It's like the cheapest troll there is.

Dev soundwave wrote.

"Yeah my point is that I don't think they should be profitable to gank. I think it should be possible, but not necessarily profitable (profitable might be the wrong word, but more that the expenses should be higher for the attacker than the defender)."

What is everyones opinion?

What is everyones opinion?

by ganking not being profitable hes obviously talking about 2 catalysts killing a 200m barge and salvaging looting it for a profit. even if the barge is fitted with meta crap it will still make the gank a profit, thats not ok. hes not talking about blowing up a fail faction fit tengu thats sitting afk at a gate. that's a good gank, with planning and coordination, plus a lot of work to check the fit and find a target.


by just making gank targets drop a can only and no wreck mission runners still drop all the goodies, while barges don't drop t2 salvage.

by ganking not being profitable hes obviously talking about 2 catalysts killing a 200m barge and salvaging looting it for a profit. even if the barge is fitted with meta crap it will still make the gank a profit, thats not ok.

Why should a untanked but otherwise fully fit ship not be profitable to gank?

I've never gotten a good, straight answer for that question.

I never liked the Procurer and Skiff update for this reason. I said that they should have gotten 150-250 Grid for Large Shield Extenders instead of base huge HP so people would have to fit the tank.

As a ganker, I'm gonna say yes.

only if that profit comes from cargo.

only if that profit comes from cargo.

Dev soundwave wrote.

"Yeah my point is that I don't think they should be profitable to gank. I think it should be possible, but not necessarily profitable (profitable might be the wrong word, but more that the expenses should be higher for the attacker than the defender)."

What is everyones opinion?

Dev soundwave wrote.

"Yeah my point is that I don't think they should be profitable to gank. I think it should be possible, but not necessarily profitable (profitable might be the wrong word, but more that the expenses should be higher for the attacker than the defender)."

What is everyones opinion?

Why? What difference does it make where on the ship the loot comes from?

Dev soundwave wrote.

"Yeah my point is that I don't think they should be profitable to gank. I think it should be possible, but not necessarily profitable (profitable might be the wrong word, but more that the expenses should be higher for the attacker than the defender)."

What is everyones opinion?

They'll only get ganked once, then they'll learn to EVE. cry to CCP to fix mechanics because of falcon ~hisec~

Dev soundwave wrote.

"Yeah my point is that I don't think they should be profitable to gank. I think it should be possible, but not necessarily profitable (profitable might be the wrong word, but more that the expenses should be higher for the attacker than the defender)."

What is everyones opinion?

Suicide ganking always has the possibility to be profitable, so long as people continue to put more and more isk into their ships. There is nothing you can really do to change that. However removing insurance payouts for concord kills is one way to raise the bar on what actually is profitable and what isn't. Plus to me, it always seemed like insurance fraud, which no actual company would payout on.

That quote was in reference the the bare hull of exhumers and barges. He thought that they were profitable to gank with no mods fitted. This was wrong and has been pointed out countless times.

When a ship like the Hulk needs three strip miners to fill its role and these modules cost 12m ISKs and the drop-chance is 50% resulting in 6m ISKs worth of loot, but the Hulk can be ganked by another ship costing less than 5m ISKs, then you may have a problem.

Last gank times I have been involved in, the average loot I'd get was 8M+ a pop. 2 T1 fitted catalysts for 1 tanked Mack = still profitable. And it's Macks that were the "queens of AFK", even before the revamp, as they were the ices specialized ship so those are a fair meter.

You have very different numbers to what we had.

Last gank times I have been involved in, the average loot I'd get was 8M+ a pop. 2 T1 fitted catalysts for 1 tanked Mack = still profitable. And it's Macks that were the "queens of AFK", even before the revamp, as they were the ices specialized ship so those are a fair meter.

Could you show me the ship fitting that will kill a properly fitted Hulk for 5M ISK? I'd be very interested in that.

