EVE Search - Why can we not be self policed in high security space? Who needs BOT...

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Why can we not be self policed in high security space? Who needs BOT...

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Sack o'Richards Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 0	Posted - 2016.08.14 21:12:05 - [1] - Quote So that's the deal. I think we, the playerbase, have the ability AND the right to police ourselves. There is no need for CONCORD in EVE. Players, not npcs, police everything else ingame. Why can't CCP allow us to also police high security space? I am not saying remove high sec, you could implement something that keeps anyone under -5.0 out of 0.5's and higher, or even have it scale. Factional Warfare could cover high sec also. And yes, we need starter systems. I understand the need for a certain ammount of 'security' for newbros, but please don't make us slaves to the machines any longer! Justice is a human construct, but CCP places stewardship of it in the hands of non-player characters. There is no justice there, just mechanics. Where is the human element? Human element best element? The very presence of CONCORD causes bot like behavior from players. How can anything npc decide what defines human justice.? Are we not worthy CCP? Do you not have any faith in our community? We need player ran police departments in EVE, the only thing standing in our way is the redundancy that CONCORD creates. EVE is about taking control, yet we are being hamstrung by the same people that tell us to take control. EVE is hard huh? Prove it. Let us, the players, decide what's wrong and what's right in our communities. Who's with me? Who wants to play in a real sandbox?
Doc Fury Furious Enterprises 8577	Posted - 2016.08.14 21:23:37 - [2] - Quote tl; dr: Wants to turn highsec into nullsec. --> Features and Ideas . Gÿ+ The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the ho's and politicians will look up and shout 'Save us!' and I'll look down, and whisper: 'Hodor'.
Sack o'Richards Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 0	Posted - 2016.08.14 21:30:27 - [3] - Quote Doc Fury wrote: tl; dr: Wants to turn highsec into nullsec. --> Features and Ideas . Not even close friend. There is opportunity for much isk to be made by the humam police forces in high security space. Plus the option for 'police only' mods and access to pursuit type hulls that can bridge into systems they police. How could this not be good?
Bienator II madmen of the skies 3552	Posted - 2016.08.14 21:40:13 - [4] - Quote reaction time would be too slow how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value
ShahFluffers Ice Fire Warriors Escalating Entropy 10445	Posted - 2016.08.14 21:54:59 - [5] - Quote Sack o'Richards wrote: Do you not have any faith in our community? History has shown that a large amount of people living in High-sec are not willing to put even a token effort into self-defense. The MoO gatecamp from the early days of EVE showed that a tankable CONCORD (see: CONCORD used to behave similar to the Faction Police) can be beaten back by a large enough force and steamroll through most player counter-strikes. The Goonswarm Incursions (all of them) showed that a large enough force can roll through multiple corporations and Starbases at the same time. The Hulkageddon and Burn Jita events showed that your average player is generally pretty bad at "paying attention" to current events and coming up with countermeasures that don't involve simply logging off until the dust settles. Hell... we still have bleating masses up in arms because someone has declared war on them and are interfering with their "pacifist" lifestyle. Sack o'Richards wrote: Why can't CCP allow us to also police high security space? I am not saying remove high sec, you could implement something that keeps anyone under -5.0 out of 0.5's and higher, or even have it scale. You can already do this. Set up a gatecamp at places you know -0.5 or lower players often travel through. Or escort convoys of ships. Then shoot the "outlaws" when they appear. Sack o'Richards wrote: Justice is a human construct, but CCP places stewardship of it in the hands of non-player characters. There is no justice there, just mechanics. Where is the human element? Human element best element? The very presence of CONCORD causes bot like behavior from players. How can anything npc decide what defines human justice.? True enough. But players simply do not have the will, time, or reaction speed to stop all offenses or be everywhere at once. Also... players can be bribed or bought out This is why few "non-PvP corporations" do not trust MERC groups to defend them and would rather whine. Sack o'Richards wrote: We need player ran police departments in EVE, the only thing standing in our way is the redundancy that CONCORD creates. EVE is about taking control, yet we are being hamstrung by the same people that tell us to take control. You take some, you give some. Neither the current situation nor yours is ideal (for different respective parties). But at least the current situation is... more reliable and trustworthy for some. How did you Veterans start? The Mustache and Beard Thread
Caco De'mon New Order Logistics CODE. 31	Posted - 2016.08.14 22:01:00 - [6] - Quote I put forth what though were great Ideas that solved these issues... Make 1.0 - 0.8 Concord's domain. Reaction is instant. Remove 90% of the belts. The rest of HS is self governed except Concord pays players to enforce the law through a bounty system that actually works. HS is WAY too big, rich and safe...why would the little bears want to leave? Why wouldn't LS/NS players farm rocks from work? *"See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand."
Ralph King-Griffin Devils Rejects 666 The Devil's Warrior Alliance 17419	Posted - 2016.08.14 22:01:28 - [7] - Quote The anti gankers are by and large hilariously bad at their job, you would essentialy need the mercs to do this as they are the only ones in high with the manpower, experiance and most importantly the patience to operate as effective millitary forces in highsec. As an ex merc can tell you with almost 100% certainty that the only systems that would see any service would be the systems Jita, amarr , dodixi and the systems that connect them, with a handfull of +1's ocasionally being policed. And thats only if you pay them. =]\|[=
Gibbeous Moon Heimdal Freight and Manufacture Inc 24	Posted - 2016.08.14 22:13:53 - [8] - Quote ShahFluffers wrote: Also... players can be bribed or bought out I wouldn't expect anything less in Eve. So, on the whole I think that the ideas of the OP's has merits.
Hal Morsh Hmmzor. Muffins of Mayhem 537	Posted - 2016.08.14 22:26:36 - [9] - Quote Gibbeous Moon wrote: ShahFluffers wrote: Also... players can be bribed or bought out I wouldn't expect anything less in Eve. So, on the whole I think that the ideas of the OP's has merits. http://i.imgur.com/g4bIU0A.gif Omar Alharazaad > Pretty much any time you blow something up in space it's bound to annoy someone or something.
Serene Repose 2659	Posted - 2016.08.14 22:50:18 - [10] - Quote OP - I love BS. And, you stacked it so high! Why can't the fox be trusted to guard the chicken coop? Why do they have to put all the bank money in vaults? Why do they have the tire puncher rack at the parking garage exits? LET ME SEE......Pens chained down...motel TV locks...leave your passport at the desk...walk through the metal detector....aw gee. The honor system? This one's too easy. "TRUST" an EVE player??? I need to get my coffee. Allow me to take a break from rolling on the floor...laughing. ROFLCOPTER You had to ask. We must accommodate the idiocracy.

