Originally by: CCP Casqade

---

Please refrain from making assumptions on game mechanics and then presenting them as facts before testing them yourself.

---

Originally by: Bellum Eternus

---

From the latest devchat transcript-

"MMORPG_Taera: kimsand asks, To a carebear, EVE is primarily a game of destruction... What takes me 10 hours or more to create, takes someone 5 minutes to destroy, will there be taken some steps in the future to make some REAL safe zones, where GoonJihad will not be able to get in and have their fun on my behalf... im feeling a little like the cannon fodder ccp needs to feed the pvp'ers

Greyscale: Absolutely safe zones aren't currently on our to-do list; there's a very lengthy conceptual reason why they're a bad idea, and a much shorter explanation that it's just not EVE. That said, we do feel that the current balance is out of line and we are working on changes to various mechanisms in this area which will redress this balance

Greyscale: Before anyone jumps to conclusions, what we're mainly looking at is small, common-sense adjustments to tune down the randomized griefing and opportunistic free lunch attacks without removing the ability to make premeditated strikes and so on. There's a balance to be struck that's close to what we have currently, but not exactly the same."

*ANY* change to the existing mechanics as mentioned above is a perfect example of CCP pandering to the idiot whiners who arn't smart enough to take care of themselves and compete against the rest of Eve's players for the right to exist.

Tell me CCP, when is the hand holding going to stop?

---

Quote:

---

without removing the ability to make premeditated strikes and so on. There's a balance to be struck that's close to what we have currently, but not exactly the same."

---

Originally by: fuze

---

There are far more silly carebears than childish griefers.

You do the math.

---

Originally by: t1mmeh

---

Originally by: fuze

---

There are far more silly carebears than childish griefers.

You do the math.

---

Unfortunately this ^^^

Money talks and as this game attracts more players (customers), CCP will do their damndest to keep hold of them. Unfortunately will mean they will need to make the game appeal more to the mainstream (i.e. make it more cuddly).

But hey, there's always been workarounds in the past eh?

---

Originally by: Shintai

---

Edited by: Shintai on 03/06/2008 10:07:10
Making a drama out of an incomplete context?

Quote:

---

without removing the ability to make premeditated strikes and so on. There's a balance to be struck that's close to what we have currently, but not exactly the same."

---

Read everything next time.

Oh, and complaining? Let me guess. You want easy risk free and cost free iskies? because real pvP is too hard for you? Oh cry more to your mommy!

---

Originally by: Bellum Eternus

---

Tell me CCP, when is the hand holding going to stop?

---

Originally by: Euriti

---

EVE is a hard, cold pvp game where every person lurks behind every corner ready to molest and murder you, take your belongings and laugh up your face, this is EVE, not wow.

---

Originally by: Zaknussem

---

OH NOES. Any attempts to bring a semblance of balance to EvE are instantly frowned upon as "catering to the carebears" by the vocal minority of "hardcore PvPers", even though it's only hinted at in a vague middle-of-the-road statement.

---

Originally by: Cpt Branko

---

Safety is not balance or EvE.

It's better to stomp on ideas before they take a foothold.

A response would be nice.

---

Originally by: Shintai

---

Making a drama out of an incomplete context?

Quote:

---

without removing the ability to make premeditated strikes and so on. There's a balance to be struck that's close to what we have currently, but not exactly the same."

---

Read everything next time.

Oh, and complaining? Let me guess. You want easy risk free and cost free iskies? because real pvP is too hard for you? Oh cry more to your mommy!

---

Originally by: Cpt Branko

---

Also,
"Greyscale: Absolutely safe zones aren't currently on our to-do list" - I damn well hope that it means "Greyscale: Absolutely safe zones aren't going to happen, ever", or something really bad is going on.

---

Originally by: Surfin's PlunderBunny

---

Originally by: t1mmeh

---

Originally by: fuze

---

There are far more silly carebears than childish griefers.

You do the math.

---

Unfortunately this ^^^

Money talks and as this game attracts more players (customers), CCP will do their damndest to keep hold of them. Unfortunately will mean they will need to make the game appeal more to the mainstream (i.e. make it more cuddly).

But hey, there's always been workarounds in the past eh?

---

The weeklong stint when the Black Ops BS were released was great

Gank- CYNO!

---

Originally by: Luh Windan

---

Originally by: Cpt Branko

---

Also,
"Greyscale: Absolutely safe zones aren't currently on our to-do list" - I damn well hope that it means "Greyscale: Absolutely safe zones aren't going to happen, ever", or something really bad is going on.

---

I am constantly surprised that the developers bother to communicate with us at all. Everything they say is read with an agenda. Those that whine and cry every time they think that a carebear might have gained a slight advantage in one direction , those that whine and cry because they think everyone who is not a carebear is a griefer in the other direction. Even vague statements are taken as evidence for change that the poster does not like.

Tto read this dev log as pro-carebear,when in a number of places they point out that they care about the philosophy of eve as being a harsh place as being important and even point out that nullsec and the alliances are their 'jewel in the crown', is quite an impressive feat of selective reading.

Given that the one thing almost everyone seemed to pretty much agree on was changes to insurance for ganking then I would guess that is the change they are alluding to - and even so they are only saying that they are thinking about it. They think about an awful lot of things - we don't get to see a lot of them in the game.

---

Originally by: Armoured C

---

it probably to do with the bounty hunting thing

that my guess anyway, i highly doubt that they will alter anything to massive extent as he said he knows that isnt eve

---

Originally by: Veldya

---

At the end of the day, there is no real risk factor for Pirates.

---

Originally by: Bellum Eternus

---

Tell me CCP, when is the hand holding going to stop?

---

Originally by: Aki Corrino

---

Originally by: Bellum Eternus

---

Tell me CCP, when is the hand holding going to stop?

---

handing out insurance money to suicide gankers sounds like hand holding to me, glad they are finally fixing that

---

Originally by: Malcanis

---

magical omnipotent buddies who appear within a few seconds sound much more like handholding though.

---

Originally by: Shakka Zulu

---

Any time something is done that can in any way be construed as "pro-carebear", the whole forums are up in arms that Eve is going down the drain.

---

Originally by: Cpt Branko

---

Originally by: Malcanis

---

magical omnipotent buddies who appear within a few seconds sound much more like handholding though.

---

That.

---

Originally by: Riho

---

this has made me think about starting griefing aswell.. cant have the carebears roam free and farm isk like turds

---

Originally by: Swalesey

---

I do some mining, and I don't mind the gankers. I would like to see insurance payments removed when it is concord that kills you. I never knew of an armed robber getting his getaway car repaired after crashing it in a 100mph police helicopter chase :P

If you get corded, it should make your insurance invalid. You can still make money from ganking, but youll have to realy think about what ship your using, and what you'll get out of it.

Then maybe ganking the new miner, who just spent all his money on his first retriever would not be such a great idea, but ganking that guy who's mined for a while and has the tech 2 set up would be.

---

Originally by: Sarin Adler

---

Edited by: Sarin Adler on 03/06/2008 11:55:17
This post is a failure, i.e.: Before anyone jumps to conclusions

So STFU and wait, stop crying you either carebear or griefer. So much trolling is not even fun.

---

Originally by: Shakka Zulu

---

And, and, let's remove rats from the game! They are just holding hands with players, begging us to steal their bounties!

