The cost for (legally, ingame) multiboxing mining fleets is too low and it keeps prices down. All those who can afford running 10+ fleets of ice miners totally ruin it for the little guy. These big, almost untouchable fleets lower the income of all the small groups who want to mine ice for a living. CCP needs to step in and increase the cost of all those big groups played by one player! Why does no one think of the children???
5 Likes
Precisely.
“Cheap disposable gank fleets”
“Cheap disposable mining fleets”
Is there a real difference?
4 Likes
should not be allowed to dock in any NPC station in high sec. They can dock and use citadels instead just fine.
This would not work.
Gankers have alts to provide them the ships they need in space.
Orca, Bowhead both have a ship maintenance bay that allows a -10 to warp to a safe, then board in space just before the attack launches.
AFAIK gankers don’t need to dock while in a capsule. They can just
- stay still in a safe.
- Wait for some juicy target to come in.
- Warp to the bowhead.
- Board the required ship for the action.
- Warp to the bumper.
- Attack target.
- Warp to safe after CONCODE. response.
- [optional] Dock, fit a noobship
- [optional] Undock to pull CONCORD.
There is nothing you can do here because the gankers do not put anything expensive on the field. Their alts do.
So if you want to make ganking more challenging, you need to force the logistics alts to take a part in the action of the gankers. By logisitics, I mean the pilots that provide the ships ( ore industrials ) as well as the pilots who take and move the loot around ( looters ) . Or you can make the ss loss more meaningful, with easier to implement modifications.
Ore industrials
- fleeting with a <0 ss reduces your ss in HS
- interaction with a <0 ss reduces your ss linearly with the value of the items|isk moved. eg if an alt boards a cata from a bowhead, the bowhead pilot would have a ss loss 20times less than if he boarded a cane - considering the cane cost is 20 times more than the cata cost. Giving a cata to an alt and taking it back would result in twice the loss.
- negative ss alts can’t buy anything in the market in HS, they need to go LS (otherwise they can buypass the previous rule by placing a BO in the market for 1 isk)
Looters
- getting a suspect timer also grants you a “rooted” timer, that makes you basically scrambled for … 30s ? and unable to jump gates.
- the wreck that is destroyed by a ganker belongs to the victim. so looting it makes you suspect.
Gankers
- ss< 0 can’t board a ship in HS, they need to board in LS and use gates to get in.
- ss <-5 can’t board a ship in HS/LS, they need to board in null before coming in HS, using gates or jumps
The first set of rule would be accounted as an added cost for the transport pilot, in term of tags to add to a gank to restore ss.
The second one would be accounted as the cost to fly a second hauler, that would steal the wreck, and to gank it in order to own its wreck. However gankers could still be stolen the loot by having someone insta shoot the hauler (in eg another cane) - or use a fast expensive indus to get out.
The third one would add a tag price to each gank. If you do PVE you are allowed to suicide gank here and there. If you don’t, you have to pay the price in tags. Thought this can be accounted as additional isk cost, this additional cost would be reduced for casual gankers.
1 Like
I’ll tell you more, today’s multiboxing fleets are a bastard child of EVE’s community as a whole.
a) The players complained that pod losses made it too expensive to PvP in nullsec. CCP listened and removed clone states.
b) The players complained that it took too long to catch up with older players in terms of skills. CCP listened and added skill injectors (and made grand cash while at it).
The first change allowed multiboxers to lose pods by the hundreds (which is inevitable during a major op in a busy system), the second enabled them to maintain omega accounts for 200 mill apiece.
The most fun thing about this sandbox is that all the changes that casuals demand always manage to work both ways somehow.
2 Likes
HI Rivr, on the face of it your solution might seem reasonable to some of the more extreme opponents of Highsec ganking. However, your proposal has been submitted many times in sundry Forums and, so far, been totally ignored by CCP. I think Features and Ideas is the usual destination - if you are serious.
I allow though that you’re probably not really suggesting it here, rather ‘putting it out there’ in order to demonstrate what you believe to be a sure-fire way to hit Highsec ganking where it hurts, in the hope that someone will respond, giving you more oxygen for your apparently anti-EVE stance. Don’t jump; I mean by ‘anti-EVE’ that you wish to further dilute the effectiveness of non-consensual PvP in a game about - non-consensual PvP. As James says, ‘It’s not a feature of the game; it is the game!’
As I hinted to Fabulous, Fabulous Rod, if you make Highsec ganking not unprofitable (hint: it already is), but too unattractive, you will see it disappear from the game, along with its associated content-generating activities (-10s, as you know, are already kill-on-sight). Is that what you want, Rivr?
If you say ‘no’, I’d like you for the moment to try wearing 2 hats (not simultaneously, of course), those of the EVE Dev, and the Highsec ganker.
The EVE Dev wants to preserve the PvP flavour of non-consensual player interactions in Highsec. He doesn’t want to see the back of ganking, but does want gankers’ losses or punishments to be ‘meaningful’. But wait! He is also responsible for gankers having a reason to log in and (in the case of the Kusion family) to sub in juicy proliferation. He must therefore put himself not just in your shoes, but in mine, in order to get a balanced view. You could do the same.
