These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Balancing bumping and looting mechanics

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#721 - 2016-02-03 18:05:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
I counted 3 dead bumping machs since Nov 22, 2015. So 1 dead bumping mach every 25-30 days.
Heroic efforts indeed.


Well at least we can see that bumping machs are not really paper thin as some of you guys claimed. Having to throw 3-4 taloses on a mach ain't really trivial.

As for the efforts let's do the math - bumping mach:
- no consequences for bumping whatsoever
- potential for decent income through loot (calculated risk as well)

Anti-ganker ganking the bumper:
- sec status hit
- killright to bumper
- loss of ship / no insurance
- loss of ability to make isk in hisec on the ganker character
- fairly low probability of making any isk (IF bumper has faction mwd fit and if it drops)
- multiply by the number of ships required to perform a gank

So, while a few people in AG don't care about sec hits and killrights, your average hisec dweller will not use his main (usually the char capable of flying a properly fit talos) to gank a bumper. Naturally, your reaction will be for him to grow balls and what not, but I just think that claiming that ganking the bumper to be a valid response to bumping is stupid argument v0v.


They are paper thin....relative to the tank they could fit. And I already noted that it would take about 3 tornadoes to kill it in a 0.5 system. And 3 gank tornadoes will probably cost about 250 million ISK in total. A bumping Mach costs around 750 million. Yeah, you'll lose in this game, but your opponent will lose even more. I have never indicated otherwise.

Why would you lose the ability to make ISK in HS? That is just completely untrue. Your risk might go up to having an active killright, but you can still make ISK.

And you have just proven my earlier post was correct. The denizens of HS are not willing to as far as the gankers to prevent ganking. As such we should expect anti-ganking to largely fail and be ineffectual….by deliberate choice. Whining to CCP or anyone else about a choice you are making is…well rather silly.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#722 - 2016-02-03 18:13:57 UTC
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:

You appear to want the bumping and looting mechanics balanced around the stupidity and laziness of the people who fall victim to those that use the mechanics to their full extent; the thing is that CCP can't fix stupid or lazy, nor should they try to do so. Eve is hard, it's even harder if you're dumb.


Well it seems that eve is actually easy if you understand how to min/max its mechanics, which freighter ganking groups have done throughout the years. There's nothing smart about it, its just the result on focusing on one activity and learning about all the ways how to use every loophole included. Quite like some incursion groups figured out how to max out their playstyle, for example.
While that is commendable, it does not remove the fact that a) bumping freighters in hisec in its current form is stupid for all the reasons which have been already laid down and b) looting which circumvents suspect mechanics is also stupid.

I know that people want to protect their minmaxing game play, that's understandable, but it doesn't mean that we'll stop pointing out just how broken it is.


It is called specialization and in a broader context it is has given us vast wealth (setting aside distribution issues) and even this thing we call the internet. So your scorn strikes me as misplaced.

Further, you are assuming that people who participate in ganking do not do other things in game. You have assumed this is all they do and all they know and therefore are stupid.

Bumping is not stupid because it has given us a type of game play that players themselves came up with and was not spoon fed to us by the developers. Like real world innovations it has been copied and is used extensively by others, but the first people to come up with it and use in ganking…they were in a word, innovative.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Mag's
Azn Empire
#723 - 2016-02-03 18:25:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Mag's
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:
Mag's wrote:

I'm fine with talking about bumping, but it needs to be viewed as a whole. When it's so easy to avoid and you seem fine with that, why are you not fine with the odds reversed within the bump? It quite obviously is already a level playing field, you just don't want to acknowledge the whole field.


Well the odds are only about being able or not being able to avoid the first bump. After that, they stack up to the gankers/bumpers favor without anything resembling what you could call "balance" (although I'm aware that absolute balance is impossible). Regardless of trolls and insults, I understand the tactical importance bumping has in the wider game, that's why you won't see me proposing anyhting related to its change or removal (although apparently, changes are coming). I'm just talking about this 0.1% special case which, I feel, can be argued as poorly designed.
Would I trade webbing freighters into warp for a change resulting in removal or ability to avoid bumping through active gameplay by freighter pilot? Yes. To prevent freighter pilots from raging, ccp could slightly increase their warp speeds to compensate for slower alignment. For example.
You see this is where we disagree. You still view the bump separately from the odds of avoiding it. The balance comes from being so easy to avoid, followed by not being so easy to get out of.

I also don't ever recall you asking for webs to be nerfed, as they are OP. You may have, but now we reach a point that you're asking that there should be more far reaching changes. due to a special circumstance. Nerfing webs and bumping. The OP sure doesn't mention nerfing webs.

