These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

The Financial Report
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Cade Windstalker
#21 - 2017-04-27 14:41:58 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Stuff destroyed does not equal danger. If you have 1000 ships worth 1 bil destroyed in one place, and one ship worth 2 bil destroyed in another, the place with the one ship kill still isn't "more dangerous" than the place with 1000 more explosions.


That was literally my next sentence:

Cade Windstalker wrote:
In absolute per-capita terms though it's not that dangerous and relatively few people get kaploded every day per person in High Sec compared to Null.


Jenn aSide wrote:
In null people control the environment. in high sec the environment KILLS anything that messes with you if there is no declared war , dual or mutual aggression.


Yes, but this is a double edged sword. In Null you don't have to worry about neutral scouts, alts, ect. If it's in your space and you don't know whose it is you blow it up, or at least try. In High Sec it's basically impossible to stop neutral alts in a war, or figure out who is scouting for the gankers 5 jumps down the pipe.

This especially applies in a High Sec war if both sides are fighting seriously.

With ganking it also means that until someone messes with you there's not a lot you can do to stop them besides run before they can.

This is the sort of thing I'm talking about when I say there's less control over your environment in High Sec.


Jenn aSide wrote:
And that's the end of the story. Value has nothing to do with danger. What you said above is like saying"

"Well, 20 gang bangers got killed in the hood last week. But in the same week a guy from the suburbs got shot and he was wearing a Rolex worth more than everything all those bangers had on put together, so obviously the subrubs are more dangerous than the hood..."


There is a history behind "high sec is safer than null". From almost the beginning, high sec people lamented the lack of Developer attention for high sec things, mainly because so much attention is paid to null sec. Destruction in null sec is the engine that drives the EVE economy, even high sec players are dependant on it, and they resent the hell out of it (if they ever realize at all where all that ammo and all those implants they get from LP and where all those ships they make end up going).

As ganking became more noticeable, backwards thinking high sec players started to think "hey, I can't see a gank coming, but in null sec I'd be able to see who is not blue and an intel channel would tell me that bad guys are coming. ipso facto, I'm in more danger in high sec than I am in null!!!". That kind of thinking totally ignores the existence of CONCORD and the fact that in high sec you can literally TANK YOURSELF TO SAFETY (ie if you have enough EHP to last against x amount of DPS for a max of 19 seconds, nothing in high sec except CONCORD can kill you).



Full disclosure time, I deal with this in real life which is why hearing it in game ticks me right off lol. This is a pretty good article that sums up the situation I deal with, well to do people who live in safe areas, who themselves have not ever been victims of violent crime, who don't know anyone who has been a victim of violent crime, who can't remember the last time a violent crime happened in the area they live and I work in, going on and on and on about how dangerous it is for them.


Sorry, I think "per capita" may have been misinterpreted there, I was using it in the "per person" sense of the term, not "per unit money". More ships get blown up in High Sec but the ships that get blown up in High make up a smaller percentage of the ships out in space compared to Null.

I think the issue you're talking about here has more to do with perceived safety than actual stats, and human perception is, um, malleable to say the least. Whether it's real life or Eve what someone perceives to be the case may not match up to reality, but it will impact their behavior and their rhetoric.

Nothing in my original post was meant to explicitly agree with the "High Sec is more dangerous than Null" crowd, I just think that in some specific small cases High Sec can be more dangerous for a player doing a particular activity because of how the mechanics are structured. This is, of course, ignoring the fact that under the same circumstances in Null the only reason the player would be safer is because they'd have docked up...
Yebo Lakatosh
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#22 - 2017-04-27 14:51:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Yebo Lakatosh
Soel Reit wrote:
goons+horde+test= you have almost half of eve.... now tell me they are smart..... Shocked but you need to be convincing Cool
I know right? They even had -me-, filthy casuals.

But the other half is still concentrated around one big blob, and can live a full life without without discovering dscan, or even local chat. And it's easier to sell the loot there too, so it's only natural the predators also gather in HS.

Security status won't make a space safe of dangerous. It's inhabitants will.

Elite F1 pilot since YC119, incarnate of honor, integrity and tidi.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#23 - 2017-04-27 15:20:09 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:

With ganking it also means that until someone messes with you there's not a lot you can do to stop them besides run before they can.

