Welcome to Jester's Trek.
I'm your host, Jester. I've been an EVE Online player for about six years. One of my four mains is Ripard Teg, pictured at left. Sadly, I've succumbed to "bittervet" disease, but I'm wandering the New Eden landscape (and from time to time, the MMO landscape) in search of a cure.
You can follow along, if you want...

Tuesday, April 22, 2014

How do you stop

A reader challenged me to a really interesting mental exercise this week that I've decided to take up. It's going to get me yelled at and cause yet more misconceptions about me but hey, I can't seem to say "hello" this year without causing that. So what the hell, eh? "May as well be hung for a dragon as well as an egg," as the Westerosi saying goes. Here's the mental exercise:

What would it take to stop the depredations of James 315 and his ilk?

Before I begin, let me start by saying... again... that I support non-consensual PvP. I've been saying this on the blog for years, over and over and over again. Here are some relevant quotes from the links:
  • I absolutely believe that there should be non-consensual PvP in New Eden. I've said that many times. It's one of the things that makes EVE EVE.
  • I accept, embrace, and defend the gray areas of EVE, from scamming to non-consensual PvP to unequal warfare to corp names that some might find questionable.
  • ...[this] came up quite a lot during my CSM campaign, particularly when an incorrect belief that I'm opposed to non-consensual PvP was politicized...
  • For the record:
    • Do I think war in high-sec should be limited to suicide ganking?  Nope.
    • Do I think there should be a PvP-free zone in EVE Online?  Nope.
    • Do I think there should be any condition under which an EVE player can be in space and be completely safe?  Nope.
    • Do I think new or inexperienced players should be safe in low- or null-sec should they travel there?  Hell no!
So put down the shotgun, k? This is strictly a mental exercise. I was asked if I'd be interested in taking up this topic, and I decided I am. And hell, a good bit of non-consensual PvP is going to come up in my answer.

The topic came up because New Order Logistics and the CODEdot alliance (CODE hereafter) that it's part of have apparently started expanding their scope from "miner bumping" and miner ganking to hauler and freighter bumping and ganking. This makes a lot of sense: these are often juicier targets, certainly easier to gank in most cases, easier to find, more likely to result in a successful kill, probably more fun. Goons have elevated freighter bumping (to get them away from gate guns and instant CONCORD response) into an art form, often an entertaining art form. What's not to like?

And the questioner was curious where the trend would stop: is New Order going to go after high-sec PI next, for instance? High sec incursion ships? Missioners? Will the "code" expand to include all high-sec activities? And if so, how would high-sec dwellers fight back, even if they were inclined to?

If I can be permitted a very short "Jester Makes History Fun" tangent, the whole question kind of reminds me of submarine warfare in the Atlantic Ocean during both World Wars. The submarines had all of the advantages: their attacks were preemptive, most often against helpless targets, and nearly always without warning. They preferred undefended targets over defended ones, and most often avoided ships that could fight back in favor of those that couldn't. In high-sec, even if they wanted to, miners can't legally act preemptively.

In terms of looking at the various options I came up with, I'm going to grade each of them in terms of "viability", that is, the likelihood that the given approach is feasible and would be successful. And it's probably not going to surprise you that I rate most of the options I could think of as having a low viability or worse. Minerbumping has been running for a couple of years now. If they could have been stopped easily, they would have been stopped by now.

Finally, I'm going to look at every option I can think of even if the likelihood of them "working" is nil or I disagree with them philosophically. As I said, this is a thought experiment. So I warn you in advance: this is a frightfully long post.

Ready? Let's start with:

Declaring war. Viability: Low. Many of the personnel engaged in this activity have lumped themselves into a single alliance, CODE. It's possible to declare war on this alliance and in so doing, freely fire on their pilots. Minerbumping is a 100 billion ISK per year enterprise on average and its budget is growing. While this is pretty small potatoes by null-sec standards, anyone who would want to put a stop to them is likely going to have to commit equal ISK to the effort, plus the 75 million ISK/week fee to keep the war declaration active over a very long period. The organization that did this would need or would need to create a larger alliance than CODE has (the aggressor in any conflict needs to be bigger than the defender), be well organized with good time zone coverage since CODE is active from EUTZ to USTZ, and would need a ship replacement program since there would be zero ISK to be made in this effort.

A typical CODE Catalyst or Talos fleet would also have to be carefully managed since it's obviously capable of doing a lot of damage to an aggressor. Against the former, it only takes one or two losses in an attacking fleet to lose the ISK war pretty badly since Catalysts are cheap. Since both ships use very short range weapons and no prop mods, I'd probably go with Maledictions as my standard attack ships. They're crazy fast both at sub warp and warp, pretty easy to get into and to fly, do a ton of DPS at good range, kite well, and a flock of them would make mincemeat of a Catalyst gang twice its size. They'd also have a fairly easy time holding and whittling down a large Talos fleet.

That said, while ganking helpless targets is fun, chasing Catalysts and Taloses around high-sec probably would not be. Station games and neutral repping would come into play in a big way, and about a third of a given CODE gank fleet appears to be made of non-CODE members that could not be attacked without further expensive war-decs. It's a pretty good bet that a number of CODE members would just swap over to non-CODE alts to keep the ganks going. So a war declaration would be a long expensive slog with not much to show for it. This tactic would also be heavily reliant on a large number of PvP pilots, something Minerbumping's victims probably aren't going to have access to. That brings me to...

Hiring mercenaries. Viability: Very low. This approach has all the disadvantages of the first idea, plus an obviously even greater expense since the mercs must be paid, and paid well. The victory conditions would have to be very carefully set as well, since "destroy 5000 enemy Catalysts" or something like that would be pretty easy to fake.

Bounties and/or kill rights. Viability: very low to none. The typical CODE ship is a Catalyst with a very low value. Even if a kill right was successfully exercised against one, the response from the pilot would be "BFD." Likewise, putting bounties on a large number of CODE pilots might be satisfying from a stand-point of being notified every time they got killed by CONCORD and someone in a frigate shot them to get on the mail. But it certainly wouldn't do a thing to actually stop the attacks.

Counter suicide-ganking. Viability: low to moderate. Here's kind of an interesting notion: gank the gankers. The Catalysts being used by CODE are ridiculously thin. A fairly small group could declare a particularly good mining system a "Catalyst-free zone" and just suicide gank any Catalyst that warped to a belt or mining anomaly in that system. In particular, a relatively small group of Thrashers posted around a mining op and dedicated to the preemptive ganking of any arriving Catalyst could probably do a good job protecting that op.

This would get somewhat expensive in a hurry, particularly since it's 100% likely that CODE would quickly learn to hit such an op with unarmed decoy ships. It would also take a large number of participating pilots; as each pilot involved ganked a Catalyst, he would have to clear the area. The organization of such an effort would be somewhat complex because the counter-ganking pilots would also need to learn the skills to "pull CONCORD away" from the target belt. Keeping the security status of the Thrasher pilots high enough to operate in high-sec would also quickly become an expensive proposition. Amusingly and finally, there would also be a philosophical argument to be made about the justifiability of fighting fire with fire in this fashion.

Still, it's more viable than some of the other options, particularly if it's combined with war-decs. And if it could be expanded to additional systems by additional corps, over time it would damage Minerbumping's play style. Of course, it would come at the cost of having to explain to newbies why you're shooting at the Catalyst he's trying to use to belt rat in high-sec...

Defensive fleets. Viability: low to very low. I covered this one in depth last year. Even if a defense fleet does everything "right", the gankers are still going to win -- and win easily -- on an ISK efficiency ratio. And to make it work, you have to subject a significant number of your pilots to the most boring game-play in EVE: orbiting a mining fleet waiting for something that's probably never going to happen (because the gankers are going to look for easier targets). Finally, from a financial standpoint, this option cuts mining yield -- the whole point to mining in the first place, of course -- to its lowest ebb. And it doesn't stop Minerbumping's tactics overall in the slightest.

Defensive logistics fleets. Viability: low to moderate. Skiffs are getting a bit of an upgrade come summer and are already quite tough. Nothing is ungankable, of course, but you can make a Skiff gank a brutal slog. Add a logistics ship or two on stand-by and doing so becomes an almost ridiculously difficult proposition. It's also as close to a preemptive strategy as it's possible for a mining fleet in high-sec: the Scimitars and Basis and Scythes can have counter-cycled reps and rep drones pointed at the Skiffs so that once the Catalysts start firing, the damage gets repped up immediately. From time to time, you might get your Skiff ganked by a group of Taloses anyway "just to make a point" but it's going to be fantastically expensive for the gankers.

From a success/failure stand-point on an individual gank basis, this tactic is probably the one most likely to succeed. That said, it also has either the biggest boredom factor or the biggest botting factor of any of these options. At least a defensive fleet doing it "right" is going to have rats to shoot at from time to time. A defensive logistics fleet is literally going to have nothing to do except orbit and rep, rep and orbit. Even if players do this with alts, this is cutting their potential mining yield by a third. Or a quarter. And like defensive fleets in general, this tactic is not going to stop the Minerbumping depredations unless this tactic were performed en masse.

Finally, of course, if this kind of tactic started to be used in any kind of numbers, the gankers could just switch to killing the logistics platforms with more or less equal benefit to them of killing the ships being repaired.

Lobby CCP to put a stop to suicide ganking. Viability: none. CCP sees suicide ganking as part of the DNA of EVE Online. They're never going to make any change to remove it no matter how many players beg them to.

Lobby CCP to somehow criminalize bumping. Viability: none to very low. This one's a bit trickier. CCP has never come up with a definition of "harassment" as it applies to an individual ship in space, preferring a Potter Stewart test applied by individual GMs. Still, the action of spending many minutes bumping a potential suicide gank target, particularly when that action is combined with a suicide noob ships aggressing the target could potentially become a sore point. If enough players made enough of a stink about this particular action, CCP might choose to do something about it.

But it would take hundreds of individual players raising the issue and turning it into a threadnaught for anything to happen. And it would only stop a fraction of Minerbumping's tactics. As a side "benefit", though, it would make freighter and jump freighter ganks during Burn Jita somewhat more difficult and costly. Still, I can't see this one getting any traction.

Lobby CCP to give high-sec players more preemptive options. Viability: low to very low. I've always thought it would be kind of interesting if there was a way for players to "stake a claim" on high-sec minerals for brief periods. And with the advent of player anchorable structures, the code now presumably exists that could make such a thing at least possible. Assume you had a "mining claim" anchorable, and while it was anchored, the zone around the anchorable became a free PvP zone, even in high-sec. I could see that creating some interesting emergent game-play. The code would have to be carefully written such that such an anchorable only worked within some number of kilometers of a minable asteroid, though, or the abuse potential would be enormous.

But giving high-sec players preemptive options would definitely put a crimp in the Minerbumping play style. Or it might put a really useful tool in their toolbox since they could anchor this structure next to an AFK miner and use it to freely blow him away without CONCORD intervention. Other options to give high-sec players preemptive capabilities would likely have similar downsides. So something like this is interesting but I could see this kind of knife cutting in both directions.

Encourage miners to use smart fits. Viability: low. Of course, you could put ganking mining ships 80% or more out of business if most or all mining ships were fit properly. This particularly applies if high-sec miners stuck to Skiffs for most or all of their operation. Skiffs aren't ungankable, of course, but it often takes a prohibitively large number of ships to do it and in the long term, trying to gank an endless stream of Skiffs is probably a non-starter from a cost/budget stand-point.

Still, this option's viability is low for a couple of reasons: EVE players being dumb about ship-fitting is sort of one of the bedrock principles that the game is based on. And of course, not every miner can fly a Skiff. CODE gets a lot of their kills from players who can't fly anything better than a Retriever.

Attack CODE from within. Viability: low to moderate. This is another one that would be philosophically interesting: could a high-sec miner put on a good enough front to be accepted into a CODE corporation, and from there, take actions that would be sufficient to put them out of business? From a long-term viability stand-point of actually attacking the target, this one has the greatest chance of success. The end goal of this operation would be to be put into a place where one could access part or all of the Minerbumping budget. I suspect that would be a long term project and in the meantime, such a person would have to prove their loyalty by destroying dozens if not hundreds of mining ships, haulers, and freighters.

And in the process, who knows, such a person might even come to like it.

So this tactic would require iron discipline, a very long-term commitment, not an insignificant amount of luck, and the internal structure of the alliance itself and Minerbumping generally would have to be open to this kind of attack. That's a lot of ifs. I'm not going to say it's impossible, though.

Various low-end meta-game attacks. Viability: very low. This one is similar to the above, attacking CODE from within, but at a lower level. Under this heading falls various spying and awoxing tactics. In particular, keeping an ear on CODE comms and warning mining fleets of incoming suicide ganks would be an example of this sort of tactic. This sort of thing would be entertaining but I suspect such a spy would be found in pretty short order.

