EVE Search - We the undersigned protest suicide ganking and request changes.

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

We the undersigned protest suicide ganking and request changes.

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Sendraks Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2007.09.20 11:48:00 - [1] How.....don't transport expensive goods in a tech 1 ship with a paper thin hull? Use scouts to check for trouble? Avoid systems where suicide bombers are known to operate. I dunno, but all the mechanisms to do this seem to be in game already and that wouldn't need to change anything in Eve.
Sendraks Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2007.09.20 16:14:00 - [2] Originally by: Ilya Murametz So to sum it all up, the only sensible thing to do would be to remove insurance pay out for the ship lost due to acts of crime in high sec at least or ships lost to Concord. With that said, i'm not a programmer so I do not know how hard that would be to implement or if it's even possible. Suicide gate attacks are not a big problem and this solution would affect far more players than those bothered by suicide attacks in hi-sec. I imagine the effects on CCPs petition queue would be substantial.
Sendraks Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2007.09.21 08:51:00 - [3] Originally by: Johnny ReeRee The deck is completely stacked for the gankbear, who gets to operate in complete safety and no fear of any consequence whatever. The deck is completely stacked in favour of the would be victims. Transport expensive goods in ships that cannot be easily ganked. If it costs more to gank you in hi-sec than is gained from stealing your stuff, then the gank isn't worth it. If people would stop whining and instead apply their brains to flying ships which offer appropriate security for the goods carried, then this "problem" wouldn't exist to the extent it does. An extent which is limited at best anyway. So to conclude. Hi-sec ganking is not broken. The victims have all the advantages if they think about it. However, the victims are typically stupid people. The gankers capitalise on the stupidity of others. Solution: don't be stupid.
Sendraks Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2007.09.21 10:10:00 - [4] Originally by: Zachstar Completely wrong! After today you will never convince me that transport had a chance in heck of repulsing that gank. Please stop spreading wrong info. What sort of transport are you talking about here? Are you talking a tech 1 p.o.s or a tech 2 vessel, well fitted, with escorts and scouts? Originally by: Zachstar The ego points and laughs ought to be worth it. However that has been stepped aside in favor of "gank for bank" the transports are easy targets to get serious bank off of with alt accounts. Exploits galore. A tech 1 hauler with veldspar or similar worthless junk on it is hardly worth the time for someone to suicide attack. If a player is transporting tens of millions worth of ISK in a poorly defended ship, then yes the pay off for the ganker is going to be good. If the player is transporting ten of millions worth of isk in a well defended vessel, where it will require a hard hitting vessel, or number thereof, to destroy, then odds are the gankers stand to lose more than they gain. It is simple math. Originally by: Zachstar Limited? Do you call ganks happening all over EVE limited? Have you logged in and spent any time traveling in EVE? Remember I walked RIGHT into one and the results were crazy. (Good thing I was just a shuttle doing sightseeing) The transport pilot stood no chance at all. They are not happening all over Eve with any frequency at all. Heck, I've played for long enough and travelled around the hi sec prime spots for this sort of activity often enough and have still not seen once incidence of this. But then, maybe this is because I don't make myself a target? Originally by: Zachstar With their amassed loot and experience they are equipping better and more able quipped gank ships. On top of that they are forming better groups and plans that will soon counter alot of these methods of supposedly safer transport. Even good hardened transports will soon start to drop like flies. Only at considerable cost to the gankers. There is a point where it costs too much for this to viable. Most gank vessels are disposable, cheaply fitted, craft, because they WILL be destroyed once they attack. A well hardened and escorted vessel stands a good chance escaping such an attack unless there are a lot of attacker (at which point the payofff is dubious) and if the transport is escorted, an even better chance. Originally by: Zachstar Um, Yes it is. And so much so that it can ruin the game. When Hi-sec ganking makes over 20 million per pop... Its really broken. Rember it ought to be ego points and laughs. Don't carry anything worth over 20million in an easily popped vessel? No profit, means its not worthwhile. Originally by: Zachstar They have thought about it. Every advantage these slow undefended ships have are quickly negated by the gankers. Rubbish. Pretty much all the whines on these forums are from people who were transporting expensive goods in a tech 1 p.o.s hauler, with no escort and no scout. They made themselves a target. Originally by: Zachstar What a horrid generalization. Shame on you! What on earth do you think these people are doing? Fishing with bush while their transports are being ganked? I think they're moving expensive goods in vessels that are really easy for someone to pop. I've read on the forums about people moving T2 BPOs in tech 1 haulers. No two ways about it. That. Is. Stupid. Originally by: Zachstar Has it worked? no Works for me and many others. Don't make yourself a target. Check routes beforehand if transporting expensive goods. Use a vessel appropriate for the task. If you don't do this, use a crappy hauler, no escort, no scout and you get caught out, you have only yourself to blame.
