Originally by: Nian Banks

---

The reaction is too fast in a 1.0 system but still a bit too fast in 0.5.

---

Quote:

---

Now we have a new problem in high security space, the indiscriminate suicide ganking of all things mining

---

Quote:

---

Basically this new trend for easy kills in high sec is hurting industry, it is discouraging industrials from playing eve and is by no means good for the game.

---

Quote:

---

The risk vs reward of a suicide ganker is way off

---

Originally by: Abrazzar

---

Your use of the "Risk vs Reward" argument invalidates everything you may have said. tl;dr

---

Originally by: JavelinGR

---

Linkage

I wanna be a Care Bear
Oh It will be so great to when I'm a Care Bear
Oh I can hardly wait to be a Care Bear and do the things Care Bears do.
Oh I wanna be a Care Bear Like you! You do?

I'll be like Funshine and make the sunshine
And have heart like Love-a-Lot.
I'll be like Wish Bear and always be there.
We'll be the luckiest bears in Care-a-Lot.

I wanna be a Care Bear and fill the world with veldspar
To be a Care Bear is what I'm dreaming of.
We'll make a great pair. We'll stick together through and through Like glue.

I don't wanna be a cook or a fireman and I don't wanna play trombone in the marching band.
I just wanna be a Care Bear Like youuuuuuuuu!

I just wanna be a Care Bear

But everyone picks on me :(

---

Originally by: Ivana Drake

---

Here's an 'issue' for you:

Miners are able to exploit CONCORD with an alt and have them spawn in the belt they're mining at. This makes any suicide attempt hopeless and the risk involved for the miner is decreased to zero. Please fix this broken mechanic, thanks!

---

Originally by: iP0D

---

Let's be honest, the only reason there are miners in game is to have relatively easy prey. We don't need average john doe general mining for resources, we have missions for that, both in terms of loot and relatively sheltered locations for quick & dirty mining.

---

Originally by: Mangtoos

---

You do realize that hulks were never designed for high sec?

---

Originally by: Armoured C

---

concord isnt there for protection

---

Originally by: Taedrin

---

(free of charge, might I add)

---

Originally by: Nian Banks

---

Well where do I begin? I guess we should first look at CCP's history in regards to hi.....

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH

---

Originally by: Aethana

---

Where were all the carebear miners when BOB and the greater bob coalition died?

---

Originally by: damgood85

---

I HAVE 17MILL CAN I HELP

---

Originally by: Atillius

---

First thing to remember there IS NO relative safety in EVE....as soon as you undock...your are consenting to PvP regardless if its high sec. Suicide Ganks came about partly from Marco Miners. It is a profitable mechanic of the game. Mining should be down in a fast frigate if you are in a system with lots of people, if you want to play it safe. Use your system map to check the statistics of a certain system to see how "safe" it is. Never Marco Mine...unless you like the risk and can accept being popped. Mine with a fleet, and always stay aligned to a station, ready to go. Your post is very much like whining....its EVE dude...PVP is everywhere, no one is safe. If you want to gather resources in peace, then try another game, 'cuz its not happening here unless you put time and planning into your mining ops.

I have 3 accounts, 1 -10 HAM Pirate, 1 can-flipping CovertOps, high sec pirate, and 1 industrial miner. I have only been playing a year and a half, but I have yet to be suicide ganked in high sec. Simply because when I mine, I draw no attention to myself by flying a freighter or exhumer.....its not smart when solo. I pry on Marco miners and haulers. I, like many others get kicks from griefing some carebear and I look forward to the hatemails....Its a part of EVE. Being that the game market is player driven....it make many types of profit possible...you just have to find that niche....diversify...run missions, mine smartly, whatever. If it doesn't work....then change it.

Good Luck...I hope to be seeing you in my sights soon!

---

Originally by: Nian Banks

---

Your comment is by far and away the only honest and reasonably intelligent reply thus far and were on the second page. The rest of the comments I categorize in the 'Lolz, L2P, We rock u suck, I have no brain' department.

---

Quote:

---

If your criminally flagged and destroyed by &/ with concord assistance you shouldn't get insurance. Its not a hard concept. If your a bank robber and you crash your car, do you think you can call insurance? Good luck.

No insurance will pay if your in a war, it never happens. Collateral damage is immense in war and insurance companies don't want to foot the bill. They can't afford it. Nor can the insurance companies in eve. If it isn't worth their while and they make a massive loss, which they would be if they were a company. They would go bankrupt.

---

Originally by: Tippia

---

Originally by: Nian Banks

---

Your comment is by far and away the only honest and reasonably intelligent reply thus far and were on the second page. The rest of the comments I categorize in the 'Lolz, L2P, We rock u suck, I have no brain' department.

