EVE General Discussion

That alone shows just how much safer highsec is.

In effect as a whole I think that mining in null is more dangerous than hisec, there is no question of that not being the case, I did a comparison of the front line mining ships used, Hulks for null and Mac's for hisec, and I found that more Hulk died than Mac's, over the period analysed the raw numbers were 65 to 70% of the number of Hulks killed.

The reward is so much greater, double or triple, so yes hisec is safer but the reward is much greater in null.

But its good to see that you acknowledge that hisec is not safe to mine in, that is progress.

And I should re-emphasise my quote:

They would be docked up until system was clear of anyone else who was not +10

But they only used them because it cost next to nothing to do so. The only time battleships were used is when they themselves were cheap to use. There have been plenty of buffs to ganking, buffs to other highsec aggression mechanics and nerfs to opposing playstyles too. And again, taken in context of how player ability and mechanic refinement has improved efficiency of ganking, it's still in a better position now that in has been in a long time.

So your problem is if you select targets specifically geared to avoid being ganked, ganking is hard? Consider that highsec mining is one of the lowest forms of income and yet one of the easiest to disrupt.

But defense is what the skiff is naturally designed to have. A zealot is naturally cheaper, smaller, faster and more agile then has far more capability to improve than a skiff thanks to it's slots, CPU and PG.

I'm never concerned by your posts, even when you riddle them with personal attacks, which accounts for 90% of your posting.

Highsec is safer... and it's supposed to be.

I disagree, managing risk in hisec is totally doable if you make use of all of the tools available to you; you can't eliminate it but you can certainly mitigate it to the extent that gankers and the like choose targets that aren't you.

While luck certainly has something to with it, you can use the information that is available to your advantage when minimising risk in hisec; judging by the constant "there's nothing I can do against gankers the game is imbalanced" threads that pop up I would say that the majority of gankers victims are ignorant of many of the basic tools and game mechanics that would make them a less desirable person to target.

True enough. But when that happens it's apparently a sign that highsec is too easy rather than a sign of players mitigating risk.

Of course they are, because generally the people targetted by gankers are the bottom of the barrel, either the newest players or the dumbest ones. The fact that those players complain though doesn't mean that ganking is perfectly balanced. As it stands everything involved in stopping ganking is in the preparation phase, you have to set yourself up to not be a target, then you won't be and someone else is. Anti-gankers have very little ability to do anything because they would have to get the target to have done something in the past. More active mechanics would make the whole system better, but to do that ganking would need to change, as right now it's just an F1 monkey mechanic.

The recent change to bumping though, which is what has ultimately led to this discussion, isn't really about ganking though, it's about being able to indefinitely hold a target without ganking them.

Sorry, I don't see the difference between a ganker and a miner in HiSec. They are both PVE activities until anti-gankers get engaged.

Bumping, suicide ganking, griefing, etc. are all CONTENT for the person initiating the action and maybe the anti-gankers. For the person on the receiving end of it, it's an annoyance.

So you have one side complaining "You nerfed our ability to do what we like: making money off other players!"

You have the other side complaining "These people are not letting me get done what I want to and costing me time and money so I don't want to pay real life money to be frustrated!"

Poor CCP has to listen to that and come up with some kind of balance.

You guys can talk mechanics, snipe at each other, and basically look like spoiled brats all you want, however, the issue isn't with what CCP does; it's with how you respond to the changes.

Do you come here and pitch a fit about it or do you try to resolve the change in game and see if it's possible to keep doing what you like. Maybe, as players, we should always be re-examining what we 'like' and figure out if there are other fun things we like to do as well and enjoy the changes.

I have never understood why a combat ship taking on a freighter is any kind of 'fun' but I don't want to take away that 'fun' from someone else just because it wouldn't be fun for me... to each their own. You're mining a ship instead of a rock.

I also can't sit in a belt and mine for hours at a time watching Netflix or doing something else. I've had my fill of that after about an hour or so. I'd rather be off increasing my negative rep with the Guristas. That doesn't mean I have a right to take away from those that like to play like that.

Haulers, explorers, industrialists, marketeers, researchers, speculative marketers, roamers, etc. etc. We all play this game and we all make our own content. Play how you like but you aren't the only fish out there. I encourage everyone to be more holistic in your approach to the game, it's how CCP *must* be in order to keep the peace. Instead of griping about stuff that impacts your traditional game play, try to embrace the change and meet the challenge. If you can't do what you have fun with, make a positive statement to CCP in the feedback forums, not complaining, just good constructive ideas on how to fix what got broke. Then go find something else to do until CCP fixes it.

TL;DR
For you bump/suicide jocks out there, take the 3 minute timer as a challenge. At least the victims of this style of game play now know they have to fight like mad to stay alive for 3 minutes so they can get away so they have a target to hit as well. It should make more 'content' for everyone involved.

Trying to work out just what this whine about T2 fitted ship with no tank having to be profitable to gank, seriously baltec1 your arguments are getting weaker...

Mining equipment has to undergo stresses normally unfound on battlefields.
In a conceptual sense, being around the debris of an asteroid field would lead to a more sturdy ship than another combat ship that is reliant upon not being hit.
Game wise, its because people are too lazy to fit tank over yield/CCP didn't want to make it so mining barges are rightfully cruisers for fitting.

Me, I say if you are ganking people for profit, the loot fairy drop on T2 stuff is rather low on the order of things to go after.
I mean its there, but rather solidly in the territory of stretching for reasons for the kill over just wanting to ruin the guy's day.

But it's only profitable if you choose to fit them with no tank and with profitable modules, at which point you'd probably be too fast to gank anyway, unless you are literally fitting to be profitable by dumping any old expensive modules on it.. On top of which, Zealots have more fitting options available specifically so they can be more flexible. Skiffs don't because they are designed to be the tanking exhumer. If the tank on the skiff came from the fittings you choose, it would be too versatile.

It's not at all bonkers that a ship designed to be a tanky ship is naturally more tanky than other more versatile ships.

Herzog you nailed it, I want balance, ability to get at them and most of all consequences and yet baltec1 defines this as a campaign of ever more safety, the classic projection of his own prejudices. But there is progress in this thread he admitted that hisec is not safe to mine in.