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, March 12, 2013

How safe is too safe?

There's a really fun scene in the movie Lord of War that's been on my mind lately when I've been thinking about high-sec ganking and whether high sec is "safe enough" or "too safe."  In the scene, an illegal arms dealer (masterfully played by Nicholas Cage in one of the best roles of his life) has a cargo plane full of illegal arms bound for one of the many African conflicts of the 1980s and 1990s.  The plane has been forced to land on a rough dirt highway in Africa and Cage's character has gotten rid of the illegal cargo through the simple expedient of giving it away free to the locals.  Not wanting to get caught with the cargo, the two pilots run off.  What happens to the plane itself?  That's answered in the following scene:

Is high-sec safe?  High-sec is about as safe as that African plain.  And in my opinion, that's just about right.

Every week -- it used to be on Fridays but now it's on Mondays -- I entertain all of you with a kill of the week.  If you've been reading the blog for any length of time, you know that these tend to run the gamut from hauler ganks to interesting PvP kills to expensive super-caps to goofy little one-offs.

And lots and lots of times, either the KOTW itself or one of the little honorable mentions that I throw in are high-sec ganks.

I'm not the only one that advertises such things, either.  Just in the last couple of days, TMC has entertained me with a couple of really amusing examples, including an all-out undeclared war on high-priced mission ships in Sveipar.  And of course, I've already discussed mining barge ganking.

Granted, suicide ganking in high-sec is down, most likely due to three factors:
  1. Mining barge tanks are tougher than they were.
  2. It's harder to profit from ganking thanks to loot-scooping making the scooper suspect-flagged.
  3. Kill rights gained from suicide ganking are transferrable, making the practice riskier for the gankers.
But anyone who reads the CSM December Minutes would have a very hard time arguing that CCP is trying to destroy suicide ganking.  Several devs make it clear that suicide-ganking isn't going away and the dev team regards it as one of the balancing factors in high-sec.  If anything, suicide-ganking is going to get a nice buff in the form of "Tags-4-Sec".  Further, the issue of ganking mining barges has obviously been solved.  It's my firm belief that the second issue is going to be solved next, where it hasn't been solved already.  I'm again starting to see empty hauler wrecks on the Niarja-Uedama pipes, and this is before we get any T1 hauler upgrades.  I also believe that once we have a T1 hauler in the game that can fit a decent tank and/or a size-comparable MWD, ganking of haulers will go back up since there will be less risk associated with profiting from ganking.

As for kill rights, they're becoming increasingly silly as anyone's idea of a deterrent.  Suppose I get my Retriever ganked by a couple of people using Catalysts.  I now have two kill-rights that I can sell.  BFD: the pilots involved are almost certainly only out there in Catalysts, and likely in criminal-flagged Catalysts to boot!  The kill right is not only irrelevant, it's laughably irrelevant.  In exchange for the loss of my 30 million ISK ship, I get the right to kill a one million ISK ship.  Again: BFD.

Is high-sec "too safe"?  In my opinion, no.  People who do dumb things with their expensive or even not-so-expensive toys are getting themselves killed with no war-dec in evidence and CONCORD reduced to a foot-note in the affair.  If you leave an expensive Antonov AN-12 cargo plane unguarded in the plains of New Eden, you'll soon find it reduced to metal scraps.  And this is particularly true if you choose to go AFK with your ship in space or use auto-pilot.  The system, in short, is working as designed... again, in my opinion.

While I understand the desire to make high-sec less safe, the problem with doing so is that the advantage right now is still in the hands of the gankers.  And even if all other factors were eliminated, the reason for this is that they get to choose the terms of the engagement.

Let's say that you're running a major mining op and you do everything "right."  You have 20-odd mining ships, an Orca on grid, a solid 15-man defense fleet with tacklers and a variety of DPS ships, even a couple of logi.  Let's put aside that half of this fleet is going to be absolutely bored out of their minds.  I've been the guy sitting in a Caracal orbiting some mining barges waiting for something to happen.  I assure you, Dear Readers, that this is not a fun way to play EVE.  Watching grass grow is more engaging.  But we're doing it "right": we're all right next to the keyboard guarding our mining op.

The gankers are still probably going to win this engagement if they choose to take it.

Unless their pilots are -10 or suspect flagged, they can warp a group of ten Catalysts up to my mining fleet, slide right up to engagement range of two of the Retrievers, bump them to keep them from escaping, and then blow them both away, no problem.  Sure, CONCORD will show up.  Sure, my tacklers can run in and get on the kill-mails.  Absolutely, I can apply DPS and all ten Catalysts will die.  But in exchange for 15 million ISK in T1 destroyers, they kill 80 million ISK in mining barges.

They win.  The mining fleet loses.  To put it in "elite PvP" terms, I'll take the ISK efficiency of that fight every time.  And there's nothing the mining fleet can do about it until it's already over...  even though the mining fleet did everything "right".  Hell, the gankers might even be able to do it even if they're all -10 and suspect-flagged, because they'll have the element of surprise on their side.  They know exactly when the attack is going to take place, and those crucial few seconds -- even against players that are at their keyboards -- will probably be all the difference that's needed to get the ganks.  By the time someone gets a chance to yell a warning on comms, the Catalysts will already be firing.

The thing preventing this scenario from happening all the time is that:
  • mining this way is incredibly boring for the guard fleet, so you'll almost never find anyone willing to volunteer for this; and,
  • a ganking fleet that sees this going on will almost certainly move on to a softer target rather than attacking this one.
The only thing the defense fleet represents is a locked door.  A locked door only prevents casual burglary, not serious burglary.

If high-sec is going to be made "less safe", then the pendulum has to swing both ways, not just one.  Right now, high-sec ganking is preemptive, defending is not.  As things are now, the defender has no viable way to reduce risk or generate safety in high-sec... without turning high-sec into low-sec, of course.  But I'm obviously not in favor of that, either.  I've already covered why.

As I said yesterday, I'm conflicted on this topic.  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.  Anyone trying to paint me as someone who wants to make high-sec a PvP-free zone is barking up the wrong tree.  But this is also one of those topics that I don't currently believe is broken, or certainly not broken to the extent that other aspects of the game are.

But in the event CCP were to ask my my opinion on this subject, that's what I'd say.


  1. Your vid is broken, try http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WDvqPOn6g4.

    You're right about mining being boring, and running security on them even more so. Ganking is fine as it is though, certainly the gankers have the upper hand in that they control the engagement on their terms, but as you say encountering a well tanked and alert miner or mining op will generally encourage them to find a softer target, it's certainly a valid response to the threat. I know nothing of freighter and hauler ganking beyond what I read, but most of it seems to involve luck on the side of the ganker and stupidity on the side of the ganked.