---

You need to read more closely.

Quote:

---

If your criminally flagged and destroyed by &/ with concord assistance you shouldn't get insurance. Its not a hard concept. If your a bank robber and you crash your car, do you think you can call insurance? Good luck.

No insurance will pay if your in a war, it never happens. Collateral damage is immense in war and insurance companies don't want to foot the bill. They can't afford it. Nor can the insurance companies in eve. If it isn't worth their while and they make a massive loss, which they would be if they were a company. They would go bankrupt.

---

To quote the famous sig: it's a game mechanic, not a business. What you're suggesting would hurt PvP immensely, and only benefit carebears ù a benefit they don't need. Your suggestion would also hurt the market something fierce since it would allow "stuff I mine is free"-numpties to completely run the show.

The balance you want was given last fall, and was at that point overbalanced in favour of the victimes. If anything, those changes need to be scaled back to introduce more danger back into the game.

---

Originally by: Nian Banks

---

Edited by: Nian Banks on 17/07/2009 19:08:05
Your comment is by far and away the only honest and reasonably intelligent reply thus far and were on the second page.
The rest of the comments I categorize in the 'Lolz, L2P, We rock u suck, I have no brain' department.

Quote:

---

Well, thanks, probably because of my age....bit of an old "f"'r......Now where's my mush.....?

Quote:

---

I asking for mining ships to get a buff in their tank.

---

I understand you. I think though by theory of design, the mining ships intent is that they are not combat ships and such need no armor, but they need cargo space...which would reduce any type of armor. Now, if you fly with a group you can have support ships armor rep and transfer shield...which is the intent via game mechanics. Solo anything in EVE is taking a risk....you have to be smart, bottom line. Like I said I mine with a Navitis and anchoring in large pop systems....move back and forth, and bail at the first sign of potential trouble. Many miners do the same.

Quote:

---

What I want to see is a removal of minerals coming in from mission loot, making miners the only real source of
minerals. With a profession that needs support and defence just to do its job properly, it shouldn't have to compete
with the already rich mission runners. Dropping T1 meta level 0 modules is bad for the game economy, it gives far too
much in minerals and if not reprocessed, compete with the module production from the readily available BPO's.

---

But you can compete by running missions too. Not all missions are combat related. An industrial/miner can thrive well in the right market....try gas harvesting or ice harvesting.
Now, for a NON miner/industrialist, they are being penalized for not mining. Why should they not be able to get mission loot? I know I sell everything I loot to support myself. Either reprocessed or not. My miner has lots of SP in drones, so I can deal with NPC and PC pirates. I loot that stuff too and sell it. You would be surprised has some T1 meta 0 gear goes for in some systems....you have to know your markets. Alts are good for that. Besides when we all started EVE the loot drops where often the only way to get gear without having to spend money.

Quote:

---

Isk per hour is a given standard in efficiency, mission runners work on isk per hour, miners run on isk per hour.
The only people who don't are PvPers and thats understandable, to quantify their profession in isk is dubious.

---

I half agree. Pirates work for isk per hour too via ransoms and bounties....this is usually the only way -5.0 and below pirates can operate. We even take a BIG chance going to high sec for skill books in our pod. People with trip over themselves to suicide gank us in our pods....we loose our implants maybe skill points....and they get a sizable reward for the bounty...as long as its good.

Quote:

---

Other than that, I never liked the insurance system, it is based off a set value, it doesn't take into account T2
prices and it gives payouts to those destroyed by concord or who are at war and loose their ship directly from
combat in that war.

---

Actually insurance is a good thing. There are insurance payouts in war. In real life $500,000 for the death of US military person. And with the lose of gear, there are insurance and warranties. The market is supply and demand...that's what runs the market. I do think that there should be a price index for insurance. The jita market sounds fair to me. Some of my ships are worth 10 mill on the market but I only get 300k-2mil for a insurance payout...kind of not worth flying it. As for criminals...they have payouts too. Money laundering, insurance fraud, fronts, and payoffs all come into play. Which leads me too think....how cool would that be from a -10 pirate like myself; to pay off a concord agent in the systems I hunt....that wouldn't be fair though.

Originally by: murder one

---

Insurance doesn't need to be removed for Concord losses, it needs to be removed for *all* losses. Still want to remove insurance now? I'll bet you don't if you have to either see it all stay or all go. You're probably not man enough to stomach playing the game without insurance entirely.

