If that particular pilot had simply tanked it and been at the keyboard, they would still be mining as we speak. But instead, they incurred a 300 million ISK loss for their greed and/or laziness…
You didn’t check the list…
Look at how many ships were really thrown at it.
Doesn’t matter how many they throw at it. Had the ship been properly tanked and the pilot paying attention, he would have lived. That’s a well-known ganking system with an ice anomaly. Stupid for mining there in the first place. That would be like mining in Uedama if it had an ice anomaly. Not smart…
All this mining drone and ORE ship stuff has nothing to do with Highsec issues anyway. Why bring it up here?
1 Like
Yeah, but that one cuts both ways. There is the practice of undocking in a corvette under a criminal frag to draw Concord away from gates or belts that is used prominently such as CODE to “reset” Concord. The argument in “resetting” Concord is that it only puts the timer back to a “default” instead of causing a delay.
Although is worth considering that the Retriever and Covetor have no tank what so ever? Making impossible to use outside high sec, because the belt NPC are Cruisers, Battlecruisers (low sec) and Battleships in null. Then there is no choice but the Procurer or Skiff in these environments.
Sounds a lot like you replaced “delay” with “reset” which is a known exploit…
Also:
But I’m not CCP so they can deal with it.
It was always, always, and always a blanket deccing and hub camping.
Never saw a war target outside of a hub. Because taking a gate, and lately, even leaving undock, is just too much risk for an average dec griefer, the most risk averse playstyle in all of eve (even station traders risk more with every CSM speculation RMT leak).
But I agree on the issue of war decs - we need to get those chickens off undock, and for that, I proposed many times mechanics that a target can use to actually let griefers know he’s online and even exact position… except that if chickens won’t take this opportunity, they lose some ISK, and their war dec ends, possibly even war dec rights temporarily revoked, cuz you should not declare a war you have no intention to fight, and expect to risk nothing in it.
Free intel for chickens is a no. As if camping people with neutral alt wasn’t idiot-proof enough.
INIT culture is leaking.
My second suggestion to CSM 13 is to ignore any and all nullsec input from Brisc, for the sake of the game.
Derp derp.
Tell me the last time a MWD reduced your cargo amount.
1 Like
Haha, go dodgers.
As for the criminal timer in abyssal space, either you’re being a troll, or you have not thought this through. In a wh, My corp can warp a few ships to the exit as I’m about to leave and attack anyone that might be sitting there - without concord interference. In highsec, while my corp/friends can warp there - at best they can rep me, but there is no active defense until after I’m attacked. And even then you might not gain the ability to attack depending on high sec mechanics. So there is more risk in high sec since you can’t act (without getting concorded), but can only react. In a wh/null/losec, you can actively defend to exit point. The thought of a group of enemies sitting on an exit point waiting for someone to exit in lowsec or null, is foolish. In highsec, it’s allowed and considered ‘emergent gameplay’…….
3 Likes
is the same as in null/low. The complaint is about level 4/5’s in high which produce a suspect timer being “safe” which isn’t true.
ps:
We call that gate camping from the olden days.
The point being that Brisc commented that level 4/5’s acted the same in null as they do in highsec. While he is ‘technically’ correct. The fact is that in Null/Losec/Wh’s you have a much better defense because you can actively clear out the exit. You cannot clear out the exit point in Highsec as the potential aggressors are protected. So you have to jump and hope the remote reps get aggressed so that they can actively assist you. It becomes very complicated with who can shoot who, without bringing concord down on everyone. Complications that don’t exist in Wh/Null/Losec.
2 Likes
Incorrect. You can protect the exit just as much in high as you can low. You just have to do it without opening fire first or suicide gank them. There are ways just as used as before but now they’re not the ways you think they should be. Any claims that you’re “protected” or “they are protected” isn’t true.
In fact because I thought about it what is preventing you from parking an Orca with a travelceptor in full WCS mode with space enough for the ship you just pop out into space with?
Well aren’t you the cutest little troll. Did I say there was no defense in Highsec? Although your idea of ganking a fleet of PvP setup ships before concord intervenes seems a bit far fetched…This was the post I was answering:
Simply put it’s unlike null/low/wh sec because the (imo) ‘best’ defense (a good offense) isn’t available to you. I cannot ‘pre-clear’ the exit like I can in null/losec/wh. If you want to take that to mean there is no possible defense - fine, but that’s not what I wrote. If you read what I posted, both times I said “better” defense, not perfect, and not ‘no defense’. Now shoo troll, back under your bridge…
1 Like
Exactly where does it say that I can’t gank them with ships fit to ECM and Cats?
For what it is worth, my views on High Sec, as requested.
I am posting as one of those individuals despised/scorned for staying pretty near permanently in HS, despite having played for some three years or more - I suspect I am one of the silent majority / sizeable minority who do so, but “never speak up” and are not therefore well understood by CCP or CSM members.