The concept of isk-tanking - i.e. my ship cost X isk therefor anyone who ganks it should lose >X isk - is complete bullshit if you ask me. It's so obviously stupid and yet some people honestly still support it

The concept of isk-tanking - i.e. my ship cost X isk therefor anyone who ganks it should lose >X isk - is complete bullshit if you ask me. It's so obviously stupid and yet some people honestly still support it

Why? What difference does it make where on the ship the loot comes from?

[Ibis, Not Cargo: must be safe]

Draclira's Modified Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane
Draclira's Modified Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane

Estamel's Modified Adaptive Invulnerability Field
Estamel's Modified Adaptive Invulnerability Field

True Sansha Small Energy Neutralizer
True Sansha Small Energy Neutralizer

Stuff

34k ehp, not profitable to gank.

Just go away and biomass. Do you even know from when CCP Soundwave's statement was? Probably from before you started playing EVE.

Both me and Baltec were talking of ganks before the barges buff, your fitting is irrelevant.

If miners don't like the danger of suicide ganking, they're welcome to come to nice, safe 0.0 where there isn't any.

Admittedly, the ore isn't quite as profitable here, but that's the price one pays for safety.

The concept of isk-tanking - i.e. my ship cost X isk therefor anyone who ganks it should lose >X isk - is complete bullshit if you ask me. It's so obviously stupid and yet some people honestly still support it

should it be profitable to gank a clueless player who thinks an officer fit ibis is a good idea? absolutely.

while 34k EHP might not be profitable for the ganker in that instance, what happens when the ganker's market toon now has sold off another 100m trit at 7.xx ISK/unit, since the now-ganked miner was unable to set an order for 10m trit at (7.xx -0.01).

Sure, we could say "just wait for that 1m trit to sell out" ... but in the meantime, that's ~70m ISK that's going to a someone else, and not the ganker's wallet.

As long as that 70m is still more than the "cost" of the gank ... seems like profit works as a motivator.

If you believe this then all dumb stuff in EVE needs to pay off for somebody... You open grounds for all kinds of arguments just based on this one.

Mr. Estamel

sure i open grounds for all kinds of arguments; and most of them can and will be answered with "apples vs oranges".

the simple fact is, i personally believe that if you do something dumb and some one catches you, the price should be high.
if you do something dumb and nobody catches you, lady luck was smiling at you.

then again, perhaps i misunderstood what it was that brought me to eve.

Shooting a ship for its modules should not be like shaking an apple tree for catching falling apples. I am thinking modules need to drop damaged, ranging from utterly broken to heavily damaged, because this makes sense. Further does the damage need to affect the modules' performance, because it, too, makes sense. One cannot expect a broken thing to work perfectly. And last but not least should the repair costs for modules scale with the market price, because it, too, makes sense. Or why should a 4b ISKs module only cost a few millions to repair? Or why should the nanos in the repair paste know how Mr. Estamel has modified his invulnerability field to be as good as it is? If nanos were this smart then one should be able to turn all adapt. inv. fields into better ones.

Its damn near impossible to manipulate the trit market that way.

By the same logic, ...

Dev soundwave wrote.

"Yeah my point is that I don't think they should be profitable to gank. I think it should be possible, but not necessarily profitable (profitable might be the wrong word, but more that the expenses should be higher for the attacker than the defender)."

What is everyones opinion?

But you shouldn't be able to just fly to a belt, start shooting, and then profit. Effort to reward ratio and all that. If it doesn't require any effort, you shouldn't be getting paid for it.

How about if its a normal pve ship? Should 2-4 people be able to gank lets say your Tengu or your navy issue ship with cheap fit dps ships. If so what logical reason would you give besides you can and its eve.

Where is the risk vs reward?

I say remove the profit and let these people that want to kill stuff go to low/null where there can be more targets. Stop leting them take advantage of the game mechanics as a way to grief hi-sec players.

Im not saying remove the ability to gank, just the profit from it. If you want to gank people then it should cost you and not profit from it.