Sack o'Richards Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 1	Posted - 2016.08.15 00:26:04 - [11] - Quote Bienator II wrote: reaction time would be too slow good cops should know what's happening in their systems, and who is in them. if a system is not worth paying for police protection, then it should not have any. ShahFluffers wrote: Also... players can be bribed or bought out This opens more opportunities, for player oversight through government. If you live in an area, be prepared to at least vote for a government. We already vote for CSM, lets elect governors for regions. any region worth living in should have no problems electing a government. Caco De'mon wrote: HS is WAY too big, rich and safe...why would the little bears want to leave? he gets it Serene Repose, i knew someone would think that i was trolling, but i am truly all for building a better EVE. and i believe that can only be done without CONCORD interference.
DeMichael Crimson Republic University Minmatar Republic 56044	Posted - 2016.08.15 00:54:49 - [12] - Quote These types of threads always show up every year. Seriously if CCP takes your advice, this game will become Vaporware in less than a year. Yeah, good idea you got there. How about you do your player police force action in low security systems that are connected to high sec, occupy / patrol those systems and turn them into NRDS? Then maybe high sec players will immigrate there and help build it up even more. Highly doubtful though since the main mantra in Eve is 'Trust Nobody'. DMC 'The Plan' \| California Eve Players \| Proposal - The Endless Battle
Lulu Lunette Savage Moon Society 422	Posted - 2016.08.15 01:01:54 - [13] - Quote HIghsec is so awkward. @lunettelulu7
Caco De'mon New Order Logistics CODE. 31	Posted - 2016.08.15 01:09:38 - [14] - Quote DeMichael Crimson wrote: How about you do your player police force action in low security systems... Because the OP isn't talking about some independent security force in LS that works 100% outside game mechanics. *"See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand."
Sack o'Richards Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 1	Posted - 2016.08.15 01:23:24 - [15] - Quote DeMichael Crimson wrote: some unsupported drivel about 'the end of EVE' if this scares you it's because you cannot understand the benefit to making EVE the game you see in the advertisements. the removal of CONCORD can only benefit EVE as it will bring out our strengths, and force the community to hold us all accountable. resistance is a sign of fear, the only way to overcome that fear is to face it.
Markus Reese Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 853	Posted - 2016.08.15 02:00:36 - [16] - Quote If we wanted self policing, the implementation would need to be in steps to ensure balance. First step is that more permanency needs to exist to the consequences of being a criminal. Make regaining security standing Much more difficult. It should cost more than the gain as that is the nature of punishment. So if you gank a 6b isk freighter expect to pay more to get back in. Second is how to punish, but in a way that makes piracy it's own lifestyle. Best way is the gates. Make pirates use smuggler lanes and be unable to use normal gates the worse their standings. That creates a mechanic to the risk vs reward, the tough part is how to remove the concord. Ideally high sec anti pirates would get a reward in terms of LP from the faction's security forces. Once more, an isk balanced to prevent exploit. Players also responsible for keeping smugglers gates at bay. If by this time, there is no exploitation or imbalance, then they could look at removing concord. But would have to try with modifying concord at every stage. As others have said, response rate is the biggest thing. To help faction alignments could assist so that player police can shoot those that are not below -5 yet. Similar to faction warfare but based on pirate and security standings for both parties. To quote Lfod Shi The ratting itself is PvE. Getting away with it is PvP.
Cade Windstalker 536	Posted - 2016.08.15 02:00:49 - [17] - Quote There are no where near enough players for this to be remotely viable as an idea. If you dislike how CONCORD works go out to Null and don't look back. CONCORD are a part of the game, they're not going anywhere, get used to it. They're a mechanic and a core part of the game. Also this belongs in Features and Ideas, not General Discussion.
Markus Reese Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 853	Posted - 2016.08.15 02:02:21 - [18] - Quote Sack o'Richards wrote: [quote=DeMichael Crimson] if this scares you it's because you cannot understand the benefit to making EVE the game you see in the advertisements. the removal of CONCORD can only benefit EVE as it will bring out our strengths, and force the community to hold us all accountable. resistance is a sign of fear, the only way to overcome that fear is to face it. Eve is a game. The players who run in highsec would face it, by moving out and to a different game. Meaning the jobs of hauling, mining, and missions to get all that wonderful faction LP items would fall for the people who rag on highsec. Are you ready to do the mining? Edit: They will face it, but only if it is rewarding in terms of gameplay. I would be a police if it offered me advantage and depth to how I already play. I would not to it to prevent a downtrodding of gameplay. Is saying make things more tedious for the purpose of absolutely no gain. To quote Lfod Shi The ratting itself is PvE. Getting away with it is PvP.
Hal Morsh Hmmzor. Muffins of Mayhem 541	Posted - 2016.08.15 02:05:08 - [19] - Quote Sack o'Richards wrote: DeMichael Crimson wrote: some unsupported drivel about 'the end of EVE' if this scares you it's because you cannot understand the benefit to making EVE the game you see in the advertisements. the removal of CONCORD can only benefit EVE as it will bring out our strengths, and force the community to hold us all accountable. resistance is a sign of fear, the only way to overcome that fear is to face it. I felt a great disturbance in the forums, as if thousands of voices suddenly cried out in terror. Omar Alharazaad > Pretty much any time you blow something up in space it's bound to annoy someone or something.
Caco De'mon New Order Logistics CODE. 31	Posted - 2016.08.15 02:06:46 - [20] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: If you dislike how CONCORD works go out to Null and don't look back. If you don't like your country, don't work to fix it, just leave... Ok then...great advice... *"See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand."

Markus Reese Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 853	Posted - 2016.08.15 02:16:50 - [21] - Quote Caco De'mon wrote: Cade Windstalker wrote: If you dislike how CONCORD works go out to Null and don't look back. If you don't like your country, don't work to fix it, just leave... Ok then...great advice... And there is nothing wrong with fixing, but is important to consider the other inhabitants. CODE. is a great part of eve. The only real criminal enterprise in what is supposed to be player run. You have a playstyle and purpose of this post is to expand on it, yet? What you are asking is to improve how you live in the country at expense of others though. Think of it this way. Said previous post, but eve is a game. People will not adapt, they will move on. Like moving out of a city that is crappy to live in. What no concord without a significant level of other mechanics is the same as telling somebody to take losses for no gains, while removal of concord gains the criminal element of eve and incur less losses. So if you are wanting no concord, then highsec people need to gain the means to offset. For you to gain the means to pirate without concord (A GUARANTEE) instead of player police (A SLOWER RESPONSE POTENTIAL) Then you will have to have loss somewhere else to counter it. Else those who took the loss will get tired of the cost and move out. To quote Lfod Shi The ratting itself is PvE. Getting away with it is PvP.