  2. I'm not a highly experienced player, but my thinking re: defensive fleets for mining is all about increasing shield regen/buffer, not about applying DPS.

    Of course, it just escalates the amount of DPS the ganker needs to bring, but that's the appropriate response to any defense.

  3. I couldn't agree more. This is a great summary of the core reason I left Eve.

    1. You left Eve because in a gankers-vs-miners confrontation in hi-sec, gankers have the advantage? Do I understand you correctly?

      And if so: That's *it*? That's all you left Eve over? Was mining in hi-sec the beginning and end of your desires?

  4. No where is safe. Just like in real life.

    What stops someone from taking your car?
    No one.

    What stops them from blowing up your car?
    No one.

    Of course, the police starts looking for you.
    You do it enough times, they will find you.
    Especially if you do it in the same exact places.

    But what are the consequences?
    In real life, a hefty fine and/or prison.

    I say let the gankers do their thing.
    Let them run the additional risk of being caught and facing a Concord fine or prison.
    Let them serve out a sentence of spinning ship for 30 days.

    Law Enforcement in the future has to be effective if criminals are caught even in the old Earth days!

  5. Allowing mining fleet defenders to fire first without CONCORD interference will make hisec "more safe". Unless everyone is allowed to fire first without CONCORD interference, in which case you just have lowsec.

    Hisec is "safe enough" as it is. Any attempt to balance the "gang of experienced pilots versus the new guy" situation is only going to break something in favour of the experienced pilots who know about finding the workarounds.

    The Mackinaw, on the other hand, needs a serious whack with the nerf bat. The Skiff to a lesser extent.

  6. Does the "Kill Rights Available" color tag show up in local chat?

    I need to test that out. I haven't seen it show up yet, but I think I have "Kill Rights Available" below other color tags in priority.

  7. Tikktokk TokkzikkMarch 12, 2013 at 5:08 PM

    Or you could replace the tackle and Caracal with an ECM boat and logi.

    If that isn't enough you can also check local, use D-scan and stay aligned*.

    I can't think of ANY way to gank you if you do all of that.

    Is it boring? Sure is! But that is why you mine in highsec, no? But if you want excitement for both miners and support, try mining in lowsec/nullsec/W-space.

    *You can easily stay aligned by making a bookmark above and below the belt you're mining in.

  8. I wonder if this would be less of a problem if mining were a more involved activity. The most fun I've had mining has been solo in low-sec, constantly pinging d-scan until someone showed up, then trying to wring every ounce out the rocks while precious seconds evaporated before warping and/or cloaking my ass off. The problem with this is that it has piss-poor returns on the time invested, from an isk standpoint. But the necessity of being always involved and alert made it far more engaging than boring rocks in high-sec.

    What if being in an asteroid field was dangerous? What if you were constantly being bombarded with rocks, weakening your shields a la FTL? Or a gravity vortex, or space worms, or something that, while you didn't necessarily have to shoot it, put some spice in the experience? Right now, profit oriented mining means mimicking the behavior of bots. Couldn't miners have to at least FLY as dynamically as ships in combat to be profitable?

    Given a static target, the unprepared defenders should always be at the mercy of a prepared attacking force. And a prepared defense should shred a poorly planned attack. If what you’re saying here is true, the problem we currently have is that given maximum preparedness on both sides, the attacker will always prevail. To be sure, this is a troubling disparity, but then again, great things are often built on adapting to such imbalances. What frustrates me most is not that this in particular is imbalanced, but the lack of alternatives.

    Where is the activity that offers the defensive player a similarly skewed advantage, but at a commensurately reduced profit? I wonder if we mightn't be better served by increasing the number of way to mine to include ones that involve having fun, rather than trying for a mythical perfect balance of the current system. If CCP ever makes good on ring mining, or some variation thereof, ganking could become a non-problem – as in only crybabies who refuse to try alternatives think it is one. Ganking should always be part of EVE because it makes our efforts worthwhile; I can’t remember how many times I’ve told friends that “EVE is a game where you can actually LOSE something.” I consider that a selling point, and it’s one of the things that help me put up with the lousy parts of gameplay – like mining in its current state. One of the ideologies of EVE should be in line with "no diving if you're not in the deep end." I'm very sympathetic to the belief that miners make too much isk for too little hassle, but I’m also sorry for them, because their experience is so passive.

    If mining is only ever going to be sitting on rocks/clouds/ice and cycling 'till they're gone, then we forced to ask for a perfect balance between attacker and defender, one that will come down to pure skill alone making the difference in any given conflict. And such balance is impossible, because even if we could attain it, then the attacker or defender could always throw it off by bringing one more ship. And this does nothing to address the problem of a solo miner vs. a gank fleet. That issue could only ever be 'fixed' by making solo miners invincible, and that would be terrible for EVE.

    Ultimately I don't have a good solution for this problem, and I'm not an educated enough player to see the fallout of altering portions of gameplay across the universe. What I'm reacting to is my gut feeling: what mining and ganking call for in a pilot should not be opposed modes of thinking, but rather similar application of talents, mutually enjoying our shared universe through naturally conflicting careers.

  9. One thing that is very seldom mentioned is that, besides the options of making highsec more safe or making it less safe, there is another option. One that is both a lot more reliable and requires way less effort (= developer man-hours): keep things exactly as they are.

    Why risk turning the game into a themepark where the turnover of the playerbase is less than three months are require a endless stream of PvE content? Why risk turning the game into an even more specific niche and possibly reduce the playerbase by one or two orders of magnitude? The devs can simply do nothing at all and have exactly what they have already.

    think about it:
    - Taking no action has quite some decent incentives.
    - It may not even be really a problem worth messing with.
    - There are areas of gameplay far more in need of attention.

    You exposed what your opinion is in case CCP asked you about this subject. What is missing in my opinion, is to add that they are probably better served putting the actual effort somewhere else, even if they want to conduct discussions about this.

  10. Whilst it is concession to say that suicide ganking has recently gone down, I would corresponding argue that it gone hyperbolic since first the hulkageddon and furthered by Ice Interdiction proved how casual barge ganking is. Not to mention that bumping has partially replaced ganking as the tool to ruin someone’s day. What both of these events proved is that:

    - Miners are poor combat players in a PvP game. Miners rarely; tank, observe local, use d-scan or the map statisics. (ie ships killed with 24hrs/1hrs).
    - Miners rarely bother with any effort at revenge either.
    - generally the barges/exhumers were difficult to tank until the buff to the procurer/skiff¹.