There is a number of risks involved with ganking:

- Your friends might ambush the gankers, exploding them (gank ships have little tank)
- Your friends loot your wreck before the ganker's friend can
- Your friends might use ECM to prevent the gank
- Your friends might provide logistic support
- Your friends kill the ganker's looter (he goes suspect)

- The ganker can't stand still in highsec space due to his secstatus (after a few ganks)
- Even if the ganker rats his secstatus back up (which is a long, tedious process), he lives under the constant threat of killrights being activated on him.



Because ganking should be out of revenge or spite not profit.

Most ships are unprofitable to gank and (as CCP stated) ganking is at an all-time low already. Why would you want to make highsec even safer?

Also a person shouldnt have to have all these friends online to undock.

I can see you are only able to look at this issue from your own point of view.

Because ganking should be out of revenge or spite not profit. Also a person shouldnt have to have all these friends online to undock. A good alpha strike wont stop the gank or allow time for ecm. I can see you are only able to look at this issue from your own point of view.

How about if its a normal pve ship? Should 2-4 people be able to gank lets say your Tengu or your navy issue ship with cheap fit dps ships. If so what logical reason would you give besides you can and its eve.

Where is the risk vs reward?

I say remove the profit and let these people that want to kill stuff go to low/null where there can be more targets. Stop leting them take advantage of the game mechanics as a way to grief hi-sec players.

Im not saying remove the ability to gank, just the profit from it. If you want to gank people then it should cost you and not profit from it.

Because ganking should be out of revenge or spite not profit.

Also a person shouldnt have to have all these friends online to undock.

A good alpha strike wont stop the gank or allow time for ecm.

I understand ganking a freighter being stupid and carrying to much, but fitting your ship for incursions or misisons is not being stupid.

What is stupid is people can make minimal effort and cost and gank these high dollar ships for profit.

Ganking some moron in an officer-fit Rattlesnake isn't easy, you have to scan them first, get a group together in DPS ships (this cannot be done solo unless you can multibox) and get everyone to engage at roughly the same time. It's completely easy for this to go south (i.e. the target isn't a moron, thinks - which might be difficult for some mission runners, I know - and gets out) and if the gank is successful, the loot has to be scooped up in a ship that can get out of there as soon as it scoops, since it will get a suspect flag. It's entirely possible for whatever module the gankers are hoping drops will not drop, since the chance of any given module or stack in cargo dropping is 50/50.

Since the wretches who get their Rattlesnakes ganked only see their ships pop, they immediately assume that suicide ganking is easy. It's not and if it upsets you that someone else who likes your stuff can take it, well, deal with it or biomass and unsubscribe - you won't be missed.

Its not the ganking that bothers me its the fact that it can be done so cheap as well as with minimal effort.

Its not the ganking that bothers me its the fact that it can be done so cheap as well as with minimal effort.

Most times you guys are already formed up and ready to go.

gankers argue that ganking is pvp, then how come ganking should be profitable when pvp isnt? yes, theres an incentive in the form of bounties and insurance payouts, but you are not supposed to break even, ever. every year or so you will find that holy grail of stupidity flying in low with a mission boat, but thats not the norm.

ganking should not be profitable, in an average way, period. if you want to make a profit, then sit in a belt scanning to find a barge that fits a faction tank or a mission runner with officer fittings near a gate. but randomly shooting at a barge with 3 t1 catalysts and making a profit, all the while avoiding -10 gameplay because your catalyst pilot is a 2m sp highsec superhero is a no. definite no.

GǪneither of which is true, unless the target makes it so. The target can also make it not so.

Above all, the simple fact remains that asking it to be any other way is to say that five players should not be able to beat one, just because the one guy spent a bunch of ISK. There is a word for that kind of setup GÇö it's called GÇ£unbalanced as hellGÇ¥.

gankers argue that ganking is pvp, then how come ganking should be profitable when pvp isnt?

ganking should not be profitable, in an average way, period.

but randomly shooting at a barge with 3 t1 catalysts and making a profit, all the while avoiding -10 gameplay because your catalyst pilot is a 2m sp highsec superhero is a no. definite no.

gankers argue that ganking is pvp, then how come ganking should be profitable when pvp isnt? yes, theres an incentive in the form of bounties and insurance payouts, but you are not supposed to break even, ever. every year or so you will find that holy grail of stupidity flying in low with a mission boat, but thats not the norm.

ganking should not be profitable, in an average way, period. if you want to make a profit, then sit in a belt scanning to find a barge that fits a faction tank or a mission runner with officer fittings near a gate. but randomly shooting at a barge with 3 t1 catalysts and making a profit, all the while avoiding -10 gameplay because your catalyst pilot is a 2m sp highsec superhero is a no. definite no.