This is the sort of thing I'm talking about when I say there's less control over your environment in High Sec.


I know what you meant. I'm saying it's not true.

For example, you can make a mission running Rattlesnake. You know that the max raw DPS a catalyst can do is around 700. You know you are in a 0.5 system and CONCORD response time is about 19 seconds. Simple back of the napkin math tells you that 135k EHP will keep you alive long enough for CONCORD to kill 10 catalysts before you die My mission snake has more than 135k ehp, as a buffer.

In null sec, 135k ehp just means you die slower to the things that are trying to kill you unless you can get some other real human beings to come help you.

The place that saves you if only you tank your ship cannot in any universe be less safe than the place where you die under the exact same circumstances.


Quote:

I think the issue you're talking about here has more to do with perceived safety than actual stats, and human perception is, um, malleable to say the least. Whether it's real life or Eve what someone perceives to be the case may not match up to reality, but it will impact their behavior and their rhetoric.

Nothing in my original post was meant to explicitly agree with the "High Sec is more dangerous than Null" crowd, I just think that in some specific small cases High Sec can be more dangerous for a player doing a particular activity because of how the mechanics are structured. This is, of course, ignoring the fact that under the same circumstances in Null the only reason the player would be safer is because they'd have docked up...


Safety is a measurable thing (I know, my IRL job involves measuring it). Either you have it or you don't. People conflate the terms safety and risk all the time and don't understand that safety means "PROTECTION FROM or deterrence of injury, risk or death".

Null doesn't protect you at all (people have to provide any and all protection), high sec protects you some (and more than any other space, Wormholes also don't protect you, low sec has minimal amounts of direct and indirect protection). The place that does not protect you at all cannot be safer than the place that protects you some. We're talking physical impossibility here.

Now, saying that "high sec has some risks too" is a true statement. The statement "high sec is safer than null" is a direct and outright lie. And it's a lie told in bad faith, ie the person saying it isn't saying it because they believe it, they are saying it for self serving reasons.
Salt Foambreaker
Greedy Pirates
#24 - 2017-04-27 16:28:01 UTC
Isk destroyed != danger or risk
Salvos Rhoska
#25 - 2017-04-27 17:03:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Jenn aSide wrote:

Now, saying that "high sec has some risks too" is a true statement. The statement "high sec is safer than null" is a direct and outright lie. And it's a lie told in bad faith, ie the person saying it isn't saying it because they believe it, they are saying it for self serving reasons.


Since you said you work in this field IRL, I have this to ask:

Which am I safer in against crime:
-In a gated community
or
-In a non-gated community

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
#26 - 2017-04-27 17:05:59 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:

Now, saying that "high sec has some risks too" is a true statement. The statement "high sec is safer than null" is a direct and outright lie. And it's a lie told in bad faith, ie the person saying it isn't saying it because they believe it, they are saying it for self serving reasons.


Since you said you work in this field IRL, i have this to ask:

Which am I safer in against crime:
-In a gated community
or
-In a non-gated community
Want to know what's safest?

Moving out of a country that needs things like gated communities.

Mr Epeen Cool
Salvos Rhoska
#27 - 2017-04-27 17:08:47 UTC
Mr Epeen wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:

Now, saying that "high sec has some risks too" is a true statement. The statement "high sec is safer than null" is a direct and outright lie. And it's a lie told in bad faith, ie the person saying it isn't saying it because they believe it, they are saying it for self serving reasons.


Since you said you work in this field IRL, i have this to ask:

Which am I safer in against crime:
-In a gated community
or
-In a non-gated community
Want to know what's safest?

Moving out of a country that needs things like gated communities.

Mr Epeen Cool


Amen.

But Im asking Jenn the IRL professional, and Im building towards a point.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#28 - 2017-04-27 17:13:24 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:

Now, saying that "high sec has some risks too" is a true statement. The statement "high sec is safer than null" is a direct and outright lie. And it's a lie told in bad faith, ie the person saying it isn't saying it because they believe it, they are saying it for self serving reasons.


Since you said you work in this field IRL, I have this to ask:

Which am I safer in against crime:
-In a gated community
or
-In a non-gated community


There are no real gated communities where I work ( a real one would have a special entry system, a community isn't gated just because it has a wall around it if anyone can come in, which is why I say there are no real ones where I work). You'd need to talk to a private security specialist or whatever they call them where you are from.

