Feel free to propose a better solution. The way things were initially (i.e. sentencing players to “hard labor in jail” for an extended period of time) wasn’t a workable game mechanic. When I ganked, I had to do exactly this, and I hated it. Everyone hated it. It didn’t create content for anyone else, or for me. At least with tags, we’re not also adding a whole bunch of ISK and items to the economy from the ratting, considering how saturated most markets are.
No, you would still need more shooters; they would just have to be staggered. Any sort of ganking nerf would be countered with more shooters, until you nerf ganking so much, that it becomes a practical impossibility to accomplish it. I mean, if you make a freighter gank need 500 shooters to work, then even the most dedicated gankers are probably going to give up, because no one’s going to want to sacrifice 500 ganking ships for “lulz,” or to sit around for months waiting for a target with 145 billion ISK worth of cargo to pass through to make the gank worthwhile.
And any new counter-play mechanic will be a ganking nerf as long as CONCORD is a kill trigger with an upper time limit cap.
No, they didn’t. The players who went to null to grind their status back up for ganking were all highly-skilled PvPers who knew what they were doing, and didn’t provide any kill opportunities to others.
What do you think happened? Do you think a ratter was flying around “do do do, pew pew pew the ratties, for fun and gankies later…oh no! help me, my brethren, for I am tackled by a roamer!” and then more people from both sides showed up, and everyone had a fun little skirmish in the belt with GFs thrown all around? That never happened, dude. You’re just not going to kill an experienced PvPer temporarily doing PvE, unless it’s a rare fluke of some sort.
LOL, some people developed relationships while doing this and got into other conflicts. Blimey and you call yourself an Eve player?
Like so many of the player base you have lost sight of how things developed out of such things, it created new content if you allowed it too of course and was a real pain to min/max gankers, which was the point of it actually…
Pretty obvious when you replied telling me that they would just add more ships. Made me chuckle. Eve forums, people just don’t think.
While I know that I don’t speak for everyone, the group I was a part of (which was also the first organized suicide-ganking group in EVE), I don’t think a single person ever lost a ship like that. We were all experienced small-gang null-sec roaming specialists, and knew how to rat properly. Gates were bubbled, scouts were set up multiple jumps out, and proper ratting tactics were used.
I, personally, have never lost a single ratting ship in k-space, despite performing the activity for close to 5,000 hours. I did have wormhole losses, however.
This argument is moot, because those same relationships could have been developed during other activities as well. You’re making it sound like this punishment ratting was some kind of special avenue for emergent gameplay and discovery, when the reality was much less romantic. We just did what we had to do, and moved on.
The opportunity to develop relationships and get into other conflicts exists in virtually every other activity in EVE, so making it sound like punishment ratting was exceptional in some way is rather disingenuous.
Maybe you should elaborate, instead of digressing with a “heh, I’m not gonna bother explaining to you, pleb” response, just like Nevyn did. Unless of course it’s your intent to likewise come off as insincere and untrustworthy.
That is what you did to me with the adding more ships reply. And I took you as an intelligent player who knows what that module does, or has the wit to work it out. Silly me… And now you try to paint me as insincere based on something that I think would make it a lot more fun for the freighter victim with just one module that already exists in the game.
As for your comments on ratting to get your security status back up that was you, others acted differently, but you have decided that is how it was was because that is how you did it. You are not everybody. I said it was a direct block to min/max play and it was removed, that is my opinion, your opinion is you hated grinding up security status, I say that it worked before tags.
That module breaks locks, and its efficiency goes up the more targets are locking you. However, the mathematical end result of it is that it decreases the total damage each shooter does during that shooter’s gank window. Each individual shooter is affected by having to target the victim again, which costs a few seconds of shooting.
The only way to counter this is by bringing more shooters, because you need to make up for the fact that each shooter does less damage. But because the module efficiency also goes up with an increased amount of locks, the calculation for how many shooters you need to bring becomes logarithmic in nature.
This absolutely would be a direct nerf to ganking, that would be countered by exactly one solution: bringing more damage. It could also be slightly mitigated by staggering shooters to attack in groups (e.g. five Taloses shoot, get destroyed, then the next 5 shoot, get destroyed, etc), but the fact that more shooters would be required is a fundamental mathematical truth.
Nothing I said was wrong in that regard.
Likewise, what you’ve said is also an opinion.
And the fact that I’m not other players doesn’t change the fact that I belong to a certain subset of them, and we act in very a similar manner. Most of us are well-aware of the efficient way to do things, and basing your argument on the potential existence of some outliers who do things differently doesn’t lend it much strength.
