Suicide ganking is not grief play. CCP has said this many times (and since it is their game, they get to make the definitions of terms). Therefore your whole post is invalid.

In short, this is not some lame MMO that doesn't allow combat. This is driven by combat, without it, EVE would die.


You want WoW/SWToR/STO/whateverr, go play those.


Also I can mine in any system in HS with 99% safety even with gankers. I have survived several gank attempts, and avoided countless more. You can mine in near perfect safety if you bother to learn.

But, if you wanna be afk/lazy, you deserve what you get.

I have spent nearly a week running this over in my mind trying to figure out what this type of game play is allowed.

When we declare war we are put into a sub catergory of *yes you can not shoot members from this corp*. Concord has the power to do that. So my question is, in any which way does this type of grief play help the game, and make no mistake, sucide ganking is grief play.

CCP why, may i ask, that you allow this to go on.

Are you calling me a PvP pilot?

Must have me confused with someone else, but if you want I can hand you my API and you can see my skillset.

And if you want, we can have some fun. I'll mine in a system for a day (well as long as I last before I get bored/have something better to do), and you can try to gank me. I guarantee, you will not succeed, unless you bring those skilled in the activity.
And no, tank will have nothing to do with it, the key will be, you will never be able to lock onto me.

As for griefing, it is against the EULA, and since suicide ganking is allowed, it is most definitely not griefing. Logic 101.


Also, I bet you 1000 PLEX that the EVE market will be fine within a year.

This is not to say that every gank is griefing, but the potential is there, and has been abused multiple times before. People have been banned for this.

the lack of continued effects of sec loss or the denial of services to people that have -10 in hisec, are a very strange choices for game development.

Fining the ganker is the same, orca ship drops aren't dependent on isk. so any -10 ganking alt can have a negative wallet and it doesnt do anything for them, or to them.

So my proposed idea is that the entire mechanic of being able to fire on non aggressed pilots should be disavowed.

Market prices are up 50% on almost all Modules/ships
Mining in high sec has falled by 48% (industrial players are becoming scarcer)
Trade runs and delivery pilots have dropped off 72% simply because they cannot guarentee delivery
The rise in gankers is well over 40% in well populated areas and some of our miners have even tried going 10+ jumps away from market areas and are still being targeted.

This mechanic really needs to be addressed because at the current market growth and rise rate, the entire eve market will crash within a year. I work as a finance consultant and i ahve researched all of this and it is pure fact.

Ah farmer, no, theres a tactic where the neutral alt orca pilot drops a ship for the -10 ganker, who then warps to another alt in a belt to gank a hulk or something.

Because the ganker has no assets in station (other then say a noob ship) it doesn't matter how much isk (or lack of isk) the ganker has. as well as the lack of physical assets to be impounded.

OooohhHHHHHhhhh I see what you mean, yea that's clever.. But you could also contact the direct "supplier" and that as soon as the -10 ganker gets into the ship, the Ewar Cruiser that is stalking that -10 pilot everywhere he or she goes, will then jump the gun and target the person and lock them down with the message:

"You are in violation of Concord Corrections, as your Probation Supervisor I will be taking your ship and impounding the orca pilot who gave it to you for assisting a known criminal!"

Forced ejection of both pilots or as soon as the ships dock they are taken, the orca would only be held for a duraction of, say... 1 day and then returned. no biggie.

Now again, I disagree with this idea of mine, but it is a decent suggestion, I don't like the idea of having a player disabled for any circumstances related to game mechanics.

Hmm.. perhaps Crime and Punishment may need to be revamped in hi-sec, but only minor revamping tweaks or just a new implementation of something I disagree with.

Man this is like me agreeing with a politicians words as a good idea but then saying I personally don't like it...

I'm confusing myself.

GG*but that is not a reason to remove ganking since it serves a purpose and since that potential is not unique for ganks. In fact, you can find the same potential in pretty much any mechanic or functionality in the game.
What's strange about it? It's not meant to keep players out of the game GGv it's to give other players the tools to go after these pirates and deal with them. There's not much reason to punish the gankers further.

It's entirely in keeping with the sandbox principle: give some players the tools to be annoying (ganking) and give other players the tools to solve this annoyance (free-for-all sec status).

As for griefing, it is against the EULA, and since suicide ganking is allowed, it is most definitely not griefing. Logic 101.

I am not for removing ganking, I am in favor of making it harder.

As to -10 in hisec, I was my understanding, which i admit i amy be wrong about, was that -10 players were not to be able to operate with relative impunity and that the way that i described above was not an intended use of the mechanics that were implemented.

Of course there is reason to punish the gankers further, Their actions go against the idea of hisec, (note, it is not the ideas of the game, but of Faction security space)

Its very strange that ~20 ganks by the same person in the same location doesn't afford any different response then one gank from the NPC police or Concord responses.