He's not a random person. He's the guy who pays your bills. Your sheeps for my sheeps.

In EVE, people who don't mess with anyone are incentivized to leave the game, whereas people who mess with others never are incentivized to leave the game.

There are two statements, which one you call false and why?

The serous point is that PvPrs who disrupt the non-PvP activities of players who don't engage in PvP should be exposed to have their own non-PvP acitvities disrupted by their victims.

A extreme and funny example was given by Mike Azariah in his "Peace dec" blog.

The whole risk vs reward is biased since A can force his playstyle on B but B can't force his play style on A, so B must either play as A does or quit the game. That's barely an equitable choice, but CCP are OK with it.

pvpers who disrupt the pve activities of others are already exposed to having their own activities disrupted

the game is entirely fair in that regard. each player is on an even footing, you see. people who pvp aren't handed additional tools. people who refuse the tools handed to them are at a disadvantage only due to their own choices

i'm going to type the phrase 'deal with it' followed by the emoticon wearing shades

absurdly courageous space hero, paragon of virtue and morality, ruler of all those players traveling in optimal range

ACSHPVMRAPTOR

Would you spend all your play time escorting someone day after day so you can ECM boost him when he needs it, maybe once in six months?

If the answer is "yes", CCP should hire you, you're the kind of sucker they're looking for when they ask players to bring friends to each and every non-PvP activity.

And again our two favorite nullsec supporters appear on the scene to troll and derail any thread that might suggest some kind of reasonable and fair level of protection for players in highsec.

Wow guys. Not only did you all take the bait, you also gulped down the line, the fishing pole, and half of the boat.

This is a perfect example of trolling at it's finest. Good job Indahmawar Fazmarai. 12/10.

i just hope code realizes they're harassing the industrial backbone of the game, stealing isk from the people that mass produce it. it's generally not a good idea to **** off a group that could hire every merc outfit that exists if it had a mind to. but hey, i guess everyone needs content.

NAILED IT AGAIN!!!!

This in the main is why I play this immersive game. Its also the reason we shot that OP guy in the first place. I recall learning the game for the first time. I asked my new CEO at the time to test the tank on a raptor I could fly and he killed me in 4 hits by accident - so I left as a noob. The next corp I joined invited me in...told me to come mining with them and proceeded to kill me in a belt - then kicked me out of corp saying go play WOW. All I wanted from that moment was revenge and so was born a pvp career.

I'm still wondering, if Eve isn't supposed to be safe, why are the consequences for ganking so predictable? I just think we should shake things up a bit. A bit more RNG to the concord spawn timer and amount. instead of a predictable 17 or whatever seconds, and luring concord off, give concord the ability to be a bit less predictable. Add some *actual* risks to the gank, and potentially harsher penalties (being prevented from using gates for a period of time perhaps, forcing gankers to make use of bridges into lowsec or something.

I'm not upset with the current system, I just think we have some untapped potential to make it a bit less predictable and reball the risk/reward factor a bit.

You're getting the point of this, you're just not thinking about it. When you run missions constantly for a corp (say, SOE out of Omson for example), you're eventually forced to take a lowsec mission or wait for a 4 hour cooldown, or take a standing hit. The game already forces mission runners to either take a time-out, or go into lowsec.

Why not do the same thing to gankers? Force them to get stuck in a system for 4 hours or bridge out to lowsec and do something else if they want to continue playing? The same thing for highsec explorer who get lowsec escalations. No one should have zero-risk gameplay.

The current problem (if there is a problem, I'm still not entirely sure about that, but with all the whining I may as well propose a solution), is that the RISK involved is not proportional to the crime. Basically the risk is negligible, loot drops aside, because entities like CODE gank regardless of profit (as they have the right to), so the RNG involved in potential loot drops is IRRELEVANT when you're not aiming to get any loot. Therefore, there needs to be a new type of RNG-based penalty for ganking, such as a fine for 10% of the damage caused split among everyone involved on the kill, with a slight random factor, or an inability to travel for a RNG based time period.

Complete predictability has no risk. (I will lose my ship and get a kill, guaranteed) is not risk.

Gotta run for an hour or so and I don't really have time to address this, but I'd like to point out:

I think you're confused on the difference between risk and cost.

From the dictionary.

Risk: the possibility that something bad or unpleasant (such as an injury or a loss) will happen (this doesn't apply to suicide ganking as the consequence is guaranteed).
Cost: something that is lost, damaged, or given up in order to achieve or get something

yeah, i was kinda hoping there'd be more isboxer discussion so we'd get threadlocked.

Did you know that modern militaries still have supply lines? And that millennia old lessons on strategy still apply today?

Did you know that so do bumblebees, and that there's nothing particularly strange about their fight?