Sendraks Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2007.09.21 10:14:00 - [5] Originally by: Lucre b) Let us tank freighters - add low slots with 1000% cpu penalty for cargo expanders, nanos, i-stabs, warp-stabs or overdrives? Is it not possible to remote rep a freighter? I would have thought for anyone moving an expensive vessel with expensive cargo that can't rep itself, would be to have a few repping vessels on hand to help it tank. Then an appropriate escort of combat craft to deal with aggressors.
Sendraks Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2007.09.21 10:24:00 - [6] Originally by: Zachstar So every time a big move of product goes around it needs to move as a fleet? So if that is the case. Yes! Yes! and thrice Yes! Honestly, what do you think is game is about? If you want to move expensive stuff around in a frieghter, you should be co-ordinating with your corp to ensure that this happens with appropriate security. If you want to do everything solo, then you will fall foul of those players who work co-operatively against you. Originally by: Zachstar Why do we need Concord? They are not there to stop you getting attacked. They are not there to help you survive. It is up to the player, to plan and prepare for attacks. In short, players shouldn't come crying here that Concord did not do the job that the player should have done.
Sendraks Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2007.09.21 11:45:00 - [7] Originally by: Zachstar #1 Concord is there to keep the peace just like real police do. What they don't seem to do yet is have "cases" where the alts and fools that do gank get recognized and attacked by Concord and soon as they leave station again. I shall compare it to real police cause that is exactly what concord is. How on earth is Concord supposed to keep track of alts? Thats crazy. Originally by: Zachstar ##2 That clone stuff aint making much since. Makes as much sense as any analogy in this thread comparing Eve to real life. Originally by: Zachstar ###3 No you arent seeing it ALL over yet. but what you mention is getting into play alot faster than you think. And ganking these ships isnt that hard at all I found out today. Ganking tech 1 ships is not hard. Simple solution...don't move expensive stuff in tech 1 ships. Originally by: Zachstar ###It will get much worse pretty soon here if not stopped. You talk as if this is new. It's not.
Sendraks Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2007.09.21 14:01:00 - [8] Edited by: Sendraks on 21/09/2007 14:01:46 Originally by: Zachstar Nah, No need to write that much code and lag stuff. Keep it simple and simply have concord destroy the loot with what? Like 2 shots? BTW this is only for if a Concord ship is within range (Or a station turret) A super well planned gank could still get some loot in before it gets blasted I guess. Why? Why do this. It makes not sense. Why would concord destroy cargo? Basically all you're doing is directly punishing those players who can be bothered to plan hi-sec piracy and indirectly punishing those players who have put in the time and effort to avoid being the victims of such behaviour. There is no good reason for what you're proposing. You're pandering to lazy malcontents who don't want to make any effort and be able to afk round hi-sec in a ship that has all the protection of tissue paper with millions of ISK in the hold. Originally by: Zachstar [Seriously! Once CCP takes such an action you are going to be surprised how quickly everything returns to normal again. Ganks will continue! but they will be for LoL wtfpwned! and not a cheap unbalanced source of bank. Seriously! Once players pull their heads out their asses, stop whining and stop flying poorly protected ships with hugely valuable cargo inside them, you are going to be surprised how quickly everything will return to normal. Ganks will continue! but they will be for LoL wtfpwned! and not a cheap unbalanced source of bank.
