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.

You KNOW that's a lie, right? You would need one hell of a profit margin to pay other players for boring themselves to death as they become useless extra guns on top of CONCORD's once in a blue moon.

Except that bringing guns or an escort does not work. Here is what happens: Your ship exits warp and explodes in less than a second.
When in that sequence was I supposed to identify the attacker, lock the attacker and destroy the attacker first, especially as shooting first gets me CONCORDed?
When in that sequence was an escort supposed to help? Well, he could have told me to not warp in the first place. But I can do that by not logging in at all. CCP Falcon, is that the outcome you want to see?

Maybe it would be better if you adjust how warping to stations works, so my ship actually warps to docking range. Customer services will thank you.

Competitive market = good.
Monopoly = bad.

Uh-huh. And the numerous changes to the Skiff itself, to the underlying Procurer, and to industry as a whole definitely has nothing to do with that. Yup yup yup.

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

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.

not at all. There is a small part of the movment that is reasoanble and do not want gank gone. Just think that the effects of cocnord intervention are too small, sepcially with the cheap gank ships like destroyers. Just that. And analysing that is within a reasonable request level.

This may be somewhat accurate but not really true. Even when you fit for tank or min/max mining or hauling it doesnGÇÖt leave room for guns. Should you even fit guns on your hauler/miner it wonGÇÖt stop the gank.

Indy doesnGÇÖt need the ability to fight back with guns, they need the ability to defend or defend better then what they have at the moment.

When it comes to a gank, the ganker already knows you're in belt. The moment they warp in, they are locking you as soon as the game lets them (takes time to come out of warp on grid).

So here is the list.

Keep your ships aligned so that the moment someone tries to lock you, you insta warp. Unfortunately you will eventually move out of range of the rocks so this isn't viable.

You can warp off the moment a potential ganker (just because someone warps in doesn't mean they are a ganker) warps in and hope to warp off before they finish falling out of warp. However, now the gankers don't even have to gank to stop you from mining. They just have to camp belts.

Moving for mining barges and exhumers is pointless. You will still have an alignment time before warping and you won't be able to speed tank their guns. I can see it working for a venture though.

I love EVE and the core of what the game stands for. That's why I've been dedicated to it and its community for over 11 years now.

Risk vs Reward is a huge part of that.

Honestly, if that changed, and the game started to soften out and cater to those who want to have their hand held all the way through their gameplay experience, I'd rather not be working on the project regardless of how many subscribers we had, than sell out the core principles that New Eden was built on.

That's a sentiment that I hear a lot around the office, because we are all invested in what makes New Eden so compelling - The dark, gritty, hard reality beneath the pretty ships and nebulas.

EVE is built on the core principle that you are never 100% safe, no matter where you go or what you do. When you interact with another player, you roll the dice on whether they're going to screw you over or not. That's a massive part of the social engineering behind the very basic underpinnings of the EVE Universe.

Sorry, but your scaremongering counter argument makes no sense to me and carries no weight

No-one is exploiting any game mechanics. Highsec is highsec for a reason. It's not the reason you think, though. Highsec is highsec because it is a place where aggression comes at a cost. If you choose to nullify those costs, then take a wild guess what will happen nextGǪ?

Wait.. Im a pvp guy and this makes no sense. Your better off bringing logistics for escort than guns ******* baddies are going to die anyway. No use shooting at them. But if you can keep your target alive until concord arrives.. You win

And Tippia never will.

Point is, AFK or not, Warping after you jump in a system is still the same and gankers don't discriminate.

Goodness, shooting someone for *fun* in a videogame?

Call Scotland Yard.

Well, that wasn't surprising.

Thanks for confirming Eve Online has turned into Grief Online.

This thread is filled with a lot of controversial hoopla about 'Staying Safe' with the convenient ancient meme excuse of 'Risk v Reward'. Funny thing is it's the criminal careers that are constantly spouting that bullcrap. Obviously the 'Risk v Reward' isn't balanced in-game.

If it was, this topic wouldn't be an issue and Eve would have no problem gaining and retaining players..When a Dev states he'd rather not be working on the project regardless of how many subscribers are gained by changing that mechanic, then he's part of the problem that's been slowly planting this game deeper and deeper into a Vaporware grave.

Obviously due to the OGB from CCP Falcon to the 1/2 dozen or so Pro-Gank posters in this thread, there's no need for this topic to continue. Heh, at least I can say 'I Was There' when the final Coffin Nail was pounded into Eve..

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

EVE Online is essentially a PvP (Player versus Player) game at its core.

4.) The addition of the Tier 3 battlecruisers, especially the high alpha of the Tornadoes, reduced the cost of ganking with fewer larger ships until the insurance change came to balance that out.

Overall, the changes have balanced out to keep the risk/reward relationships in check.

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

Depends on if they are going for loot or a green killboard and tears. And no, a standard hauler, as in not a freighter, is not going to be surviving that many catalysts. It would be a push to survive 5, which would even be green on the loot side too.