    Both of these elements combined to make barges an almost exclusive focus for hi-sec piracy. Because it is an easy kill and largely (player) risk free.

    I admit I am guessing here, but I think that if there were published stats, it would bear out that in a PvP game – a large compliment of ships lost are non-combatants. And that even if ganking has recently dropped off, in a graph we would see that it has climbed significantly in the last three years.

    Miners need better education instead of CCP attempting to intervene via buffs. The question then comes how should they get that?

    CCP should have bit the bullet, scrapped the entire barge line and offered a single option to tech1 and tech2.

    3 highs
    5 mids
    3 lows

    Then leave it upto the players themselves to choose tank, cargo or m³/sec fittings. Tech2 to get native resists and bonus to m³/sec for ice/ore.

    ¹Jester for your fit of the week sometime try this:
    (from here: https://griefer-geddon.eve-industrialist.com/FightingHulkageddonv3.htm)
    Med Shield Rig, Med Grid Rig
    3 x mod strips
    Medium shield extender, tech2 invul x 2, shield amp (your choice of flavour)
    MAPC tech2, DCU tech2
    It’s a respectable 29k ehp skills permitting. Then ask yourself this; would you fly a combat ship which needs two power mods to complete the fit?

  11. I've played lots of MMOs over the years and one fact rings true, there are always more PVE servers and players than PVP.
    High-sec would have to turn into PVP flagged while security status would still apply for the NPC empires, the players would not be able to engage in PVP unless it was mutually acceptable.

    Yes this means war decs would have to change yet again as well.
    Stay with me just a bit more because the solution isn't as easy as turning off PVP in high sec.

    So no ganking can occur which means there is no risk for the current manufacturing and industry in high sec. The proliferation of manufacturing in high sec is already a sore subject and I think it's an area that needs to be addressed at the same time as any change to PVP mechanics.

    Simply put I think there should only be manufacturing for the tutorial missions at NPC station hubs, everything else should be conducted at POS. Which of course requires the redesign of POS to happen as well for a safe high sec to occur.

    POS in high sec should be limited to small towers and the subsequent limitations to manufacturing capacity. Low sec would get medium and large towers to help give it a bit more appeal, but I have other plans for low sec which I won't go into here since this post is long already.

    Mining will need to be adjusted as well. Drastically reduce the number of belts in .8-.5 sec systems and dramatically increase the number of grav sites instead. While this won't eliminate bot mining it will make it require a bit more effort to scan down the sites and move once the site is depleted.

    Newer characters can still practice mining and make income, but the dedicated miners will find the grav site change easy to deal with as long as there are plenty of sites and the respawn rate happens every few hours.

    There will need to be more entrances to low/null to cut down on the number of bottle neck ambushes. So more links and connections to diversify the map.

    As for low, we all know in it's current configuration it's just not that appealing. So why not make it more appealing.

    How about letting alliances claim a home system which allows for a payment to increase the NPC patrols at the gates and beef up turrets. Perhaps an NPC run cyno jammer which has specific maintenance periods which require the owners to provide for their own defense at certain times.

    This won't prevent black ops raids or block covert cyno. I think a limit to small or medium POS towers would make sense in a home system since it's a safer area and only allow large towers in the open system of low. Home systems will not be linked directly to high sec, you've got to make at least one jump to get to them.

    I also think SuperCaps need to be banned from all of low and restricted to Null only.

    So we've made high sec more appealing to the average MMO player, made low sec more appealing to the PVE/PVP interested, increased the overall population of the game which will lead to more people trying out the new graduated version of PVP instead of the current all or nothing, and provided a boost to null through the industry changes.

    Yes it's a complex process of changes, but if CCP wants Eve to grow then they are changes which will have to happen. Plus, a lot of them are changes that already need to be made even if none of the high sec PVP mechanics are changed.

    The ultimate goal is to shift the focus of Eve to null sec, but for that to happen there has to be an area for the casual player to feel at home, for those learning PVP to feel at home, and ultimately a place for the hard core raider to feel at home. Eve in its current format only has a home for a very small segment of the population, which is why high sec has the bulk of players; it's the closest thing to a home most people are comfortable with in the game.

    Alternately, you can just keep things as they are and watch that flat line of players start to slowly take a downward turn as subscriptions, and opponents to gank, goes away.

  12. I think the *real* problem with the safe vs. unsafe high sec issue is that everyone forgets that low sec is supposed to be the unsafe part of empire, not high sec. Empire space is supposed to have regions which are very safe (high sec) and regions which are not so safe (low sec), comparable to modern urban areas. However, currently, low sec isn't much different than null sec, esp. to the carebear community.

    Keep the last sentence in mind, because turning high sec into low sec, by making high sec less safe and more open to non-consensual PVP just isn't going to fly with the carebear community. They won't adapt - they will quit and take their sub money elsewhere, which is bad for CCP and thus bad for all of us.

    My suggestion:

    High sec should definitely be safer, but nothing says that 'safer' should be equal to 'profitable'. So, high sec should also be made much, much less profitable. Taxes should be much higher, fees should be charged for every damn thing you do in high sec. Every ISK you make in high sec should be subject to income taxes. Corporations and alliances should also be taxed. Offline towers should still cost ISK to keep anchored in high sec. Ie. you have to pay to be safe and to use high sec.

    Basically, if you are going to play in high sec only, then you really should only be able to make enough ISK to afford to fly T1 ships, perhaps even only frigs and cruisers. PLEXing your account via high sec ISK grinding, regardless of mining, incursions, mission running, trading, manufacturing, etc? Absolutely not.

    Low sec should also be made a bit safer, to entice more people to go out there and play - something in between the current high sec and the current low sec. Right now, the risk is too high and the reward does not justify the risk. Buffing the rewards in low sec never seems to work, so we should try to (slightly) nerf the risk.

    A better method to fix the high sec, low sec, and null sec issues would also be to create more of a gradual transition between these spaces, rather than the current hard binary-state transitions - ie. Concord response vs no Concord response. Player sec status should also be part of the equation.

    For example, Concord response could be made problematic based on system sec - ex. 90% probability of Concord responding in 0.9 space, 40% probability in 0.4 space, etc. If an aggressor has a high sec status, the response will be slower; if the aggressor has a lower sec status, the response will be faster.

  13. Jester, ya know what? I don't care about high sec and I don't care about null sec.

    I want to know what you propose to suggest to CCP to fix low sec.

