Any why should they? If a given player does not like high, they can fly elsewhere. No one is forcing you to live in high sec and deal with the players there. You may say "But low sec is undesirable due to reasons xxx and yyy". Well if high sec was turned into low sec, it would gain those exact same problems!

Wardecs.

You aint using them.

Jihadding with bigger ships that push out more DPS (but you'd make a loss dying to concord)... you aint using that either.

Infact, I see plenty of risk..... but I see more nullsec whiners avoiding risk and the costs involved and crying about it...

Sandbox =/= missioning or mining in hisec at zero risk.

Sandbox =/= gankers getting easy kills on missioners or miners in hisec

IMO, More risk in high-sec is fine as long as it can be mitigated in a simple and careful way. Like using the Survey Scanner and Cargo scanner to check if asteroids and cans are rigged with booby traps or not. Then perhaps gankers could take advantage of the foolish pilots who let a simple trap blow their shields off.

I mean, last time I checked, there were booby-trapped roids in level 4 missions.

Combining a relatively low-action activity such as mining with a relatively high-attention counter-measure such as spamming D-scan? That's what leads people into questioning why they're mining and then they go to level 4 missions or quit. That sort of mining sucks to do, no matter how high mineral prices are.

Ahhh, perhaps you misinterpreted =/= as something other than "Does not equal".

You're right, they don't face any meaningful risks, and that IMO, is a problem.

Right, and all the freighters being lost in Uedama to your corp (a goon corp), they are a figment of the API's imagination.
And Hulkageddon, another goon treat, that never happened.
Nor the ice interdictions, nor the weekend attack in Jita.

And of course, the new AI that will totally wipe out drones as PVE platform, that will have no effect on high sec.

A good laywer, or in this case, null sec propagandist, should never ask a question he does not already know the answer to.
You are clearly bad at both.

You missed the high-attention part. D-scan makes sense in a tense combat-rich environment where hitting that scan button can flow naturally into the rhythm. D-scan spam in mining is like attentively taking notes on watching paint dry.

And fitting and flying Hulks in that manner didn't suit me. When that crap was happening, I sold my Hulk, bought a Gila, and lived easily off my surplus.
After barge changes, I bought a Skiff, AB fit it, and now I mine for replacement drones, ammo, and whatever when I feel like it, blazing around at 700m/s kiting around my own mining drones because I can.

That's been done in many threads.

You ignore those killmails or you just say damage taken is lower than 30k so it's not good enough.

Can you prove it is possible to destroy tanked Hulk?

That's been done in many threads.

You ignore those killmails or you just say damage taken is lower than 30k so it's not good enough.

Here's a good suggestion: why don't you,OP, and everyone else who wants to screw over people in highsec **** off.

If you read it again you probably notice that Ruby demonstrates how you gank tanked Hulk profitably.

Well, 2,5M / ganker but still profit.

I could say same to you too.

My Skiff is still on station ready to be ganked when you are ready.

That's been done in many threads.

You ignore those killmails or you just say damage taken is lower than 30k so it's not good enough.

Nope.

No wonder why gankers say Skiff is useless when they don't even want to gank it...

That's been done in many threads.

You ignore those killmails or you just say damage taken is lower than 30k so it's not good enough.

Do you want to gank my Skiff or not?

That's been done in many threads.

You ignore those killmails or you just say damage taken is lower than 30k so it's not good enough.

I'm still waiting for an actual justification for the introduction of risk for hi-sec miners from the "would love nothing more than to gank the miners for lolz" crowd in this topic.

If they AFK mine enough... they will have 0 risk with 0 profit/reward to match..... I don't see the issue here....

I didn't see those profits, ever. Profit from T1 ship manufacturing has been same for as long as I can remember.

I didn't see those profits. T1 ship prices have been steady for a long time.

And removal of meta 0 loot, drone stuff and banning bots didn't affect prices in any way?

Seriously? Most of the materials came from drone regions.

If you ignore last November, it's still a 7m price drop (aka ~20%).

That's been done in many threads.

You ignore those killmails or you just say damage taken is lower than 30k so it's not good enough.

Good I moved away from Caldari space a long time ago.

Nothing, its just to derail threads.

Where did I say ganking should be removed?

Mining barges are still gankable. Main problem is that most of the gankers refuse to do it because they feel they're entitled to get paid doing it. That and "EVE needs me so I must do it".

Amarr mission runner who never goes to Gallente space doesn't really care if they are placed in an FW corp as all they do is sit in Amarr HS anyways and still has access to Jita as the 2 factions are allies. This is especially true if it's a character that is KOS in opposing faction space anyways. As far as freighter pilots, it may be a bit more of a hassle. 3 pilots could easily do it though. 1 for each pair of empires with 1 handoff character in a 1 man corp. Not the simplest of solutions, but easily doable.

If player mines 23/7... he could die after few days at that rate.

I have to wonder why players seem to want their risk in the form of canned NPC-generated risk and not player-generated risk, though. Players are more effective at providing legitimate risk than NPCs will ever be.

Gank for profit. It can be done.

And it needs to be said no ship in high sec is ungankable. Some have become unprofitable to gank. It does not mean that emergent game play can not find a way to make that ganking profitable again. Red Frog Freight came about because of emergent game play. Gankers can and should form some type of organization with a fee for service. Nothing is stopping that from happening. In fact the circumstances right now rather encourages it. With all the competition for those mining resources.
Yet at the same time in my opninion we still have a shortage of high sec ores on the market. We also have too many ice miners. Those that mine ice for a living would be inclined I think to hiring ganks on those ice bots.

No one said there wasn't any risk, but unless those POS require at ALL times A) Continuous attention for maintenance and opperation or b) Continuous defense from an actual ongoing attack then you are making demands of the miner that you don't have to make on the moons and the moons don't get removed from the list of AFK professions.

Once an hour doesn't cut it. Defense every other day doesn't cut it. We're not talking risk but activity here. So if accruing minerals while not actively doing something as player towards that end is an EULA violation then every few minutes those moons aren't touched that same violation occurs.

And to the point of defense, there is still a way, other than ganking to affect miners that is far easier, faster and requires far fewer people to be done efficiently than tanking down an undefended POS. Bumping. An AFK miner has less defense against this than an otherwise undefended POS with a single gun has against a 1000 man fleet.

I don't claim to have GM information, which I wouldn't be allowed to share even if I did, but from what I understand it's only not grief behavior if it is tied to an in-game motivation, such as James 315's business model.

I think that the point is quite valid that it is not legitimate gameplay in and of its own right outside of such contexts.

Nor do I, so long as we're not calling AFK mining an EULA violation, which is what started the line of conversation that resulted in that post.

Ok, tell me this.

How is Highsec safer or more profitable than it was 9 years ago when EVE began?



Hint:
It isn't