Where are you buying your T1 catalysts for 10m a pop? 2.5m tops, and that's if you can't be bothered to wait of buy orders.

let's put it another way. there are two hypothetical players. the first chooses to embrace all the tools provided them by the game. let's call this player the absurdly courageous space hero, paragon of virtue and morality, ruler of all those in optimal range, or ACSHPVMRATOR for short

actually i'll just end the post here because i'm tired. let's just assume i finished the hypothetical and it was fantastic. if someone can modify the title of the courageous space hero so that it ends with -RAPTOR that'd be badass thanks

If you are going to use resource comparisons as an argument that ganking is unbalanced you have to consider the number of people and pilots involved on each side of the gank. Any comparison this ignores this aspect is without foundation and in my opinion ( deliberately ) intellectually dishonest.

The point is that defending another player would be very boring when he wasn't attacked, which as far as i know, it's the most usual occurence ingame. Most of the time most of the players are not ganked, hence the "once in six months" reference.

Please take action so that bumpers cant not unlawfully entrap (a crime in every jurisdiction!) gank targets between gank attempts (an action that is 100% equivalent to warp scrambling, and hence a criminal act).

Well, this will be my last round with you, and I will await response from CCP Falcon. When the bumping is 100% functionally equivalent to warp scrambling it is a crime.

And from the other thread, my question to CCP Falcon - assuming optimal bumping from 3 optimally fitted Machariels, and optimal response from a freighter fitted with tank rigs, will the freighter be able to escape within 15 minutes? If the answer is, as I suspect, "no," then should not the bumping here, especially when used between successive gank attempts by the EXACT SAME gankers, trigger a CONCORD response per your prior post that CONCORD acts as a reactive law enforcement agency, which would respond to the commission of the crime of False Imprisonment?

That thread never addressed using bumping falsely imprison gank victims between successive ganks from the exact same gankers. That response was to AFK miners crying that Code bumped them off their asteroid, and required the to come press F1 more often than once an hour.

CCP considers the act of bumping a normal game mechanic, and does not class the bumping of another playerGÇÖs ship as an exploit. However, persistent targeting of a player with bumping by following them around after they have made an effort to move on to another location can be classified as harassment, and this will be judged on a case by case basis.

Because it did not address this specific, and unusual, circumstance, which is currently being used by CODE and its allies. And is, as I have pointed out, inconsistent with CONCORD's function "as a law enforcement agency," and with the design of highsec.

Not sure if you have been following, but I suggested that gank victims get 60 seconds of immunity from bumping so they can fly off.

Not sure what "safe" means - the invulnerability would start once CONCORD arrives, at which point your ship is supposed to be "safe." (note that you could still be shot).

And the fact that bumping is not in general a crime does not mean that when bumping is used to achieve the exact same effect as warp scrambling (which is, and everyone agrees should be a crime), that it should not be treated as a crime.

I could respond, but I will let CCP Falcon respond for me:

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.

Oh really? So you find it comprehensible that you and your CODE buddies would show up, try to gank an Orca, get it down to 20% structure, have CONCORD come and kill you and give you an aggression timer...and then do nothing as your buddies sit there for 15 minutes bumping it so it can't escape, with CONCORD at the scene, and then watch as the exact same gankers come right back and finish the job? Seriously? That even conceivably makes sense to you? I refuse to believe that anyone could find that a reasonable game mechanic in highsec.

It would be like making it a crime to break into a car with a hammer, but not a crime to steal the key and break in.

CCP Falcon already gave the opinion on the matter. Here, I'll even quote it.

Luckily I haven't lost a ship at all! I simply present again the absurd situation caused by the current game mechanics. "So you find it comprehensible that you and your CODE buddies would show up, try to gank an Orca, get it down to 20% structure, have CONCORD come and kill you and give you an aggression timer...and then do nothing as your buddies sit there for 15 minutes bumping it so it can't escape, with CONCORD at the scene, and then watch as the exact same gankers come right back and finish the job? Seriously? That even conceivably makes sense to you? I refuse to believe that anyone could find that a reasonable game mechanic in highsec."

Eh, English is my second language as well, and while you are correct, I believe the basic point still stands.

That being, if you die in highsec, it's most likely because you failed to take adequate steps towards your own defense.

That said, spatial awareness could be referencing understanding of your surroundings, and the resulting knowledge of correct behavior that flows as a result?

Use conditions: system security must be above 0.5. Player security status must be above 0.0.
Trigger condition: someone has locked the player, has opened fire on him and has triggered a criminal flag on himself.
Trigger: manual activation.
Environmental effects: 99.9% resists to player. Any player who earns a criminal flag after attacking the player is 100% scrambled. Effects last for 10 seconds.
NPC spawn (RT-1 seconds after activation, where RT = CONCORD response time): FoF mines. One mine is spawned for each agressor and inflicts 150,000 alpha damage on it. The subsequent CONCORD spawn will wipe any survivors.

Please, tell me how would you abuse the idea, I may have overlooked something.

Because he paid a price for that privilege. I was thinking of some 500 million ISK per shot. Maybe less, maybe more. That could be debated.

But, to your question: Why should someone lose his ship just because he's been outnumbered? Specially since he can be outnumbered by someone whose only effort was to buy ISBoxer and pay several accounts to CCP, which is very literally a way to pay for win.

