Why is it okay for gankers to tell miners that we should bring 'moar tank,' but when miners tell gankers to bring 'moar dps' they're somehow out of line?

If Soundwave wasn't either trolling or using the wrong words, well, his post is pretty much the death of the PvP MMO.

Not necessarily, but Soundwave saying "well you should lose more than the victim in hisec" along with what I've seen of their intentions with the insurance nerf, Crimewatch, this dumbing down of the game - yeah, welcome to a risk-free hisec.

... Very good chance that some of them might shoot back.

Maybe if you tried reading.

It has nothing to do with DPS. It has to do with the lead game designer using a thoroughly and completely discredited balance concept that became obsolete somewhere in the early Triassic era GÇö a view on balance that simply does not work, and which has been proven beyond any doubt not to work time and time again (and which is responsible for one of the most egregious imbalances this game has offered GÇö one that they are struggling to correct to this day).

Why?

Or, more precisely: why does it need to be harder than it is, seeing as how the miners already have to actively choose to make it worth-while?

The context doesn't matter. He's either using it as a blanket statement, or he's using it about a specific group, meaning that for some reason, they should abide by different rules than the rest of the game. Either way, it's the same deeply flawed balancing concept that has only ever managed to make things unbalanced.

I hereby demand that it should take at least 10bn worth of ships to kill my Nomad.

Adapting the game to fit the miners instead of adapting the miners to fit the game is acceptable for you?

Miners are just going to whine when it's 6 Catalysts killing their Hulks and Mackinaws instead of 1 or 2. Then CCP will implement more changes to nerf suicide ganking. What's the difference?

miners will whine whether it takes 6 catalysts to kill them or 6 vindicators

they will whine about dying until the day CCP hamfistedly removes the ability to aggress a ship in hisec outside of wardecs

and they'll still whine about getting popped by wartargets until that's nuked as well

how much effort is required for exploration compared to, say, warping a hulk to your favorite bookmark and setting the lasers free on three different asteroids for ~max afkness~

So why'd they increase the HP to ridiculous levels instead of simply giving them the ability to fit a tank at the expense of yield, just like everyone else in the game has to find some balance between tank, utility and damage yield?

Is it because miners only know what "modulated strip miner II," "mining laser upgrade II" and "medium cargohold optimization I/II" can do?

hint: they don't need more mids to fit a better tank, just a slight bump in CPU and some grid.

Gank a hauler on a busy trade network. It leaves a yellow wreck, flagged to the now dead owner.
Scoop the wreck now, you are flagged to the previous owner. Vultures can steal the wreck, but it goes with the territory.

Post-Crimewatch:
Try to scoop the wreck, you get attacked by everyone, vultures and passerby's alike.

Profits are already far from certain due to failed gank attempts, random loot drops, loss of insurance - and vultures.
Now factor in free aggro for everyone....

Now imagine trying to loot a dead freighter.

Please point out an example of such tears.

Gankers are quite happy with the changes to the barges, its the miners who are whining because we can still gank them for profit if they fail to fit a tank or pick the skiff.

Meh, relying on CCP to buff, nerf and otherwise pick sides in the gankers versus miners drama is bad design. Defending or killing miners really should be up to the players. IMO, CCP should have used the CrimeWatch overhaul to fix the ganking problem, specifically by making the criminal flag permanent. If you want to gank someone, go for it, but don't be surprised if the rest of the community/faction hunts you down, sanctions you, revokes your docking privileges, and denies access to station services for being such a twit.

running vanguards with a non-horrible fleet gets you that, if not more, with ease

and there's literally no risk because even if dudes in blackbirds start suicide jamming logis, CCP will just nerf suicide ECM

Then enforce it. You're allowed to shoot any -5 or lower character you see. Go to a suicide-gank-heavy system, and sit in the belts with alpha boats/logistics/booster links for the miners.

Or are you saying you want NPCs to enforce it for you?

tell me how easy it is to raise sec status

i'm pretty sure more people recycle alts to keep concord in belts than people recycling good gank alts

the more you know

He's the second prevalent "pro PvP" troll on the forums and fully motivated to bring as much nerf on miners as possible. I know it's pointless but that does not mean I will stay silent and see them manipulate the developers into creating unpractical features that bring nothing new on the table except inconvenience

As mentioned previously (hundreds of times, in fact so many times, that we can't find a spoon large enough to spoon-feed this information to you people), we don't try to prevent others from enjoying non-pvp aspects of the game. We are however trying to prevent people from removing the non-consensual pvp aspect of this game.

Each of these changes moves the game closer and closer to their logical conclusion. I don't know how long you've been around, but I can tell you with certainty that due to the numerous CONCORD buffs, security status buffs/nerfs (depending on perspective), insurance removal, war nerfs, miscellaneous game mechanic nerfs (stuff like fleet aggression transfer), it's much more difficult to kill a player when he doesn't want to be killed today than it was in the years prior. The game has been moving along this unidirectional path for a long, long time now.

I mean, I can see the point you're trying to make here: "nothing changes, everything is the same because CCP hasn't yet made it impossible to shoot people in high-sec, so there's no need to worry." But it doesn't work like that. Wouldn't you be even remotely concerned if for example your government would follow the same pattern in diminishing your ability to express yourself? Or would you say "nah, everything is fine until they put troops on the street and tell us over loudspeakers that we can't talk anymore"?