Doubt!
Seems unlikely!
1 Like
I see. We will leave it at that tonight seems my boy is not well i need to go tend to him. All i will say is, dont be overconfident. This is Eve.
Thank you for your ti’me. I am glad we could have had a clean, non toxic conversation. For that I diligently thank you, and going forward please feel free to keep on posting your comments. Let’s just be civil.
Have a great weekend and fly safe! I have to go play nanny now 
Proper decorum is always appreciated. Take care of your boy, and let’s keep this discussion civil.
With moderate regards
-James Fuchs
1 Like
Highsec is safer. They’ve been nerfing ganking activities for years. I don’t even play the game anymore. Sounds like a pretty serious skill issue if you keep getting ganked and losing ships to my fellow PVP enjoyers. Have you considered that you should be more aware of your surroundings? You would only get ganked if you’re not paying attention to local or go afk in space frequently.
1 Like
I was responding to the silly claim that cost is not a factor in the risk v reward calculation and thoroughly debunked that logical fallacy and now you shift the goal post into something irrelevant.
Cost for gankers is directly a factor vs the potential reward.
More EHP, higher cost for gankers. It’s precisely why even you say ppl should fit for more EHP to remove them from the cost v reward list reducing their chance of being targeted by gankers.
Thus, we have gone a long about way back to the argument that ganking is too cheap, the cost inflicted to gankers both in lost fits and security rating is far too mild for the potential reward. Thus hs ganking has been rampant for a long time.
I don’t expect CCP to change anything since they are doing fine lately, if the bottom line isn’t affected then the status quo remains.
HS ganking is part of Eve. Players should adapt to it, learn to reduce the risk for themselves as victims, rather than expect game changes to concord or security status.
I just find it dishonest when gankers and those who argue in their favour pretend it’s balanced risk v reward when a logical analysis of the crime and punishment system show it severely punishes the victim while wrist slapping the perpetrators. Security standing loss is a joke to fix.
I don’t argue in favor of gankers, but look at an Orca fit f.e.
You can buy it with boosts and mining drone ■■■■ fit for 1.9 B. Now remove this mining drone crap, add a shield command boost instead of a 3rd mining command boost, fit shield moduls in mid and a DC II pllus a bulkhead in the low and you double the ehp for like 100 millionen ist extra while at least double the isk for a ganking fleet to destroy said Orca.
Yeah, a properly fitted orca is as big of a pain to gank as a freighter, except it additionally can be fitted to cloak trick with only minor impact on its tankiness, and it can carry ECM drones, and it’ll usually be in a fleet with barges that can carry even more ECM drones. Anyone that loses an orca in highsec has only themselves to blame.
The trouble with this is that you are looking at the entire matter post-successful-gank. Of course a successful gank is better for the perpetrator than the bozo who let themselves be ganked - THAT’S WHY IT’S A SUCCESS.
You need to look at it from a pre-gank perspective, when the gankee could simply elect to use their brain and not get ganked, instead.
3 Likes
Ganking is ZERO risk. All ganks succeed, 100% success rate, megabig isk drops for FREE (I don’t do it because I find it boring), but it’s super ez and the ganker has NO consequences and NO costs and NO challenge and NO morality. Ganking is nothing more than picking a newbro and warping to him and taking all his stuff, and LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH just make fun and grief all day while looting big megaisk drops and rinse and repeat OVER AND OVER.
They do it all using alpha alts!!!
1 Like
Is ganking too cheap?
Take a hypothetical scenario where everyone in HS defensively fits their ship with high EHP and low value mods.
In this scenario nobody could be ganked for profit.
Some gankers would still gank, at a cost, for either fun or for non-profit purposes like claiming ice belts for themselves or to kill someone with a loud mouth.
Would ganking in this hypothetical scenario be ‘too cheap’? Even if all ganks are made at a loss and none profitable?
I would say that ganks wouldn’t be ‘too cheap’ if all ganks are a guaranteed loss for the gankers.
However, we’re not playing in a hypothetical scenario where all ganks cost ISK. We play in a different EVE where some ganks are profitable.
What is the difference between the hypothetical scenario I mentioned and real EVE?
Gank costs? No, those are the same.
The difference is that in the real EVE some players make the choice to fit greedy, neglect defences and put expensive modules and other high value cargo on ships with EHP values that are too low to stay unprofitable gank targets.
Player choice is what causes some ganks to be profitable.
Profitable ganks are not a game issue, it is a situation caused by those players themselves.
