Er…that was precisely my point. Concord destroying gankers isn’t PvP…and given that Concord are PART of the entire ganker equation before they even set off, that means ganking isn’t PvP.
There is no escaping it. It’s complete nonsense to just see Concord as some road sweepers who ‘happen’ to turn up after the event…when the entire ganker vessel setup is BASED upon calculations involving Concord in the first place.
How can anyone possibly claim that them having to adapt their craft to deliver max DPS in 10 seconds or whatever BASED on the response time of Concord is NOT an involvement of Concord and NPC in the process ? It is delusional to argue otherwise. Gankers fit their ships in advance because of Concord…so how can an NPC that directkly affects ship fit not make the entire exercise a battle with NPCs ??
People can huff and puff all they like…but that is the reality of it.
Sigh…what part of ’ a miner can only field 5 drones at a time ’ wasn’t clear when I first pointed it out several million years ago ? Why you keep giving these ludicrous responses that have no basis in reality at all ?
You seriously think a miner can switch from mining drones to combat drones in time before being zapped with 2,500 DPS of antimatter charge ?
And even if a miner did scrap the mining drones and have 5 Hobgoblins…you seriously think they are going to take down half a dozen Catalysts who have planned for their entire attack to last 10 seconds ? Good God…they’d be lucky to take down one Catalyst in that time.
I think the real issue is that the oldbies become so hard and set in their way of thinking that I’d apply Christopher Hitchens ’ It is impossible to rationally argue a person out of a position they did not rationally argue themselves into ’ adage.
Sometimes it really does take a relative noob…like the kid in the ‘Emperor’s New Clothes’ story…to look at it all and see the glaring inconsistencies and the Emperor stark naked.
Why are you trying to fight an uphill battle? If you’re solo and have no one to back you up, you can still run. Run, don’t give them their easy kill and you win.
I was mining in a 0.5 system today. Four people with ‘terrible’ standing arrived in the system ( there were only 8 in the system anyway ). Did I flee ? No. I thought…heck, there’s 13 asteroid belts in this system and they have to search every single one to find me. After a couple of minutes, all 4 of them left.
Naturally I was aligned to my safe spot…I never flee to stations or stargates…but the idea that a miner should flee the minute gankers appear in the system ( especially if it has 13 asteroid belts ) is just nonsense. Let them get bored finding me.
No Concord is what I’ve been saying all along. I’d rather have a wild west type thing where the ‘security’ level of any system is determined by what resources, people, and effort the locals are prepared to put in. You know…like real life. And as open to bribery, corruption, etc, etc, as real life. Now THAT would make Eve interesting.
Those AFK Orcas would be gone in a jiffy…or be forced to pay a local police tax…as locals would not be prepared to pay for their protection yet get nothing out of it.
My objection to ganking arises directly as a result of there being a reactive rather than proactive police force…and the inability of people to proactively defend themselves, and I see the actions of the New Eden Police Force as heroic but ultimately futile in that respect.
Concord are a waste of pixels. They don’t ‘defend’ anyone…and they get in the way of anyone wishing to proactively defend themselves.
Again, you are arguing in bad faith. If you could read well, you’d already see I said if you were operating solo, you accept more risk. And you already acknowledged if you are mining solo, you should watch local and warp off.
A lone miner should never be capable of defeating mutiple catas.
No one is arguing that a lone miner should ever survive LOL.
Sigh. You just don’t understand ROFL. You admit you used local, you made a tactical decision and this time it paid off. It also could have went the other way. Miners don’t have to warp off, true. But they do have to live with the consequences of their choices LOL.
You realize you already made mine and several other people’s here point right?
Oh they have ways. They refuse to use them. That’s the difference. We’ve already listed them all.
No it isn’t…when the entire advance planning, fitting, and timing of the mission is BASED on the response of an NPC force. If you have to BASE your fit around the response of an NPC force, and the actions of that force ENTIRELY determine your vessel, fit, weapons, lack of shielding, and you even have to divert that NPC force off somewhere else to give you more time…lol…it is quite frankly bordering on lunacy to suggest there is no PvE element and that the whole exercise is PvP !
Is English your second language by any chance? That would help explain the difficulty in comprehension you seem to be having and I can try to rephrase if it will help.
Sigh…what part of ’ That is PvP’ wasn’t doing so ?
God it’s like arguing with flat earthers…excruciatingly getting the most bleedin obvious blood from a stone only to have to go round in circles and repeat the whole exercise 10 minutes later.
The part that just says “a player shooting at another player is pvp”.
That isn’t a statement of exclusivity. There can be lots of elements involved in many things in the game, but the direct attack by one player on another is pvp.
Planning around the response from the game to achieve the outcome within the timeframe that the system security allows, I don’t have any issue with that being labelled whatever you want. PvE, EvP for the specific CONCORD response, etc.
No one else in the thread seems to be having any difficulty understanding what a gank is.
So, I’m confused. What do you define as PvP in Eve? What makes something PvP?
Does it have to be:
immediate?
direct?
consensual?
lacking or requiring any particular environmental context/influence?
synchronous?
symmetrical?
In reading your responses, I still do not know what the complete set of parameters are that you are using to define something as ‘PvP’ or ‘Not PvP’. Can you help me?
So you’re telling me ( if others can do Cathy Newman so can I ) that when a bunch of gankers divert Concord off somewhere else and attack Condord to do so…that the mission is PvP ?
Oh…of course you want to ONLY focus on the few seconds of attack on some miner…and completely ignore the entire rest of the mission whose vessels, fit, ammo, timing, and planning were all BASED on the PvE response of an NPC force. How convenient !
’ Well…police officer…I may have averaged 60mph through the village, but I was only doing 20mph when I hit the postman so wasn’t speeding’…is the level of logic I see.
All of the other aspects are fine. They can be labelled however you want and that is perfectly fine. No one in this thread has had any issue with that.
It’s the pvp part, that several people (me currently, but I’m not the only one) have been pointing out to you, is pvp. We aren’t the ones trying to deny that aspect of a gank. That’s only you, for whatever reason.
However, to re-ask a question I asked earlier, if there is no pvp, what’s the problem? If it’s just PVE, then miners, haulers, etc. are equivalent to NPCs and shooting them shouldn’t cause so much concern.