Sendraks Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2007.09.21 14:51:00 - [9] Originally by: Zachstar To save CCP from having to code mountains of code for them to do otherwise to deny almost wide open loot to the exploiting alts. Plain and simple. No need to make it any more advanced. But there is no need for any code or changes in the first place. This has been explained innumerable times already. Originally by: Zachstar Punishing? Bothered? What bother is it when you do a little work to get a boatload of cash you diddn't earn and used an exploit to get? Why can't you be bothered to protect what you earned? if you can't be bothered to protect it, why should CCP have to do it for you? Originally by: Zachstar Whoever got prepared for this (You cant basicly) somehow will simply rollback it or hold onto the protection from ego pushing ganks that cant steal their cargo in hisec. Of course you can prepare for this, it has already been stated how. Originally by: Zachstar There are tons of good reasons mentioned and explained in tons of posts here. Try laying off the insults and think for a few and maybe you can understand some. There are no good reasons. Everything that players can do to stop being the victims of hi-sec gate ganks is the game already. You are stuidously ignoring this point. Originally by: Zachstar It matters little if you are AFK or not. It matters a huge amount actually. Originally by: Zachstar The gankers still have PLENTY of time on the other side of the gate to take you down. If you are flying the right ship with the right fitting, they won't. Originally by: Zachstar You will just be there to witness their payday yourself. There is little to nothing you can do to stop them in hisec. Are you in denial here or something? Are you not reading what people are writing here. The means to prevent yourself becoming a victim of a hi-sec gate gank are in the game already. If you don't want to take the precautions, then it is your own fault. Originally by: Zachstar Ass, whine, moan, b****, etc.. yall just keep the insults flying and the malinfo flowing and you will hold onto your precious ganking. Is that yall's mindset? Hopefully others wont be bothered by such filth. You are not listening. This is a fix/chnage. that does not need to be made. The solutions are in game already.
Sendraks Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2007.09.21 15:37:00 - [10] Originally by: Zachstar Um no they haven't Yes it has. Do not move expensive stuff around in tech 1 ships by yourself. Tech 2 transports + escorts and/or scouts are the answer. Originally by: Zachstar There is a great need to fix this issue and the change is simple. See above, the solutions are already in game. Are you now going to tell me that these don't work? Do you have any idea how durable and/or manouverable these vessels are? Originally by: Zachstar Cause you can't protect it properly as of yet! Yes you can. Originally by: Zachstar And what you are asking is that every transport have some uber screen around it that will make eve look like some military parade every time someone is ready to sell. Its not cool at all! Stop it. So basically, the entire thrust of your argument is that you think that players should be able to move round billions of isk in crappy tech 1 ships at no risk at all? That isn't how Eve works. Originally by: Zachstar No it hasn't You can't defend against a average gank run period. The average gank is not going to take down a tech 2 transport. The average gank is not going to take down a tech 2 transport with a scout that spots the gank on the other side of the gate. The average gank is not going to take down someone moving t2 BPOs in a properly fitted BS. Originally by: Zachstar No I am not. Any ideas about how to defend against a reasonable gank attack are shabby and depend on them making mistakes at best. Do you actually have any understanding of tech 2 transports or how to fit them? Originally by: Zachstar And stop with this thought that these transfers need screens to protect them in hisec! Its not right period! Of course it is right. This is a multiplayer game. You have something really valuable to move, you make sure it is protected. Originally by: Zachstar Click Click Click Scramble/Web/Gankquote] When I've been caught in low sec by a gate camp in a tech 1 hauler, I didn't survive by just randomly clicking warp to go to my next gate. Any player worth their salt knows what measures to undertake to avoid getting nabbed at a gate. They ain't foolproof, but they give you a fighting chance. If they give you a fighting chance in low sec/0.0, they do even more in hi-sec. Originally by: Zachstar Just in case you are about to say W20 do not forget that these transports take time to align after they appear on the OTHER side. Enough for click click click with a reasonable attack. Two things. 1) your fitting counts for a lot here. A tech 2 transport well fitted can either evade fire completely or survive long enough with a decent tank for concord to turn up. 2) You align to the nearest warpable object the requires the least alignment. Plus a hauler fitted properly can align surprisingly quickly. Originally by: Zachstar On top of that why must the transports suddenly have to be ninjas in hisec space? Why must they sweat and spare every second to avoid roving gangs of gankers that have a much better chance to gank you than not? Why? if you have hundreds of millions of ISK in your cargo hold then you are a prime target. Of course you should be sweating it. Originally by: Zachstar You talk of a sizeable chunk having to radicly change their methods in secure space. I really don't think this applies to a sizeable chunk of the playerbase at all, just the few who put cargo that costs too much in the hold of a tech 1 ship. Originally by: Zachstar Sure that solution is in the game already. The death of the economy as more and more go into VERY VERY profitable low training gank and less into manufacture and mine. Like I said there was a 3rd solution that nobody ought to want. Hi-sec ganking has been going on for a long time now. The economy doesn't seem to be dying and people happily move millions through hi-sec all the time. The people who do it happily are those who don't leave themselves vulnerable to hi-sec gate ganks.