I'd still like to see evidence of a problem, that needs such radical game changes.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Iain Cariaba
#724 - 2016-02-03 18:37:37 UTC
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:
Well at least we can see that bumping machs are not really paper thin as some of you guys claimed. Having to throw 3-4 taloses on a mach ain't really trivial.

Yeah, they really are when you considee it's a battleship with only 80k ehp and a pretty large em resist hole.

Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:
As for the efforts let's do the math - bumping mach:
- no consequences for bumping whatsoever
- potential for decent income through loot (calculated risk as well)

This is the risk side?
- There's only no consequences because you AG types are too scared to create consequences for doing so.
- Only potential for decent income because freighter pilots like to over stuff freighters with multiple billions of isk.

On the other side of that equals side is not the risk for anti-gankers, but the risk for freighter pilots.
- no consequences for afk hauling whatsoever, outside of consequences created by other players
- potential for decent isk

Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:
Anti-ganker ganking the bumper:
- sec status hit
- killright to bumper
- loss of ship / no insurance
- loss of ability to make isk in hisec on the ganker character
- fairly low probability of making any isk (IF bumper has faction mwd fit and if it drops)
- multiply by the number of ships required to perform a gank

- I've demonstrated before how inconsequential the sec status hit really is.
- Either they make the killright cheap enough so anyone will activate it or super expensive and people think it's a kr scam. If it's cheap, just have a friend activate it and wait the 15 minutes out. If it's expensive, you don't really need to worry.
- This is why you fly cheap, like the real gankers do.
- See point 2. The only thing stopping you is your own fear.
- Your concern for profit above all else is part of your problem.
- Your inability to organize a force to counter an organized force is irrelevant.

Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:
So, while a few people in AG don't care about sec hits and killrights, your average hisec dweller will not use his main (usually the char capable of flying a properly fit talos) to gank a bumper. Naturally, your reaction will be for him to grow balls and what not, but I just think that claiming that ganking the bumper to be a valid response to bumping is stupid argument v0v.

Just as I think your wanting mommy and daddy CCP to hold your hand because you're too scared of getting a skinned knee is a stupid argument.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#725 - 2016-02-03 19:14:47 UTC
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:
So, while a few people in AG don't care about sec hits and killrights, your average hisec dweller will not use his main (usually the char capable of flying a properly fit talos) to gank a bumper. Naturally, your reaction will be for him to grow balls and what not, but I just think that claiming that ganking the bumper to be a valid response to bumping is stupid argument v0v.


You are quite simply wrong here. You are pointing to reasons people have for not ganking the bumper. That is a choice. It is fine that they have made that choice, but then they have to deal with the consequences of that choice. The consequence is that it makes the bumping ship safer and makes bumping easier, more common, and the same is true for ganking.

Here, let us try this. Setting aside the costs, could the anti-ganking community cause a significant reduction in ganking, at least for a period of time, by ganking the bumping ship(s)? The answer is yes. So why aren’t they doing it? Maybe it is that part we set aside, and which you have listed in your post: the costs. The costs are too high to you, and part of those costs in your view are forgone ISK. In essence, your choice to be less effectual is due to your greed.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#726 - 2016-02-03 19:19:51 UTC
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:
Mag's wrote:

I'm fine with talking about bumping, but it needs to be viewed as a whole. When it's so easy to avoid and you seem fine with that, why are you not fine with the odds reversed within the bump? It quite obviously is already a level playing field, you just don't want to acknowledge the whole field.


Well the odds are only about being able or not being able to avoid the first bump. After that, they stack up to the gankers/bumpers favor without anything resembling what you could call "balance" (although I'm aware that absolute balance is impossible). Regardless of trolls and insults, I understand the tactical importance bumping has in the wider game, that's why you won't see me proposing anyhting related to its change or removal (although apparently, changes are coming). I'm just talking about this 0.1% special case which, I feel, can be argued as poorly designed.
Would I trade webbing freighters into warp for a change resulting in removal or ability to avoid bumping through active gameplay by freighter pilot? Yes. To prevent freighter pilots from raging, ccp could slightly increase their warp speeds to compensate for slower alignment. For example.


You still missed the point Mag's is making. The point is:

1. Probability of avoiding the bump with webs: X
2. Probability bumper keeping the bumps going: X

In other words, it is symmetrical and thus balanced.