Which is what they would do and they are already doing this in Jita. 50 Talos warp to a JF and they attack in squads. And some warp away unused…
Basing your view on so called elite players is also wrong, most gankers I have come across are not that good. They just tell everyone that they are great players while loudly screaming that other people are bad at Eve.
How did I go back on that? That makes no sense. Bringing additional shooters has been protocol since the very beginning, because you can’t account for RNG, the target having EHP-boosting implants, hostile interference, etc. I don’t know why you think I argued against that or “went back” on it somehow, but I didn’t.
There you go, the strawman comes out.
Look, I never called anyone “elite.” I specifically said experienced.
You thinking that gankers aren’t “that good” is also an opinion (and a pretty ambitious one at that), and while you’re entitled to it, don’t ignore the reality that these players are on top of the food chain, which can only come from experience, understanding, and healthy attitude toward PvP in general. Have you seen a high-sec miner or mission-runner about whom you could say the same?
I’m not even going to try to convince you that the players you actually think are “good” are one and the same as gankers. I shudder to think at the kind of narrative you’ll spin to make it sound like that’s some kind of impossibility.
But it is also irrelevant because as you said when there is a random factor they will bring more which is always the case. My point was always to make it more fun for the victim and less of a blink and you miss it. I don’t care if they have to bring more or not. I was looking at it totally from the position of the poor sap who just jumped in.
If you look for one you will find it.
I called you elite actually, because you obviously are quite good, I watched your stream. If you want to take that as a dig then go ahead.
Did you see the use of the word most? That is a sweeping generalisation as many people I came across who were good at PvP did PVE and mining too.
You are the one spinning narratives and strawmen comments.
If they have to bring more, then you’re nerfing ganking. Don’t try to disguise it as an effort to make the process more “fun” for the victim if your end goal is to push the margin on ganking by requiring more shooters. Once again, it’s dishonest.
Also, to claim that anything would make the process of getting your hauler blown blown up in a suicide gank more fun for the victim is a real stretch.
You must be confusing me with someone else, because I’ve never streamed in my entire life.
“Most” is still an expression of opinion. You’re welcome to think that “most” gankers are bad at PvP, but whether or not that’s true is for the entire community to decide.
Whatever. My point is that your ideas for making ganking “fun” for the victim would amount to direct ganking nerfs. If you want ganking nerfs, then just say so, but don’t try to sugarcoat it. I’ve explained in some detail how this is the case, and save for providing actual mathematical formulas and graphs to explain why your target breaker idea would have effects aside from making ganking “more fun for the victim”, there’s not much more I can do. But even that went above and beyond anything you’ve done in this thread.
Sorry but this accusation gets thrown at me all the time by gankers, I reject it, my objective is to make the single account hisec player have something that enables him to have a chance of survival. That it can be countered with waves of gankers and within the normal 5 characters a second what decent gankers can apply will make it possible still. Stop being a ganker shrill.
I thought you did a video of some recent content, sorry my bad.
Most gankers I have come across is what I said, I did not say all gankers, why do you people insist in putting words in the mouths of other people.
I don’t care. As I said my focus is the solo single account player moving his freighter around in hisec. with my suggestion he gets something that has to be activated and could save him and improves his game. In fact it only impact two or three players who multi-account gank. Hardly a major loss to be honest.
No one’s saying you’re not allowed to make proposals for making the game better according to how you see fit. I’m merely pointing out that it is dishonest to claim that your intent is to do one thing and not the other, when accomplishing the former would also necessarily accomplish the latter. Wanting to make ganking “fun” for the victim by increasing the amount of shooters required necessarily requires wanting to nerf ganking by pushing its margin with a requirement for more shooters. There’s no way of getting around the logic of that dual-purpose solution. If a dual-purpose solution is not your intent, then you should acknowledge that your solution is flawed, and seek another one.
It’s like if I said that I want to make ratting more fun by increasing the ISK rewards from it. Someone would rightfully call me out on that, and I wouldn’t be able to say “well no you see, I just want to make ratting more fun, and that’s it - I don’t care about the money part!” It just doesn’t work.
You know what, if you don’t understand this, then there’s not much I can do to convince you. That’s the sort of logical progression you’ve constructed for yourself, and it’s going to take more than a single person to teach you why you’re wrong.
And you “don’t care” anyway. Another one-liner frequently used by people who have completely closed themselves off from reason and reality. Good luck with your proposals being taken seriously when your response to someone pointing out their flaws is that you “don’t care.” You’re doing more damage to your own arguments by saying rubbish like that than I ever could.