---

Originally by: Shakka Zulu

---

And what about those asteroids? They just sit there and let you mine them! Away with them!

---

Originally by: Shakka Zulu

---

All we need are players, that's what a sandbox is right, right?! Zomg! Down with the carebears!

---

Originally by: Luh Windan

---

Right, because the best course of action is always to wait until after the game is gimped before saying something, right?

---

Originally by: Cpt Branko

---

No, but make rats pilot real battleships and occasionally hotdrop carriers onto your face/uncloak Falcons/bring nanos and naturally, scram, web and neut you to hell. I approve of that.

---

Originally by: Winterblink

---

Originally by: Sarin Adler

---

Edited by: Sarin Adler on 03/06/2008 11:55:17
This post is a failure, i.e.: Before anyone jumps to conclusions

So STFU and wait, stop crying you either carebear or griefer. So much trolling is not even fun.

---

Right, because the best course of action is always to wait until after the game is gimped before saying something, right?

It's a completely valid topic to discuss.

---

Originally by: Shakka Zulu

---

Originally by: Cpt Branko

---

Originally by: Malcanis

---

magical omnipotent buddies who appear within a few seconds sound much more like handholding though.

---

That.

---

Yeah! That!

And, and, let's remove rats from the game! They are just holding hands with players, begging us to steal their bounties! And what about those asteroids? They just sit there and let you mine them! Away with them!

All we need are players, that's what a sandbox is right, right?! Zomg! Down with the carebears!

---

Originally by: Luh Windan

---

Originally by: Cpt Branko

---

No, but make rats pilot real battleships and occasionally hotdrop carriers onto your face/uncloak Falcons/bring nanos and naturally, scram, web and neut you to hell. I approve of that.

---

Completely off topic - but abso- ****ing-lutely agree.

NPC's should have a proper AI and behave a lot more like other players - sensible fits, good tactics.

Missions and complexes would need adjusting but would at least become interesting.

---

Originally by: Matrixcvd

---

when asked about nano, they said they were gonna fix nano titans and BS's, which is pretty hilarious, so i expect they are payin lipservice to the whining people in empire getting pwn'd for not paying attention

---

Originally by: Malcanis

---

Originally by: Aki Corrino

---

Originally by: Bellum Eternus

---

Tell me CCP, when is the hand holding going to stop?

---

handing out insurance money to suicide gankers sounds like hand holding to me, glad they are finally fixing that

---

magical omnipotent buddies who appear within a few seconds sound much more like handholding though.

---

Originally by: Bellum Eternus

---

From the latest devchat transcript-

"MMORPG_Taera: kimsand asks, To a carebear, EVE is primarily a game of destruction... What takes me 10 hours or more to create, takes someone 5 minutes to destroy, will there be taken some steps in the future to make some REAL safe zones, where GoonJihad will not be able to get in and have their fun on my behalf... im feeling a little like the cannon fodder ccp needs to feed the pvp'ers

Greyscale: Absolutely safe zones aren't currently on our to-do list; there's a very lengthy conceptual reason why they're a bad idea, and a much shorter explanation that it's just not EVE. That said, we do feel that the current balance is out of line and we are working on changes to various mechanisms in this area which will redress this balance

---

Originally by: Veldya

---

Originally by: Malcanis

---

No, it's just factual. What you really mean is that CONCORD don't provide enough consequences for your liking. I observe that 99.9% of overview encounters in hi-sec between non-blues do not result in combat and conclude that they're doing a fine job.

Hey, we all have wishes: I wish my drake did more DPS.

---

The difference is there is a lot of choice in terms of combat ships. The choice of mining or hauler ships is very limited and there are no real alternatives, ie taking a more defensive ship unless you mine in a battleship and they are not really designed for it, about half as effective as a real mining ship.

There are no really defensively oriented mining ships, hard to expect a frigate-like ship without the speed or maneuverability to last very long against combat ships.

---

Originally by: ArmyOfMe

---

remove insurance payout on ships blown up by concord, simple as that really.

---

Originally by: Gilahan Mcortama

---

Originally by: ArmyOfMe

---

remove insurance payout on ships blown up by concord, simple as that really.

---

Agree. Should have been in all along.

---

Originally by: Maalan

---

I just say we add the ability for manufacturers to not allow someone to buy their stuff based on standing. Then the suiciders would suddenly find a lot less to buy on the market...

Though this would probably fail miserably between the Goons infrastructure and greedy manufacturers...

---

Originally by: Grarr Dexx

---

Originally by: Maalan

---

I just say we add the ability for manufacturers to not allow someone to buy their stuff based on standing. Then the suiciders would suddenly find a lot less to buy on the market...

Though this would probably fail miserably between the Goons infrastructure and greedy manufacturers...

---

Skyflyer! I think I might have found you a girlfriend!

---

Originally by: Brachis

---

God, why are people so single-minded when it comes to topics about protecting players?

EVE is not a game intended to be a PvP-fest where everyone has to fight to exist.
EVE is a game built around emulating real-society conditions, with the twist of being in space.
When they talk about EVE being a sandbox... that's what they mean. You can do what you want to do in EVE, but you must also face the social and political repercussions of your actions.

Griefing isn't punished because "CCP hates Pirates", it's punished because that's how society works. It is punished because mankind organizes itself to prevent being abused by one-another. EVE is such a small fraction of mankind that it is necessary to emplace NPC powers which regulate LAW within the game world.

The NPCs are there to make the game playable for new players. Right now, in EVE, the punishments for griefing and piracy are not equal to the crime. Because of the design of EVE, it is difficult or costly for the players to fairly police the other players, so active law enforcement, and preventative law enforcement are impossible in what is supposed to be secure space.
Because of this, CONCORD and the punishments for players who break social laws in what is supposed to be protected society needs to be ramped up.

So grow up, guys. EVE isn't a PvP playground. If it was, there would be no CONCORD, there would be no punishment, there would be no NPCs or sentries or anything but the players.

Does this mean that CCP caters to Carebears? In a way, yes. But in real life, we're all Carebears. If you're not a Carebear in real life, you should be in prison.

---

Originally by: Wolfmoon

---

The only people that would be upset with grief exploits being locked out aren't real PvP'ers, they're simply childish cheating griefers. Those are the idiots that make a game like this NOT fun to play and deter the curious carebear from ever even trying pvp.

---

Originally by: Malcanis

---

Fair enough. Although I notice that people who complain about ganking rarely seem to use all the protective options available. Or any, come to that.

---

Originally by: Riho

---

this has made me think about starting griefing aswell.. cant have the carebears roam free and farm isk like turds

---

Originally by: Lance Fighter

---

This is either a troll or a noob... Ill take the noob route.

Originally by: Euriti

---

Originally by: Wolfmoon

---

The only people that would be upset with grief exploits being locked out aren't real PvP'ers, they're simply childish cheating griefers. Those are the idiots that make a game like this NOT fun to play and deter the curious carebear from ever even trying pvp.

---

I stopped reading right there.

---

Originally by: Tippia

---

Originally by: Euriti

---

Originally by: Wolfmoon

---

The only people that would be upset with grief exploits being locked out aren't real PvP'ers, they're simply childish cheating griefers. Those are the idiots that make a game like this NOT fun to play and deter the curious carebear from ever even trying pvp.