    1. What do you think is broken about it? I'm actually pretty happy with where low-sec is right now.

  14. And... with that, you have my vote. Not that from YEARS of posts you didn't already as anyone who has read your stuff for any real length of time knows this is what you believe, without having to read tween the lines.

    But, you have now made your 'stand' letter clear for the drooling James315 sycophants, not that they'll shut up or actually listen to reason... they listen to J315, reason, as compared to obfuscation, disinformation, propaganda and rhetoric, is very obviously not a part of their modus operandi.

  15. Wow, a well argued, nuanced position... Are you sure you're an EvE player? As someone who runs industrial alts when not PvPing, I completely agree with your assessment of high sec safety. I routinely take tons of paranoid safety precautions and do lots of "the right things" and all that this accomplishes is the relative safety of not being the easiest target on display. Bottom line is from haulers to POSes to barges, pretty much all industrial operations are soft targets no matter what you do to try and protect them. The only real safety in high sec is the anonymity of being lost in the crowd. Keep your head down and don't be the weakest or juiciest target in the herd.

  16. "I also believe that once we have a T1 hauler in the game that can fit a decent tank and/or a size-comparable MWD, ganking of haulers will go back up since there will be less risk associated with profiting from ganking."

    I'm really just a beginner so might have missed your point here, but I've been using this in high sec which seems minimally dangerous:

    [Iteron Mark III, Budget Blockade Runner]
    Improved Cloaking Device II

    Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I

    Micro Auxiliary Power Core I
    Micro Auxiliary Power Core I
    Local Hull Conversion Inertial Stabilizers I

    Medium Ancillary Current Router I
    Medium Ancillary Current Router I
    Medium Ancillary Current Router I

    When you get up to freighter volumes, I realize it's different, but there are so many killmails of people in smaller haulers not bothering to protect themselves in high sec thinking they are invulnerable, or that insane Tengu you posted that died in Rancer. Do you think the game would benefit from extending the tutorials even further, so these people don't end up with the sense of entitlement or pure ignorance that leads to these unnecessary losses?

    Sure EVE is a very complex game, but I agree with Mittani's observation that people mostly seem to find a small niche for themselves and stay in it, rather than continuing to ascend the learning curve. So many - not all - gank deaths are due to pure ignorance of the possibilities. It can't be just the game itself that's at fault here! (Sorry if my comments are too beginner-level for this blog.)

    1. The cloak is useless, and can't be used while moving. Maybe put an autotargeter in high. The noise it makes when you are yellow-boxed might wake you up.

      Then replace the MWD with a 10MW afterburner. Set it to not repeat. Order your warp, and hit it. When it finishes cycling, you will warp out immediately.

      Replace the Micro Auxiliaries with a pair of warp stabilizers.

      Put a pair of Medium Regolith F-S9 shield extenders in medium.

      Replace the rigs with shield rigs.

      Do not autopilot.

      That should allow you to possibly survive a poorly run gank.

    2. Oh get a clue. That fitting is a standard T1 cloaky hauler, the fitting with MWD (and sufficient power mods to use it) is for the well-known MWD+Cloak trick. The ship is thus visible upon entering a system for only a fraction of a second if the technique is executed accurately.

    3. better to use the tech2 or only carry cheap. if is expensive, contract it with decent rate per jump.

      the mammoth is one of the best options for tech1 hauling too. quicker to train for, and lots of slots for some defence or "turn/burn" mods.

  17. That's a better idea but it's still hamstrung by the points made above;
    -(Excepting the logi)None of your defences can do anything until the attack is already underway. If your defence ships are slow to lock them up a cat' fleet could bag several barges before your guys clamp them down. Even if your ships lock first then the gank fleet still gets the first volley and has the option to adopt the afk cloaker method and just sit there, forcing you to either run away without a shot being fired (not a single isk spent by them but you've lost potential isk because you had to abandon the belt) or just sitting there for 30mins while your defences get bored and start losing concentration before they attack. Same result as slow locking defenders; you won't react in time.
    -The defence fleet has to sit sentry duty and your miners have to remain on consant alert. Trust me, unless your fellow corpies are exceptional conversationalists then you will get mind-numbingly bored. This is a side-effect of the current mining system and makes for both an un-fun 'game' and defnders which are less likely to react in time if they've been in the belt for more than about 10minutes. The gank fleet though has probably been in constant motion which gives them a huge advantage in response times when the action starts

    The biggest problem for miner ganking isn't that the gankers can blow away a barge so quickly, it's that the measures required to prevent it have to be alert before the gankers are even on grid and active the second shots are fired which is not encouraged by the mining system as it stands.
    When I'm running a complex then I can tell you as soon as a potential site-theif has entered 1au. Even when missioning I typically notice incoming ships before they've even fully left warp because while combat in EVE is distracting, it is also highly engaging and gets you actively doing something and focusing on the game. It can also be done effeciently by 1 ships which means all your focus is on one screen.
    Mining, by contrast, is immensly boring and repetative and decidedly un-engaging. I know people who have actually said "Fancy some mining? I've got an essay I need to finish." while I've never heard someone say they're going semi-afk in the middle of a mission or combat site. It also typically requires multiple ships to be effective (especially if you need to maintain a guard fleet) which often means dual-boxing. Even with just 2 accounts you are likely to miss something (or someone) when tabbing between them.

    I think the current ganking system is fine with a huge BUT, which is that mining itself needs a huge rework. Let the semi-afk mining stay for those that need it but there needs to be some system which is more interactive for those with the attention to spare. I can't think of a good system off the top of my head but something that is more engaging so a miner or defence pilot is more likely to be alert and managing their ship(s) when gankers call by, rather than bored, distrcted and probably playing peggle or angry birds on their phone.

  18. It's interesting that you use a illegal gunrunner in a third world country as your example. Wouldn't miners argue that they are law abiding citizens in a first world country? I think that we would all expect a law abiding citizen to be protected-- just as we wouldn't expect someone to be able to easily, and illegally, run guns. If there weren't ramifications, we'd all do it.

    This is probably where I should mention that I don't mine at all. I assume there is a better payout for mining in null or low, but it doesn't seem that someone is much safer mining in high sec.

    Maybe more discussions should be had on what is being mined and where. What if there were protected or unprotected belts? Belts that Concord always Polices to "protect it's citizens"? And play up the first world vs third world systems... and I'm not talking about null/low vs high. With alpha where it is, response time in high sec .5 vs 1.0 doesn't seem to matter anymore. Maybe something new could be introduced to change what systems you can actually pull off a gank in, no matter your numbers. A Concord tower that dampens a ship that targets another ship that isn't in fleet in a 1.0 belt.

