Safeties Off, Gloves Off


I’ve been keeping an eye on the discussion surrounding the new Clone States (as you might expect as a CSM member) and trying to keep it as hands-off as possible. And it’s been fascinating to see just how well the topic has been discussed. A lot of productive points have been raised, many of them echoing the same sentiments we raised to CCP upon finding out. However, I’ve noticed one point in particular that seems to have entered the generally accepted list of ‘things that will need to be implemented’ to help stop the abuse of Alpha state clones. It includes things such as limiting the use of Alphas to one at a time, allow people to choose race of avatar/race of Alpha state independently, making sure there’s a login notification if you’ve dropped from Omega to Alpha so your Titan doesn’t fail to jump out, amongst others.

based on assumptions that aren’t truthful

What I am talking about is the possibility of ‘safety locking’ Alpha players to either yellow or green, to prevent expected abuse from highsec gankers. This is something I don’t necessarily disagree with, but I feel that it has significant downsides that need to be addressed, and is somewhat based on assumptions that aren’t truthful. As such, I’m going to run down some of the points I’ve seen addressed, and look at them in more detail. If I’ve missed points, I encourage people to comment or contact me privately, as I will try to address them and work them into conversations both in public and into those between the CSM and CCP. As the closest thing the current CSM has to a highsec ganking representative (having set up two roundtables on the matter, and done it once or twice myself), I feel it’s important to dig into this.

Assumption 1: Gankers will be able to roll an army of Catalyst alts to kill miners with no heed to sec status or any other existing penalty for their actions.

This is technically true. However, rolling alts (via biomass) to avoid Sec Status issues is something that is against the EULA and is a bannable offence. In addition to this, it’s already possible, thanks to trial->buddy referral chains, to have nearly infinite 51 day-long accounts. These accounts are (for the second chunk of 30 days) able to be multiboxed and function identically to regular accounts, including having access to all the T2 equipment that Alphas are restricted from using. As such, the aforementioned problem of rolling alts already exists in a more severe form, and is not seen as a major issue by the vast majority of the playerbase. However, I do agree that the rule regarding alt-rolling for sec should be more heavily enforced and publicised by CCP.

Assumption 2: Solo gankers (alternatively, insert miners/PvErs/FW plex farmers) will be able to multibox 20 Alpha accounts to do [Insert degenerate activity here].

In the announcement as written, this is true. There is no description of what limits may be placed on multiboxing for Alphas, though they do say they are looking into it and asking for feedback from the community. The feedback from all avenues has been almost exactly the same, that letting people multibox Alphas will be the best proof of Maclanis’ Law ever, which for the unfamilliar is – “Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of ‘new players’, that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players.” Veteran players would be able to min/max certain activities that are profitable for new players, and – in doing so – tank their value, making them pointless to do for said new players who are looking to start their time in the game. This, more than anything related to ganking, is a solid reason to prevent multiboxing alphas.

Assumption 3: Gallente faction Alphas will be strong gankers.

This is something that Viserion covered in a rather detailed Reddit post. Alpha gank Catalysts are, if anything, a step down from the currently existing trial-account trained T2 Catalysts. Their only benefit being that you don’t have to make a new account every 51 days. Thoraxes can be used, as well as Thrashers, but both simply aren’t as effective as a subbed account with access to T2 weapons.

So, assuming that accounts can be locked to one Alpha character per session, this gives us the worst case scenario of a ‘free’ alpha alt to any Omega ganker. Personally, I would prefer to limit Alphas as the only client able to launch, but that’s due to the usefulness of having free alts in other areas (specifically FW Griffin & T1 logi alts, though I’m aware there are other use cases which are degenerate). If this is implemented, your worst case scenario goes as follows: a veteran player will be able to have a sub-optimal gank alt to try out the playstyle, whilst still being vastly inferior to a subbed player. This is almost exactly the same situation as currently exists with trial accounts, and the ganking apocalypse has yet to come.

there’s a good chance some of you won’t like the fact that people can gank on alts

Now, there’s a good chance some of you won’t like the fact that people can gank on alts, or that you can be killed by people who’ve not ‘paid for the game’. But, think about what the game loses by turning off ganking on Alphas. Not just from a real level, but from a perception level, from the mythology of EVE level.

