Bollocks.
Bollocks
1 Like
You add no intellectual value to the conversation by your off topic responses.
He got the right value for his post. It is very on topic.
1 Like
That Skiff gets soloed by a caracal. Hell, even a cormorant can squish that thing after killing the expensive drones from a safe distance.
It has no escapes of any kind, no ability to clear tackle (2.77 km/s drone top speed pffft), no meaningful tank and it doesnât mine very much.
Do you think it is somehow news that you will find a cheaper counter to every setup? Also again, that was just a quick demonstration that shows that the mining ships arenât as defenseless as some here try to make it look like. Also there is still room for two more fleets of light drones.
Karak you really need to stop making up pretend-arguments to debate with the imaginary carebears in your head so you can reap pretend-tears while you pretend youâre being relevant.
I observed that data, facts, and industry experts point out that non-consensual PvP, particularly in starter regions, is bad for the population growth and success of a game.
I pointed out that the population and activity levels of the PvP-wannabes, hiding in safe space so they wonât get hunted by the real Pvpers, is small enough that if they were removed, EVE would barely be affected.
Those points are quite different than recommending elimination of non-con PvP from EVE. They are also quite different from asking for 100% safety in high sec. 100% safety in high sec is only required by pretend-PvPers like you because you havenât the guts to face real PvP.
What I actually recommended was:
and finally:
is the only recommendation or change I suggested. No Concord - give players the tools to handle it.
If from all that the only thing you got is âKezrai wants 100% safety in high secâ then youâve been fighting pretend-PvP battles against weak opponents for far too long.
(Note: in the following, âyouâ refers to all the pretend-PvPers in high sec, not âyou Karakâ specifically)
I realize the concept of actually fighting against real PvPers is quite scary for you, and so you panic when people recommend âmore and better PvPâ and start flailing about with made-up arguments.
But donât worry. When the game gets too rough for you, and the real PvPers keep blowing you up, with luck by then theyâll have some other game available where you can fight weak targets and pretend youâre tough.
1 Like
Every combat ship in the game better than a T1 destroyer can reliably kill that Skiff. If that is the best that can be done with the barges then they have no meaningful survivability regardless of what space you are in.
If they had the capabilities of a Dominix then things would be different. I have a crabfit Domi that cost about the same, makes more money and can take on most of the solo pwn-mobiles out there.
Oh look, another new group of 20+ gankers killing random passerbys.
Theyâre ganking freighters and such in Aufay. Thatâs on top of Hellhouse, who are doing similar ganks in Sivala.
And you can add that to the constantly ganked Niarja.
I highly doubt that.
Again, it was just a quick fit I trew together to show how the stats can go into similar ranges than a HAC. Iâm sure we can do better for an actual fit.
The point was those ships are not defenseless and can actually shoot back.
The entire lineup of assault frigates can outpace or outtank the drones long enough to kill them and have enough dps to crack the tank. From experience with VNIs and domis i can tell that medium drones donât apply well enough to assault frigates and light drones just wonât cut the mustard.
Cruiser brawlers have every advantage while kitey cruisers can kill the drones while being able to disengage at will.
There is very little that can be done about the Skiff fit aside from dispensing with the mining lasers, PG rigs and AB in favor of neuts/nos, resist rigs and a web. At best you end up with a ship that is inferior to an arbitrator and only good for baiting bads in T1 frig/dessie brawler fits.
Edit: You may be able to squeeze high numbers from a mining barge but it wonât be practical to use in lieu of a proper pvp ship nor will it be a good crab boat. It may have some defenses but its largely for show.
Itâs good enough that a blob of those things gets pretty scary.
@Nevyn_Auscent and @Karak_Terrel, thank you for the explanation of hyper-dunking. It does sound weird that CCP would put a stop to that. I wonder if there was another reason for the change that just impacted gankers as a side-effect?
I think those are a relative minority of players that left the game. The majority probably decided that it just wasnât for them, which is entirely reasonable.
I wonât argue against the apparent hypocrisy there, but I will contest the idea that their actions are parasitism. CCP designed EVE as a game where being a pirate and robbing other players is an entirely valid way to play. If you donât like that, then maybe you shouldnât be playing EvE?
Iâve looked at their character in-game. Been a member of the State War Academy since they joined on 2007.08.12. Iâm also not taking everything she says as fact, just as Iâm not taking everything anyone here says as fact, yourself included (no offense). Iâm just trying to figure out what would be good for the game Iâve come to love so much, one day at a time.
This, I will readily agree with.
I think this might be the closest thing to an objectively true statement in the entire thread.