    I'm just spit balling here.

  19. Hisec doesn't need to be more or less safer, it needs more and higher taxes and isk sinks.

  20. They should double or even triple concord response time and double or triple gank target ships EHP. This shouldn't make it easier or harder to gank any given ship, but a gank should take 20-30 seconds to do.

    This would give the defender a chance to defend himself (assuming he is at his keyboard and has additional defensive support ships in fleet).

    The problem at the moment is that a gank is 6 seconds of fury and even if the defender is awake he is unlikely to be able to defend himself.

  21. I've hauled, mined and suicide ganked, and the major problem I have with the balance as it stands is alts. People make a low SP alt for ganking, gank until they have bad sec and flush the alt for a new one. Often they hide in newbcorps so that even if you wanted to wardec them, you can't, or are just a corp of low SP gankers with no assets worth blowing up.

    It seems harsh, but I'd even go so far as saying that members of noobcorps shouldn't be able to engage in highsec (safety always on), and that you shouldn't be able to biomass an alt with negative sec.

    None of this prevents ganking, which I think is an important aspect of the game, but it does mean that gankers have to have more invested than a few days of skill training.

    As for killrights: being able to sell/transfer them is a good start, but what would be really cool is if they behaved as a free wardec option. Some guy ganks your mining op? Great, you can now choose to wardec his corp for a week, whenever you like, for free.

    1. "I'd even go so far as saying that members of noobcorps shouldn't be able to engage in highsec (safety always on), and that you shouldn't be able to biomass an alt with negative sec."

      I'd completely agree with both parts.

  22. For the "defending is boring" problem... what about if there was a trigger for >X mining ships in a belt to spawn pirates?

    1. Why ships, why not ore/ice gathered?

      And yeah this would help very much to make mining more interesting.

      You can link the spawns to the sec standing of the system, this should give afk miners less systems to mine at, and diverse space more even in high sec.

      And it should give combat pilots something valid to do while protecting a fleet.
      Sounds great.

      More dynamic interaction in general is something that EVE should do for its environment .

  23. I agree mostly with what your saying here Jester; but one of the big things about your 'defending the mining fleet' description is that it falls under the 'emergent gameplay' that everyone keeps saying is the big selling point behind EVE.

    You don't NEED to have a defensive wing in your mining fleet and so by having one (due to threats of gankers) is creating more content because of them - and that is the emergent gameplay element that I'm sure the J315 people will say that they are 'adding to the game' by playing the bad guys.

    You could argue that boredom is a price they pay to take on that role, but how can that be any different to camping a gate or waiting for an FC to call in a fleet - its 'idle' time where you could be doing something more fun (in game) but don't. I think its then down to how the group works as sometimes it can be quite fun to have a laugh on chat / voice comms with everyone, even if you are just hanging around, guns on safe and hoping it says quiet you can still have a good time without breaking a single rock. I would imagine that if you feel that your time is too valulable for that then don't do it.

    Also in terms of the barge, I think a lot of industrialists would see it as a simple profit and loss situation.

    Unless your really unlucky and get ganked on day 1 of buying a new barge your going to get a good amount of ISK out of it for a good while. So when you say you lose a 30mil ship to a 5mil attacker you've probably made 50mil after you bought the ship and so as long as its paid for itself and you've made a profit the net result is still good and you can live with the loss.

    The ganker on the other hand wouldn't have made much money back and so takes a net loss (not that they are bothered about the loss)

    Equally if miners are REALLY worried about getting ganked then they could ALL jump into Procurers and make the gankers life really difficult as they would need to bring a lot more DPS for a single gank and its most likely not worth it.

    Its a funny one because personally I think that miners still have plenty of options to keep them safe but they chose not to take them. Its the same as if I decided to not fit a shield booster module (for example) in a L4 and then complain that my ship can't tank it - I made the choice knowing (or should have known) that it wasn't sufficiant, or at least learnt that I needed something else and adjust my fit to suit.

    Its the same with everything in EVE - you know what you know and roll the dice hoping that your number comes up; just don't complain when it doesn't because you went into it knowing the consequences and you have to either reduce the risk or live with the cost.

    1. Your analogies are way, way off. First of all, if you take an untanked ship into an L4 you will die because your ship isn't fit for the task. The task of a barge is to mine rocks, so most barges are fit to mine rocks. My Retriever is cheaply fit for yield. It has not made me 50mil between ganks, it has made me over a billion ISK and it has never once been on grid with a ganker. If I do happen to lose it, I can write it off as the cost of doing business, buy another one, fit it the same way, and make another billion ISK or so. That's the real equation. That's one reason why most miners don't fit for tank in high sec: Given the likelihood of a gank outside of a handful of systems, all you're doing is making much less ISK, when there's not that much to be had in the first place.

      Now, let's look at Jester's hypothetical mining setup (hypothetical, because nobody's actually going to do it). The people sitting around in combat ships should still get paid, which dilutes the already mediocre ISK/hr from mining. The obvious question is: why isn't the fleet all in shooty ships running L4s for much better rewards, while still having the same great conversations on comms? It's not like they'll be able to stop the gankers from taking out the barges anyway, because of CONCORD. The whole exercise is pointless, dull and unrewarding.

      If you want an example of emergent gameplay, here you go: Years ago, in EVE, high sec mining ops were relatively common. Then people started wardeccing corps that held mining ops, hoping for lots of easy targets. The obvious adaptation? Solo miners. Enjoy your emergent gameplay.

    2. AnonymousMarch 13, 2013 at 1:36 PM sums it up perfectly.

      And this is, what is wrong with high-sec.

      Raising EHP of industrial ships (hauler, miner, etc) AND increase concord respond times accordingly, give combat ships purpose in mining ops via rat spawns, forbid bio massing alts with negative sec status, members of noob corps shouldn't be able to engage in highsec (safety always on) seem to be all reasonable to solve most of the problems.

      Emergent gameplay IS good, the game should support it in high sec as well.

  24. Foolish example. The difference between the real world and the game, is that there are consequences. Either the cops actually put the criminal in jail, or in gun-toting countries, the victim can put a bullet in the criminal themselves. There is actual risk to the crime, which is a deterrent to most crime. In Eve, Concord is a joke. It's a game mechanic that is manipulated for griefing. There is no real consequence for griefing when a negative ten can fly into high sec in a pod and ship up from an orca, and then go ganking.