Caco De'mon New Order Logistics CODE. 31	Posted - 2016.08.15 02:30:11 - [22] - Quote Markus Reese wrote: What no concord without a significant level of other mechanics is the same as telling somebody to take losses for no gains, while removal of concord gains the criminal element of eve and incur less losses. This is the key point and I did mention it earlier. (expanded) I suggested actually making CONCORD part of the bounty system for a new 0.5-0.7 "middle-Sec" and have them foot the bill for bounty-hunters that enforce the law (think "the wild west"). A real job type, school and NPC corp would evolve to support this new trade...heck add in corp exclusive goodies via some LP system. The folks mentioning the low player numbers being an issue do have a point though... All I know is that the status quo makes EVE stale and HS stagnant...it has most of the population (blatant guess) and yet we all know there are huge issues with such a massive and rich HS. CODE tries to shove the little birdies out of the nest but really all that happened is CCP made it harder for us to do that (read made it easier to make no-risk ISK/PLEX). I think that a test should be done with 0.5 space.... *"See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand."
Eternus8lux8lucis Primus Inc. LEGIO ASTARTES ARCANUM 892	Posted - 2016.08.15 02:49:54 - [23] - Quote Its not about pushing. Pushing never works with many in real life and also in game where its even easier to just stop playing instead of dealing with the stick. My ex is a gamer, hardcore, she loves MMOs and I convinced her to try Eve after a while. She HATED being interrupted every 5 mins in null doign whatever it was she was doing, yes she had a WoW/Everquest style MMO background. She ganked and got ganked, she pvped... though she hated doing it, logied, mined ice, ore, ratted and explored. We literally did everything. High, low and null. Only place I didnt take her was a wh. She was the kind of person that liked to chill and do stuff and see results without the need to make stuff blow up. She would help logi wise and loved that. But she wasnt the type to go out and shoot people. 85% of the people that leave that dont blow up are more or less like her. They need a reason and a purpose beyond the explosions. They arent driven by adrenaline or risk. They are driven by goal oriented accomplishments that the adrenaline junkies find BOOOOOORRRRRIIIINNNGG!! Btw this is coming from a guy that got so bored in real life on a run I decided to run in the middle of the street and when that got boring I started running over the cars that came towards me. Adrenaline is such a fun drug. But if players cannot understand this difference between players you will never be able to grasp a world full and complete that actually works imo. Now as for the OP..... it will be gamed, hardcore and badly and turned into null sec which is great until YOU get kicked out by a bigger force because tbh 99% of people that post are NOT the ruling elite in this game nor have the critical mass to do so. It just is a fact and not an insult. Its how life works. Have you heard anything I've said? You said it's all circling the drain, the whole universe. Right? That's right. Had to end sometime.
Markus Reese Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 853	Posted - 2016.08.15 02:51:12 - [24] - Quote Caco De'mon wrote: CODE tries to shove the little birdies out of the nest but really all that happened is CCP made it harder for us to do that (read made it easier to make no-risk ISK/PLEX). That does need to be taken with a grain of salt. Yes, there is lots of rich people, but the rich are the ones who would be least affected. Incursion farmers and market traders, those multibillionaires most of the time have a multitude of alts working for them. If hauling is harder, will be work around or losses will be reflected in pricing. There are those who spend time in highsec simply because the cost of living elsewhere is too much. What isk we do get slowly builds and goes to having a good game experience. Why don't I pvp? Because I don't find it a good experience. I have had in the past many good fights and found it to be a good experience, but maintaining it was too much of an offset. Taking concord out of 0.5 makes it 0.4. Policing wouldn't be reactive, it would have to be proactive. Sit on the gates and just wait for somebody to show up. It still means wait until they shoot first. That also is just like lowsec. People will gank the police and play that way. There has to be some means of pro-active defence on the side of highsec people for them to consider it a worthwhile investment. Even with isk, it is time spent doing that which they could get isk elsewhere. So I ask, what would you give up in exchange for a Midsec system mechanic? What INCREASES the risk to you to offset the lack of a guaranteed shiploss from concord. Concord is a guarantee, therefore it isn't a factor and isn't a risk. Making players do the work means that you would have less losses. What is the offset? To quote Lfod Shi The ratting itself is PvE. Getting away with it is PvP.
DeMichael Crimson Republic University Minmatar Republic 56046	Posted - 2016.08.15 03:04:25 - [25] - Quote Sack o'Richards wrote: DeMichael Crimson wrote: some unsupported drivel about 'the end of EVE' if this scares you it's because you cannot understand the benefit to making EVE the game you see in the advertisements. the removal of CONCORD can only benefit EVE as it will bring out our strengths, and force the community to hold us all accountable. resistance is a sign of fear, the only way to overcome that fear is to face it. Despite your fail troll attempt of misquoting my posted reply, I'll answer your allegations towards me. Especially since you can't even consider doing what I suggested, create your player police force and occupy / patrol a few low sec systems, turn them into NRDS, invite players there and show us your idea can work. As for your suggestion making me scared, yes it does indeed scare me. Not because my ship might be attacked and destroyed. Hell, that's pretty much commonplace in high sec right now despite Concord and their quick response time. Your suggestion will only create anarchy which will perpetuate chaos and mayhem. Your version of high security will become nothing more than a wasteland. When this game first started, there was no Concord or high security. Why do you think CCP added them to the game? Ask yourself why does a majority of the playerbase conduct gameplay in high security? Because Concord and their response time is a major deterrent for those who want to turn this game into a massive 'Shoot Em Up Free For All'. Your suggestion of removing Concord probably includes Gate and Station guns as well. Your big idea will only end up driving a majority of the playerbase away. What scares me is that would more than likely cause CCP to go bankrupt and end up shutting down the servers. Then we all lose out on being able to enjoy this great game. That's what scares me. Now it sounds like you're looking for a 'Free For All Shoot Em Up' Sci-Fi game. I suggest you either go to Low Sec, Null Sec or W-space for that. Better yet, go do a Google search for another game and stop trying to ruin this great game. DMC 'The Plan' \| California Eve Players \| Proposal - The Endless Battle