What does this have to do with EVE?
Salvos Rhoska
#29 - 2017-04-27 17:15:48 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:

Now, saying that "high sec has some risks too" is a true statement. The statement "high sec is safer than null" is a direct and outright lie. And it's a lie told in bad faith, ie the person saying it isn't saying it because they believe it, they are saying it for self serving reasons.


Since you said you work in this field IRL, I have this to ask:

Which am I safer in against crime:
-In a gated community
or
-In a non-gated community


There are no real gated communities where I work ( a real one would have a special entry system, a community isn't gated just because it has a wall around it if anyone can come in, which is why I say there are no real ones where I work). You'd need to talk to a private security specialist or whatever they call them where you are from.

What does this have to do with EVE?


Would you characterise NS empires as gated communities, or ungated ones?

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#30 - 2017-04-27 17:27:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:

Now, saying that "high sec has some risks too" is a true statement. The statement "high sec is safer than null" is a direct and outright lie. And it's a lie told in bad faith, ie the person saying it isn't saying it because they believe it, they are saying it for self serving reasons.


Since you said you work in this field IRL, I have this to ask:

Which am I safer in against crime:
-In a gated community
or
-In a non-gated community


There are no real gated communities where I work ( a real one would have a special entry system, a community isn't gated just because it has a wall around it if anyone can come in, which is why I say there are no real ones where I work). You'd need to talk to a private security specialist or whatever they call them where you are from.

What does this have to do with EVE?


Would you characterise NS empires as gated communities, or ungated ones?


Blacks Ops. Bombers. Recons. Cynos of both flavors. Jump bridges. (note that some of those things are not cyno-jammable). Then consider wormholes. Interdiction nullified Tech 3 Cruisers and Interceptors.

There is no way to "gate" a "community" in null sec. You can in wormhole space to the extent you can roll holes and pre-crit the ones you let exist, but other than wormholes, 'gated communities' don't exist.

So again, what's the point?
Kassimila
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#31 - 2017-04-27 17:47:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Kassimila
I think you all keep missing a key point in your High Vs. Null Comparisons. This is a game, in which the 'high security' zones exist for players that are new or not interested in player vs player content. If you wish to look at this in a 'ships destroyed' metric then you have to remember that the 20-30 catalysts attacking a single freighter would count as 31 deaths. So I think the numbers would be a lot higher than you're thinking they would. However I'm not sure where to get the actual hard data on this, that would be a nice to have from CCP.

That all being said when I see things like people with Neg 10 security status hanging out in high security space, without concord destroying them. Or the Caldari navy Benny hilling after some hated foe, without ever being able to catch them. I would have to say it's quite laughable. While I believe that you should be able to war dec kill other corporations in high sec (although the cost of declaring that war is lower than it should be) the suicide ganks need to be punished more.

Some ideas for this would be: Making concord actually catch and kill criminals. Put that character in 'prison' for a duration of time while their sec status slowly improves. Edit: Forgot to add that the player would be able to buy their way out of prison for a decent amount of iskies (yay more isk sinks!).

Lets stop pretending that some doofus ISboxing 30 million isk worth of destroyers, without any repercussion for high sec ganking is a good and healthy game mechanic.
Tipa Riot
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#32 - 2017-04-27 18:00:17 UTC
Kassimila wrote:

Lets stop pretending that some doofus ISboxing 30 million isk worth of destroyers, without any repercussion for high sec ganking is a good and healthy game mechanic.

You will laugh, it is a good game mechanic. It effectively separates the stupid/greedy from the rest.

I'm my own NPC alt.
Kassimila
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#33 - 2017-04-27 18:05:55 UTC
Tipa Riot wrote:
Kassimila wrote:

Lets stop pretending that some doofus ISboxing 30 million isk worth of destroyers, without any repercussion for high sec ganking is a good and healthy game mechanic.

You will laugh, it is a good game mechanic. It effectively separates the stupid/greedy from the rest.