Also under this heading are various corp v. corp awoxing attacks. A particularly entertaining option would be to include a ECM Burst module on your Catalyst fit to break some of the fleet's target locks before a particularly juicy attack. Such tactics wouldn't work more than once or twice, of course, and their chances of disrupting Minerbumping long-term is very low.

Rally other EVE players into a combination of all of these tactics together. Viability: low to very low. Most EVE players are much more interested in activities that are fun and driven by profit than making any sort of political statement. Furthermore, enough players will sympathize with the gankers to disrupt such efforts.

Rally other EVE players into a short-term "event" to disrupt Minerbumping. Viability: low to very low. On the other hand, making an "event" out of it could be done relatively inexpensively. Something like "For one week only, 5 million ISK to every person who ganks an armed CODE Catalyst! One pay-out per character, characters must be 30 days or older to participate." would certainly be exploited by CODE members themselves. But enough other players would also come out of the woodwork to participate and make that week rather harrowing for CODE members. Of course, this would require a fair budget to implement, but probably wouldn't be too expensive, maybe five or ten billion ISK in total. And there's a possibility to drive sponsorship of such an event to help pay for it.

This would be an entertaining event, would drive visibility to the issue, and get people talking about why it was done. But its likelihood of disrupting Minerbumping's operations long-term is quite low.

Various high end meta-game attacks. Viability: very low. Not going to go into details on this one. Those of you who understand what I'm getting at will understand what I'm getting at. And I certainly don't condone these sorts of tactics. Particularly since such things would likely be against the EVE TOS... and I judge their likelihood of working to be very low.

...aaaand that's all I can think of. Again, you'll note that as possibilities for causing long-term impact to Minerbumping's activities, virtually all of them have little chance of success. But I was asked to think about this as a mental exercise and finding it interesting, I have done so. Did I miss anything?

185 comments:

  1. Can't wait Dindsdale comment.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why bother?

      According to the dev's, the CSM, and the cartel propagandists, high sec is still far far far safer than anywhere else in the game, based on their risk / reward crucible they are using to hammer high sec income.

      So to acknowledge that griefers like this scum are a problem is to acknowledge that high sec is not as safe as the vested interests make it out be, which invalidates their entire premise for destroying high sec.

      CCP will do nothing about this group, nor goons with their ingame attacks on high sec. They will not even acknowledge they impact on high sec gameplay at all.

      The only way CCP will ever do anything about them is when the subscription rate gets hit, and hit hard.

      Delete
    2. What's your opinion on cloak mecanism? Like the ability for 1 player to cloak in system and go afk, we gonna suppose that say player have a killboard history of hotdrop. Do you think ccp should change that too?

      Delete
    3. Dinsdale, some questions if I may.

      1) do you accept that CCP are within their right to determine what levels of income they feel is necessary for the health of the game.
      2) do you accept that CCP can modify the tools they provide players within the sandbox as they please in order to nudge the game in the direction that their vision mandates?
      3) do you accept that it is good business practice to look after the majority of your subscriber base (in terms of actual people, not pilots) - and that failure to do that would fall foul of investors?
      4) do you accept that CCP have the most accurate data on where their players enjoy playing, and that this data is most likely the source of competative advantage and thus isn't mad public?

      Because if you accept those premises, you have to accept that a) the majority of people who play the game do most of their playing outside of highsec irrespective of the number of alts they have in highsec and b) that they are not (and cannot) act for the "cartels" because if doing so contradicted a) in any way, they would go out of business.

      The fact of the matter is that if you apply any reasoned assessment to the situation then you have to conclude that CCP are acting with the information they have at hand in the best long term interest of their investors. Your entire cartel argument requires, like most conspiracy theories, for you to make huge concessions on reasoned argument to the point where your entire argument starts to sound silly to everyone.

      Delete
  2. New Order gankers typically operate with a -10 security status. That means anyone is free to shoot them without killrights or a wardec. Plus I don't think they have any logistics people in the alliance.

    So I don't see a wardec or killrights as doing anything.

    As for the bumping is harassment angle, James 315 has claimed that he only implemented the permit fee because CCP told him that bumping without the ISK gain is harassment, bumping for profit is allowed gameplay.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 315 has more spin than a wall of clothes dryers in a coin laundrymat. the Goons have played this jokes for years. it even came up during mittansgate.

      Delete
  3. "Before I begin, let me start by saying... again... that I support non-consensual PvP. I've been saying this on the blog for years, over and over and over again."

    Generally, in life, if anyone ever feels the needs to say "I support X, I've been saying I support X for years, over and over and over again"; that's a pretty good sign that this person doesn't actually support X. This is true in all areas of life.

    However, in this case I think Jester actually does support 'Nonconsensual PVP', he just doesn't support as broad an interpretation of the term as many others do. In this case, since Jester seems to be supporting changes to the game, it would make more sense for him to come up with new terminology, than to place that responsibility on those who don't want any changes at all, but that's not really a point worth defending. In the end, if people want to have a productive discussion about this, both sides are going to need to define their positions more clearly.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I brought it up because if I hadn't brought it up, someone would have said this exact thing.

      You're the first person I've ever seen that's acknowledged he's attacking a strawman while he attacks a strawman, though. My compliments on your innovative tactic.

      Delete
    2. Concrete example: In WoW, even on a PVE server, some 'nonconsensual PVP' is allowed; while in EVE, even in nullsec, some 'nonconsensual PVP' is not allowed. E.g. In WoW, someone might do a BG or a flagging quest, then try to do something else while waiting for their flag to expire. Someone can swoop in and gank them in that five minute period; this is nonconsensual PVP. (Clarification: someone will say "but you consented to this when you started playing the game". Yes, you consented to the possibility of being subjected to nonconsensual PVP. So, you could call this 'consensual nonconsensual PVP'...you start to see why we need clearer terminology here) Second E.g.: In eve, there is imaginable PVP which isn't allowed under the game rules. When you capture an outpost in sov null, you can't steal everything out of the hangars, and to prevent the former owners from ever getting their items back, you have to not just keep control of the outpost, but keep it 'deadzoned' with a bunch of rigamorale and a deadzoning alliance. If you were able to just yoink all the items the former owners had in their hangars, that would be another avenue of nonconsensual PVP. Similarly, ganking people sitting in station somehow would be another way of engaging in nonconsensual PVP that the current game rules do not allow. Because of this variation, two people can both be for "nonconsensual PVP", but to different degrees, and speaking of the issue as if it were simple and binary is inaccurate.

      Delete
    3. "You're the first person I've ever seen that's acknowledged he's attacking a strawman while he attacks a strawman, though. My compliments on your innovative tactic."

      I don't think I'm attacking a strawman; I think I'm pointing out that taking a goat, a chicken, a sheep, and a duck and dressing them all up like strawmen, doesn't mean that they aren't still a goat, a chicken, a sheep, and a duck, and that perhaps we should stop dressing them all up like the strawman from the Wizard of Oz and pretending that they need fake brains made of bran and needles instead of the food that each respective animal eats.

      Delete
    4. Your little story about "generally in life:" falls apart when one realizes, that this shit can be looked up and was linked.

      The point in putting this much emphasis on it is because people wouldve (and surely will regardless) come out and claimed he is painting it in a bad light because he doesnt like non consensual pvp...like you do^^

      And you should leanr to read more careful...he isnt supporting changes or is shifitng a burden...he is simply looking at how one could work against James CODE if one wanted to and which tools might be an option.

      This neither implies he wants tose action taken, nor the opposite...frankly its not even part of the discussion what he wants, its simply a review of the tools available.

      But meh, we both know your post wasnt because of a misunderstanding. nut because you willfully misrepresent his statements for why-should-i-care of reasons^^

      Delete
    5. @Anon: "when one realizes, that this shit can be looked up and was linked"

      Yes, and if you look up those links, you'll find a bunch of situations where: "he isnt supporting changes or is shifitng a burden" is not true.

      Perhaps you should "leanr[sic] to read more careful[sic]."

      Delete
    6. p.s. Let's assume that we're considering some Argument X. Argument X is widely considered to be the best argument anyone has ever seen. Any response that dismisses argument X out of hand will clearly be a fallacy, the only question is which. Now let us consider the situation where someone responds to Argument X with this gem:

      ""You're the first person I've ever seen that's acknowledged he's attacking a strawman while he attacks a strawman, though. My compliments on your innovative tactic.""

      Which fallacy would this fall under? Well, it doesn't mention anything specific about argument X, so that one could copy-paste it as a response to any argument one pleases, yet it claims argument X is a fallacy. We therefore know it is false, as it thusly generates an infinite pile of absurdities, which is equivalent to a contradiction, but still, which fallacy does it fall under? Ironically, I would call it a strawman, a strawman of a strawman, which consists of nothing more than an unsupported strawman accusation. How quixotic.

      Delete
    7. Let's apply Rammstein's "logic" to oooh I don't know... someone like James 315.

      Rammsteins hilariously terrible nonsense is this: If someone constantly states their position on something and doesn't change it, they actually support the opposite of what they are saying.

      So when applied to James 315 it means:

      James 315 is running an elaborate scam to rake in ISK from codedot donations.

      James 315 wants high-sec to be full of AFK mining bots - yep, this is what Rammstein actually believes if he is consistent with his "logic".

      James 315 wants for highsec to be the most profitable area in EvE by far and it should have zero risk. Yes really, this is what Rammstein must believe if he is true to his word and his own "logic".

      Obviously I could go on with many more examples of why Rammstein is possibly the most ridiculously idiotic commenter to have ever graced EvE forums, but I think most people will have seen this by now. When Rammstein makes Dinsdale look like a calm, rational and logical commenter, you know you've just witnessed a whole new level of idiocy never seen before on any EvE forum.

      Delete
    8. "Rammsteins hilariously terrible nonsense is this: If someone constantly states their position on something and doesn't change it, they actually support the opposite of what they are saying."

      Nope, that's not precisely what I said. Let's imagine, for the sake of argument, that I had said what you think I said:

      "James 315 is running an elaborate scam to rake in ISK from codedot donations."

      If it's a scam, it's not all that elaborate, eh? He asks for the money and they send it to him; and he writes a blog he may well have written anyway.

      "James 315 wants high-sec to be full of AFK mining bots"

      If it's a scam, then yes, that would increase his take.

      "[He gets more and more worked up with various troll comments]"

      Boring, the part where you accuse James of scamming was much more interesting.

      Here's the thing, Jamie...the statement you are so angry about, is not something I came up with on my own. Many men much wiser than myself have said similar things, Shakespeare, Montaigne, too many to remember them all, really. Feel free to write another thousand words of barely literate insults directed my way; I'll continue to stand with Shakespeare over some anonymous troll.

      Delete
    9. I kinda regret prefacing my comment with that observation, not because it's not true, but because it's a side point and everyone is responding to it instead of my main point. I'm going to illustrate it more since it seems to be confusing a lot of people. It's not about constantly professing any point, it's more specifically about constantly responding to accusations with denials. Look at steroids in baseball, or cycling, over the past decade. Those people who felt it necessary to respond to accusations with denials over many years, quite often were eventually proved to have broken the rules. Therefore, repeated denials over years are statistically correlated with the denials being untrue. Another way to say it is "where there's smoke, there's often fire." It's not any kind of deductive logic, it's merely an observation, made over time, about probabilities, which is obviously true, and which my argument turned away from 180 degrees, if one bothered to read on. Another observation, made over time, is that a large plurality of posters only responds to the first paragraph of any multi-paragraph post. :)

      Here's an amusing quote about dishonesty and observed probabilities: "“Moreover, grandmothers of students who aren't doing so well in class are at even higher risk - students who are failing are fifty times more likely to lose a grandmother compared with non-failing students. In a paper exploring this sad connection, Adam speculates that the phenomenon is due to intrafamilial dynamics, which is to say, students' grandmothers care so much about their grandchildren that they worry themselves to death over the outcome of exams.”
      ― Dan Ariely, The Honest Truth About Dishonesty: How We Lie to Everyone--Especially Ourselves"

      Those poor grandmothers.

      Delete
    10. tl;dr: If you plot all baseball players over the past decade, on a graph where the x-axis is 'how many times they denied taking steroids', and the y-axis is 'chance that they actually did steroids', the graph will have an upward slope, that is to say, the more often they denied taking steroids, the more likely it is that they actually took steroids and eventually were proved guilty of it. This is a true fact; and it is amusing. The fact that Jester defends himself by saying, paraphrasing, 'but look, I've denied it many times', combined with this fact about denials, is also funny. That's all that opening paragraph was, an amusing and true observation. It applies equally well to James315, that is very true.

      Delete
    11. Awww Rammstein, did I upset you when I squashed your argument by using your own logic?