EVE has long been seen as a game in which you can do whatever you want, and that there will be consequences for your actions. Not just by the players, it’s the general view of people who don’t play the game on it. There’s the whole ‘nowhere is safe’ and ‘only fly what you can afford to lose’ mantras, which are seared into newer players by veterans. What does it say to these new players if we restrict them from trialing aspects of gameplay, no matter how niche a part of the sandbox it might be?

When I talked to my friends about the game, and it going free to play, the immediate point of reference they jump to (which may say something about my age bracket) is Runescape. They immediately think that they won’t be able to participate in all the ‘fun’ activities until they pay. And, whilst to some degree that might be correct, in that Clone States will lock them out of the endgame in terms of ship progression, I love being able to explain to them that they can participate in everything they might enjoy doing, just not optimally. If they want to mine, or PvP or mission run, they can do all that, as part of the same game we all play. Why should they be restricted from being the bad guy if they want to be?

Just food for thought, and I’d be genuinely interested to hear arguments against it going forwards. The changes coming up are a fundamental shift in the game, so every opinion and point of view needs to be properly discussed, represented, and made available to CCP.



Did you enjoy this article? Please consider supporting Crossing Zebras.

Tags: Clone States, csm, ganking, Jin'taan

About the author


Jin'taan is the wearer of a great many hats, being an FC, solo PvPer, dumb suit connoisseur, member of the CSM, political commentator and prolific producer of interviews. Currently, he resides within Test Alliance Please Ignore.

  • DireNecessity


    I think you uncover the origin of the worry early on and, sadly, it’s not directly connected to game mechanics but rather originates from a puzzling bias on the part of many players. As you explain, there’s concern about “*expected* abuse from highsec gankers” (emphasis mine). The presumption underlying that expectation seems to be that highsec suicide gankers, being horrible real life excuses for human beings, are exactly the kinds of monsters that will destroy our beloved Eve if ever given the chance. The problem with jumping straight to bogeyman epithet is that, while great fun, it erases a genuine mechanical concern we should be discussing.

    As someone who’s done a fair amount of Highsec suicide ganking, I can relate that it takes decent timing. Concord hits hard and fast, even in .5 systems. You can’t feed your little gankers onto grid willy-nilly. Either they all show up at very close to same time or the gank grows exponentially more difficult. In practice, an army of free alts, no matter how large, will only achieve this by input broadcasting which is a violation of the EULA.

    Our concern shouldn’t be about evil gankers per say, our concern should be about whether Alpha clones will introduce a game stressing quantity of no expense out of their pocket input broadcasters/botters. Whether or not suicide gankers will be the worst of the worst here isn’t especially relevant since broadcasters/botters befoul PvE areas of the game like mining and ratting too. In practice, I suspect a sudden influx of broadcasters/botters would do more damage to the game via non-confrontational PvE than they would via in your face suicide ganking.

    I would add that making it cost real life money to set your safety to red looks really, really bad. From Alpha players’ perspective it will appear like CCP will allow players to break in game law if you pay them real life money for the privilege. CCP will be in the business of selling indulgences. If we go down that road, accusations of corruption lurk on the near horizon. Enough players are paranoid about CCP. Let’s not add fuel to that fire, eh?

    • Ashterothi

      Crimmy this is a great post.

      Something to note: the launching of EVE without the launcher is being removed. This is going to strike a SERIOUS blow to multibroadcasters, and other such things. It is almost like they _are_ taking steps to deal with the legit threats to the feature.

    • Bill Bones

      …except Alphas con get out of high and circunvent the ‘need’ for indulgences. Also if CCP really aimed at protecting paying customers from F2P customers, then Alphas wouldn’t be enabled to lock on Omega pilots… *evil*

      • DireNecessity

        Well non-consensual PvP in and out of highsec tend to be rather different types of game play so I wouldn’t say your circumventing the indulgence via exiting highsec. That said, your examination of what would *really* protect paying customers from the Alpha menace is wonderful reductio ad absurdum that helps reveal just what kind of murky motivations may lurk under the debate.

