There are consequences. The issue is the consequences are acceptable to the folks engaging in the behavior. Even podding isn’t going to make that much difference, as the gankers will just respawn in their home system, which is likely going to be pretty close to where they’re ganking, if not the same system.
We’ve already seen a significant mechanic change with the bumping nerf that was designed to reduce the effectiveness of ganking. I’m not sure that much more needs to be done at this point.
a little bit off-topic maybe, but I still find that funny.
when I was starting to play eve veldspar was virtually worthless, because “trit is everywhere lul”
And then moon mining and mining rebalance and blams suddenly veldspar is best hi-sec ore because “everything needs trit” xD
You are right Brisc, podding is not enough. Negative 5 or more security standing players should be locked out of NPC stations and removed from high sec. Gankers get all the reward and none of the risk. CCP has balanced this game to favor the agressive players only and will continue to lose customers over it.
In Pac Man they deliberately designed the game so that the players who were willing to eat the ghosts got more points. I think that is just shocking. Pacifist Pac Men and Pac Women should get the same benefits as the aggressive ghost-eating players.
The issue I have with ganking is they get a 50% or more of items dropped. While all the payouts for High Sec missions have been nerfed, Bounties have been nerfed, loot drops have been nerfed and asteroids have been nerfed. That 50% has been touched, that negative security standing has no consequnces but screw anyone that CCP doesn’t favor with balance!
You are missing the point.
The problem isn’t that ganking pays well. It usually doesn’t.
The problem (for you) is that gankers have a personality type that enjoys overcoming all the obstacles that CCP puts in their way. No matter what changes CCP makes, it will not stop these guys. It will just make it a bigger challenge and they will be just as motivated to do it.
There are plenty of ways to get -5 or higher security status that does not involve ganking. Locking those players out of high sec stations is not going to solve your problem. There is really no way to solve this problem short of making EVE a different game, and it’s not worth it. The game has been around for 17 years and ganking has been a thing this entire time. It is something that you get used to and learn to avoid.
Then if you want to ear those BIG BUCKS you think are in ganking, start ganking! The option is there for you to double your money (as you put it) so go for it if you think it’s that easy to earn ISK.
Also known as “players”. Eve is a PvP sandbox. You talk about “balance” as if you could somehow “balance” chess to be “fair” to people who refuse to capture pieces.
Wait, gankers get special looting mechanics? That’s news. Please explain the details.
Gankers/PvPers get a 50% chance of every item that being carried to drop as part of the loot. CCP has ran multiple event this year that 100% of the loot and fitting dropped. I don’t remember any events where bounties or NPC loot drops or even asteroid mineral payout increased but hey CCP doesn’t balance the game for anyone but Player Killers!
There should be reduced loot drop rates in high sec for PKers maybe 20-25%. Increase that when they PK in Low Sec and increase it agaain for Null Sec.
Ah. You said more than 50%. Maybe you were exaggerating?
Why?
Be honest, you just want complete safety from other players in highsec. In other words, a single-player game.
Hi-Sec, Low-Sec, Null-Sec… ALL Non-Sec and Non-sense. Must be a CCP joke I’m sure.
More like Neg-Sec and No-Sec, Never-Sec and Haha-Sec…
Get rid of that security notion in EVE, it doesn’t exist. The reason they decided to tag systems with “security” ratings mustn’t have anything to do with players, old or new.
Why they put a rating for each region beats me but there’s clearly confusion among the players, especially the new players who think they’re safe in Hi-Sec.
As it stands, they could remove the entire security rating for systems and it wouldn’t make one bit of difference so why aren’t they doing it ? Probably because it’s more work than it’s worth, just like all the things the players have been asking for for years.
If it doesn’t bring in any dough in the register there’s no use working on it.
Just ignore the security rating and be aware your ship may blow up at any moment.
Fly Safe o7 
It’s part of the setting. The scenery. Like the empires. We all know there aren’t any real empires full of people. They’re just a fiction that is the setting of the game. They have some game mechanics attached – standings, Factional Warfare, damage types – but mostly they are irrelevant. There are very few forum posts complaining about empires.
Security ratings are like that. They’re mostly a fiction, but they’re attached to a mechanic which affects the cost of combat in different places in space, giving variety.
