EVE General Discussion

Wrong, the person getting ganked has high risk. And he created that high risk and the high reward for others by his own actions.

The abdication of personal responsibility.

People try to "outsource" their responsibilities to the "state", the "state" in this instance being CCP.

But there is nothing in the game that makes this inherently so. It is the actions of other players that allows for this.

The reward and risk is entirely based upon what the "victim" fits and stuff into their cargo as well as the actions they take while in space. Ganking is only as easy and lucrative as the "victim" let's it be.

Simply put CCP has poor mechanics in a number of areas which enable ganking to be low risk and very profitable. That is against the premise of Eve that high risk equals high reward.

Bumping which effectively is a no consequence pointing is a poor mechanic.

Loot scooping via a DST so only a noob ship is suspect is a poor mechanic.

Contracts to Citadels which can be blocked for docking is a poor mechanic.

All easy to exploit and no consequences and are game mechanic issues that CCP needs to adjust because they give no consequence to gankers.

Alternatively people that keep doing stupid shite are what makes ganking profitable.

While I don't personally see it as an issue because it's never affected me, CCP are taking steps to address it.

So gank the DST, according to you doing so has no consequences.

The same is true of any player owned station that allows docking and has been for years.

The consequences, that you claim don't exist, are enough to discourage the majority of players from ganking.

TL;DR You claim that there are no consequences for ganking, yet you won't gank a DST that's taken a transfer of loot from a suspect frigate, because doing so has consequences....

Which is it?

And where exactly does it say that high risk should equal high reward in game? Please point to something....anything.

By the way, freighter pilots who overload their freighters are the antithesis of this maxim.

When you overload your freighter you are increasing your risk of getting ganked. When you do not use a scout you increase your risk of getting ganked. When you do this while going through a 0.5 system, and in particular a choke point like Niarja or Uedama you are increasing your risk.

However they are most likely NOT increasing their reward. Because the reward would most likely be the same if they did not over fill their freighter, did use at least a scout, and tried to move through choke point systems when those systems are "clear".

And the maxim is more accurately stated as, "You should only take high risks when there are high rewards and you can withstand the high downside."

1. Ganking is no longer low-risk. The risks are there. Here is a link to Eve University's "Suicide Ganking 101" guide:

Source: http://wiki.eveuniversity.org/Suicide_Ganking_101#CONCORD_and_empire_consequences You will also notice a section in there telling you how to protect yourself from such gankers.

2. Bumping will always be a legitimate tactic. CCP confirmed that a long time ago. Although I think CCP has made a change not too long ago that enables ships to go into warp automatically if their ship is getting bumped out of warp alignment for too long. There was a Reddit discussion about it 4 months ago.

Sources:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=176498
https://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/4fyb48/bumping_dead_rip/

So now even Bumping carries some risk because now the gankers have to put more effort into it and will likely need someone to form a ganking fleet before the hauler/miner being targeted gets away in 3 minutes. That requires an investment of ships they will definitely lose with no insurance paid and that is assuming the ship being targeted hasn't been tanked by the pilot. That player will have to be hauling something extremely valuable to be worth the gank and even then there is no guarantee that the loot will drop and not get destroyed in the process.

3. You might want to get in on the discussion on how to address this problem with DST loot scooping.

Source: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6622658

4. You do realize that Citadels are player-controlled, right? It is always standard practice that any contract be checked by the player for where it's located and where it's headed (if it's a courier type) before the contract is accepted. That's no different from saying only a fool would sign a contract before reading it.

5. Sorry, but all are not easy and they do have consequences with the exception of DST loot scooping. The citadel-contract part may be easy to setup but very difficult to make it convincing for very long before more and more players get wise to the tactic and start ignoring those contracts. Remember the old-fashioned Jita scams? Only very few players fall for those while the rest and turned the scams into a joke.

Or said another way...

Simply put CCP has poor mechanics in a number of areas which enable AFK MINING to be low risk and very profitable. That is against the premise of Eve that high risk equals high reward.

Funny how you ignore scripts/bot mining....but the attempt at being cute was nice as it just makes you look like a jackass.