I don’t get it.
First you call me out for not addressing the fact that you said “most,” and then when I did exactly that to clear things up, you say that I claimed that you said “all”? Who is putting words in whose mouth, exactly?
I never said “all,” or claimed that you said “all”. Please read!
That’s a wholly separate argument.
It’s also a very bad argument, because it throws away all consideration for the nature, intent, and history of the game.
If we start balancing the game based on how many players get affected by each change, EVE would become a generic mobile-style MMO in which players grind for money all day, and then use that money to open RNG loot crates, with ships and modules coming directly from a cash shop, and PvP being disabled everywhere except in sanctioned arenas or battlegrounds.
Because, surprise, that’s the kind of game most players in the world want to play, and the kind of game that does the best financially.
But EVE (thankfully) isn’t MapleStory, and niche activities are provided fair consideration.
I allow him to gank without CONCORD interference. It’s in the rules of the game. If you want ganking rights, just let me know and I can hook you up with a CONCORD exemption.
Isn’t the point of freighter fitting that they only have low-slot modules - that is, nothing that is capable of being activated? Their tankiness is inherent to their build, so if you find them insufficiently tanky, the balanced action would be to advocate for more base health rather than a module meant to be used by droneboats (who don’t care about their own targeting getting suppressed), or as an emergency module, where the activating ship isn’t worried about holding targets of their own, just in defraying incoming DPS long enough to either stabilize or GTFO.
If they want reactive gameplay, maybe don’t fly a ship that is specifically restricted to passive modules by its design?
That don’t care is based off of the simple fact that this will affect three or four players who have in any case made excessive amounts of ISK. The people who it will benefit are the myriad of solo hisec players who will have improved game play. So I don’t care about three or four players like that. If you think that is a closed mind think again. It is based on knowing this subject very well.
And you make the point of grinding tags in nullsec as being terrible and then expect people to have to baby sit a bloody gate slow warping whale for every single jump, just moving stuff in hisec. Can’t you even see the irony of that thought process. It is OK for you not to have to do something boring, but other people. Yeah you don’t care, and I say that accepting that I have to nurse these damn things through every boring jump in hisec.
The “improved game play” is merely your perspective. I can counter it very easily by saying that the market glut resulting from the lack of destruction, and service glut resulting from the lack of obstruction, will in time result in worse game play for everyone.
The amount of money that gankers make is set by the players, and not by some arbitrary server variable set by CCP. Smart haulers don’t suffer ganks, and prosper in their careers. Stupid haulers get ganked, and cry. Smart haulers don’t need you to advocate for them as is, and when you advocate for the protection of the stupid ones, you hurt the smart ones by killing off their business. Instead of letting natural processes take their course, and allowing players to evolve their skill sets, you’re artificially lowering the skill ceiling so that everyone can be a winner. Except in your world, everyone actually winds up losing, instead of only the ones who are unwilling or unable to adapt.
The fact that hauling is boring is a different discussion. But this issue already has a solution in the form of businesses set up to handle the task. If you don’t like to PvP and someone is harassing you, you hire mercenaries. If you don’t like to run missions but want locator agents, you hire someone who will raise your standings. If you get bored by ratting, you buy tags from someone else, and turn them in to raise your security status. And if you don’t like to haul but need your stuff moved, you hire a courier to do it for you. The answers are already there in the form of being able to contract out activities you don’t enjoy so that you’re able to focus on the ones you do.
Your solution to nerf ganking also does nothing to address the problem you’ve described above. The fact that hauling is so boring per se isn’t mitigated by allowing players to carry more stuff at any given time, because the act itself doesn’t change. The introduction of tags was meant to alleviate this very issue with a specific game play element (to create more than a single way of accomplishing a specific task). For hauling, alternatives have been in place since the very beginning.
Seriously, stop trying to mislead people. Everyone can see what you’re doing right now.
My suggestion of the allowing this module to be used by freighters is not to nerf ganking, I am looking to improve the game play for solo single character players in hisec. It has no impact on the majority of ganks and gankers most of which gank smaller stuff, just the limited number of people who do freighter ganking and they can deal with it. For example they said that they could not deal with the loss of bumping and yet they are still ganking.
Tags make security status loss a nothing consequence apart from paying out easy to afford amounts of ISK. This was a big buff to ganking by the way. Did you ever stop to think about that?
You are the one misleading yourself, you expect people to do boring play, but not yourself, talk about entitled.