      You continually show that rudimentary fact checking and honesty do not sit well with you. With each reply you make up additional lies. Let's take yet more examples from your consistent lying...

      "the part where you accuse James of scamming"

      No silly, YOUR logic says that YOU believe that. James has denied that it's a scam so you naturally must believe it to be a scam. This concept is the basis of your whole argument and attack against Jester, remember Rammstein? It's at the top of this thread in case you feel like denying it.

      "Feel free to write another thousand words of barely literate insults"

      You believe I wrote "a thousand words". Unfortunately the five year old sitting next to me counted them at just less than 200. I double checked and she is correct, it does come in at less than 200 words. You are off by more than a factor of 5 where a child is spot on.

      And there was I thinking you couldn't sound any more foolish than you already do!

      Rammstein, pointing your anger at others because of your own inability & foolishness is anger that is misdirected. Focus on yourself and why you feel the need to make up such ridiculous, idiotic, childish and easily disprovable nonsense. That is the root cause of your anger, not those who disprove your lies with such ease.

      Delete
    12. "No silly, YOUR logic says that YOU believe that. James has denied that it's a scam so you naturally must believe it to be a scam."

      No, that's not what I said--and, what I actually said was intended as a funny aside, not as my main point.

      " Unfortunately the five year old sitting next to me counted them at just less than 200."

      But you haven't stopped yet, have you? I have faith that you can make it.

      "Rammstein, pointing your anger at others because of your own inability & foolishness is anger that is misdirected."

      One of us sounds angry, I can agree with that.

      Delete
  4. You missed one: "Find CODE members another lobby".

    Lets say that you make them all love awoking incursion runners, or destructive trade that negates profits for everyone, reducing margins to zero, or moon siphoning, high-sec POCO monopoly w\ 95% taxes...

    That would be a good way to stop CODE as it currently exists ^^

    ReplyDelete
  5. Ideas:

    * Increase expense of Catalysts and Taloses, or reduce their overall DPS an appropriate amount.

    * Buff EHP of soft targets markedly, to reduce profit margins for ganking; reduce barges' DPS, capacitor and shield recharge appropriately so that they have a large buffer tank, but otherwise have no combat utility and will die given enough time.

    * Significantly increase the sec status penalty for HS ganking, so that gankers need to cycle through tags or lowsec PvE more frequently. This increases the burden the ganker takes on.

    Basically, the idea is this: raise the threshold at which it is profitable to gank targets. Otherwise, given enough time, CODE and those like them -will- gank high-sec PvE into non-existence. As much as I think getting stuck in PvE is a good way to get bored of EVE, and extremely stupid people deserve it, right now the threshold is way too low.

    I mean, consider; if people were mugging anyone they could on a given street corner (Uedama Avenue), wouldn't there be some sort of lasting response? Wouldn't people who engage in frequent mugging be thrown into jail, which EVE-wise is the equivalent of being stuck in lowsec...?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. With regards to the security status, it seems like there could be a way to implement security status changes that are scaled on the difference between the aggressor and aggressee. Akin to a moral code that punishes attacking farmers more severely than horse thieves.

      Delete
    2. In theory EVE is already structured this way? But the difference seems minor, and it modifies a seemingly negligible sec status penalty regardless.

      But yes, I think this is fair.

      Delete
    3. Professional gankers operate at -10 already anyway; it doesn't confine them to lowsec at all.

      You cannot practically increase the cost of Cats/Taloses to make ganking unprofitable without making them useless for everything else, and even if you did, gankers would just shift to Cormorants/Nagas or Thrashers/Tornados.

      Barges already got a massive EHP buff. In practice Procurers and Skiffs are now ungankable even when utterly fail-fit, and Orcas and Retrievers are impractical to gank when decently tanked. CODE. might take them down here and there to make a point, but the effort and opportunity cost usually isn't worth it. Not to mention all the other tools available to miners to avoid gankers. At this stage buffing barge EHP woudl just be rewarding bad players for being bad (and make the Proc/Skiff useless in the bargain).

      Delete
  6. James and the entire Minerbumping community are blowhards. They are the exact core of the toxicity that is plaguing EVE.

    The best cure for it is just to make james and anyone else associated with them persona non grata.

    In other words, ignore them and give them the exact amount of credibility that they deserve - none - and they will vanish.

    Note that they could never do this in null, and they generally refuse to pick on a group that can fight back or defend its space.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "In other words, ignore them and give them the exact amount of credibility that they deserve - none - and they will vanish."

      How's the sticking your head in the sand tactic working out for you so far?

      Delete
    2. I would like to direct your attention to this particular article Myxx:

      http://www.minerbumping.com/2014/04/challenge-accepted.html

      I think you'll find that the members of minerbumping would gladly fight a war.

      Delete
    3. The problem here strikes me as being that when someone says, "Pick on someone your own size," the response is frequently, "OK. Are you my size?" Then, when it turns out the person complaining is a soft target, much chestbeating ensues. Do you think CODE. would have decced, say EVE Uni if someone from there had called them out? What about RvB?

      The fact of the matter is that there are enough soft targets in EVE that they can ignore the hard targets pretty much forever. (Which, to be fair, basically means that switching to a Procurer makes you unlikely to be a target for anything but bumping.) I do wonder if anyone has tried to yield-tank their ship, figuring that they can make enough through extra output to offset the cost of losing their ship from time to time... that is to say, I wonder how often you can lose your ship to make it worth losing Retrievers over flying a Procurer with (or without...) a damage control.

      Delete
    4. @Alistair Drake

      I don't think that really counts as a war against some actual PVP players.
      That being said, I really don't care enough about those people to even go look for them.

      Delete
    5. So why comment Kamar, if you don't have anything to truly contribute? War is war, no matter who or what the participants.

      So Ranamar, when you say that when the target turns out to be a soft target, who is doing the chestbeating? Is it the person who said, "Pick on someone your own size," or the person who asked the question, "Ok, are you my size?" I'd very much like some explanation of that statement as I don't think I understand it.

      However, that's the point of CODE. they attack the soft targets that fit their ships badly and do things that are generally idiotic. It's the hard way to learn but sometimes that's what happens. The smart people adapt and factor things into their plans, rather than trying something even dumber.

      Delete
    6. @Kamar

      Correction, I got your point. I see it now. You mean to say that it is not against those that PVP, okay I get ya. The point I'm trying to make is that the minerbumping community isn't hesitant to go to war. I should have pointed to this:

      http://www.minerbumping.com/p/forum.html

      If it doesn't go to the thread itself, the title is "Cry 'Havoc' and let slip the dogs of war."

      Delete
  7. Very illustrative and funny article.

    Sad it has no real value for those poor souls bumped to death.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Refuse to squirt delicious tears. CODE’s miner bumping and ganking in and of itself isn’t particularly profitable but the tears solicited generate many a donation to the cause. Viability: Low just like the forlorn hope that more miners will tank their boats.

    While I appreciate Ripard’s thought experiment, it fundamentally mischaracterizes the situation. CODE/miners is a hunter/prey relationship. While its fun to speculate on how beleaguered prey might rise up en masse ala Hitchcock’s The Birds to slay those that feed off them, mass resistance is generally not how prey go about improving their situation. Prey’s problem isn’t the lion per se, its being the unfortunate individual that actually gets eaten by the lion. Accordingly, successful prey merely have to be the less appealing target and from that point on leave the lion to do what it does. If prey is to be intellectually honest, it may even go so far as to admit that every time the lion eats that guy over there its situation has improved (less competition, increased ore demand, dabble of Schadenfreude etc . . .)

    Herbivores can be majestic creatures (horses come to mind). If you chose a herbivore career path in EvE don’t squeal when the lions land on grid, just wink knowingly when DimWitJoe at the other end of the field puffs in glorious explosion.

    DireNecessity

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ::sigh::

      I’m about to respond to my own post but I thought of another point Ripard’s post misses:
      I note Ripard doesn’t take issue with the language used to set up the question, “What would it take to stop the *depredations* of James 315 and his ilk?” The implication being that while Ripard supports non-consensual PvP in the abstract, he’s no fan of James 315’s specific instantiation of the mechanic (it being wholesale pillaging after all).

      One often gets hammered just as much for what they (consciously?) don’t say as what they consciously say. Obviously, one can’t cover everything in a single post and given Ripard’s extensive posting history you’d think he deserves a little slack but when it comes to the “darker” sides of EvE he’s incredibly hard to pin down.

      DireNecessity

      Delete
    2. Why would you choose to roleplay a cow or a antelope? Thats not fun. I however am a fox. A particularily clever fox who while being chased by the hounds is attempting to find a way into the hen house. Make it challanging, but make it so the hounds can catch me if I screw up. Now thats fun. See the difference?

      Delete
    3. Nightgerbil,

      See my comment to AnonymousApril 22, 2014 at 5:34 PM below regarding terminology. Aside from gentle mocking (these are forum wars we undertake – one has to mock), the primary purpose of my comment was to clarify the nature of the relationship between CODE and the miners they prey on. While your response dresses up the terminology, nothing in that response changes the fundamental relationship. The Hounds are hunting the Fox.

      A curious result of much of Ripard’s thought experiment is that miners should stop acting like miners (prey) and start acting like bait (ambush hunters). While excellent advice, it probably won’t appeal to most miners since, if they wanted to hunt, they wouldn’t be mining in the first place. That being said, there’s plenty of room to embrace being wily prey: Be hard to slay (tank), be unprofitable to hunt (no tears), think hard about who your competition really is (it ain’t CODE, its DimWitJoe over there who is not only feeding on your asteroids but flagrantly calling in the hounds in the process).

      DireNecessity

      Delete
  9. The solution for miners is simple: 1) Fly a Procurer/Skiff 2) Tank your shit 3) orbit the asteroid.

    Even the Goblins ganking crusade of 'education' failed to make a comprehensive impact as there's just another idiot out there in an untanked, max yield retriever and doesn't want to listen to any advice before or after he gets ganked.

    For highsec there's not much to do other than laugh and happily sell them a new ship.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "Hunter/prey relationship?" "Lions?" Real hunters don scuba gear and grab spearguns to take on Great Whites. Miner bumpers pee in the pool people are trying to swim in. Until they graduate to real PvP, the pool is going to stay yellow, the lifeguards having agreed to allow it.

    Their worst crime, though, is that their activities don't even make good stories.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pardon my imprecise language. T’was merely pointing out the roles being played (double meaning of “role playing” intended) and got a bit carried away. Kindly replace “hunter” with “predator” and “lion” with “jackal” or “hyena” as you prefer.

      Am I forgiven?

      DireNecessity

      Delete
  11. Another method to attempt to avoid gankers could be mining in mission space. This would kill the yield of miners though since not all missions have mineables and even fewer missions have sizeable fields.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The CODE crowd has a thing for scanning down mission miners. It isn't very hard.

      Delete
    2. Not just CODE, when the SOE ships came out, a lot of pirates were scanning down mission runners finding a miner in there was just a added bonus for them. Same for when MTU's came out, and mission runners would go AFK during clean up.

      Delete
    3. mine behind recon 3/3, they are welcome to scan down and warp on grid.

      Delete
    4. venture

      miner2 x 2 (or deeps with crystals, but you can only carry two spares)
      3 x magnetic conjunctive eccm scanning array
      warded magnet backup cluster

      and how many scanners bother with virtue. certainly no virtue in new order.

      mine your pocket in peace.

      Delete
  12. Please, won't someone think of the gankers?April 22, 2014 at 6:29 PM

    The hysterical reaction to any hint that non-consensual PvP might be limited or banned reminds me of what happens here in the US when a politician seems to be saying he might muck around with Social Security. Ganking is the freaking third rail of EVE.

    I suspect the diehard proponents of non-consensual PvP are actually somewhat few. As for the rest, almost nobody wants to be seen taking a position that'll bring the griefers and their 8 zillion socks down on their heads.

    Being ganked is like having this smelly, obnoxious asshole plunk himself down at your lunch table and start blowing snot on your food. Who wants to be that guy? And why does our community protect that guy's right to keep being a dick?

    ReplyDelete
  13. "[Getting your spaceship blown up] is like having this smelly, obnoxious asshole plunk himself down at your lunch table and start blowing snot on your food."

    For you perhaps, for me it's more like losing a spaceship in a game about blowing up spaceships.

    "Who wants to be that guy?"

    Pretty much everyone who plays the EVE.

    "And why does our community protect that guy's right to keep being a dick?"

    Because EVE is a game about blowing up spaceships, and "our community" is a community formed of players of a game about blowing up spaceships; therefore, most of those players are in favor of blowing up the spaceships.

    Glad I could help!


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. if it was only blowing up spaceship why bother with non-combat vessels at all. lets just move along towards "counter-strike in space" with meaningless pixels.

