Seems a lot of weeping tears and boastful gankers in the thread as usual, but one thing that seems to be missing, is that the more this form of ganking grows the less people will go to incursions, and the higher chance that eventually it will need to be scrapped by CCP as no longer being supported by enough of the player base, in the same way a lot of mining and ancilliary ships take time out when Hulkageddon is run and that large blobs run nullsec.

If you want the game to grow and improve perhaps you should try to find ways that help CCP improve the game so that Carebears, pirates, PVPers etc can all enjoy the game more not just your selfish little side of things. If you generally **** people off enough they will leave the game and search for a game where they feel their money is better spent, then perhaps EVE won't keep losing subs week after week until it becomes time to close the doors on this great universe if people can work things out more.

Flame if you want, I get tired of people in here trying to explain how right they are with what they do, whoever and whatever they are.

I say gl hf to all involved, both gankers and incursion runners. I've known from the day I started playing Eve that nothing is safe / risk free, but once you understand these risks you can take action to avoid or reduce them. If I fly around in low or null sec I am well aware that someone out there wants to kill me so I keep dscan open, watch local and all sorts of other things to make myself less vulnerable. Same principle applies here, if you're running incursions be aware that there are people out there who will gank you, only fly in fleets with people/fc's/logi you trust, if something seems suspicious there's probably a good reason for that, and remember that just because you're in highsec doesn't mean you're safe to fly a ship that you can't afford to lose.

Removing insurance (as CCP may do) would make Eve a less hard and dark universe. Similarly, there should not be a pop-up warning if you're remote repair somebody who's canflipped. Even though it makes sense to be consistent because there's warnings for war targets, adding a pop for people who've pulled aggro would make less harsh and less of the cut-throat game that we all love.

I've been playing this game off and on since 2003 and it has only grown due to this kind of behavior. Forcing people to think outside the realm of the normal video game idiom, "go here click this", is exactly why there are so many subscribers. I hate to say what you've probably already heard 1 million times or more but "This is Eve". Any change in this game that will be used to help the general carebear populous will, in the end, serve the ganker/pirate/pvper.

The fact that you incursionbears view Eve as an ISK-grinding game (like how most people's real life jobs are), as opposed to a game (which means it's supposed to be fun) is what makes you a carebear who deserves to be griefed.

The war between BTL and Skunkworks is now mutual.

-Moustached Slimy Worm, Diplomat

The fact of the matter is that if it was an exploit we definatly would have been contacted about it. We get endless threats of petitions and have made a pretty big splash on the forums and have been covered by the ISD and even mentioned on the site that must not be named.

Like any good citizens, if told that it's an exploit by a senior GM we will stop doing it immediatly.

Although not before arguing that this issue is fundamentally tied to the issue of neutral logi.

I can only assume that CCP will make one of two decisions about this:

1) It's a mechanical problem that must be fixed, probably by altering the agression mechanics.

2) The reward for highsec incursions wasn't balanced properly in the first place and this is actually helping them keep that under control.

Either way, it's not up to you to decide if it's an exploit.

Your pile of words only makes only the loosest form of sense.

And back off the mustache. It's for Movember.

LOL! just LOL! at this thread.

Someone is using the aggro mechanics of the game to their advantage and this is an exploit? Since when?

Easy way to stop this dead, don't use neutral Logi and only fly with your Corp/Alliance. There, problem solved.

Honestly, you don't need to abuse any mechanics. The aggro model that should be in place (a fleet can defend fleet members regardless of affiliation) is already implemented in the form of corporations and alliances. Any one wanting to mess with skunk and friends can simply fly a full corp fleet, invite a baiter, kill his fleet, and report the toon to the larger intel channel.

Granted, the gankers would get wise really quick, it would make them take all the same precautions we do when running neutral fleets. Ultimately, that sort of thing is detrimental to game play IMO. It shouldn't have to be that complicated to kill someone :P.

All this being said, I think there is an inflation problem brewing, and this particular mechanic does help slow it down. There should ultimately be a balance to both sides of the problem. If only to make the pew pew more fun for both incursion runners and gankers.

4-5 people

"ITS NOT AN EXPLOIT ITS NOT AN EXPLOIT"

How many think its "An exploit of game mechanics" ?

Raises hand.

Honestly, you don't need to abuse any mechanics. The aggro model that should be in place (a fleet can defend fleet members regardless of affiliation) is already implemented in the form of corporations and alliances. Any one wanting to mess with skunk and friends can simply fly a full corp fleet, invite a baiter, kill his fleet, and report the toon to the larger intel channel.

lol you have no idea what percautions we take, and you also show you have no idea how we are actualy killing the incersioners.

Please do this.

"Haha! You don't know how we're killing incursion people! You're young and stupid! ...oh. You're not young or stupid... well you must be a wanker with a spreadsheet!"

I haven't had the pleasure of being on the receiving end of one of your traps, because I don't fly with 'shiny'/stupid fleets. Your response tells me everything I need to know about you.

While I don't endorse the beating of fools, I do endorse the beating of those with more isk than sense. o7

No mearly stating that you might jump off a bridge because it was the mathmaticaly shortest distance to get home.

We on the other hand would construct a elivator down off the bridge, invite people for free rides in it and then mug them once they steped inside.

And just to troll the spelling *****, we'd let Gaz make all the signs.

No mearly stating that you might jump off a bridge because it was the mathmaticaly shortest distance to get home.

We on the other hand would construct a elivator down off the bridge, invite people for free rides in it and then mug them once they steped inside.