Even so, PvP can be plenty profitable if you can avoid being blown up. You're still looking at a couple of tens of millions in T2 modules and salvage (especially if you killed a T2 ship) if you win the fight.

gankers argue that ganking is pvp, then how come ganking should be profitable when pvp isnt? yes, theres an incentive in the form of bounties and insurance payouts, but you are not supposed to break even, ever. every year or so you will find that holy grail of stupidity flying in low with a mission boat, but thats not the norm.

ganking should not be profitable, in an average way, period. if you want to make a profit, then sit in a belt scanning to find a barge that fits a faction tank or a mission runner with officer fittings near a gate. but randomly shooting at a barge with 3 t1 catalysts and making a profit, all the while avoiding -10 gameplay because your catalyst pilot is a 2m sp highsec superhero is a no. definite no.

translation: I got ganked.

I can tolerate the stupid game play, but why should one allow it when it annoys those who enjoy EVE for the greater challenges it offers? I still do not know why and nor have I seen a good reason coming from those who get off on the cheap fun.

Make ganking profitable - everyone now go ganking, oh wait, we will be ganking gankers that are ganking another gankers. What a fun.

cause someone else a greater loss than your own

You're just worried about your AFK isk printing being interrupted.

Incidentally, this is the best way to wage war.

You talk like this was an argument. We had these threads a hundred times, but never have I seen a good reason why one should not let players mine afk. I make a lot more just with trading. Nobody ganks me when I am logged off

In a pyrrhus war, where nobody wins, is this true. But why let one month old players in cheap destroyers do this? With whom could they possibly be at war?

Remove it and the challenge is gone.

But what they are doing is stealing your sales ...

And thereby makes room for better challenges. I agree.

I dont have this problem in null. The enemy is very clear. He will be the one not blue

gankers argue that ganking is pvp, then how come ganking should be profitable when pvp isnt?

but never have I seen a good reason why one should not let players mine afk\

There's no shortage of room for challenges.

Ganking = piracy.

When did people do piracy for no profit?

In a pyrrhus war, where nobody wins, is this true.

But why let one month old players in cheap destroyers do this?

With whom could they possibly be at war?

People need a "reason" to shoot their space ship guns at other space ships in a space ship video game?

This is called "projecting your morality onto others" and it's wrong.

Whether they admit it or not, everyone had a moral code, or "norms" they follow, even in game playing. I certainly do.

I don't gank or scam or shoot cyno noob ships etc etc because i don't find those activities fun. I prefer "fair" fights where i can get them and such. That's my "gaming moral code" so to speak.

The difference between me and folks like you is that I know my code applies only to me, which is why i didn't get made at all yesterday when someone shot my cyno ship in low sec. Sure it was annoying, the nearest cyno on market was 3 jumps away and I needed to make another jump last night so it cost me sometime, but its a video game , people are supposed to be able to do that, and not just in low sec, but everywhere.

I think all of you "I don't understand, WHY do this" types simply want people to play the game your way, and if you've read what I think of people making the accusation I just made, you'd know I don't make it lightly lol.

My thought is ganking hulls (salvage only)
should be unprofitable.
Period end of it all.
Now ganking ships fit with no tank, just hull plus mods should be profitable as the mods now drop, but you must use appropriate ships, ie something other than large value n of gankalysts.
An easy way to solve this factor of gankalysts killing everything for single digit percent of the cost would be to have Concord jam and neut along with their warp scramming.
Larger ships will laugh at this as they fit cap boosters and eccm mods (im looking at you awesome people of batcounty)
This allows gankalysts to get off a few shots without hampering the larger ships.
Basically the issue is that as it stands, if someone can obtain sufficient gankalysts they will kill you regardless of tank and always well below mod drop.
That is my complaint.
Dont nerf dessies, dont hurt big ships with more slots.
Just remove one specific style of play that currently can not be countered.
Alphanados are acceptable as that is their role.
Gankalyst however get to move within optimal and you can watch them prepare but nothing can be done to stop it.

