash that's coming, then you're gonna see some real fun!

Can a person criticize without thinking this or that about hulkageddon? I can't even fly a hulk since I just started my industrial alt, and I consider mining in WH to be so goddamn profitable I'd biomass my characters before I started belting in high sec.

Stop presuming things. It makes you look like a transvestite on crack.

With all this effort going into "save us" posts, how about even looking into any existing possibilities to protect yourself and organize your own safety. I mean you're not bound by game mechanics to mine afk without a tank in busy systems or systems with only a few belts. I don't see any "go forth and gank" buttons in the UI, yet you seem to want artificial safety.

Oh yeah "we don't want to ban ganking but make it so gankers are not allowed in high sec" . Brilliant logic and totally objective as expected