      Delete
    2. I've always found these people hilarious. I like to picture them showing up in Halo or CoD games and screaming for all the 'sociopaths' to stop shooting each other.

      As for why not "counter-strike in space"? Because some of us like persistence and meaning to our spaceship explosions, and EVE is the only game that does that.

      Delete
    3. "if it was only blowing up spaceship why bother with non-combat vessels at all."

      What is a noncombat vessel? AFAIK, every vessel in the game can be shot at, and can attempt to evade being shot at. That is combat.

      Delete
    4. Obviously then there is no difference to you in real life between a container ship and kirov class battlecruiser. Just stop. There's no need to comment at all if you're going to continuously post nonsense dressed up in the trappings of logic.

      Delete
    5. "Obviously then there is no difference to you in real life between a container ship and kirov class battlecruiser."

      Incorrect, putting words in others mouths is a lame way to argue.

      I was attempting to engage in some Socratic dialogue, where he talks about ships being defined not by having hislots or not, but by intended role, and then I ask what the intended role is, and he answers, and we quickly and efficiently arrive at the answer: noncombat vessels exist to facilitate the production of combat vessels. I was curious to see what the response would be to this obvious line of argument, and you've provided it: incoherent strawman attacks.

      Delete
  14. I actually like your idea about the "mining claim". Even in some RL jurisdictions (like some states in the US) it is legal to shoot people who trespass on your property if they have been warned sufficiently. (Castle Doctrine and Stand your Ground). If you look at EVE more like the old Wild West, then it would certainly apply.

    The main problem in the balance is, that the saying "you consent to PVP as soon as you undock" doesn't hold for the suicide gankers. They do not consent to PVP, they only consent to lethal PVE i.e. being killed by CONCORD after they did their deed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They have indeed consented to PVP; others have had success in violencing their ships pre-gank. Your inability to duplicate that success has no other explanation other than a personal lack of skill/practice.

      Delete
    2. The thought that I might not give a shit about ganking miners in highsec has not occurred to you? I could now also resort to some baseless speculation about what you do or can do, but I'm not actually going to lower myself that far.

      Delete
    3. No, it occurred to me; I covered that possibility under "practice". It appears that my speculation was not baseless, but was instead 100% accurate. You may now feel free to engage in speculation about what I do.

      Delete
    4. Let me clarify the situation: you claimed: ". They do not consent to PVP, they only consent to lethal PVE i.e. being killed by CONCORD after they did their deed."

      In fact, there are people who have killed gankers before the gankers managed to gank anything.

      Logically, there are two possibilities:
      A. You have, yourself, killed gankers before they managed to gank. In this case, your statement above was not made out of ignorance, but was instead a lie. I speculated that you were telling the truth, leaving only:
      B. You have not killed gankers before they managed to gank, which is why you stated that doing so was impossible. (there's also the case where you haven't killed them, but you knew it was possible, but again, I'm speculating that you're not lying).

      If B is the case, then there are only two reasons why B is the case. Either you've tried and failed, or you haven't tried. In the former case, lack of ability, in the latter case, lack of practice. As you can clearly see, the only speculation I made was to speculate that you weren't lying, the rest is deductive logic.

      pps. "I might not give a shit about ganking miners" This is a confusing statement, we were talking about ganking gankers, not ganking miners. Have you changed the subject suddenly?

      Delete
    5. Well, way back in the day when I still did stuff in highsec I actually got on a killmail or two together with CONCORD because I shot at a guy when he turned red. I wouldn't call that experience at ganking gankers, but the whole thing is beside the point.

      It is easy enough to train an alt to fly a gank Catalyst and have perfect sec status and no obvious connection to a griefer corp. Don't try to tell me that this is not a method which is often used.

      Anecdotal evidence that "there are people who have killed gankers before the gankers managed to gank anything" is just that. Statistically it is meaningless for as long as you can't supply data that gankers have an actual statistically significant risk of dying before they reach their target.

      The point is, that there is no way to consistently defend against suicide ganking apart from running (if you can). It's not like anywhere else (apart from highsec) where I can shoot back right away when I feel threatened. It's not even possible to park a Blackbird next to your mining fleet and jam an approaching ganker before they fired their first shots.

      Ripard wrote this whole post pointing out how little there is that can be done in defense. I call that unbalanced. Miners in lowsec, nullsec or wormhole space have a better chance to defend themselves than miners in highsec, and that's just messed up.

      As far as the "not giving a shit" statement goes: Despite me arguing this here, I really don't care that much about what happens in highsec.

      Delete
    6. "Statistically it is meaningless for as long as you can't supply data that gankers have an actual statistically significant risk of dying before they reach their target."

      I will provide that evidence as soon as you provide evidence that gankers have ganked my well tanked mining ships a statistically significant number of times.

      "The point is, that there is no way to consistently defend against suicide ganking apart from running (if you can)."

      Tank your ship. Provide evidence that this hasn't worked for me, like I said before. Heck, provide evidence that a "statistically significant" number of anyone's Skiffs were suicide-ganked in highsec in the past few months.

      Delete
  15. It doesn't help with bumping, but with ganking: one doesn't need a war or concord-sanctionable actions to kill gankers: one just needs to use killrights properly...

    ReplyDelete
  16. You forgot an option how anyone can stop having his game ruined. Unsubscribe, play another game. Elderscrolls Online maybe?

    ReplyDelete
  17. One doesn't need to stop gankers, one only needs to ignore them. Fit with an appropriate degree of caution, carry only so much cargo as is prudent, and go about your business. The amount of damage gankers cause is infinitesimal in relation to the immense, stupendous volume of traffic that moves around completely unmolested all the time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As an observation, I've had three serious suicide gank attempts on me since I started playing Eve six years ago. All were within the last year. Two succeeded, one failed. One of them was an empty hauler, two of them were almost empty Noctis. In the successful Noctis gank, which used two destroyers, the gankers didn't even bother to try and loot.

      It is quite difficult to square my experiences with your claim about carrying only so much cargo as is prudent...

      Delete
  18. Even if you tank a skiff to 80k EHP they can still ruin your day by bumping you with a Mach until they're bored. So why bother? At least losing a 30 mil retriever is over with in a minute.

    ReplyDelete
  19. My problem with suicide ganking is that it's a form of PvP (if one can actually call it that) in which there is pretty much no risk (for reasons Jester has highlighted, plus the fact that the ship has already been determined to be lost and therefore cannot factor as a risk) and pure reward, whether this reward is in terms of loot, killmails, and etc. and as such is hardly interesting gameplay from anyone but the participant's viewpoint.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wouldn't that also be your problem with any form of pvp using cheap ships? RvB, FW, Brave Newbies, etc?

      Delete
    2. I mean, if your definition of risk is "the fact that the ship has already been determined to be lost and therefore cannot factor as a risk", then couldn't I take a 40 billion Tourney ship out for pvp, and if I say "I'm going to just keep fighting with this ship until I lose it", then under your definition of risk I'm engaging in zero risk pvp? Wouldn't this also apply to NC-dot's Titan/supercap fleet, if they make a similar plan? Ironically, under your definition, the more risky a manner in which someone flies in the conventional manner, the less willing you are to credit them with any risk whatsoever.

      Delete
    3. You missed something. You could make hi-sec less attractive to players. Then they would either move out to Null or quit the game. Without players that had expensive loot in their cargo holds or fits CODE would starve and either move out to Null or quit. Problem solved.

      Delete
    4. @Anon 9;53 PM: Code doesn't feed on expensive loot, it feeds on tears.

      Delete
    5. The risk is not "oh no I lost a catalyst". The risk is failure. The risk is effective counter attack. The risk that space assets would be destroyed. Gankers suffer none of these risks.

      Delete
    6. @Louis Robichaud: Anything one does in cheap ships frees one from such risk, no? RvB, mining in a venture, doing low level missions in a cheap frigate/dessie, etc.

      Delete
    7. The cost of the suicide ganking catalyst is a cost, just as the cost of the PvP ship in any area of the game is a cost.

      The risk element comes from not achieving one's goals: the chance of not blowing up the mining ship is relatively low, which means the risk is very low (low cost to enter, low chance of failure, means low risk). The chance of not blowing up someone else in PvP before your ship is blown up is much more significant, thus the risk is higher than suicide ganking. Assuming your success/failure is measured in "ISK blown up" of course. One could just say that the success of flying this ship in PvP is to see something explode, which reduces the economic risk greatly (but does nothing to address the cost).

      Delete
  20. Jester, I know this may be NDA but surely every change CCP makes has to be looked at from a subscription perspective. What was the net result of the mining/ice belt changes and what do they anticipate the changes will be in regards to high sec industrialists/miners after the next patch?

    I may be off base here, but I would think that a significant portion of the HS playerbase is risk averse and does not want to go to null or not be able to afford their plex through industry. If so, these changes will drive them out of the game and make CCP's life harder.

    ReplyDelete
  21. A comment regarding counter-ganking: The CGs would not need to remove concord from the belt, as concord is beneficial to the miners and not the gankers.

    Regarding proper fittings, let the miners die until they learn to use Skiffs, as this is the correct highsec miner for today's environment. This is a feature rather than a bug, and seems to be consistent with the rest of Eve.

    ReplyDelete
  22. That's hypocritical.

    When Null-sec sov alliances complained about the state of their industry (which I still can't believe, seeing as how EVERY resource in the universe is at their finger tips), the entire way of industry is changed to suit them.

    When Hi-sec miners, the foundation of Hi-sec industry, complain they can't mine, they're told that they should expect to be attacked, and have their work day disrupted.

    Not that I'm against ganking in hi-sec. The only thing I don't like is the bumping. Seems like an exploit to me that's low on the To-do list. The fact it's been going on for years without giving the pilot bumped a viable retaliation is troubling.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I think that players in high sec should be able to shoot blinky red pods without taking a sec status hit. This would up the "risk" ante for gankers, esp. those prone to use expensive implants, but without enforcing any sort of curb on their behavior.

    The rewards for ganking as simply too high. Needs balance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with this.

      There is no lore reason that Concord should be protecting outlaws in pods anyways, esp. since they don't really die, they just end up in a new clone body.

      Delete
    2. Yeah, it doesn't make sense that CONCORD will relentlessly run you down in any corner of the system and blow your ass to bits -- but is too squeamish to pop your pod. I'm not sure what CCP's game design rationale was for that.

      Delete
  24. How about a high-sec bubble, which only works on players with negative sec status?

    This doesn't stop gankers for continuing to gank, but it does mean they will need to loot or buy those sec status improvement tags - ie. raising the cost a bit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I like the idea of a smart bomb that is actually smart. So, how about making smart bombs which only target neg sec status players? And change them to be either mid-slot or low-slot weapons. Give them a bit more range and alpha/DPS. These could become the anti-ganking weapons for mining ships and haulers.

      Delete
    2. Put the pipe down and shut up for a second and think about what you're saying.

      First, you've allowed yourself to be confused by the buzzword jargon of "smart bomb" and what the device in EVE actually does. A smart bomb in the traditional sense is a guided missile. In EVE, it's more like a flak explosion. In other words, not smart.

      Next, please just think for a moment about trying to validate your proposed module in terms of in-game physics. You want a weapon that (unlike any ship-mountable weapon) fits in somewhere other than a high slot. Also, you want it to automatically choose targets based on sec status? Or could this module be programmed to fire based on user-defined parameters? Oh yes, and make them OP compared to other smart bombs, because that won't affect game balance anywhere but in your asteroid belt.

      Finally, just before you flush this idea down the toilet of your mind, please consider what happens when this new weapon system gets into "the wrong hands". It seems to me that at first glance, a ganker could camouflage themselves easily in a mining ship fitted with this and then use it to gank the other mining ships in the belt.

      All in all, a dumb idea. Here's a better idea: Summon a Dragon to protect your mining ship. The Dragon will be smart enough to know if the approaching ship is going to try to gank you or not and will act accordingly, so you can continue mining AFK with no worries. And of course, Dragons would never help out gankers, so you don't have to worry about them falling into the wrong hands. See how much better that is? And wayyyy easier to explain using in-game physics.

      Delete
    3. I like this idea, and the SB idea. There should be weapons which can be used against outlaws. And, if they don't like it, tough s**t. EVE is supposed to be harsh, even for them.

      Amazing how the gankers whine just as much as the carebears.

      Delete
    4. Please note my comments are about the SB suggestion.

      There already ARE weapons that can be used against outlaws. They require a high-slot to fit.

      Any outlaw with < -5 sec status can be fired on without CONCORD interference. What anon at 11:54 pm wants is already in the game, except for the part about not having to use a high slot and the fact that you have to be ATK to activate the weapon system.

      I'm all for discussing possible changes to the game that could help gameplay in one way or another, but the level of thoughtlessness in that suggestion is ridiculous. You want a big "No Gank" button? There are other ways to do it that wouldn't unbalance the game everywhere else.