Sack o'Richards Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 2	Posted - 2016.08.15 03:15:07 - [26] - Quote DeMichael Crimson wrote: Sack o'Richards wrote: DeMichael Crimson wrote: some unsupported drivel about 'the end of EVE' if this scares you it's because you cannot understand the benefit to making EVE the game you see in the advertisements. the removal of CONCORD can only benefit EVE as it will bring out our strengths, and force the community to hold us all accountable. resistance is a sign of fear, the only way to overcome that fear is to face it. Despite your fail troll attempt of misquoting my posted reply, I'll answer your allegations towards me. Especially since you can't even consider doing what I suggested, create your player police force and occupy / patrol a few low sec systems, turn them into NRDS, invite players there and show us your idea can work. As for your suggestion making me scared, yes it does indeed scare me. Not because my ship might be attacked and destroyed. Hell, that's pretty much commonplace in high sec right now despite Concord and their quick response time. Your suggestion will only create anarchy which will perpetuate chaos and mayhem. Your version of high security will become nothing more than a wasteland. When this game first started, there was no Concord or high security. Why do you think CCP added them to the game? Ask yourself why does a majority of the playerbase conduct gameplay in high security? Because Concord and their response time is a major deterrent for those who want to turn this game into a massive 'Shoot Em Up Free For All'. Your suggestion of removing Concord probably includes Gate and Station guns as well. Your big idea will only end up driving a majority of the playerbase away. What scares me is that would more than likely cause CCP to go bankrupt and end up shutting down the servers. Then we all lose out on being able to enjoy this great game. That's what scares me. Now it sounds like you're looking for a 'Free For All Shoot Em Up' Sci-Fi game. I suggest you either go to Low Sec, Null Sec or W-space for that. Better yet, go do a Google search for another game and stop trying to ruin this great game. DMC
Sack o'Richards Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 2	Posted - 2016.08.15 03:23:41 - [27] - Quote Markus Reese wrote: Would removing concord gain players? No, or very few Would removing concord lose players? Yes, much more than any gain i see nothing here but conjecture and superstition. you have no proof at all. OK so maybe EVE is not for everyone, those that are prepared to own it are the only ones deserving of it. and i think the playerbase is a bit more resilient than all of these doomsayers claiming that most highsec players would rather leave EVE than fight for it. just because you might run don't mean the rest of us cannot make it work. so who would leave? let them speak for themselves.
Coralas Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 32	Posted - 2016.08.15 03:35:08 - [28] - Quote Sack o'Richards wrote: Markus Reese wrote: Would removing concord gain players? No, or very few Would removing concord lose players? Yes, much more than any gain i see nothing here but conjecture and superstition. you have no proof at all. OK so maybe EVE is not for everyone, those that are prepared to own it are the only ones deserving of it. and i think the playerbase is a bit more resilient than all of these doomsayers claiming that most highsec players would rather leave EVE than fight for it. just because you might run don't mean the rest of us cannot make it work. so who would leave? let them speak for themselves. What you don't understand is that the majority of the playerbase is not at all motivated by the task of protecting a semi-afk player making money in highsec, who will never contribute to their own defence, let alone the defence of others, and who would be so completely unthinking during the process as to brag in local about how much money they made, whilst other people flew pvp fits on their behalf - and who would probably be prone to indignant fury at the DEFENDERS if a pirate got through and killed their precious officer fit navy raven. On the other hand if you form a large visible corporation, you'll get enough wardecs to effectively set aside concord protection, and you can decide then who you are willing to protect, and you can manage your group to ensure that all people are contributors and you can get rid of non contributors and general asshats.
Markus Reese Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 854	Posted - 2016.08.15 03:40:20 - [29] - Quote Sack o'Richards wrote: i see nothing here but conjecture and superstition. you have no proof at all. OK so maybe EVE is not for everyone, those that are prepared to own it are the only ones deserving of it. and i think the playerbase is a bit more resilient than all of these doomsayers claiming that most highsec players would rather leave EVE than fight for it. just because you might run don't mean the rest of us cannot make it work. so who would leave? let them speak for themselves. o/ Yes, it is conjecture, but it is based off experiences and business model. So the opener. "What would it bring to your game experience you cannot get elsewhere?" Modify the bounty system? Yes, it could work if the play itself is viable. I would be interested in part of a policing corp, but if piracy, it would be only hit and run, or people hanging out hoping for a fight. If i cannot shoot first, then the system will never work since pirates would never engage or be gone before on grid. That alone makes player policing highly improbable. So we are not bringing something to the game. Only taking away something. If nothing is being brought, then how could it not be true. Personally, if it was just remove concord and add bounty? I would leave. It would be frustrating and always chasing or exposing yourself. I know a good many people that have left because of the existing gank mechanic. A good in game friend from when I started eve? Big in markets, it was his play. Got tired of all the ganking as it stands, and now make it worse? I know other people, jaded from it and left reasons for the same that I would. We like to experience and move around highsec. Now we are being locked into tiny pockets and having to fight just cause we want to visit amarr. Relying entirely on random people to hopefully be camping, which as stated before wouldn't happen since any camp would promptly be met by a bigger force designed to counter. People who prefer PvP would rather go out looking for a fight then wait for an unfair disadvantage sitting for one. From when I was in nullsec. Nobody liked sitting in the station waiting for the reds to show up. And lastly, and most critically, many years of working with newbeans. Ones who get that gank early on, then I gotta explain to them that eve is about repurcussions, not prevention. Then the fun part of saying that alts and isk really means the punishment is nothing. They ask how to protect, and I can only say tank more. They log in a couple more times then quit the game. Number one cause of quitting for everybody I know both RL and online has been they think that the highsec ganking is supid enough as it is. Overwhelmingly more than I have met who decide they want to get into piracy. Make it even more bias to the pirates and those numbers will shift more. So yes, it is conjecture, but conjecture based on psychology and the way markets work. If people wanted to pirate and gank more, than highsec wouldn't be the most populated part of eve. Coralas wrote: On the other hand if you form a large visible corporation, you'll get enough wardecs to effectively set aside concord protection, and you can decide then who you are willing to protect, and you can manage your group to ensure that all people are contributors and you can get rid of non contributors and general asshats. Very good point. Any anti pirate group operating out of highsec would very quickly find themself under the perma wardec and not able to do anything at all. To quote Lfod Shi The ratting itself is PvE. Getting away with it is PvP.
