You seem a bit bent right now. There are a lot of elements in Eve that do simulate real life. Good fiction simulates real life. It's how we can identify and participate in a story or even in an MMO. I think that's what makes Eve particularly engaging - is that it has many elements that are similar to real life (if we imagine what it might be like in space). Eve isn't just a simple arcade game of shooting gallery. It has production values, exploration values, a back story. It has give and take simulation of what kind of ship you want to fly. And it has a real economy - unlike almost any other MMO.

To say comparing Eve to real life or the back story is "garbage" is just irrational goon talk. In fact, the more successful MMO's I think simulate real life more and more - have more realistic graphics, more realistic mechanics - so it isn't just some kind of cartoon game for 2 year olds.

for folks who are champing at the bit to declare an attack a personal attack you sure are fast on the ol' "guilt by association" button

I also think there should be a place in Eve where you can fly around relatively safely if you want to - that in fact, my guess is there are quite a few players that would rather NOT have PvP forced upon them. That PvP should be a choice not a requirement when logging on. And I think if CCP makes a big enough sand-box, that it won't ruin the game by making hi-sec pretty secure against ganking. PvP will still continue hot and heavy in low or nul sec - even if hi-sec is made more secure.

One of the more reasonable arguments I have read. I still think though that the RISK vs REWARD equation is not equal when a bunch of cheap dessies can take down a multi-billion freighter in hi-sec. The gankers need to put out more if they want to gank in hi-sec IMO.

One of the more reasonable arguments I have read. I still think though that the RISK vs REWARD equation is not equal when a bunch of cheap dessies can take down a multi-billion freighter in hi-sec. The gankers need to put out more if they want to gank in hi-sec IMO.

I also think there should be a place in Eve where you can fly around relatively safely if you want to - that in fact, my guess is there are quite a few players that would rather NOT have PvP forced upon them. That PvP should be a choice not a requirement when logging on. And I think if CCP makes a big enough sand-box, that it won't ruin the game by making hi-sec pretty secure against ganking. PvP will still continue hot and heavy in low or nul sec - even if hi-sec is made more secure.

By "dessies" I'm assuming you mean Destroyers, right?

The data that people don't consider about suicide ganking is that it is a huge cost to the gankers. They must sit around and scope out targets for up to hours at a time. Once they get a target, they will incur a guaranteed loss and will not always get loot from the freighter gank. I'm sure if you pulled up MINILUV kills in high sec, you'd see plenty that didn't drop any loot. Thus, this isn't a "profitable" venture in high sec, which is why it isn't rampant.

Furthermore, once they've ganked several times, there is the cost of having to grind out security standings back to acceptable levels. It's a rather lengthy process that requires good logistics, which is why the entire goon community does not suicide gank.

Some people just want to run missions all day and that is fine, but if there is ever an instance with zero risk, then that only hurts the economy as a whole. If you start getting tens/hundreds/thousands of people doing this activity that has zero risk, then that is when you would start seeing rampant inflation, botting, etc. Destruction leads to consumption, which is good for everyone except the guy that just got blown up.

If there were a way to allow people to run missions but they had to pay a 50% tax, they would likely stop doing that and whine about how it's unfair that they only get 50% of the profit from doing zero risk activities. What most people don't realize is that your actual risk of being ganked in empire is a number approaching zero by default. That number goes up if you decide to fly an officer fit battleship in your missions, run an obvious multiboxed fleet of 50 mackinaws, or fly 30 bil worth of goods in your 1 bil isk freighter.

So yes, high sec ganking mechanics are dumb. But they're only an actual risk to players if they are also dumb or lazy. You only hear about high sec ganking because people yell really loud when they get ganked in high sec- you don't hear from the thousands of high sec dwellers that go about their normal, unabiding, routine on a daily basis.

you've always been able to gank in destroyers, it is merely so difficult almost nobody can organize the needed people

highsec pubbies, who screech at the idea that cooperation should be rewarded, somehow never factor in that effort cost

I don't believe organizing an alliance group to gank in dessies are equivalent to the amount of loss to an Industrialist losing a multi-billion hull along with whatever she had in that hull (which can be billions too). This will especially be true regarding rigged ships.