---

Originally by: Nian Banks

---

Removing insurance from concord loss and war plus reducing the supply of minerals would change PvP for the better.
Wars would be come clear cut, you could pound to to submission your opponent, various classes of ships would become more common in war, titans woudn't be spat out of production as often as they are, capitals would become less of a fleet and more of a heavy hitter in a mixed fleet.

Things would change, but it certainly would become more interesting.

---

Quote:

---

makes no mention of the the reason most pilots suicide gank them, Macro Miners

---

Originally by: murder one

---

How about this idea- noobs are able to continue to insure their ships for the first four months they're in the game, along with being able to remain in an NPC corp for that time, after which they are dumped into their race's Factional Warfare NPC corp that is able to be war decced (they can move into a player corp of their choice if this isn't to their liking as well) and all insurance goes away for all players after that four month time span, for all ships.

This allows a nice safety blanket for new players while providing experienced players the tools to wage war and engage other players in combat and actually make an impact in the game.

---

Originally by: Nian Banks

---

Well where do I begin? I guess we should first look at CCP's history in regards to high security space and it's relative safety.

---

Originally by: Nian Banks

---

I demand the right to make easy isk while not even paying to my attention for more than 5 seconds every 6 minutes!

---

Originally by: iP0D

---

Let's be honest, the only reason there are miners in game is to have relatively easy prey. We don't need average john doe general mining for resources, we have missions for that, both in terms of loot and relatively sheltered locations for quick & dirty mining.

---

Originally by: Nian Banks

---

Once again I will remind people that I don't want concord changed.
I don't want Mining ships to be buffed.

All I want is the removal of tech1 meta0 modules from mission rat loot tables and insurance to be modified or removed from the game.

---

Originally by: murder one

---

You can't have CCP just cater to you and screw everyone else. You want no insurance for Concord losses? Fine I say. But insurance needs to be removed from every ship in the game then. Particularly the default insurance payout that you get even when you don't insure your ship.

You're complaining about the suicide situation but you're not willing to go far enough with the changes to make it matter. All you want is for your game to be made easier. There is no value in that.

<ninja edit>

How about this idea- noobs are able to continue to insure their ships for the first four months they're in the game, along with being able to remain in an NPC corp for that time, after which they are dumped into their race's Factional Warfare NPC corp that is able to be war decced (they can move into a player corp of their choice if this isn't to their liking as well) and all insurance goes away for all players after that four month time span, for all ships.

---

Originally by: Vlad Malnex

---

all i can suggest is join a 0.0/low-sec corp/allaince where the real profit is, high sec was never meant to be rich as 0.0 and low sec but some how missions got people insta rich.

if your looking for a get rich sqeem in high sec for mining then look else where because allready high sec is overpowered.

maybe CCP should look at Darkfall the fully all round pvp where there is no place to hide you know the way CCP wanted EVE to be before all the WOW kids came here

---

Originally by: Nian Banks

---

...goonswarms 'jihad', however it's spreading amongst the less skilled pvp wanna bees

---

Originally by: Angelina Morgan

---

meh just remove the insurance payouts for ships blown up by CONCORD.

After that If some still wants to gank hulks in their megas let them do it.

---

Originally by: Nian Banks

---

How is it that people feel the need to reply when they have not even read the bloody post?

---

Quote:

---

Mining ships, do not need any form of buff or change.
Concord actions are reasonably balanced, no changes needed.
Insurance is broken, it need changing or near complete removal. Both sides of the coin.

---

Quote:

---

Tech1 Meta0 Modules need removing from NPC rat drops. Named is not meta0.

---

Originally by: murder one

---

Nian Banks-

While you do have some valid points (the game design being broken, mining's value is being ruined by loot drop tables etc. etc.) the rest of your post is completely wrong and way off base and here is why:

Have you ever heard the expression 'low hanging fruit'? The phrase implies the concept that the easiest targets (the lowest, most easily accessible fruit on the tree) will be the first to be picked. You and your ilk are low hanging fruit.

You're lazy, you're greedy and you want something for nothing. It's easy to not be suicide ganked. You have no concept of just how difficult it really is to accomplish a suicide kill in high sec, particularly after the numerous Concord buffs. Your post verifies this. You seem to think that the loot rewards dropped by a an average Hulk is really worthwhile. It's not. T2 modules? Are you serious? Have you checked the markets lately? T2 is dirt cheap. But I'm getting off the point here.

I agree that mining 'isn't worth the time'. It's too easy. It's too simple, any bot can do it. I think that the entire mining system in Eve should be redesigned so that it's much more interactive and would give players a chance to really increase their mining yield if they were to interact with the game dynamically while mining. For that matter I think that all belts should be moved to a dynamic system similar to exploration so that an asteroid belt is more of a 'find' to be protected and defended than something that is static in a system where anyone can simply warp in and do business.