    Bankers should get prodded by Concord. Sec status hit for a bank should be increased, and the sec status increase process should be made more difficult. You want to be an asshole, it should cost you. On the adult level, people don't play Eve because of the assholes and all the negative press. If people like Eve as much as they claim,they need to look at the bigger picture.

    1. Really? "On the adult level, people don't play Eve because of the assholes and all the negative press.

      May I ask where you get your data from? I can tell you from personal experience, (1) I am 52 and have been playing EvE 2+ years. (2) The VAST majority of players I have known in those 2 years, both corp and Alliance mates I have talked to on TS & Mumble, are in their mid 20s to late 50s... with the 30 and up crowd being the majority of that group.

      I can tell you that On an Adult level EvE is the ONLY game adults play that creates a realistic and captivating experience. If you or anyone you know won't play EvE or left because of "...the assholes and all the negative press." that is your right and your choice... but I feel you are very very wrong when you say EvE's harsh hard playstyle and players are limiting adult players... I personally feel it is far more a limiting factor for juveniles, teens and young adults as they have a greater expectation of 'no loss' gameplay and the ability ot quickly skill up to L90 so they can be the assholes...

      Children and juveniles truly hate when others are able to pwn them repeatedly with no quick recourse... they will up and walk away far sooner than a more mature person who is able to not take it so personally and who is willing to accept the nature of the game and understand the increased gratification that comes from winning in this context than in say... Halo, WoW or GW2...

    2. I second the man above, I'm 42 and Eve is the only MMO I play, primarily because most of the players are also adults and not angst ridden teens who think that the world owes them a living, and that it should be delivered on a silver platter, because they're special.

  25. Currently there is no actual defense against a suicide gank. There is no actual penalty for suicide ganking, and there is no way to really predict the gank.

    1) local does nothing because there are people in system already, and who do you red list ganker wise?
    2) once you are in system, you won't make it to the gate, causing the player to buy a alt to fly ahead.

    The gankers need to make a viable trade off. 1) jail time, 2) skill loss, 3) loss of clone upgrade ability 4) a fine by concord based on the cost of the attacked cargo and Concorde intervention. (You want to suicide gank, expect a bill from concord for time wasted by them

    1. Why not a pony and world peace?

  26. Agree 100% with everything in the post !

    I have long asked what I can do to fight back against gankers and the answers are always "use D-scan", "fit a tank" or "fly with friends"

    I would like to see harsher penalties against negative sec status players. or if you loose a ship to CONCORD then you get a -10 for 24 hours then it goes back to your natural.

    Either that or some form of bail, to un-dock with a neg sec-status it costs 10 million.

    I am fine with high-sec ganks as they are right now, just increase the penalty to the gankers to balance it out.

    1. Seems reasonable. I'm surprised to learn that gankers are *ever* allowed back into high security. Of COURSE they should have CONCORD records, but these could be mitigatable by fines, for toons with a need to go "legit."

      But this is Internet spaceships, not real policing. CCP wants known criminals to be able to waltz past CONCORD on their way to their next ganking.

  27. I wonder if, following Crimewatch 2.0 introduction and the barge buffs, hi sec hasn't actually hit a very comfortable equilibrium in terms of safety: There seems to be an equal amount of complaining from both the gankers and the carebear alike.

  28. Jester,

    The more I think about this the more I realize that the solution isn't going to come in the form of a better ship et. al. What we need is a "Better" Concord. Look, High Sec is "supposed" to be the civilized part of space yes? All of this talk about how ganking etc should occur here misses the point entirely.

    Think about a major city, Cops everywhere, Crime is MUCH harder to do. If this was reality we'd be seeing the equivalent of Supertankers being blown up daily. How long would that last?...yep...Not too fricking long....responses would be formed and problems dealt with. In times of War, convoy systems would develop, you bunch the ships into a larger group for overall protection.

    Thats what needs to happen here. "But wait" you say, "thats BS and crap, it upsets me at my vegetarian breakfast"....But it will accomplish ALL that the PVP'ers want.

    See, what you do is set up 20-30 Highsec Systems with "Superior Concord" protection forces...BUT and here's the big But...the Miners have to PAY for that service. Think of it as you can't mine in a system till you get the right paperwork. This is just like James 315 only not slathered in the dicksauce they are....

    It accomplishes many things. Want to mine in safety?....check. Want to create an ISK sink that will make Null/LOW much more appealing?...Check Want to be "Safe"....check.

    The best part is, if you do this to the 20-30 systems, you actually lower the amount of Concord in other systems or add time to their response. This is just like a real govt' responding to a demand by their constituents. You don't increase the amount of ORE available in system, as per now, once its gone...its gone. But hey, you're Safe right?.

    Eventually the Cost/benefits will get to anyone. Mining in Highsec should be an option, but it should be there to provide the barest minimum of an existence. "Go West Young Man" and manifest destiny should be the motto. I would also add Mining Forces that are Govt run. The Gallente, Caldari, Minmatar etc. to the "regular" Highsec systems. This way, there is even MORE competition in the game for the limited minerals.

    If you want to drive people to Low/0.0, you have to be realistic. beating people in the head continually DEMANDING they do what you want never works. But, set up EVE with some AI Bureaucracy, Make being in the "Safespots" Costly and eventually everyone will get the point.

  29. The problem with the "Lord of War" analogy is that he parked his plane on a dirt road in the middle of nowhere, in one of the poorest parts of the continent. I wonder if the scenario would of been different if he'd of landed it on the M62 in England at mid-day? I'd bet that members of the public wouldn't touch it, the police would come and the whole thing would be dealt with by the authorities.

    What you're describing in that analogy is what low/null should be, people taking advantage of the lack of authority.

  30. I agree that highsec is not "too safe". Actually I called it the best place to farm kills with the efficiency you mentioned.

    The problem is that highsec is way too profitable for its risks. Highsec could even be safer (faster Concord time to reduce suicide ganking to alpha-Tornados). But highsec must be much less profitable.

    1. Dinsdale PirannhaMarch 13, 2013 at 9:20 AM

      You are an idiot. And yes, I know you are a troll.
      Why does high income have to be crushed?
      Show me some numbers, released by CCP, not some null sec propaganda machine.

    2. Nope. High sec must remain as profitable as necessary to maintain whatever circulation of ISK and goods CCP deems a good return for players new and old.

      It's not clear that forcing more players out of high sec would increase subscriptions; the reverse seems more likely. in the matter of lessening high sec safety, bounties and dueling seem to be as far as CCP feels the need to go now.

  31. I also like this statement:

    "The only thing the defense fleet represents is a locked door. A locked door only prevents casual burglary, not serious burglary."

