Hurrah!
2 Likes
You, Sir, have hit the nail on the head. It is only ever a small minority of people creating a problem that does not exist outside of their heads, and they always manage to find people who listen to them and help exaggerating something that only affects them and not actually those they claim they are trying to help.
1 Like
Heās a close contender for the position of Veers 2.0
Veers can never be replaced. The no care bear left behind initiative was truly inspirational
Having skimmed this thread, I believe I am the first to point out that no one has askedā¦
Thereforeā¦
I GET STUFF!!!
Donāt forget to send me your stuff before you quit 
2 Likes
I like you, you have potential and by that i mean you are an easy target.
Please tell us more how bad you are at this game.
I am curious to see the depths of your ignorance.
2 Likes
Donāt let the gankers raze you about how elite they are. Blobbing is not PvP because PvP involves using implants.
does using a hg set with +6s count? lmao
I think you donāt understand the very definition of pvp XD
2 Likes
Thatās because he only has scissors, rock and paper want nothing to do with him.
3 Likes
The thing is, these kind of players would have quit anyway after a short time.
In EVE, sooner or later youāre gonna screw up and the game will punish you for it (and thatās what makes the game worthwhile - victory and success are pointless and hollow if there is no possibility of massive and painful failure). If you canāt HTFU and get with the program then the only other option is to quit and accept that EVE is not the game for you. And thatās totally OK and not a judgment of character. I personally hate WOW but millions love it and would call me crazy. And thatās OK. Agree to disagree.
What doesnāt make sense IMHO is to play a game where you hate the basic premise ( = player freedom - with all the positive and negative implications) but instead of moving on you stick with the game. What makes even less sense is to come to the forums and try to lobby for the destruction of the very thing that makes the game worthwhile in the first place, just because you (or other highly unspecific people you know) canāt deal with the implications of these freedoms of a true sandbox game.
In essence, if a player quits due to a gank (especially a young player) then itās basically helping them recognise that the basic premise of the game is incompatible with their taste in games. The alternative is for them to waste even more time on a game that they essentially hate (but just donāt know it yet because they were living in blissful ignorance).
3 Likes
I wouldnāt mind seeing a cumulative effect on ganking kind of like with jump fatigue. In essence the effect would reduce all security status gains by 99% for X time and everytime you gank before the timer runs out you increase the timer further. Ship ganking would give so much time and podding would triple that time. Start out at 6 hrs for ship and 18 for pods. The 99% reduction in security status gains include buy sec staus via tags.
Tags fixed the issue off grinding to get sec status back but had the unfortunate side effect of promoting ganking even more often, this version of a criminal fatigue would reduce the amount of ganking going on while not wholly elimanting it.
Ganking can be fun and sometimes needed when you spot bothers but like anything it should be handled in moderation. I have no issues with ganking lol but I also agree that if you are going to do it you should face the music and take serious consequences for it and accept them.
Why are people continuously exaggerating the impact of a minority onto everyone?
3 Likes
Maybe he thinks this small minority is so elite, it absolutely requires a change to fundamental 15 year old game mechanics to keep them in check.
2 Likes
Maybe he thinks this small minority is so elite, it absolutely requires a change to fundamental 15 year old game mechanics to keep them in check.
Actually Crimewatch has evolved so much over the last 15 years that not a single mechanic implemented 15 years ago is exactly the same. So perhaps you are deluded enough to believe that sense of stability? Perhaps you arenāt aware that the very changes to those mechanics or, ideas as we should more appropriately refer to them, came about from the very same people who you claim a minority. However, donāt let me spoil your sense of math here and assume that a minority could bring about change to EVE, when last I checked that was a majority thing.
Why are people continuously exaggerating the impact of a minority onto everyone?
The better question to ask is how are you qualified to assume said group is a minority and not a majority? In truth the viewing of either or is more relative than definitive. Do we include only those who reside in high sec or do we also include those ātraversingā high sec? Perhaps we confine the scope of people to vetsā¦or new players. My point being you nor I nor anyone in the game is qualified to declare any one group a minority or majority. In terms of vocal action vs counter action you may judge for or against but even then those arguing on the forums account for a tiny portion of the true eve player base so even that is a moot point. What your reply seems to indicate to me is this is not an issue for you and thus you do not understand why its an issue for anyone and try to dissuade arguments to reduce ganking rather than allow it to go unchecked.
Initially CONCORD was conceived of to provide a sense of safety in terms of payback on the attackers, security status is there to make sure anyone who CHOOSES to violate the law has to face the consequences of repeat offenses. With the addition of sec tags that sense of consequence is no longer a certainty. CONCORD could be destroyed and CCP put measures in place to stop that. They added the tags in to allow sec status to be repaired at a faster less grindy way and I 100% agree with their decision on that. Repairing your status shouldnāt be grindy. If it were just a matter of making it costly ISK wise that would be fine but in reality its not at all. Thus the more sensible solution would be to allow faster repair of sec status BUT maintain the time gate needed to allow for a sense of consequence to repeated offenses. CCP has already developed the perfect solution to thatā¦Jump Fatigue.