Sendraks Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2007.09.21 16:34:00 - [11] Originally by: John Blackthorn But .5 to 1.0 systems you should be safe from all but war targets. Why?
Sendraks Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2007.09.22 11:21:00 - [12] Originally by: Nito Musashi Risk vs reward lets throw that out there atm the haulers take all the risk what risk do the gankers have? none zero nada. Wrong. The gankers do take the risk. They lose the ships the use for ganking. Right now the gains are good for gankers vs risk, because people fly expensive cargo around in cheap ships. Aside from this being stupid, it means the gankers do not stand to lose much in order to gain their reward. If people flew their cargo around in appropriate ships with appropriate fittings and flew with due care and attention, gankers would have to expend more vessels to gain a reward. For the average ganker, this isn't going to be worthwhile. But, so many don't see this. They don't accept (and they should) that they have all the necessary means to greatly reduce the level of hi-sec ganking in the game. Instead, as has become common-place in society, rather than solve the problem themselves they try to get someone else to solve it for them. The very most CCP should do is remove the insurance payouts for ships destroyed by Concord. However, I think CCP realise the negative effect that this would have on their petition queues and I'm also sure CCP realise, as I and many others do, that such changes wouldn't be necessary if people didn't a) assume high sec was safe and b) carry expensive cargo in crappy ships and c) fail to escort expensive cargo in expensive ships.
Sendraks Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2007.09.22 12:18:00 - [13] Edited by: Sendraks on 22/09/2007 12:20:04 Problem 1) People in crappy tech 1 haulers with expensive cargo losing their ships to hi-sec gankers. The ganking team usually consists of an expendable dps vessel and a hauler to take the loot away. Tech 1 haulers are easily destroyed by these vessels, not to mention feathers and a mild breeze. Solutions to 1) Fly a tech 2 hauler. They are easy to train for and not very expensive. Fitted properly they can tank an assault long enough for Concord to arrive or evade enemy fire completely. If you are unsure how to do this look at the other forums. Don't fly afk If attacked, don''t warp to the next gate/station en route, warp to an object that requires least alignement. Have an escort. Have a scout. Problem 2) Freighters getting ganked in hi-sec. These are big slow vessels and require a lot of dps to take down. Freighters cannot be tanked. Solution to 2). Get an escort consisting of both combat and logistics ships. The former kill the attackers, the latter repair the freighter. ALso see other solutions to problem 1. Conclusion: No method is fool proof, but then Eve is a game where 100% safety is never guaranteed anywhere. There are no counter-arguments to the above which I have seen, as everything amounts to players who "can't be bothered" to break out of their solo mentality and accept that Eve is a game where teamwork is required. Asking CCP to fix this is laziness. The solutions are above. They are not hard. This IS the simple solution. The purpose of Concord is prevent protracted assaults on players in empire, especially new players, by PvPers. Concord does this. Concord serves no other purpose. Don't ask for one. Clarification I do not pirate. Never have. I don't hide behind alts. I am potentially as much a victim to hi-sec gankers as anyone else. However, I choose not to be a victim. I take steps to protect myself. I don't expect CCP to do it for me.