    Its a really good analogy and works well for this situation as credit must still be given to a 'serious' burglar who manages to break through the 'locked door' because of the skill required.

    If the 'locked door' was unbreakable then it would be seen as an exploit and the miners would have too much power to prevent ganks, regardless of how well prepared, skilled or ISK has been invested into the gank itself.

    I can agree that the skills / requirements / investment to 'lock' the door must be similar to being able to break it, so that the stronger the lock the better the burgler is required to break it - at least then mutual respect can be given to both the target & the agressor.

    I think the issue is how well this 'lock' & 'burgular' analogy is weighed - if the requirements for the burgular to break the lock are lower than securing it then the balance is out as it becomes too 'easy' for someone to gank (assuming that both the 'lock' and 'burgular' as equal) - the other way around (ie a very skilled burgular is required to break an even simple lock) and people will complain that ganking is too hard and the carebears have won.

    This understanding also considers that if either party make stupid mistakes (such as bad fits etc) then the its the same as leaving a normally locked door wide open and then wondering why you get robbed.

  32. actually what i think would be cool to implement is some sort of ownership process for belts, ie you bring X amount of mining ships in a belt you get some sort of ownership of it, and everyone that warps into your belt is a free target with no concord response. Makes it easier for a mining defense fleet to engage attackers as they dont have to wait until the attackers fire to retaliate. This also would encourage social mining.
    But at the same time allows attackers to come in an try to disrupt the mining op.

    1. That is what low sec is for and it does not work their either because combat ship not shooting stuff is wasted isk and miners still just die because of their still "low" ehp for their price.

      But hey, you are describing something that SHOULD be. So how do we need to change the game that actually such a mining fleet is valid?

  33. Noticing the lack of comments from "The Order" on this post. I assume that means they are at a loss for words other than "Damn, he's right..." ;o)

    1. What would be the point in responding? Ripard has no idea what he thinks, last week it was 'use a Scorpion to avoid ganking' this week it's 'suicide ganking can't be beaten'.
      Yet again his opinions blow which ever way the political wind does

    2. I think the actual reason that NO people aren't responding is that his central example which drives his entire post is easily refuted by simply using different ships. Replace Jester's choice of 20 retrievers and 15 dps/logi ships, with 34 meta-tanked procurers and 1 ehp-boosting linkship. This fleet is both much less vulnerable to ganking, and mines much more per hour. Other people have already mentioned this fact, and saying anything more than this is unnecessary.

  34. I've mined in High sec, Null Sec, wormholes and incursion sites (lyavite). I've mined in regular, scheduled ops lasting for hours, in large groups, in the same system as last week's op. I've mined while watching the alliance tournament on my other monitor, while engaging in PVP on a second account and while doing housework. I've mined during Hulkageddon, I've even mined during a high sec war dec. Why have I never lost a ship or even been on an op where someone else lost a ship? I assume it's because I stick to retrievers/covetors, pick out of the way systems (in high sec), use dedicated scouts (in null/wormholes) and full speed align the moment I see something suss (neut in a belt, local spike, bad feeling or whatever). It doesn't seem that difficult to me to not make yourself a target. A cursory glance at the screen a couple of times a minute seems to have always done the trick for me.

  35. Fix high sec by making veldspar more plentiful in null sec then maybe we wont need to import 15 million trit per super. Or even lower the need for it and raise the higher end ore needed.
    Make sov and npc ice lighter in wieght or take less cycle.
    That would lower the profit in high sec.
    You could even make use of the the rogue drone encrusted asteroids and make them spawn flights of them if mine in the high sec belts. They would over run afk minners drones and then the barge. And afk vexors.
    Done no more wah wah high sec is too profitable.

    1. The problem is that is veld plentiful in null. It comes down a choice of ABC or VSPP. Null miners prefer A then B. Put this way, why bend over to pick up one dollar bills when there are one hundred notes on table.


      Read through the posts "farms and fields". (wonder what mynna things of those). It is not a problem of industry, but the choices players make. That's the baseline with just about everything that goes wrong in Eve.

  36. 10 Catalysts with T2 do about 6000 dps. (6860 DPS with maxxed skills.) They get to apply that DPS for between 12 and 26 seconds, depending on security level of the system. So they total 72000 - 156000 damage. And each T2 cat costs around 11m or so. So total amount invested here is 110m ISK. Somewhat less than half will be recoverable from the wrecks, around 40m I would guess. So total losses for gankers is 70m ISK.

    Meanwhile, a Skiff can easily tank 100000 EHP against hybrid. So, your 10 gankers are not killing 2 of them. One at most, and not even that if you are willing to stay in the highest highsec. And that skiff costs not that much more than 110m. (The hull is the expensive bit, costing 115m currently at Jita.)

    Or, if you really are concerned about the isk war, you can fly a Procurer instead. It has somewhat more than half the tank of a skiff, at a cost of just 8m isk for the hull. Total cost is maybe 20m, all parts included. Ogging Procurers cannot possibly be profitable to the gankers.

    Yes, you do have to sacrifice on your mining rate -- a small amount. A max skill Hulk mines 1436 units/time. The barely-gankable Skiff gets 1228: 16%. So, rather than having one very bored guard for 5 Hulks, it is better to just have 6 semi-AFK Skiffs. (In practice few use Hulks because they hold so little; they use Macks and get 1339 -- just 9% more.) And if you are really afraid, you can go with the Procurers and get 1086. Now you can go completely AFK unless the New Order is around -- and even then, they'll probably find someone easier.

    Even given how little you have to give up to become almost ogg-proof, few do it. Because even giving up 9% of your take, if ganking is rare enough, is not cost-effective. Better to mine more and use the proceeds to pay for the occasional lost Mack.

    1. Procs don't cost 20M - try 10M or less. They don't need T2 mods/rigs to get nearly 60K EHP tank - just cheap vanilla T1 mods/rigs.

      No need/reason to fit T2 strips, either. If you need more mining capability, you just add another mining alt, in another Proc.

      Without any T2 mods, a Proc doesn't drop s**t when ganked. A Proc alt isn't going to need any hardwirings, either, so net loss per gank is ridiculously low, compared to the amount of ore/ice than can be safely mined AFK. However, every time a Proc is ganked, the gankers lose a lot of ISK.

      Sure, you mine less in a T1 fit Proc than a T2 fit Mack, but, when you figure in the losses due to ganking and/or bumping, you come out way ahead (Procs are also harder to bump).

      Assuming, ofc, that you insist on mining in NO space... you can always go find a more quiet part of New Eden to do your AFK mining in your Mack.