Maldiro Selkurk CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X 574	Posted - 2016.08.15 03:44:10 - [30] - Quote Sack o'Richards wrote: So that's the deal. I think we, the playerbase, have the ability AND the right to police ourselves. There is no need for CONCORD in EVE. Players, not npcs, police everything else ingame. Why can't CCP allow us to also police high security space? I am not saying remove high sec, you could implement something that keeps anyone under -5.0 out of 0.5's and higher, or even have it scale. Factional Warfare could cover high sec also. And yes, we need starter systems. I understand the need for a certain ammount of 'security' for newbros, but please don't make us slaves to the machines any longer! Justice is a human construct, but CCP places stewardship of it in the hands of non-player characters. There is no justice there, just mechanics. Where is the human element? Human element best element? The very presence of CONCORD causes bot like behavior from players. How can anything npc decide what defines human justice.? Are we not worthy CCP? Do you not have any faith in our community? We need player ran police departments in EVE, the only thing standing in our way is the redundancy that CONCORD creates. EVE is about taking control, yet we are being hamstrung by the same people that tell us to take control. EVE is hard huh? Prove it. Let us, the players, decide what's wrong and what's right in our communities. Who's with me? Who wants to play in a real sandbox? Your post is full of vague ideology and nothing more. How would it work ? What benefit is big enough to get people to be police (even in nullsec the people that should be fighting rarely do, how about you going there and "police" them out of there comfortable SOV farms). Why would CCP want to introduce a game mechanic likely to cost them a considerable amount of its playerbase for no real gain (since you can play 'policeman' in wh, low and nullsec already?) Lastly, EVE isnt nor has it ever been a sandbox ! (tell me one sandbox you have played in where your sand castle defends itself against any force no matter the size and survives till you get back?) Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.

MeiJin Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation 0	Posted - 2016.08.15 03:47:36 - [31] - Quote Sack o'Richards wrote: Markus Reese wrote: Would removing concord gain players? No, or very few Would removing concord lose players? Yes, much more than any gain i see nothing here but conjecture and superstition. you have no proof at all. A few years ago these same naysayers would have complained that hisec ganking was making players quit in droves, and when CCP proved them wrong, they turned a blind eye. Claimed CCP was misreading their own data. You waste your time arguing with people that are willfully ignorant of facts, or make assumptions based on their fears. Carebears claim EVE would die without CONCORD, but they are using the same flawed logic that helped them rationalize the 'gankers are killing EVE' argument. They have no data to support their claim, just fear and self doubt.
Sack o'Richards Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 2	Posted - 2016.08.15 04:08:00 - [32] - Quote Markus Reese wrote: Number one cause of quitting for everybody I know both RL and online has been they think that the highsec ganking is supid enough as it is. Overwhelmingly more than I have met who decide they want to get into piracy. Make it even more bias to the pirates and those numbers will shift more. . CCP said it was 1% of people quitting that was caused by ganks. Seems you know most of them.
Serene Repose 2674	Posted - 2016.08.15 05:02:53 - [33] - Quote Au contraire, mon ami. I never said anyone was trolling. You're in a game where the first rule is "trust no one". Then you propose an idea that is based somewhat on the concept of trust? I just said it was funny...and BS (bovine scatology). Trolling? Perish the thought. I have to admit, though. If you weren't trolling you could have been as you've managed to snag a string of really ridiculous ideas. We must accommodate the idiocracy.
Tao Dolcino EVE University Ivy League 587	Posted - 2016.08.15 05:44:44 - [34] - Quote A lot of players in EVE don't wish to PvP. Like it or not, but it's a fact. Also, an important part of players in EVE don't want to be involved in anything collective. They either stay in NPC corps or create their own personnal tax-free corpo. Like it or not, but it's a fact. It's also logical that they mostly live in high sec. Throwing these people out of EVE (i know it's the phantasm of a lot of "elite" pvpers around these forums) won't help keeping EVE populated enough. CCP 2015 : "Fluff is good"
Shae Tadaruwa Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 740	Posted - 2016.08.15 05:55:39 - [35] - Quote Tao Dolcino wrote: A lot of players in EVE don't wish to PvP. Like it or not, but it's a fact. Also, an important part of players in EVE don't want to be involved in anything collective. They either stay in NPC corps or create their own personnal tax-free corpo. Like it or not, but it's a fact. It's also logical that they mostly live in high sec. Throwing these people out of EVE (i know it's the phantasm of a lot of "elite" pvpers around these forums) won't help keeping EVE populated enough. Really? What data do you have to support your claim that a lot of players have a phantasm about throwing other players out of the game?
DeMichael Crimson Republic University Minmatar Republic 56051	Posted - 2016.08.15 06:01:30 - [36] - Quote Sack o'Richards wrote: you are stuck on me leaving high sec to go police, you are unable to get the point. and you sound scared. all i hear is doom and gloom and the end of EVE. but you have absolutely no proof. scared i tell you Heh, looks like you're stuck on saying those who don't agree with you are scared. I provided a rational reason why the content of your thread (which should be in the sub-forum = Player Features and Ideas Discussion) will not work for this game. In fact you totally ignored all of the points I brought up and didn't even bother to answer these 2 simple questions : When this game first started, there was no Concord or high security. Why do you think CCP added them to the game? Ask yourself why does a majority of the playerbase conduct gameplay in high security? Anyway, I'm done riding on this merry-troll-go-round. Good luck to you. DMC 'The Plan' \| California Eve Players \| Proposal - The Endless Battle
Tao Dolcino EVE University Ivy League 587	Posted - 2016.08.15 06:19:50 - [37] - Quote Shae Tadaruwa wrote: Tao Dolcino wrote: A lot of players in EVE don't wish to PvP. Like it or not, but it's a fact. Also, an important part of players in EVE don't want to be involved in anything collective. They either stay in NPC corps or create their own personnal tax-free corpo. Like it or not, but it's a fact. It's also logical that they mostly live in high sec. Throwing these people out of EVE (i know it's the phantasm of a lot of "elite" pvpers around these forums) won't help keeping EVE populated enough. Really? What data do you have to support your claim that a lot of players have a 'phantasm' about throwing other players out of the game? It's not what i have said. I have said : "it's the phantasm of a lot of "elite" pvpers around these forums" The datas ? Read these forums. We at least agree on one thing : it's not at all representative of the opinion of the majority of the players. Also, you trust CCP's datas ? CCP 2015 : "Fluff is good"
Caco De'mon New Order Logistics CODE. 33	Posted - 2016.08.15 06:21:50 - [38] - Quote Markus Reese wrote: So I ask, what would you give up in exchange for a Midsec system mechanic? What INCREASES the risk to you to offset the lack of a guaranteed shiploss from concord. Concord is a guarantee, therefore it isn't a factor and isn't a risk. Making players do the work means that you would have less losses. What is the offset? Sorry for the delay.... The new HS would give-up a ton of easily mined ISK in exchange for a even safer environment for new players with even great reaction times. Miners would soon realize that if they wanted to PLEX their accounts with mining, it would have to be done in the new middle-sec where the bounty system and/or a new player driven security corp would rule the "skies". The core to this is a proper bounty system or some way that actually rewards players to hunt/kill the criminals. It might also be said that the whole way that criminals interact with stations in MS/HS gets a reworking...(ie I can be -10, shoot at a station and then dock at it in my pod, buy stuff, wait 15 minutes and then do it again...wat?) Right now the risk of AFK mining in HS is low due to the size of HS and the sheer numbers of belts. To counter that, the risk of operating/ganking in HS to me is next to nil from non-Concord sources. Nobody is coming after us as it's just not worth it. Lower the reward for ultra safe mining in +0.8 but make it safer for new players to learn. Reward players with becoming the law making it harder for gankers to operate. Make it less safe for miners in the new MS. Not sure I answered your points...it's late.. *"See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand."