So if you want to change 2, then to maintain balance we have to change 1. Make webs less effective, while coming up with a way for the bumped to get away.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Mag's
Azn Empire
#727 - 2016-02-03 19:40:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Mag's
Teckos Pech wrote:
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:
Mag's wrote:

I'm fine with talking about bumping, but it needs to be viewed as a whole. When it's so easy to avoid and you seem fine with that, why are you not fine with the odds reversed within the bump? It quite obviously is already a level playing field, you just don't want to acknowledge the whole field.


Well the odds are only about being able or not being able to avoid the first bump. After that, they stack up to the gankers/bumpers favor without anything resembling what you could call "balance" (although I'm aware that absolute balance is impossible). Regardless of trolls and insults, I understand the tactical importance bumping has in the wider game, that's why you won't see me proposing anyhting related to its change or removal (although apparently, changes are coming). I'm just talking about this 0.1% special case which, I feel, can be argued as poorly designed.
Would I trade webbing freighters into warp for a change resulting in removal or ability to avoid bumping through active gameplay by freighter pilot? Yes. To prevent freighter pilots from raging, ccp could slightly increase their warp speeds to compensate for slower alignment. For example.


You still missed the point Mag's is making. The point is:

1. Probability of avoiding the bump with webs: X
2. Probability bumper keeping the bumps going: X

In other words, it is symmetrical and thus balanced.

So if you want to change 2, then to maintain balance we have to change 1. Make webs less effective, while coming up with a way for the bumped to get away.
Indeed. But let's not forget we are using percentages here. If we were to use actual numbers, it would look to favour haulers far more. But I'm actually ignoring that fact and trying to show compromise in my argument.

Not that I'll be credited for it from them of course. I'll be accused of word games, or some such.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#728 - 2016-02-03 20:23:46 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:

Further, you are assuming that people who participate in ganking do not do other things in game. You have assumed this is all they do and all they know and therefore are stupid.

Not sure where you pull this from.
First of all, where did I say that people participating in ganking do nothing else in game?? I've even said that I know for a fact that some chars from code are nullsec alts.
Furthermore, I never said that anyone is stupid for being a ganker, only that it has nothing to do with some special skill or intelligence and everything with experience and focus.
Finally, you seem to think that you know or understand other peoples' motives much better then you actually do.
Brad Neece
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#729 - 2016-02-03 20:57:15 UTC

HPs increased because it make Logical sense or just people being pissed wreck warp-in were being popped? Logically thinking why are wrecks something that you can warp to in the 1st place.


And back to logical......Why are those pilots"transferring" loot to a DST hangar becoming Suspect at all if they are never really in possession of those items. Shouldn't the 1st ship that has the items physically in cargo hold go Suspect in that case.
Its not nerf to ganking to fix this simple thing, is it? After all the ganking is already over by the time the looting starts. Plus gankers like CODE. claim the loot doesnt matter to them anyway :)
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#730 - 2016-02-03 21:35:52 UTC
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:

Further, you are assuming that people who participate in ganking do not do other things in game. You have assumed this is all they do and all they know and therefore are stupid.

Not sure where you pull this from.
First of all, where did I say that people participating in ganking do nothing else in game?? I've even said that I know for a fact that some chars from code are nullsec alts.
Furthermore, I never said that anyone is stupid for being a ganker, only that it has nothing to do with some special skill or intelligence and everything with experience and focus.
Finally, you seem to think that you know or understand other peoples' motives much better then you actually do.


Where did you say the don’t do anything else in game? “There's nothing smart about it, its just the result on focusing on one activity and learning about all the ways how to use every loophole included.”

Did you call them stupid? Not directly, but by noting it is not smart could be definitely read as implying they are stupid.

As for people’s motivations, there was nothing in that post about motivations.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#731 - 2016-02-03 21:42:01 UTC
Brad Neece wrote:

HPs increased because it make Logical sense or just people being pissed wreck warp-in were being popped? Logically thinking why are wrecks something that you can warp to in the 1st place.


And back to logical......Why are those pilots"transferring" loot to a DST hangar becoming Suspect at all if they are never really in possession of those items. Shouldn't the 1st ship that has the items physically in cargo hold go Suspect in that case.
Its not nerf to ganking to fix this simple thing, is it? After all the ganking is already over by the time the looting starts. Plus gankers like CODE. claim the loot doesnt matter to them anyway :)


The loot is a factor in why at least some people gank....the ganking community is not just CODE.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Brad Neece
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#732 - 2016-02-03 23:16:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Brad Neece
Teckos Pech wrote:
Brad Neece wrote:

HPs increased because it make Logical sense or just people being pissed wreck warp-in were being popped? Logically thinking why are wrecks something that you can warp to in the 1st place.