Iâve heard PvP actions in EvE called that before, especially when the players are engaging in piracy. The original Reddit post also goes into more detail about what happened, and it sounds like a lot of the PvP players in UO were just looking for people they could kill without risk. Once they only had each other left to fight, it wasnât fun for them anymore.
I have no idea if this would work or not, but at least itâs an idea. Have a like.
What about her post right above yours?
Câmon man, you said it was equivalent to a HAC, and it isnât. Itâs not defenseless and gets pretty close in EHP, but it looks to me like you were exaggerating for effect. Thatâs fine, you donât need to double down on it.
Not weird at all CCP stopped it. It meant to gank a freighter you only needed 3ish characters and about 100 Mil isk in cost. It meant 200 Mil cargo was worth ganking and your per character isk per hour was insane.
CCP want ganking yes, but they donât want it uncontrolled.
Apart from the characters you need a lot more ships to hyper-dunk a target because it takes quite some time and shield recharge is a thing. maybe you should stop constantly talking about things you donât understand anything about.
My dude, It wasnât just EHP. The ship is in the range of a HAC when correctly fitted.
The pretend-PvPers have to keep assuming Iâm a miner, an industrialist, a hater, a poor-ass player who got ganked and never got over it etc. etc. This is because they understand that clear and logical analysis of the PvP-parasite playstyle leads inevitably to the conclusion that âthis playstyle is bad for the overall health of the gameâ, so they desperately try to deflect all such analysis.
Iâve mentioned it before but will re-iterate here: I donât dislike CCP or anyone who works at it. Iâm not angry at EVE or anyone who plays it. My âplaystyleâ has never been nerfed or overly affected by any changes CCP has done.
I also do not âloveâ EVE, and have never played it as my âmainâ game. I play many other MMOs/combat/PvP/strategy type games. My primary issue with EVE has always been that it has hovered on the verge of being a really great game (for me, ymmv) but has never actually pulled off the design changes that would make it both interesting for me and, IMO, a more successful and satisfying game for a much larger percentage of itsâ current and potential players. I would rather see a growing, successful, developing EVE than a declining EVE that has too few resources to make significant change.
Parasitism is a perfectly valid action. That doesnât make it a healthy one. CCP designed a game where you could kill and steal from other players - that doesnât mean it was a good design decision. However, that design decision does not impact me at all, since I donât feel any need to get my jollies from making someone elseâs play experience unpleasant, nor do I operate in a fashion that allows such players to victimize me. They are irrelevant.
It does not seem to occur to you, or to many others, that a person can analyze the pros and cons of a design decision without being emotionally involved either way. Non-consensual, unbalanced PvP in high sec does not affect me, I couldnât care less about it personally. I believe it has a negative long-term impact on the player population of EVE, as evidenced by the OP and my own article links, as well as by the simple math â1 happy ganker = dozens/hundreds/thousands of unhappy victimsâ.
If EVE was growing, if it was attracting new players and keeping them, you could ignore that effect. It doesnât appear to be an overwhelming bleed factor - just a persistent and significant one. EVE isnât growing, and is bleeding players rapidly, and so the issue becomes slightly more important to consider in âwhat should we do next to improve EVE?â.
I donât think âchaos eraâ and âpulling the rug out from under playersâ (the current CCP plan) is a good response to a game in decline.
I do think that making PvP more desirable and accessible in various ways, that making PvE less rewarding (compared to PvP, or PvP more rewarding, or both) and less repetitive/bottable/farmable, and adding more engaging/interesting content, is what EVE needs to continue to be viable.
(Note: among other changes, of course, NPE/monetization/encouraging social cooperation etc. Not going into those because off-topic.)
1 Like
This post contradicts popular belief that online behaviour does not have any relations to RLâŚ
I donât know if itâs a popular belief, but itâs a wrong one nonetheless.
Most people suck at knowing themselves behind the surface, so itâs to be expected, though.
There simply is no way of seperating the real persona from what heâs doing,
which includes everything he does in real life, as in video games.
Itâs just not always directly mappable. Not every personality trait directly corresponds with his ingame behaviour. For the same reason you see tons of White Knights who are, absolutely not, White Knights in real life. They just want to be White Knights, maybe because theyâve been watching too many Disney Movies.
And thatâs not because they want to be good people. Itâs because they want to be perceived as good people and, most importantly, looked up upon.
3 Likes
There are real white knights irl. They just havenât had their asses handed to them by life yet. I used to be one. The transformation is pretty weird. Still trying to find my way back. Hope people donât go through that.
I know. I didnât mean to imply they donât also exist in the real world. Theyâd just unlikely get stuck in a video game with that, because they can express and act on that desire in the real world already.
Oh, btw, totally unrelated:
Why are you here? 
1 Like