Bans on HS exploiters

[Geo_Eclipse_Oksaras]

Im done arguing with you

[Xeux]

Are you though?

[Fumbit]

Personally, this is how it should be handled.
If Group A pulled Concord and Concord chases them, and something such as a Gank were to happen. A situation should come as either one of the following.
A) In response to multiple crimes happening in an area, Concord will then have a count down before backup arrives into the area to spawn additional units.
B) Group being attack should be able to Hail an SoS feature for Concord (even if it was like an emergency response fee requiring Isk) for the Concord units to basically go to a Priority Response.

Personally lets run a situation where lets say Concord have to leave where they camp around a gate, they should request reinforcements to come and guard the gate while they check the sector they are in. In Military logic you wouldn’t send the only two guards protecting a spot to search for something and leave an opening defenseless.

Unless of coarse if the coding was changed (Which would be a little tricky) To also add a value once they break pursuit with the situation they are already in, the concord will check for any other issues within the area BEFORE they return to their post (resetting)

[Ax_l_Thorne]

Where’s the footage?

You demanded links to CCP’s declaring that pulling is not an exploit. You could extend the courtesy of providing video evidence of …

@Cherti_Stardust

Using a corvette to draw them away at the right moment.

[Gix_Firebrand]

@Cherti_Stardust

No one has ever showed me this announcement that delaying or bugging out concord is an acceptable way to play. That one person running 25-100 alts to gank everyone in high sec and destroy the economy is exactly what CCP wants.

I am still waiting for someone to show me this very statement. All you people can do is just say it exists but not show that it exists. Show me the statement. So me this completely stupid statement and what GM posted it. Please proceed to make me look like a fool.

Uh peeps already did.

Uh and one person isn’t running all the HS ganking ROFL.

[Phelan_Kheldian]

@Cherti_Stardust

No one has ever showed me this announcement that delaying or bugging out concord is an acceptable way to play.

Well, its been linked at least twice in this thread. So, its been shown. Just because you choose not to read it and accept it doesn’t make it not exist.

@Cherti_Stardust

That one person running 25-100 alts to gank everyone in high sec and destroy the economy is exactly what CCP wants.

Eve released in 2003 and CCP hasnt gotten rid of ganking. That’s almost 2 decades of ganking that CCP hasn’t gotten rid of. If they have allowed it this long, I think they’re fine with it

@Cherti_Stardust

Please proceed to make me look like a fool.

I think you’re doing a good job of that on your own.

[Fale_Einn]

Oooooooo!!!

What Does This Button Do? (original)

[jokermeow]

this is the best part of the thread is the video xD

[Elsie_Duke]

ganking really did used to be harder back in the day, lots of Maths happened and if they were going to risk losing the first battleship in eve then it had to be for a really good reason.

Mu fellow care bears need to go look at the monument outside jita that everyone throws fireworks at. It’s dedicated to a ganker.

The early gankers pushed and pushed CCP till we ended up with the rules and concord as it is today, now there is an argument that concord should be strengthened to compensate for the fact that cruisers are no longer the equivalent of battleship money and make them bring more expensive ships to the gank. But there is no argument to get rid of ganking entirely because that would utterly destroy the high sec market economy.

[Destiny_Corrupted]

@Elsie_Duke

now there is an argument that concord should be strengthened to compensate for the fact that cruisers are no longer the equivalent of battleship money and make them bring more expensive ships to the gank.

When you start balancing a game mechanic like this based on cost considerations and not gameplay/skill considerations, it will never be enough.

“Ganking is too cheap, you can gank a freighter carrying 3 billion with just 20 destroyers! This is not balanced at all, and we need to make ganking more expensive!”

“Okay, we’ll balance the game mechanic to make ganking effectively require cruisers to accomplish.”

“Ganking is too cheap, you can gank a freighter carrying 9 billion with just 20 cruisers! This is not balanced at all, and we need to make ganking more expensive!”

“Okay, we’ll balance the game mechanic to make ganking effectively require battlecruisers to accomplish.”

“Ganking is too cheap, you can gank a freighter carrying 28 billion with just 20 battlecruisers! This is not balanced at all, and we need to make ganking more expensive!”

etc. etc.

Meanwhile, the actual mechanics surrounding ganking avoidance are not being discussed and touched, because there’s no reason to do it, since ganking avoidance was never a consideration to begin with (and there are no issues regarding/lack of gank avoidance mechanics anyway). The only goal is to chip away at ganking until it doesn’t exist anymore.

[Elsie_Duke]

When was the last time concord was boosted though?

A policy of once every 10 years or so isn’t going to kill the game - so long as the communication is there from CCP. They would need to absolutely state that this is it, game got older and needed a rebalance, we will only look at ganking again in another decade and no amount of whining will change that.

PvPers adapt and always have done, it’s what keeps the game healthy.

[Anthony_FatTony_Amico]

To be honest I kind of like the current CONCORD system. Why fix what’s not broke? Travel fit your expensive hulls. Haul bling in a smaller ship. BR, destroyer, frigate. And that’s pretty much all you can do if your concerned about ganking. And ultimately the best defense against gankers is if your ship starts making profit to where you can replace it with no problems. They want you to cry but if your mining ship mined more than it’s worth then it’s not all that bad. Is it?

Why do we want change for the sake of change?

[Karak_Terrel]

I bet the miner in question did not even have a mining permit and this kills where completely justified.

[Ax_l_Thorne]

Killing unaware and unprepared miners is always justified.

If they can’t be bothered to spend a few minutes to set up defenses, ping d-scanner every few seconds and keep an eye on local, they shouldn’t be flying a ship.

[Karak_Terrel]

It’s also absolutely hilarious and S-grade content if you ask me

[Ashterothi]

If you have any question of how CCP feels about Highsec Ganking they added new rats specifically to do exactly that to teach players that they have to remain aware to stay safe.

[Cherti_Stardust]

Your opinion floods are all saying the same thing. You could just say “ditto” in every post and most people would know what you have to say.

[Elsie_Duke]

Rats on gates are thing of great art.

[Gix_Firebrand]

@Cherti_Stardust

Your opinion floods are all saying the same thing. You could just say “ditto” in every post and most people would know what you have to say.

Um. You do know what ditto means right? Cause I don’t think you do

Embarrassing for you Blue

[DrysonBennington]

One tactic that ganker’s hate is their own tactics being used against them.

1. Have three members of your mining fleet set up in the asteroid belt.
2. Use a single destroyer to attack of your mining barges.
3. Concord sends in three different reactionary fleets.
4. You are protected for the next 15 minutes.
5. Rinse and repeat as long as CODE is in system.
6. Tag all known ganker corps and alliances as a - 10 red, watch in local.
7. When gankers show up, more than three, summon Concord to your location.

Eventually the gankers will grow tired of having to change ganker names and corporations. Hit them on the administration side of maintaining their gank fleets and they will tire.