  • Neville Smit

    I’m not convinced that all will be super-hunky-dory in high-sec after Alpha clones are introduced in November. I wrote a post on my blog about this, explaining why I’m convinced that Alpha safeties should be locked on in high-sec. But I also predicted that it won’t happen, because of exactly the line of thinking you’ve described here. So, I’ll put my high-sec characters in mothballs after the November update, and watch what happens. Sadly, It seems the only prudent thing to do.

    • Brian Hendrickson

      Surely anyone concerned about being ganked can just stick an Alpha clone or 3 into a Scythe or an Augoror and shrug off the Alpha alt gankers along with their Omega mains? It’s not like gankers will be the only ones with access to Alpha alts. Victory will go to whoever puts in the most effort.

      • Neville Smit

        Hmm, this idea has merit. Good suggestion! Adapt or die – it’s the EVE way.

      • Bill Bones

        In order to effectively defend a miner fleet, you better ensure your defender ship is not easier to gank then the miners you’re protecting. 😉

        • Aareya

          In null sec, we can use alphas to help mitigate the risk to the miners. With the November release, miners will have to deploy the Rorqual in the belts/site to provide boost. Put a few dozen drone assist alpha alts in the mining site, minimize those windows, mine away.

          It’s like giving the mining barges extra drones they can deploy.

      • Piratetrader

        You must not have a real life then because that kind of effort in EVE takes a life time of play. Some have it some don’t. This does not make for a equal and fair game play mechanic for sure but, in EVE that is how the cookie crumbles.

        This is what will happen for me, as I have never been a ganker due to the fact that I did not want that rep on a character I plan on using forever. I will use all my extra accounts in November that have been just sitting around to make a army of at least 12 alpha’s and kill everything I can in High SEC. Then I will buy tags and keep my sec status good enough to keep it up forever. This will keep me from breaking any rules by not just rolling new characters every 6 months due to the skills need to hit this level. This is what I can do because, I am one of those so called rich eve players so like every other vet out there my goal is to use and abuse this mechanic just like we have for almost 14 years now. EVE is a Sandbox and if it changes with too many restrictions then and only then do I see it’s downfall, so beware what you ask for in EVE, as it may be the last change you ever get. I could just make a army of miners too and get more rich, but I got a feeling most will do what I said I will do so instead of being the lamb this time. I’m going to become the wolf and get some well need killing spree to feel better about myself for all the times I was ganked in the last 14 years. REVENGE WILL BE MINE: BEWARE THE ALPHA CLONES.

        • Brian Hendrickson

          I don’t know much about ganking but if that’s how you want to roll I’d suggest if you can afford it you plex your gank accounts into Omegas so they can use T2 catalysts. I’ll be watching for your one man Burn Jita.

          • Piratetrader

            Already got 4 Omegas over 170M sp. This is just for fun, because they are making a change that allows for this type of play maybe. Also why would I burn Jita? It is much easier to hit all the sec level 5 systems. It takes concord to long to respond, after all it takes time to run 12 accounts as you can not use any program to help. With my experience doing this before mining with 12 accounts before and not using any program. I’m confident I can kill all the targets in time.

    • Provi Miner

      seriously you are going to bet the negative on the front end? I can see being cautious watching what happens but to “mothball” cause you are scared is silly and stupid much like your “not only pvp” BS article which was destroyed nicely by some folks. Serious case of chicken little don’tcha think?

      • Neville Smit

        My comment was made when I was feeling less optimistic, but I’ve had a chance to think about it further, and there may be some suitable ways to adapt. Besides, the jury is still out on how alphas may actually be implemented, so there’s lots that may change between now and November. By the way, my post has been extremely well received and I’ve received generally supportive comments and reactions. Your “EVE is only PvP” perspective is very far in the minority.

        • Provi Miner

          cool, never run for the hills till you have to. If its a crap system then mothball but wait for it show one way or another.

        • Judotoss

          If alphas are limited in training, won’t these presumed “gankers” just amount to more easy targets??

