Crime & Punishment

Literally no, actually yes.

My Dad told me I should always read to the end of a document. Failed again!

Maybe one-day, but to be honest I suck at one-on-one PVP. Also, I'm a carebear and only fight over assets of significant value...

My thunder was stolen... Winning isn't always measurable through traditional metrics, be it killboards or wallets. CODE's metric is completely intangible.

Yea - I might have made a mistake.

Back after a long break and could not resist the temptation - sorry for those who have lived through all the others.

Still think I'm making my point, something is broken when there is no risk. Don't really know the cause but don't think it is ganking. The only obvious new thing used by James315 is Third Party Funding, so probably a combination of that and changes done by CCP

Any ideas?

There's still risk involved in ganking, gankers have just figured out ways to minimise the known risks as much as they can.

There's also risks that they can't minimise because they're an unknown quantity; the risk of failure, the risk of a target paying attention and being prepared, the risk of losing the loot to someone who's on the ball, the risk of the loot fairy being a greedy git, the risk of anti-gankers suddenly getting their act together and actually having a plan beyond "we must stop this criminal plague" and making a lot of noise (yeah I'm pushing the envelope with this one ).

Changes to mechanics have forced gankers to become proficient at what they do and develop doctrines to counter those changes. Third party funding is part of that and nothing more than an SRP, something that is nothing new when it comes to ganking, Goons have had it in place for years for their various hisec holidays.

Just what i needed before work. Keep doin the saviors work code dudes and dudettes.

I think this is another "I'm bored so I'll start a thread about code in C&P" thread.

However, it's worth answering the OP because at least he elaborates (unlike Dryson's hilarious middle east/high sector theories).



Everybody takes a risk whenever they undock. Everybody: gankers, awoxers, wardeccers, miners, Okra pilots, haulers, supreme leaders, pirates, incursion runners... It's always better if those risks are generated by players, of course.

There are already good solutions in-game. Yes, because creating these threads is like writing "I ate lasagna at lunch" on a paper and then throwing that paper into trash. Seraph IX Basarab sums it up in another thread:


This brings me to my point: If you want to see more risks for gankers, then try to create that risk. In other words, be the change you want to see. A very simple yet effective example: There was this ganker called Currin Trading who used to spam some things in Local while flying his outlaw (-10) Thrasher to find a target to gank. I didn't like that, so I followed him with my insta-lock Skiff, predicted his route, tackled him in Poinen and let the facpo do the rest. Quite simple, isn't it? But effective! That's why I like to give this example. His gank operation was ruined, and I was only 0.2 seconds away from pointing his pod too (next time buddy, next time.. ).

I suggest you, for example, to sit at a gate in the Amarr-Jita route, and wait for the red blinkies, or hop on a Griffin and jam out Catalysts, or gank bumpers/gank scouts or any type of action like that. There are some people who do these already. By doing so, you simply create a risk for the gankers. A risk of failure. A risk of additional loss. This website by Astecus can help too, if you're interested.

I hope I brought a clear answer to your question. Tell me If I didn't. These were my opinions about this "risk for gankers" subject.




I'm out of popcorn since 2012.

If being:

1. Well coordinated
2. Well supplied
3. Well informed
4. Skilled
5. Led by good FCs
6. Well versed in game mechanics
7. Backed up by friends

makes CODE. carebears, then, really, who* in EvE isn't a carebear?


EDIT: And by "who" I mean successful combat corps, be your target NPC or player.

It's like how that one guy insists that because I don't lose ships for several months at a time I am bad at pvp. Must be really bad at wars if that's the case cause I haven't lost a ship to a war target since June 2012.

Seriously though taking risks and being consistently successful in spite of those risks means you're good at what you are doing. It does not mean that those risks are nonexistent.

These kinds of "You have accounted for and taken steps to mitigate all the risks involved, therefore there are no risks involved!" arguments are not logically sound.

As I explained above no one in this game, from the Mittani on down to the lowliest highsec mining corporation is subject to involuntary loss of acquired resources. Stuff in stations and ISK are safe from other players and always have been. Why should the New Order be any different?

It is not. If you have some time read Manifesto I and Manifesto II by the Saviour (or listen to Sasha excellent audio recording of Manifeso II) to see where the New Order is coming from. It is very much based on ideology that carebear-ism, the risk-averse kind anyway, is detrimental to this game. The New Order is a player initiated effort to counter those who wish to see risk drained out of this competitive PvP sandbox game.
No one cares what an anonymous forum alt says. After three-years The New Order is used to scorn and attacks. Don't worry about that.

You can label the New Order whatever you want. I have explained clearly to you why you are incorrect, but you are welcome use whatever terms you need to soothe your ego.

Let me try one last time. The New Order has made it their mission to affect the gameplay of classic highsec carebear, that is players who do not wish their gameplay disturbed. Since CCP has made it a feature of the game that such play is impossible - that everyone-is-at-risk thing we started off discussing - the New Order is actually just enforcing the risk vs. reward design of the game.

So you see, the New Order always wins. Either they blow up these carebears affecting their game, or force these carebears to change how they play they game, taking precautions and actually interacting with other players. Interestingly, this is exactly why CCP has enabled suicide ganking in highsec - to force players to adjust their gameplay to account for the risk from other players, presumably because they think this makes for a better and more interesting game.

Seems like everyone, not just the New Order, wins.

What this has to do with the title of "Ultimate Carebear" you have created is still beyond me.