Once you guys execute though, there is no way to stop it. 18 Nados can tear through just about any ship in highsec.

"If you bring the right tool for the job, you can get the job done. That's imbalanced."

These posts of yours are reaching the point of self-parody.

Yawn...the important questions of course is how much it SHOULD cost to get the job done, with the optimal tools. That would determine if a rebalance is warranted.

Yawn...the important questions of course is how much it SHOULD cost to get the job done, with the optimal tools. That would determine if a rebalance is warranted.

However much is needed. If you are doing a poor job with your battleship then it won't take much.

Typical carebear, literally yawning past the part where the game actually gets played, to get to the ISK bottom line.

Neither what is required for a gank, nor what is required to be able to avoid one, can be bought or sold on the market. This is why no matter how much and how often suicide ganking is 'nerfed' by making the relevant ship losses more expensive, it still happens.

Not sure what this means.

Obviously.

Yawn...the important questions of course is how much it SHOULD cost to get the job done, with the optimal tools. That would determine if a rebalance is warranted.

Once you guys execute, your success rate for these ops is pretty close to 100%, right? It's all pretty terrifying for people in highsec :)

Yawn...the important questions of course is how much it SHOULD cost to get the job done, with the optimal tools. That would determine if a rebalance is warranted.

Not sure what this means. For a given number of gankers, and a given ehp of the target, and given the security status of the system - there is a minimum isk price to gank before CONCORD shows up. It's literally just a math problem.

And thanks to carebears like you, who argued for infallible, 100% reliable CONCORD, it is a math problem.

Except for the part where you can't tell if he has links, so you have to take that into account. Or what implants he's got.

But anyway, that's what you people get for crying for more safety for the last decade, the real players find a way to turn it around on you. And of course, since your end goal is for PvP to not exist in any way, any time that there is ANY ganking going on at all, you rush to the forums to claim how it's "too much" and there needs to be "just one more" nerf to PvP.

Not any more. You have too damned much safety as it is, since it's damn near impossible to gank someone who actually has a clue how to play this game.

But just because the thumbless monkeys who afk in open space are getting blown up, that does not mean there is a problem. In fact, that's working as intended.

Why not balance the ganking system that is accepted greatly in this game ?

Shooting down a 22 bil marouder ship (That is not alloaght to fight back until it is attakt ) With 5 dystroyers ships that cost 1 mil a peace within in 5 secconds needs to be nerft .

You have to admit there is an balancing problem here or not ?

I do happen to believe that it should be more difficult and expensive to gank top of the line combat ships.

Calm down buddy. I wasn't even playing when the last nerfs were made. And you obviously haven't being paying attention to my views on highsec. I think mining barges and freighters and all other non-combat ships should have a major tank nef and be blowing up more (I happen to think mining should be removed from the game entirely, in fact). I think there aren't enough failfit and undertanked ships getting blown up. I do happen to believe that it should be more difficult and expensive to gank top of the line combat ships. Not sure if that makes me a "carebear" or not. Feel free to examine my killboard for further details.

If there aren't enough failfit ships getting ganked, surely that is due to most players not failfitting their ships?

Uhm...no....it's because the main gankers, CODE, don't care and are blowing up empty ships. And the other gankers, miniluv, etc... seem to have disappeared. The number of failfit ships in highsec is...well.....astonishing.

So they're ganking ships that aren't failfit? What's the problem then? You can't force people to do something they don't want to, this isn't a job, it's a game. We're here to have fun.

I think my point was that it's not lucrative enough right now to gank failfit ships, and is too lucrative (or not costly enough) to gank well fit ships. So I'd like to see more failfits dying, and fewer well fit ships.

I think my point was that it's not lucrative enough right now to gank failfit ships, and is too lucrative (or not costly enough) to gank well fit ships. So I'd like to see more failfits dying, and fewer well fit ships.

And you obviously haven't being paying attention to my views on highsec.

This is completely not true btw. Anti-ganking enourages the use of robust tank, monitoring intel channels, and using smart gameplay to prevent ganking. They also have a good record at spoiling CODE suicide ganking. If you want to spend your time helping people, not hurting them, then anti-ganking is for you.

After using bumping to trap a freighter, and the pilot choosing to self destruct rather than pay a ransom, the pilot came on the Eve forums to complain about the bumping mechanic and state that he was quitting the game. Instead of the ganker just being happy with the loot and moving, he came to the forum to rub it in with the comment "Can i haz ur stuffs?. The sole purpose is to further antagonize an already upset person for "tear harvesting" purposes.

Totally agree with you. The failure to stop the abuse of bumping is ridiculous, and is being utilized by the CODE folks to imprison freighters on a daily basis. This is just screaming out for a fix.

People live in highsec because they don't want to be forced into PvP without CONCORD intervention. If they wanted regular PvP they would live in low/null.

I think my point was that it's not lucrative enough right now to gank failfit ships, and is too lucrative (or not costly enough) to gank well fit ships. So I'd like to see more failfits dying, and fewer well fit ships.

There is no need to disguise your views. Feel free to let loose. We know there are many things about the current mechanics which are frustrating for you, that you would radically change in order to make EVE a warm, welcoming environment for the casual and blissfully unaware player.

What do you mean by lucrative? If you mean dropped module costs, badly fit ships can drop as much as well fit ones. If you mean robbing freighters, you can always gather people around you and start ganking the juicier targets yourself. Be the change you want, and be happy that your competition has chosen to be less competetive.

By lucrative I mean the EV of the gank.

But there's a plenty of +EV badly fit ships, you just got to find them.

1. Yes, anti-ganking is great for advice on avoiding ganks.

2. Using bumping to trap a ship for 50 minutes, causing the owner to quit the game...and the rubbing it in with "can I haz your stuff" is exactly the kind of garbage I would like to see less of. Enjoy your kill and shut up. Don't look to elicit emotional reactions.

3. Yes, I think bumping is being used in an abusive way. I would like to see more freighters pop, but from dps, not from trapping due to bumping.

4. Yes, I think wardeccs should not be used to force people into PvP without CONCORD. Go suicide gank them if you want to kill them.

I'm still trying to figure out what any of your posts "prove." Do try and do a better job in the future.