      • Viince_Snetterton

        You really don’t understand the game that you play. Nor has CCP understood and reacted to the change in their subscription base over the years. Your comments read like something an alt of dev would say.

        CCP’s subscription base is far far more interested in the PvE end of things. The cratering of the sub base proves that. The drop in subs is a direct result of the never-ending war on high sec, perpetrated by null-sec zealots inside and outside of CCP. But you, and CCP does not get that. Instead, CCP is doubling down on making it harder for a high sec lifestyle and the PAYING casual player gets hammered further. Don’t even begin to suggest that the paying players who mine a little, mission a little, incursion a little, do a little bit of industry, that these players are going to like these changes. And guess what: They are a big big portion of the sub base.

        So a bunch of them will quit. But we, on the outside, will never know. Those losses of PAYING customers will be masked by the increase of free alts. We, on the outside, will never know how bad the numbers are until the accountants and investors force more changes at CCP, or we get the announcement that CCP is folding.

  • Restricting multiboxing Alphas accounts would be the worse thing to do. The restriction on multiboxing must come from the direction CCP has already undertaken i.e. by making handling multiple ships at the same time more difficult to do.

    I saw the advent of the Alphas as embracing the Game of Alts for all and not only for the richest players. If a restriction on login is to be implemented, it needs to affect Omegas too, unless making Eve Online Pay-To-Win is really what this discussion about limiting Alphas connections is about.

  • Dirk MacGirk

    Allow Multiple Alphas. Give the Freemiums the same benefit of being able to multibox, but as pure Alphas.
    Allow Multiple Omegas, because it’s what we do now and that isn’t changing.
    But there is no real need to allow multiboxing mixed account types.

    If an Omega wants to run have some Alpha fun, even multibox Alphas, they can do so. Just not simultaneously with Omegas.

    I have yet to hear a good reason for allowing Omegas to augment their game play with simultaneously logged in Alpha accounts. We don’t do it now, we don’t need to do it in the future. To allow otherwise is a change for Omegas that goes beyond what subscriber accounts allow for today.

    • jedi2015

      Multiboxing alpha ‘s Will not happen. A single omega paying Customer cannot multibox And Not paying alpha Customer could multibox, why is that omega Customer paying at all.

      • Dirk MacGirk

        What are Omegas paying for? maybe for a few more skills and depth/breadth of gameplay? I don’t think they should limit multiboxing on Alphas. If allowing Alphas to multibox helps with increasing retention, their desire to stick it out and ultimately become a paying customer, I don’t see a big deal in letting them experience having another char online at the same time. My focus is on multiboxing with a combination of account types. However, if they choose to limit it to no multiboxing Alpha Clones at all, I would understand. Hell, I would understand if they allow mixed account type multiboxing. But they will eventually need to deal with a number of issues related to its potential abuse.

        • Why would players able to pay or plex for multiple omegas accounts only be the ones able to benefit from the numerous advantages of multiboxing?

          Why would it matter to prevent players with only one paid account to create a bunch of alphas and use them for multiboxing, knowing the current restrictions on the alphas and the efforst CCP is doing to make managing multiple ships at the same time more difficult?

          Do we want to create the perception that multiboxing can only be done by the richest players, instead of embracing for all players that Eve is a game of alts?

          • Dirk MacGirk

            Under my scenario, Alphas and Omegas can both multibox. Just no mixing of the two states.

            I don’t fully know if it does matter. I don’t think it matters at all for pure Alphas to multibox. It just seems like a lot of the concerns about how Omegas will utilize no-cost Alphas can be avoided by not allowing mixed-account multiboxing. Which is exactly as it is now with trial accounts. Who knows, maybe mixed-account multiboxing is necessary for veteran retention. Maybe the only thing that will keep that Omega subscribed is if he/she can augment their current game play through the use of free accounts in conjunction with a single paid account. I just don’t think that is the intent of the Alpha Clone State as proposed.