Let’s just allow CCP to do the balancing job though, shall we?
You (and many others) have made your point.
We await CCP’s decision. Until then, we gank.
1 Like
Well, you can hardly call Role-Playing an excuse if
many CODE agents do not class themselves as such and have argued they are not on these forums.
Fun experiment- call code agent role-player- see what they say?
Probably, ‘Miner, calm down’ which to ME is larping, but for it to be an excuse they would have to come on the forums and say ‘it’s ok, we just roleplayers’ but you will notice this is not really their usual response.
Well, this is your opinion, one cannot argue with opinion, especially if it is only offered as such, and I thank you for not trying to justify it with a silly argument I would be obliged to counter, when there is coffee to be drunk.
I only ask you to consider this, your assertion of sadism and sociopathy, for it to be more than just sounds made due to the modulation of your voice box (or whatever specific physical systems are involved), would need evidence-
You would need to be convinced that space ship violence in an open world pvp and box was akin to actually hurting real people, and you would need to know these people and their motives intimately to be sure that there were no other affects ‘on the board’ beyond the ‘pain’ inflicted on the ‘victim’- and you cannot know this due to sandbox.
But I do understand we speak across a gulf, from which you cannot see that mining, hauling, trading etc are ALL PVP ACTIVITIES.
I see what you did there!
But really, running any large fleet on your own at be many things, but it is never easier than running one account alone.
It is however an indisputable fact attested to by many multi-box mining fleet operatives, that mining is the easiest activity to multi-box, that scales the best once one has multiple accounts, and that the ability to skill farm perpetually free or near zero cost omega accounts has benefitted miners the most.
2 Likes
Eve development cycle.
CCP make economy and seed with very little actual stuff.
Players break game.
CCP embrace emergent gameplay, but try to fix game to be balanced.
CCP then break game.
Players find way round this to fix game, but this breaks game or is seen to break game for others.
CCP fix game, but already game is so complex this breaks something else, so they also break game.
Players etc etc…
Everything has a price, playing in a single server that allows emergent gameplay and full PVP with a real economy has a price.
EDIT: I do not envy CCP
And that’s one way to avoid the 2 core questions 
You won’t believe how many times I’ve preached to small miners, urging them to unionize, take action and help bump/gank those hogs into oblivion. Needless to say, my words fell on deaf ears most of the time.
5 Likes
If you mean by the two core questions the clauses in the post where you quoted me (not sure if you were addressing me but it seemed to follow), that you completed with question marks,
then I would say
either
a) If I understand them correctly I had already answered them, in the post you quoted
or
b)They were rhetorical questions, you did not like my response, and were just putting them out there?
I do not understand this need to equate blowing up a space ship with sociopathy, but one thing I have learnt from these forums is that one can
say big words, and even ‘understand their definition’ in a literal sense
without being cognizant of their actual use and form as tropes in discourse- or the difference between
’playing a character who blows up space ships in a game’
and
’someone who does not feel empathy and who has anti-social tendencies in real life’.
Before one can say, these people are sociopaths, one must first decide whether the activity in question warrants the accusation, to merely label them as sociopaths ‘begs the question’ and is fallacious, if one wishes to argue the point, and have a discussion about it.
However if I take your use of the mark ‘sociopath’ to represent a statement of your values and how you FEEL about this activity, then I can only say, that is not how I feel, but we are not then having a discussion anymore,
You are saying red cars best,
I am saying blue cars best.
And that is about all.
PS. Did that guy from the leaving eve thread join Horde I advised him to do so. Hope you are still out killing evil goons grrrrrrrrrr gons
> 
??
1 Like
It would work perfectly. I am not aiming at the gankers themselves, I aim at the totally secure assets they hold in NPC stations. What you suggest is a workaround but I wonder how often you’d want to do that? Also, if you remained in space in your pod, I would also already have achieved something because now you cannot hide in a totally save NPC station for the duration of your criminal timer. This would give anti-ganking a chance to probe your pods, or your Bowhead, and wait for you. Tedious, but still possible gameplay. There are also no rookie ships in citadels, which means pulling concord off-grid becomes a tiny bit more costly because now you have to use shuttles or frigates. And if you know the citadels they use for safety of their bumpers or as docking station for their medical clones, you can just send wardecers after these corps. If medical clones die in a citadel, they would get auto assigned to the nearest low sec station. All in all more interaction, which is everything James wants.
@Sasha_Nemtsov My suggestion is not “anti-eve”. Quite the contrary, my suggestion is totally pro-EVE. It forces non-consensual PVPers out of their save harbors and forces them to PVP. The suggestion also does not prevent any form of ganking. You are kill on sight, but you are never in sight. You hide in your NPC stations all the time until a gank arrives, then travel to the gank, gank, die to concord and are back in your NPC station. There is no way to use your kill on sight status before a gank or while you travel (if you travel at all). You make PVP go away, not my suggestion. With my suggestion, the devs can even expand on the PVP nature of EVE because currently safely hidden away PVP assets become available to the failing wardec system, more people now hold the means to actually PVP/have people PVP on their behalf. Furthermore, attacking ganker assets is a reason to log in and cooperate, as well as defending your assets is also a reason to log in for the gankers. And you can still continue to gank.
