EVE General Discussion

Your argument falls quite flat on it's face when you consider that EvE has more than enough resources to sustain several times it's mining population. And that supply and demand of the resources is regulated through a free market system.

With many wild animals their populations are already limited because there aren't enough resources to sustain a population growth. Hunting licenses are actively given out to hunt animals whose populations would otherwise deplete said resources. Not to mention that those resources are in no way or form regulated though a free market system.

It's a cute metaphor that I'm certain makes you feel very valuable and grand in your role as ganker, the mighty hunter in the jungle protecting those poor miners from themselves. But that's really all it is, a fantasy to make yourself feel good.

Because the thing is that, due to EvE's setup, large parts of the system are self-regulating. Miner profits may have gone down but miner costs, through replacing ganked ships, have also gone down. And should miner profits drop below a certain level then you'll see miners turning to other professions instead. Because unlike deer which can't suddenly start eating meat miners can switch to mission-running, WH-life, FW, ratting etc.

The whole thing will balance itself out. With, or without, gankers there.

You can always gank them, just use more ships and guns to do it.

Natural selection was at work:
Miners were getting better at their trade, learning to tank, cooperating and adapting to ganking tactics.
Stupid sheep were dying off.

But then CCP decided to dump a huge truckload of 'stupid miner food' into the playpen.
And now they are multiplying, and getting dumber.
Good job CCP way to reward bad play.

Nope it sounds then like you have neither a sound argument or a sound reason to even post... so it must simply be a troll post then of complaint about a lack of cheap KB padding...

I would be more impressed if you out fitted an exhumer wit T2 and factional stuff and went out looking to take on a smart-bombing BS, that sir would impress me... short of that... I feel you post is full of weak-sauce.

I can see your the kind of person that thinks something like arson isn't a crime it's just lulz fun.. until it happens to you as the victim of it... then it's all

Arson[1] is the crime of intentionally and maliciously setting fire to buildings, wildland areas,[2] cars[3][4] or other property with the intent to cause damage.

Arson has four elements.

The elements are:
1.The malicious
2.burning
3.of the dwelling
4.of another

The malicious – for purposes of common law arson "malicious" means action creating a great risk of a burning. It is not required that the defendant acted intentionally or willfully for the purpose of burning a dwelling.

burning – at common law charring to any part of dwelling was sufficient to satisfy this element. No significant amount of damage to the dwelling was required. On the other hand mere discoloration from smoke was insufficient. Actual damage to the material from which the structure was built is required.[6] Damage to surface coverings such as carpets and wallpaper is insufficient.[6] Arson was not limited to the burning of wooden structures. Any injury or damage to the structure caused by exposure to heat or flame is sufficient.

of the dwelling – dwelling means a place of residence. The destruction of an unoccupied building was not considered as arson, "[s]ince arson protected habitation, the burning of an unoccupied house did not constitute arson." At common law a structure did not become a residence until the first occupants had moved in and ceased to be a dwelling if the occupants abandoned the premises with no intention of resuming their residency.[7] Dwelling includes structures and outbuildings within the curtilage.[8] Dwellings were not limited to houses. A barn could be the subject of arson if it was occupied as a dwelling.

of another – burning one's own dwelling does not constitute common law arson. However, for purposes of common law arson possession or occupancy rather than title determines whose dwelling the structure is.[8] Thus a tenant who sets fire to his rented house would not be guilty of common law arson,[8] while the landlord who set fire to a rented dwelling house would be guilty.

Furthermore, "[t]he burning of one's own dwelling to collect insurance did not constitute common law arson. It was generally assumed in early England that one had the legal right to destroy his own property in any manner he chose."[9]

Now try to build a justification for this activity as "lulz-fun' and that will pass a court of law and you might have a justifiable reason for it not being treated as such in EVE... basically your the "devil's night" group that gives everyone a pain in the butt feeling even other pvp'ers which scorn you activities as a bastardization of there legitimate kill records and activities on the boards...

My beef is really the KB scores...to many people use this as a quick fix to pad the boards... it was a pain in the ass and cluttered up the servers, was basically exploited and finally ended in a way that improved the game... everyone, minus the gankers has seen this as a plus... you had your day in the sun... now try another career...

:obligatory popcorn:


bzzzzzzzt "the asteroid is depleted" F1, turns page. Semi afk mining does take some effort took me a while to make those bookmarks that mean I can hit a whole belt from 2 or 3 points.

Nice post but can i posit an alternative


There is plenty of Ore that does not get mined out and there are vast swathes of systems whose Ore remains untouched on a daily basis.

The problem is that only a finite amount of minerals will be required by builders per day and if there is more than that available then the price will go down and everything else further up the chain.


This is good for everyone but miners as ship prices decrease and so does the price of plex.

So if you are a mission runner/bear/ganker then you win at the cost of the miner.



If CCP left a tenth of the tank of a mining barge from prebuff levels then this would be a miners game and only the very best adaptive miners would make a fortune in distant unexplored regions of the game and all of the rest of us would pay through the nose for our goods.

Problem here is miners whined and CCP changed the game for them. They didn't adapt or change tactics themselves. Thanks to this short sightedness miners are going to suffer a loss of income, just when things were looking good.

First and foremost, this is a game and not a court of law. I'm wondering if the pressures from real-world environments will be mirrored in Eve Online, not whining about not being able to gank anymore, which I most certainly can.

So basically your entire post boils down to morality, which amounts to "I don't like the way you play and I'm glad if this ruins it for you."

Congratulations. You missed the real discussion.

Why is it The Rest of Us have to adapt and change while miners don't? Miners whined that us mission runners were 'mining' more minerals with a battleship and ammo, so ( usually crap ) loot drops were nerfed. Supposedly all these reprocessed minerals being sold cheap were driving their profits down. How about they adapt and put up buy orders in all the high population mission hubs and buy those cheap minerals? It's not hard, trust me.