Why is curbing ganking a change in the right direction?

Can you actually provide a solid answer? Why is suicide ganking a bad thing? Why do gankers lose insurance, when miners and industrialists doing equally stupid things don't?

Or are you just going to stay on your high horse and act as if it's your god-given right to be correct because you are standing for the just and holy needs of the highsec citizens?

No consequences? So -10 security status isn't a consequence now?

Miners have plenty of options available to them:

Don't mine with super shiny shield boosters.

Don't mine in paper-thin mackinaws, and don't use paper-thin hulks either.

D-scan at 500k, warp off if you see a fleet of thrashers on scan.

But no, on top of that, and on top of the fact that suicide ganking for-the-lols means a rapid descent into the bowels of being outlawed from highsec, and despite the fact that insurance was already nerfed to a certain extent in Tyrannis...

CCP are still trying to make it harder. It's like miners are supposed to sit there, activate lasers, and not have to do anything, and be in 100% complete safety.

Tippia actually raises a good, philosophical point when he does it? You're just failing at trying to use Tippia-arguments, which only Tippia is pro enough to use.

How so what? You said removing suicide ganking insurance was a good thing. Tippia then said "how so?" You can't answer a "how so" with another "how so," as that's just bad English.

I'm kinda expecting an increase in suicide ganks when the winter patch hits down. At least short term. I know a few people that are starting to stack up ready for a bit of "you thought this would stop it?" action.

No this thread is full of gankers who dont care about the change, people like you who are chest beating about tears which arn't there and tippia baiting.

"who are you to tell us how to play the game or even to assume that you somehow know the best and only way to play EVE."
Good thing I'm not doing that, then, aside from giving tips on how to play it safely.

they'll need to massively nerf CONCORD to make ganking much easier than it is right now.

Highsec needs to be made more unsafe, not less.

Activities in highsec need to be easily disrupted

Everything should be relatively effortless to destroy

And where in those quotes do I tell people how to play the game?

How does it restrict them when they can do the exact same things they're doing now? They just have to be a bit smart about it, and my ideas are there to make the value of smarts more clear.

No. PvP should come effortlessly from those who need to disrupt the activities of their opponents to those who try to hide those activities in highsec. In particular, I want it to be worth-while to have null/low-sec entities to actually base their industrial backbone in null/lowsec, rather than keeping it protected in highsec. This means making it easier to counter all the tactics that are used to put these support efforts at arms-length to the point where those entities are better off moving all of that to their home turf where it can be properly protected.

Should it? According to whom?

No, I'm not advocating the removal of CONCORD GÇö I'm using it as a counter-example or reductio ad absurdum of the idea that insurance for ganks is not realistic. I'm advocating making highsec less safe for the various reasons I've enumerated earlier.

You do understand that nerfing CONCORD would making the universe very cold and harsh for the gankers, right?

Yes, and you do understand that with a nerfed CONCORD, you could do unto the gankers what the gankers do unto youGǪ even more so than what you can now (and you can already do quite a lot, if you choose to GÇö the problem is that people instead choose to be victims, and then want to blame others for that choice).

Where do you get the idea that I somehow no longer mean what I said earlier?

No, I'm not advocating the removal of CONCORD

Yes? So where do you get the idea that I somehow no longer mean what I said earlier?

No, I'm not advocating the removal of CONCORD GÇö I'm using it as a counter-example or reductio ad absurdum of the idea that insurance for ganks is not realistic. I'm advocating making highsec less safe for the various reasons I've enumerated earlier.

THERE IS NO MIDDLE FINGER BIG ENOUGH.

If highsec was meant to be completely safe CCP would implment something to prevent any aggressive modules being activated, just like they stop bomb launchers working in high and lowsec.

Pardon my intrusion into your fierce debate battle with Tippia, but I'd like to bring to your attention that an opinion and an assumption are two entirely different things. Simply put, an opinion is a personal view on a matter that one isn't sure of enough to claim as fact, while an assumption is something a person believes to be fact, when there's either insufficient proof in favor of the belief, or plentiful proof to the belief's contrary.

Tippia has definitely expressed an opinion, which was likely founded on personal observation of the game economy, and the statements of intent made by the developers of EVE Online. While I don't agree with everything Tippia says, or all of his/her methods, I've so far yet to see this person assume anything.

You do understand that nerfing CONCORD would making the universe very cold and harsh for the gankers, right?

If CONCORD was nerfed in Tippia's image (where players themselves are given more tools and incentives to pursue criminals), I, as a ganker, can vouch for the fact that the universe would become a much colder and harsher place for me. Having to contend with vengeful players would be a much more difficult ordeal than to coldly write off 40 million ISK as the sunk cost of a suicide battleship. Also, the more you mitigate a safety net, the more people are forced to adapt. I doubt my ganking would be nearly as successful if CONCORD nerfs woke players up to the necessity of precautions. My ganking efficiency might, however, increase with the removal of CONCORD insurance, for the exact same reason. Hence why I, much like other gankers, am not against the removal of insurance. We simply want to be assured that ganking itself will not be made impossible.