---

I stopped reading right there.

---

Makes sense to stop reading after that û it's all that needs to be said, after all.

PvP is not griefing û everyone seems to agree with this (at least the PvP:ers do) û so any change that removes griefing from the game won't affect PvP. Griefing is also explicitly forbidden in the game, so the only ones who'd object to stronger counter-griefing mechanics are the ones who would risk getting banned û a very tiny subset of players compared to the two main groups (PvPers and carebears).

So, honestly, I don't see why so many are upset about this, unless the game has a far higher population of EULA-breakers than anyone wants to admit.

---

Originally by: Bellum Eternus

---

compete against the rest of Eve's players for the right to exist.

---

Originally by: Malcanis

---

No, it's just factual.

---

Originally by: Malcanis

---

It's been like that for so long, and would be so easy to change, one might almost wonder if it was a deliberate policy.

---

Originally by: Val Vympel

---

If EvE is supposed to be a simulation of a real life society then the LAW should not be exempt from that reality.

CONCORD,gateguns,faction police etc. should be perishable,tankable and escapable.Should it be easy..NO..should it be possible..YES imo.

People the world over evade or try to evade the law everyday. Some succeed..most do not.

The ability(no matter how slim the chances)to do so simply does not exist in EvE,that IMO doesn't lend much weight to the scales of realism.

---

Originally by: Sergeant Spot

---

The current frrquency of suicide ganking is a MASSIVE change from a couple of years back. While its always existed, its become "casual and cheap" rather than "rare and focused"

---

Originally by: Bellum Eternus

---

From the latest devchat transcript-

"MMORPG_Taera: kimsand asks, To a carebear, EVE is primarily a game of destruction... What takes me 10 hours or more to create, takes someone 5 minutes to destroy, will there be taken some steps in the future to make some REAL safe zones, where GoonJihad will not be able to get in and have their fun on my behalf... im feeling a little like the cannon fodder ccp needs to feed the pvp'ers

Greyscale: Absolutely safe zones aren't currently on our to-do list; there's a very lengthy conceptual reason why they're a bad idea, and a much shorter explanation that it's just not EVE. That said, we do feel that the current balance is out of line and we are working on changes to various mechanisms in this area which will redress this balance

Greyscale: Before anyone jumps to conclusions, what we're mainly looking at is small, common-sense adjustments to tune down the randomized griefing and opportunistic free lunch attacks without removing the ability to make premeditated strikes and so on. There's a balance to be struck that's close to what we have currently, but not exactly the same."

*ANY* change to the existing mechanics as mentioned above is a perfect example of CCP pandering to the idiot whiners who arn't smart enough to take care of themselves and compete against the rest of Eve's players for the right to exist.

Tell me CCP, when is the hand holding going to stop?

---

Quote:

---

*ANY* change to the existing mechanics as mentioned above is a perfect example of CCP pandering to the idiot whiners who arn't smart enough to take care of themselves and compete against the rest of Eve's players for the right to exist.

---

Originally by: Veldya

---

Instead of making miners a freaking Deer, make them an Elephant. Lion is still king of the jungle and if enough of them attack they will drop the Elephant, but the Elephant is a slow moving, durable beast and because of that is not "easy" prey.

---

Quote:

---

Greyscale: Before anyone jumps to conclusions, what we're mainly looking at is small, common-sense adjustments to tune down the randomized griefing and opportunistic free lunch attacks without removing the ability to make premeditated strikes and so on. There's a balance to be struck that's close to what we have currently, but not exactly the same."

---

Quote:

---

Greyscale: Before anyone jumps to conclusions, what we're mainly looking at is small, common-sense adjustments to tune down the randomized griefing and opportunistic free lunch attacks without removing the ability to make premeditated strikes and so on. There's a balance to be struck that's close to what we have currently, but not exactly the same."

---

Originally by: Winterblink

---

Originally by: Sergeant Spot

---

The current frrquency of suicide ganking is a MASSIVE change from a couple of years back. While its always existed, its become "casual and cheap" rather than "rare and focused"

---

The fact of the matter is, nowadays there's tons of money to be made by suicide ganking, say, a freighter. The isk loss from fully insured ships pale by comparison to what you might find in the can of some freighters.

Suicide ganking has become "casual and cheap" because moving large volumes of expensive goods through high security space has become casual.

---

Originally by: Cpt Branko

---

Originally by: Shakka Zulu

---

Any time something is done that can in any way be construed as "pro-carebear", the whole forums are up in arms that Eve is going down the drain.

---

Precautions. We have to stomp on the creeping carebearism right away.

---

Originally by: Alz Shado

---

Battleships make decent jetcan miners, and it's trivially easy to fit one that can take out the occasional passing ganker (hint: Scram, Web, 5x Ogre IIs)

---

Quote:

---

without removing the ability to make premeditated strikes and so on.

---

Originally by: Val Vympel

---

In general,I agree with your opinions and comments.

However...

If EvE is supposed to be a simulation of a real life society then the LAW should not be exempt from that reality.

CONCORD,gateguns,faction police etc. should be perishable,tankable and escapable.Should it be easy..NO..should it be possible..YES imo.

People the world over evade or try to evade the law everyday. Some succeed..most do not.

The ability(no matter how slim the chances)to do so simply does not exist in EvE,that IMO doesn't lend much weight to the scales of realism.

My 2 ISK

EDIT: In addition,targeting a player should always be viewed as hostile by CONCORD thus negating any protection afforded by them if the targeted player chooses to fire first.
If the targeted player decides to fight..then they waive CONCORD protection as well.

If a gun is pointed at me in the RL,I am not going to wait until the trigger is pulled(if possible) before I react.

---

Originally by: Vaal Erit

---

That part you bolded is terribly vague and I can't make any assumptions on it.

What I can say for sure, is that live dev blogs aren't worth the sh*tty bandwidth they are on. Lots of things are said in live dev blogs that never make it to TQ, most notably the nano nerf that has been in live dev blogs for almost a year and the 0.0 sov changes that we haven't heard much of.

---

Originally by: Vaal Erit

---

Pro-tip: live dev blogs are meaningless, REAL dev blogs that you can see from your sidebar navigation menu are pretty legit. Stop whining, Bellum. When CCP actually annoucnes such carebear hugging, then we shall WHINE IN HELL!

---

Originally by: CCP Subscription

---

I'm sorry Sir your European I'll have to charge you 58% extra

---

Originally by: Val Vympel

---

Edited by: Val Vympel on 03/06/2008 14:13:12

In general,I agree with your opinions and comments.

However...

If EvE is supposed to be a simulation of a real life society then the LAW should not be exempt from that reality.

CONCORD,gateguns,faction police etc. should be perishable,tankable and escapable.Should it be easy..NO..should it be possible..YES imo.

People the world over evade or try to evade the law everyday. Some succeed..most do not.

The ability(no matter how slim the chances)to do so simply does not exist in EvE,that IMO doesn't lend much weight to the scales of realism.

My 2 ISK

EDIT: In addition,targeting a player should always be viewed as hostile by CONCORD thus negating any protection afforded by them if the targeted player chooses to fire first.
If the targeted player decides to fight..then they waive CONCORD protection as well.

If a gun is pointed at me in the RL,I am not going to wait until the trigger is pulled(if possible) before I react.