Though that would be nice to have, some method of acting on gankers so as to remove the whole bit of by the time you can react it is already over.

Ooh maybe have a Concord patrol in system that flits between belts and customs office and cannot be drug away.
This way those at keyboard get to see the patrol warp off and know to follow while those afk have to continue rolling dice.
No need to nerf or buff and it rewards active play while not nerfing afk play.

Now ganking ships fit with no tank, just hull plus mods should be profitable as the mods now drop, but you must use appropriate ships, ie something other than large value n of gankalysts.

An easy way to solve this factor of gankalysts killing everything for single digit percent of the cost would be to have Concord jam and neut along with their warp scramming.

Just remove one specific style of play that currently can not be countered.

im talking about ships that cant help but pay for their own gank

Basically the issue is that as it stands, if someone can obtain sufficient gankalysts they will kill you regardless of tank and always well below mod drop.

In any war situation is is preferable to do more damage to the enemy than they do to you. It would be the height of idiocy to engineer a fight in such a way to even the odds.

How would we balance the game in such a way that one month old players couldn't gank people in cheap destroyers but could still get ahead in the game skillwise? That makes no sense in a sandbox environment where players define their own goals.

Everybody. EVE is a PvP sandbox where nearly everyone is in competition with everyone else.

There are no such ships.

cat fleet cost in total less than 4 millon isk.

a therm/kin tanked mack dies to 3 t1 cats, considering an average of 22m isk worth of stuff in the ship at the time of death (including 3m in average salvage drop)

cat fleet cost in total less than 4 millon isk.

So why allow it? Because of Falcon, err, morals?

One does not fight wars just for the death of it, but for the gains that one might get from the time after the war. Still, this does not answer my question of why it should be allowed in a game with many challenges and great diversity.

Perhaps I should ask if it was a significant loss if it wasn't allowed? And for whom?

I am not asking for whom this would be a win as obviously a lot of players would be happy about it...

a therm/kin tanked mack dies to 3 t1 cats, considering an average of 22m isk worth of stuff in the ship at the time of death (including 3m in average salvage drop)

cat fleet cost in total less than 4 millon isk.

Why allow it? Because EVE is a pvp-centric open world mmo.
...
It would be a loss for everyone who plays EVE. as the game would essentially stop being EVE.

That's a very terrible argument that "who would miss it" thing. "Who would miss it" is not a reason to exclude valid gameplay from a video game. Ganking is a part of EVE (and one you would expect from a game that promotes "harsh" and "dark" on the damn box it sometimes comes in) even if it's something i don't personally do.

Quite frankly, if you can't find a way to deal with it, you're probably playing the wrong video game.

If you're not flying a tanked Skif then dont pretend you're worried about being ganked. You're just worried about your AFK isk printing being interrupted.

I do not think the cheap ganks would be a loss for those who "suffer" from it. I have doubts the gankers, when forced to doing something else, like low-sec PvP, would have a major loss either.

Let me know when you have found a good, convincing argument, cause it would shut the whole thing up like a sock in a mouth.

What is it hurting? And where is your proof of the damage this game play element is inflicting?

This seems like a good place to ask this question as it pertains directly to 'ganking' in highsec.

In regards to AFK mining should it be 100% safe to do?

I read this a lot that people are mining Highsec and are AFK then get upset that their ship is destroyed which, to me, begs the question about this activity. Is this something that should be 100% safe to do?

This seems like a good place to ask this question as it pertains directly to 'ganking' in highsec.

In regards to AFK mining should it be 100% safe to do?

I read this a lot that people are mining Highsec and are AFK then get upset that their ship is destroyed which, to me, begs the question about this activity. Is this something that should be 100% safe to do?

