EVE General Discussion

How so? Why should people not be able to blow up freighters just because they're empty? If anything, the opposite would be hilariously broken.

That is a fantasy, not a fact, and the fact that people keep bringing this nonsense up is telling. It shows that they are utterly clueless about all things related to ganking, and yet they feel the urge to change it for no sane or sensible reason.

Incorrect on both points.

it is their concern because the police force does not patrol the area. The fact that you are in higsec does not mean that you can't concern yourself with what other players might do. Quite the opposite. What makes highsec different than low or null is that aggression in highsec comes at a cost — be it cash or assets — that is all. So flying around in highsec comes down to a single, very simple gamble: are you betting that other people will be too cheap and too miserly to blow you up? You can skew that gamble for or against you by making it more or less costly to go for the kill, but at the end of the day, any “security” you experience in highsec comes down to that gamble.

What makes highsec high security is that outside of highsec, you're not betting on something as safe as miserliness, but on effort and time. In null, all bets are off.

You're referring to the empire factions who are at war with each other here?

I see a lot of reports of violence in Yemen and Somolia, but what I don't see is a lot of reports of gangs continually attacking ships there. Given the price of oil these days I'd think that'd be just as news worthy as when piracy was a thing off the cape of Africa before American snipers started knocking pirates off.



Well I'm definitely confused, but more in line with trying to figure out where I stated that it is possible to evade concord now. I'm also confused as how it would make sense that you could evade concord if they didn't have God Powers. See my whole thing is that the God powers aren't necessary to enforce the rule of law. Its not like real cops have them. My point is that in the current scenario of people ganking ships on stations and gates is practically synonymous to a gang of people knocking off 18 wheelers in front of state trooper headquarters... the response would be swift and overwhelming in that case.

TIPPA = "You need to check again. In the early history, you could just blow them up and be on your merry way."

Not sure about the merry way part. But I did find an account of the history you could possibly be talking about. http://www.thecoffeerocks.com/dir/index.php/articles-and-news/84-eve-history-zombies-defied-concord-leading-to-their-revamp

These guys weren't evading them per say, there were merely killing them faster than they could spawn. I don't think that the mechanics back then allowed you to "evade" them.



Arguments can be coherent without achieving their desired outcome. It happens all the time in politics because one side is so entrenched in their opinion that no matter what evidence is shown they wont change their mind. Its the same thing here. Two sides are very entrenched and the debate is going to continue for ever whether you like it, or whether you have input or not.



So having a police force be actually effective at the job would mean that they are inherently broken and require immediate removal? Not sure what evidence you have to back this up.



Because educating the masses has done so well for CCP, or is there some reason that the NPE has to be continually revised on a regular basis?

Ehm… You are aware of the on-going piracy problem in places like the Gulf of Aden, right? To the point where various nations have sent navy vessels down there, shipping companies starting to count ransom money as part of the cost of doing business, and private security companies making bank of the whole situation?

…and the counter-point is that it would make even more sense that people could continuously attack in the same spot if those powers were removed, compared to the already high amount of sense it makes at the moment. You were drawing up a scenario that would make it easier to avoid any repercussions and then rhetorically asking if it “would make sense that they would allow you to repeatedly attack targets in the same system on a daily basis” — the answer to which is obviously “yes” since you've just made it easier.

And yes, back in the day, CONCORD could be evaded — m0o just chose to stay and fight because it was more fun. Or did you really expect the mechanics to be such that they could be destroyed, but were somehow impossible to get away from?

True enough, but the point is that they are not coherent to begin with, since they assume a reality that is… well… not real. Argument for mechanical change based on lore or based on appeal to “the real world” are nonsensical for the simple reason that it is a game. Mechanics serve gameplay — all else is pointless fluff. If the gameplay matches the lore, then great; if not, so what.

So to be coherent, any kind of argument about mechanics have to talk about gameplay or it is just fails to have any kind of point.

Yes. Because if it acted as an effective police force, it would remove tons of content and gameplay, imbalance the game, and completely redefine the entire security system, for no practical reason. Above all, it would mean it would no longer
serve its purpose of being a tax. So to fix the former problem, it would have to be removed; to fix the latter, something else would have to be instituted in its place.

They're getting there, and yes, they're getting better at it. If you take note of all the “think of the children” arguments that fallaciously pop up in these debates, chances are that it's more the older players that are having this problem than the new ones…

You are.

Just because you think I am, doesn't mean that I actually am.

No. The policing bodies aren't enough to deal with the matter, so the carriers enlist the help of private companies and unrelated nations — alliances, if you will. Almost like in EVE, except for that last part. So it's the exact opposite of what you're asking for, and entirely in line with what we're suggesting that haulers do to protect themselves.

No, it's a counter for the simple fact that you say they are less efficient than they are now. You may not realise that you're saying this, but you are.

…unless the player kept away, which was possible back then. It was more of a faff than just blowing them up, though.

No. To be coherent, the argument has to actually talk about what the argument is about rather than something irrelevant red herring. An argument about a change in mechanics needs to talk about gameplay, not lore or reality, because those are in every way utterly inconsequential.

Everything players do because NPCs don't do it, and everything players invent as a consequence of both of those is content. Tons of it. Ganking is a small part of it, yes, but it is less than half of the equation. You are asking NPCs to do something players can do just fine on their own, and that is inherently a bad thing since it removes gameplay. It's even worse since there's no coherent reason for doing so.

You are asking for faction navies to step up patrols in popular choke points for ganking. Thats asking for CCP to protect you.

Actually, what I'm asking for escalating consequences for repeated criminal activity. The form of those consequences is irrelevant to me. That is no way asking for CCP to protect me.

Please provide evidence proving your point.