---

Originally by: Cyberman Mastermind

---

So, we are supposed to be using a hammer on a screw because the screwdriver breaks once you apply a little force? Doesn't that sound wrong to you? I usually adhere to the motto "the right tool for the job", but since I've started playing Eve I reconsider.

---

Originally by: Tippia

---

Originally by: Euriti

---

Originally by: Wolfmoon

---

The only people that would be upset with grief exploits being locked out aren't real PvP'ers, they're simply childish cheating griefers. Those are the idiots that make a game like this NOT fun to play and deter the curious carebear from ever even trying pvp.

---

I stopped reading right there.

---

Makes sense to stop reading after that û it's all that needs to be said, after all.

PvP is not griefing û everyone seems to agree with this (at least the PvP:ers do) û so any change that removes griefing from the game won't affect PvP. Griefing is also explicitly forbidden in the game, so the only ones who'd object to stronger counter-griefing mechanics are the ones who would risk getting banned û a very tiny subset of players compared to the two main groups (PvPers and carebears).

So, honestly, I don't see why so many are upset about this, unless the game has a far higher population of EULA-breakers than anyone wants to admit.

---

Originally by: Major Death

---

I suspect that the target CCP is aiming at is the use of one shot Alts to grief. I once lost my POD to a suicide ganking alt in high sec, which gave me kill rights on a character that was deleted 24 hours later. I have no problems with suicide ganks (maybe insurance needs a tweak, maybe not) but this sort of bullshot does nothing for the game.

---

Originally by: Sergeant Spot

---

Word to the wise: There are Two, and ONLY Two defense options that are truly effective:
--Fly a ship that gets into warp so fast they dont have time to scan you, and use warp to zero.
--Fly empty (or at least no more than a few million in cargo value if in a tough ship)

---

Originally by: Bel Amar

---

I'm a carebear, and even I don't like the sound of that. EVE is EVE because it doesn't protect you from yourself.

---

Originally by: Sergeant Spot

---

One detail that never ceases to amaze me in this debate are number of knuckle dragging idiots that talk about using "available defense options"

Word to the wise: There are Two, and ONLY Two defense options that are truly effective:
--Fly a ship that gets into warp so fast they dont have time to scan you, and use warp to zero.
--Fly empty (or at least no more than a few million in cargo value if in a tough ship)

That means Frigates, shuttles and Blockade runners.

NOTHING can "defend" a Frieghter. The defence a reasonable escort group can make in the time that the combat is decided is "nearly" meaningless.

and the notion that no frieghter should EVER fly with cargo EVEN IN EMPIRE, unless escorted, is just too stupid for words...... (and yes, thats what the "defend yourself" morons are basicly suggesting, regardless of if they admit it or not....)

The idea that every time a ship undocks with more than 100mil in cargo, he should have a combat escort is even more brain dead, and once again, thats whats some fools are effectively suggesting, regardless of if they admit it or not.

And its a whole additional magnitude of stupidity to actually expect players to choose between "Not hauling cargo" and "making several friends fly escort just move a 100mil worth of stuff in empire".

Carebearism in 0.5+ empire is ftw. THATS WHERE THE CAREBEARISM IS SUSPOSE TO BE. If you dont like it, LEAVE EMPIRE.

I live in 0.0, and have for a long time, but I never lost any sleep over empire carebearism, and never will. On the contrary, I was pleased that a ruthless game Eve could support varied styles of play.

That ability of Eve to support such varied styles of play is severely threatened. To be clear, it is NOT threatened simply by "Suicide Ganking" (which has always exitsed). It is threatened by "Common, Casual and Cheap Suicide Ganking"

Eve Needs to return to as it was. 0.5+ Suicide ganking Should not be common, it should not be casual and it should not be cheap. Having said that, "Focused, Rare, and Expensive" suicide ganking is cool. Everyone like to take part in, or read about a brillant plan successfully concluded (except maybe the target....)

Common, Casual and Cheap Suicide ganking in 0.5+ needs to cease to exist. Let em suicide gank, suicide ganking is fine, but NOT if it is "Common, Casual and Cheap".

---

Originally by: Mangtoos

---

The consequence for suiciding in highsec is the loss of security status. You must grind for hours in some cases for a single highsec gank, depending on what space you have to rat in.

---

Originally by: Bellum Eternus

---

*ANY* change to the existing mechanics as mentioned above is a perfect example of CCP pandering to the idiot whiners who arn't smart enough to take care of themselves and compete against the rest of Eve's players for the right to exist.

---

Originally by: Thenoran

---

Suicide ganking should remain viable, but I do hope that the adjustments they are talking about refer to the insurance problem which can make it nearly cost-free to suicide gank.

---

Originally by: Surfin's PlunderBunny

---

I have the knowledge of how to make a load of ISK in a short amount of time... I swear I will start suiciding out of spite if CCP screws this up. Tonight was my first actual suicide gank I did it because I was bored

---

Originally by: Mangtoos

---

Cost isn't an issue. Whether you use an expensive battleship or two cheap cruisers you can obtain the same effective DPS. If you had any clue on the subject you would also know that Concord response has also been increased exponentially over the years. If you actually took the time to understand how the game mechanics worked, you would understand what is required in order to defend against such attacks in the first place.

Changes based on ignorance and incompetence will result in the same end result.

---

Originally by: Mangtoos

---

Originally by: Agent Li

---

It sure helps to get isk back from insurance. If you believe that cost isn't an issue, then you won't mind at all if they change only "if you get CONCORDED you get no insurance payout".

That won't stop ganks on ships that are worth ganking - because it's a fat freighter or a faction CNR it's worth the gank.

But it would stop the "I'll gank an empty retriever just for the fun of it" - well, that will cost you a small amount right there...

---

Like it would be worth the security hit to gank a single insurable retriever. Look how stupid you are.

---

Originally by: Agent Li

---

Originally by: Mangtoos

---

Originally by: Agent Li

---

It sure helps to get isk back from insurance. If you believe that cost isn't an issue, then you won't mind at all if they change only "if you get CONCORDED you get no insurance payout".

That won't stop ganks on ships that are worth ganking - because it's a fat freighter or a faction CNR it's worth the gank.

But it would stop the "I'll gank an empty retriever just for the fun of it" - well, that will cost you a small amount right there...

---

Like it would be worth the security hit to gank a single insurable retriever. Look how stupid you are.

---

People are doing it every day in empire space. Maybe not you, but a lot of people.

Really stupid ganks...

---

Originally by: Shintai

---

Edited by: Shintai on 03/06/2008 19:12:52
Funny the goons suddenly rush to the "defend". Feeling the risk of loosing your riskfree iskies?

The goons should hold their own paralympics in how to play EvE. The real one is obviously too hard if its not on ultra easy mode. Talk about having the accessibility options on.

The waaaaahhhbulance is clearly needed. Anyone with just the slighest sense can see the current mechanics needs a tiny adjustment. Thats simply progress and evolution so to say. People biatch and whine about how empire people have it so easy doign L4 and earn soo much money. Double standards anyone? Or tripple in this case.

---

Originally by: Mangtoos

---

Why would I care how people in empire make isk? Please re-read what I wrote, learn to write a coherent sentence, and then try again.

