| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 11 post(s) |
Sabriz Adoudel
Mission BLITZ
3473
   |
Posted - 2014.08.27 22:47:00 -
[1] - Quote
You know what would have been really effective here?
One jump out from the destination, reship to an empty Iteron. Go and set off the trap, and have your alt loot the Tornado. Easily pays for your Iteron.
Then, go and bring the real ship in.
Safety is something you can achieve in highsec, if you work for it. It is not given to you for free.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=366607 - Gank incursion runners, win prizes! August 26-Sept 30.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=238931 - an idea for a new form of hybrid PVE/PVP content.
www.minerbumping.com - ganking miners and causing chaos |
Sabriz Adoudel
Mission BLITZ
3477
|
Posted - 2014.08.28 02:28:00 -
[2] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Angeal MacNova wrote:Not only that but the added expense is factored in when goods are produced. So two things happen;
1. If the indy players are just in it for the isk and the loss of their ships becomes too much of an expense, they'll do something else like run missions. Less producers means inflated prices. This is compounded if the other thing these players do causes them to lose ships as this will now increase the demand also.
2. Those that do stick it out will factor the expense into their selling price and the price of all goods will increase. Again, inflation.
So while the act of ganking in itself is not bad and can be good for the economy, the gankers' favorite choice of target is bad for the games economy in both the short and long term. GǪexcept for the simple fact that the production capacity vastly outpaces the destruction capacity and that gankers simply aren't capable of affecting the entire market in such a way that inflation would occur. And that's without considering Loyd's point above: that a lot of ganking effectively just amounts to getting rid of the competition for a given product. It will not lead to a reduction in production or an increase in prices GÇö just a shift of market share. And even without that detail, there's just too many industrialists who have no problems with ganking for it to have the effects you describe. Industrialists, as a group, are not actually being targeted GÇö stupid haulers are. They're rather different groups.
Confirming that, as a starship and module producer, I'm happy to write off the costs of ganks I carry out as a necessary marketing expense.
Plus, they are fun.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=366607 - Gank incursion runners, win prizes! August 26-Sept 30.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=238931 - an idea for a new form of hybrid PVE/PVP content.
www.minerbumping.com - ganking miners and causing chaos |
Sabriz Adoudel
Mission BLITZ
3480
|
Posted - 2014.08.29 02:55:00 -
[3] - Quote
CCP Falcon wrote:Kiandoshia wrote:Duchess Amarrian wrote:high sec is really a joke. This, essentially. Being unprepared and putting all your eggs in one basket to make a nice juicy target for a suicide gank is the joke here, not highsec. 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.
This!
Seriously, if you want to learn how to protect yourself from suicide ganks, start ganking.
There's a reason that I've never been ganked successfully, despite fairly often carrying gank-worthy cargoes through both highsec and lowsec. Because I know how to gank, I recognise the early warning signs.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=366607 - Gank incursion runners, win prizes! August 26-Sept 30.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=238931 - an idea for a new form of hybrid PVE/PVP content.
www.minerbumping.com - ganking miners and causing chaos |
Sabriz Adoudel
Mission BLITZ
3495
|
Posted - 2014.08.31 00:11:00 -
[4] - Quote
This thread reminds me of just how important a service gankers provide to the community.
Without gankers, we'd never have had this 28 pages of utter hilarity.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=366607 - Gank incursion runners, win prizes! August 26-Sept 30.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=238931 - an idea for a new form of hybrid PVE/PVP content.
www.minerbumping.com - ganking miners and causing chaos |
Sabriz Adoudel
Mission BLITZ
3501
|
Posted - 2014.08.31 06:27:00 -
[5] - Quote
If bumping is ever made a CONCORD offense, I will invest in salvage drones and MTUs and camp the Jita undock.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=366607 - Gank incursion runners, win prizes! August 26-Sept 30.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=238931 - an idea for a new form of hybrid PVE/PVP content.
www.minerbumping.com - ganking miners and causing chaos |
Sabriz Adoudel
Mission BLITZ
3501
|
Posted - 2014.08.31 06:38:00 -
[6] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Sabriz Adoudel wrote:If bumping is ever made a CONCORD offense, I will invest in salvage drones and MTUs and camp the Jita undock. Which is (again) why I suggested that Bumping should not be a CONCORD offense, rather that victims of a (failed) gank attempt should have a 60 second immunity from Bumping once CONCORD arrives on the scene.
This would obviously make the game worse.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=366607 - Gank incursion runners, win prizes! August 26-Sept 30.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=238931 - an idea for a new form of hybrid PVE/PVP content.
www.minerbumping.com - ganking miners and causing chaos |
| |
|