An interesting question. It is probably hurting everything else.

These gankers could be doing something else, which could be anything and as such would contribute to all other areas of the game. They could populate low-sec, help grind sov. in 0.0, join the militias or just RvB to support their activities.

GǪneither of which is true, unless the target makes it so. The target can also make it not so.

Above all, the simple fact remains that asking it to be any other way is to say that five players should not be able to beat one, just because the one guy spent a bunch of ISK. There is a word for that kind of setup GÇö it's called GÇ£unbalanced as hellGÇ¥.

The unbalance is you can loose a high value mission specific pvp/pve ship to low value high dps ships from alt accounts.

Since your name isn't "CCP", there is no need to give you a "good convincing argument" that will change your mind (seeing as nothing could change your mind in the 1st place).

You don't NEED reasons to keep key elements of the game, you need reasons to remove them. And "I don't like it" is not a reason.

What is it hurting? And where is your proof of the damage this game play element is inflicting?

The largest balance issue is that extreme risk-averse players shouldn't even be allowed to post arguments on the forums.

I never mentioned the amount of guys just the amount of isk and reward vs isk and profit and effort.

I dont care how many it takes to gank someone it should not yield a profit in hi-sec.

I just asked peoples opinion on the matter. There are plenty of options avail to CCP to correct the problem without creating unbalance.

Yea im not gonna give you a good reason because well because your not the president.

In regards to AFK mining should it be 100% safe to do?

An interesting question. It is probably hurting everything else.

These gankers could be doing something else, which could be anything and as such would contribute to all other areas of the game. They could populate low-sec, help grind sov. in 0.0, join the militias or just RvB to support their activities.

Again im sure in your mind because you say it then it has to be. Sorry thats just not the case. I never mentioned the amount of guys just the amount of isk and reward vs isk and profit and effort.

I dont care how many it takes to gank someone it should not yield a profit in hi-sec. In certain cases it may only take one person to break the tank during a mission. The variables are endless.

I just asked peoples opinion on the matter. There are plenty of options avail to CCP to correct the problem without creating unbalance.

The unbalance is you can loose a high value mission specific pvp/pve ship to low value high dps ships from alt accounts.

An interesting question. It is probably hurting everything else.

These gankers could be doing something else, which could be anything and as such would contribute to all other areas of the game. They could populate low-sec, help grind sov. in 0.0, join the militias or just RvB to support their activities.

They could also quit because their game just got removed. Removing entire gameplay choices is never a good thing to do.

GǪaside from when you did. Also, without numbers, it's far more low effort and definitely not low cost.

Why not? Why should it not be profitable to relieve someone of their valuables?

"Is never a good thing to do"? So we could add a ton of other stuff, because adding game play choices is always a good thing to do?

Or I could say "to make an omelette one needs to break eggs", or "never say never", or some other seemingly smart saying.

I do not see this convincing anyone.

Can you show me the fit that drops 19M from a mack?

Gankers are part of what makes high-sec as unsafe as it currently is. If ganking were not allowed, high-sec would essentially be perfectly safe, which would likely destroy the EVE economy.

You still have yet to show a compelling reason why ganking shouldn't be allowed.

A play style where it only matters to have the smaller loss than the targets.

I am only asking why it should be allowed as I have not seen anyone giving a good reason for it.

In other words, things you might find "useful" or "productive" or something?

i said 22m on the ship, if you were half as smart as you pretend to be you could have easily know that the mack would drop in average half that.

also, 1m catalysts are possible, i use 1.4m isk thrashers.

stop fitting t2. and stop pretending your fleet is compromised of "real" people.

Because he has valuable he doesn't want to lose, nor does he want to take the time and effort to defend them properly, thus he needs CCP intervention.

In other words, he lives in High Sec. I heard the "Highsec" is Old Aramaic for "Land of Entitlement and Welfare". it's in the bible, look it up.

Your inability to see any point of view other than your own never ceases to amaze. I actually have multiple accounts in three areas. Hi-sec low/null just not wormholes. I donGÇÖt know everything about the game or even as much as others. I do know how I see things and have the ability of being even brained and can see things from multiple points of view. I may not always agree with those views but I will state my case and stand for what I believe to be right and what may help others.

