Any area where players like to congregate attracts those who fly fancy ships. It’s not necessarily those in faction warfare with the fancy ships, but those outside it.
Correct. In other words, it’s about mentality more than anything.
I have indeed tried hunting them, even though I don’t have waging war on the bots as part of my ideology. And yes, they are quite frustrating to hunt.
Looking at the “ganked” section of the killboard, it seems that ganks vary in profitably quite a lot. When the ship is well tanked relative to the value of the potential loot, it ends up being an unprofitable gank target; but still gets ganked sometimes.
My position is similar to that of CCP; that, while lowsec should be the place for intense paranoia, as people will hunt you no matter what, highsec should be the place for more limited form of paranoia; make your ship unprofitable to gank with suitable tank and an absence of bling, and you’ll be fine. This relies on rational self-interest, however; in a world without that factor, things can get out of control pretty quickly; even Thomas Hobbes did not envision such a world. In the game’s past, with the increased risk came an increased abundance (absence of "scarcity). I’m not very familiar with that past; it may well have been better than what we have now, or in other words the old equilibrium outperforms the new equilibrium (or the planned equilibrium).
As I understand it, you advocate for high levels of paranoia everywhere, to improve the quality of the virtual reality, and increase the appeal of simulated experience.
I’m sure that should this come to pass, you will receive the proper credit for making things more exciting.
Agreed. The pvper’s will likely buy the blingy ship with PLEX, which is spent to buy the ship from carebears who manufactured it, which said carebears will only do if they can realistically make a profit. Turning a profit if your ship survives doing a risky activity for 20 hours is not very realistic.
Eve is a complex ecosystem with many subtle interconnections. Game design is important for molding players’ choices in desired directions. Appealing things happen in risky space, lots of people join in. I may be saying things that some people know; that does not mean that everyone knows them. For instance, I didn’t know you were in the Caldari/Gallente warzone; now I do. Hope it’s an enjoyable experience.
I understand the frustration. And I partially agree and partially disagree. The part of ganking that I don’t like is that all the lore of this amazing technology we are all using and still the most secure trade hub in the Eve Universe cannot develop technology to stop the ganking. Eve’s ecosystem has pitted risk vs reward in an amazing way that makes the game exciting and frustrating. Ganking is part of that love-hate relationship.
However, I think that the lore of Eve should be consistent. This means that highly involved intelligent species should develop ways to prevent ganking in 1.0 space. Ganking in Jita and the other trade hubs really does nothing but frustrate new players. The game design should push gankers out out of these systems (and probably the system next to the trade hubs that are 0.9 or higher). Ganking in Jita, Amarr, Dodixie, Rens does nothing for the game except increase the “destroyed value statistic”.
The other problem with Ganking in trade hubs is that there is so much traffic that it is impossible to essentially see and react amongst the sea of ships transiting the system. At least give make Ganker’s have some real strategy other than expending their low skill characters on random ships in Jita. Just because it’s a target rich environment should not be sufficient to give a ‘free pass’ to Gankers.
What would really happen in a system that is designed with the lore of Eve. Inhibitors would be developed to interfere with weapons systems. Energy lasers would not work or be absorbed into station shields. Kinetic rounds would have technology to reduce their velocities. Police presence would be upgraded, requiring fleet registration, flagging target locks on unsanctioned activities. Highways between common jump points would have extensions of these inhibitors to allow for safe passage.
In a ‘believable’ lore, this policing would drastically loose effectiveness in distance from trade hubs and other industrial centers. While this metric does exist (concord response time, presence of sentry guns etc), the game does not balance this appropriately because there is no balance to the attacker and defender.
Ganking can be prevented somewhat by scouting. Tracking of players and working somewhat in groups.
I think we should push for stricter limitations on Ganking only in areas that really should be ‘Ultra Highly Secure’ such as the trade hubs. But continue to allow it elsewhere. That’s the direction that we should work to persuade the developers to take the game.