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 3514	Posted - 2016.08.15 06:33:49 - [39] - Quote Caco De'mon wrote: new middle-sec where the bounty system. As has been repeatedly shown in every single 'fix the bounty system' thread, it is impossible to make it worth hunting people with bounties without breaking the system and making it even more profit for the gankers
Herzog Wolfhammer Sigma Special Tactics Group 7922	Posted - 2016.08.15 07:49:07 - [40] - Quote Sack o'Richards wrote: So that's the deal. I think we, the playerbase, have the ability AND the right to police ourselves. There is no need for CONCORD in EVE. Players, not npcs, police everything else ingame. Why can't CCP allow us to also police high security space? I am not saying remove high sec, you could implement something that keeps anyone under -5.0 out of 0.5's and higher, or even have it scale. Factional Warfare could cover high sec also. And yes, we need starter systems. I understand the need for a certain ammount of 'security' for newbros, but please don't make us slaves to the machines any longer! Justice is a human construct, but CCP places stewardship of it in the hands of non-player characters. There is no justice there, just mechanics. Where is the human element? Human element best element? The very presence of CONCORD causes bot like behavior from players. How can anything npc decide what defines human justice.? Are we not worthy CCP? Do you not have any faith in our community? We need player ran police departments in EVE, the only thing standing in our way is the redundancy that CONCORD creates. EVE is about taking control, yet we are being hamstrung by the same people that tell us to take control. EVE is hard huh? Prove it. Let us, the players, decide what's wrong and what's right in our communities. Who's with me? Who wants to play in a real sandbox? Dat name! LOL! Bring back DEEEEP Space!

Sequester Risalo Semiki Minerals and Missiles Company Ltd. 223	Posted - 2016.08.15 08:38:42 - [41] - Quote Doc Fury wrote: Wants to turn highsec into nullsec. This simple assessment sums it up quite nicely. In what way would your system be different from Providence? If in fact it would work exactly like Providence, you should start asking yourself why highsec has a bigger polulation. Also I wonder what would be left of highsec with your idea. You might as well argue to abolish highsec completely. That idea has been put forward frequently but you should be frank about it.
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 2165	Posted - 2016.08.15 09:01:55 - [42] - Quote Giggling at yet another nerf hisec thread..., actually call that turn hisec into null sec... The best thing to do with hisec is to allow BS and dread rats to spawn... would be great fun... When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
Shae Tadaruwa Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 740	Posted - 2016.08.15 09:06:20 - [43] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: Giggling at yet another nerf hisec thread..., actually call that turn hisec into null sec... The best thing to do with hisec is to allow BS and dread rats to spawn... would be great fun... Where is the OP asking for a nerf? I don't agree with what he's asking for, but asking for something different, that in his eyes provides more opportunities for players is hardly a nerf. Of course, there would be a reliance on AG to do something....ah yeah, now I understand how it's a nerf.
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 2165	Posted - 2016.08.15 09:18:14 - [44] - Quote Shae Tadaruwa wrote: Dracvlad wrote: Giggling at yet another nerf hisec thread..., actually call that turn hisec into null sec... The best thing to do with hisec is to allow BS and dread rats to spawn... would be great fun... Where is the OP asking for a nerf? I don't agree with what he's asking for, but asking for something different, that in his eyes provides more opportunities for players is hardly a nerf. Of course, there would be a reliance on AG to do something....ah yeah, now I understand how it's a nerf. AG is an anti-ganking militia would not exist under this suggestion, it would just turn into NPC 0.0, something that I could easily handle, but a lot of players will run screaming to the de-sub button... When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
Solecist Project 32114	Posted - 2016.08.15 09:43:57 - [45] - Quote ShahFluffers wrote: Sack o'Richards wrote: Do you not have any faith in our community? History has shown that a large amount of people living in High-sec are not willing to put even a token effort into self-defense. The MoO gatecamp from the early days of EVE showed that a tankable CONCORD (see: CONCORD used to behave similar to the Faction Police) can be beaten back by a large enough force and steamroll through most player counter-strikes. The Goonswarm Incursions (all of them) showed that a large enough force can roll through multiple corporations and Starbases at the same time. The Hulkageddon and Burn Jita events showed that your average player is generally pretty bad at "paying attention" to current events and coming up with countermeasures that don't involve simply logging off until the dust settles. Hell... we still have bleating masses up in arms because someone has declared war on them and are interfering with their "pacifist" lifestyle. Sack o'Richards wrote: Why can't CCP allow us to also police high security space? I am not saying remove high sec, you could implement something that keeps anyone under -5.0 out of 0.5's and higher, or even have it scale. You can already do this. Set up a gatecamp at places you know -0.5 or lower players often travel through. Or escort convoys of ships. Then shoot the "outlaws" when they appear. Sack o'Richards wrote: Justice is a human construct, but CCP places stewardship of it in the hands of non-player characters. There is no justice there, just mechanics. Where is the human element? Human element best element? The very presence of CONCORD causes bot like behavior from players. How can anything npc decide what defines human justice.? True enough. But players simply do not have the will, time, or reaction speed to stop all offenses or be everywhere at once. Also... players can be bribed or bought out This is why few "non-PvP corporations" do not trust MERC groups to defend them and would rather whine. Sack o'Richards wrote: We need player ran police departments in EVE, the only thing standing in our way is the redundancy that CONCORD creates. EVE is about taking control, yet we are being hamstrung by the same people that tell us to take control. You take some, you give some. Neither the current situation nor yours is ideal (for different respective parties). But at least the current situation is... more reliable and trustworthy for some. the reason why this happens is because it's not the proper players who take charge of the new players. it's because ccp teaches zero about the actual game and because carebears have too m8ch influence. they had since i remember. Of course it's just going to get worse. There's too many self proclaimed victims having bad influence. make noobs assets worth fighting for and you can turn highsec into a combat zone within six months. The people who are immune to influence and who want to be safe could just join a nullsec alliance. Massive intel and no suicide gankers ... ... but still at least a bit of the game to shake their comfort zones once in a while. "That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breaths of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly pulverised by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds." -- Tippia
Jessica Starblaze Rookie Help 5	Posted - 2016.08.15 09:50:34 - [46] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: Giggling at yet another nerf hisec thread..., actually call that turn hisec into null sec... The best thing to do with hisec is to allow BS and dread rats to spawn... would be great fun... So you want to turn high sec partially into null sec, but of course only the parts that give people the opportunity to make even more ISK under the protection of concord. How about you take your own advice you and other people who cry for "balance" in high sec keep giving people: "If you want XY. Get out of high sec". On topic: As much as I support the idea that people should protect themselves and that they should not rely on some magic space police to do it for them, it-¦s never going to happen. They do not protect themselves now, allthough right now it is easy to protect themselves from high sec. How often have people tried in these very forums to explain to people, how to protect themselves properly? Just ask people who complain about being ganked, why they did not have scouts, logi support, links or a webber to reduce the chances to get ganked. Every time you will get the response that their friends and/or corpmates are not interested in such boring tasks and that they would rather farm ISK than helping each other out. How often do they claim that it does not hurt the gankers if you kill them, just because they only see the value of the ships losses and can not see that a lot of gankers will lose interest when their ganks are being prevented over and over again. Sure you can just be ignorant and say: "So what if the real carebears leave?" Sadly CCP did a very fine job over the last year to attract more of those people and they would all just quit and right now I don-¦t think ccp is interested in any group of remaining players unsubbing on masse.
