Errr. No it didn't.

But ofc, both of us can answer that question whichever way we like dependent how far we want to go back. I can go back to < 2 isk for trit and say, with 100% accuracy, that they STILL mined even WITH ganking.

I know. I did. Gankers were inconsequential. You are and always have over-valued YOUR profession.

And really, if BOTS do cause a decrease in ice/ore value (an oft used argument justifying ganking of miners) then the MINERS are not at fault either are they?

Get one thing straight, I have no argument or problem with ganking, I merely have difficulties with your justification of it.

You can indeed just go out there and gank away and be as patriotic as you like in affecting market prices and miner behaviour.

But that's NOT the reason you're complaining is it now?

Actually, you know, with afterthought that's a good question, but it's easily answered.

Nobody "values" the nursing profession, until you need care.
Nobody "values" the fireman, the ambos, the police, until you need them.

Society however, recognises the value so the profession HAS value by default.

Mining has intrinsic value. Without, NONE of Eve would function. No level of PvP, sov wars etc. could occur WITHOUT miners.

(Granted, without PvP and so wars, mining value would decrease but mining could still continue to fuel a domestic market - missioners/ FW/ etc....)

We need each other.

But we don't need PvP v Miner for that value to be realised either...

indeed, which is why it's important from a nullsec perspective to keep highsec mins as cheap and plentiful as possible

thanks for the help

NEWS JUST IN
Gankers and Goons butthurt over miner buff.

As soon as we work out HOW that happened, we'll update you.

Stay tuned.

If gankers are so inconsequential you sure do write an awful lot about why they shouldn't be buffed...

For the 1056th time, you made NO DIFFERENCE when it was EASY. .

Because YOU sir, can STILL gank EASILY. CCP gave you awesome tools to do it.

Your argument is the profitability in ganking and I can suggest that many, many targets of opportunity exist for gankers to make SERIOUS coin notwithstanding the obvious freighter ganks.

What about the FW / Incursion / L4 boats - many with very high value faction/commander mods etc.

Why not we ask? Because it WILL require teamwork. It WILL require being SHOT AT. THAT'S YOUR PROBLEM.

Ganking is already easy AND profitable. You're just trying to justify easymode MINER ganking by theorizing about economics.

For the 1056th time, you made NO DIFFERENCE when it was EASY.

You couldn't do it then - your profession failed. You're failing now.

TL;DR You want easymode and you're making **** up to convince YOURSELVES that you're "neccessary". Everybody else sees it for the BS it is.

news just in: tantrums and forum whining constitute ~metagaming~

it really isn't and it's pretty undignified

I direct your attention to the OP. Go on, look. Does it constitute tantrum and forum whining?

Are Goons posting copious responses SUPPORTING a tantrum and whine thread?

Would that be the same Goons that don't actually mine, don't live in highsec and had absolutely no idea they could be beaten at their own game?

Is that the same Goons that flood forums or post bad things when they dont get their own way or when someone posts **** about them?

You taught well Goon. Beware the pupil.

Now, really. Haven't you got someone to rofl-stomp into the ground? Go and do YOUR job properly and stop worrying yourself needlessly about MY finances.

what if we made drone space like the old days pre-crucible, but only made them drop low-end mins.
then buff hulk ehp some more

You obviously know more than you ever learned.

CCP: they went full returd.

Why?

Because YOU sir, can STILL gank EASILY. CCP gave you awesome tools to do it.

Your argument is the profitability in ganking and I can suggest that many, many targets of opportunity exist for gankers to make SERIOUS coin notwithstanding the obvious freighter ganks.

What about the FW / Incursion / L4 boats - many with very high value faction/commander mods etc.

Why not we ask? Because it WILL require teamwork. It WILL require being SHOT AT. THAT'S YOUR PROBLEM.

Ganking is already easy AND profitable. You're just trying to justify easymode MINER ganking by theorizing about economics.

For the 1056th time, you made NO DIFFERENCE when it was EASY.

You couldn't do it then - your profession failed. You're failing now.

TL;DR You want easymode and you're making **** up to convince YOURSELVES that you're "neccessary". Everybody else sees it for the BS it is.

moar tears about stuff he knows nothing about - he's just following the popular trend

It FEELS LIKE you should STOP RANDOMLY actiVATING your CAPS lock.

Can we buff the ability of players to feel embarrassment at making yet another thread whining about how hard it is to get a group of friends together to go and blow up space pi+¦atas? Ganking has to be hands down the easiest way to make ISK in the game. I might be wrong but I think continuing to whine that CCP refuses to make an option to have the target held down and gagged while you lube up is a little on the crazy side.

I'd just like to point out that there's a great thread over in the F&I about one way that ganking could legitimately be buffed.

It's the "Buff Smartbombs" thread, and it details how GSCs are employed by miners for the sole purpose of griefing gankers. This is because they are made outdated by the giant ore bays enjoyed by all exhumers and barges. Despite their obsolescence, they continue to litter vast swaths of space, griefing gankers by preventing them from activating the single remaining effective tactic for ganking miners.

That's the very definition of grief play.

What I see is Touval Lysander being contrary because he got curbstomped in the "Wasted Space" thread.

And you Sir have no idea how to keep things in context.
Nor do you have any idea which posts you're being trolled on.

WHEN you can work that out. Come play.

I HAVE worked out that you're butthurt. I INTEND to make sure the pain remains.

HOW DOES IT FEEL?

Its just unfortunate that I can't ignore the ISD Type40 or Greyscale.