---

Originally by: Shintai

---

Edited by: Shintai on 03/06/2008 10:07:10
Making a drama out of an incomplete context?

Quote:

---

without removing the ability to make premeditated strikes and so on. There's a balance to be struck that's close to what we have currently, but not exactly the same."

---

Read everything next time.

Oh, and complaining? Let me guess. You want easy risk free and cost free iskies? because real pvP is too hard for you? Oh cry more to your mommy!

---

Originally by: Jmanis Catharg

---

Edited by: Jmanis Catharg on 03/06/2008 14:50:40
I love how everyone reads the bolded:

Quote:

---

Greyscale: Before anyone jumps to conclusions, what we're mainly looking at is small, common-sense adjustments to tune down the randomized griefing and opportunistic free lunch attacks without removing the ability to make premeditated strikes and so on. There's a balance to be struck that's close to what we have currently, but not exactly the same."

---

and not

Quote:

---

Greyscale: Before anyone jumps to conclusions, what we're mainly looking at is small, common-sense adjustments to tune down the randomized griefing and opportunistic free lunch attacks without removing the ability to make premeditated strikes and so on. There's a balance to be struck that's close to what we have currently, but not exactly the same."

---

Christ, mountain, meet molehill.

End of the day, only reason why this carebear has a fat wallet is because all the PvPers buy my ships and weapons.

---

Originally by: Exlegion

---

Edited by: Exlegion on 03/06/2008 20:08:58
Bellum Eternus,

There's a difference between a playstyle and plain out griefing. That you choose to ignore the difference is all on you. Don't come here and defend griefing as a legitimate play style just as any other play style. Because it just isn't.

And forget the high sec 'stupid' people, as you call them. What I want is consequences for your actions for breaking the laws in high sec. Slaps in the hands for silly "lulz" obviously isn't cutting it anymore.

---

Originally by: Faife

---

Edited by: Faife on 03/06/2008 20:12:09
OP: the phrase "before anyone jumps to conclusion" does NOT mean "please immediately jump to conclusion like a ********"

i'm guessing english is your 4th language? if so, grats, you're almost fluent. much better than me in my fourth.

---

Originally by: Bellum Eternus

---

The mere fact that they've (Devs, CCP. Greyscale is their mouthpiece here, verbalizing approved content that *must* have been signed off on and approved by his superiors. They wouldn't have just let him run his mouth about any random thing, right? Right?) put this information out there is a perfectly valid reason to be alarmed.

---

Quote:

---

Hell, I can remember when warp to 0km was on the test server and the devs were saying 'oh, this is just to test the idea, it's not going on TQ', and the players were thinking 'yeah, there's just no way they'd do something this stupid'. And now we have WTZ.

---

Originally by: Bellum Eternus

---

Originally by: Exlegion

---

Edited by: Exlegion on 03/06/2008 20:08:58
Bellum Eternus,

There's a difference between a playstyle and plain out griefing. That you choose to ignore the difference is all on you. Don't come here and defend griefing as a legitimate play style just as any other play style. Because it just isn't.

And forget the high sec 'stupid' people, as you call them. What I want is consequences for your actions for breaking the laws in high sec. Slaps in the hands for silly "lulz" obviously isn't cutting it anymore.

---

There is. Security hits are very real consequences. It takes quite a while to rat your sec back up, and not everyone is in a 0.0 carebear alliance where they can spend all week fixing their sec as fast as possible with little risk.

How about if CCP removed insurance payouts? Then popping a hauler with a BC wouldn't cost you 8m or so, it would cost you 25-30m or more. The only rub is that CCP would have to remove ALL insurance payouts to ALL ships, to make it fair. I'm willing to accept such a change. Are the rest of the carebears? After all, a change like this would only hurt the less skilled players in Eve. And by skilled, I'm not talking about skillpoints.

---

Originally by: Bellum Eternus

---

The mere fact that they've (Devs, CCP. Greyscale is their mouthpiece here, verbalizing approved content that *must* have been signed off on and approved by his superiors. They wouldn't have just let him run his mouth about any random thing, right? Right?) put this information out there is a perfectly valid reason to be alarmed.

Hell, I can remember when warp to 0km was on the test server and the devs were saying 'oh, this is just to test the idea, it's not going on TQ', and the players were thinking 'yeah, there's just no way they'd do something this stupid'. And now we have WTZ.

IMO CCP has already made up it's mind about how they're going to nerf high sec attacks (no, it's not 'griefing') and they're just slowly getting the sheep in Eve (i.e. the general population) acclimated to the idea.

So yeah, the last time they made any 'small, common-sense adjustments' to Eve, we had a 20% damage reduction to high damage ammo, a 25% increase in HP, drone bandwidth introduced, the removale of drone shield recharge upon scooping, the castration of sensor damps... the list goes on.

The whole point of the post is to nip this garbage in the bud, before it can go anywhere, but I still don't see that happening. I think CCP will just ignore it and f#ck it up anyway.

---

Originally by: Maalan

---

I just say we add the ability for manufacturers to not allow someone to buy their stuff based on standing. Then the suiciders would suddenly find a lot less to buy on the market...

Though this would probably fail miserably between the Goons infrastructure and greedy manufacturers...

---

Originally by: CCP Wrangler

---

There's a Community petition category??

---

Originally by: Sergeant Spot

---

One detail that never ceases to amaze me in this debate are number of knuckle dragging idiots that talk about using "available defense options"

Word to the wise: There are Two, and ONLY Two defense options that are truly effective:
--Fly a ship that gets into warp so fast they dont have time to scan you, and use warp to zero.
--Fly empty (or at least no more than a few million in cargo value if in a tough ship)

That means Frigates, shuttles and Blockade runners.

NOTHING can "defend" a Frieghter. The defence a reasonable escort group can make in the time that the combat is decided is "nearly" meaningless.

and the notion that no frieghter should EVER fly with cargo EVEN IN EMPIRE, unless escorted, is just too stupid for words...... (and yes, thats what the "defend yourself" morons are basicly suggesting, regardless of if they admit it or not....)

The idea that every time a ship undocks with more than 100mil in cargo, he should have a combat escort is even more brain dead, and once again, thats whats some fools are effectively suggesting, regardless of if they admit it or not.

And its a whole additional magnitude of stupidity to actually expect players to choose between "Not hauling cargo" and "making several friends fly escort just move a 100mil worth of stuff in empire".

Carebearism in 0.5+ empire is ftw. THATS WHERE THE CAREBEARISM IS SUSPOSE TO BE. If you dont like it, LEAVE EMPIRE.

I live in 0.0, and have for a long time, but I never lost any sleep over empire carebearism, and never will. On the contrary, I was pleased that a ruthless game Eve could support varied styles of play.

That ability of Eve to support such varied styles of play is severely threatened. To be clear, it is NOT threatened simply by "Suicide Ganking" (which has always exitsed). It is threatened by "Common, Casual and Cheap Suicide Ganking"

Eve Needs to return to as it was. 0.5+ Suicide ganking Should not be common, it should not be casual and it should not be cheap. Having said that, "Focused, Rare, and Expensive" suicide ganking is cool. Everyone like to take part in, or read about a brillant plan successfully concluded (except maybe the target....)

Common, Casual and Cheap Suicide ganking in 0.5+ needs to cease to exist. Let em suicide gank, suicide ganking is fine, but NOT if it is "Common, Casual and Cheap".