Yes - it does take effort to organize a large gank group. But is equivalent - nope.

you're correct, it's significantly more effort on the part of the ganker to such a degree that there is no contest

fortunately the outraged squeals provide enough of a benefit to make it worth it

it is also interesting that you are complaining that the effort for the gankers does not go up as the gankee becomes stupider and lazier as they pack more and more into their freighter

as the gankee becomes lazier and lazier the reward for the scourging lash of the gankers goes up just as it should

There needs to be a space for new players and players who want to be free of griefers like the Goon alliance.

i recommend a different game

choose carefully however as goons maintain a presence in quite a few

but hey let ol auntie promfem schoolfeed y'all some actual facts:

fact: it is possible to suicide gank nerds in highsec
fact: ccp is the sole arbiter of whether or not this is allowed
fact: it'd be pretty effin trivial to disallow weapons fire on another player in highsec
fact: they haven't
fact:

and here is the big one

no area of space in eve is 100% safe

this has been Paroxysm of Facts by Promiscuous Female, facthaver

That being said. What I've been advocating for this whole time is that high sec ganking still needs some adjustments and that players that want to play under the assumption that they should be able to dictate a vast majority of the parameters under which they operate, that the solution was to give them a taste of their own medicine and grant them blinky red and yellow permanently.

and yet nothing in eve even remotely approaches the complexity of real life institutions

but hey if we wanna do this, i've got a real humdinger

there's nothing stopping me, being a first world country haver, from selecting an unlucky random off the street and snuffing their shit

however if i do that the likelihood of me getting punished and potentially even murdered by the state is pretty darn high

eve is similar because if i snuff someone's shit i get punished by the state in the form of explosions

Fact. The balance in Eve is not perfect.
Fact. Eve is programmed by imperfect beings.

"players should not be able to dictate a vast majority of the parameters under which they operate, here is a list of parameters under which players must operate"

Except that there are several problems with your analogy and how you are applying it.

Generally speaking it depends on how you define "high chance". As posted earlier by someone else there are actually a quite a high number of unsolved crimes, up to and including murder. I would say your chances of getting caught are entirely dependent on the methods you use and how careful you are to cover your tracks and maybe a bit of luck. Given the stats of the FBI I'd say your chances are actually only moderate that you'd get caught.

The point I'm trying to make in this is that a once off crime can be pretty hard to track down. But given the continued repeat behavior your chances are going to go up as well as the severity of your punishment.

This is not true in Eve. In eve you are allowed to commit crime into infinity with no real long term consequences or even consequences that scale given the amount of crime you commit. Point the out the illogicialness of this using the real world context is not foolish and actually quite pragmatic given the circumstances when trying to explain how human behavior would be dealt with in normal situation.

Losing a few hundred million ISK destroyers to a multi-billion freighter in hi-sec is not equivalent. And the Industrialist who put time into Eve getting the billions of ISK to get the freighter, and rig it - and whatever that freighter contained - considerable amount of work and effort. It is not lazy as you imply.

It's easier in Eve to put together and fly a cheap destroyer than it is to buy, fill up and use a freighter. Not everyone has billions of ISK to spend or spends the time shipping in a freighter.

If only there were a way that they could seek advice from players and actually utilize those ideas in the design of the game going forward, instead of just assembling a player representative group and throwing ideas at them saying "here is what we are doing".

This is how you get awful design decisions like jump fatigue. Seriously. Let's introduce a completely obscure and terrible mechanic to nerf jumps instead of mechanics already in the game, like changing jump fuel usage to have exponential costs. Because always travelling in gates in every ship is great game design

[quote=Promiscuous Female]
I'm advocating that the activities be more balanced to the degree under which they are committed.

But to be fair you are complaining about wanting to have your cake and eat it to.

the ganker is not at fault for the poor choices of the target, who hath stuffed the coffers to the chock with filthy lucre

Well I wont disagree with you that the new jump mechanic is needlessly complicated. But to be fair you are complaining about wanting to have your cake and eat it to. Your very alliance were the ones that spear headed the null sec agenda recently to CCP and this is the mechanic that resulted in that feedback. You can't say on hand that you should be allowed to tell ccp their game sucks because they source feedback from players while at the same time giving them feedback on why their game sucks and expect them to take you seriously!

Your very alliance were the ones that spear headed the null sec agenda recently to CCP and this is the mechanic that resulted in that feedback. You can't say on one hand that you should be allowed to tell ccp their game sucks because they source feedback from players while at the same time giving them feedback on why their game sucks and expect them to take you seriously!