Sure you have bro, sure you have 
Then drop the alt so we can confirm LOL.
And no, Brutha isn’t me LOL.
So why don’t they?
1 Like
I’m not basing wardecs off my experience as a member of Blackflag. I have experience doing solo and small group wars and know that content is out there if you poke around in the right systems.
What I’m doing is proving my reasoning. Pirat (the big scary guy) was then at risk of the entire game dog piling on us. Claims that our war hq would constantly be taken down and that wars were ■■■■■■. Instead we got a little pony show from the vocal whiners and nothing changed… they’re even still whining.
——
This is what I’m saying what would happen if citadels went suspect for tethering criminals. A few would get destroyed, but then it’d stop and the whining would continue after gankers adapted to make killing the citadel inconvenient or scary.
It’s not about being resistant to change or balance… it’s that it’ll never be enough until ganking is so hamstrung that it’s unrecognizable.
1 Like
The war dec example is not a good one, I told you that the decision to make RR a criminal offense and not make it possible for allies in wars to rep each other would kill the opportunities for such events. Because now, for those want to gang up to kill your war HQ, there is the hurdle of changing corps and alliances so you can be a proper fleet.
Perhaps if CCP adjusted the situation on the grid of a structure then we could see content. In any case CCP never think things like this through.
And I always thought that this change to RR was amusing because it was smaller war deccers saying how unfair it was for neutral RR.
And I have to say that your example is wrong headed in another way. I was told by many gankers that the bumping changes would end ganking, I said no it would not end ganking, well who was right about that? Me!
Moons were never limited, and I absolutely assure you that if some carebears had some towers up in those systems, they’d quickly get taken down by organized wardec groups (ganker mains) without any issues.
Ironically, you’re making a logical fallacy right now (the fallacy fallacy).
Nope. What you’re advocating for isn’t that, but being unable to dock in player stations in Angel space just because you have bad standings with Angels. You’re extrapolating the tethering argument to NPC stations (a separate consideration) without even realizing it.
The simple answer is that many game mechanics are created simply for the sake of maintaining gameplay “flow” and not because of role-playing reasons. Allowing various pirates to dock in stations in high-sec is necessary in order to keep game balance from being unreasonably restrictive toward any one side. If it was completely impossible for outlaws to find some kind of safe haven in high-sec, ganking would cease to exist because it would be impossible to field reasonably-sized ganking fleets to take on larger targets. Imagine needing to bring 40 pilots to a target system from low-sec to kill a freighter, and having to time everything down to the second, because it would be impossible to sit anywhere for even 5 seconds without NPC police forces starting to blow up the gank ships.
But I guess that’s actually the goal for players like you: to make ganking impossible. So let’s call a spade a spade, shall we?
You don’t go suspect for repairing suspects, you go criminal. So the other players wouldn’t be able to join the battle. This means that in every case, the citadel could be destroyed as long as the attacking force brings enough ships to tank it, which isn’t a whole lot.
Even if the entire corporation goes suspect, the attackers could selectively choose their targets one at a time, because the rest of the suspects wouldn’t be able to aggro until they themselves receive aggro.
It seems to me that you’re unaware how high-sec aggression rules work. Not an insult, but you really need to read up on that before proposing ideas.
Declaring war absolutely is an option. It’s no one’s fault but that of the AGs that they are incapable of fielding forces large enough to defend their war HQs. Big wardec groups weren’t just magically given those players by CCP; it was a community-organizing effort.
Like 95% of the game is basically carebear whiner gank victims. Maybe you people should actually try to organize them into a genuine fighting force? Just an idea.
No you don’t, because…
…You’re advocating for the same one-more-nerfism all the other carebears advocate for as they try to put the final nail in the coffin of EVE Online’s system of non-consensual PvP.
When I see a Dracvlad post…
…I usually just scroll ahead.
2 Likes
This is exactly my point. You will never do anything unless CCP has given you a mechanical advantage or if you have a larger group to spearhead your crusade. Until either of those happen you’re stuck in a whiners limbo.
This is the only thing you’ve been correct on. CCP is terrible with finesse. Thing is that RR for mutual wars is a double-edged sword. We would also use it and I’m assuming it would then be unfair.
1 Like
He doesn’t have me blocked…
Yet.
The amusing thing is that I have come to the conclusion which I have had now for several years that most gankers desperately want to hold on to their mechanic advantages and will whine incessantly to do that. Bumping was an example of that and I was so right.
It will end freighter ganking !!! Whine whine whine, and yet it did not, exactly as I said.
Let’s take another, Destiny (who has not blown up anything since 2014) and others will prattle on about consequences and the like and PvP being when you undock and yet will back up using mechanics to do things like safe loot scooping to avoid consequences.