(Now answer, why should outnumbering be a failproof tactic?)

Complete and unavoidable waste of your effort caused by the action of the adversary should be a possibility both for agressors and defenders. So far, only the defenders take that chance. As I said above, that's OK with CCP and they will not do anything to change the game, so you all can rest assured that I am just wasting my time and effort.

in addendum, if you were found to be part of an organized group of people harassing others, you'd get slapped with RICO and they'd take down everyone. atleast in the US. also in real life you can't recreate yourself with new dna for a clean identity, forensics and no statute of limitations would catch up to you eventually. this all assumes the cops don't just shoot you in the face, which lately wouldn't be a safe bet.

i argued the point. what needed to be said was said. no more troll food will be dispensed, sorry you'll have to look elsewhere.

i don't repeat myself for idiots and i don't feed trolls. you should give up hope, it will save time.

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

everyone told einstein he was wrong. he ignored them. i think i'll pick option 3.

i'd be happy to defend it and spell out my reasoning to someone that didn't take a page from the republican playbook of deny, obfuscate, propagandize.

He was semi right, just over simplified it. If the logistics involved become too excessive, the opportunity cost associated with it (along with the accounting cost associated with it) will push people out. I'm seeing the effects with my indy contacts who seem to have an increased interest in running L4s instead of mining.

because there is no link to my proof. my proof is more than a decade of marketeering in online games, with an eye focused on markets in the real world to learn how it all works. i know how it works because market laws apply everywhere markets exist. it doesn't matter how you slice it, supply and demand works the same way everywhere and all the time.

why don't you scroll back, reread everything i've already typed, accept the fact that i might actually know what i'm talking about, and bow out of a discussion where you've done nothing but say someone is wrong and offer nothing on why or how?

ahh, here we go. let the obfuscation begin. i told people to reread my posts so they would get the point i was making, notice that quote of mine doesn't say anything about proof. i'm reasonably sure i never explicitly stated having a link that would contain all of any "proof" that there was.

biggest troll yet. seriously; why you guys bothering replying to someone who must be trolling. surely noone is this delirious he actually believes this crap?

this is the intarwebz. it's a valid tactic.

sounds like more "ganking is good because ganking is good" to me. you have a super awesome day now, k?

he's a one-man wolfpack

Actually, pretty much anyone (and everyone) does. That's kind of the point being made here.

i'm pretty sure isboxer use has been cleared.

you have and use isboxer too, then? :]

i'll take this to mean that you don't have or use it. so "not everyone has the tools i do" is perfectly accurate. pay the fee and you can be awesome too.

Interesting idea actually. I don't see many people getting behind the idea of increased rewards for gankers, but it's not an unreasonable request. From where I'm sitting, it *appears to me* that the rewards currently outweigh the risks, and that it needs to be shaken up some. I'm not claiming to be an expert though. I've never ganked anyone outside of suspect/limited engagements, and I haven't really been ganked either.

Overall, it just seems to be a really static part of the game for the last few years that seems to frustrate quite a few players, so I think it needs some sort of attention.

I'll admit that it's quite a low risk given the current incompetence level, but that's not ccp's fault, is it?

you're going to start picking nits too? you didn't pay the fee, so you don't have access to it. most other eve players also didn't and don't. i did, so i do.

A wise man indeed, he'd have enjoyed Eve.

*/me dons his forum armour and waits for the inevitable beating that results from quoting The Art of War

And it's highsec - you don't need to beg friends to protect you from criminals, that's what CONCORD is for.

lol I consider going on a few ops with the the miner bumping guys one of the best things I've ever done in Eve. Very educational.

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

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.

No, if you have been paying any attention at all (which I am beginning to doubt), I stated that since there is no simple way to differentiate between criminal and non-criminal bumping, the appropriate response is to grant a gank-victim a 60 second window where they are able to warp off regardless of if they are been bumped or not. So neither 1 nor 2 are implicated.

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.

I don't see how intelligently responding to false imprisonment and escorting a victim to safety "fundamentally changes what CONCORD is for."

1) I gave strong supporting evidence that freighter ganking has increased...the killboard from the 1 guy I gave you nearly exceeds the 1.4 number per day FROM YOUR OWN SIDE. Check out minerbumping.com for more examples.
2) I pointed out that if optimal bumping renders a ship unable to warp, it is functionally equivalent to warp scrambling
3) I did witness it happening, I was not the victim, I was trying to help the victim escape. (The fact that you listed this as a "lie" is truly mortifyingly stupid.)
4) CONCORD fails to respond to bumping between ganks (not sure how this could possibly be a "lie.")
5) I said that it SHOULD be criminal, not that it currently is (another insane example of a "lie.")
6) I think any rational person sees CONCORD as a police force in highsec.
7) I pointed out how absurd it is to not punish bumping between ganks that is equivalent to false imprisonment (you really have to be delusional to not see this.)
8) I am quite familiar with game mechanics, thank you. And not my fault if you don't how analogies work.

9) Keep up the great work, and have a nice day. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it."

They cant even bother themselves to tank their ****.