Some men just want to watch the world burn.

There's space for us all in New Eden.

How is it a joke that 20 people can kill 1? I suppose the fact that they needed 20 is a bit of a joke GÇö it doesn't seem entirely reasonable that they have to be that numerous.

...snip...

That's the point of playing a game like Eve, you have the freedom to watch it burn, or to fuel the fire, if you want to.

Why should the value of the hull make any difference in how easily you can kill it?

Please list all of the risks and punishments for ganking.

While your at it, please tell me why you feel my gameplay that has been in game from day one should be wiped out because you don't want to put in any effort to protect yourself.

Given the millions of trips made every month and the few dosen that are killed I would say It exceedingly rare.

1. So the next time you try, someone will activate it and you'll die prematurely and the gank will fail.
2. So the next time you try, someone will kill you prematurely and the gank will fail.
3. So you have to pick your targets with care, or the gank will be an economic failure.


1. Far from guaranteed, partly because some simply don't tear up and partly because they have meaningful ways to fight back if they choose to and might be plotting for that kind of revenge instead.
2. In other words, subject to random chance.

No, the effort is not GÇ£too greatGÇ¥. The effort just isn't non-zero, and that is more than people are willing to put in. That is not a balance problem GÇö that's people willingly and actively choosing to be hapless victims. Plenty of people do it, which is how they manage to never get ganked and why there is an entire (highly profitable) industry built around nothing but hauling.

You don't need alts to scout your freighter through highsec. Simply make 1 friend. Is making 1 friend too hard?

Whatever it is, start with this guy.

Have you ever actually ganked someone, or are you just saying stuff in an attempt to feel relevant?

So you must also feel it is imbalanced to be able to kill a billion isk maurader with an assault frigate or cruiser?
Can you see the slippery slope of using value as a determining factor? It leads to bigger is better. Would that be good for the game that is built around the exact opposite?

ISK tanking is a great idea apparently. No one should be able to kill my titan without commiting & losing at least 120b.

Thank you for confirming that you have exactly zero idea of what is going on.

Gank cost based upon the pricetag of the target is a terrible idea.

That may have more to do with freighters being overpriced than anything else.

Hey guys, I have these ideas that CCP laughed at on several occasions. I have no experience on either side of the fence but that doesn't make me wrong.

Why is it relevant where a ship is killed?

It is not a good thing to have a megathron sporting a tank greater than two fleets of titans. You are not adding options you are destroying high sec piracy and badly breaking the game.

Didn't say that =p

[quote=Paranoid Loyd]
If you change the way it works based on the hull value how can you kill a BS in low/null with a frigate?

It's not, for the simple reason that cost is never an even remotely workable balancing factor. It has been tried. It has always failed and for laughably obvious reasons: cost as a mechanic is itself trivially overcome and therefore instantly fails to balance anything out. It could potentially be a product of balance, but it is simply impossible to have good balance around cost unless you completely remove all dynamics from the economy.

Trying to balance using cost leads to exactly two things: a GÇ£bigger is betterGÇ¥ design which removes all choice and variety, and grinding so that people can get that one remaining valid choice. Neither of those even remotely resemble any kind of actual balance, be it in the equipment itself, in the gameplay, or in the meta of activities and choice.

There's absolutely no reason why highsec should be different in this regard. The concepts of balance are rather universal GÇö what you're asking for is that highsec be imbalanced for some unfathomable reason.

That would be fun to see.

Please point to the bit where he said that.

Yep, that's the problem I have with them too. It's never enough, and their agenda is clear. They will never stop until PvP is not permitted.

Their attitude is so poisonous that they honestly think non consensual PvP is, or should be, a bannable offense.

We all have the same toolset available to us.

Giving new players more SP/free skills or handing them ISK or ships cannot fix this.
Unfortunately any solutions that come to mind (such as Arenas or stacking penalties for mass weapon attacks) are very much a case of "cure worse than the disease".

The people who tell you things like "if you want PvP then go to lowsec instead". They are literally saying that PvP should not happen in highsec.

Of course, just look at the majority of the people who live there. Far too many of them just want to see the green numbers get bigger like some kind of Facebook game. Those people aren't contributing anything, they're more like destructible terrain than real players.

We get away with things because the "victims" won't get off their butts to stop us.

The game has absolutely nothing to with why those people don't find it appealing. The tools are there.

They just won't pick them up and use them. They'd rather just howl in local or on the forums, and go back to making the green number get bigger.

It can be done. I know because I have done it to others, and had it done to me. Their only excuse is themselves.

[edit: And as Ramona has mentioned, I am talking about self defense. I apologize if that was not clear. But honestly, if you want it to apply to revenge you can do that too.

Not a good analogy. Unlike RL police CONCORD does not prevent crimes. Unlike CONCORD, RL police don't avenge crimes. RL people don't awaken in clones when they die.

TL;DR, hisec was never advertised as the 'burbs.. and you can play RL simulator in RL, not EVE.

Edit: A better analogy would be that hisec is like a town in the Wild West with a sheriff. The sheriff can't be everyone at once, and likely won't stop a crime from occurring if he's not close by. People can shoot you at any time because everyone carries guns.

I wanted to revisit this part of your post because it doesn't tell the wholy story.
1. I think CONCORD never assumes that a clone is as bad as its predecessor. There is no assumed guilt, and I think that's a good thing because CONCORD damage is inescapable. I don't think you want to advocate a "no-win" situation for any play style, including ganking.

2. Criminal status -5 or under is free to be shot by anyone. -4.5 or below will invite FacPo to fire and can't be circumvented without extensive BMs or by carefully rationing your undock periods in system. So, there is a large swing of negative sec status values that essentially treat Hisec as nullsec, except that they cannot aggress first.

3. I don't think tags are cheap. I also don't think ganking and then salvaging/looting to recover costs is an easy workflow for a baby ganker. Tags are certainly more convenient than say.. repairing faction standing or gaining standings with corp, but turning sec status repair into laborious PVE arcs removes the essential element of "contested resources" from highsec.

The fact is, suicide ganking is mandated by CCP and EVE's rules.. and gankers seem to be forced to justify something that is mandated and legal against suggestions in this thread that run counter to CCP's position on the matter. I'm just saying the burden should be on someone suggesting rules changes to adequately study and describe the long term and macro-scale impacts of their suggestions before they insist that their direction is supreme.

No, it was always the shut up. If you quite literally don't know what you're talking about, it's best to just not talk at all.



If you aren't aware that that's not how it works, you shouldn't speak at all. Do you actually know what a physics engine is? What it does, what it's supposed to do?

Or are you saying that they can wave the magic wand of computer code at it, and shoehorn a damage component in there, too?