Having ganks will induce players to survive and making paths that can create new possibilities and challenges to incur
Landmarks are needed, like Belle, Arnon, Jita, Hek, and Uedama, nullsec, lowsec. These are needed to make ample decisions to corporation and community resides there.
Advocating players to lend of gift ships the can help them survive in hostile areas
Helping them memorize the parts that made them ganked, and make new ship parts based on the previous ganking scenarios
Corporations will help them establish amends or help players.
Cons of ganking players:
If they even make a path that makes them ganked, theres 60 percent chance that they will not play, but less space for player scenario gameplay
Most of the ganked players are miners whom just mining in peace. Remember, miners are the backbone of the whole civilization
Topics such as kill board and gank landmarks are too much, even tho they’re not that spreading
Other problems are also pressed via new players such as progression, corporation taxes, which if you’re lucky, there’s only 3 to 5 percent, and also triglavians. Concord also revamped, still, ganked.
Readjusting situations, especially mission scenario grinding, which 30 percent of players do, mining, 40, and scanning, 10, pvp in remaining.
Suggestion:
Protection for mission grinding
Miners at least have buffs whenever they’re in lowsec of .4 to .3
Immunity of 2 secs once in warping mode
Requirement par for duel or ganking needs
Corporation emblem be displayed at top of the ship names in case you’re ganking something
Ganking immunity for 1 month old players
I’m having both sides, cause ganking can imprint players to survive from harsh environments, play better, and not sleeping while mining, or AFK, but also, not abusing it, especially if they’re new.
RGC’s whole post is full of low key tinfoil hattery about me somehow being a nefarious propaganda alt. That’s not worth responding to.
This is:
Firstly, Winston isn’t running for CSM so this pitch seems really strange. We’re evaluating on your own merit — or lack thereof. Who cares about Winston (we do care about TOS violations) — the more you make it about him, the bigger the
Secondly, no one shows up to the CSM to „strong arm“ their opponents that they have beef with. Goons in the CSM don’t use their time with CCP there to „dunk on“ Horde, etc. the fact that you have this mentality and have to present „the other side of the coin“ is a big You try to beat your opponents in-game fairly and the CSM makes sure CCP doesn’t ■■■■ up the game.
Finally, there’s nothing wrong with players who try to kill one another. They are perfectly capable of representing player interests. In fact, they are more capable than self proclaimed pacifists as this is a PvP game at its core (CCP‘s words in the New Player Q&A not mine). Most of the CSM is made up of killers and for good reason. I’ve been on the forums for years now and the overwhelming majority of people who think „people who PvP are The IRL Bad People“ are high sec carebears. It’s a toxic mentality and a
Three red flags should be enough for anyone to find a better candidate.
Hananeri Muvila was responsible for creating the fake HMA, and it’s likely that RGC Godfather was aware of this either before or after its creation. Let’s avoid using the third person for clarity.
RGC Godfather strongly dislikes ganking and had a close call when almost falling victim to an attempted gank by his former corpmates from SRED. Interestingly, it appears that RGC Godfather tends to face difficulties in garnering favor within the groups he becomes a part of over time.
Taking into account the (not so) unique situation where Hananeri Muvila and Chandra Babbage are the same person, I perceive the situation with a distinct angle. While instances of harassment and ganking are unfortunate, the complexities of EVE’s mechanics and player interactions play a significant role.
It’s noteworthy that, as the same person, you, Hananeri Muvila/Chandra Babbage, hold dual perspectives on this matter. On one hand, your intention to provide mining opportunities is admirable, yet it’s also worth noting that you’ve attempted to take over HMA fleets on multiple occasions. However, EVE’s universe involves diverse factions with varying strategies. Open fleets might unintentionally attract unwanted attention due to competing interests, rather than bullying.
Hananeri Muvila, protecting new players from ganking has its merits, but too much safeguarding could alter EVE’s challenging learning curve. Navigating risks is integral to the game’s essence.
For miners, a strategic suggestion is to encourage maintaining an orbit around their mining targets. This tactical approach alone can act as a deterrent for about 50% of gankers. They would need propulsion modules to reach miners or require extra time to calculate their entry. Enhancing this tactic, having auxiliary ships like Falcons, Rooks, or even Blackbirds present in the field could serve as effective countermeasures.
And if you are part of a fleet, you should consider adopting this strategy. Unfortunately, the issue lies in the fact that many opt to utilize all available mining ships in the area due to the need for ISK. This is the root of the problem, not the gankers themselves, but the lack of protection within fleets as they primarily focus on individual gains. Collaboration and safeguarding the group should be a priority.
Are you telling me you didn’t create the fake HMA? Clarifying this point will help shed light on the situation and ensure accurate information is being discussed.
I think we are starting to veer off-topic here. The efforts to disrupt HMA operations by establishing a fake “HMA” using in-game corporate structures to legitimize it is a terrible and likely TOS/EULA violating action. However, as there is no concrete proof of RGC Godfather’s involvement I don’t see any merit in discussing it as part of his bid for a spot on CSM 18. His platform alone offers more than enough evidence to suggest he is unqualified for this position. There is no use trying to manufacture other controversy.
+1. I would like to see the highsec islands ( and decrease the amount of total systems ) . I would also like to see the highsec islands surrounded by 0.4 systems and add a lot more 0.4’s in lowsec, but no cynos in 0.4 systems. I would love for 0.4 systems to be more directed towards good small gang fights. If there was a place in lowsec with less likelihood of getting blopped or dropped on as well as the return of highsec wars in some fashion I think a lot
of players I used to play with would return.
I don’t think that’s true. You might not like it, but I see no TOS/EULA violation, and if you really think that you should file a support ticket and wait for an official determination. I certainly don’t see any wrongdoing here, even though I agree that RGC is not a good candidate for CSM. Feel free to convince me otherwise. Regardless, instead of learning to play the game, he merely wants to make the game easier for himself. That’s a .
No matter if it is or isn’t, its off topic. I had nothing to do with it so it has no point in being mentioned in this thread. Any further comments about it will be reported as being off topic. From the looks of it the leader of the corp running the alliance is a Winston alt which solidifies my belief of it having been Winston the entire time anyway.
I will say, being associated with the false HMA is a bad look, however, it’s not a major issue at hand. I personally think that RGC is a great person, and a wonderful leader, but he lets his personal views on ganking come before the good of the player base. I think Cmdr. Spax would be a much better leader, but he sadly isn’t running afaik. I sadly haven’t really gotten a chance to look at some of the other candidates, but I have no doubt that they’re great.
It’s the busiest system in EVE it only makes sense for me to regularly post it in chat. Advertisement is important lol The only way it’ll get seen is if I regularly manually post it so the flood of random scams and nonsense doesn’t drown it out.