And CCP balancing? That was a great joke. Instead of nerfing the T3C/D and helping the HAC/AF, they made some T3C worse, made the Loki OP, and T3D still overshadow AF. And all CCP has to say about this are vague hints for change maybe next year … after years and years of people telling CCP that things are wrong and data proving that things are wrong. There is no reason not to hammer CCP with change demands.
1 Like
Did you by chance ever probe a pod ? If yes, I would greatly appreciate if you shared your method. If no, I would like you to try to do it. Just undock an alt in pod and probe it.
or your Bowhead
600k ehp bowhead is not impressed by probes, as ganking it would require more firepower than it requires to take a freighter down.
I don’t regard myself as a role-player. I’m definitely a Highsec suicide-ganker, inextricably wedded to the ideas set out in James 315’s New Halaima Code of Conduct. In that, I am role-playing the part of a space pilot within a defined set of activities - as is everyone else who plays EVE Online.
That document was not primarily a template for the establishment of a role-playing initiative in Highsec but was, rather, an invitation to sympathetic individuals to change the very nature of the region by preventing the drip-drip dilution of its PvP flavour. That its outcome did nevertheless spawn some role-playing elements, is comparatively unimportant.
I know that others among my comrades do embrace the role-play opportunities offered by the initiative, but (and this has been pointed out before) the folks of Intergalactic Summit would throw up their collective hands in horror at the suggestion that the New Order of Highsec was - in their terms - a role-playing organisation within EVE.
The Code only came into existence because the GMs declined to allow James to operate his bumping campaign without its being in some way a business model. That he overcame this hurdle in such a frankly original and unassailable fashion is typical of the man.
After all, he is (and is likely to continue being) the Saviour of Highsec!
1 Like
It occurs to me that multibox fleets are the cleanest safest method of unionisation there might be.
If those people networked together though they could do powerful things.
Lets face it, they probably do and just arent daft enough to talk about it here.
2 Likes
6 Likes
Ganking the bowhead is not the point. Killing the pods on the Bowhead or the ships freshly entered is. Yes, you can do this on a structure while tethered, but then you risk revealing your structure to gank targets who are wealthy enough to send wardecers after it. You know, you risk something as opposed to nothing right now.
Furthermore, scanning down a pod is not as hard as you think. It took me 1 cycle at 0.5 on grid in a mediocre fitted Tengu, and I got a pod at 1AU range after 3 range reducing cycles. However, getting your pods scanned down isn’t even a necessary goal. Requiring you to move around in space and concentrating on your pods more instead of only your bumper is already an improvement and can open a window for the bumped to warp off. The point is to keep the gankers moving if they do not want to reveal their citadel, and provide more interaction potential. 
But the lore in the intergalactic summit is not THE lore, it is only part of it
after 14 years the players have made the lore
This is CCP’s position, and they market the game as such.
I wish the RP community (those who do sef identify as Role-Players and do *swoons) would better integrate the ‘game lore’ provided by CCP with the ‘game lore’ created by players, but only because they are better placed to do so than anyone else.
The Mittani for instance, clearly role-plays on occasion, revels in it, and awesome propaganda videos etc result, and the GOONS, like CODE are a fictional entity with a distinct presence in this universe.
Why wouldn’t the Amarian royal family have something to say about the activities of James315 or GSF?
What was ‘the mittani sends his regards’ if not RP?
EDIT: I find RP entertaining content and mean no insult to those who play in IS, I like to maintain an ironic distance from everything, probably as a defense mechanism as I understand irony, but often miss sarcasm, so it is not for me as a play style, but good on them for enjoying the game their way.
1 Like
You should ask the person yourself 
ps: I only read a total of 3/4 lines you wrote over there 
1 Like
What person should I ask?
Come on man you said I missed two core questions?
Do you mean the OP?
Do you mean @Piugattuk who I responded to?
I did answer his questions.
I am also vain, and get much pleasure from reading my own posts and I know the odd person does read them, there is no need to keep replying to my posts just to let me know you haven’t read them.
Perhaps you are not the intended audience, though I always welcome your contribution, one cannot write for everyone, but one must always write for and to an audience, even if that other is always more or less oneself.
TLDR:
You are a very oblique person you know! Anyone would think your goal was less understanding rather than more.
Now I am a sad panda.
2 Likes
One of the at-one-stroke flashes of brilliance from James was that in-game faction or other affiliation would never be relevant to our activities. Thus we have members from Goons, PH, and many of the other Nullsec entities, happily ganking side-by-side in Highsec, putting off their political differences in order to have fun. We have alts/mains all over the place.
I think it perfectly reasonable that we should be regarded as part of the wider lore of the game (it’s true anyway), for those who like that kind of stuff.
1 Like