And back to logical......Why are those pilots"transferring" loot to a DST hangar becoming Suspect at all if they are never really in possession of those items. Shouldn't the 1st ship that has the items physically in cargo hold go Suspect in that case.
Its not nerf to ganking to fix this simple thing, is it? After all the ganking is already over by the time the looting starts. Plus gankers like CODE. claim the loot doesnt matter to them anyway :)


The loot is a factor in why at least some people gank....the ganking community is not just CODE.


True but they are seperate actions.....If you have the loot into your cargo, less than a few ms after it was looted. You should be Suspect. Just fixing that, doesn't seem unfair.
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#733 - 2016-02-03 23:45:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
Brad Neece wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Brad Neece wrote:

HPs increased because it make Logical sense or just people being pissed wreck warp-in were being popped? Logically thinking why are wrecks something that you can warp to in the 1st place.


And back to logical......Why are those pilots"transferring" loot to a DST hangar becoming Suspect at all if they are never really in possession of those items. Shouldn't the 1st ship that has the items physically in cargo hold go Suspect in that case.
Its not nerf to ganking to fix this simple thing, is it? After all the ganking is already over by the time the looting starts. Plus gankers like CODE. claim the loot doesnt matter to them anyway :)


The loot is a factor in why at least some people gank....the ganking community is not just CODE.


True but they are seperate actions.....If you have the loot into your cargo, less than a few ms after it was looted. You should be Suspect. Just fixing that, doesn't seem unfair.
As far as I know the suspect flag is tied to the initial act, the items themselves have no variable to indicate that they are looted and thus it isn't possible to pass the suspect flag onto whomever takes the cargo from the the looter. What you're asking for is a change in the database which adds an extra variable to each and every in the game item to track whether it is loot or not, CCP are unlikely to implement such a change because it's just "makework" that serves no real purpose.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#734 - 2016-02-04 00:17:07 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Where did you say the don’t do anything else in game? “There's nothing smart about it, its just the result on focusing on one activity and learning about all the ways how to use every loophole included.”

Did you call them stupid? Not directly, but by noting it is not smart could be definitely read as implying they are stupid.

As for people’s motivations, there was nothing in that post about motivations.


Meh, don't look for devil everywhere.
As for the motivations, you didn't say anything in that post, but you said plenty before and were mostly wrong with all your guesses.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#735 - 2016-02-04 00:33:14 UTC
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Where did you say the don’t do anything else in game? “There's nothing smart about it, its just the result on focusing on one activity and learning about all the ways how to use every loophole included.”

Did you call them stupid? Not directly, but by noting it is not smart could be definitely read as implying they are stupid.

As for people’s motivations, there was nothing in that post about motivations.


Meh, don't look for devil everywhere.
As for the motivations, you didn't say anything in that post, but you said plenty before and were mostly wrong with all your guesses.


They weren't guesses they were statements based on your statements. Things like "not being able to earn ISK in HS." You didn't want to risk that, so you weren't willing to gank. You said so yourself.

No guessing, just reading what you wrote and pointing out the implications.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
KickAss Tivianne
Lohengrin Legion
#736 - 2016-02-04 00:44:17 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
KickAss Tivianne wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:
KickAss Tivianne wrote:
So I am saying that data is incomplete.

I said in the first post where the data is laid down that no conclusion can yet be made from it.

It is incomplete data and a very small dataset. it doesn't yet contain sufficient information one way or the other that this is an issue.

But it will, because the dataset will continue to grow to a point where is it useful to support statements one way or the other.

That's a while off yet, but it will happen because I was told that the evidence has been posted in this thread, when it hasn't. So lets all see, verifiably where it's a problem or not, but we can't say that yet from the small dataset.


If thats what will make everyone happy... wonderful. Ill PM you in game when I see such acts take place.

No need yet.

When I get onto stage 2 looking at the issue of looting as outlined in the OP, then that will be useful, but at this initial stage to establish whether bumping is a problem or not, there's no need to go to specific cases, just to look at the overall risk.

So I'll let you know when I move into testing the looting claims.


Well... You can do what you want to trend it out, please go for it! I give you huge props for that. Because the nature of major ganking outfits, is unless your online 24/7 andin a range of systems when ganks happen, your data will be incomplete. I hope you get lucky to see it! I know I hope to be online when they do decide to do such things. However we should not loose faith, I made an inquire about Bumping with CCP. I do know, that the bumping is logged with CCP. They have quite EXTENSIVE data on this. While I was unable to obtain any specifics, it is logged! So with the observations of others, and myself, it should be easily verifiable to CCP that we are indeed telling the truth, that this is indeed happening. Looting the same way. Follow the loot trail. .
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#737 - 2016-02-04 01:01:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
KickAss Tivianne wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:
KickAss Tivianne wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:
KickAss Tivianne wrote:
So I am saying that data is incomplete.