Look at you all defending tethering, hilarious…
I am quite clear that I think that most Gankers are whiners and hypocrites.
Are you suggesting that I would do that? If so you are so damn wrong, you don’t remember me on the war dec discord opposing this change which the smaller war deccers wanted because it was too unfair.
Now now, let’s not falsely attribute arguments to people.
I’ve never said anything about “safe loot scooping” in my entire life, and believe that anyone who takes someone’s asset from space should be flagged, preferably to the owning corporation/alliance (as it would encourage more cooperative play), but the current system in which a suspect flag is given is also acceptable.
Yeah maybe. I don’t know who has towers there for what reason and which friends he has to generate conflict about these strategical moon positions. Maybe or maybe not you step on someones toes who also has a large force behind him. But as said, thats a minor disagreement here, I believe that forcefieldprotection like tethering in HighSec shouldn’t be granted to outlaws simply because it prevents the factionpolice from doing their job, which is killing any outlaw sitting in a ship on sight. Docking on stations already offers enough protection in my opinion.
I didn’t say criminals shouldn’t be able to dock, have I? They should dock whereever they want, but be instantly vulnerable once they enter space. Thats the price of being -10.
Thats your interpetation and yours alone.
If my scouts report a valuable freighter on the way from Amarr to Jita I wanted to gank with my 40 man fleet, I’d simply have one wormhole scanned on the route some systems in front of him, traveling there and hiding right behind the WH. From then everyhing goes as usual, once he enters the system, suicide tackle and bumper doing their jobs (maybe more than one if the warp is long), and in comes the catalyst fleet. Of course you could be disturbed in that wormhole, which is quite inconvenient. Which means you are whining.
Also again: I didn’t say criminals shouldn’t dock in HighSec, they should just not be protected in space.
You are right, I will read that again. Just to be clear: These suspect-ideas where not my initial thought, just a bit of mocking. The simplest solution (which is my standpoint on the topic) is: Citadels just don’t tether outlaws and suspects. Simple as that. Wouldn’t make “ganking impossible” in any way, just add more content through player interaction.
For sure not. I care for a balanced game. Tethereing is - in my opinion - an imbalance to that gameplay. Nothing more, nothing less, everything else can stay as it is, no problem with that. Please don’t make the mistake of considering me “Anti-Ganking”. I am a rather neutral observer, not caring much for either side. I just try to see both sides and while it is not that difficult to prevent ganks, it is a huge difficulty finding people willing to do so because there are no rewards in sight for these people spending their time repping freighters or instapopping destroyers to safe travelers. While the gankers get 3B loot on success, the Antigankers get (at most) some cheap catalyst loot or in case of repping someone even outhright nothing.
This is exactly the reason why gankers come out of every cave recently, its insanely lucrative and simple as **** on the same time. Basically every corp with 10 active players can start doing it very efficientrly in a moments notice. And many do. On the other hand Antiganking is extremely non-lucrative and non-rewarding but thats the thing with law-enforcement, it just costs money, it does not generate it.
But, thats why I have advocated in another topic for making the gankships more expensive and less efficient, it would shift the balance a bit because the gankers make less profit and the antigankers would get better loot from prevented ganks. At least T2-fitted Tornados/Talos tend to drop a LOT more than catas, right? But that was also way to inconvienient. As if it would be the end of ganking if the gankfleet to bring down a freighter or marauder would now cost 500m instead of 200m 
1 Like
Docking and tethering/being inside shields are effectively the same thing: being under the cover and protection of a structure.
Why would it matter to the police whether you’re inside a house, or sitting on its front porch?
Your solution is reliant on random chance, and not skill or preparation. If there’s no wormhole available at the time, then the ganking fleet is screwed. You would literally need to bring in a ganking fleet from low-sec (which might be many jumps away depending on the target system), time it perfectly, and if you don’t, you’d need to employ extremely intense repositioning tactics 100% of the time.
This is an example of unfair balance. It’s really no different from other outlandish carebear ideas to “balance” the “griefing” in this game, like automatically taking money out of gankers’ wallets and giving it to the victims (because if they want to gank so much, they shouldn’t have a problem paying for it, right?).
Well, I’m happy that we established that.
So propose ways to increase rewards for anti-gankers, instead of further ganking nerfs. Why aren’t you doing that? Surely you could come up with some kind of reward system for keeping criminals in check, possibly based on CONCORD LP, increased drops from ganker ship kills, a new bounty system, etc?
Why does your only solution involve making the act of ganking so difficult that it would effectively (and very much objectively) become nearly impossible? 
Nah, the real reason is that there’s nothing else to do in the game, and that the target saturation has become so ridiculously high that there’s non reason not to do it. Like ten years ago, I didn’t see even 5% of the amount of laden freighters and untanked haulers that ply the trade routes today.