The problem is that players mistake the fictional setting for some sort of moral or gameplay guarantee or intention. Gankers and pirates are breaking the in-game fictional law. Therefore (a) the game needs fixing because it isn’t enforcing it’s fictional in-game law perfectly and (b) the people playing pirates are bad people (“bullies”). This confusion seems to happen all the time!
Or maybe nobody is confused and they’re metagamers trying to win by changing the rules to suit themselves, which is to say cheats.
Imagine if highsec were called you-lose-your-ship-if-you-attack sec?
Fiction is a good word for it.
There is NO security in EVE and the sooner a player realizes it the sooner she/he can move on to other more important considerations.
Yes, it’s confusing for new players and it doesn’t help that’s it’s fictional. That’s why I think the rating for systems should be done away with. It serves no purpose but confusion.
If it’s fictional it doesn’t exist. Can’t have a law for something that doesn’t exist.
It doesn’t even exist in practice since you can have your ship blown up in 0.1 just as well as in 1.0
There’s no “Hi-Sec” or “Low-Sec”, there’s just space.
Whichever the case may be, it doesn’t seem to bother the game devs.
Nowadays I see this way: If they can do it, they will and there’s not much we can do about it.
But I have no problem with that whatsoever. Some changes would be good for the overall game but I personally don’t care. It’s a beautiful game and I will continue to play it as long as I can mine and manufacture my own stuff with minimal ISK loss.
There are different levels of risk and rewards to provide game play diversity, variety and options for risk appetite - plus the setup of the Alliance systems and security meets the Meta of the game. OP asks for something different. EVE is special because of these player interactions and communicating this to new players effectively will lead to the right type of player retention i.e. retain players who will understand the uniqueness of this game and stick around. I’d rather have 100k people playing this version of EVE than 500k playing some mining mini game.
I resemble that remark.
haha mining lazers go brrrrrrrrrrr
except in hi-sec aggressing other non-suspect, non-criminal players without duel or wardec going on, results in unavoidable loss of ship You used to perform that act of aggression, which provides for much different gameplay than such lo-sec in which same action will just add stackable penalty that when stacked high enough will have NPCs shoot at you on sight in hi-sec and both of these are different to nullsec where you are free to fire at anything you wish.
and security rating conveys information of what kind of consequences you meet for shooting other non-suspect, non-criminal player.
Agreed. I was talking from the victim’s point of view and, more particularly, from a new-ish player’s point of view.
From a ganker’s point of view, losing a ship is peanuts. But how long will it take the victim to replace a ship, its modules and whatever cargo is in it, considering how expansive is buying a ship and all its modules ?
I was ganked once, right near a gate ( don’t remember where ). Never even saw who blasted me out of the skies and didn’t see any ship blown up by CONCORDE.
Hence my statement “There’s no “Hi-Sec” or “Low-Sec”, there’s just space.” and it’s true for victims of ganking anywhere, Hi or Low sec.
The statement " don’t undock in a ship you can’t afford to lose " says it all. “Anywhere” should be added in that statement.
For clarification, and to avoid me having to type more than I have to:
As long as the game Devs allow ganking and all sorts of underhanded tatics in EVE, then I have nothing to complain about because it’s the game and players will play however they wish so:
I’m not ranting, I’m not butthurt and I’m not whining.
I’m just answering a post best I can.
It would appear that all of your losses have occurred in low or null sec zones - which would be why CONCORD did not intervene. Gate guns will shoot at aggressors when ganking at gates, but gate guns can be easily tanked.
High Security space is just that - high security, not safety. Like having a security system on your home or car, it acts as a deterrent for some criminals but is not a guarantee of safety nor a promise of reimbursement for items lost to criminals. CONCORD is the security company: they dispatch response forces in high security space when criminal conduct occurs, and record activity in low-security space to evaluate the criminal risk of players. They (and faction police) will shoot criminal ships (but not pods) on sight, but they aren’t everywhere all the time.
Thank you for refreshing my memory. +1
The only time I see CONCORD is by the gates. I see them as gatekeepers and not much more. They don’t provide security or they’ll be around stations or asteroid belts to do the job right.
I worked Security for some years. I didn’t protect a client’s assets by passively sitting in my car in the parking lot but by actively doing patrols.
Right… Hi-Sec or Low-Sec, it’s just space.
The “Sec” part isn’t about security ( as in Security to keep you safe ) it’s more of a fictional rating, as another member pointed out in another thread.