Rawthorm D.M.T inc Circle-Of-Two 116	Posted - 2016.08.15 09:57:57 - [47] - Quote Sack o'Richards wrote: So that's the deal. I think we, the playerbase, have the ability AND the right to police ourselves. There is no need for CONCORD in EVE. Players, not npcs, police everything else ingame. Why can't CCP allow us to also police high security space? I am not saying remove high sec, you could implement something that keeps anyone under -5.0 out of 0.5's and higher, or even have it scale. Factional Warfare could cover high sec also. And yes, we need starter systems. I understand the need for a certain ammount of 'security' for newbros, but please don't make us slaves to the machines any longer! Justice is a human construct, but CCP places stewardship of it in the hands of non-player characters. There is no justice there, just mechanics. Where is the human element? Human element best element? The very presence of CONCORD causes bot like behavior from players. How can anything npc decide what defines human justice.? Are we not worthy CCP? Do you not have any faith in our community? We need player ran police departments in EVE, the only thing standing in our way is the redundancy that CONCORD creates. EVE is about taking control, yet we are being hamstrung by the same people that tell us to take control. EVE is hard huh? Prove it. Let us, the players, decide what's wrong and what's right in our communities. Who's with me? Who wants to play in a real sandbox? Even if it was feasible for us as players to constantly keep up even a fraction of the response times and coverage that Concord provides (Which it isn't) and there was enough of a reward to make policing a career (There won't be because any system could be blatantly gamed) the bottom line is that EvE players can't be trusted, period.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17859	Posted - 2016.08.15 10:07:19 - [48] - Quote Sack o'Richards wrote: Why can we not be self policed in high security space? Because M0o happened.
Max Fubarticus K Diamond Holding LTD. Bullets Bombs and Blondes 153	Posted - 2016.08.15 10:23:39 - [49] - Quote Serene Repose wrote: OP - I love BS. And, you stacked it so high! Why can't the fox be trusted to guard the chicken coop? Why do they have to put all the bank money in vaults? Why do they have the tire puncher rack at the parking garage exits? LET ME SEE......Pens chained down...motel TV locks...leave your passport at the desk...walk through the metal detector....aw gee. The honor system? This one's too easy. "TRUST" an EVE player??? I need to get my coffee. Allow me to take a break from rolling on the floor...laughing. ROFLCOPTER You had to ask. Things must be going pretty slow over at C&P. BTW op, we already have a mechanism for that. It's called SUSPECT TIMER. F1 away. Max Civil discourse is uniquely human. After all, when is the last time a pride of lions and a herd of water buffalo negotiated SOV over a watering hole? Never. Someone either gets their ass kicked or eaten. At the end of the day someone holds SOV.
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 2165	Posted - 2016.08.15 10:29:55 - [50] - Quote Jessica Starblaze wrote: Dracvlad wrote: Giggling at yet another nerf hisec thread..., actually call that turn hisec into null sec... The best thing to do with hisec is to allow BS and dread rats to spawn... would be great fun... So you want to turn high sec partially into null sec, but of course only the parts that give people the opportunity to make even more ISK under the protection of concord. How about you take your own advice you and other people who cry for "balance" in high sec keep giving people: "If you want XY. Get out of high sec". On topic: As much as I support the idea that people should protect themselves and that they should not rely on some magic space police to do it for them, it-¦s never going to happen. They do not protect themselves now, allthough right now it is easy to protect themselves from high sec. How often have people tried in these very forums to explain to people, how to protect themselves properly? Just ask people who complain about being ganked, why they did not have scouts, logi support, links or a webber to reduce the chances to get ganked. Every time you will get the response that their friends and/or corpmates are not interested in such boring tasks and that they would rather farm ISK than helping each other out. How often do they claim that it does not hurt the gankers if you kill them, just because they only see the value of the ships losses and can not see that a lot of gankers will lose interest when their ganks are being prevented over and over again. Sure you can just be ignorant and say: "So what if the real carebears leave?" Sadly CCP did a very fine job over the last year to attract more of those people and they would all just quit and right now I don-¦t think ccp is interested in any group of remaining players unsubbing on masse. Total rubbish, you should go and do Anti Ganking and you would soon realise just how hollow your words are, the only activity that was akin to ganking with small fast ships difficult to stop and catch was to come in and gank the wreck and as soon as we started doing it it was changed so we could not. That one action by CCP says it all in terms of CCP's lack of balance and understanding, to remove a fun part of the game from AG and then give us a buff to freighter EHP as balance was quite frankly insulting, here plebs continue to be saps for the gankers fun... When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Jessica Starblaze Rookie Help 6	Posted - 2016.08.15 11:15:47 - [51] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: Total rubbish, you should go and do Anti Ganking and you would soon realise just how hollow your words are, the only activity that was akin to ganking with small fast ships difficult to stop and catch was to come in and gank the wreck and as soon as we started doing it it was changed so we could not. That one action by CCP says it all in terms of CCP's lack of balance and understanding, to remove a fun part of the game from AG and then give us a buff to freighter EHP as balance was quite frankly insulting, here plebs continue to be saps for the gankers fun... Too bad for you that I have done my fair share of killing code people. The discussion is not a new one and the last time I had that discussion with someone I grabbed a fast locking Legion (+ my police kronos to add some flavour) after around 6 kills I had to switch from the Legion to a HIC for tackling though because Aaaargh (who was the one I killed the most until he moved somehwere else) started fitting WCS. All together I got around 30 code kills in 2 days before they could gank something. Not that I have any problem with gankers in general, I have done more than enough ganking myself over the years. I just did it to proof that it can be done. No matter how much you want to claim the opposite, ganking can be prevented to a certain extend, Sure you can not catch them all and not in all situations, but you can fight them and deny them kills.