I agree that insurance is bad, but not for the same reason you think. Insurance needs to go. Completely. It's putting artificial limits on the cost of materials and is therefor bad for the game. Insurance doesn't need to be removed for Concord losses, it needs to be removed for *all* losses. Still want to remove insurance now? I'll bet you don't if you have to either see it all stay or all go. You're probably not man enough to stomach playing the game without insurance entirely.

Suicide ganking is *good* for the Eve economy. It provides change. It provides opportunity for industrial characters to create materials and goods to be sold, both to the attackers and targets. A lot of industrial characters (not carebears) are *very* happy about suicide ganking. The only players who are upset about the situation are C A R E B E A R S such as yourself that are too inept/lazy/greedy to avoid being killed.

There are plenty of options to avoid being killed. Use one.

---

Originally by: Nian Banks

---

How is it that people feel the need to reply when they have not even read the bloody post? I have seen several comments on how to fit a hulk properly, how to not get ganked, and more complaints saying I should L2P and only loosers mine.
How about you all suck it up and read the suggestions closely, then comment with some form of intelligence.

---

Quote:

---

I am glad to sum it up for you all.

Insurance is broken, it need changing or near complete removal. Both sides of the coin.

---

Quote:

---

Tech1 Meta0 Modules need removing from NPC rat drops. Named is not meta0.

---

Quote:

---

If you disagree, give something more than lol l2p or hold your tongue. In truth NAFF off.

---

Originally by: Morux

---

Have to agree with the last two items... insurance IS broken... it's like going to State Farm, taking out a ton of insurance on your car, then crashing it into the side of a bank you're about to rob... then going back to the insurance company and saying "i'd like my cash now please". It's laughable... and doesn't match any real-life insurance methods. Either remove insurance payout if you are involved with criminal acts, or adjust the cost upward to players that take advantage of the loophole. As it is, insurance is disproportionately high to all users, regardless of whether they abuse the system or not.

---

Originally by: Malcanis

---

How many god damb times does it have to be said...

---

Originally by: Morux

---

The point was that it isn't a balanced system. Insurance only supports the T1 side anyhow - it doesn't do crap for T2. So to say that you need good insurance to wage a war against NPC-corp alts is unfounded. The cost of added insurance only pays back around 200% of the invested insurance cost, so it's marginal at best. Who the heck goes around suiciding in T2 ships??

---

Quote:

---

Just because the game physics don't mimic actual "in-space" physics doesn't mean that other parts of the game can be made more realistic. Of the posters in this thread, 5 people responded that insurance is generally broken, 2 others agreed that it could use a second look and 3 thinks it needs to be left alone. So 70% of folks here believe that there is a problem with the mechanics of Eve's insurance system in one way or another.

---

Originally by: Grez

---

Mining ships/barges don't need to be buffed. Stop being a cheap bastard and fit PROPER shield boosters, not civi ones.

---

Originally by: Tippia

---

Originally by: Nian Banks

---

How is it that people feel the need to reply when they have not even read the bloody post?

---

Because you ramble on about things that aren't relevant to the points you're trying to make, which makes your OP seem like the standard "onoz! protect my highsec mining (at the cost of gankers)" whine.

Quote:

---

Mining ships, do not need any form of buff or change.
Concord actions are reasonably balanced, no changes needed.
Insurance is broken, it need changing or near complete removal. Both sides of the coin.

---

àwhich is exactly what you're saying here as well. You're asking for another unneccesary nerf to gankers. As it is, suicide ganking has already been nerfed to oblivion ù it can now only be done for lols, not for profit. If you don't want to be lolganked, the advice given by many on how to avoid getting killed are all sound.

That said, I disagree with all three of these points: mining ships need to be tiered so that the amount of protection they can have outside of highsec is vastly increased to match the threats out there, and the ones that can operate in highsec are adjusted downwards to what they're expected to encounter. Concord needs to be nerfed to bring back for-profit-ganking. Insurance does not need to be changed.

Quote:

---

Tech1 Meta0 Modules need removing from NPC rat drops. Named is not meta0.

---

This, however, I agree with. Combine this with radically nerfed reprocessing results (they have no BPs, so the composition doesn't have to make sense and they can't be used for mineral compression).

---

Originally by: Nian Banks

---

Once again I will remind people that I don't want concord changed.
I don't want Mining ships to be buffed.

All I want is the removal of tech1 meta0 modules from mission rat loot tables and insurance to be modified or removed from the game.