I won’t blame people for blinging their ships, I too like to bling my ships lately, but I very much realize that if I lose those ships it is my own mistake.
Learn to fit,
Learn to fly.
Ganking you is only as rewarding as you choose.
And if you choose to fly as a very rewarding target, you better learn how to avoid danger.
Wearing a seat belt does not help much if the occupant decides to drive while smoking a joint, drinking a fourty with their phone in their hand, will concede that.
No, this is for the people dragging folks out of a vehicle, beating them to death and hiding in the dumpster for 15 minutes for their 5 star rating to go away, while also complaining even that is too much of a punishment.
1 Like
What a good comparison!
So, just like how high EHP on a ship reduces the risk of being ganked yet won’t completely get rid of all risk, a seat belt reduces the risk of dying in a car crash but won’t completely get rid of all risk.
So, is your goal to reduce risk of getting ganked?
Or is your goal a complete removal of a playstyle that a number of players enjoys?
Is this an admission that by removing clone tags, ganking would be significantly impacted, confirming that using ISK to buy security status is core enabler for ganking activity?
Removing security status tags does not remove ganking.
Yet to see a coherent argument against removing the P2W of security status tags, that topic is being conveniently ignored.
Coherent argument against removing the P2W of security status tags when?
That is exactly what the PvP high security corporations said when CCP nerfed war declarations, despite 5 corporations being responsible for the majority of wars with a 100:1 kill ratio. Not surprising those groups would argue against altering a system which they benefit from.
Billions? They would not cost anything, they would not exist.
Change does not require universal consent, not even majority. If CCP spent more time on the forum than in the discord or reddit, they might pick up some of these ideas that players actually want to see and implement them.
Pot, Kettle?
Another tacit confession and misconstruction. Removing clone tags will not remove ganking.
Oh really?
CCP did a fanfest presentation contrary to this, in fact they lamented that every month the number of players who try eve and quit in the first month was the size of a particular village by the ocean.
Bullying people until they quit should never be part of a healthy online community.
Its already dropped quite a lot in real terms, a basic 100 plex pack will get quite a lot more ISK and quite a lot more ships than 5 or 10 years ago.
One might ask if this indicates support for a second round of ‘scarcity’ mechanics, as the last did very little to dent the massive hoard held by the big blocks.
Did not do a very good job, spending all that time blowing up retrievers and ventures while fleets of rorquals mined 10x was ‘old man shouts at cloud’ levels of effectiveness
No one cares about EVE mobile.
This. Security status should never be a function of ISK.
The orca is a perfect example. When I first flew an Orca I sat in a POS for hours with system wide boosts. Now an Orca has to be on grid, with a siege module to boot.
For this, what was done to gankers to balance this loss of saftey?
They have CCP to blame for on forcing on grid boosting for mining ships.
The concept of ‘cheap’ defines the answer. If the cost was ISK alone, its infinitely debatable.
The true cost should be reputation, removal of security status tags is necessary to give that reputation meaning.
No. The risk is irrelevant. The goal is to give actions meaning and while security status can be bought with ISK, it is entirely devoid of meaning.
How would removing security status tags inhibit the act of ganking?
1 Like
Say, security status tags are removed from the game. Ganks still happen.
What will you complain about next to get completely rid of ganking?
1 Like
i wouldn’t argue with someone who doesn’t even understand what the IGS part of the forum is for.. IE IN CHARACTER posting.
@Eloken_Toralen
All posts within the Intergalactic Summit (IGS) are what is called In Character(IC). You are speaking as YOUR character within the EVE Universe. This means any Out of Game references like mentioning CCP, Game mechanics or other topics that only you as a person not as a character within a game would know.
- Out of Character content ( Or OOC ) Is not authorized within the IGS
I’m definitely getting “I want to rat or mine in the most expensive ship with no consequence” vibes from the OP.
2 Likes
The concept of No Safe Space once you click the Undock button is a fundamental, core piece of game design and has been from the very beginning.
People have been complaining about ganking since around 2003.
It’s still in the game. It always will be. Learn, Adapt, Overcome, Survive.
Any newbro that thinks hisec if safe clearly hasn’t done so much as a basic google search on the subject. CONCORD is righteous retribution, not hand holding prevention. Wrap your head around this concept.
1 Like
Well, then go to the Null Sec bois to complain. CCP changed it without having HighSec in mind.
And why should Mining Boosters be safe while the rest of the Boosters have to be on grid anyways?