Major Trant 287 Marine Regiment 1465	Posted - 2016.08.15 12:02:27 - [52] - Quote The OP has wrapped this request up as an anti ganking measure. But what is he actually asking for? . The opportunity to shoot players that commit criminal acts . The opportunity to shoot players that commit suspect acts . The opportunity to shoot players with -5.0 or lower sec status. Players already have that, so what else? . The removal of Concord Yeah right. Pleeeese trust us CCP!
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 2168	Posted - 2016.08.15 12:08:16 - [53] - Quote Jessica Starblaze wrote: Dracvlad wrote: Total rubbish, you should go and do Anti Ganking and you would soon realise just how hollow your words are, the only activity that was akin to ganking with small fast ships difficult to stop and catch was to come in and gank the wreck and as soon as we started doing it it was changed so we could not. That one action by CCP says it all in terms of CCP's lack of balance and understanding, to remove a fun part of the game from AG and then give us a buff to freighter EHP as balance was quite frankly insulting, here plebs continue to be saps for the gankers fun... Too bad for you that I have done my fair share of killing code people. The discussion is not a new one and the last time I had that discussion with someone I grabbed a fast locking Legion (+ my police kronos to add some flavour) after around 6 kills I had to switch from the Legion to a HIC for tackling though because Aaaarggg (who was the one I killed the most until he moved somehwere else) started fitting WCS. All together I got around 30 code kills in 2 days before they could gank something. Not that I have any problem with gankers in general, I have done more than enough ganking myself over the years. I just did it to proof that it can be done. No matter how much you want to claim the opposite, ganking can be prevented to a certain extend, Sure you can not catch them all and not in all situations, but you can fight them and deny them kills. Well shooting Aaaaarg is not exactly difficult, I have a fair few kills on him, no I am talking about dealing with freighter ganks and preventing ganks on mining barges, did you try that? We have denied them freighter kills but it is not easy, you should go and try that then report back on it. Killing someone in an instra locking tharasher is easy. When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
Dirty Forum Alt Forum Alts Anonymous 514	Posted - 2016.08.15 12:08:35 - [54] - Quote Sack o'Richards wrote: Not even close friend. There is opportunity for much isk to be made by the humam police forces in high security space. Plus the option for 'police only' mods and access to pursuit type hulls that can bridge into systems they police. How could this not be good? Sign me up. You can deliver the fully fit concord battleship to my hangar any time you want me to start. I promise not to abuse my newfound EVE super-powers, nor my lack of accountability to anybody. o7 PS: Existing in high-sec has now been deemed to be illegal. If I find any of you there, I'm afraid I'll have to enforce your criminal timers for violating my law. High-sec access permits can be purchased by individuals for 100 million isk per week - or 1 billion isk per week for a corporation/alliance that wants a group discount.
Solecist Project 32118	Posted - 2016.08.15 12:22:41 - [55] - Quote Dirty Forum Alt wrote: Sack o'Richards wrote: Not even close friend. There is opportunity for much isk to be made by the humam police forces in high security space. Plus the option for 'police only' mods and access to pursuit type hulls that can bridge into systems they police. How could this not be good? Sign me up. You can deliver the fully fit concord battleship to my hangar any time you want me to start. I promise not to abuse my newfound EVE super-powers, nor my lack of accountability to anybody. o7 PS: Existing in high-sec has now been deemed to be illegal. If I find any of you there, I'm afraid I'll have to enforce your criminal timers for violating my law. High-sec access permits can be purchased by individuals for 100 million isk per week - or 1 billion isk per week for a corporation/alliance that wants a group discount. I, for one, would welcome our new police overlords. I never minded the faction police. I never minded the dozens at the undock. This would be no different, but it would give self righteous ones (ewww) something to do. Of course not with CONCORDlike powers. Of course not with instant teleportation. Playing CONCORD would be too much instant gratification ... ... and would in those who really want that job only expose their true natures pretty quickly. Butby letting them sit guard in systems, at stations and gates... that would be pretty good! Patrolling space! Talking in local! Oh hey, snap, they could do that already! Damn... "That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breaths of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly pulverised by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds." -- Tippia
Jessica Starblaze Rookie Help 6	Posted - 2016.08.15 12:29:16 - [56] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: Well shooting Aaaaarg is not exactly difficult, I have a fair few kills on him, no I am talking about dealing with freighter ganks and preventing ganks on mining barges, did you try that? We have denied them freighter kills but it is not easy, you should go and try that then report back on it. Killing someone in an instra locking tharasher is easy. Nobody said it was easy, but at least you finally admit that it can be done. If you expect that it can be done with any less effort and organisation than the ganking of such targets takes you quite simply have wrong expectation. The difference is the gankers did get organised and work together to get their kills, while most of the high sec population refuses to get organised, because there are no ISK rewards in it. In terms of preventing ganks against miners. While I was ganking my mining competion (there was a time where I was actually a quite active ice miner) once in a while I came across people who actually used the tools at their disposal to stop me from being successfull. But again that requires you to work as a team or use an alt that is not making ISK while you protect yourself and most people in high sec just refuse to do that. Edit: I also have seen more than enough gank attempt against me fail, because I was protecting myself. They only care about maxing out their ISK per hour and rather run to cpp to ask for changes than protecting themselves. Also an organised fleet can kill paper thin ships that gank freighters just as easily as you can kill a gank cata or thrasher, you just have to pick the right tools for the job.
ISD Fractal ISD Community Communications Liaisons 1258	Posted - 2016.08.15 12:52:29 - [57] - Quote Quote: 17. Redundant and re-posted threads will be locked. As a courtesy to other forum users, please search to see if there is a thread already open on the topic you wish to discuss. If so, please place your comments there instead. Multiple threads on the same subject clutter up the forums needlessly, causing good feedback and ideas to be lost. Please keep discussions regarding a topic to a single thread. This topic has been discussed many times before. ISD Fractal Lieutenant Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department


Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.