      Also, do consider the greed and hubris involved at requesting a stronger SB that doesn't impact mining yield. Where else in the game do you get a free advantage with no drawback? A good game is full of interesting choices, where you have to choose a balance between, for example, tank and gank.

      Here's an idea you may now tear apart:
      How about a module that would put your boat into a reinforced mode for a few seconds? Any other modules would stop. You can't rep and you can't warp, but then you don't take damage either. Let it last around 8 seconds. That should be enough time to survive a gank attempt long enough for CONCORD to arrive. Notice that this would only work against gank attempts, as anyone legally attacking you (war-dec, kill right, awox, etc.) would only have to wait out the 8 seconds or so.

      Hey, make a new skill to use the mod, base timer is 5 seconds on the module, plus one for every level of the skill, so it's effectively 6-10 seconds depending on training.

      Module requires high slot, so all of a sudden, there's a reason to fly a hulk again.

      Please note that the player would have to manually activate the module, so it would be of no benefit to AFK miners.

      Delete
  25. "CODE gets a lot of their kills from players who can't fly anything better than a Retriever."

    Newbies can fly a Procurer - with a T2 fit (2x each therm/kin + DCU and 3 CDEs) you have an EHP vs. Antimatter of 121k. Obviously this is less with a T1 fit and lower skills but it is still a BC/BS level tank. (this requires ~20-30 catalysts...)



    ReplyDelete
  26. TL;DR: if your sole aim is to drive other players away from EVE, CCP will gladly allow.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jester left out the most obvious choice. Find a new game to play and stop paying CCP.

      Delete
  27. Thanks for nice sharing. You can also find best Iron and steel material at Laxmi Iron & Steel Industry. The main object of LAXMI IRON & STEEL INDUSTRIES is to provide best quality and cost effective Cast Iron & Steel. For more information about Cast Iron Casting manufacturer & Cast Iron lift weight Visit LaxmiInd.Com Today.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Miner bumping only really works if you're afk and/or stupid, move belts and be at your keyboard and its a none issue.

    Miner ganking is only a real issue if your afk in a paper miner. Learn to tank and be at your keyboard and no one will bother you often, as there are easier targets...

    Most hauler ganks are done on untanked autopilot targets, to solve that see above...

    So, the only people who really suffer from miner ganking are idiots and AFK miners, and they need to be protected why? Surely they can go and play Candy Crush Saga?

    High sec mining is currently either, too safe, or too rewarding, why go to low to mine when you can AFK watch a film in high for almost the same ISK?

    I've never ganked a miner, but I am thinking about it, anything to make AFK play a bit harder and reward people who actually play the game.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Firstly, make Concord also pop criminal pods. It makes sense.

    Secondly, make it so that a criminal flag gained in highsec lasts 24 hours. Have a skill that reduces that time just like the clone jump skill.

    Look at that! A specific skill to help out highsec suicide gankers! Can't ask for more than that unless you're a whinny little bitch!

    ReplyDelete
  30. Remove all slots from mining ships (since without risk there is no need to think about fitting), just put a button with Ice/Ore/Profit on it in the middle of the screen when you are in a mining ship in a station in high sec.

    Press the button once every 30 mins and your hanger fills up with Ore/Ice/Profit.

    There problem solved, and cuts out the middle man of having to sit AFK at a roid.

    Without risk there should be no reward, risk in highsec mining = none if ganking is removed.

    So reward should be reduced to be in line, or belt rats increased in strengh in line with the rewards currently offered, in which case it will be gank by rats the afk miners will be complaining against.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Having done a fair bit of ganking in the past; ECM.

    Ganks are often setup with very little 'overkill' jam out a single catalyst or maybe 2 and suddenly ganks start failing. I've lost more Exhumer kills to ec-drones getting of a jam (20 seconds is of jam in conjunction with concord response times...) then anything else.

    It's also easy to hide falcons and such like 20/30km above your mining fleet in belt I reckon. And since it's all gallente blaster ships... Picking jammers is easy too. Take it a step beyond and add an info link to your orca...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Falcons are not insta-action. They suffer from the same lag/system as does most cloak function. Best success I have seen is using ecm fitted bombers which do not have uncloak timer to lock penalty. After all destroyers do not have a lot of a scan to overcome with ECM.

      Delete
    2. That makes sense, I never experimented myself as I don't mine.
      But from my experience ganking, ec-300's have caused unfortunate failures a few times ^_^

      Delete
  32. With the upcoming changes coming, perhaps moving to null could be a safer move. Protecting is much easier,(and fun) when the gankers can be shot with no repercussions. Local full of Blue instead of possible attackers. Plus they are going to need more ore with all of the additional industry moving to null. This is just a stupid thought though I suppose. A huge addition to the player base in Null would not change anything at all it seems is the common perception? There is no place for neutral hubs in Null Sec to make isk. Jita is the way, and HS is the path...

    ReplyDelete
  33. I've done serious ganking: http://greedygoblin.blogspot.hu/2013/10/1-player-1-month-1000-kills-123b-damage.html so can tell from experience: avoiding ganking is trivial by fitting ships properly and looking at the killboard of your solar system.

    Still EVERY attempt to defend against miner ganking fails, because each of them needs more brain and effort than just fitting DCII and/or moving away 2 jumps. The reason why ganking exists and forever will be is that most miners/missioners/haulers are braindead/bot/AFK. It's kind of Malcanis law: any change you make to support the dumb will necessarily support the smart more.

    The fundamental question is "is there anything to be fixed here?". Why is it a problem if morons and slackers die en masse? Not like they will ever die out!

    Burn Jita is different, it's aimed to kill EVERYONE regardless tank, cargo or actions, "just because we can". That worth fighting against.

    ReplyDelete
  34. What about strength in numbers? Presumably there's a benefit to nine people assigning drones to a sebo'd skiff and alphaing catalysts off the field with 40 warrior IIs and 10 hornet ec-300s.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Lobby CCP to allow fitting Target Spectrum Breaker in mining barges. It would be about time that module saw some actual use.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Regarding your point about "Encourage miners to use smart fits"

    You said the viability of this is low, because "EVE players being dumb about ship-fitting is sort of one of the bedrock principles that the game is based on.".

    So why is mining exempt from the "you fit like crap you die" rule that permeates the rest of EVE? If you fit a bad ship in any form of PVP, all that you get and deserve is laughter and humiliation. Players are expected to learn and stop fitting poorly, but somehow that rule does not apply here?

    It's not like that "good mining fits" are even hard to find, as people have posted them everywhere. Any kind of skiff/procurer is pretty much impossible to gank price effectively, and procurers have low skill requirements.

    Even retrievers can be reasonably tanked. For example, this retriever fit.

    [Retriever, standard fit]
    Damage Control II
    Mining Laser Upgrade II
    Mining Laser Upgrade II

    Medium F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction

    Modulated Strip Miner II, Veldspar Mining Crystal I
    Modulated Strip Miner II, Veldspar Mining Crystal I

    Medium Ancillary Current Router I
    Medium Anti-Thermal Screen Reinforcer I
    Medium Core Defense Field Extender I

    This retriever costs 45 million isk to make, and tanks 18k EHP. If the miner is in a mining fleet with shield harmonizing links, that number rises to 21k. In .7 space, with concord pre-pulled, it would take 3 T2 catalysts at a price of 30 million to gank this retriever, not a great bargin for the gankers.

    Lets flip this on the other side. Suppose that just by fitting properly, and doing nothing more, not watching local, not aligning, and not actively defending themselves, ratters can be 100 to 80% safe from ratter gankers, and if the gankers fail the gank, they lose their ship automatically.

    Nobody in their right mind would support that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That assumes that they do it because of the bargain. They do it because of the tears though and apparently have enough money anyway. So as I will die anyway, I'd better go for yield instead of wasting money on tank.

      Alternatively I play a different game which is probably the wiser choice because if enough people do that CCP might do something against it.

      Delete
  37. Serpentine LogicApril 23, 2014 at 3:39 AM

    Yes that would be a solution, but would require AFK miners to talk to each other and work together, which is too hard for them, and so they need thier hand held or they cry to CCP...

    I personally cannot solo hold sov in null sec, and I dont expect to, its a team game, but miners and friends, expect to be safe while AFK mining without fitting to avoid ganking in high sec.

    Bar someone with a grudge, you are very safe in high sec, if you are not AFK and fit to avoid death.

    Which in a game designed around blowing up internet spaceships, is the least you should be doing...

    ReplyDelete
  38. Jester let me add to your "History made fun".

    The solution to help mitigate the submarine attacks was to travel in convoy with war ships, watching the horizon constantly for signs of incoming boats, communicating efficiently with your allies and being prepared for an attack.

    A good lesson to the miners of eve, which you conveniently forgot to mention.

    If I had set sail in WW2 in a merchant ship, alone, loaded with supplies, pointed it towards the war zone, set it to full speed and then went to sleep leaving no one on watch, I would be in the history books as a grade A fool, and if I didn’t die I would have been thrown in prison for dereliction of duties.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Except the wolf pack strategy was developed and specialized in finding the large convoys to destroy several ships at once. Single ships were deemed not worth it, as it would alert the nearby convoys that a pack was in the area.

      The big advantage the convoys had, was that the patrol boats could target the subs as soon as they were detected. this is not the case for gank ships. When catalysts appear on grid, you cannot preemptively shoot to defend your mining fleet.

      Make the activation of a target breaking device a non-offensive action.

      If a ship targets me, I can fire off a module to maybe break that lock. Note that this does not include ECM modules, just target breakers.

      Obviously, this does not stop miner bumping.

      Delete
    2. "When catalysts appear on grid, you cannot preemptively shoot to defend your mining fleet."

      yes you can.

      Delete
  39. How about making mining interesting and challenging?

    As it is, it's a case of "activate modules & wait 10 minutes" which is about as boring as it can get.

    This is what makes my highsec miner ganking easy. I don't blame miners for going afk. It's understandable & it's why I'm not a righteous dick about it when I gank them, unlike a lot of the minerbumping lot.

    ReplyDelete
  40. And this pretty much encapsulates the nutshell that Eve isn't going to grow. There are only so many sociopaths that want to play a internet spaceship game at any one point. As the rules of the game are entirely in favor of the sociopaths, and more and more that behavior is encouraged, it's my opinion that fewer and fewer people will stay in the game long enough to learn and skill up enough to have any chance. meh. I guess I have nothing new to add to the argument that hasn't been said before...I need only point to the continuing flat to declining subs and logins.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think your argument falls flat in several sides. Let's start with this:

      sociopath: a person with a psychopathic personality whose behavior is antisocial, often criminal, and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.

      Thanks anon, but I'm not a sociopath and neither are those people who I chat to in-game, yet we're continuing to subscribe.

      "As the rules of the game are entirely in favor of the sociopaths."

      Read the definition above and tell me how do the rules of EvE entirely favor real world sociopaths?

      Your whole point is based on a fallacy anyway as you appear to think that "If you're XYZ in real life, you will play games that are XYZ in nature", This is unsubstantiated nonsense that you just made up to make a point.

      Using your rationale, real life violent people are the only ones who would play Grand Theft Auto. Clearly this is bullshit, as is your post.

      Delete
    2. Point one-
      Sociopath - "a person with a personality disorder manifesting itself in extreme antisocial attitudes and behaviour"

      key being
      Anti Social - "1. contrary to the laws and customs of society, in a way that causes annoyance and disapproval in others."

      some of the customs of eve are dont fly what you cant afford to lose, its not a solo game, and tank is anti gank, going afk is a bad idea, auto pilot is a bad idea. So mining alone in an untanked ship afk is point one ticked off

      Anti Social - "2. not sociable or wanting the company of others." well if solo AFK mining isnt the pinnicle of this...

      so who's the sociopath? the team work ganker playing the game, or the afk miner watching Game of Thrones?

      Delete
  41. How about: Lobby CCP to tweak the insurance feature?

    A) You get shot by Concord, you don't get any insurance and you get a fine matching the value of your ship.
    B) You get shot in null-sec, you get no insurance.
    C) You get shot in low-sec, you get 50% of the insurance amount your expecting.
    D) You get shot in a wardec in highsec, you get 100% of the insurance amount your expecting.
    E) You get shot in high-sec outside of a wardec, you get 110% of the insurance amount your expecting plus a bonus, to cover modules implants and cargo at the time of destruction, from Concord for failing to protect you.

    That would sort of screw the tear-farmers since gank victims would not lose any money out of getting ganked.
    Even if CODE doesn't have any budget issue, they'd start looking stupid trying to get a sting by throwing money at people that doesn't lose any.

    Just an idea...you know.