Changing ganking requirements to Tier 3 BCs from destroyers wouldn’t increase costs from 200 million to 500 million, but more like 200 million to 2 billion.
Once again, your “solution” is intended to be a direct nerf to ganking (thereby decreasing the overall volume of ganking) without improving the gameplay itself. So when you say stuff like…
…I don’t believe it at all. Everything you’ve said and proposed so far would have a significant detrimental effect on the amount of ganking that goes on in the game. Your genuine intent is very easy to discern.
Its effect is not, as I have pointed out in my intial reply. Tethering enables the gankers to pre-align, preventing antigankers to put pressure on their shelter like they could do on NPC stations. Read it again in case you have forgotten it.
You want tethering because it is very convenient for your purpses. It combines the short warp of a strategically dropped citadel with the ability to align to any target’s position in the system without anyone can do anything about it.
Skilled gankers would not need that. Arguing that removing it would be a nerf that would so badly hindering your gameplay it is basically whining. Whining! Nothing else.
So untrue.
At first, the most ganks with such large fleets are done in Uedama/Sivala, some more in Odin/Ohide. Well last I have checked there is a System kalled Kubinen right next, where you could wait all day long and jump to BOTH target Systems as you like. Same for Odin/Ohide, stage in Kamela and you have pretty good access to a prime gankspot. But again: That would be sooo inconvenient, somebody could really disturb you so who dares to ask that you wait there. Heresy!
And there probably even more lowsec-accesspoints 1 or 2 jumps away from any major travel routes. Last but not least, the chances that there is not a single WH to hide in on an entire route bewetween the trade hubs are quite marginal. And even IF that is the case, you can time your fleets arrival pretty on spot with holding or not holding gatecloak on-route. It’s far from impossible, you know, Factionpolice does not shot at you while gagecloaked.
Stop whining. Even IF you couldn’t dock in HighSec, you could still happily gank there. You just don’t want it to be combined with any efforts and you feel entitled to gank anyone and anywhere as you like, whining in every topic where someone suggest to make it even demand a bit of skill and tactic. Seems to me that you are a lot bigger whiner than the carebears?
Such stuff is regulary abused by the gankers alts blowing up their own cheap ships if hte payouts exceed the ships value. On the other hand, if an antiganker just gets 1 million for blowing up a flashy catalyst, we are not talking about an “reward” at all.
Care to differentiate please. There are steps on that ladder, if you are a skilled ganker using math you will probably find the break even point of how many Cruisers, BC and Destroyers you have to combine for a successful gank of your target. It’s not like you have to use BCs entirely if you have still lots of fellas using destroyers. Nobody talked about bringing down Catalysts from 700 to 200 DPS, making them entirely useless.
And I believe you are a hardcore pro-ganker not willing to give any feet in this discussion, just wanting his current state of insanly cheap, easy and lucrative profession to go untouched. Therefore whining in every topic someone dares to speak against it. Everying you’ve said so far is protectionism for a broken status quo you profit from. Your genuine intent is very easy to discern. 
1 Like
It is good that someone else had a good long look at this and came to similar conclusions that I have. I actually believe that ganking is part of the game, and my focus has always been balance. I get told as you are now by gankers and their supporters that my comments on balance, especially those that would enable more AG play are really nerfs designed to end ganking when it is never that and so many people take what they say as fact.
I am really grateful that you stood up and said it as it is. You rock mate, simple as that.
Destiny and Drac Semi Perma Banned Blocked Ignored…
I lost an IQ point today reading this. Nowits down to 41
Nope.
You already have counter-play available in the form of removing the structure by force. What you’re doing is whining and nothing else, because you’re demanding a change to be given to you that would act as nothing but an artificial handicap to use against gankers.
You’re right, it would be inconvenient. This is an inconvenience that you need to justify beyond stamping your foot down and saying “ganking isn’t fair!”
Provide some evidence for how a change like this would be beneficial to the balance of the game as a whole, as opposed to something that makes you personally feel good as someone who finds the amount of ganking in the game to be “too much.”
Doesn’t matter, still random chance.
Your true colors are starting to show. For all of your claimed impartiality, you’re about this close to burning this alt.
I’m not even a ganker. The last time I did it was nearly a decade ago.
This isn’t a thing and you’re just making stuff up now. Even if 100% of ganker ship loot dropped, it would still be a net loss for the gankers.
Whatever you say, chief.
So not bothered…
Thats quite dumb. Shall I advertise for making freighters having +50 WarpcoreStrength because “you could bring a HIC”, this “already giving you a counter-gamplay” option? Sorry thats just stupid. Especially when - as explained - the gankers hide behind multiple layers of protection, from game mechanics to meta-protection from large ingame groups, making it virtually impossible for any smaller or newer entity to remove these citadels. You are not going to fool anyone, your intentions are clear and your arguments void.