---

Originally by: Mangtoos

---

If that's the case, then stupid people will always remain stupid. Changing game mechanics will not infuse them with intellegence.

---

Originally by: Sarin Adler

---

Remove Concord kill insurance payment and it's fixed, this has been suggested bazillion times, CCP why the heck don't you do it? Do you like exploiters!?

---

Originally by: Chaos Space Marines

---

Do you hear the voices, too?!?!

---

Originally by: Haakkon

---

I feel a great deal of patriotism at being a part of Goonswarm. We've accomplished great things... we're just mainly jerks about it

---

Originally by: Tarminic

---

Originally by: Bellum Eternus

---

The mere fact that they've (Devs, CCP. Greyscale is their mouthpiece here, verbalizing approved content that *must* have been signed off on and approved by his superiors. They wouldn't have just let him run his mouth about any random thing, right? Right?) put this information out there is a perfectly valid reason to be alarmed.

---

So the devs are not allowed to discuss what may or may not be considering adding to the drawing board without corporate approval first? I don't believe that is true.

Quote:

---

Hell, I can remember when warp to 0km was on the test server and the devs were saying 'oh, this is just to test the idea, it's not going on TQ', and the players were thinking 'yeah, there's just no way they'd do something this stupid'. And now we have WTZ.

---

WTZ was dumb? Really? So you miss copying hundreds of bookmarks in order to survive in low-sec or 0.0? Or do you perhaps miss the additional database lag?

---

Originally by: Tobin Shalim

---

Here's a thought that I don't think I've ever heard of before:

When someone shoots in high-sec and becomes flagged to Concord, they become flagged to EVERYONE there. People are then allowed to shoot/EWAR/whatever that person and that person only, without Concord shooting them back. I imagine that a smart-bombing Raven pilot in Jita would think twice when confronted with the idea that suddenly they're faced with about a hundred pilots all turning upon him the second he turns his smartbombs on.

---

Originally by: Tobin Shalim

---

Here's a thought that I don't think I've ever heard of before:

When someone shoots in high-sec and becomes flagged to Concord, they become flagged to EVERYONE there. People are then allowed to shoot/EWAR/whatever that person and that person only, without Concord shooting them back. I imagine that a smart-bombing Raven pilot in Jita would think twice when confronted with the idea that suddenly they're faced with about a hundred pilots all turning upon him the second he turns his smartbombs on.

---

Originally by: Bellum Eternus

---

I've flown freighters with 20b+ in the hold quite often, and always with zero issues in high sec. I guess I must be doing some crazy cheat method in order to escape the high sec gank squads that I pass? It's beyond me how I don't seem to have any problems being ganked (never have in high sec), yet so many other people die every day. What is it that is the difference? If I can figure it out, then why can't other players? Am I just *that* much smarter than everyone else?

---

Originally by: emepror

---

just dont forget that carebears run our economy

---

Originally by: Shintai

---

Originally by: Bellum Eternus

---

I've flown freighters with 20b+ in the hold quite often, and always with zero issues in high sec. I guess I must be doing some crazy cheat method in order to escape the high sec gank squads that I pass? It's beyond me how I don't seem to have any problems being ganked (never have in high sec), yet so many other people die every day. What is it that is the difference? If I can figure it out, then why can't other players? Am I just *that* much smarter than everyone else?

---

Alot of us have. But thats not the point since a freighter is rarely ganked due to the BS amount requirement, teamwork and planning. Something that excludes the majority of suicide people. And I dont think thats what we want to stop either. Its simply so rare.

But the issue is when xxxWannabeeGanker1xxx ganks an itty5 with 2million pyr in with his thorax. Simply because its worth it. And usually the character is recycled for the purpose. Very easily done on trial accounts aswell. Or one in a BC ganking the same or alittle higher value. Or the Hulk/Mack ganks with thoraxes, vexors, brutix etc over basicly nothing.

Its not about moving 100million or 20billion. Its already a problem when you move 10million up. Sometimes even empty worthless haulers get ganked. Its just so cheap and easy that you dont even have to look in the cargo.

---

Originally by: Bellum Eternus

---

How about if CCP removed insurance payouts? Then popping a hauler with a BC wouldn't cost you 8m or so, it would cost you 25-30m or more. The only rub is that CCP would have to remove ALL insurance payouts to ALL ships, to make it fair. I'm willing to accept such a change. Are the rest of the carebears? After all, a change like this would only hurt the less skilled players in Eve. And by skilled, I'm not talking about skillpoints.

---

Originally by: Val Vympel

---

Originally by: Bellum Eternus

---

How about if CCP removed insurance payouts? Then popping a hauler with a BC wouldn't cost you 8m or so, it would cost you 25-30m or more. The only rub is that CCP would have to remove ALL insurance payouts to ALL ships, to make it fair. I'm willing to accept such a change. Are the rest of the carebears? After all, a change like this would only hurt the less skilled players in Eve. And by skilled, I'm not talking about skillpoints.

---

Bellum,

EvE is a MMORPG it is a simulation of a real life society.

A society has laws,rules and regulations,determined by the moral majority.

Criminals,pirates,brigands,murderers,thieves etc.etc. are labeled such because they defy the laws of the moral majority.

What you are calling for is moral equivelance.
The prisons of the RL world are filled with people who think that their actions and behavior is morally equivalent to the law....(Not fair,there are no moral absolutes etc.)

I am the last player in EvE that wants to see the options of those that decide to live outside the moral majority curbed. Variety is the spice of life and EvE would be a mind numbing boring place without those that defy the law. Suicide ganking is low on my list of problems...gate camping on the other hand

CCP has a duty and obligation to be true to their RP(I know what is that?)storyline and to weed out mechanics that disrupt that storyline and introduce new features that enhance and clarify the storyline. CCP should remain true to the storyline and common sense no matter WHO it hinders or helps...Carebear or Outlaw.

I am not implying that what I am about to say is your belief....however...

The longer I play this game and the more I read these forums the more convinced and certain I become that a rather large minority of the playerbase is totally ignorant of what a MMORPG really is.

I am convinced that what many players really want is "Multiplayer Grand Theft Auto in Space". This is simply not the product the CCP offers.

The law is not designed to be FAIR to those that break it.

---

Originally by: Bellum Eternus

---

100% untanked Itty5s? Or an Itty5 with a few LSEs and some passive hardeners? Damage Control anyone? Again, there is no excuse for getting killed, even if you're empty. The target failed at living, the attacker didn't fail at doing anything. It's Darwinism at it's finest. If a player can't compete and survive effectively, then that's his role in the game, to be a sheep.

The definition of insanity: doing something over and over again the exact same way, and expecting a different result.

---

Originally by: Bellum Eternus

---

There is no morality in Eve. To assume so is folly.

---

Originally by: Bellum Eternus

---

There is no morality in Eve. To assume so is folly. And you're posting like there are *zero* concequences to any 'criminal' act. That's not true. If we used your system, Eve would be a PVE server by now.

---

Originally by: Val Vympel

---

It is clear that reason is lost on you.

Do you honestly believe that there is no morality in EvE?

Do you truly believe that ever last player/character(RP or not)of this game is a utterly selfish,self-centered carnal predator bent upon the destruction of others?

