EVE General Discussion

congragulations you figured out what he was talking about

I'm loving the player generated content in game that spills over onto the forums and creates threads like this.

I'm sure that those who have already made points that you are dancing around will be amused by this one. Seems they've been around most of this thread.



I find that warp disruption bubbles and gate camps in my route are unfair because when I want to go to Jita in my mammoth, people can shoot at me and I can't put enough tank on it to survive on my way to Jita. I lose a lot of ISK when I lose those ships. Even worse if I lose my cargo. This is unfair and makes it so that there is only a win situation for the ganker and not the gankee. I think I should be able to fit AOE doomsday devices or the like so that the gate camps lose at least as much isk as I do. Its only fair.

In the end, your premise is false. No part of EVE is supposed to be safe. At all. EVE is about risk and reward. But does that mean that those who take an active role and gank should lose isk over their victim? Considering that, as youv'e ignored, piracy is a legitimate venture in this game, what sense would it make to turn this in not an unprofitable venture simply on ratios. You are still not showing a legimate cause for why the ratio should make ganking cost the ganker more than the gankee loses.

Your add-on point, that no amount of preparation etc can prevent people from being ganked is also false and has been tried before. If I'm in a belt in 0.0 and there are non-blues in local and I press forward ratting, I'm probably going to lose my ship. That's the fact of things. If there are suspicious ships on grid in an ice belt, or a history of ship losses in a system, and I choose that as a place to set my miner and go make a sandwich, I'm running a high risk that my ship will not be there when I come back. That is my risk and my reward was chosen for me. Before you attempt to call this apples and oranges, each is a case of wallet increase (or eventual decrease) based entirely on the gankee's inabillity to use and process given information to further the existance of their ship. You'll find that the burden belongs on the shoulders of the person who lost their ship and not on the one who shot it.

Essentially, EVE is dangerous and the victims of ganks aren't entitled to make make some sort of profit for inability to do such basic things as tanking their ships and scouting out their mining areas before use.

yes i have seen failed ganks. in fact i have a hulk thats only job is to make gankers die on its hull. but i see you didnt read my post i will say it again

it takes 4 people to make sure a miner dies before he can react (baring he knows they are in system)

cloak covert ops,
move 5 km behind miner
3 BS with smartbombs warp to 5 km
warp away covert ops
pulse smart bombs once on grid
best tanked hulk will die with pod before concord gets there

total cost to ganker 160 mil
total cost to miner 210 mil

gankers loot and salvage the wreaks, collect the insurance for lets say 30 mil so the expected efficiency sits at 162% worst case 131% for assured kills.

works every time

the miner will never know the spotter was there. the gankers can move to a different system or belt unload new ships from an orca even with -10 and continue.

you cant use an escort as it will not have the time to do anything, i have yet to see if a logi can protect you from it, but i dont think so. its an active correction system so unless the miner warps off wile the BSs are in warp (and why would they, they dont know its coming)

this set up can also be trained in about 3 months for the BS pilots, the orca and spotter pilots are never seen therefor never need to be recycled. you can also use the BS pilots for as long as you like even with -10 sec status. the only thing that stops you is your cash flow, and with a nul sec alliance funding the operation that shouldnt be the problem.

therefore the miners have no protection, at all, ever.

eve is a cold harsh world, but it should always let you mitigate some of the risk, not all, but some. in the current incarnation there is no way to mitigate the risk. there are no tools that let a highsec miner protect themselves from always loosing more then the ganker.

now if you could fit a hulk so someone would have to spend 250 mil to kill a 200 mil ship then yes, feel free.



and there lies the root of your problem, this isn't nulsec. this is highsec where there are always unknowns in system. you also cannot actively remove unknowns from the system like you can in nulsec because you have concord.

Not really, no. Users who support gankers just like smart playstyle and the industrial part of the game, to say nothing of player-generated content in a PvP-centric game, whereas the supporters of defense like to be protected without any effort on their part.

If the correct response from a miner to three -10s showing up in a system is always to leave then the -10s have complete risk-free control of the situation and the action of the miners with absolutely nothing that can be done to mitigate their position.

Can't we just make a sticky of this topic? That would make the forums slightly less annoying.

To those supporting the current mechanics:

Do you genuinely think they are perfect and that in this one area CCP have amazingly hit on the perfectly balanced formula that eludes them in every other area of the game? Is there nothing at all that you think should be changed about this system? No nuances, details, or tweaks that could improve balance?

Actually we like to travel in packs of 8 to 10 across High sec, just to **** with ya.

I'm going to have to follow your own rhetorical tactic here and ask you to demonstrate that this would be optimal for the game as a whole. If you are unable to back this up with hard data and numbers (as you demand from those who suggest changes in the other direction) you will only have revealed your bias on this issue and laid bare the impossibility of discussing it rationally with you.