I don’t need to do this at all. It’s the gankers who claim all day long that they just punish the lazy, the convenient and the greedy. I just point out that you are no better in any way. You want it convenient, lucrative and easy yourself. And cry if anyone wants to make it hard, demanding skill and effort. Pathetic.
So? Then there will be moments you have to use other options than a wormhole, I suggested some. Don’t be lazy, convenient and greedy!
Don’t know what you are talking about, but this is my main since 2009, not using any “Alts” here on the boards as far as I know. Also what do you mean with “burning”? What bad things shall happen? I just voice my opinon, like it or not. Nothing you can do against it at all.
It has been always a thing since EVE exists. If a system is abusable, it will be abused. So if CONCORD pays LP for outlaw ship destructions in HighSec the gankers will find a way to exchange these LP for Items more valuable than the ship lost, even if they have to manipulate the market for these items themselves. They will crunch all the numbers possibly making profit and once they found out, they will do it large scale, harvesting billions with their own alts.
Also, using your own words: “why should the empires care what eggers do?” - wasn’t that your stance? why should CONCORD pay then for outlaw kills? Also: wrong topic for this.
1 Like
Protection from game mechanics and protection from in-game groups are two entirely different things. The moment you start balancing game math based on how players have organized themselves socially, in order to address specific gameplay elements as they relate to specific groups, you’ve failed as a game developer to achieve balance.
The difference is that even today, ganking requires a significant effort on the part of gankers, while auto-piloting a hauler through the pipe or AFK-mining in an asteroid belt doesn’t.
All people desire convenience, and it’s entirely rational to do so, but at least gankers have a justification for the retention of what convenience they still have left, based on the overall difficulty of their activity in its current form.
There absolutely are ways to address self-farming a bounty system. Pegging payouts to the net loss values of ships and modules, on top of rebalancing the ships items in the game to make ships cheaper and modules more expensive, could create a system in which a bounty-hunting profession is very much viable.
Additionally, gankers are accustomed to a certain level of income, so paying AGs over destruction values but under ganker income values would be viable, as gankers wouldn’t switch their “profession” to boosting each other for ISK unless the income from doing so exceeds the income from ganking. We could totally have a system in which AGs make tens of millions of ISK every hour just from NPC income. It’s simply not a priority on CCP’s list because so few players are doing AG, and very few are asking them for changes like these, as opposed to low-hanging fruit changes like nerfing ganking into the ground.
Nah. Let’s evaluate what’s actually going on here:
You’re a proven anti-ganker who has desperately tried to convince readers of your “impartiality” multiple times already. You’ve been unable to present a valid argument for your desired changes to the game outside of saying that “since gankers think they’re so elite, they shouldn’t mind a few additional handicaps,” which actually isn’t a logical argument at all. When such flaws were pointed out to you, you accused me of “whining” or being a “whiner” multiple times (in fact nearly a dozen times in one of your posts).
Meanwhile, I’ve been accused of being a ganker, when I am not. In fact my biggest ganking loss approaches ten billion ISK. At the same time, I don’t constantly make claims about my impartiality, but allow others to make inferences from my posting how they see fit, and allow my words to speak for themselves. I openly admit to supporting ganking as an institution despite both not being a ganker, and in fact having quite a few reasons to be against ganking, considering my prior losses, and the potential interference by gankers in my activities. I also haven’t insulted you at any point in our conversation, like you have done to me.
Like I said, for all of your talk about being impartial, you’ve basically burned this alt. Try again in 2 months.
No, you are just weak.
I have not said such things. Strawman discussion already. As I pointed out in the initial reply, removing tethering would allow for more interactions between players. Antigankers could try to tackle Gankers at stations, these yould react with using insta-undocks, which the Antigankers could try to scan down and then again try to pressure with tackle. Gankers again could vary the spots they want to use and the warp-to-distances or even use neutral mwd-frigs as mobile warp-to. These again can be scanned out or followed closely by the Antigankers. All in all an interesting game over the vulnerability window from undocking to warp.
But it seems you entirely dislike player interaction, except the F1-interaction between the ganker and it’s victim, while he needs to enjoy full invulnerability to that point. Everything else would be much too inconvenient, of course. And I thought the carebears were the whiners…
Not going to respond to the rest, because we basically have reached the level of “mimimi”. Believe whatever you want, I find the current situation incredible imbalanced towards the gankers, with too little room for opposition. You might disagree, fine.
You know, repeating stupid things does actually not make them true, it makes you look even more stupid. Just saying, and no worries, this was free advice, no need to thank me.
1 Like