If you answer "Yes" to one or both of these questions,you are either blind,delusional and or knowingly malicious and intellectually dishonest.

If you say "Yes"...then FOLLY is assigned to your beliefs not mine.

---

Originally by: Euriti

---

they're most likely also going to cave in to the nano whiners.

---

Originally by: Alz Shado

---

Originally by: Veldya

---

Instead of making miners a freaking Deer, make them an Elephant. Lion is still king of the jungle and if enough of them attack they will drop the Elephant, but the Elephant is a slow moving, durable beast and because of that is not "easy" prey.

---

Battleships make decent jetcan miners, and it's trivially easy to fit one that can take out the occasional passing ganker (hint: Scram, Web, 5x Ogre IIs)

True story.

---

Originally by: Bellum Eternus

---

Originally by: Jmanis Catharg

---

Edited by: Jmanis Catharg on 03/06/2008 14:50:40

Quote:

---

."

---

Quote:

---

."

---

:]

---

The mere fact that they've (Devs, CCP. Greyscale is their mouthpiece here, verbalizing approved content that *must* have been signed off on and approved by his superiors. They wouldn't have just let him run his mouth about any random thing, right? Right?) put this information out there is a perfectly valid reason to be alarmed..

---

Originally by: Bellum Eternus

---

From the latest devchat transcript-

"MMORPG_Taera: kimsand asks, To a carebear, EVE is primarily a game of destruction... What takes me 10 hours or more to create, takes someone 5 minutes to destroy, will there be taken some steps in the future to make some REAL safe zones, where GoonJihad will not be able to get in and have their fun on my behalf... im feeling a little like the cannon fodder ccp needs to feed the pvp'ers

Greyscale: Absolutely safe zones aren't currently on our to-do list; there's a very lengthy conceptual reason why they're a bad idea, and a much shorter explanation that it's just not EVE. That said, we do feel that the current balance is out of line and we are working on changes to various mechanisms in this area which will redress this balance

Greyscale: Before anyone jumps to conclusions, what we're mainly looking at is small, common-sense adjustments to tune down the randomized griefing and opportunistic free lunch attacks without removing the ability to make premeditated strikes and so on. There's a balance to be struck that's close to what we have currently, but not exactly the same."

*ANY* change to the existing mechanics as mentioned above is a perfect example of CCP pandering to the idiot whiners who arn't smart enough to take care of themselves and compete against the rest of Eve's players for the right to exist.

Tell me CCP, when is the hand holding going to stop?

---

Originally by: Euriti

---

I said "I stopped reading right there" because of the bolded parts, suicide gank is:

a) Not an exploit

b) Not griefing

c) Not childish cheating.

---

Originally by: Leandro Salazar

---

Originally by: Mangtoos

---

The consequence for suiciding in highsec is the loss of security status. You must grind for hours in some cases for a single highsec gank, depending on what space you have to rat in.

---

Oh yes I can feel how painful it is to earn all that money while working sec back up...

---

Originally by: Bellum Eternus

---

Greyscale: Absolutely safe zones aren't currently on our to-do list; there's a very lengthy conceptual reason why they're a bad idea, and a much shorter explanation that it's just not EVE....

Greyscale: Before anyone jumps to conclusions, [b]what we're mainly looking at is small, common-sense adjustments to tune down the randomized griefing and opportunistic free lunch attacks

---

Originally by: Taedrin

---

Carebears, WoW is
------>
that way

Suicide Gankers, Counterstrike is
<------
that way.

This is EVE. Adapt or die, both of you.

---

Originally by: CCP Wrangler

---

EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.

---

Originally by: Souvera Corvus

---

'Free lunch attacks', sums up the current position rather nicely.

For people who misquote Darwin and harp on about EvE being all about consequences, to ignore the fact that high-sec suiciding currently has no consequences for the ganker is to be inconsistent.
Sec-stat isn't a concern for rinse-and-repeat alts and the wallet doesn't get any thinner when you're using T1 equipped BC's and cruisers.

High-sec shouldn't be completely safe but it should be safer than low-sec, which oddly enough in some places it isn't.

The guy from CCP was talking about 'balance' and as a PvP'er I'd say that anything that made suicide ganking more difficult is long overdue. If players used their own common-sense then CCP wouldn't have to do it for them.

---

Originally by: Christari Zuborov

---

There's no such thing as a free lunch, only noobs wheel-barreling around gold boullion.

If you wheel-barreled around gold boullion, it shouldn't be much of a suprise that someone comes a long and tries to take it.

---

Originally by: Don Haulsalot

---

Originally by: Christari Zuborov

---

There's no such thing as a free lunch, only noobs wheel-barreling around gold boullion.

If you wheel-barreled around gold boullion, it shouldn't be much of a suprise that someone comes a long and tries to take it.

---

You wouldn't want to see this point but if you get caught taking the gold you pay a penalty.

---

Originally by: Bellum Eternus

---

From the latest devchat transcript-

"MMORPG_Taera: kimsand asks, To a carebear, EVE is primarily a game of destruction... What takes me 10 hours or more to create, takes someone 5 minutes to destroy, will there be taken some steps in the future to make some REAL safe zones, where GoonJihad will not be able to get in and have their fun on my behalf... im feeling a little like the cannon fodder ccp needs to feed the pvp'ers

Greyscale: Absolutely safe zones aren't currently on our to-do list; there's a very lengthy conceptual reason why they're a bad idea, and a much shorter explanation that it's just not EVE. That said, we do feel that the current balance is out of line and we are working on changes to various mechanisms in this area which will redress this balance

Greyscale: Before anyone jumps to conclusions, what we're mainly looking at is small, common-sense adjustments to tune down the randomized griefing and opportunistic free lunch attacks without removing the ability to make premeditated strikes and so on. There's a balance to be struck that's close to what we have currently, but not exactly the same."

*ANY* change to the existing mechanics as mentioned above is a perfect example of CCP pandering to the idiot whiners who arn't smart enough to take care of themselves and compete against the rest of Eve's players for the right to exist.

Tell me CCP, when is the hand holding going to stop?

---

Quote:

---

People are starting to suicide gank empty freighters solely for the lulz.

---

Originally by: Salmoneus Dinarae

---

Fixing the insurance problem along with Concord/DED (doesn't the backstory say it is actually the DED that does the policing, so why don't the ships say DED and we don't say someone got DED'd?...) lack of technological upgrades over time (gate guns) seems to be the main issues.

The police need to jam, scram, web, and last but not least...

Pod!

---

Originally by: Ice Baby

---

It's funny how the elite "PvP"ers/griefers are the worst PvPers and need to whine here. Do a haul trip through empire and see how many cargoscans you recieve, it aint few, clearly suicide ganking is too profitable.

What about nub whine griefers coming to 0.0 and show us what they are made of?

---

Originally by: Noodle Pastaman

---

PVP has no place whatsoever in hi sec, its a place for trade and PVE
Don't like it go to low/nil sec or go play Quake

Quite obvious thats the view of the vast majority of people who live there are, would love to see a vote on and it I think the griefers would be in for one serious shock

---

Originally by: Shintai

---

Alot of us have. But thats not the point since a freighter is rarely ganked due to the BS amount requirement, teamwork and planning. Something that excludes the majority of suicide people. And I dont think thats what we want to stop either. Its simply so rare.

