EVE General Discussion

Who makes flying in high sec unsafe for the gankers? I hear that argument used again and again from the gankers point of view on the miners. And do not say concord. That is not an answer. That is a punishment after the fact. I say that because the goal of the ganker is to mess up the miners day stop him from accomplishing his mission to mine. To that end the ganker is not only profitable but doable and safely in high sec as well.

On the reverse side who is it that can do the same to the ganker? Who can stop the ganker from completeing his mission by force? Who can do it profitably as a way of life and income? The answer is not to buff the mining ship. Who makes high sec unsafe for the gankers mission? Answer is another miner that can buy a 30 day GCC timer on the ganker so anyone in high sec can attack that ganker legally for 30 days.

Outrage you want to say. Maybe but I hear of all sorts of stories of pirates flying around in high sec at less than -0.5 sec status which essentially makes them free to kill in high sec by anyone and yet they laugh at the police and high sec players in general as incompetent and not capable of stopping them anyway. So whats the big deal. Are the gankers afraid of a challenge?

So if a miner could buy this GCC timer after a gank on the ganker for up to 30 days well then high sec is not safe for that ganker to fly in any more either for those 30 days anyway. I think it is time for something like this.

As a footnote ganks were never intended as a method of gameplay by the devs at CCP. It was a loophole in game mechanics that invented ganking. It has recently become bad enough that CCP revamped the barges because it was an attempt to moderate this loophole. Perhaps CCP needs to look at it as a game mechanic, and flesh it out more as I suggested or some other game mechanic added to eve as a control.

The ganker does not even have to think about tanking his ship for an attack he just goes about a fit for max gank damage sort of exactly like the miner that fits for max yield. But nobody is a threat to the ganker so why even think about a tank? It is detrimental to the mission of the gank itself after all so why put any tank on a gank ship? The arguments around mining and ganking are all one sided and that should not be. Where is the balance? I am asking?

You are wrong on all of your counter points and you know it.

You should also know that ganking is not a game designed mechanic. A voice recording does exsist of the first guy that discovered how to do a gank and asked the GM if it was an exploit to protect himself from the ban hammer. The GM stated in his reply it is not intended gameplay but was allowed and will not be considered an exploit. That does not make it a game mechainc even if in your own mind you have made it so.

No, he really isn't, and people's inability to provide even the slightest shred of a hint of something that could, with a bit of good will, be generously interpreted as showing any of them to be wrong rather nicely demonstrates this fact.

This, however, is patently nonsense, since ganks existed and were allowed from before day one. It was entirely intentional, because it was designed that way. Only later did they have to bring in things like CONCORD and enforced costs to put a slight damper on things, since they hadn't fully realised just how these intentions would play out.

So yeah, no. We really shouldn't know any of that because it is something that only exists in your head.

Dammit.

Ok, fine, but you'll have to come to carebear central to get it.

That is the wrong question, you should've asked "But will it blend?"

It only takes up booster slot 1, so yes, of course you can… It's a nasty hangover, tough.

No, it is more like this

I am an idiot, I shot at a ship in highsec where unsactioned combat is completely forbidden, now my ship is exploding.

what you are thinking of is lowsec, where this happens:

As I fired the final round into the badger on gate, I engaged my warp drive with 90% structure remaining on my blaster merlin. Concorde's gateguns may be powerful, but as a crafty person I have my ways to maximize efficiency.

On the other hand, I think making concord have a bigger difference between 0.5 to 1.0 would be interesting, such as having the potential to "avoid" concord from a system that borders a low sec system, for example, concord "allows" you to warp, but only to a low sec gate, and nothing else. They basically say "Go into this low sec system now, or we will destroy your ship". You then receive a flag that would result in concord attacking whatever ship you are in once you come back to highsec. This could be an interesting way of getting people into lowsec.

The alternative I'm proposing is a shocking one. Leave it alone. It's not broken, don't try to fix it. HS enforces a material cost on aggression. That's what makes it High Sec. Removing that cost is a terrible idea. Trying to add ugly, kludgy ideas full of aspects that run contrary to CCP's goal of player run industry to kinda-sorta remove the cost is a worse idea.



Then what did you mean? You said you wanted the supply of these ships to be controlled by CCP. That implies CCP would seed a certain number of the blueprints/ships at a time. The only "fair" way for CCP to release a small number of items at irregular intervals is through a lottery. If you meant a low drop rate, CCP no longer controls the supply (see ASBs, whose blueprints drop from sites).



Allowing you to keep your ship reduces the cost of ganking from whatever your gank ship costs now to zero (once you figure out how the system to save your ship works). I'd say that's a reduction. CCP's been working on reducing the number of NPC seeded goods for a while. Why add more? And again, NPC seeding does not result in CCP controlling the supply; it results in an unlimited supply.

You're the one proposing this thing, you're the one claiming it will create a black market, but you don't know how it will do so? So you want me to imagine how your idea will do something that you claim it does? By the way, the term "black market" has no meaning in lawless space. It's just a market.



They only contradict each other if you ignore the word "IF" in the second line. Suppositional Phrases are like that.

These aren't "minor holes" these are major conceptual problems with your proposal. If these things are expensive and have a low chance of escaping (i.e. can't wtz, can't make effective use of wtz bms) nobody's going to use them. Besides that, if escape is essentially allowed by the RNG (like a 15km max deviation on landing would cause, as 15km off the gate means death to gate guns but 0 means survival), the stories you're trying to create through game mechanics () will suck, consisting of "Well, the RNG liked me and I landed on the gate all the way home." If they have a high chance of escaping or the escape is not predicated on the RNG, everybody will use them, and the cost of ganking will plummet (either to zero if escape is skill based, or to whatever probability*cost indicates if it's RNG based). If it goes to zero, there's the problem that Wardecs are mostly worthless, HS is barely distinguishable from LS, and industry and trade come to a screeching halt. If it's RNG based, there's the same problem of the stories sucking (similarly shared by the skill based escape, as stories about winning against NPCs generally suck to begin with). Those are the possible implementations of your proposal. Either it's random and the cost goes up, it's random and the cost goes down, or it's skill based and the cost goes to zero.

If you want to make good stories, fight other people. Stories about killing or escaping NPCs in a game like EVE are utterly boring because computer AIs are not smart, they never surprise you, and, after the first 2-3 times you fight them, they never challenge you at all. Stop trying to get CCP to give you interesting AI opponents and go fight another person.

As I said above, my idea is leave it the hell alone. Have CCP stop trying to nerf ganking and work on making wardecs useful (i.e. fixing corp hopping).

Fly out in your pod, train diplomacy and/or get your standings back up, and then fly out what you left behind.

…or just set up a transport contract.

How do I get standing up? I can train Diplomacy, But other than that, how is it done?