But people do, not because of stupidity but convenience.
So run a handful and your in profit and no traveling time
And convenience is a costly mistake in Jita.
But then what are they doing mining in 0.6 security Isanamo, for example. Ganker paradise. Even as a 1 day old noob I knew that 0.6 was less safe than the 0.8, 0.9 systems one gets led to on the noob mining missions.
Anti-ganking will never be a “viable active playstyle” as long as there exists a mechanic though which gankers die to an NPC kill trigger within a few seconds of initiating an attack. Such a mechanic entirely removes player agency, and relegates anti-ganking to an activity for bottom-tier players who are unable to fight others without relying on an artificial handicap, and only engage in it because it allows them to grind out a high KDR on the kill board, which they can then brag about while pretending to be actual warriors.
4 Likes
I think ganking me coming out of a public station in a 0.9 high sec area isn’t the best for ganking pros. I didn’t even get beyond the undocking animation and even see space before a bunch of tornados tore me to shreds.
I’m not really complaining about the loss, I don’t even care anymore.
But…I should have the opportunity to see the fight.
Update - I just heard back from EVE support. I obviously can’t share the details but they agreed it was a reimbursable problem. THANK YOU EVE ONLINE SUPPORT!
That’s actually a good point. The question then becomes “how to create high security space”, without relying heavily on automatic npc responses (concord), without banning pvp from it, and without duping new players who don’t know what the risks of undocking are. Any ideas ?
Remove the kill trigger component from the equation. Make it possible to defeat the police forces that spawn. The better the ships being used, the higher the odds of defeating the police forces and/or being able to do it quicker. For example, if gankers just drop a bunch of Catalysts on something, they’d get jammed out and the target could escape. Send out a region-wide ping (just like if a null-sec bank gets attacked) so that everyone around (including possible AG forces) would know what’s happening, and where. Having a low security status would finally mean something, as gankers would effectively be required to use regular combat ships to survive, and other players would be able to hunt them proactively.
3 Likes
LOL you were flying a HVT my guy.
What did you think was gonna happen? Now imagine if you’d taken the 10 secs it would have taken to undock in a shuttle to check. You’d be almost 9 bil richer LOL.
You already know peeps would never ben down for this LOL.
That’s because they’re stupid, and don’t understand that this system would increase their survival chances because gankers would never be able to guarantee a gank like they do today, because what we have today is a simple, transaction-based, pay-per-kill system. In my system, when players would get attacked, they would have some time to work with to try to find an opening where they can warp out and escape, or actually fight back and kill their attackers if they put up some resistance while the cops are still alive, instead of getting burned down in 15 seconds without exception.
You know, it’s like that old saying goes: you can bring a horse to water, but you can’t make it not demand to speak to your manager.
1 Like
Oh I know.
Same way I really wish they’d make low sec much more profitable than high sec.
2 Likes
Hear hear!
1 Like
Thats not a fault of ganking but your computer and CCP code. I also lost a ship with 700mil cargo due to this issue when I used to multibox - it seems that when multiboxing sometimes after you undock you can end up with black screen. (But not neccessarily limited to multiboxing, I had long black screen when my computer was in heavy load due to multiple other apps like virtual linux machine and other game clients being open).
CCP claims it is not happening because they cannot reproduce it. Just as with dozen of other bug reports I filed on their support website despite including a screenshot where the bug can be seen…
And then someone claims their support is top notch and that we should not be complaining…
I hate to say it but the Merc Destiny is right but any changes should be slow to see how things pan out .
I just remember a time when you could tank nps and concord and try and get away and the funny thing was, we never had large gank groups, may be it was can flipping that was the ganking of it’s time and ccp ended that so the can flippers became the gankers so ccp upped concord to try and stop miner ganking.
Not sure if that’s exactly why we are here today but it needs changing so start small and fix wars and Concord
The state of ganking now is the direct result of the war dec nerf, combined with the state of low and the changing population of EVE.
If low was worth going to more and people less risk adverse, high sec ganking would dip as targets moved into different environments.
Hell even the mission agent change did things. SoE changed things.
3 Likes
Lowsec is often empty, because miners prefer to be in Highsec - if CCP buffed lowsec ores (and nerfed Highsec) I would spend more time in lowsec.
2 Likes
Yep. True story.
So , in conclusion , GANKING NEEDS A BIG NERF !
How so?
But thats one of the points, that being Security would be a role, and I dont see why the security wouldnt be rewarded for helping to fend off a gank.
Ironically, MoO caused CONCORD to be changed, by forming a large gank group and camping the routes to Yulai when it was the main trade hub.
A whole lot of changes came following that, but it was a big gank group that led to the game changes.
1 Like