I said in the first post where the data is laid down that no conclusion can yet be made from it.

It is incomplete data and a very small dataset. it doesn't yet contain sufficient information one way or the other that this is an issue.

But it will, because the dataset will continue to grow to a point where is it useful to support statements one way or the other.

That's a while off yet, but it will happen because I was told that the evidence has been posted in this thread, when it hasn't. So lets all see, verifiably where it's a problem or not, but we can't say that yet from the small dataset.


If thats what will make everyone happy... wonderful. Ill PM you in game when I see such acts take place.

No need yet.

When I get onto stage 2 looking at the issue of looting as outlined in the OP, then that will be useful, but at this initial stage to establish whether bumping is a problem or not, there's no need to go to specific cases, just to look at the overall risk.

So I'll let you know when I move into testing the looting claims.


Well... You can do what you want to trend it out, please go for it! I give you huge props for that. Because the nature of major ganking outfits, is unless your online 24/7 andin a range of systems when ganks happen, your data will be incomplete. I hope you get lucky to see it! I know I hope to be online when they do decide to do such things. However we should not loose faith, I made an inquire about Bumping with CCP. I do know, that the bumping is logged with CCP. They have quite EXTENSIVE data on this. While I was unable to obtain any specifics, it is logged! So with the observations of others, and myself, it should be easily verifiable to CCP that we are indeed telling the truth, that this is indeed happening. Looting the same way. Follow the loot trail. .

If you read my earlier posts, I have already stated I am covering different timezones and different days.

Luckily, as research is part of my daily work, designing studies is something I do all the time. The data won't be incomplete and limitations will be openly stated.

What I'm doing is exactly what anyone who actually comes to propose changes to the game could do, rather than claiming that changes are needed but evidence is hard to come by. It isn't hard at all. It just takes some effort.
KickAss Tivianne
Lohengrin Legion
#738 - 2016-02-04 01:02:41 UTC  |  Edited by: KickAss Tivianne
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
[
Lets look at the latest Miniluv kill.

24 pilots on the gank, 2 in bumping ships, 1 hauler, 2 scouts.

You are complaining of getting 5 together.


And again, I'm not complaining about ganking, I don't care for numbers or anyhting in that respect, your guys are the ones using random references to fleet sizes and efforts when talking about something which has nothing to do with performing the gank.

Also, If anything, coming from the largest coalition in game those numbers are a bit on the low side, I mean - having to wait so long for 15ish actual people to form up from a pool of (likely) thousands of players belonging to the same coalition and using same oog communication tools is a bit disappointing. Compared to that, 5 randoms from hisec forming up is fairly impressive.

Anyway, let us not digress anymore and let's stick to the point - problem is (and this thread is about that) with bumping and looting w/o going suspect. Nothing more, nothing less.


Exactly! The ganking mechanic was never in question. I've had to state that a number of times. If gankers bring 20-30 ships, there is a good chance the solo freighter is going down.

Everything in this thread should have to do with before the gank, and after the gank.
KickAss Tivianne
Lohengrin Legion
#739 - 2016-02-04 01:06:13 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:

If you thread my earlier posts, I have already stated I will be covering different timezones and different days.

Luckily, as research is part of my daily work, designing studies is something I do all the time. The data won't be incomplete.


Ahh I did not see that in the thread of comment. But should not be needed I think at this point as official proof to CCP that this happens. They have the data already. They can verify claims and then we can move to the actual fix.

But feel free, if you want a science experiment, go for it! :)
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#740 - 2016-02-04 01:11:18 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:

They weren't guesses they were statements based on your statements. Things like "not being able to earn ISK in HS." You didn't want to risk that, so you weren't willing to gank. You said so yourself.

No guessing, just reading what you wrote and pointing out the implications.



You strech your implications way too far, and - as I said, are not too good at that guessing game.
Guess what, I don't make my isk in HS, mostly am not even there unless doing some AG stuff.
You're presuming that when talking about inability to make isk in HS I'm talking about myself, and you are wrong. This game is not only about you or me and trying to look at stuff form other's perspective might benefit you.

As for me, I mind killrights on Rham not because of isk making but because that prevents me from trying to effectively fight gankers - can't counter bump, can't fly anything expensive, etc.