Or they partnered with legitimate shippers to launder their goods - like, say, alts and friends who have good sec status. This is already happening.
You’re proposing a change that wouldn’t have an effect. Gankers already don’t take their outlaw accounts to dock in Jita 4-4 - they use alts for that.
and the point that they are doing many things to force PVE folks to PVP, so wouldn’t it be just as fair the other way around (hence sauce for the gander)?
and we do not ? try walking a few miles in our metaphorical boots and see how easy ganking is, it is not all presing F1 every so often like some would have you believe.
if miners have to take risks going into ‘dangerous places’, then why is it unreasonable to ask that ‘dangerous types’ face similar challenges going into ‘civilized’ areas?
This is already happening. You do not understand how gankers (which, again, is a tiny portion of the PvP community, so please stop tarring every PvPer with the same brush) operate, and are making assumptions that are plain wrong as to how adding additional security-status-related mechanics would impact these players.
Fair enough,
I’ll stop tarring with the same brush, the same time the ‘usual suspects’ stop tarring miners with the “BOT/AFK” brush…
I can’t address OP issues, nor disagree with his “truth,” because I’m not even exactly sure what he’s trying to say. This isn’t gramar Nazi ■■■■ -his post is borderline incomprehensible. And I may not have been delicate with his ego, but I was actually trying to give him advice on how to be persuasive.
And to OP, you did literally ask me to elaborate. I’m not sure why you’re now acting like I’m in the wrong for obliging. Seems like a bad faith argument to me.
Also, you might want to familiarize yourself with the actual mechanics of bad security status.
I’ll take “what is a market hauling alt like people have been using for 17 years”. Alex.
Sorry to disturb your fantasy you were enjoying, OP.
hmm if it looks like a bot and acts like a bot its probably a bot, only way to check is to pop it. if you are not sure then its probably a bot aspirant which is even worse and again best way to deal with it is to pop it.
so, when the ‘usual suspects’ bad mouth haulers and miners, and make negative comments about those character’s players, then it’s fair to point out when they state that they use the exact same mechanics, to apply the label back on them fairly?
You get that this statement makes no sense, right? “I’ll stop saying incorrect things when they stop saying incorrect things” is completely illogical. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
Now, again, to the actual idea: how would adding sec status impacts change anything? Is there a single new effort that gankers would have to make?
Docking access: gankers base out of player-owned structures, like upwells, so low sec status won’t make a difference there.
Market access: gankers already use dedicated traders and haulers that have neutral or positive security standings to buy ships/modules and stage them out of player-owned structures. They also build a lot of their own ships/modules - again, using player-owned structures.
Gate guns: gankers are already shoot on sight when entering high sec - outlaws are treated the same as enemies of the empire in this regard.
A gank character is a specialist, and a ganker won’t use their gank character for non-combat activities.
You’re assuming he actually understands the mechanics he mentioned.
so, you are saying you tell the ‘usual suspects’ it is wrong for them too, or is it more just hypocrisy?
This belongs in features and ideas where it can receive the ridicule it deserves.
Furthermore IIRC CCP have stated that restricting access to any part of the game due to security status is simply not on the agenda; it’s hardly an idea that hasn’t appeared regularly over the years.
I’m not talking to them, so what I say to them really doesn’t matter. I’m having a discussion with you. Or trying, anyway, since you are ignoring all the topic-relevant content.
Foruming in a few hours sleep is not a good idea, I’m not ignoring the topic-relevant content.
but when you have a group that says if -you- do X ist’s stupid/wrong/bad but if -I- do x, it’s playing the game as intended… posts like this expose the hypocrites for what they are.
Well, since I don’t call anyone a bot/RMTer/whatever, what other people do isn’t relevant to the discussion between you and I, is it?
I think your idea comes from a lack of understanding of how gankers operate; they already do a lot of work to be able to execute gank attacks successfully. It’s not high-visibility work, so it’s understandable that someone who is not involved in ganking would not be aware of this, and think that there are few repercussions for having a low security status. The reality, however, is that there are repercussions, and players who have gank characters already are working within the rules of the game to continue enjoying game content by using alt characters of their own, partnering with corp mates, and paying other players for services.
True, what they say isn’t relative to us discussing.
a lot is rankles about a lot of the Gankers going on about what brave skilled warriors they are, for picking on targets are are optimized for something else. there has been a lot of topic on general discussion about how miners/haulers/industrialists/ratters/mission runners should -have- to engage in PVP… so my post was showing how they react when the suggestion is made that the equation runs the other way.
Yeah, there are already plenty of negative repercussions for criminal activity. Now, you could argue that there should be stiffer penalties, but the truth of the matter is that the deck is already stacked against the scumbags. So, you’re not really arguing for better balance; you’re arguing for a carebear’s paradise -a place where you can do stupid ■■■■ and not get punished for it.