            Perceptions about what rich players can do isn’t going to change. Whether that is rich in real life where players can afford multiple subs or the purchase of PLEX to convert to ISK, or rich in game where they can afford to Play to Pay multiple accounts. The Clone State proposal isn’t about leveling some socioeconomic playing field for those who cannot afford multiple accounts one way or the other. Again, I propose that both account types be free to multibox. It’s the intersection of the two that I believe should be limited. Certainly at roll out. Maybe the decision to allow it’s expansion can be made at a later date, but the worst outcome would be allowing it at release, and then calling it back later.

            Also, don’t get me wrong. We’ll all live with whatever decision is made. But I would rather see some limits on multiboxing mixed accounts than see limits on gameplay mechanics that are the counter to concerns about how those free accounts might be used and/or abused. As it stands now, limiting Omegas to multiboxing only Omegas is not a loss, it is the status quo. Nothing gained, nothing lost.

          • I believe the game will be better by embracing the Game of Alts for all to use, mixing multiboxing for Omegas and Alphas, Alphas only or, for the richest players, Omegas only.

            There are no reasons to prevent younger or more casual players from building their own stable of toons if they are so inclined, and even if they want to pay for one account, have them still use the other alphas accounts with the built-in limitations that CCP will put on those.

            In the long run, they will end up creating more Omegas from their stable and follow the pattern that older players have already followed.

          • Dirk MacGirk

            Perhaps. EVE is after all a game that remains highly susceptible to leverage through alts despite recent changes that have minimized that in certain key areas. It really depends on their hidden agenda for the future in terms of more changes like that, as well as their plans for the future of expanding on Clone States. Hence, we’re all operating in the dark here to some extent. I’m just trying to work with the game as it is and this extremely limited version of Free to Participate.

          • Brian Hendrickson

            Supposedly most players now have a single account. If you don’t allow Omegas to multibox Alpha accounts you are saying that people who start paying for an account have to give up being able to have the free alt accounts they had access to before. Doesn’t sound like a great way to get Alphas to upgrade to me. I think they’ll let anyone multibox anything they want and rely on the limited skillset of the Alpha alts to dissuade Omegas from abusing it too much.

  • Black Pedro

    Nice article.

    To answer your question I am pretty sure there are no compelling arguments for locking out Alpha accounts from setting their safety to red. The best would be that there might be a surge in highsec criminal activity that would unbalance the game. However, given that CCP has the trump card of implementing a 100% effective fix with an easy-to-implement patch, it makes no sense to make such an important decision, one that has downsides you present quite well in this article, in advance of gathering all the facts given it is quite possible that there will be little or no change in the amount of highsec crime as a result of Alpha clones. Given what we know, CCP will most likely go ahead with the change and keep a close eye on the situation comfortable in the knowledge they have a fix in their back pocket ready to go if highsec crime increases in an unsustainable way after Alpha clones are released.

    The bigger issue is all the other negative effects free alts account will have on the game that don’t have such an easy fix: mining swarms, pocket logi/ECM, unlimited scouts and so forth that can’t be fixed with a couple lines of code. While alts are a part of Eve, I really don’t see how letting everyone have a free T1 logi cruiser follow them around on a roam or mission with them is good for the game (and will make multiboxing essentially mandatory), especially in an age where CCP is trying to limit the effect of multiboxing in Eve. I think Dirk’s idea that all accounts logged in at one time are either Alpha or Omega may be worth exploring further as a way to prevent this use of Alpha clones by essentially everyone all the time.

    • Aareya

      Safety settings apply to both High Sec and Low Sec. As we discuss restricting safeties, we should approach it with understanding how it may impact both regions of space. Players come to EVE being told “its a sandbox, you can do anything”. They will come with preconceived notions of what that might mean, imaginations fueled by movies, books, etc

      If alpha pilots cannot set safety to red, how do we impact their ability to be a pirate in low sec? If alpha pilots cannot change the safety from green, does that negate effective low sec game play entirely?

      • Rob Kaichin

        Or, you could lock the safety to yellow in highsec. Suspect behaviour is allowed, criminal behaviour is not.

        Sounds like enough of a taster of criminal gameplay for me, whilst allowing there to be an upgrade in omega status.