---

Originally by: Akita T

---

Alternatively, I simply suggest a major buff in mining barge and exhumer hitpoints

---

Originally by: Lindsay Logan

---

Originally by: Akita T

---

Alternatively, I simply suggest a major buff in mining barge and exhumer hitpoints

---

---

Originally by: Gekeim

---

I'm not sure I see why removing tech1 meta0 modules from mission rat loot tables would have any positive bearing on miners getting ganked. If your intent is to drive the price of mined ore up and it ends up achieving that effect then it would be making you an even more lucrative target to attack, right?

---

Originally by: Gekeim

---

I'm not sure I see why removing tech1 meta0 modules from mission rat loot tables would have any positive bearing on miners getting ganked. If your intent is to drive the price of mined ore up and it ends up achieving that effect then it would be making you an even more lucrative target to attack, right?

---

Originally by: Cipher7

---

Mining sucks basically because not enough stuff gets destroyed in Eve compared to the # of people mining.

Insurance sets an artificial baseline on minerals and most minerals are selling at their "insurance" price except for Trit, Zyd, Mega and Merc which are selling at their "market" price due to actual scarcity.

This is pushing down the value of the other minerals, because nobody will use 4 isk trit to get insurance payout on ship to get rid of iso.

Basically the mineral composition of ships need to be tweaked to require more use of weak selling minerals.

Either that or insurance payouts should be revised upwards.

Drone regions messed up alot of things, and nobody I know would willingly want to live there because it make ratting feel like mining.

---

Originally by: Tzar'rim

---

Brutix, tier 1 BS or 5-10 frigs/dessies come into the belt, miner realises a gank might be happening real soon and warps off, case solved.

What? You weren't paying attention while you were mining in high sec because it's "safe"? You problem and (now) your loss.

---

Originally by: Nian Banks

---

A high sec miner with current mineral prices makes little in the way of isk in comparison to a mission runner.

---

Originally by: Shidhe

---

Originally by: Gekeim

---

I'm not sure I see why removing tech1 meta0 modules from mission rat loot tables would have any positive bearing on miners getting ganked. If your intent is to drive the price of mined ore up and it ends up achieving that effect then it would be making you an even more lucrative target to attack, right?

---

A hulk load of ore is pretty negligible compared to the cost of the Hulk...

By making mining more profitable, it would mean that miners could be ganked (high sec) and pirated (low sec) more, and still not give up. They would, of course, still complain a lot, but that is of lesser importance.

So we have more gank and happier miners! For my next performance I shall show that you can have your cake and eat it.

---

Originally by: Ivana Drake

---

Originally by: Nian Banks

---

A high sec miner with current mineral prices makes little in the way of isk in comparison to a mission runner.

---

the risk vs reward imbalance is right here

both the miner and the suicide ganker would be better off doing L4s in hi-sec. Ganking is just more fun

---

Originally by: Malcanis

---

The post above is correct. Rather than messing about with ship replacement for this circumstance but not that, mining, industry, R&D, POS and therefore sovereignty need a complete rework.

Risk must be a part of mining, even in 1.0, but mining should also be worthwhile.

But the people who want 0.0 rewards - "the value of a triple 1.8 spawn" in 1.0 safety conditions can frankly suck it.

---

Originally by: Nian Banks

---

Btw, I agree, level 4's should be low sec but in a slightly differtent way.
Lvl 4 agents should be mostly in 0.5 systems and the missions should be the closest system that's low sec.

E.g. Lvl4 agent 0.5 system, kill something ine jump away in a 0.4 system.

That way carebears have some modi****of safety but still have to put their neck out to do the mission.

---

Originally by: Nian Banks

---

Originally by: Malcanis

---

The post above is correct. Rather than messing about with ship replacement for this circumstance but not that, mining, industry, R&D, POS and therefore sovereignty need a complete rework.

Risk must be a part of mining, even in 1.0, but mining should also be worthwhile.

But the people who want 0.0 rewards - "the value of a triple 1.8 spawn" in 1.0 safety conditions can frankly suck it.

---

I doubt ccp will completely redesign all things industrial, hence small changes like modifying loot tables and insurance are the best way to change mining.

They may sound like major changes, some even cry 'the sky is falling' but in truth if you force miners to mine in low sec to aquire the more precious minerals, just by removing the mineral injection from mission loot, gankers will gain more legitimate targets without fear of concord and miners may complain but their income will go up because those high end ores will be worth considerably.

Changing the insurance by removing payouts when you have run afoul of concord is to keep the new miners in mining and to keep trit prices as low as possible. If there is little risk in highsec mining then the price of those high sec ores shouldn't drastically increase.