I haver a single Omega account, and always pay for it with PLEX that I actually buy with hard cash, as well as often spending additional money on Multi Character Training, and some Alpha Skill Injectors for some Alpha alts that I run.
I play in a single player corp - ie just me.
I am not interested in social interaction or being part of a multiplayer corporation.
I am not interested in PvP, at least in a kinetic sense, as opposed to, say, industrial competition.
The reason I am saying all this is that too often, on these forums, any of these sentiments get shouted down:
“You are playing the wrong game!”
“You are playing the game the wrong way!”
“Carebear!”
“People like you should be forced to move towards LS or NS!”
I am sorry, but the fact that I have played a sandbox game, and enjoyed myself enough to subscribe constantly for three plus years ought to be enough evidence that my style and choices are valid for me. And CCP should realise - I think on one level they do in part - that if I am forced into abandoning my style/choices, they will alienate someone who has been prepared to spend hard cash on their game - not pay for accounts with billions of ISK buying PLEX on the market - and drive me away.
So, having explained my perspective, what are my views on HS?
A favoured criticism of anyone complaining about any form of PVP in HS is that “It is not supposed to be completely safe”. Fine, but how unsafe should it be, and in what forms?
I have no problem with ganking per se. (I have been ganked very occasionally.) If anything, I think the 100% guaranteed destruction by Concord is wrong. There should be a risk to the ganker from the police, but I think a system whereby the longer the victim can survive / the ganker fails to get a kill, the higher the risk of the police turning up. Equally, a really quick kill by a ganker could and should allow them to have a chance of getting away, albeit still with a loss of security standing as a criminal. This would represent a meaningful form of piracy for those that want to practise it, without being suicidal in quite the current matter. HS carebears such as myself would have to be careful in moving around, watching out for such PC pirates, but would know that the aggressor was taking a very real risk and might get punished, particularly if I could hold them off long enough for Concord to arrive or them to run before they did. In other words, what we already have with ganking, but actually rebalancing a little towards the would-be ganker.
I do have a huge problem with war declarations as they stand. (The excuse of “It’s been like that for fifteen years” is meaningless - Eve has clearly evolved, and the mechanism now is certainly broken.)
Let me be clear - I am not saying that wars should be binned. I am not saying that, if one corporation wants to declare war on my little one-player corporation, that they should not. But my commitment to the game is sorely tested when Marmite declares war on my one-player corporation five times in four months, for peanuts in ISK, for no very valid reason. Maybe someone is paying them to keep me from mining ice? Maybe they have seen me in an Orca, and hope that I will be stupid/careless flying it and they can bag a rich kill? I do not know, and frankly do not really care.
The point is, as others have argued - and been abused for arguing - is that this sort of war declaration is simply a risk-free form of piracy. Why have to commit suicide to gank, when you can splash a bit of ISK around and just do it without meaningful risk.
If someone wants to declare war on me, fine. But have a reason, and have to pay seriously (in some form or other) to do so. And do not keep repeating it every fortnight once the cool-off has expired.
The reason that this drives me so close to cancelling my subscription, and may yet so do, is that it means that for at least one week in three, sometimes more if the war is extended, my main cannot offer me meaningful gameplay, particularly mining. Yes, I can fly this Alpha alt who I have kept in an NPC corp for that very reason, but I am being forced to use her, not choose to do so. If you are a one-player, non-social type such as myself, then all the supposed work-arounds offered by the apologists for the war status quo do not work - I cannot fly scouts as I have only one Omega account; why should I be forced to buy a second? I cannot drop corps - my main is the CEO of the corp.
I am not saying bin wars. But make them much more expensive, at least if one corporation or alliance starts multiple wars. Alternatively, give much longer enforced peace - say four weeks for every week of war - to stop constant spamming of declarations.
I am trying to be constructive. I am not whinging. But if CCP thinks that people like me - solo players in High Sec - represent around half of their customers, I would like to think that the above comments can be taken seriously.
7 Likes
Interestign read. My 2c:
Remove punsihment from COCNORD? To accomplish what exactly? CONCORD is a non-issue for professional gankers.
As for wardecs on your corp, just appoint a Omega alt as CEO and drop corp when wardecced. Let them wait for your station dweller CEO to undock while you operate freely. I had a small fleet of 3 accounts and the CEO was a char I kept in Jita to check prices there -never undocked.
Also, the cost of wardecs is impossible to fix. If you make it proportional to corp size, large corps would just split into a thousand tiny corps or whatever size was the cheapest. They still would have all the off-game resources to operate as a entity, but the entity would be invisible to the game’s AI -it would only see Tiny Corp #287 and Tiny Corp #189 wardeccing a one-man corp.