How so? Can you elaborate on your point?
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#34 - 2017-04-27 18:24:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
Kassimila wrote:
I think you all keep missing a key point in your High Vs. Null Comparisons. This is a game, in which the 'high security' zones exist for players that are new or not interested in player vs player content. If you wish to look at this in a 'ships destroyed' metric then you have to remember that the 20-30 catalysts attacking a single freighter would count as 31 deaths. So I think the numbers would be a lot higher than you're thinking they would. However I'm not sure where to get the actual hard data on this, that would be a nice to have from CCP.

That all being said when I see things like people with Neg 10 security status hanging out in high security space, without concord destroying them. Or the Caldari navy Benny hilling after some hated foe, without ever being able to catch them. I would have to say it's quite laughable. While I believe that you should be able to war dec kill other corporations in high sec (although the cost of declaring that war is lower than it should be) the suicide ganks need to be punished more.

Some ideas for this would be: Making concord actually catch and kill criminals. Put that character in 'prison' for a duration of time while their sec status slowly improves. Edit: Forgot to add that the player would be able to buy their way out of prison for a decent amount of iskies (yay more isk sinks!).

Lets stop pretending that some doofus ISboxing 30 million isk worth of destroyers, without any repercussion for high sec ganking is a good and healthy game mechanic.



So, alts.

That prison idea has been floated a thousand times in the past. It would simply mean "time to go play on an alt" for however long it lasted.

CCP has spent the last several years doing things with regards to ganking and awoxxing and scamming and such. The buffed EHP on mining ships, added mechanics and rigs to help with bumping, the changed the way that CONCORD and crimewatch etc worked in the past, they added other tools people could use but don't. There are safety pop ups telling you "don't do that", mechanical safeties on ships that won't let you accidentally agrees, and more.

All it did was prove that you cannot help the ignorant or the unwilling. The old saying about being able to lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink is true. You can lead a high sec miner to a belt but you can't make him fit a tank...

How much DEV time has been wasted giving people ways to counter all the stuff people complain about and yet they are still complaining? And more importantly, how much time in the future would need to be wasted before people realize that you can't fix stupid?

The sum total of all that work CCP has done on high sec and wars and ganking etc since 2012 is exactly zero. Stupid people who lack the 2 brain cells needed to keep from exploding keep exploding and the people who do already have those brain cells never needed any extra help to begin with.
Nana Skalski
Taisaanat Kotei
EDENCOM DEFENSIVE INITIATIVE
#35 - 2017-04-27 18:33:32 UTC
Cade Windstalker
#36 - 2017-04-27 18:36:11 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
I know what you meant. I'm saying it's not true.

For example, you can make a mission running Rattlesnake. You know that the max raw DPS a catalyst can do is around 700. You know you are in a 0.5 system and CONCORD response time is about 19 seconds. Simple back of the napkin math tells you that 135k EHP will keep you alive long enough for CONCORD to kill 10 catalysts before you die My mission snake has more than 135k ehp, as a buffer.

In null sec, 135k ehp just means you die slower to the things that are trying to kill you unless you can get some other real human beings to come help you.

The place that saves you if only you tank your ship cannot in any universe be less safe than the place where you die under the exact same circumstances.


If someone wants to gank your Rattlesnake they'll bring either Tornadoes or Bombers, probably bombers. 10 SBs cost ~3-400m and can burn down something with over 200k EHP before CONCORD shows up, easily. In High Sec you can stop yourself from being ganked easily or efficiently but there's very little you can actually do to stop yourself from being ganked period.

The things that make Null Sec as safe as it is are all things that let you avoid getting to the point where someone is knocking on your hull with hot plasma to see if anyone's home. High Sec lacks that sort of security almost entirely due to how it's structured, but in return it gains the NPC protections.

I'm not saying that one isn't functionally safer than the other, I really don't have the data to get into that kind of debate nor do I want to, I'm just saying that they have a qualitatively different sort of safety and that one is safe in different ways than the other.

Jenn aSide wrote:
Safety is a measurable thing (I know, my IRL job involves measuring it). Either you have it or you don't. People conflate the terms safety and risk all the time and don't understand that safety means "PROTECTION FROM or deterrence of injury, risk or death".

Null doesn't protect you at all (people have to provide any and all protection), high sec protects you some (and more than any other space, Wormholes also don't protect you, low sec has minimal amounts of direct and indirect protection). The place that does not protect you at all cannot be safer than the place that protects you some. We're talking physical impossibility here.