    ReplyDelete
  42. AnonymousApril 23, 2014 at 6:03 AM

    How about: Lobby CCP to tweak the insurance feature?


    that removes all risk from mining in high sec, and going by CCP's idea that risk is inline with reward, you could expect the yield of roids in highsec to go to zero as no risk should equal no reward.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Jester you skipped over Soundwave's "suicide ganking was never intended to be profitable". Maybe CCP is not 100% acceptable to the practice after all?

    It remains an issue that the intended deterrent to suicide ganking is ineffective. Once at negative ten there is no further penalty applied for criminal activity.

    One thing I would like consent over is the killmail. They have hull type and time stamp, but that's it. Not the pilot's name or fit or cargo. Considering that knowledge of the fit is as good as API to discerning foe, why should I give it away? I certainly do go around handing out my API. Most killmails published are merely used as a troll.

    ReplyDelete
  44. War is a good idea I think, we love wars:

    http://www.minerbumping.com/2013/10/james-315-sends-his-regards-part-1.html

    http://www.minerbumping.com/2013/10/james-315-sends-his-regards-part-2.html

    http://www.minerbumping.com/2013/11/james-315-sends-his-regards-part-3.html


    Seriously, the only option I didn't see is-

    1. Buy a permit (10mil per year is a pittance) and
    2. Follow the Code (ie, fit a tank, fly smart, watch local and d-scan... you know, the stuff you should be doing anyway...)

    ReplyDelete
  45. Easy EskyApril 23, 2014 at 6:36 AM

    “Why should I give it away? I certainly do go around handing out my API. Most killmails published are merely used as a troll.”

    You have not given it away, it was taken from your smouldering wreck.

    Some of the bits were a bit too charred to re use, but enough was there to piece together what you were flying.

    ReplyDelete
  46. yes, replace mining drones with combat drones and mine in fleets of 4 or more. Cats die to warriors. No need for pre-emptive gank, no need for defensive fleets, no need for logi, no need for a lot what you discussed. A decent tanked skiff fleet with combat drones and cats will be helpless against them.

    ReplyDelete
  47. I think that the best defense against the CODE is going to be scaling issues. The CODE may be fun for some as they are a small close-knit fraternal community in a target-rich environment. But as they succeed (as they hope to do, apparently), it becomes less fun. Targets are rarer and more difficult. Their community grows, and as all do, fractures. They already have difficulty turning ISK into greater results; if that conversion was easy, their ship account would always be zero. I think it's just going to be a persistent semi-organized low-level thorn in the side of high-sec mining.

    ReplyDelete
  48. You forgot the REAL true proved way to fight them.

    Stop Playing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's running away and hiding, not fighting.

      Delete
    2. Enjoy your asymmetrical game playing against NOTHING.

      Delete
    3. I usually play in FW space in lowsec so I'm not sure where you get your "asymmetrical game playing against NOTHING" thing from - I interact with many foes every day and I don't believe these people are talking of quitting like you are. But hey, enjoy not playing EvE and (hopefully) not posting on EvE forums o/

      Delete
    4. I though we were talking about griefing players in hi-sec not playing pvp against people who wants it in lo-sec

      Delete
    5. Killing in highsec does not equal griefing.

      Eve is a cold dark place where danger is everywhere, want a risk free game, go to WOW or candy crush saga.

      Griefing is against the EULA, suicide ganking is not griefing and is and always will be, part of eve.

      If you dont like internet space ships blowing up, doint play an internet game about blowing up spaceships.

      Delete
  49. In order to stop, you first have to WANT to stop. The rest will follow. Denial is a powerful thing.

    CCP is a chain smoking momma with emphysema and lung cancer blaming the doctors (i.e. the industry carebears) for her problems.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Develop Intelligence Network. Viability: Moderate
    Setup an app which relatively passively allows the silent majority to track people in High Sec. CODE's gank squads are identified multiple jumps out and miners dock up. This has a number of additional benefits including identifying other high sec attackers. The primary issues are false intel, which would require a bit of cleverness in design and coding. Other information might also be gleaned from this open database.

    Convince CCP to develop Intelligence Network. Viability: low
    CCP has claimed that they want to add more interesting intelligence gathering. The ability to gain population information a couple of systems out would be interesting to many people (including hunters). CCP has not discussed anything related to different intelligence gathering methods in a long time.

    Mass Module. Viability: low
    There are times when you want your ship to have significantly more mass. Bumping and wormhole collapse come to mind. Why is there not module which specifically does this?

    Other Modules or deployables. Viability: low
    Stasis field? Police deagression deployable? Modules which automatically trigger against attacks, or upon bumping.

    Switch Space. Viability: ?
    Go to a null sec system where others leave you alone and like killing CODE.

    You pointed out the problems with the conventional - I want to beat them up or stop them - solutions. That discussion has already been hammered out by CCP. On the other hand they are adding lots of random deployables and like new modules. They may be willing to add something with an effect that has 'interesting possibilities'.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. " Modules which automatically trigger against attacks, or upon bumping. "

      Step 1- Set up on Jita undock
      Step 2 - Wait for freighter to undock
      Step 3 - ?
      Step 4 - Profit!

      Delete
    2. Freighters cannot use modules. We already have actions which automatically trigger (auto-targeting). Any intelligent observer will note that the effect needs to be designed with care. A poorly designed effect could have hilarious effects, but would be fixed quickly. In response to a bump on the Jita undock you cannot attack or harm the other ship. But you could increase your mass, or provide additional course correction. Straw men arguments try to fool people into looking at a different issue because the arguer does not want to actually respond to the real issue.

      Delete
    3. No way to increase the mass of a ship? Try this . . .

      http://eve.battleclinic.com/loadout/40630-Devoter-Wormhole-Buster.html

      Delete
  51. The only high percentage defense against the New Order is to buy a permit and actually follow the Code. I know that some like to claim we find excuses to gank permit holders anyway but this is mainly propoganda. I don't gank them (on purpose anyway) although some Agents are a bit less tolerant of people that buy permits and afk mine anyway.

    The entire thought exercise is based on the idea that we gank ships for fun and profit. It IS fun, I admit. But we gank and bump to enforce the Code. The Code isn't, again counter to bot aspirant claims, an excuse for the practices, it is the justification. The purpose of the Code and the New Order is to force interaction between players in highsec and eliminate the idea that it is perfectly fine to sidle an expensive, untanked ship up next to an asteroid, start the lasers and go do the laundry. This is not only stupid, it is completely counter to the ideas about Eve we have all grown up with. Don't fly what you can't afford to lose, undocking is consent to PvP, etc. Lots of highsec players don't actually believe these things. Until we arrive.

    Every thing that Ripard lists as a possibility would be welcomed by the New Order as a victory for our cause. We WANT people to fight back. We WANT them to organize a resistance. We WANT local to light up with warnings when we enter system and for war ships to launch and for shots to be fired. Do these things and we will adapt to counter them. What could be more Eve than that?

    The cost of a permit is so cheap as to be practically free. The latent William Wallaces flying the mining ships of Eve don't buy them because of "honor!" and "principle" and "ISK!". As if they actually had any....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ^win

      /thread over

      Delete
    2. I can totally understand the desire to push awareness and interactivity in high-sec. But... (1) the rhetoric is annoying bs roleplaying, and frankly painfully arrogant to listen to, and (2) does the code not allow blowing up a miner who is at keyboard and tanked? Seems like that person is aware hi-sec is not a safe themepark, hasn't afk'ed, and has properly fitted his ship. Continuing to go after this miner isn't about the code any longer, now it's just simple pvp. (Allowable, but no longer part of your great crusade to fix the game.)
      -Bantara

      Delete
    3. ^win

      /ganker argument over

      Delete
    4. (1) fair point, but most of local is annoying bs.

      (2) a code compliant, tanked, aware miner, would be very hard to gank, do you have many examples? and I dont count "but I was just making my dinner" as aware.

      Delete
    5. 1) I'm pretty sure none of us are actually space miners or immortal suicide pilots so we're all pretty much role playing. You not liking our role playing is of course fine but not really any argument against us doing it. Fanatical space zealots who will pay any price to kill you tend to get more attention than someone reading you a rulebook does. We do it that way because it works.

      2) I often state in local that any miner without a permit is subject to bumping or ganking. I then offer every miner there the chance to buy a permit. Guess what? Most of them say nothing, a few of them deny it and some actually do buy them. So, what are we supposed to do with those that don't? I count them as opponents to the New Order and logically, supporters of enemies, the bots and bot aspirants. The theology of the Code says that many miners WOULD bot if it was allowed and that what they do only differs by a click or two every 30 minutes. They LOOK like bots, they ACT like bots and they ASPIRE to be bots. And so, they DIE like bots.

      Delete
    6. I like to tell Bing Bangboom's old lady the same shit about role playing while I am bumping into her.

      Delete
    7. pixelshipmistakes its literally the first rule of the code:

      "- Mining indulgences may be purchased for 10 million isk per character, and are good for one year, subject to forfeiture."

      So being ATK and tanked is great. But the best tank is a permit tank.

      Delete
    8. @Bing

      "The theology of the Code says..."

      Theology!?!!? LMFAO! You are either trying too hard to hit above your station or your role playing is truly hilarious but for all of the wrong reasons. Thanks for the laugh either way.

      Delete
    9. 1) What Jamie said. Maybe English is not your first language, and that'd be understandable, but the better word would be "philosophy".
      2) permit tanked: see what I said in my #2 above: simple pvp, but now no longer about your grand mission to fix the game.
      -Bantara

      Delete
    10. always found it amusing that CODE needs to use external 3rd party software (HTML) to automate an anti-botting message. which is the actual definition of botting in the first place.

      maybe you can start typing the CODE in Local to get the concept across?

      Delete
    11. Here's my philosophy.

      Botting? Bad.
      AFK play? Not so great.
      Douchebaggery? Bad.

      There is a whole lot of daylight between botters and CODE's point of view, and CODE's habit of taking their attitude outside of the game client means that they're not roleplaying douchebags, they're being douchebags.

      I've boiled my EVE game play down to one inviolate rule: I will not submit to assholes. I can't think of anywhere in sov-null where I can hold to that rule, and submitting to CODE is in direct conflict with that rule.

      TL;DR: the botting-or-CODE dichotomy is a false one.

      Delete
    12. There is no such thing as a bot aspirant, and enforcing rules about people being at the keyboard is not a legitimate point in terms of ganking balance. If CODEs reason for ganking is to enforce proper gameplay, then they need to be nerfed. If its for fun and profit, then they should be left alone. The real danger in this idea is that its "emergent gameplay" to enforce"rules" about gameplay. Thats the opposite of sandbox and just illustrates why highsec predators should never have a voice in game balance. They simply cannot approach the issue without trying to place their own gameplay above others, and do this "its roleplay... but its about policing player behavior in their home by inventing an impossible concept like bot aspirant then complaining about it."

      Delete
    13. "The real danger in this idea is that its "emergent gameplay" to enforce"rules" about gameplay. Thats the opposite of sandbox and just illustrates why highsec predators should never have a voice in game balance."

      Nope, the very fact that the NO can enforce their own rules is very much in line with the sandbox, as the sandbox is what enables them to do so.

      The sandbox means that, within the rules of the game, anybody can attempt to play the game in any way they please; anybody else is free to try and stop them from doing so, in any way they please.

      JG

      Delete
  52. How about the ability to pay for concord to establish martial law within a system. Maybe something like an SBU but in reverse. Instead of being set up on a gate inside a system, instead being set up on the far gate. Players who put them up have to pay for upkeep/defend them. Everyone in the martial law system has their safeties put to yellow or red.

    Who doesn't love bashing SBUs :P

    ReplyDelete
  53. How about simply playing a different game? ;-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. After the summer patch yeah a lot of people will be

      Delete
  54. Misc observations:

    To the extent that you want to apologize or justify the ganking:
    First, the good news. CCP says it's valid gameplay, and I am inclined to agree. To say to the miners "play a different game" is out of the scope of the discussion, though. It does not contribute much. The discussion presupposes a desire to play. Now, I will agree that those who mine have a concomitant obligation to understand what they are getting into. See below.

    To the extent that you sympathize for the miners:
    Everyone wants to be enlightened, but nobody wants to meditate. That's the gist of HTFU. Learn your lessons so you can have the great fulfillment of getting good at a tough game. It's not available at any lower price.