Gankers keep their kills up but also keep their ships, miners loose more ships but are compensated with better mineral prices.

The best part is that missions net less income.


Btw, I agree, level 4's should be low sec but in a slightly differtent way.
Lvl 4 agents should be mostly in 0.5 systems and the missions should be the closest system that's low sec.

E.g. Lvl4 agent 0.5 system, kill something ine jump away in a 0.4 system.

That way carebears have some modi****of safety but still have to put their neck out to do the mission.

---

Originally by: Venkul Mul

---

Originally by: Nian Banks

---

Btw, I agree, level 4's should be low sec but in a slightly differtent way.
Lvl 4 agents should be mostly in 0.5 systems and the missions should be the closest system that's low sec.

E.g. Lvl4 agent 0.5 system, kill something ine jump away in a 0.4 system.

That way carebears have some modi****of safety but still have to put their neck out to do the mission.

---

Out of curiosity, you are joking, don't have even thought about what you have suggested or simply you are a hardcore gatecamper?

Send mission runners to the nearest low sec system is identical to say:

"Gatecamp the first gate in low sec, the agents will sen you your preys."

---

Originally by: Kyra Felann

---

there shouldn't be insurance payouts for ships destroyed by CONCORD. It's just silly that an insurance company would pay you for a ship you intentionally lost to the Space Police when you tried to destroy someone's ship.

---

Originally by: Kyra Felann

---

First, I wonder why GoonSwarm don't gank mission-runners this time instead.

---

Quote:

---

It's just silly that an insurance company would pay you for a ship you intentionally lost to the Space Police when you tried to destroy someone's ship.

---

Originally by: Tippia

---

Originally by: Kyra Felann

---

First, I wonder why GoonSwarm don't gank mission-runners this time instead.

---

Because after the last time, the miners whined so hard that the only possible target right now is miners.

---

Originally by: ElanMorin6

---

It's also silly that an insurance company would ensure ships being flown into 0.0 space, or shpis of pilots with wardecs, or the ships of pilots who fly into the strongholds of hostile factions like Gurista on a daily basis.

---

Originally by: Kyra Felann

---

Edited by: Kyra Felann on 20/07/2009 20:10:58

Originally by: ElanMorin6

---

It's also silly that an insurance company would ensure ships being flown into 0.0 space, or shpis of pilots with wardecs, or the ships of pilots who fly into the strongholds of hostile factions like Gurista on a daily basis.

---

I don't disagree with this. At the least, the more often you get blown up, the more expensive insurance should be.

And in reply to the person saying that miners whined last time, I'd agree that there were many tears, but don't you think mission-runners would whine at least as much, maybe even more?

Look at the whining about salvage-theft--imagine if CNRs and other pimped ships started getting blown up left and right in mission-hubs. It's not uncommon for mission battleships to cost over a billion, versus the 200 million or 500 million for a fitted hulk or orca.

If any high-sec career has imbalanced risk (very low--can be done semi-AFK) vs reward (the highest in high-sec other than perhaps trading), it's mission-runners.

---

Originally by: Kyra Felann

---

First, I wonder why GoonSwarm don't gank mission-runners this time instead. They'd be harder to find, but probing mission runners isn't that hard. The ships are likely to be worth more, also. If I were a Goon, I think I'd have more fun ganking mission-runners.

Second, there shouldn't be insurance payouts for ships destroyed by CONCORD. It's just silly that an insurance company would pay you for a ship you intentionally lost to the Space Police when you tried to destroy someone's ship.

---

Originally by: Malcanis

---

More or less silly than private individuals or uncertain - or even hostile - loyalty being allowed to fly kilometre-long warships armed with vastly powerful weapons?

---

Originally by: Dagobert Dog

---

What goonswarm does is griefing other players.

---

Quote:

---

This is clearly an eula violation. The eula clearly states that griefing is not allowed.

---

Quote:

---

They are just bored now and try to drive away other players from the game.

---

Quote:

---

They gain nothing from their actions except the one or other hatemail from angry players.

---

Originally by: Tippia

---

…and increased hulk sales, obviously, hopefully at a higher price than usual. And (with some luck) increased mineral prices as well.

---

Originally by: Tippiaàand increased hulk sales, obviously, hopefully at a higher price than usual. And (with some luck) increased mineral prices as well.[/quote

---

Sorry mate, I believe you picked up the wrong thinking hat today, you must be wearing the 'I am a moron' hat instead.

Killing hulks will indeed increase mineral prices but only because all the miners will start to leave the game or just stop mining. Its not a positive thing.
If you want to increase the mineral prices but make people stay playing EvE you need to keep the incentive up and enough profit to be able to replace a hulk
if someone blows it up.