    • Rob Kaichin

      Could you point to a situation where CCP has ever ‘acted quickly?’

      Barring duplication exploits and the like, that is..

  • mojosmama

    While interesting, you haven’t actually made the case for NOT turning on the safeties. Who is it that needs to have the safeties off other than gankers? We might argue safeties on in hisec and safeties off everywhere else, but make the case for hisec. I guarantee that your argument will boil down to “it’s EVE, therefore…” which isn’t much of a case. As to the gankers using near infinite trials, they’re subbing at least once, but perhaps the safeties should be on for unsubbed trials as well.

  • Messiah Complex

    “Veteran players would be able to min/max certain activities that are profitable for new players, and – in doing so – tank their value, making them pointless to do for said new players who are looking to start their time in the game.”

    This is the best argument against multiple alpha logins that I’ve seen.

    Side note:

    In the course of watching this debate over alpha clones vis-à-vis suicide ganking, I’ve come to the conclusion that the only reason these issues exist is that crimewatch is fundamentally a broken system. What we have is a ‘legal system’ that allows players to commit crimes openly while providing no real deterrent effect for those who get caught (which is literally everybody who commits a crime). What we need is actual criminal gameplay mechanics that include actual punishment, *and* actual opportunities to not get caught. It’s the senselessness of the current system that causes all these side problems.

    • Dirk MacGirk

      Agreed, if they allow this and it becomes an overwhelming issue, it might be because the underlying mechanic is flawed and not simply the raw numbers. But that is a forever issue. CCP is always stuck trying to balance (compensate) for what one ship/player can do versus what 1,000 are capable of together.

  • Eve’s Joker

    You guys are all so far behind the curve on this. CCP is going to be changing their business model, so many people talking about this assume Omega clones will always be the “standard” Eve play condition, when in fact, the Alpha will be the “standard” capsuleer play condition, and the Omega will eventually be phased out/diminished (if not on purpose, by default due to the realities of the gaming industry). Everybody has said it everywhere, consumers, generally speaking, are “subscription” fatigued out. There is a reason all of the communications and entertainment services “provider” type businesses are having to bundle things, and package this that or the other thing. People don’t want to subscribe, and if they do, it is for minimum ongoing expenditure and maximum return. A stale subscription is as dead as it sounds and some form of customer pay system/structure equaling tangible gratification will replace it.

    Netflix and Hulu built their customer bases on $5-$11 a month while providing media from many different sources, with options to crank up the self ruin according to how bad you want to watch something new, or before other people, or with less interruption. For Eve to get a larger gaming marketshare, they are going to need to have a much broader customer flow; that is, many more consumers loitering in their virtual space (in-game, in-apps, or just on social media) having tangible reasons to voluntarily drop coin on stuff. Not because they are required to, or so they can experience more, or because they want to get rid of the annoying AI following them around barking commercials in their ear, but because they genuinely want to, like shopping for groceries or entertainment. You are not going to get all your money from one person at once, and you are also not going to get money from people not able to walk around in your store. You are going to get money from people hanging out and buying stuff because it makes sense to do so. Hell, it would even make sense for people to sell each other things, with CCP receiving a transaction fee (just like ebay, but with in-game stuff). People already want to treat eve like a job anyway, and are always looking for methods of monetizing their playtime. In fact, with streaming being so prevalent, and a whole generation being trained on being virtual entrepreneurs (I would even consider streamers and youtubers as such) there is a huge market for something like this. I always go back to mincraft and roblox for this, people go out of their way to create and build things in isolated sandboxes of their own making. CCP would just have one big sandbox where customers in-game activity allowed for peer-to-peer transactions that is self generating and organic. Just add the mechanisms to allow this to happen so rather than CCP having to do all the monetary work, it happens as a biproduct of people just being people hanging out in their “store” (i.e. game).

