That Venture is mining ore, that will be converted into a destroyer or cruiser. If I shoot the Venture now…I am PvP destroying that destroyer or cruiser before it ever leaves dock.
4 Likes
Look its very simple
You either hate griefing (ganking) and thusly love Hilmar
or You are mentally distempered and hate Hilmar and are toxic
Thats really the bottom line. Its pretty obvious who needs what done to them.
A strong case has been made though that retention of new players should be CCPs number one priority, and the leading cause for their leaving being getting ganked in empty free ships. The bottom line is of course this financially hurts Hilmar, so basically if you like Hilmar, then you should be against griefing or ganking or whatever CCP/the mob are calling it today.
I would think the number one reason would be bordom or lack of a vision for their char, or anouyance on a patch removing their play style that they enjoyed. Or just the realization that the amount of real life time they need to invest into the game is much more than they are willing to invest.
The % of people leaving because of being ganked is probably 5% or something low.
Usually when I kill a new bro I send them more isk than their ship loss and their emails are usually WTF happened, a type of confusion or shock more than anything else.
Shock is an emotional state something that some people actually enjoy. Consider why people play horror games.
So I would argue that being ganked might influence more people to invest further into the game compared to the amount it chases away from it.
I dont have the figures, the person who made this connection does.
And CCP.
Im jut the messenger.
Can’t someone hate both at the same time? 
2 Likes
OMG! Fansy was such a legend from old school EQ PvP days. Fansy was a master of training. I had forgotten about Fansy. Fansy is a good example for this as well, because the EQ devs eventually came down against Fansy’s trains in EQ, unlike combat in high sec in EvE.
I think that would be paradoxical
What if someone considers him a griefer? Then it is the only way to go. 
Then they need to ban him.
But I think only PA has power at that level
Technically, the EQ devs caved to all the cries from the hard-core, ‘evil’, PvP-masters that Fansy was out-PvPing them and had to be stopped.
Much like all the hard-core, ‘bad-ass’ PvP-masters in EVE who cry every time someone figures out a way to not die to them and so they’ve successively bawled until they got better dessies, better ammo, nerfed stabilizers, nerfed ECM, nerfed resistances etc. etc.
Shooting someone’s spaceship, even in high-sec, is part of the game and not toxic behavior.
Which clearly does not preclude someone being toxic while shooting another player.
GO GO GOOD TEAM!
1 Like
You are right to ask the question, and I will read to you the first paragraph on page 45 of the French EvE Online user manual dating from 2003!
"Security Rating
Your security rating will influence the behavior of police officers (CONCORD) and player-controlled space stations. This is why it should be adapted to the career of your character. For example, if he is a smuggler, it is better to assign him a low security rating so that he can more easily establish contacts with pirates and cartels. On the other hand, if it is a carrier, it is better to have a high security rating in order to avoid being attacked by the police and thus avoid interruptions harmful to this profession.
Your security rating will decrease when you attack other players or the police, or when you are caught smuggling. It will increase over time or if you eliminate pirates."
And at that time, everything was working perfectly…
In this video, the speaker presents what are the risks for negative security ratings today:
Now let’s focus on the high-sec; what the wiki says:
"High Security systems are those with a security level of 0.5 to 1.0. CONCORD will react to hostile actions between pilots, with the response time ranging from almost instant in 1.0 space to up to 19 seconds in 0.5 space. Players also commonly use the terms High, High-sec, Highsec, Hi-sec, and Hisec.
In these systems, stargates may be patrolled by NPC CONCORD, customs, and/or faction navy ships, and stargates and stations will have sentry guns. Aggression (i.e. committing a Criminal-level offence) will provoke a response from CONCORD and any nearby sentry guns. Aggression resulting in the destruction of another player’s ship and/or pod will result in a loss of security status."
So far, everything seems ok; now let’s continue:
"The CONCORD response time depends on the displayed security status (not the real sec) of the system and the status of CONCORD presence in the system. It is possible that CONCORD has yet to spawn in the system, has already spawned elsewhere in the system , or is already present on grid.
The lock time of the CONCORD ships appears not to depend on the signature radius of the offender’s ship. The following list gives the time in seconds between the offending action and the first felt action of a CONCORD ship when CONCORD has just spawned in a system.
Security Status: Response Time
0.5: Roughly 19 seconds
0.6: Roughly 14 seconds
0.7: Roughly 10 seconds
0.8: Roughly 7 seconds
0.9 and 1.0: Roughly 6 seconds
When CONCORD is already on grid, the response time is severely reduced. The response time appears to drop between 2 seconds in 1.0 security to about 8 seconds in 0.6 and 9 seconds in 0.5.