Originally by: Dagobert Dog

---

Edited by: Dagobert Dog on 21/07/2009 00:54:51
What goonswarm does is griefing other players. While others do suicide ganking for profit goons do it just to destroy the gameplay experience of other players.

---

Originally by: m3rb3aSt

---

Originally by: Dagobert Dog

---

Edited by: Dagobert Dog on 21/07/2009 00:54:51
What goonswarm does is griefing other players. While others do suicide ganking for profit goons do it just to destroy the gameplay experience of other players.

---

thats totally not true. goons do it for profit too. how else are you supposed to make money doing it?

---

Originally by: Malcanis

---

The point being that the last bout of whines resulted in faster CONCORD response times. So now only low-EHP targets can be ganked - like miners. Mission runners are pretty much ungankable now. Unintended consequences...

---

Originally by: Kyra Felann

---

Edited by: Kyra Felann on 21/07/2009 00:39:48

Originally by: Malcanis

---

More or less silly than private individuals or uncertain - or even hostile - loyalty being allowed to fly kilometre-long warships armed with vastly powerful weapons?

---

Given the Eve setting and how capsuleers fit into it, considerably less silly. Capsuleers are legally not part of any empire and are their own legal entities and are thus free to own their own fleets of military ships. Besides, once a capsuleer has shown that he is hostile to a faction (low standings), that faction's navy will attack him on sight. Plus there are restrictions on ships above a certain size, which might threaten an empire's space.

It may or may not seem odd to us today on Earth, but it's a major part of the setting, so it's something that must be accepted.

Insurance companies selling policies to very high-risk clients and not having rules against intentionally getting your ship blown up, however, violates every known rule of economics--there's no way they could stay in business. Pend Insurance is a corporation, not some government agency, so have to keep in mind the bottom line.

I've never read any chronicle or other piece of official backstory stating that Pend Insurance has a magic money-making machine allowing for infinite losses without ever going out of business and that they exist solely to help out capsuleers rather than actually make a profit, but if you're aware of one, please point me in its direction.

---

Originally by: Tauranon

---

Originally by: Malcanis

---

The point being that the last bout of whines resulted in faster CONCORD response times. So now only low-EHP targets can be ganked - like miners. Mission runners are pretty much ungankable now. Unintended consequences...

---

There are so many mission runners, mission runners leave entire fields of cans to flip, their cans have a specific high value/low volume component (salvage), and mission runners are by nature far more likely to aggress.

ie this is much less of a problem than than it sounds, unless you want to grief a specific player. For which wardecs, or just plain eating the cost of the gank amongst friends will suffice.

Lastly mission runners don't have infeasibly high EHP. My hulk alt is currently fitted for 21k EHP (high for a hulk, but still with rock scanner and 1x MLU II), and my mission battleship is fitted for 54k EHP with a partial resist hole. In a gank, the repper would only cycle once, so its hardly a factor, and faction items are at least as common on mission runners as hulks.

If you can do the logistics to put X amount of pilots to kill my hulk, you can do the logistics x2 to put X x2 pilots on my battleship. In some ways its probably less, because you need only 1 scout for either task.

---

Originally by: Malcanis[/quote

---

I love the way you say this as if it were obviously true.

Hint: it's not.

---

Originally by: Tauranon

---

Originally by: Malcanis[/quote

---

I love the way you say this as if it were obviously true.

Hint: it's not.

---

I love the way you pretend its impossible.

Hint: it's not.

---

Originally by: Malcanis

---

Originally by: Venkul Mul

---

Originally by: Nian Banks

---

Btw, I agree, level 4's should be low sec but in a slightly differtent way.
Lvl 4 agents should be mostly in 0.5 systems and the missions should be the closest system that's low sec.

E.g. Lvl4 agent 0.5 system, kill something ine jump away in a 0.4 system.

That way carebears have some modi****of safety but still have to put their neck out to do the mission.

---

Out of curiosity, you are joking, don't have even thought about what you have suggested or simply you are a hardcore gatecamper?

Send mission runners to the nearest low sec system is identical to say:

"Gatecamp the first gate in low sec, the agents will sen you your preys."

---

because every gate into or out of every lo-sec system is camped, right?

Seriously, have you been to lo-sec lately? If you're not in Rancer or one of the FW nexuses like Tama, then you simply dont see people on the gate. If you do then 9 times out of 10 it's a frigate or shuttle or Blockade Runner travelling from A to B. Even most 0.0 gateways are usually deserted.

