Hm. Would you want safety to be an on-off-switch? Not me. All i’m saying is: let’s make it a bit more risky for the attackers and see how that turns out.
Why? What supports your claim that the system is currently balanced in favor of the ganker?
“Money isn’t the balance here, so let’s balance it on money instead”.
You know you can pay tags and isk to CONCORD and get the security status back up, do you.
Just to make this clear: i didn’t claim Eve mechanics being in favour of the ganker, but still propose adding more risk to ganking, addressing the balance in the act of piracy. Games are a lot, if not all, about balancing, MMOs even more. Maybe you and i have slightly different vews on the OP, which is fine.
1 Like
You got a point here, so maybe losing faction standing instead of security would be the way to go.
2 Likes
@CCP_Fozzie
Bottom line is if CCP really gave a damn about high sec gankers or greifers, then they would do away with it completely!
However CCP encourages it! Even at the cost of new and old players (sub accounts)! CCP is not the Eve communities friend or big brother, although a lot of you feel they are. CCP is a business! Interested only in revenue (profits/losses)… The almighty ISK is king.
I never supported gankers or the act of ganking… in High Sec, however in Low Sec or Null you’re fair game in my book regardless of what ship you’re flying.
The “problem” of ganking/greifing is a simple fix… Make High Sec a PvE environment, unless War Dec’d! Make all High Sec were a player is unable to lock another player’s ship, unless they are in the same fleet (for logistical purposes) or are a war target… Problem solved!
I’ve played the EvE for 12 years before I “WON”! If I pay for a game, that means I support it and the dev’s. I luv EvE the game and it’s community but can not support the dev’s until they support us the players!
NO Need to Reply I doubt I’ll read the EvE forums again anytime soon.
I do wonder if the CSM is still majority “Goons”… ( I’ve always had a problem with CCP allowing multiple CSMs from the same alliance/coalition )
1 Like
Except EVE, because it does not exist in EVE.
3 Likes
Why would CCP care about high sec gankers? It’s gameplay that is 100% within EVE canon - pirates are a fact of life in New Eden, and players are encouraged to take part in every possible career in the game.
Nowhere in EVE is safe. Stop trying to change the core tenets of the game due to your lack of understanding of what ‘security status’ means.
I think the problem here is that you’re assuming ‘high sec ganking’ is a problem. It isn’t.
High sec ganking is a style of gameplay, just like mining, exploration, fleet fights, building an empire, etc. Mining isn’t a problem either that needs to be solved. Mining itself may have problems that are being addressed (was too afk-friendly, too many minerals entering the game, etc), but mining per se isn’t a problem. Neither is high sec ganking on itself a problem and therefore doesn’t need a fix.
Maybe high sec ganking has some problems that could be fixed. For example, I would love to try some high sec ganking, but the requirement of multiboxing many many catalysts to get some killmails is putting me off. Could CCP do something about that?
1 Like
Just because it’s possible within game mechanics doesn’t mean it’s not a problem. All MMOs suffer some friction between these 2 groups: The “i just want to play with my friends” one, and the “i want to shoot at everything” one. The art of gamedesign is to get paid subscriptions from both sides. Good luck with that, CCP.
2 Likes
You can play with your friends, you can avoid ganks if you put some effort into it. You cannot, however, amass wealth without risk, because that would break the game. High security means that rules of engagement are stricter, not that you (should) have sanctuary.
But why do I think these words don’t matter ? Because of the zero-level of acceptance a certain risk averse play style has for an essential defining EvE feature, an obstinacy hell bent on using the “yes but the subscriptions” blackmail argument, and preferably in at least three threads at the same time.
May i point to the OP, which says “reduce highsec ganking”, not “get rid of it”? Yes really, i believe it would be in order to make ganking in highsec just a wee bit more riskier. For the attacker, that is.
1 Like
Just One More Nerf™
1 Like
That’s the problem with balancing. At least one guy will call it unfair and unjust nerfing.
1 Like
Hey stupid…
The low risk to ganking is…might be…
a single proc can mine 2.5 hours and then build 100 catalysts with materials collected…
add another hour…and the guy can arm the too!!
All at the low cost of approx 60,000 ISK per fully fitted ship…
the act of ganking is not the issue.
You in the habit of starting a post like a dick?
There is common manners, but it appears your parents never bet it into you.
Have no time for dicks like you that fail to have common manners.
Bye.
1 Like
True, but with the numbers we’ve already had who’s going to mind one more.
The ones I hate are the ones done in silence, no notes or mention, just done ninja style.
this has been the standard response from CCP in the past.
We know this doesn’t work, gankers just pull CONCORD forces to another site to reduce response time, and field more low cost fits to increase DPS.
The solution never worked, it was an lazy fix, and still is.
In the earlier days you had 2-4 faction police (per ship involved in gank) warp in and chase each ganker down, most gankers got killed, loosing ship and skillpoints (if not fully insured) and faction standing looses, a few lasted long enough to get past the station/gate lockdown times.
To be honest it was a pain in the rear-end, but was fun, not like the instant CONCORD death squad we have of today, that offer little to no role-playing feel to the game.
but CCP won’t do anything like what some have posted here, as they’ll only do what they’re told (threaten) by the power to be…
You seem to have confused Eve with some other game.