  37. Right now the balance of risk is far too heavily weighted on the ganked and not the ganker. Don’t get me wrong, tears are cool and if you are hauling a huge cash of goods thru space you should have the pucker factor going on and be at risk. But having no penalty other than losing a few destroyers and some sec standing is a joke.

    I would suggest an isk fine to the ganker that could be a flat rate or a % of the gank isk damage, like a civil action law-suit. Remember high-sec ganking is like you just walked into a supermarket and killed the check-out girl making her $8.25/hr, and saving for her first car. You claim its a mindless job (via afk mining) and she should have been more careful. So why is the only penalty that you lose your gun and some near-meaningless sec status thats easily repairable?

    Concord should probably pod the ganker(s) and/or maybe add a mechanic that allows longer public kill-rights for a full 24/48h period, not just your next loss.

    Wanna gank and live life on the edge, fine. But your going to be a target for anyones else out there while your doing it. The more you gank the longer your open-shoot on site status remains. Think grand theft auto maybe. The more you kill, the more cops that are on you.

    I would guess that “most” gankers are not doing it for the isk but for the tears/KB whoring, especially the mining ganks. So even with more isk related penalties, the rich bitter vets are still going to gank for those tears. Fine and good, I like still having that risk out there in the game. But please can we spread that risk out more away from one side?

    Does CCP really justify this loss of subs to their board members/execs saying “those are the kinds of paying customers we want to cater too, screw them they are too soft for eve”? I don’t think so. I bet they give a song and dance as they explain what they are doing to limit unsubs, not explain how EVE is too hardcore for a certain share of the mmo market.

  38. Mining needs to be an active role, instead of something you leave it doing while watching tv.

    Highsec is not 'safe'. The security provides consequences for illegal actions - it does not prevent them. See real life - you are able to commit crime in any level of security. The difference being what happens when you are caught.

    There should always be risk vs reward. Flying multi billion mission ships is a valid way of increasing reward via efficiency. It should also increase the risk (ie loss of the ship) and it's the players choice where the balance is for them.
    Having zero risk should be impossible, and where it is possible, should result in zero reward.

  39. Add a scouting Procurer to that fleet of Cats, and the fact that all of the pilots are -10 will not save you.

    If you don't have a -10 yet, you need to gank harder.

    A higher sec status is for freighter gankers, who have to sit still and wait.

    1. Yep, -10 is no big effing deal.

      Check the killboards - no one is getting any kills on outlaws in NO space.

  40. One of the complaints about suicide ganking Jester is that there have been nerfs.

    - better concord response time
    - removal of insurance from ganks
    - unable to warp following gank
    - exhumer ehp buff
    - crimewatch and looting cans

    Do you believe then, that if the current status is balanced, that these nerfs were necessary to get there?

    And moving away from suicide ganks. Following up from you option that there should be non-consent PvP in Eve - is the wardec mechanism in its current frame working towards the goal of fostering non-consent PvP?

    1. Better CONCORD response time is neutral, since CONCORD also ensures that the ganker can unilaterally choose whether, when and where to engage: hence the popularity of the blaster Catalyst, which is a very tough ship to fly when the opponent has a say in what the engagement range will be. Faster CONCORD times make ganks a bit more expensive, but they also make self-defense less viable.

      Also, you forgot the buffs that preceded the nerfs:

      - industrial defenses left where they were originally set as the game evolved toward better defenses and offenses;

      - the significant buff to both hybrids and destroyers that made the Catalyst into a point-blank monster, and which was recently followed up by *another* buff to the Catalyst;

      - the introduction of T3 battlecruisers.

      - the recent buff of that old mainstay, the Brutix.

      Is it really surprising that, after rolling out a full line of gankmobiles, CCP turned around and buffed their favorite targets?

  41. I stick almost exclusively to hi-sec, and I've only ever lost one ship to PvP in a year and a half of playing. That was during my one and only lo-sec op, and I was more or less expecting trouble.

    Hi-sec can be very safe, for months on end; the thing to remember is that *where* you operate is at least as important as *how*. It's not just "dumb" stuff that gets you blown up; equally significant is whether or not there's an asshole around who really wants you blown up. Once you're talking *that* sort of player, the explosion may be nearly inevitable.

    When you want safety, play in out-of-the-way hi-sec places without much traffic and without recent kills. Play with a team, do what you want and move on, and just resign yourself to losing a ship once a day/month/year, depending on the battlefield you've chosen.

    Whenever possible, choose empty battlefields. Fly your more expensive toys there.

  42. The issue is not and has never been one of high sec being too safe or not safe enough. The issue is with the consequences of high sec ganking not being proportionate with the damage done.

    Any punishment that should act as a deterrent should match the crime to be effective. A gank of a shuttle is simply not the same as a gank of a faction fitted Tengu. If thieves would get a fixed fine based on their heist car, then of course banks would be robbed by the dozen by thieves in cheap cars....

    1. Fines?

      What, is a cop going to pull up to your ship, step out, and write a ticket?

      Since when do pirates pay fines to anyone?

      The carebear is strong in you.

  43. I think Hi-sec is fine. It's just the rest of New Eden is lacking. T think I'd be happier out in low-sec, but there really isn't much to do there.
    You can't mine effectively, because there are no good low-sec trade hubs to sell to. The time spent warping back to hi-sec is money lost. You can't trade, because only highly skilled or foolishly brave haulers take stuff there, so there's no stock to move.
    To fix that, I'd have insta-popping gate and station guns. Leave the roid fields open but keep the trade lanes running. The spice must flow.
    Missioning is slightly more profitable, and safer if no one has a probe ship up. I'd like for there to be shorter missions in lo-sec, with the same pay out of hi-sec missions. Rather than sitting out there for 30mins or so, you only have to do 5-10mins of a blitzkrieg... and preferably something that can be done in PVP fit ship. You can still get scanned down and caught in that time, but just less of it.

  44. This is the video this topic always makes me think about: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xR-Lh1LzLPw

    I find it so funny and the hight of hypocrisy that gankers and many pirates are quite concerned with high sec being too safe while they're so quick to defend and feel entitled to all the mechanics that keep them so perfectly safe carrying out their activities.

  45. Its all about risk vs reward. If high sec is going to be 100% safe, then it should also offer minimal rewards. On the flip side, if null sec is also going to be 100% safe, behind the Goon shield, then it, too, should offer minimal rewards.

    Move Incursions, L4/L5 missions and Tech moons to low sec.

  46. THis article goes like: should they make high sec less safe? blah blah, blah blah, blah blah. I dunno. Blah


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