    My thoughts on this are very preliminary and incomplete, but one thing is certain, subscriptions as the norm is what is being moved away from, what takes it’s place is anybody’s guess, but it certainly won’t be a “core” subscriber base….not if they actually want to stay in business…at the bare minimum it won’t look like anything we are used to…

  • Sootsia

    IMHO, I do not think you carried out your logic (quite sound by the way) far enough.
    Omega state clone = paying customer, no change there other than the name correct?
    Alpha Clone, non paying customer, may or may not have had Omega skills, but no access to them until they are paid for.
    TRIAL membership clone (30 day) toon virtually the SAME state as Alpha clone, no difference I can find in skills, other than it needs to be biomassed every 30 days or actually paid for in some form, GMT, PLEX, or Cash/DebitCredit Card.

    There is, to the best of my knowledge, no difference functionally to the Alpha or the Trial in the aspects of any of the concerns to the existing members. There is no impediment, to my knowledge of logging in multiple Trial toons. So why change what has been used ever since trial accounts with no significant outcry?

  • Rob Kaichin

    ” In addition to this, it’s already possible, thanks to trial->buddy referral chains, to have nearly infinite 51 day-long accounts. These accounts are (for the second chunk of 30 days) able to be multiboxed and function identically to regular accounts, including having access to all the T2 equipment that Alphas are restricted from using. As such, the aforementioned problem of rolling alts already exists in a more severe form, and is not seen as a major issue by the vast majority of the playerbase. However, I do agree that the rule regarding alt-rolling for sec should be more heavily enforced and publicised by CCP.”

    That sounds like an abuse of the trial system itself. Perhaps CCP should look at that too.

    Now, I’d also like to see how many people have been caught abandoning and biomassing negative sec status accounts.

    Considering that the gankers` strategies have to be kept secret from the general public, I’m unsurprised that the above alt rolling problem is seen as unproblematic. It’s seen that way because very few people actually know that they’re doing it.

    Anyway, until CCP gives the antigankers suitable tools to fight back, Ganking will continue to be a game style only limited by the amount of active participants willing to do it.

  • Rob Kaichin

    ” But, think about what the game loses by turning off ganking on Alphas. Not just from a real level, but from a perception level, from the mythology of EVE level.”

    It loses very little, because locking out an uninvested new player from one small activity doesn’t mean that they can’t take part in any other criminal activities, or any of the legal criminal activities that aren’t punished by Concord.

    Unless ganking is the be all and end all of criminal activity, which it isn’t, locking safety to yellow in highsec removes only the possibility of abuse by current players.

  • Bozo

    Sorry for almost-necroing this thread, but one point seems to have been overlooked, at least here.

    I’m not worried about armies of alpha clones overwhelming highsec carebears, because these will be horribly difficult to coordinate and too much effort for very little gain compared to what we have today. On the other hand, if people decide to try ganking using an alpha and end up liking it, the game is richer for it.

    There are other uses for alphas, however, and these are for the most broken mechanics involved in highsec ganking.

    Welcome to the timer-inflicting alpha: he warps to the target in a noobship, fires his civilian gun at it, gets CONCORDed, warps to station, undock in a new noobship, CONCORD teleports away from the previous “crime” to the station to kill that second noobship. You now have a target that can’t log off safely for 15 minutes, and a prepped system (i.e. CONCORD’s response time will be a few seconds slower than in a pristine system).

    And since CCP has yet to come up with a workable fix to bumping, how about an alpha bumper, e.g. sitting in a Stabber with oversized prop?

    [Stabber, Noob bumper]
    Mark I Compact Reactor Control Unit
    Mark I Compact Reactor Control Unit
    Type-D Restrained Nanofiber Structure
    Type-D Restrained Nanofiber Structure

    500MN Y-T8 Compact Microwarpdrive
    [empty med slot]
    [empty med slot]
    [empty med slot]

    [empty high slot]
    [empty high slot]
    [empty high slot]
    [empty high slot]
    [empty high slot]
    [empty high slot]

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

    …has no T2 modules, goes 4,507 m/s before skills, links or drugs.

  • truthmonger

    Suicide ganking should have been eliminated ages ago. Its completely destroys suspension of disbelief and gives the already-overpowered pirates carte blanche to ply their trade in so-called “high security space”. Its completely ridiculous and one of the biggest reasons that EVE’s paying user numbers were stagnant for years and are now declining rapidly.