Now, saying that "high sec has some risks too" is a true statement. The statement "high sec is safer than null" is a direct and outright lie. And it's a lie told in bad faith, ie the person saying it isn't saying it because they believe it, they are saying it for self serving reasons.


First off I think you meant to say that "Null is safer than High Sec" or "High is more dangerous than Null" is a lie, at least based on everything else you've written here.

I don't really think that measuring actual safety in Eve is that easy. In real life it's pretty easy, you can look at the murder rate, crime statistics, ect and get a pretty good idea of how dangerous an area is because attempted murder is tracked.

In Eve attempted anything isn't really tracked, at least not in a player visible way. We don't see how many Carriers die compared to how many dock up safety before the tackle even gets into system.

I guess what this boils down to is that while I agree that claiming Null is safer than High Sec is silly I think it's silly because the two aren't directly or easily comparable because their safety is achieved in different ways and the produce qualitatively different results for the pilot in question.

Something that might kill you in High Sec will get spotted easily in Null and you'll just dock up, but on the flip side something that would see someone CONCORD'okened in High Sec can leave you dead in Null.
Kassimila
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#37 - 2017-04-27 18:36:27 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Kassimila wrote:
I think you all keep missing a key point in your High Vs. Null Comparisons. This is a game, in which the 'high security' zones exist for players that are new or not interested in player vs player content. If you wish to look at this in a 'ships destroyed' metric then you have to remember that the 20-30 catalysts attacking a single freighter would count as 31 deaths. So I think the numbers would be a lot higher than you're thinking they would. However I'm not sure where to get the actual hard data on this, that would be a nice to have from CCP.

That all being said when I see things like people with Neg 10 security status hanging out in high security space, without concord destroying them. Or the Caldari navy Benny hilling after some hated foe, without ever being able to catch them. I would have to say it's quite laughable. While I believe that you should be able to war dec kill other corporations in high sec (although the cost of declaring that war is lower than it should be) the suicide ganks need to be punished more.

Some ideas for this would be: Making concord actually catch and kill criminals. Put that character in 'prison' for a duration of time while their sec status slowly improves. Edit: Forgot to add that the player would be able to buy their way out of prison for a decent amount of iskies (yay more isk sinks!).

Lets stop pretending that some doofus ISboxing 30 million isk worth of destroyers, without any repercussion for high sec ganking is a good and healthy game mechanic.



So, alts.

That prison idea has been floated a thousand times in the past. It would simply mean "time to go play on an alt" for however long it lasted.

CCP has spent the last several years doing things with regards to ganking and awoxxing and scamming and such. The buffed EHP on mining ships, added mechanics and rigs to help with bumping, the changed the way that CONCORD and crimewatch etc worked in the past, they added other tools people could use but don't. There are safety pop ups telling you "don't do that", mechanical safeties on ships that won't let you accidentally agrees, and more.

All it did was prove that you cannot help the ignorant or the unwilling. The old saying about being able to lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink is true. You can lead a high sec miner to a belt but you can't make him fit a tank...

How much DEV time has been wasted giving people ways to counter all the stuff people complain about and yet they are still complaining? And more importantly, how much time in the future would need to be wasted before people realize that you can't fix stupid?

The sum total of all that work CCP has done on high sec and wars and ganking etc since 2012 is exactly zero. Stupid people who lack the 2 brain cells needed to keep from exploding keep exploding and the people who do already have those brain cells never needed any extra help to begin with.


I disagree, the changes to mining barges have helped with the good ol can flipping trick. Where new players wouldn't realize what was going on. The main cause of this volume of losses however is high sec freighter ganking. The issue with this is there is no counter play to it. There is no action the defending player can take to save their ship. It is impossible to warp while being repeatedly bumped, and you cannot safe log while targeted. This could all EASILY be solved by allowing freighters to fit the energized emergency hull modification. Which would take a total of maybe 8 hours of dev time to add at most.

