If it’s so OP, why don’t you do same thing? You only whine because you are to lazy to make better fit.
pro tip: shoot the can. You might not get loot but salt is guaranteed
I understand that just fine but the site cannot be called ‘contested’ if one side always has the advantage. That’s not a contest.
Yea I’ve blown up the loot a handful of times out of spite.
I’ve tried many fits actually. I started with an AB Gila, then went to a MWD Gila with a sensor booster. The last few I did before I gave up because of how broken it was I was using a Proteus and a Loki. Proteus for burst damage on the ‘contested’ can and the Loki for overall speed. These were more successful in getting the loot, but I still lost a lot more cans then I got.
then do them in less crowded area
Doesn’t it trigger concord? Last time I made that stupid mistake and shot yellow can concord land on my gila and made it into shreds.
Safety green. 
imagine people still flying in high sec with safety red, and are surprised they die from concord. Genuinely surprised. Happened few times around me in game. Week ago was last time.
Competition is very high. I live out in the boonies where population is very low. The problem is the poor design of these mechanics awarding one side the advantage, less so player density.
Cases where Ive destroyed the can are when I won the race but was too far away from it to loot it first. If I wasn’t sure I could take the thief, or I thought they had backup close by and were baiting, I’d just blow up the can.
Notice how this is a meaningful choice. I made the choice to give up my loot to prevent someone from getting it as ill gotten gains. Most the time you don’t even have this opportunity.
bulshit. I was running yesterday for few hours and almost no competition. 3-5 sites per system if lucky
Question for the room: how might he behavior of the thieves change if they knew every time they stole an event can they risked retaliation from the site runner without CONCORD to save them.
I think the casual thieves would stop and we’d be left with the hardcore ones, because it was never about ‘competition.’
This pressure and desire to attack your enemy for intruding on your site is intended. The solution is to run sites in more dangerous territory, where you CAN engage them. Caution that also means they can engage YOU!
1 Like
What region do you live in? It’s hard to imagine it having a smaller pop then Solitude and Aridia, but I certainly want to go there if you’re chaining sites with nobody showing up.
Don’t imply I’m lying, you’ve just been lucky.
Is that really a solution though? Aren’t you just avoiding the issue?
I’m not going to get drawn into a philosophical argument about the nature of high security space, because that is not the purpose of this thread, but I am arguing thieves acting with impunity is fundamentally unbalanced and fundamentally against the sandbox.
I don’t see you on TIS anymore! I didn’t think I’d miss you but I actually do! Where are you hiding?
Derelik. But it’s safe to assume that right now, everyone and his dog will go there.
Ironically I’ve been meaning to check out that region for a while now, because I’ve never been. Now I have another reason to check it out!
I get that feeling, but one of the pressures of Highsec is the fact that the very things that protect you also constrict you. In EVE you must deal with the actions of other players and things like where you choose to engage with the content influence what kind of tools you and your enemies get to compete.
I do think they should go back to having a very high bounty on the rat in Highsec to allow everyone on the site to get rewarded and leave the jackpot to those who can win the damage race.
Also glad you liked me on TiS, check out my new show (I currently produce it all myself)
Thanks for the link!
As someone who deals with a lot of the same circumstances as you, I know you can appreciate the irony of TIS missing you as an organizing force.
As for the ‘also constricts you’ argument. I agree that security in high sec should also be constricting, and it is. I don’t think it applies in this case because one party is constricted and the other isn’t. I don’t think it’s good design for one play style to be favored over another because it’s high security space. The thief should absolutely be able to exist, just as much as the site runner should be able to try and fight them off. The way things are currently set up with this can all but hands an ‘I win’ button to the thief. As practical consideration (setting aside the lore absurdity entirely) this isn’t good.
The way I think about it is the cost of security is oppression. You want to be safe? You want to be free? There is a cost.
I didn’t bring it up. I know I’ve played on both sites in past events as the first mover and the latecomer, 90% I won regardless of the role as “victim” or “thief”. What does this tell you?
1 Like
I want to respond to this more fully once I’ve had more time to think about it, but on the surface I wonder if it reveals a bias for predators. Why is security something one has to ‘pay’ for in that way? Why not just make the sites exclusive to insecure space then? Why does security have a premium but not thievery? That is of course a valid position, but I want to ponder it further before trying to answer those questions.