I love how some of the people in here are afraid of getting caught with their pants down.


When someone is ganked there are certain people who are claiming that they should have realized it was going to happen. I disagree. As someone who often uses a Freighter on his alt let me tell you that it isn't as simple as some people are trying to claim. Yea, I am careful about how much I keep in my cargo and I have never been ganked. However, when you jump into a system with 100s or even 1000s of people in it you can't go "Oh no! There are 50 people on the gate in various ships that may or may not be fitted for high alpha!" Even with a scout, which I have used on occasions when I really had a lot to move, there is no way to see a gank coming 100% for sure. There may or may not be hints but then again if your freighter is getting bumped for 10 minutes while they get the numbers they need chances are there was 0 warning.


If you're a highsec ganker and you're afraid of getting ganked all I have to say to you is "suck it up buttercup." I think that changes to killrights are very interesting. Whether the person knows their killrights have changed hands or not it will add an interesting dynamic to ganking.

Ganking is 0 risk as it is now in most instances. A ganker chooses where, when and how they lose their ship. They control their sec status. They control almost all of the variables in some cases. Yes, maybe the miner tanked but you know that with a scan don't you? Yes, the freighter may have too much in its hold. Then again, sometimes you need to move expensive stuff in a short amount of time. That is a risk a freighter pilot takes. The gankers who got him picked the when, where and how. That isn't risk; that is acceptable losses. Stop claiming concord is part of the risk. Concord goes into the cost-benefit thought process of whether to gank or not.

Just in case you didn't read all that. To gankers I say "suck it up buttercup."

No, you're whining on the forums.


You don't get insurance for losing your ship to an illegal act? Makes sense to me.

Miners get ships that have viable tanks vs new and upgraded ships (T3 BCs and Buffed Destroyers). That was needed. ISK isn't a tank but even a tanked hulk was paper thin before the buff. Now y'all just have to bring friends to be successful.

CW2 makes it so your precious PvP is less about picking on people (stupid or not) and more about actually risking retaliation? Awesome, needed to happen.

Kill Rights can be transferred from indy character to PvP character or to someone you pay to deal with it for you? That seems logical.

All it is doing is giving people more tools to deal with the advantages you have over them.

Yes, suck it up.

Lol, look at my corp history. I lived in 0.0 for the past few months and just left. As soon as I get my invite to the corp I am joining I'll be in a WH. Just because I think these changes are good doesn't mean I am a highsec dweller.

You're not making any sense. I think the dreaded carebears will enjoy this new more fair highsec. The only people who don't like it are the people who are gaming the current system to their advantage.


Edit because of other person's edit: I think there are less bots in highsec than some people like to go on about. There are too many but every miner who doesn't want to chat with you in local isn't a botter.

I'd say both. Botters are bad. Easy mode ganking is bad. Both are bad.


Did they differentiate between miner and trading bots? I am not trying to pick you apart. I am honestly curious.


Either way I think the risk in ganking is too easily managed. The ganker sets the when and how without any retaliation that they didn't also calculate in. Concord is predictable and not a risk or variable. Their biggest risk is not bringing enough alpha which is also a manageable variable by scanning to predict the other person's tank or knowing how much HP a freighter might have.

Not what I was asking but sure. I'll bite.

Mining bots didn't benefit from the barge changes as they relate to ganking. The bots are more perfect than humans at avoiding ganks. They have a perfect attention span and a perfect handle on local/d-scan.

Also, are you arguing that the game should stagnate at the fear of making botting easier? Human players also benefited from the mining barge/exhumer changes. They were the ones that benefited the most from those changes. They are the ones that will benefit from these changes. Ganking will still be possible it will just have variables that are outside the gankers control.

In the system as it exists now where is the non-controlled risk to gankers?

Where is the surprise gate camp?

Where is the "oops they brought our fleet comp's perfect counter," that exists in PvP?

Where is the "they brought more people," that also exists in PvP?

Where are the unpredictable variables in highsec suicide ganking in its current state?

