Without going into the details, its hard to know what the "it" or "this" you want to stop is.

Do you mean being shot at?

Why should CCP provide protection for your haulage in high sec?

CONCORD offer a level of deterrent just the same as any law enforcement agency, but as with any police for they're reactive and punitive rather than proactive.

If you want your haulage to be safer, bring the guns. If you don't have any guns, sacrifice some of your profit margin and hire someone who has them to escort you.

Welcome to New Eden, you just learned a very valuable lesson in being prepared and covering your back.

Except it's high sec, and either the gankers warp on top of you and alpha you before you can get a lock on them, or they're still of a security status where you can't shoot them until they open fire, at which point they alpha you anyway.

Highsec is broken.

It's a valid point, but nothing at all to do with my counterpoint to Falcon saying that people should bring guns.

Because sitting in a station for 15 minutes with GCC unable to undock anything capable of defending something else, just because you fired one salvo to protect yourself is amazing gameplay <3

Tears? I'm merely stating the fact that you are all a bunch of noobish and honorless gankers, regardless of what alliance you belong to.

It's called they are doing the best option available but even the best option doesn't stop ganking completely and that's what they are looking for.

And there is a fine line between "another guy just having fun" and "intentionally causing misery to others". Bullies enjoy bullying people. But hey let's let them off the hook because they get pleasure from their sadistic tendencies.

Maybe the loot fairy isn't great one time, well the law of averages says that you're going to turn a huge profit if you do it enough times.

CCP FALCON PUNCHES FOR ALL OF THE DAMAGE

CRITICAL HIT

/thread

The FALCON ALWAYS WINS

Come to think of it, who's the proper recipient for donations? I feel the sudden urge to fund even more of their mayhem because of all of this.

Well if you read Minerbumping.

If that's the case you should name it "Tournament Micro Jump Unit"

What happens when a freighter jumps through a gate and isn't autopiloting? Is it magically invulnerable to a bump and a gank?

Miner gankers are a perfect example. People will gank miners for various reasons and none of which have anything to do with looting the wreck to turn a profit.

If you do something for reasons other than profit, you're a sociopath.

Really? I wasnt aware that people's career choices were made available on the forums.

+1

What pisses me off is how you can still do everything right and you'll still die, because game mechanics are against you.

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.

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.

Don't need to buddy, what I said is fact. Sorry if you don't agree.

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.

What does not make sense, and is clearly an exploit

Veers belvar must be a troll, or just ignorant as ****.

When the bumping is 100% functionally equivalent to warp scrambling it is a crime.

What would be nice is if anyone with -10 security status would be sent to "Eve jail" and be unable to undock for 30 days after the commission of each criminal act in highsec.

Because it did not address this specific, and unusual, circumstance, which is currently being used by CODE and its allies.

It merely depends on whether a crime was committed.

Here, bumping between ganks, which is unpreventable if done optimally

is 100% identical to warp scrambling

which everyone here agrees is and should be a criminal act, resulting in CONCORD coming and destroying the perpetrators.

And again....saying "this is the game mechanics" is irrelevant to the purpose of this thread, which was to highlight CCP's lack of protection for haulers, and suggest improvements.

I am confident that the Devs will ignore all the Nullsec posters here who are just motivated by "tears" and "carebears" and "explosions," and instead give a reasoned response to my (at least in my view) well stated inquiry.

There are a multitude of ways to protect yourself from suicide gankers, people just automatically assume they're "safe" in highsec, then get annoyed when they lose a ship because of their own lack of spatial awareness.

I decided not to pick nits earlier, but it bothers me now that I see it again. It's *situational* awareness that's lacking.

You don't have a leg to stand on, and you know it.

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.

Like I said, I'm picking nits (English idiom for fussy fault finding. Comes from the days of having people pick lice off of you instead of bathing).

That definition you proposed is basically the definition of situational awareness.

The word switch doesn't change the fact that Falcon's point is entirely comprehensible.

How is there two threads and 150 pages of the same stuff over and over again?

Read my post again and turn off the grrr carebears grrr this time. It is LESS hand-holding than CONCORD as it must be manually triggered.

Why should a single pilot have an item that requires no effort whatsoever to use which gives them a guaranteed win against an organized group of 10+ pilots specifically kitted out to beat them? (being at your keyboard isn't "effort" it's "playing the game")

If you want to catch litle jimmy, wardec him first.

the problem is, you have to take the bait lest CCP actually start considering some of these delusions.

everytime you say i'm wrong, this pops into my head...

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." -- Arther Schopenhauer

And the fact still remains that for CONCORD to sit there and allow bumpers to pin down a gank target, while successive waves of the exact same gankers kill it is assinine, and would not be allowed by any conceivable CONCORD like force. It's obviously inconsistent with the purpose of CONCORD, and should be fixed.

Wrong. CONCORD, as with any police force, would not just care about hypertechnical things like pressing F5. They would focus on stopping ongoing criminal activity once on the scene. And pinning a victim down so that they criminals can come finish the job is obviously criminal nature, and would be stopped by any competent law enforcement agency.

They are already in the system - the response time is reasonable. But having the ignore unlawful restraint taking place 5 feet away from them, while the 2nd wave of the gank is obviously incoming, is completely absurd. Forget about how you would fix it, just realize that on a conceptual level it makes no sense.

The fact that CONCORD being spawned in the system in a different location lengthens response times suggest that CONCORD is tied to the system in some manner.

And anyhow, the response time is designed with the dps v. ehp in mind....

if they wanted it to take 10 mins for CONCORD to respond they would need to drastically reduce dps.

I would actually prefer to intelligently discuss the reasons why I dislike the current mechanics, and suggest improvements to make the mechanics consistent with the principle of highsec.

I decided to raise the issue, and suggest a worthwile change.

Without gankers, haulers would operate without risk. None at all. And for the gankers, there is always the risk of failure, especially if the victim is capable of mitigating the gank. This, however, takes effort.

Benny's not confused on these points. You are.

They should allow the target to escape the bumping

as any law enforcement force would.

CONCORD is there to punish criminal activity, and being pinned down so that successive waves of gankers can shoot you is clearly criminal in this context.

CONCORD response should not depend on the activation of an offensive model - as for your other points, I have already answered them repeatedly.

Which is why i provided my 60 second free escape proposal.

What I "do get" is that you are not a CCP Dev and will not be determining policy on this matter

(you already are on record as being opposed to letting freighters have rig slots).

As pointed out already by me....already today Loyalanon (CEO of CODE) has killed two Orcas, a Charon, 3 Obelisks, and a Rhea, all today. Something is seriously broken here, and needs to be fixed.

The truth actually works quite well for me.

Quite the "victory." The fact that CCP recently buffed freighters suggest that they do see a problem. And the fact that CODE has led a massive increase in freighter ganking shows that there is an even bigger problem than before.

I'm also having difficulty sorting out "ganks" against legitmate kills (wardecs, lowsec, etc.) and finding data from anything beyond a few weeks. Also curious if that dev was referring to ganks or kills in general.

Yes those GO TO STATEMENTS are not to be messed with