EVE General Discussion

how you play the game means nothing, its a game, what you say during gameplay is from YOUR head therefore speak like an ass, you probably are one

What in an ice belt, the only place where this happens which you lot assumes is how all mining is done. But if you suspect it is a bot then use the reporting tool in game instead of whining about it and do us all a favour... If you have not reported them then you are the jackass.

Nope.

But that's not we're talking about, we're talking about how one side doesn't have to risk anything in the first place for a massive reward while the other cannot gain anything more than a low reward regardless of how much they risk. The fact that you don't get that is irrelevant.

Yes, the game is balanced on risk/reward, otherwise there's be like 2 activities people do and the rest would be ignored. And yes, it is on that player, but at the same time if a player has to risk very little and consistently gets a high reward, that needs to be balanced out especially since the opposing side can't possibly gain a better reward because their gameplay is mechanically capped.

No, that's not what I said, that's your inability to read. I've simply stated that the level of difficulty and risk should be increased for gankers. As a simple example, if concord response times were random from 5-30 seconds, it would now be a risk that would need to be taken into account with the gankers either choosing to put in a low amount and risk failing, or add more firepower to ensure success. Instead it's a fixed response time so there's a simple fixed formula to ensure success.

Edit: By the way, the fact hat you are rageposting to the point you've got like 9 posts in succession doesn't help your point. You're just trying to saturate the thread with your failing arguments for them to stick. They don't. You're not presenting any facts and you're actively misrepresenting the arguments being made.

You ever heard the little story of two lad's lost in the forest?
One Irish lad and one American are in a forest,
they realize after its too late that they're being hunted by wolves.

The American is about to sprint off when he sees the Irish lad stretching, warming up and starting to pace himself.

So he says "Dude, you'll never outrun the wolves"

To which the he was told "True enough, I can outrun you though".

Point being, when you are prey,
don't be slow prey,
that's what predators call food.

If you are referring to the CCP presentation at Fanfest 2015 it was not just trial accounts.

Yes, I was typing to fast. You do not balance based on what players do so much as balance on in game items. Tracking titans were unbalanced. Yes we could see this in part because players with titans were using them alot, but the player actions pointed to the actual problem, unbalanced in game items.

The question of ganking is not one of mechanics but of stupid players. Players stop being stupid, no more ganking. That is fundamentally different than something like tracking titans or drone assist with carriers.

My analogy to a stupid titan pilot jumping around willy-nilly is appropriate. Nobody would come and say "risk reward, this needs balancing!" No, that pilot was foolish and his titan was killed, likely his pod, and his stuff looted.

With freighters, idiot puts 8 billion ISK in his freighter, undocks, and autopilots through Uedama. He was doing stupid things and it finally caught up with him.

Neither situation needs balancing especially on risk-reward a term you are using incorrectly.

Apparently your definition of "very profitable" differs from most. Also, an AFK miner can nly really be AFK for 5-10 minutes before their ship stops mining. Additionally, many of the gankers in highsec are alts of nullsec players who AFK in nullsec for orders of magnitude more than a highsec miner can ever dream of making.

Bots/scripts are against the EULA. CCP balance the gameplay around players and band bots, they dont; balance it around therorectical maximums of bots. That said, even the most efficient mining bot will still fail to make a fraction of what a single AFK ratter can make in null and couldn't dream of coming close to a incursion multiboxer.

Then report them and they will be banned. Beams on at the same time is tricky though, since once you get to a certain number of miners, server timing makes it look that way to other players when the reality is there's minor staggering.

Didn't at any point suggest it was. Was just poinitng out that relying on quitting players to give you good stats for why they are quitting is highly inaccurate. I'd be interested to see what CCP stats showed the reasons as. I meant there's 62 reasons to choose (not including multiple "other" options). Picking out just "lost a ship", not doing a comparison with how many other options are chosen and assuming everyone that quits because of griefers falls under that, is a pretty big assumption.

Just FYI, I've only skim reading your posts since you're just overspilling with repetition at this point.

To answer your first question, I don't really know. If you look at my corp name, you'll get an idea that this is just an alt character I once used to communicate with Dust 514 players on the PS3. My character rarely leaves the station and I don't have any need to leave the station and I haven't communicated with the Ivy League in almost forever since Dust 514's shutdown date was announced. They might or they might not. If not, there is always Frog.

To answer your question on the bumping fix, it doesn't look like it. Perhaps I jumped the gun on that one. Hard to confirm without testing it though. Looks like you won that part of the argument. All I found is them talking about it but it's not listed in any of the patch notes.
Source: https://community.eveonline.com/news/news-channels/eve-online-news/fanfest-2016-day-2-in-review/

In regards to what you said about loot scooping, I'm just going to say that the best way to go about it is to tie the suspect flag of the alt moving the loot to that of the ship receiving it. For example, if that alt ship gets the loot illegally and gets a suspect flag and then after that tries to move the loot (including whatever else it is they already have in their hold) to the fleet hangar of another ship while the flag is still active, then that other ship should get the suspect flag. This would force looters associated with gankers to have to resort to using a fast-moving hauler which requires coordination to survive being suspect.

I still stand with my opinion about ganking, risk & reward. If you are correct that the risk is low and reward is high for gankers it is likely because the haulers or miners are making it happen. I will always tank my hauler no matter what at the expense of cargo space and/or speed. I will always tank my miner to the fullest potential at the expense of mining yield. I will always be moving from system to system like a nomad to avoid drawing too much attention. But most importantly I would never go afk while mining. Going afk while mining is what cost me my Mackinaw last time. Also checking on D-scan every once in a while as I mine can give me some early warning of potential gankers. If my d-scan shows a long list of Catalysts within 14AUs of me I'm leaving the belt.

Of course, there is always the option of paying for that mining permit from CODE and I'm pretty sure there are plenty of miners out there who pay CODE that protection money anyways.

To me, it's all about making it too expensive for the gankers to get me or at least taking away all reason for them to get me. Sure, paying CODE for that permit might not guarantee that some other non-associated ganker would not attack my miner but at least getting CODE off my back reduces the worries.

PS: Is CODE still a thing today?

Both of which are irrelevant if someone wants to gank you.

You realise the entire game economy would come to a halt if everyone just hauled less than 100m right?

It's not about conequences at that pouint, it's about simple ability to apply damage. With concord on grid you would press F1 and almost instantly be ECMed and obliterated. It could be attempted with just as little consequence on disposable alts, just like the gankers, it simply wouldn't work without clearing the grid of concord first or going for a one shot alpha gank.

Not really, no. There are thing that a ganking character can't do, such as fly a battleship around highsec with neg sec status. But because a ganking character requires very few skills, those "conesquences" are rendered irrelevant since that character does none of those things, it just ganks.

If you're aware of the mechanics then your "sarcasm" wouldn't really make sense. It would really be sarcasm at all.

Lads ye are entirely too sober for a Saturday night, go get messed up and asplode something