The minority we where talking about was suicide gankers. Numbers clearly show that there are only a hand full of them in the game and that suicide ganking is at an all time low.
You fail to provide any evidence that there actually is a problem that needs any attention at all.
5 Likes
Depends.
Is it better for CCP to retain a small amount of suicide gankers, or lose subs to their actions?
1 Like
Why would gankers have to repair their security status? Thanks to CCP and throw-away Alpha accounts, everyone and their dog can have 30 ganker alts that they can just trash when they hit -10 and make 30 moreā¦
Failure to produce evidence? Lmao I would counter you by saying you failed to do so as well with your assumption of:
Numbers clearly show that there are only a hand full of them in the game and that suicide ganking is at an all time low.
However, let us forgo the evidence portion because in reality thats irrelevant. My argument is not how many suicide gankers there are in high sec. I have clearly indicated time after time I have no problem with ganking miners, and that includes the current number of players doing it.
If you read any of my post at all you would know that my argument is instead the frequency in which those individuals do gank. At current CONCORD shows up and destroys your shipā¦yeah yeah boo who you lost what 6-7 mil to the miners 30+? Ok so that is no biggie. You can gank 5-6 miners before you come close to it costing you the same as one of those miners. CONCORD ensures vengeance is enacted but by flying streamlined glass cannons you reduce that cost to you. Again, I have no issues with that. You lost a ship they lose a ship and if you ganked a miner once in a while it would be fine. However, the moment you go grab tags, sell them, and rep your sec status you have essentially destroyed any kind of lasting long term consequences and thus CCP has created a situation that enables a far more frequent rate of ganking by the same players.
As pointed out you do not even need to do the tags either you can just make 30 alpha accounts and go have fun with little to no regard for any long term consequences. My issue isnāt with the act of ganking, its in ganking and circumventing cumulative consequences. I donāt agree with the whole grinding part of repairing sec status, that action should feel more engaging or shorter term than it previously was but I also stand by the fact there should be a cumulative time gated function that increases the penalty for ganking the more you do it within a short time frame. There is literally NO impact to gankers other than they canāt go ganking 30-40 times a day.
There is a problem with your logic hereā¦ You claim people could just create 30 Alpha alts and this way somewhat mitigate the sec status penalty. Yet you want a penalty (sort of like jump fatigue) that hinders ganking if performed too oftenā¦ Yet they could just switch to another alt much the same way to avoid the sec status issue.
So really, what you are suggesting already has a work-around. So why should CCP do this? Even if you say itās not Alphas because gankers use stealth bombers, you can have 3 characters per account, so you just use one character, then switch characters and keep ganking while waiting out timers on one.
It just seems like your solution already has a work-around, so why waste time implementing it?
Iām not disagreeing with the premise, lām just not sure of the value it adds given there already are work around.
1 Like
But if ganking is a legitimate playstyle, why would it need to be restricted?
The only gameplays that are restricted are jumping around in capital ships (but jump fatigue just took a huge nerf) and docking/gating after shooting people (because that would be pretty bad for fights).
There is no mining fatigue (at least in game!), no ratting/missioning/incursioning fatigue (although that would be a way to curb certain isk faucets!), why should there be ganking fatigue? In fact, with sec status loss, it already has more consequences than most activities (albeing not overly impactful ones).
In this game of alts and multi-boxing, all fatigue does is create more alts and thatās not an interesting game mechanic. Doubling the number of plexed, skill extracting ganking accounts wouldnāt even make much more money to CCPā¦ there is just too few of them.
Incursion, anomaly and mining fatigue though, that might work! And really, it would be for the good of the economy (first two reduce isk faucets) or peopleās enjoyment of the game (character at full mining fatigue, go do something else and actually play this game!). Pouring isk and minerals into eve is detrimental to the small player because his contribution is devalued relatively (canāt rat like a carrier, so income drops behind, canāt mine like a rorq so cheap minerals mean no income again). Those should be activities that you cannot do non-stop.
Ganking? It makes jumping stargates exciting because you worry about your ship, it makes space feel a bit more dangerous, as it should be. It makes newbies stay in the game (oh no? Did I just re-seed this thread for 2 weeks of arguments?!). Itās annoying as hell but itās fine. Leave them be. Or if you believe there should be more consequence to their -10 sec status, ship up and give it to them. You can shoot criminals before they even shoot you!
(In case anyone missed it, this post is tongue in cheek. Although I do stand by the argument that ganking fatigue is pointless because of alts and no more necessary than fatigue on most other activities in the game)
2 Likes