    That said, what's refreshing about this thought experiment is that Jester is trying to regard the miner as a thinker with his own autonomy. I would like to take it a step further in that a lot of miners have probably already seen the low success ratio of fighting the gankers and just go on doing whatever they want. A lot of them aren't the sort to team up. Some PvP aren't the sort to team up either. Live and let mine or gank or sandbox out however you like, I say.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Let's look at how content could be generated here. The thing I like about eve is the realism. In real life people are victims of crime, which is what ganking is. Where it becomes unrealistic is with the repercussions. You should get a 48 hour criminal timer where you cannot dock in a high-sec station. Then there should be a Concord militia, like the FW militias, that players can join. These players would be allowed to freely attack the criminal players at any time. As systems become a popular target for gankers, soon after they become a popular target for militia pilots looking for fights. You can still gank, you just might have to fight your way home afterwards.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. THAT is neat. The concord militia part. The bounty system is kind of supposed to do this. EVE doesn't have the kind of situational awareness that makes it very easy to pursue said criminals. I'm not sure it's technically possible.

      Thank you. I am going to do a post on this.

      Delete
    2. The militia or vigilante idea is somewhat neat, but since there is still the metagame to consider it will not really work. If a ganker is in danger for any amount of time, the worst that can happen is that he logs out for that period.
      However I doubt even that will happen as frigates and dessies are hard to catch and no big loss even if they are caught.
      But it would be one step in the direction of offering some counter to ganking.
      Or find a way to make the miners more active. In my eyes the worst part of the ganking thing is that they force players to be active during one of the most boring activities in the game. You have to watch your ship do nothing for hours on the off chance that someone might come and gank you. If mining had some active part that would benefit miners much more, and they would be at the keyboard to activate defences or flee.
      Right now gankers force people to be bored or risk losing their ship.

      IMO improving mining in some way is the better step, even more so since the intro missions still drop the player off into the void with very little ideas except for "let's go mining".
      Sadly I have no good ideas how to make mining even remotely interesting.

      Delete
    3. You can already attack criminals at any time.

      Delete
    4. @Michael - only their ships; you can't pod them without getting Concord'ed and taking a sec status hit - which is pretty stupid, when your opponent is supposedly an immortal outlaw.

      Delete
    5. But it would be one step in the direction of offering some counter to ganking.

      the game has many counters to gankers already,, here are 4
      1. Align
      2. Shield extender
      3. DCII
      4. Eyes, as in eyes on local

      you can already make mining more fun, join a mining corp that runs boosted shared can mining ops, you get to talk to people, you might even have a laugh. I dont think that any activity you do 100% solo for protracted lenghs of time in eve should ever be truely fun AND rewarding.

      Delete
  56. In other words, the only counter to being griefed in highsec is to join them. And everyone knows carebears won't fight back in any organized way. Hmmm... the implications are fairly obvious. Ominous, even.

    ReplyDelete
  57. For those of you who complain that its too easy to gank miners, i leave you with this:

    I'll just leave this here:

    [Procurer, ORE]
    Mining Laser Upgrade II
    Mining Laser Upgrade II

    Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
    Medium F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction
    Medium F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction
    Adaptive Invulnerability Field II

    Modulated Strip Miner II, Veldspar Mining Crystal II

    Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I
    Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
    Medium Core Defense Field Extender I

    Mining Drone II x5

    [Cargo hold]
    1x Mobile Depot
    1x Survey Scanner
    5x Light Scout Drones (Hobgoblin II or Warrior II)

    [Implants]
    Genolution Core Augmentation CA-1
    Genolution Core Augmentation CA-2

    That's 60K+ of EHP without overheat. 1482m3/min before implants and boosters, or 69 block of ice per hour if your ice mining. You don't even need the implants to fit it for ice harvesting. Total cost is <30M for the ship and mods, 70M for the two implants, which are a one time purchase if you only fly in high-sec and aren't afk. The implants are free if you still have yours from earlier too.

    A retriever fit for max yield will only get an additional 7% yield per hour and has only 1/5 the tank meaning its a much easier gank target.

    T2 hulls are tankier but also cost upwards of 200M per hull meaning that isk wise its easier to justify the catalysts required to kill it. In addition, T2 hulls take more skill to get into and insurance on them is a poor investment.

    A procurer on the other hand costs 30M for hull and mods and requires a minimum of 10 T2, max skill catalysts to gank it in under 10 seconds. That's a total cost of 100M in catalysts for a 30M kill, more if you assume less than perfect damage application and less than perfect fits and skills.

    In short, catalysts dont need to be nerfed and mining ships dont need to be buffed. Players just need to learn how to pick the correct ship for the correct environment and job. Play smart, dont be a target. And if the gankers come, at least hit them with drones so you get on their KM's!!

    ReplyDelete
  58. The only truly effective long term strategy against these guys would probably be the one developed by The Mittani himself ages ago. Denial of fun. Most of the tactics you've discussed would actually make more fun for CODE members. Devising clever counters to ECM, fighting in wars instead of ganking, etc... The only way to end The New Order would be to make being in New Order a miserable experience. Of the above listed suggestions, only AWOXing would really start to hit at that. Repeated corp thefts or gank disruptions on multiple juicy targets would be demoralizing. Miners won't do this though, you'd need griefers who'd want to grief other griefers. Good luck with that. The other part would be a sort of cultural revolution among high sec miners. Run nothing but full tanked Skiffs and Procurers. Never buy a permit, never mention the code, don't convo or respond to convos from its members. Never cry about getting ganked. If ganked, say GF in local, then go mine somewhere else. Under no circumstances provide them with the content they claim they are trying to create. Be as hard and unenjoyable to gank as possible. Do everything you can to make POS bashing in a blob seem more appealing.

    Whatever they might tell you, members of The New Order are like most other players in Eve in that they play simply to have fun and enjoy themselves. They're not evangelists or altruists. Make ganking miserable for them and they'll find something else to do.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This. It would indeed be a cultural revolution to get miners to cooperate like that. It seems that mining is the perfect EVE profession for players who like EVE's cultural aspects the least.

      Delete
  59. Man, there is just as much whining from the gankers, as from the miners.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Get rid of high sec. Problem solved

    ReplyDelete
  61. Going along with this "risk vs reward" concept, I don't think that outlaws (neg sec status) should be able to dock at high-sec NPC stations (except after getting podded into a new clone), nor get free noob ships.

    I also think that any Orca that drops ships, which are subsequently boarded by an outlaw, should also become a valid target.

    After all, there should be more risk with being an outlaw, when you play in high-sec.

    ReplyDelete
  62. I think that fixing the currently screwed-up bounty hunting mechanics would be a good game balance feature. There could be a series of "outlaw-hunting" modules, which only players with high sec standings can use (after all, there should be some "reward" for grinding high sec status, too).

    These "outlaw-hunting" modules could include an enhanced range warp disrupter (so MWD would still function, but outlaw cannot easily warp away), bubbles, and/or special probes/launchers to track down outlaws . These modules would work in high-sec, but ONLY against targets with neg sec status.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't know whether these specific ideas are the best solutions, but I completely agree with the premise. Let the gankers gank; but give players the tools to hunt them down and bring the outlaws to justice. Negative sec status definitely needs a penalty to it, and in keeping with the themes of EVE, that penalty should be applied by other players.

      Delete
  63. Jester - Theres a solution you missed although its distasteful. The posters putting all the stats and fits are missing that surviving the gank or killing the Catalyst doesn't solve the problem. This isn't an engineering problem.

    To solve the problem simply kill every miner. Constantly. Everywhere. Push the miner suicide gank count so high CCP has to take notice. You can't fight CODE. directly but you can starve the predator to death and force CCPs hand. If you've ever seen the movie tombstone, make that note in the miner's bio supporting James a lot like the red scarf and the "Cowboys".

    ReplyDelete
  64. @ anon319 - there's another way to starve the predator. for all the miners, everywhere.. to basically go on strike. choke the economy. where do all those shiny ships incursion runners fly come from? the 'ahem' code members don't build their own ships. industrialists do.

    So, I say this to ALL the miners, the industrialists...

    Miners, and indy pilots - we have power. We can choke them. There is no reason for us to build one bullet, one laser crystal, one missile or one single. solitary. ship. to be used against us. That's what we're doing. harvesting and selling minerals to indy pilots who build ships that these people take and use to harass, annoy, suicide gank and cut into our profits - our bottom line is that by building, mining, researching.. ANYWHERE, we are nicking ourselves to death.

    A lot of you say 'well good, every competitor is one less I have to worry with' - the problem with that is we all have niches. We all do something a little different. and all indy pilots or miners - we need each other to survive as a whole. Without supporting each other, our playstyle will die.

    Every ship built, every missile or drone, is a possibility of one of us getting nuked. I'm nto calling for an end to pvp, pvp's fine, and there's risk in doing anything. yes yes, I can hear the gankers winding up to wail and scream from here, but just because you want to play the game 'you' want doesn't mean you can stop us from playing it the way 'we' want. And all we have to do is simply stockpile. Sit and stare at you and say 'you want to shoot us? you want to bump us? fine - build your own damn ships, or pay 10k X the price for them.'

    You want a catalyst with which to shoot miners? ok. Let's see how you like it when your little destroyer runs 100 million isk, because all the people that know how to mine, and build, and bring the goods to market have gotten fed up with your crap.

    You want a ship? tough, you're gonna be so busy mining and manufacturing you won't have time to DO anything else.

    Congrats... you kill or drive off all the carebears - you have to become them or perish.

    I, for one, and all the miners and indy pilots I know are going to spread the word.... and the word is

    INDUSTRY STOPS NOW.

    Let's see how ccp likes it when the gears that run this whole little world grind to a halt.. not because we quit mining, or because we quit building, but because we've decided we're going to send a message.

    You see, the problem with the code puppies is this - they really have no teeth, because they contribute NOTHING to the game world at all. They don't produce goods or services, and they don't actually produce content. Only contention. All they know how to do is destroy. Fine. Let them shit and piss in the sandbox, without any new fuel for their playstyle.

    All they'll have left is each other to feed on... because, one by one, someone's nerves are gonna break... they're gonna 'need' a new ship. and they're gonna be forced to mine, or be forced to build... which is anathema to them.. and those that do fall away from the fold of predators become prey themselves. And one by one, they'll thin their own ranks, feed on their own flesh and their own blood.

    Meanwhile, we miners and industrialists can simply sit back. continue to play as we like while they get more and more desperate... because WE can replace our ships. We have the technology, we have the power. We can control the entire market from the bottom up. Imagine a day when tritanium sells for 100k isk per unit. We can make it happen. We CAN.. we are utterly capable, if we stand together, of utterly choking new eden.

    Goons? doesn't matter. NC? doesn't matter. No one can force us to work, or force us to sell to them. We could even do one better and sell 'ONLY' directly to players we know and trust. Embargo the whole of the eve market.
    (continued)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The pvpers, and the gankers think they own new eden? No.. they play here at OUR leisure, like kids having a house party at dad's because he lets them... but it's time to remember who pays the bills here. Who owns every drop of scordite in those rocks? Who are the ones that pull every bit of ABC ore out?

      US. And why in the frigid blue hells should we put in our hard work to support someone who wants to shoot us in the face? That's not good business.

      So I call to every miner. every indy pilot, every freighter pilot, every lowbie salvager

      Stop industry. Stop selling. sit on your goods. Stop mining if you just can't resist selling.

      Our playstyle is not dependent on theirs. Theirs is dependent on OURS.

      It's a battle of wills. 'code' wants to break the backs of the miners, send them out into null or low? pfft.

      They don't realize that WE own them. Their ships came from our foundries, our rock harvesting, their rigs from our salvage....

      So - Let's choke them all. Let them starve, or let them become carebears.

      Their choice. We can still make our money, and the less industry we do, the more we make, because we create the supply which is demanded.

      Let us sell directly to our friends, our family, our corps, and let those that don't work for their food starve. Let those that cant' build their ships, or cut their own rocks... well.. let them eat lasers. And when they're all sitting out there in pods, because they can't afford 100 mil for a gankship, we can look at them and say

      'You know what? Ganker tears are the best tears.'

      Delete
    2. Edward Teague, Saviour of CareBears!

      This is an absolutely fabulous idea! This would really throw a big old monkey wrench right into the workings of the New Order. If done right, it could doom the entire organization as, just like you say, they eventually have to feed on each other until attrition whittles them down to nothing.

      Please carry this banner far and wide and get as many miners and industrialists on board as possible. With everyone working together, we can make a difference!

      Two little matters occur to me, however, that may slightly impede this grand undertaking.

      First, there is the matter of all the Code-compliant miners. These guys continue to run their industrial thingies with the blessing of the New Order, so long as their permit is up-to-date and they abide by the Code. If everyone without a permit stops mining, these guys are going to be making bank! I suppose it's not just miners, but manufacturers as well. Anyone who supports the New Order and "crosses the picket line" of your proposed strike can name their price for goods and get rich. If all the non-compliant miners stop mining, does that mean the New Order wins?

      Secondly, and contrary to popular belief, members of the New Order are not complete idiots and newbs. Many of them have industrial alts (or mains) that produce all the war materiel required for enforcement actions. With the New Order ship reimbursement program, a ganker with Indy alt can actually make better income providing their own 'Weapons of Justice' at a discount and then getting the full reimbursement price after they have used them.