When CONCORD has already spawned elsewhere in the system but is not yet on grid, the response time is significantly increased. In this case, it will take about 19 seconds for them to arrive and start firing in a 0.6 system, and 24 seconds in a 0.5 system.
If CONCORD has already spawned in the system and is not on grid, suicide gankers will have more time to apply damage. In these circumstances, it’s possible for a Minmatar Thrasher to do 3,000 EHP damage in a 0.6 system.
All methods of delaying CONCORD’s response are considered an exploit by CCP. However, the technique of “pulling”, which is the act of moving CONCORD from one location to another, is not considered a delay of CONCORD: Exploit Notification Delaying CONCORD Response"
After reading all this, the first person responsible for the exploit is therefore CCP! Why ?
Because CCP never takes into account the security rating of the victim in the calculation of the response time of CONCORD which is nothing but a fixed value as you can read above in the wiki, which is in itself a huge aberration making the high-sec completely useless for all victims with high security ratings, and this in view of the almost instantaneous reaction times in combat of the gankers.
It’s very simple, and this problem has been known for a long time but has never been corrected by CCP! Why ?
Because CCP’s entire IRL business model relies on destroying player assets; accounting explanations:
1- A destroyed player’s asset becomes a potential asset for CCP, but an immediate liability for the player who must start all over again (additional playing time necessary allowing the player to find this asset) or invest directly in PLEXs.
2- An asset kept in a hangar becomes an immediate asset for the player, but generates potential liabilities for CCP.
CCP functions in a way like a bank.
So. Try To Fly Safe Again. Or Not.
Ully Loom
3 Likes
I was all ready to argue and point out that pilot security status has nothing to do with hi/low/null sec in this context, but then I did something rare and finished reading.
I could get behind the idea that, at the least, CONCORD response times should be affected by the victim’s security status. Im sure not all real police respond equally quickly to issues in certain neighborhoods. (Some do, but definitely not all.)
1 Like
Thanks Ully for posting that detailed information.
@Codename_Razorback i just wanted to make sure you saw @Scipio_Artelius post about marauder losses to NPCs in hisec. You said you were waiting so I didn’t want you to keep waiting. I know you aren’t the kind of person to ignore information just because it’s not what you wanted so I assume you just missed it.
It was a pleasure.
I specify here, but I think that you understood it perfectly by reading me, I am very favorable to ganking, any form of piracy, whatever it is, being an integral part of the game, but on the one and only condition that CCP does not exploit the situation to his advantage!
However, as it stands, this is far from being the case, EvE Online having become totally unfair over the years! And that’s why I fully understand the reactions of ganker victims when reading all this. By taking into account the security rating of the victims in the calculation of CONCORD’s high-sec response times, CCP would thus take a big step forward towards fairness within EvE Online! Does this word, fairness, at least mean something to our Viking friends? But that would certainly not be enough, just a good start of a change of direction, and I have already explained elsewhere what needs to be very seriously considered by CCP in the future for the benefit of equity! I hope Hilmar thinks about it… But given how things are going in the video game and arts industry, CCP will have no choice but to take the plunge anyway; It’s a question of survival.
So. Try To Fly Safe Again. Or Not.
Ully Loom
1 Like
Even more to the point, highsec would not have different levelled security status ( 1.0 to 0.5 ) and different Concord response times if there was never any combat for Concord to respond to !
It would be an odd dynamic if this Concord response was set up solely for criminals coming in from lowsec. I mean, why have the slowest Concord response time at the very entry into highsec ? Clearly, the Concord response times are for crimes within highsec, and they equally clearly signify that some areas of highsec are ‘less safe’ than others.
So the very structure of security within highsec is designed around there being PvP and combat within it. There’d be no reason to have ‘less safe’ areas of highsec unless there was something to be less safe from !!
3 Likes
I liked it and I’m pretty sure I responded…but maybe not.
I’m not sure you should count Trigs and EDENCOM as I referenced it, but you are free to choose how you interpret things. That doesn’t necessarily make you wrong…or right.
1 Like
No. Way back in the day you weren’t allowed to one-shot someone in HS.
Yes, I tried.
I wonder if you could be more specific. Are you saying that back in the day one could not target other ships in high sec, or that back in the day even if you shot a target painted stationary corvette with a full rack of 1400mm cannons the ship always had 1 hull point left and then concord with plapb you, or something else?