To change my opinion I’d need to see data that proved beyond a doubt that there was a positive impact on the game from ganking new players. Why are you so insistent on trying to change my opinion though? You think it’s better for gankers to go after new players rather than overloaded haulers, that’s your view and I don’t try to change it.
@Scipio_Artelius I wanted to add that I’ve been orbiting gates in Uedama for an hour or so scanning haulers and there are definitely loads of really profitable targets, many on autopilot so easy to catch. The only way gankers would be having a hard time getting profitable ganks is if they aren’t trying.
That’s a choice they made, not something forced by nerfs. They can still stay in station, have a bumper bump a target, undock then warp in for the gank, just like they did before tether.
By the way, if gankers are switching to positive sec status and they are trying to make enough ISK to cover their tags and their plex, why do they still gank ships that have no possibility of dropping profit?
Yep. I don’t think it is a contention on whether ganking can be profitable or not.
However, gankers don’t need to have profit as an aim. They can do it just for fun (or any other reason they want to have); and if the ganking nerfs make it less fun (or less of anything else that makes it attractive), then they’ll either find it still ok enough and keep at it, or no longer ok and stop.
Nerfing it to the ground because people make loud noises about how it’s killing the game seems to have CCPs ear at the moment. To me, that’s a pity when I look at the data and consistently see that the loud noises to nerf ganking are often made from unverified and incorrect claims.
Both of your killboards indicate that neither one of you is doing anything. I am sure you have some secret mystery success, but it doesn’t seem to be true.
One form of trolling is “I need to see more data” trolling - this individual indicates they are interested in “the truth” and merely want to see “data”. In fact, they have no desire to be objective, and their goal is to simply waste your time, encouraging you to put more effort into a lengthy “debate”. In the case of Elizabeth, if you block her, she will return with a new sockpuppet.
It is truly bizarre the way the gankers and pro gankers here have more combined killboard worth of record in one week than the entire combined anti gankers have in the past 5 years. They’ve sent on a bunch of people with zero PvP experience in years…to argue about PvP. Hilarious.
None of these people appear to have ever ganked, or been ganked, or been within 100 miles of a gank or 1000 miles of a noob being ganked…yet they are all experts on the subject !
This ignores the ability to manipulate the perception of wide support for a viewpoint. A poster with no in-game history posting “CCP NEEDS TO REMOVE GANKING!” on a brand new forum alt can see “someone else” with no in-game history post “YEAH I TOTALLY AGREE WITH THAT!” and suddenly it’s “two people” sharing a viewpoint, even though it’s just a single person behind those two characters. Meanwhile, for the players who have tangible in-game histories, this kind of sockpuppet support is nearly impossible to fake, because they can’t just pull another character out of thin air that has 15 years’ worth of genuine PvP activity.
It’s not about “qualification” as much as it is about being able to fake support for a viewpoint nearly infinitely. Wanting us to accept the arguments of every poster at face value, without any consideration for who those posters are, is an absolutely unreasonable request.
You don’t care about any opinion than your own and you only care about data that supports your views.
My killboard is mostly attacking gankers just before or during a gank.
Noone here is claiming to be an expert. You’re the only one here throwing around accusations and claims and criticising everyone else’s killboards when you have been on 4 ship kills. Just 4.
What evidence is there that gankers aren’t doing the same? Gankers have many disposable alts. Most of the people being accused here aren’t that new either.
It seems to me it’s the opposite way around. Gankers use the “everyone’s a sock puppet” angle to try to manipulate the perception of a low level of support.
Either way I don’t think it matters to CCP though. Their actions will be based on their own interpretations of their own data.
I’m not seeing anyone pushing pro-ganking narratives on hidden-profile forum accounts with non-existent (or nearly so) forum/in-game histories, while making claims about how much of a long-time/skilled/experienced/etc. player they are and/or about how they’ve done this or that or whatever.
Feel free to bring up examples of any such posters you know.
There’s at least one ganker here posting on a biomassed character. But I’m sure gankers have many alts with ganks on their killboard, just like there are plenty of genuine players with very little on their killboards.
You’re free to believe what you want. If you feel better by pretending there’s some conspiracy to create an anti-ganking narrative, more power to you.
Data is data. The data supports what the data shows.
Huh ? Which of the zero records that you had in the three years up until today was that ? You can’t just make up or invent stuff you were doing.
4 ship kills…78 station kills…200bn ISK worth of stuff destroyed, all in 9 months. Beats nothing in 3 years. And again, the issue is not who has the ‘best’ killboard…which you try to divert off onto…but that most of you anti gank lot have NO killboard for several years. Which implies exactly what Destiny argued above.
You take us all for fools…but anyone can see how the periods when your killboard has been active lines up so well with that of a certain member who is not active here lately.
This has no bearing on the discussion. We’re talking about people who have posted and are posting on the forums, and not people who hypothetically could post. And there’s a very clear delineation that exists between the two posting demographics; one that consistently uses characters with proven in-game and forum histories to argue for a pro-nonconsensual-PvP narrative, and the other that consistently uses fresh, hidden-profile alts with no in-game and forum histories (but many claims of those histories existing, with an insistence on not having to provide any evidence of this) to argue for an anti-nonconsensual-PvP narrative.
The data does not show what you claim. There is no source of data available to us that prove ganking new players causes no issues. You still are also not getting that my opinion is separate to that data. It’s like me saying “I like red” and you saying “Blueberries are blue”. It’s unconnected.
I think it is better, more engaging gameplay to incentivise ganking high-value targets over new players. I don’t know why you struggle to understand that my view is not connected to the number of new players you think are ganked.
So earlier it was “ever”, not it’s “three years”.
Of course, anyone in your alliance will have the same. It’s not an impressive killboard.
It doesn’t imply anything. You are making implications based on it but the data does not make that implication objectively.
Of course it matters, because you’re claiming that there are sock puppet alts here being used to manipulate perception. If that’s the case, alts are alts, whether they have killboards stats or not. It is a known fact that many gankers use many alts to gank with, so what evidence is there that most gankers here aren’t also alts being used to manipulate perception?
You’re just drawing arbitrary lines so you can pretend that everyone you disagree with is a sock puppet and everyone you agree with is a genuine player.
There is also no source of data proving that ganking causes any issue. Since the burden of proof is logically placed upon the individual asserting a claim, it is up to you to prove your case. Without further evidence, it is reasonable to assume that ganking is not a problem. Indeed, considering that CCP has not taken action to stop gankers from ganking new players, it is clear that even CCP does not believe this to be the case.