      Suddenly a third possibility occurs to me. Suppose all HighSec industry stops and prices skyrocket. Wouldn't the nullbears just fill the market demand and take advantage the obscene profits to be made? Maybe that's the whole point to begin with and Mr. Edward Teague is actually a secret agent for a nullsec bloc that is using this issue to manipulate the markets through meta-gaming.

      Nice try, Mr. Edward Teague, but I'm on to your crafty and nefarious tactics now...

      Delete
    3. Dear Edward,

      Alts. Doh!

      Regards,
      Jamie.

      Delete
    4. The miners NO target cant be bothered to fit a shield extender and sit at thier keyboards, good luck getting them to sign up to a protracted trade war!

      More than likely the decent indy guys who are part of the community that are active players might stop, then the AFK anti social miners would carry on as is making more ISKies as supply drops a bit.

      Result, nothing, other than richer AFKers and bots.

      this would make New Order very happy,

      Delete
    5. @Edward - OP of the starve the predators poster here. Your idea will never work because there is no way you'll get that many people to play along in an organized fashion.

      My method doesn't require all of hi sec to play along. ISK/catalysts/20-30 pilots are easier to get then consensus.

      Delete
    6. Then the industrialists, the miners, the salvagers - they all deserve to lose their playstyle. If the goons can put up with each other enough to work to a common goal, but the average miner can't... screw em. Let em die. Let em drop out, drop off, and let them bend over and take what they deserve If they can't even work together in the 'slightest' way - then Eve is a lie, made a lie by the players themselves - what you do makes no difference.

      Let em burn, and let em die. And as for the new order guys having their own alts.. hey.. cool, let them provide industry for the rest of new eden.

      Let those that wish to destroy destroy, because it is easy, and let the world burn.

      To the miners and indys - do you want to lose your playstyle? because this is how it happens. Not by sudden force, but by slow erosion. And if you do nothing, if you say 'I'm too small to make a difference'.. then yes, you are. Nothing you do matters, and your participation (or lack of) will mean nothing. or, conversely, to take the goon's example - every one is important, and each one can make a difference.

      But it's up to you. If you value being able to mine, or haul, or salvage, then it's up to YOU to defend it. It's up to YOU to tank, to deny those fights, deny those tears, deny the loot. Destroy your own jetcans before you allow someone else to take them. It's YOUR responsibility.

      And honestly, I'm sick to the teeth of seeing you say 'I can't defend myself' - Eve is the greatest lie in MMO's to this date - 'we have pve content. you can do as you like' ... the lie, is the omission of 'If you fight for it, and force your will upon those around you. You want to play the sandbox game? then be prepared to bust the nuts of every one around, or be eaten alive'

      And if you can't be bothered, if you can't stand to actually mine at your keyboard, or can't be arsed to take a 5% hit on your yield to put on a tank, or mine in something that's more than a second shell for your egg.... Then you deserve to be (in the game's context) beaten down, gutted, and your frozen corpse to drift in space as a testament to just exactly how loathesomely FAR human stupidity's come. Learn from your mistakes, or not, but if you choose to 'not', then you lose the right to whinge and bitch when the things you refused to learn, refused to make a stand on, are taken away from you.

      The choices will be made, with or without you. With you, you might just have a say in it. Without you, you become irrelevant.

      Prove me wrong, carebears - because I'm sick of being labeled and lumped in with that shameful label, just because I enjoy mining or industry. But I'm not stupid about it. I tank my ship, I stay aware, I don't jetcan mine, and even when I did in my stupider days, I'd pop the can before anyone got close to it. 5 mil hold full of ore isn't worth a 200 mil hull.

      I have lost ZERO mining ships to ganks. NONE. I've been mining off and on for more than 5 years.

      For what it's worth, I'm giving you people a clue - you think the summer of rage was successful at making ccp bend their knee? You want concession to your playstyle? you're pissed about industry being ripped out of the place in the universe has has established infrastructure to feed the nullsec king's pockets?

      Do it. I dare you. Shut down the economy - if you're not utter cowards. If you are, then this isn't the game for you. Send ccp a message. this is bigger than the new order, bigger than any null coalition. yeah, fine, botters will bot - let them. without the rest of the indy's whirling around, it'll be so much easier to catch and eliminate them.

      If you think you DESERVE to play the game you want to play, then prove it, or stfu and quit subbing.

      Delete
  65. I hesitate to say this, but, you never mentioned controlling the security tag market. Entirely possible with enough will. High sec miners are only victims because they act like victims. They need to organise an offence and the market is just one way to do it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Many gankers are -10. Why would controlling sec tags affect them? Also to control sec tags would mean pretty much controlling the whole of low-sec and it's belts where the tags come from. If you're going to do that, I suggest mining in low-sec might be the wiser thing to do seeing as you have total control over the belts ;-)

      Delete
    2. You don't know much about ganking, do you?

      The sec tag market has absolutely nothing to do with ganking. Most gankers have neg sec status, and many even have -10 sec status. There is no significant difficulty to flying around high sec with a neg sec status.

      Delete
  66. if you want to mess up the process start up additional organisations which operate to New Order processes. Instead of miners having to fork over a mere 10mil. Create multiple alts, then picture how long this method of play would last when miners get run for 5 or 10 times for a "mining permit".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The cash element is not at all important, its mearly there to stop bumping being seen as harrasment, as doing something for cash is okay by CCP.

      If 10 groups did this NO would be overjoyed, more coverage means it would be harder for AFK tankless miners to hide, and alow the miners who are engaged and alert to ply thier trade.

      Delete
  67. Wait, you're not against ganking? So you just compare ganking to rape for fun?

    http://jestertrek.blogspot.com/2013/01/cotw-ganking-isnt-pvp-and-never-was.html

    Seriously, at least be honest with yourself, even if you're not honest with anyone else.

    ReplyDelete
  68. If you look at the Real Killboard -https://zkillboard.com/alliance/99002775/ CODE are losing DRAMATICALLY to Concord. That is why all the bragging, harassment etc. in local is all they can do because they are losing a war against miners and the miners never raise a finger but just watch Concord kill them constantly.

    Yes you can say they gain ISK but ganking a mining ship is not making real ISK so they LOSE LOSE. Why you think Jimmie 316 constantly talks just about ISK and people buying shares? Because there is a severe money drain. Also why does he use minerbumming (yeah spelt that wrong) to spew propaganda instead of telling the truth? Does he ever mention a loss? Does he admit anything? The answer is no because his 'slaves', the gankers need constant motivation and to believe they are doing something worthwhile.

    Truth is most gankers have no real lives and spend 24/7 playing Eve, they are easily manipulated and controlled and can't think for themselves. They are also very angry at the real world and even the eve world. Jimmie convinces them they matter and convinces them he is something when all he is doing is role playing. They even believe he has a decent butt which shows how far they will go (and that is true, see their forum and one of them talking about his butt). It is all very sad pathetic stuff and they are to be felt sorry for.

    Last laugh is one of them 'loyal' for short is so angry at the negative response he gets from people that he now wants them to say 'good fight' or 'gf' after he kills a miner. Such is the mindset of the these gankers that they think shooting an unarmed miner is an elite form of pvp and that they matter when all they are is Jimmie 316's ego puppets.

    Last word Jimmie hasn't changed anything and won't ever change anything in high sec, miners adapt and ore prices stay the same and New Order own nothing and control nothing. It is all about anger to promote a fail eve player called Jimmie 316 who had no role in the game so turned it into hatred to anyone who enjoys it. And yes he would see it end tomorrow just so he can see his frail ego remain intact.

    Yeah and I am anonymous, such is the animosity of this group that they won't let anyone play the game so even a forum telling the truth post evokes harassment.

    ReplyDelete
  69. it not an issue with suicide ganking, just what about amounts to unhealthy preoccupation with ganking barges. I doubt when it when it was ospreys and scythes that there was serious attention to farming miners for tears. despite the buff to barge EHP this disparity remains. for a game which promotes a wide scope of activities it seems that some are as broken record as the PvE they claim to dispose.

    undock -> warp to belt -> shoot barge -> repeat

    Any industry feature must have an actual gameplay attached to it in order to exist. An interesting context, which barges have three useless skills which are not attaching to their actual gameplay. science, industry and astrogeology, if CCP have intention to practicing this preach then the required skills of barges/exhumers should change. at least back in the day, the skills for osprey lead into a game of choice,

    ReplyDelete
  70. Buy a permit, reduce your chances of dying.

    Simple.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Ganking is balanced. Miners have a range of ship and fitting options available to manage their level of risk vs. efficency. If they mine in a tanked Procurer, for all practical purposes they're ungankable, atk or not. Yes, CODE. could pop a brick-tanked Proc for lulz or to make a point, but the opportunity cost is ridiculous. I've afk mined in a Proc in systems crawling with New Order, and I'm not certain I've ever even been scanned by them.

    It's only when miners prioritize yield (or, God help us, cargo capacity) over tank that they become vulnerable to gankers. And at that point, if you still think CCP needs to nerf ganking again, then fundamentally what you're arguing is that highsec miners should be the only class of players in the game who don't have to adjust their ships or fits to adapt to local conditions.

    ReplyDelete
  72. If you want to balance the game against gankers, give mining ships the ability to fit a few weapons at the expense of mining yield. That way they have a choice, maximize yield or fit to fight back. How long do you think ganking will continue if the gankers don't know whether a miner is really just chipping away at rocks, or is an armed trap just waiting for them? Yes, the gankers plan on losing their ships anyway, but not before taking down the miner. If miners can ruin the gank by taking out a catalyst or two, it spoils all of that. At the very least, they will have to be more cautious in choosing targets.

    If the miners choose to continue to be sitting ducks even after being given the ability to arm themselves sufficiently, then they have no room to complain when they get targeted and blown up.

    And if the gankers step up their game by bringing in more ships to take down armed miners, then we will know conclusively that the "code" is a load of crap, as they definitely won't be going after the afk/bot/lazy/untanked miners.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. historically no. in the original release the barges (tech1) all just came with a single mid-slot. plus the recommendation was for a "Active Shield Certificate". it would logically follow then that CCP never considered that these would be placed in harms way nor would they be the focus of serious aggression. now what "lesson" does the miner learn from their tech1 experience? certainly not anything about fitting a tank. the barges actually existed in this layout for many years. during this time, some players reasoned the following:

      - the ships are easy to kill
      - easy to find
      - slow and commonly motionless
      - being a faction ship are expensive

      a delightful cocktail for the suicide gank.

      now you can tank the hulk. and this was cited by pirates as "how to survive". but just look at that. you need the most expensive tech2 ship below marauder class. the most entensive skill training in fitting and defence; to perform the most basic action in industry. oh and that needs two fitting mods and has no options for utilities. does any other class of ship have to fit like that to be factional?

      over the years this built up a sense of entitlement within the high-sec pirate. the term is surplus killing.

      fast forward to today. some pirates still lament the barge changes two years later. many still have that same sense of entitlement that barges were placed into the game as a troll on industry and a gift that keeps giving explosions. or newer pirates to the game have inherited this belief from their trainers/guides in the gank.

      as for miners? well what they learnt comes from the tutorial - which provides zero preperation for the act of a suicide gank.

      Delete
  73. You say CCP would never abolish ganking and griefing.
    What would happen if the "new space" promised was hi sec and lowsec in every way, but the sheer unpleasant behaviour was strictly not allowed and mercilessly dealt with?
    PvP sure, nonconsentual Pvp sure, sheer imbeciles concorded, goading in local concorded tear extraction concorded. i wonder which version would prove to be the most popular and had the highest player numbers? Nah couldn't be allowed, people might like it and subscriptions rise.

    ReplyDelete
  74. So Jester, are the odds low or moderate for a suggestion that CCP make impacts (bumping) do damage to both ships? The positive of this is that it makes an aggressive move an aggressive move, just as much as triggering any weapon.

    The biggest negative I see is consequence of accidental bumping due to drifting or bad piloting (or very crowded space).

    The programming difficulty is identifying who started it for Concord reaction. The tedious part of programming would be to determine how much damage is caused by relative ship size and vector/velocity - though I think most of that's already done for how much movement bumping imparts.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Jimmy and his mouth breathers are every bit as spineless and talentless at pvp as the orphanage (good riddance) was. The orphanage war decked our corp which consisted mainly of less than 6 month old players, all of which had little or no Eve pvp experience. With no other choice, little money and little Eve experience, we went after them. They ran every time we showed up in combat ships, but had incredibly big mouths when we were in transports and barges. We ended their little war with a 94% efficiency against their 6%. It was a great day when they folded. It will be an equally great day when talentless cowards like jimmy are gone too. :)

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.