Sendraks Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2007.09.22 13:01:00 - [14] Originally by: Zachstar The way I ask for it to be fixed is NOT NOT NOT lazy or to do anything to dispute your methods of defense. Originally by: Zachstar The way I ask for it to be fixed is NOT NOT NOT lazy or to do anything to dispute your methods of defense. I'm sorry Zachstar, but I disagree. The end result of what you are asking for is to make Hi-Sec ganking a totally profitless activity. If it is profitless, hardly anyone one will do it, thus removing the problem, thus players will continue to plod around in tech 1 ships loaded with loot without a care in the world......up until the point where they come here because someone caused them to lose a load of expensive cargo.....just for fun. If you see this ending differently, I'd be happy to hear how. I really don't see it panning out any other way, but I'd be happy to listen to your theories, to whit the change in itself will simply encourage the lazy behaviour which has lead to hi-sec ganking in the first place. Asking CCP to change code is not a simple solution for CCP. You don't know how complex or simple this would be to do. The simple solution for CCP is to let the players sort themselves out. The simple solution for the players is to let CCP do it, but the rational for that is poor given that the defenses are available in game already.
Sendraks Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2007.09.22 13:59:00 - [15] Originally by: Zachstar It will NOT make it a pointless activity! Can you idmagine the ego points gained from someone doing a gank without all the profit involved? The laughs! the youtube videos! No blowing the loot will only put a small dent in the activity as it is right now and stop the progressive gain. Yes, but the reality is the main result of the change is that you will see a huge drop off in hi-sec ganking because it is no longer profitable. The majority of hi-sec ganks are done for profit, remove that and you remove the majority of the ganks. This in turn brings me back to my point is that the solution really is just for the benefit of those players too lazy to protect their cargo properly. Ultimately you cannot get away from the fact that it is so those players who stand to benefit most from such a change. And I can't stress this enough. I am vehemently against anything that makes life even easier for those lazy players. Originally by: Zachstar If the concord target code is that complicated then SOMETHING is wrong. It ought to be a few hundred lines of code to get concord to target the victims loot after they blast the criminal. I agree. However, the thrust of my point is that this is not the simple solution for CCP, it is only a simple solution for players. As the solutions to the problem exist in game already, the simple solution for CCP is to do nothing. I am not opposed to the idea of removing insurance payouts for Concord related kills, but I think this will create a lot of work for CCPs petition queues. A sound idea in theory, but one I think will not be good for the playerbase in the long time. I also think having Concord destroy/confiscate cargo from such attacks is bad for the playerbase as well. Aside from being non-sensical (it is not consistent with the purpose of Concord) it also makes Eve a more sanitised, boring place. Which is never good. And it encourages lazy players to be lazy.
Sendraks Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2007.09.22 14:48:00 - [16] Originally by: Zachstar This tirade against what you call lazy players needs to stop. Choice between lazy players and massive issues from EVE economy and I will always pick allowing the lazyness. Why does it need to stop? Why should such a play style be encouraged? And do you have any evidence that hi-sec ganking is a massive issue for the eve economy? I certainly don't. Why should I stop calling them lazy? This is hardly a factually inaccurate statement. Originally by: Zachstar If you take such issue why not get into "Gank-4-lolpwned" and deal damage to the lazys? Why should I? It is not a style of play I enjoy. Personally I enjoy doing better than the lazy players. They lose their ships and millions of ISK of cargo because they can't be bothered to take simple precautions. I take precautions, I lose nothing, I do better than them. The game will become a much worse place the moment there is no benefit for being anything other than lazy.