The proper punishing of criminal characters however is a longer fix. Some form of interaction with player bounties, and WingspanTT's idea of making 'bounty hunting' a viable profession could I think do some good however.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#38 - 2017-04-27 18:54:10 UTC
Kassimila wrote:


I disagree, the changes to mining barges have helped with the good ol can flipping trick. Where new players wouldn't realize what was going on. The main cause of this volume of losses however is high sec freighter ganking. The issue with this is there is no counter play to it. There is no action the defending player can take to save their ship. It is impossible to warp while being repeatedly bumped, and you cannot safe log while targeted. This could all EASILY be solved by allowing freighters to fit the energized emergency hull modification. Which would take a total of maybe 8 hours of dev time to add at most.

The proper punishing of criminal characters however is a longer fix. Some form of interaction with player bounties, and WingspanTT's idea of making 'bounty hunting' a viable profession could I think do some good however.


You know that trying to punish them makes them gank more and adapt in other ways right?

And whatever happened to CCP's anti bump warp mechanic?

That's the whole point, people keep pushing CCP to act, eventually they do, the people targeted by the nerfs adapt and retaliate. Meanwhile, interesting gameplay avenues for people who didn't need CCP intervention shrink as CCP tries (and fails) to Coddle it's way to higher player numbers).

All that needed to be done hasn't change: concerned players need to teach people how to thwart and avoid the people who do the "bad things". trying to 'legislate' them away via DEV action not only doesn't work, it backfires. I can't even remember how many times CCP announced some change that people thought was going to negatively affect 'bad guys' like the changes to war decs, bounties, the aforemention EHP buff etc, only to see those changes fail and the 'bad guys' become even more effective.

So I'll ask again, how many more times does that have to happen before people realize that there is no mechanical fix to 'bad guys'? The only fix is education and cooperation (2 things that are hard to come by in high sec for some reason).
Kassimila
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#39 - 2017-04-27 18:58:48 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Kassimila wrote:


I disagree, the changes to mining barges have helped with the good ol can flipping trick. Where new players wouldn't realize what was going on. The main cause of this volume of losses however is high sec freighter ganking. The issue with this is there is no counter play to it. There is no action the defending player can take to save their ship. It is impossible to warp while being repeatedly bumped, and you cannot safe log while targeted. This could all EASILY be solved by allowing freighters to fit the energized emergency hull modification. Which would take a total of maybe 8 hours of dev time to add at most.

The proper punishing of criminal characters however is a longer fix. Some form of interaction with player bounties, and WingspanTT's idea of making 'bounty hunting' a viable profession could I think do some good however.


You know that trying to punish them makes them gank more and adapt in other ways right?

And whatever happened to CCP's anti bump warp mechanic?

That's the whole point, people keep pushing CCP to act, eventually they do, the people targeted by the nerfs adapt and retaliate. Meanwhile, interesting gameplay avenues for people who didn't need CCP intervention shrink as CCP tries (and fails) to Coddle it's way to higher player numbers).

All that needed to be done hasn't change: concerned players need to teach people how to thwart and avoid the people who do the "bad things". trying to 'legislate' them away via DEV action not only doesn't work, it backfires. I can't even remember how many times CCP announced some change that people thought was going to negatively affect 'bad guys' like the changes to war decs, bounties, the aforemention EHP buff etc, only to see those changes fail and the 'bad guys' become even more effective.

So I'll ask again, how many more times does that have to happen before people realize that there is no mechanical fix to 'bad guys'? The only fix is education and cooperation (2 things that are hard to come by in high sec for some reason).


Alright I'll bite. How does a player in a freighter 'avoid' a high sec gank? Let me set the situation for you. You're a lone pilot in a freighter, you jump through a gate into a .6 system. You begin aligning to warp to the next gate. Suddenly a random neutral in a mach locks you, scans you, and bumps you for the next 2 minutes of your life. 10+ catalysts log in, and blap you. Please tell me how you avoid that.
Lothros Andastar
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#40 - 2017-04-27 19:02:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Lothros Andastar
Kassimila wrote:
Alright I'll bite. How does a player in a freighter 'avoid' a high sec gank? Let me set the situation for you. You're a lone pilot in a freighter, you jump through a gate into a .6 system. You begin aligning to warp to the next gate. Suddenly a random neutral in a mach locks you, scans you, and bumps you for the next 2 minutes of your life. 10+ catalysts log in, and blap you. Please tell me how you avoid that.

Alt with 49 webs on it. Don't carry enough to be a profitable gank.