The highlighted part is a different argument. Who says ganking miners should be efficient? I believe it was CCP Soundwave that said ganking isn't supposed to be about profit. I don't remember where exactly.

Either way the variable is how many ships does it take to kill a Mackinaw? That is predictable. I do not know the answer as it is not a part of the game I participate in.

If you want to kill a Mack you can predict the exact force needed and the cost of that force with much more accuracy than any other "PvP" situation in the game. Your variable is essentially limited to "do they warp away?" If they do it is 0 cost to the ganker unless somehow they get their ship destroyed due to low sec status which is also something he/she alone controls. They can not "ignore" any threat. I assure you that if 50 thrashers hits grid and targets them it is a threat they couldn't afford to ignore whether they do or not. I also assure you that if I logged into my trade alt and looked at Jita I could give you an exact cost for those 50 thrashers. All I would need is a ganking fit.

I'm going to put bounties on empire mining corps. For mining ships. Just cuz.

Killrights could become very lucrative too. I would pay a lot for certain killrights

The idea is that you'll be able to put a bounty on anyone you like. But merely putting a bounty on someone won't mean that you can freely attack them; they still have to have -5 sec status, a GCC, a wardec, or an active killright which you have acquired for you to attack them without CONCORD interference.

Still waiting for whatsisname on the last page to explain how this "fooks over" hi-sec industrialists.

No it couldn't. It just changes who's paying for the shortfall.

Sure. But why would anyone piss away the ISK required for that?

Like I've said several times. Gankers are not randomly vindictive or irrational and aren't interested in pissing money away for no reason. Alliances are the same way. Now that Tech's been nerfed, who has the motive to put a bounty on Exhumers?

More importantly, for that to matter would imply that the possibility of Players paying other Players to attack a certain ship should influence game mechanics. In which case, I call bounty on Vagabonds, where's my Vaga buff?

No, that's the cause and effect line for Exhumers.

Bounty on Exhumers (which tank better than a standard Vaga anyway) -> Whining -> Exhumer Buff.

You obviously have blatant issues if you believe that because there are winners and losers, players should do everything they can not to fall into the latter category, at the expense of their opponent's fun.

Traditional boardgames like Chess or Go are bound by extremely strict and very simple rules. It's absolutely impossible to cheese or borderline exploit in those. Gameplay prevents condoned griefing and pushing your opponent's buttons, something which is however the staple of all modern 'competitive' games, such as DOTA-likes, for example, the workings of which are byzantine (champions/items constantly balanced, engine flaws turned into gameplay) and the exact opposite of traditional boardgames, which are brilliantly simple and reward pure skill, not cheap shots.

Those traditional games are not 'competitive', in the way you envision this word, at all. To win, you don't have to "play to win". You just have to be better than your opponent, and focused. In modern online games, to win, having more pure skill doesn't cut it, you have to triple check every patch for new possibilities of cheese, or removal thereof. You must have the "play to win" mentality and be an annoyance.
If there's a bug that multiplies tenfold the damage of an item, you will use it non-stop until next patch because it's going to be so lolrandum to see people rage XDDD. While the majority of gamers won't, because it breaks immersion, and is plainly 'not fun'. You will call them 'scrubs' and mock them.

Winning has become more important than playing, for a minority of players that are into annoying people more than they are into playing make-believe and roleplaying pod pilots. They're not playing for ingame goals, they're using the game for and out-of-game one, reaping Schadenfreude.


It's okay to be competitive, in a broader sense than the one you delve upon. It's fun to 1v1 or have good clean fun with fleets of equal strength. You don't have to enter the 'play to win' mentality to be competitive. It's okay to just play make-believe. It's okay to respect your fellow gamer.


Online communities are actually socializing tools, and a good barometer to check where you're at. When all hell breaks loose IRL, where are you gonna stand? Will you gang up on people trying to mind their own business, because after all, it's only life, and they could have hid themselves better?
You will of course argue that IRL and online behavior have nothing in common, but guess what, ethics are context-irrelevant. Except if you completely roleplay, which is mighty fine, and something you ridicule.

And pray tell, what is sociopathy?