Sendraks Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2007.09.23 11:14:00 - [17] Originally by: Ridley Scot What a bunch of bs. It just proves that you are actually talking about something you dont have a clue. Industrial or Transport, tech 1 or tech 2, ship type or ship setup really makes no difference when it comes to ganking one, other then a number of ships used. Look at the killboard, you will see they gank Industrial with 1 Myrmidon and they kill Transport with 2. How does that increase the chance for the hauler to survive with his stuff or increase the risk for gankers? As you can see no risk for gankers, its safe and cozy in high sec, he will find a target worth killing, suicide it, loot, get the new ship for the insurance money he just received. Rinse and repeat. Its lame and its exploit and CCP needs to fix it. The only BS here is yours. You evidently know nothing about fitting tech 2 transports to deal with attacks at gates. People in 0.0 do this all the time against heavier gate camps than you see in hi-sec. Looking at three of the transports on the killboard, boy were they poorly fitted and up against a lot of firepower as well. Besides, 0.5 is hardly the safest end of hi-se either. Besides on those kills, you've only got half the story. Did the transport pilots check the map for ship kills beforehand? Did they use a scout to check for potential problems? Or did they just blunder through the gate without really paying attention? Hmmmmm. If you don't know what you're talking about, and you evidently don't, you'd be best bowing out of this debate. Tech 2 transports (fitted properly) vastly increase your chances of survival over a tech 1. You will never be 100% safe, but then no one but a complete fool would insist that should be the case. The moment the vast majority of players transporting expensive goods through hi-sec switches from using crappy haulers or poorly fitted vessels, starts paying attention to the possible dangers on their route, then the number of ganks will go down. No two ways about it. If CCP can come up with a fool-proof system where Concord kills don't payout insurance, where random Concordokken's in missions no longer occur + other random bugs, great. That change would make sense and hopefully wouldn't result in a petition queue lightyears long. Of course people will still gank and the whines will still keep coming, because there does appear to be a sizeable portion of the playerbase that will keep complaining until hi-sec is a totally sterile. At which point you do have to wonder, why give em inch, they'll only try to take a mile in the end? Should people in hi-sec only be able to attack targets via war-decs? Hell no. If a player can move millions of ISK around hi-sec while in a non-war deccable NPC corp, then they should be attackable by non-war deccable NPC corps. The exploitation there works both ways.
Sendraks Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2007.09.23 22:56:00 - [18] Edited by: Sendraks on 23/09/2007 22:59:22 Originally by: Daelin Blackleaf Make it so that looting without getting Concordokkened requires a war-dec. I'd agree to that IF the change allowed for NPC corps to be war-dec'd or NPC corps were done away with altogether. Otherwise the reality is that you're then just creating an "untouchable" class of players, almost totally immune to PvP. If that happens, EvE is pretty much dead.
Sendraks Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2007.09.23 22:59:00 - [19] Originally by: Ridley Scot Gankers are not suppose to be able to pirat in high sec and that is NOT by design. Isn't it? Are you sure? Have CCP told you this? Originally by: Ridley Scot They can do it because Concord needs upgrade to prevent high sec piracy, Concord. Does. Not. Exist. To. Prevent. Piracy. That is not the purpose of Concord as a game mechanic. If this is the basis for your argument, then it is very flawed. Originally by: Ridley Scot otherwise remove Concord, make all space low sec or 0.0 space and let the players deal with gankers. This suggestion shows that you clearly don't know the purpose Concord serves in the game.
Sendraks Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2007.09.23 23:01:00 - [20] Originally by: Zachstar Willing to tone that down to 30 day limit for NPC corps before losing concord "Insurance" That they will show up? So that if you are in a NPC corp afterwards and still want to transport stuff. You will be nearly wide open and able to be "Gank-4-baked" Sounds reasonable? I think we're getting somewhere now. Yes. Realistically no one who is going to be transporting anything of value will have been in game for much less than 30 days (assuming no e-bay, no kindly benefactors etc etc). So that seems reasonable to me.