But the issue is when xxxWannabeeGanker1xxx ganks an itty5 with 2million pyr in with his thorax. Simply because its worth it. And usually the character is recycled for the purpose. Very easily done on trial accounts aswell. Or one in a BC ganking the same or alittle higher value. Or the Hulk/Mack ganks with thoraxes, vexors, brutix etc over basicly nothing.

Its not about moving 100million or 20billion. Its already a problem when you move 10million up. Sometimes even empty worthless haulers get ganked. Its just so cheap and easy that you dont even have to look in the cargo.

---

Originally by: emepror

---

just dont forget that carebears run our economy

---

Originally by: FarosWarrior

---

I don't know what the hell the tpoic starter is whining about, highsec suiciders are nothing more then rl suicide terrorists, only difference is that they only loose a ship... irl youre really dead.

imo CCP should NOT remove any kind of highsec suicide bombing cause no-one likes it, I admit that I have not lost any ships due to those people and i'm sorry for everyone that did, but that brings in 2 more messages:
1: don't fly ships you can't afford to loose
2: CONCORD provides consequences, not safety

---

Originally by: brakespear

---

This.....it is obvious from the amount of 'Corp Thief xxxxxx' threads that some form of morality is in play in Eve (OK, some may be just complaint threads but a fair amount are presented as warnings)...it may go on a more per person level than across the entire game but it is still there and a valid weight to any ingame discussion

---

Originally by:

---

Hopefully this means that CCP is looking at curbing the explosion of suicide ganking any ships that will drop more than a fully insured t1 brutix costs to replace.

I tank my haulers as much as I can, often using multiplated warships, rather than fitting expanders, but I know the maths, I know how easy it is.

It's an exploit to evade concord punishment, but having nothing to lose (a few mil isk? you can spend more than that in ammo in a fight!) in the first place is just a get around, :wordswordswords: would be spoken enforcing an over-literal interpretation but the only writing that matters is surely on the wall

---

Originally by: Jamie Hara

---

Nerfing something because people do it solely for enjoyment is ********.

---

Originally by: Amoxin

---

My vent is talking to me in a devil voice...

---

Originally by: Atomos Darksun

---

SELDON CRISIS!

---

Originally by: Jmanis Catharg

---

Edited by: Jmanis Catharg on 04/06/2008 02:01:10

Quote:

---

People are starting to suicide gank empty freighters solely for the lulz.

---

And that right there is the "free lunch" Greyscale was talking about, esp the part where two or three players run off and do lvl 4 mish for an hour and the entire escapade has paid itself off already.

---

Originally by: Alz Shado

---

Originally by: Veldya

---

Instead of making miners a freaking Deer, make them an Elephant. Lion is still king of the jungle and if enough of them attack they will drop the Elephant, but the Elephant is a slow moving, durable beast and because of that is not "easy" prey.

---

Battleships make decent jetcan miners, and it's trivially easy to fit one that can take out the occasional passing ganker (hint: Scram, Web, 5x Ogre IIs)

True story.

---

Originally by: Oakrayven

---

beats me what they can do about it to be honest.

we had people suicide ganking in roid belts behing mined by a mix of haulers and cruisers earlyer tonight useing smart bombs.

yes it is getting nuts.

---

Quote:

---

They can increase the cost, from the nothing it is today.

---

Originally by: Megan Maynard

---

FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCCCCCCCCCC*************** that

A raven can sit cloaked in a freaking 0.0 belt all day and never be found.

Yeah, it's REALLY out of balance.....................Screw that.

---

Originally by: Mangtoos

---

Originally by: Agent Li

---

It sure helps to get isk back from insurance. If you believe that cost isn't an issue, then you won't mind at all if they change only "if you get CONCORDED you get no insurance payout".

That won't stop ganks on ships that are worth ganking - because it's a fat freighter or a faction CNR it's worth the gank.

But it would stop the "I'll gank an empty retriever just for the fun of it" - well, that will cost you a small amount right there...

---

Like it would be worth the security hit to gank a single insurable retriever. Look how stupid you are.

---

Originally by: FarosWarrior

---

I don't know what the hell the tpoic starter is whining about, highsec suiciders are nothing more then rl suicide terrorists, only difference is that they only loose a ship... irl youre really dead.

imo CCP should NOT remove any kind of highsec suicide bombing cause no-one likes it, I admit that I have not lost any ships due to those people and i'm sorry for everyone that did, but that brings in 2 more messages:
1: don't fly ships you can't afford to loose
2: CONCORD provides consequences, not safety

---

Originally by: Veldya

---

http://www.jihadswarm.com/?a=alliance_detail&all_id=216&view=kills&scl_id=12

215 barges suicide ganked.

---

Originally by: Noodle Pastaman

---

PVP has no place whatsoever in hi sec, its a place for trade and PVE
Don't like it go to low/nil sec or go play Quake

Quite obvious thats the view of the vast majority of people who live there are, would love to see a vote on and it I think the griefers would be in for one serious shock

---

Originally by: Bellum Eternus

---

From the latest devchat transcript-

"MMORPG_Taera: kimsand asks, To a carebear, EVE is primarily a game of destruction... What takes me 10 hours or more to create, takes someone 5 minutes to destroy, will there be taken some steps in the future to make some REAL safe zones, where GoonJihad will not be able to get in and have their fun on my behalf... im feeling a little like the cannon fodder ccp needs to feed the pvp'ers

Greyscale: Absolutely safe zones aren't currently on our to-do list; there's a very lengthy conceptual reason why they're a bad idea, and a much shorter explanation that it's just not EVE. That said, we do feel that the current balance is out of line and we are working on changes to various mechanisms in this area which will redress this balance

Greyscale: Before anyone jumps to conclusions, what we're mainly looking at is small, common-sense adjustments to tune down the randomized griefing and opportunistic free lunch attacks without removing the ability to make premeditated strikes and so on. There's a balance to be struck that's close to what we have currently, but not exactly the same."

*ANY* change to the existing mechanics as mentioned above is a perfect example of CCP pandering to the idiot whiners who arn't smart enough to take care of themselves and compete against the rest of Eve's players for the right to exist.

Tell me CCP, when is the hand holding going to stop?

---

Originally by: El'Niaga

---

The simplest solution would be to remove the insurance payout when you are killed by Concord. That's why so many of them have always suicided.

---

Originally by: Esmenet

---

Edited by: Esmenet on 04/06/2008 08:11:13

Originally by: Noodle Pastaman

---

PVP has no place whatsoever in hi sec, its a place for trade and PVE
Don't like it go to low/nil sec or go play Quake

Quite obvious thats the view of the vast majority of people who live there are, would love to see a vote on and it I think the griefers would be in for one serious shock

---

Thats fine as long as the amount of isk you can make in high sec also gets a massive nerf. Its already way too safe for the amount of isk you make. Making it carebear heaven will just further destroy the last remnants of risk/reward in this game.

As it is now high sec needs more risk, not less.

---

Originally by: Shintai

---

The 5x+ reward bonus for 0.0 sure aint enough eh?

---

Originally by: Shintai

---

A L4 mission is also magnitudes harder than to rat in belts in 0.0. Not even to talk about the isk difference in favour of 0.0

---

Originally by: Shintai

---

Or perhaps you are yet one of those lowsec whiners?

---