For example, during my incursion career I haul my incursion kronos (full of the good gear) across HS. I don’t get ganked because I don’t get noticed and my ship is hard to gank. (Like really hard on a day-to-day basis.)
Me too. This means highly evolved intelligent species should be able to use their ingenuity reverse engineering all sorts of tech (as has repeatedly been done) and use the mass proliferation of weapons of mass destruction everywhere (in the hands of capsuleers) to replicate The Elder Fleet — who were basically „just Matari“ and not Jove or anything — and their assault The Concord Assembly NPC station. Except doomsdaying Jita IV-4.
This means players should be able to cyno into high sec systems and also be able to destroy NPC stations like Jita and neutralize CONCORD entirely. Turning systems into 0.4 or less security, eliminating Jita IV-4 and all goods inside it, and helping folks remaining in high sec avoid the police. Like how Eve used to actually be (tankable concord).
Another problem with the inconsistent lore are many people coming in not knowing the lore and just looking for any excuse to make their „rational“ fantasy world some sort of „logically correct“ one, which is a silly exercise. Including my own post.
I love when carebears and gank-haters pretend that they are fine with ganking. Except there is always a but which then shows they they would be fine with ganking only if
they are excluded from it automatically via some 100% safety mechanism
ganking is nerfed so much that it actually isn’t possible anymore
Do you know why carebears complain that gankers are too safe, they can’t be caught, can’t be stopped, and that is is impossible to interfere their operations?
This is because there are so many mechanics that allows not to be ganked or to survive the gank which has no or very little counterplay. So it is in fact complete opposite of what you are saying.
As for your question. Did you ever actually thought about cooperating with other players??? That is your counterplay. You can either get help to protect you on your trip, which if done correctly leaves gankers no counterplay. Or you can simply contract your ■■■■ to someone more capable to haul it for you - this option doesn’t even need any social interaction you try to avoid. BTW there are daily about thousand of freighters reaching their destination and large portion of them is autopilotting. So you are doing something wrong don’t you think?
Stop pretending you don’t mind ganking when you do. It is not about being able to shoot back and you know it, that is just your excuse why you have lost. If you lost Gila to gankers I am pretty sure you would come up with some another excuse why it is wrong.
Personal example, typical of kills by ganking:
Providence, afk, transit Hi Sec, hold empty. >>> 2.5B… As for the gankers, no loss and no loot. What interest ? Piss everyone off ? It must be something like this.
Free. In every sense of the term
To teach you not to afk, when sitting in a freighter without any support or scouts. Or to properly tank your ship. Why did you fit cargo extenders in an empty hauler ?
This was just an educational kill by opportunity.
plus tons of fun pvping in a pvp game, plus another nice killmail, plus they helped the economy prosper and maybe they farmed some valuable salt from you afterwards.
It seems you are a huge ganking advocate for high-sec, and you might be an experienced high-sec player who deals with new player problems daily. I don’t know.
Following the logic that ganking is the best for player retention, how about championing to CCP to add extra damage against new players for veterans and let Concord not show up while ganking new players?
That all MUST then skyrock the new player experience AND push retention numbers to the heavens. Let’s try that for 6 months with the option to do a 180 if the numbers are tanking.
You don’t know, so you proceed to put words in my mouth and make assumptions. Perhaps you’d have been better served taking a few minutes and learning before doing that.
Ganking does not negatively impact player retention - this is not me saying so, this is CCP saying so. It’s part of the game, and something every player gets used to. The concept of loss in EVE is one of the biggest differences from literally every other MMO on market and the sooner folks accept that loss is inevitable and not experience-ending, they’ll be more likely to stick around.
Ganking has been nerfed multiple times over the last few years to make it harder. No one, including me, is suggesting making it easier.
I love when carebears and gank-haters pretend that they are fine with ganking. Except there is always a but which then shows they they would be fine with ganking only if