"i consider suicide ganking a cheap playstyle, so it should be removed from the game"

well, I consider AFK mining a cheap playstyle since it involves the most minimal interaction with the game possible

as a result, I support the scourging of those engaging in that gameplay

I'm an angry NAP aspirant. I want to scourge people. I am obsessed with hi-sec miners.

well, I consider AFK mining a cheap playstyle since it involves the most minimal interaction with the game possible

Sure, point taken, but you are wrong about it, because there are more profitable and less interactive play styles. You then cannot kick miners out of the game, because you need the minerals, but you can well kick gankers out of the game, because they are not needed for anything.

So it still needs a good argument. Miners have all the good arguments. Why cannot those cheap gankers have good arguments?

Next time you see such a creature, do not ask yourself, "why should I kill him". Instead, ask yourself - "what right do I have to let him live".

Sure, point taken, but you are wrong about it, because there are more profitable and less interactive play styles. You then cannot kick miners out of the game, because you need the minerals, but you can well kick gankers out of the game, because they are not needed for anything.

So it still needs a good argument. Miners have all the good arguments. Why cannot those cheap gankers have good arguments?

i too overestimate my own importance and ...

You still do. I do not. I ask and still have not seen an argument as solid as any of the miners. So I keep asking. You keep overestimating.

Fellow capsuleers, look now to the highsec miner among us. So corrupted is he by bot-aspirant gameplay that he can only see things in terms of passive ISK/hour - that is, profit. Concepts like "fun" and "social bonds" are completely alien to him. Day after day, his kind proliferates in the ice belts, asteroid fields, mission hubs and incursion areas. Protected by the skirts of CONCORD, they pursue the only thing they can see - ISK - rejecting entirely the sandbox concept which we hold so dear.

Next time you see such a creature, do not ask yourself, "why should I kill him". Instead, ask yourself - "what right do I have to let him live".

miners cannot argue why their wealth generation which scales indefinitely needs to be so passive and safe beyond "mining is boring" which is still an awful argument since other forms of wealth/isk generation are also boring and cannot be done so passively

sure you can argue that moons generate wealth passively but they cannot be mined in areas that minimize the risk profile, as anywhere that moon mining is allowed also allows sieging of towers without the need for a wardec, and high-end moon mining does not scale indefinitely as the number of those moons is very, very limited - for example, there are less than 400 tech moons in the entire game, while there is no limit to the number of afk retrievers/macks that can operate in a single ice belt

After we destroy the miners who make passive isk, we must destroy the traders who make isk while not even being logged in. Death to traders.

After we destroy the miners who make passive isk, we must destroy the traders who make isk while not even being logged in. Death to traders.

"afk mining is a valid playstyle" is an oxymoron since "afk" and "gameplay" are fundamentally incompatible but continue to defend your quasi-botting, it is amusing

gankers are important because they add a dimension of gameplay to the staleness that is hisec, the fact that it's only relatively safer than other areas of the game and not to the point where you can expose the entirety of your wealth in a single ship and not risk losing it in one swoop

I do know how I see things and have the ability of being even brained and can see things from multiple points of view. I may not always agree with those views...

gankers argue that ganking is pvp, then how come ganking should be profitable when pvp isnt?

I always imagine Tippia standing in front of a brick wall while saying these things lol. Because that's how effective it is at convincing the other party that their beliefs are unfounded.

In fact the wrong is that PvP isnt.

I have played other PvP games where I never had to stop PvPing to earn a lot of money by killing scores of people. That was fun and profitable.

EvE PvP should be profitable too. That'd be also an excellent "Joe The 0.0 Grunt" bottom up income.

Just because something is PvP does not automatically make it good PvP. It is the dumbest thing one can do just after hating PvP itself. It is important to ask for the reasons why a play style exists and to see why it is good and why it is bad, because it can be used to improve the PvP experience.