---

Originally by: Tauranon

---

Originally by: Malcanis[/quote

---

I love the way you say this as if it were obviously true.

Hint: it's not.

---

I love the way you pretend its impossible.

Hint: it's not.

---

Originally by: Nian Banks

---

Originally by: Tauranon

---

Originally by: Malcanis[/quote

---

I love the way you say this as if it were obviously true.

Hint: it's not.

---

I love the way you pretend its impossible.

Hint: it's not.

---

if a few crazy people say the sky is green and they say it loud enough and all the time, laughing at anyone who corrects them saying it's blue.
You will eventually see more and more people believing it is in fact green.

Logic and reason rarely works when someone is adament in keeping their status quo. In this case it's gankers.

---

Originally by: Alekanderu

---

jihading is really really fun, you should try it sometime, i bet it's more fun than staring at veldspar slowly filling your cargohold

---

Originally by: Malcanis

---

I didn't say it was "impossible". OP implied that it's just as easy to get 10 guys together to do something as it is to get 5. It is trivially obvious that this is not so.

---

Originally by: Tauranon

---

Originally by: Malcanis

---

I didn't say it was "impossible". OP implied that it's just as easy to get 10 guys together to do something as it is to get 5. It is trivially obvious that this is not so.

---

Its a ship size change for a 5 guy team ganking hulks in destroyers. (switch destroyers for battlecruisers). No its not as easy, but thats always understandable given the target is a combat profession pilot.

Personally I think its not done that often, simply because you can usually find someone who will aggress whilst piloting a mission fitted ship.

---

Originally by: Nian Banks

---

it's been refered to as goonswarms 'jihad', however it's spreading amongst the less skilled pvp wanna bees

---

Originally by: Malcanis

---

There is a qualitative difference in using battlecruisers vs destroyers, apart from anything else.

---

Originally by: Tauranon

---

Originally by: Malcanis

---

There is a qualitative difference in using battlecruisers vs destroyers, apart from anything else.

---

no doubt.

The upfronts are still very manageable, and I recognise that its not as easy to find a sure win from every attempt. The upper end of payoffs are also better.

---

Originally by: Nian Banks

---

Hope it's American prime time, I hate Americans.

---

Originally by: "Nian Banks"

---

With these few changes, the respective play styles become balanced and to be honest, fair.

---

Originally by: TeddyBr FTW

---

Sounds like it might be time to start up another killin spree!

▪ Goonie Gasbags: Death Came

Give a ya or nay.

---

Originally by: Nian Banks

---

What timezone is prime time right now? Just curious as I am working night shift and I keep getting at the same time of the day people posting that are at the bottom of the gene pool when it comes to intelligence.

Hope it's American prime time, I hate Americans.

---

Originally by: Nian Banks

---

I think the qualitative difference isn't the ship class but the pilots, ganking miners in your destroyers takes little skill, ganking combat ships in missions requires you having to actually fight for that kill.

---

Originally by: Argus Greymoore

---

Originally by: Nian Banks

---

What timezone is prime time right now? Just curious as I am working night shift and I keep getting at the same time of the day people posting that are at the bottom of the gene pool when it comes to intelligence.

Hope it's American prime time, I hate Americans.

---

Nice. You ask for reasonable replies to your OP, then post this and trash a sizable portion of the player base.

---

Originally by: DigitalCommunist

---

These types of threads contribute to global warming.

---

Originally by: nameless slavegirl

---

Originally by: Nian Banks

---

it's been refered to as goonswarms 'jihad', however it's spreading amongst the less skilled pvp wanna bees

---

isn't this statement redundant ?

---

Originally by: raidnkill

---

we rly need someone to get rid of those Chinese Isk-farmers in most belts in high sec!

and make their isk-farming company go bankrupt

---

Originally by: Nian Banks

---

Originally by: raidnkill

---

we rly need someone to get rid of those Chinese Isk-farmers in most belts in high sec!

and make their isk-farming company go bankrupt

---

Easy, remove the risk of ganking in high sec and remove tech1 meta0 modules from NPC rat drops. Oh and if ccp was nice, reduce the trit needed in production and increase low sec mineral requirements. :)

---

Originally by: Xenophanes Colophon

---

Every time I read one of these posts it makes me sad.

---

Originally by: Haramor Carthran

---

Allahu Akbar your tears shall rain down upon the deaf ears of other infidels.

May death and despair come to you and your internet spaceship collective.

ALLAHU AKBAR

---

Originally by: Nian Banks

---

Hope it's American prime time, I hate Americans.


Oh and just to let you know, at the time, it was morning in America. Kiddies must have just gotten up to go to school...

---