Sendraks Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2007.09.24 22:21:00 - [21] Edited by: Sendraks on 24/09/2007 22:21:59 Originally by: Ridley Scot Defending a hauler in high sec is pretty much impossible. It doesnt matter what ship type is used, or fittings, hauler will be destroyed. This is what we call, factual inaccuracy. I would call this a lie, but as the poster appears to be blissfully unaware of the truth, they are unable to deliberately try to misinform others. Originally by: Ridley Scot Scouting doesnt help because, as someone already said you cant say who will attack a hauler when there is 200 pilots in local and 50 at the gate. Get a decent scout perhaps? That'd be a start. Avoid systems where the traffic round the gates is very high (aka, stay the hell away from Jita) so the scout can see what is at the gates and whats not? That'd also be very good. Again, not fool proof, but far, far better than living in self pitying world of "Oh noes, there is nothing I can doez!" Originally by: Ridley Scot This problem is not about ôpirate û carebearö relations in EVE. This is something that can potentially affect everyone in EVE and affect the game in a very bad way. It is not as bad as it can be because it still did not reach epidemical proportions but it will eventually when more people figure out how easy and risk free it is. The more people suicide gank in high sec, less people will haul. That will stop trade and production, and anyone with half brain can see how that will affect the prices on the market for just about everything, from minerals to tech 2 ships and modules that we all will have to pay including suicide gankers. At the end, all regional markets in high sec could look like any other 0.0 market where you just cannot buy anything because there is none for sale. It will be easier to sit at the gate and wait for someone to go thru so you can suicide gank him and take his stuff. The problem of hi-sec ganking is not new. Not by a long shot. It has been known about for a very long time. The reason more people are not doing it is because it is not everyone's cup of tea. Not everyone wants to play the game this way. Not everyone cares about easy ISKs (and if they did, e-bay is a damn sight easier). Besides, there is also a point where suicide ganking becomes non-viable, as there won't be the income for it. Plus there will be too much competition between suicide gankers for targets, so who knows, they might start ganking each other? The situation would stablise long before your hysteria fueled doomsday scenario came about. Trade and production will not stop. Suicide ganking is primarily located round the main trade routes and hubs. The smart players will simply take a small hit on their profits and sell their goods elsewhere. The smart players will fly smart, fit smart and escort smart. The smart players are doing this already. The smart players aren't getting ganked, be it hi-sec or 0.0.
Sendraks Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2007.09.25 09:52:00 - [22] Originally by: Ridley Scot Repeating the same useless stuff... I could go over your post and try explain why most of your "smart" post is a bunch of useless rubish, but I'm just to lazy to type that much at the moment. Its not because you're lazy, it is because you can't. You have no idea what you are talking about and daren't start posting supposing factual information because you'll know it'll get ripped apart. Feel free to bring it on though, I promise you won't get far. Originally by: Ridley Scot I will mention one part though because its, well too funny. "Stay out of Jita", main trade hub and just about the only place you can buy certain stuff very much needed for production, is that your advice to me? Or is that the place a trader should stay away from? So you want to have your cake and eat it eh? Jita is the busiest system in the game. If you want to avoid lag, you don't go there. If you want to avoid the highest risk of being gate ganked in empire, you don't go there. There are plenty of other places to buy and sell things. THe only reason Jita is the way it is, is because of the sheep like mentality of a portion of the playerbase. And if you absolutely "have" to go to Jita (which for most players I very much doubt is the case) then you go prepared or not at all. You can ignore this advice and "pooh-pooh" this advice to your hearts content, but this basically just amounts to you being unwilling or unable to listen to common sense. Eve is all about risk vs reward. There are risks in going to Jita, if you are prepared to accept them and deal with them, the rewards are yours. Otherwise, you're just whining.
Sendraks Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2007.09.27 09:56:00 - [23] Originally by: Ridley Scot You think it might something to do with the fact they are trying to prevent easy-no-risk-I-scanned-your-ship-already-with-passive-targeter-and-I-do-it-for-profit high sec ganking? Nope, nothing to do with that. As I've said already, you clearly do not understand the purpose of Concord. As long as you keep arguing from this incorrect standpoint, all your arguments will fail.
Sendraks Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2007.09.27 18:53:00 - [24] Edited by: Sendraks on 27/09/2007 18:53:29 Originally by: Ridley Scot Solution is very easy, Concord should claim/destroy the wreck of the victim of the high sec gank. As such activities are not the purpose of Concord, this idea is and will continue to be, a stupid idea. Once you understand the purpose of Concord in game, you will realise the stupidity of this suggestion.

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.