I think that ganking should only be profitable when the correct target is found. Such as someone who is carrying a massive amount of isk in goods or mods, silly enough to be flying around advertising themselves. General ganking of any-old person should not be profitable. If it were, they'd be even more people claiming to be elite "PvPers" in highsec than there already are. True PvP should be found in low and nullsec space, where is suppose to be going down. But the highsec ganker crowd have found their easy-mode, with their risk-free completely one-sided carebear targets. Why risk an actual PvP battle when they can get their kills and loot so easily from targets that don't shoot back?

Most of them wouldn't know PvP if it came up and slapped them in the face!

I'd argue that pirates are a victim of their own success. They've taught highsec players over and over, the hard way, that coming to lowsec often results in a quick death, often in the jaws of a waiting gatecamp. Now they've succeeded in turning lowsec into a wasteland, seems only logicial they'd move to highsec to continue the slaughter. Who cares that it harms the game as a whole, and prevents newer players from making the natural progression to low and nullsec space? As long as they're getting their easymode, the gankers will continue to defend their niche, and continue to yammer their highsec-hating rhetoric to justify their position.

"afk mining is a valid playstyle" is an oxymoron since "afk" and "gameplay" are fundamentally incompatible but continue to defend your quasi-botting, it is amusing

Clearly, "good" PvP is everything except suicide ganking miners, which is arbitrarily bad.

EVE needs to let us disable, board and tow ships.

It is not valid, it's the only way to do it while not going even more insane (more = insanity is being present enough already to make the person mine to begin with).

We have been pirating ships in high sec for a decade. This is not anything new.

Sure, but demanding total safety when you're literally not playing the game is just absurd.

TBH I'd love to see actual boarding of the ships and then taking them away, no destruction needed for a pirate who wants to profit off his victims. That's piracy!

"afk mining is a valid playstyle" is an oxymoron since "afk" and "gameplay" are fundamentally incompatible but continue to defend your quasi-botting, it is amusing

We have been pirating ships in high sec for a decade. This is not anything new.

I am against AFK ,miners because the idea of them playing AFK is so offensive that it destroys all the enjoyment I get from playing the game. Now I don't enjoy myself at all, and all I have is my rage to keep me company. This is not amusing Mr. Andski. This is as personal as it will ever get.

That doesn't make his point any less valid.

That doesn't make his point any less valid.

[quote=Andski] You then cannot kick miners out of the game, because you need the minerals, but you can well kick gankers out of the game, because they are not needed for anything.

So it still needs a good argument. Miners have all the good arguments. Why cannot those cheap gankers have good arguments?

Imagine an EvE with SWTor elements...

And dogfights. Oh if only I could hop in a Rifter and use the joystick and be blasted by irradiating fun like I did when I played X-Wing and Tie Figther for DOS.

1) Because convincing anyone out of their ideas on a forum (or television too) is a futile task.

2) Because some of Tippia's posts are boring and/or mind numbing and/or captious enough that would make the brick wall fall asleep.

Confirming that "even brained" is code for "has schizophrenia". At least now we know what's wrong with you. Your points of view are so erratic, you can't even agree with yourself.

I would argue that you could get plenty of salvage from ratting and mission running.

I would argue that you could get plenty of salvage from ratting and mission running.

Failed troll attempt.

Greetings

First, excellent use of the word captious! Second, comes very close to badgering and a personal attack, let us keep posts on topic and constructive.

I do however +1 the interesting words used correctly.

On On

I think it should be profitable to an extent. Its like getting mugged in real life, if you carry to much value that someone is willing to risk police for they will try and take it from you by force.

There was a problem when peeople could continually farm buddy-program alts and not care about security status because they could activate new accounts with PLEX. It so stupid that mining barges refused to choose fittings, they would only ever fit for max yield. If they fit for tank they become unprofitable to gank but they absolutely refuse to do this, they just cry until CCP change the ship stats so they can only fit for max yield.

The problemin EVE is that the police stops after they have stopped the aggression while in RL the police tries to track you down if you get away and get the stolen items back from you.

So I do agree that ganging should be profitable but it should be alot harder.