Tippia doesn't gank, but I do. It's not exactly an assumption if I confirm his claims.

Fun fact: that is not presented as an infallible assumption. It's a conclusion derived from the facts of how CONCORD work and how these workings can be made to work in your favour.

The fact remains: a nerfed CONCORD would allow for much more and much harsher retributions against the gankers than the current system does.

Yes. Multiple deaths is a harsher punishment than a single one.

You are being selective in what you read. They are not proposing simply to nerf CONCORD, but also to accompany that with some sort of kill-rights game mechanic which allows players to act as police.

Although CONCORD is a very efficient police force, they are also completely predictable, and (aside from a standing loss) they forget about you as soon as you've "paid your dues". Players are unpredictable and occasionally smart. It might be harder to live with a price on your head in hi-sec than to replace your destroyer once it's been CONCORDed. (Though bounty systems are notoriously easy to exploit, of course, so any kind of new mechanic would have to be considered carefully.)

It's all a question of balancing the game to that a variety of activities are able to flourish. Gankers factor the loss of their ship into their profit/loss (or tears/loss) calculations. Similarly haulers and miners can estimate how many loads are likely to go missing, factor that into their calculations and learn to shrug off the occasional loss and/or take some steps to mitigate that. These are the type of optimizations and compromises which make the game interesting beyond just "press button, collect money."

As long as there is a path for every profession to be profitable, the game is doing well. And in my anecdotal experience, hi-sec ganks are extremely rare compared to the profit that can be made. Some players do, however, persist in carrying around a big "gank me" sign, and presumably these are the repeat victims. Why should the game be modified to accommodate that? Even in hi-sec, the game should reward moderately skilled players over perpetual inflexible victims.

I haven't seen tears, not from gankers, nor from Tippia. .

Eve is too hard and needs to protect its little high sec babbies with stupid mechanics. stupid mechanics to protect stupid crybabies. Eve should not be pandering to these whiners. It is meant to be a cold harsh universe FFS. Having said that, it wont stop people suicide ganking if they really want to, it will just make people look for higher value targets and encourage bears to get complacent.

This alone wouldn't really be that bad but combined with basically allowing anyone in high sec to completely easily avoid war decs and also reducing the 'ease' of scams it is just sending eve into a wrong direction of cotton wool and rainbows. Bullshit.

And that was not *random* - that was basically the only *real* whine here.

I made a long, eloquent post about this but it got deleted when I hit post.

In summary: insurance in eve largely makes no sense. It is thus an empty justification

You make it sound like suicide ganking rewards are somehow guaranteed; they aren't. You don't get their cargo and your insurance. You get your insurance and a RANDOM selection of their cargo/fitted modules, which every suicide ganking gets regularly screwed by. Insurance payouts are largely what make this a viable enterprise still by off-setting the "screwed by the loot drop once again" co-efficient. Without said screwed-ness mitigation the profitability and general viability is not just dramatically, but violently and lube-lessly reduced to a tiny, sobbing shadow of its former self

Bye-bye freighter ganking.

High sec takes another step away from "safer NOT safe" towards Carealot.

You say this isn't going to end suicide ganking and you're right; it is however another nail in it's slowly closing coffin lid; I give it a couple more years at most.

Saw it coming for a long time and can to some extent see and agree with payouts being a bit silly.

You are however massively colossal gaylords for implementing this change.


Now.....where did I put all those PLEX's; sounds like it's about time to get an officer fitted bs and prance merrily around high sec running missions and writing petitions about how unfair life is.

O.o You call that a *whine*? O.o

but for the nonaccomplished ganker, it might, and with a bit of incentive, he might grow up to be an accomplished ganker.

I'm leaning more and more towards trying to dig up that ancient F&I thread about massively buffing the tank on the exhumers and then restricting them to low/nullsec where you might actually need that tank. People who stay in highsec get stuck with a bit lower yield, but also have the full benefit of insurance on their ships so it won't hurt if anyone bothers to blow them up.
They could use a break, like all newbiesGǪ

It does undermine the rewards of traders/haulers in high sec. Now suicide ganking will be so rare that the complete idiots will be able to do just as well at it as people who used to consider the possibility of a suicide gank. Its not like it took allot of thought to tank a transport ship but now even that tiny bit of thought is no longer required.

Now all the markets will be even more homogenous and it will be even harder to find a decent way to make money hauling stuff.

So the only people who get a buff here are the dumb who don't know any better than always putting cargo expanders on and never think to put any tank on their ship or make a couple of trips. Every time you give a buff to the dumb you make the game less interesting for those who like to some complexity and challenge.

This whole thread is 45 pages of tears and drama over absolutely nothing?