Irrelevant.

A house could have it's doors wide open and no car in the parking lot... but you and you alone would still be held criminally responsible were you to enter the house and take something from it.

Someone could leave their car running and the door wide open... but you and you alone would still be held criminally responsible were you to drive off in it.

And before anyone wants to whine about how "but that's real life, EVE is just a game", my response is: Isn't EVE suppose to be "just like real life"? :-)

In Station.

Therefore I deem your entire post invalid.

What I want to say, to all the bitter vets complaining about how soft EVE is, try to start a new char now, but without your connections, your ISK AND without the knowledge you acquired in years (which is not possible as I know).

For noobs starting today EVE might be a little bit harder as when old vets signed up in 2003, higher complexity, established structures and communities, null is not longer a wild west, it has been conquered.

[quote=baltec1]


But you already knew how EVE works, you knew the mechanisms, you knew the tools, so sorry you did not, because of your knowledge you can never start like a real noob

While at present its true that no ship in space is totally safe, there is the question: Is it best for the game of Eve for it to remain that way?

Ive seen many posts supporting high sec ganking that to me look like the gankers are trying to remain relevant. But to me it seems the main ones who benefit from ganking are the gankers, those who get the short end are the victims. And there are far more victims than gankers.

Given this imbalance, should high sec ganking remain part of the game? Does it really add a net value to Eve?

Also there is the issue of what high sec ganking does to subscriptions. If it was removed would eve grow faster than if it remained? When you unsub you get a questionnaire asking why. CCP has some idea of how many people quit due to ganks. CCP most likely also knows how many ships are destroyed in high sec due to ganks and thus could answer the question of how big a driver it is to the economy. CCP is in a position to estimate whether removing high sec ganking would make for more subs without hurting the economy. Maybe CCP has done this and are leaning toward their removal, and hence all these "gankers trying to remain relevant" threads.

My guess is high sec ganking is entertainment for a tiny minority while being an annoyance and a pall to game play for a large number of others, and does little to to drive the economy. And if so, it may be best to just remove it.

And this is actually a fair point.

Even Hulkageddon was limited in that it ran for 10 days or so. No real biggie. But a concerted effort to bring suicide ganking to a sustained and deadly (long-term?) operation is a whole new ball game.

There are players in Eve that are ONLY miners. It's all they do. It's all they've trained to be. Sustained and prolonged miner victimization WILL have an effect on their ability to enjoy the game. It will cost.

It's a very short-sighted view to be quoting nothing but memes to justify repeated vicious acts in the name of "the sandbox" on ONE type of player.

Have you kept up with the news?

Mittens himself said he is talking to Helicity to start a campaign that would make previous Hulkageddons look like dog and pony shows.

He may also be no more than trolling. I accept that as a possibility as well but he has posted twice on Eve-O about it.

It's 4.


Ofc. Your views are noted and have been waxed lyrically on by a few with the same moronic mentality.

"Combat ship approaching" and "Align to station" are two such moronic points of contention.

As I have said countless times, you are asking me to believe that EVERY SINGLE MINER of the 1500+ taken out by Goons in the ice interdiction alone were stupid and had no idea at all how to play. NONE of them?

Then the only thing we can agree on is that we disagree. If you seriously believe that ganking is so easily avoided then anything I have to say is void. The statistics speak for themselves.

I'd like to see what you'd post on the forums if all the miners in the game, including the bots, stopped mining for a few months.

More chaos is needed in high sec !

Invite each and every -10 and gank everything from 1.0 to 0.5

Kill haulers, missioners, miners, passers, noobs, everything on your overview just gank it!

The sooner CCP will be forced to do something about high sec the sooner "high sec" will mean something.

You guys are on the right track, just keep it, your efforts will soon pay off.

This. But CCP has a history of enforcing their EULA.... "selectively"...

Classic example of how CCP is selective in how they enforce their EULA. In this case, they use equivocation to selectively interpret and apply the term "griefing".

Except that they only way for them to claim the system is via the harassment of other players... since there's no actual game mechanic to allow players or Corporations to claim hi-sec space. (You could argue "wardecs", but then you're just supporting the my argument - wardecs are a valid game mechanic, griefplay is not).

Also I don't think you quite understand the definition of the word "harassment"... In this case, the word becomes "forcible coercion" because it's harassment until demands are met... ie, to leave the system.

Of course, you could always argue that the lone nano fit Stabber who spends his time flipping cans and bumping miners out of range of asteroids is doing it for "economic reasons", or that the Rifter who keeps flipping my friends' can "isn't targetting my friend specifically, just anyone in the system my friend happens to be in in order to 'claim' that system", but, as with most of your arguments, that one won't fly either.

Yes, it does disrupt their gameplay, because now they have to be bothered to 1) find another suitable system 2) move all their required assets out there and 3) deal with the griefers who undoubtedly inhabit that system.

Except for the fact that they are actually attacking other players and specifically those players in that sysatem, you would have had a valid point..

Read it more carefully. It says "An example of grief play".

The word "an" also means "one". "One example of grief play"

Derp derp.

Hint: Hi-sec is different from lo-sec and null-sec. For one, in null-sec you don't need to declare war to shoot someone, and you suffer no CONCORDOKEN or security status penalties. In low-sec, you also don't need to declare war to shoot someone, and while you don't suffer a CONCORDOKEN, you do recieve a security status penalty. In both null-sec and lo-sec you can set up sovereignty and claim a system.

However, in hi-sec, you cannot shoot anyone without a wardec, and if you do you suffer a CONCORDOKEN as well as a large security status hit. If your security status drops, you can no longer enter hi-sec (this suggests that CCP does not want hi-sec to be filled with pirates and gankers.... hint hint). Also, you cannot set up sovereignty and claim a system in hi-sec.

Now that I've walked your hand through it, is your understanding sufficient to continue in these exchanges?

They know the efforts they spend "ganking" unarmed ships amount to nothing in the end, just some juvenile titillation.