Ganking, or rather the Right to Gank

(Uriel the Flame) #629

So the infamous destroyer of threads and ag supporter who afaik never achieved any success in ag (based on what others said, didn’t bother to research myself) left EVE and a few days later this happens? :thinking:

(Balos Tritapo) #630

No pvp possible in high would solve the problem.

And delete code and all its properties…

(Jonah Gravenstein) #631

CCP could do this, and have been able to do so since 2003; that they haven’t should tell you something.

(Balos Tritapo) #632

You remember that ccp is no longer in charge ?

They sold their ass to a looting box company and for PA only money counts not tradition.

(Jonah Gravenstein) #633

They’re still in charge of Eve, which bit of the words “independent subsidiary” did you fail to understand?

(Balos Tritapo) #634

Which bit of the word “propaganda statement” did you not understand…
This was just given to calm down the eve players…

The acquisition does not happen overnight and will not be completed in a week…but the moment it is the reconstruction of this game will start…that is as sure as the amen in church.

(Lucas Kell) #635

@ISD_Dorrim_Barstorlode This thread most certainly isn’t the same subject as the one you closed, this is about the existence of ganking, not the balance of it. But thanks for demonstrating that even when gankers are breaching the rules you still back their desperate need to force any thread that suggests ganking should be balanced to be closed.

Ladies and gents, if you ever needed proof ganking was out of control, there it is. Gankers can actually breach CCPs harassment rules and be backed by ISDs for doing so.

(Whitehound) #636

How is it different?

(Lucas Kell) #637

As I said, this one is about whether ganking should exist, which I think we all agree it should. Mine was about the existence of an anti-ganking mechanic and the balance of that mechanic with ganking, which apparently you don’t think should exist because you think gankers should be unopposed.

(Whitehound) #638

You only say it is different, but not how. When you cannot talk about why and how it should exist then how can you even talk about balance?

(Eve Griefer) #639

I think all threads about ganking tend to reach the same state.

New Eden, even in Hi Security space is a dangerous place. Those who choose to manage their risk understand this. They understand that while pirates may not be sitting behind every gate, there is that possibility and they plan accordingly.
The foolish, on the other hand, complain when they are seen and attacked as an easy and lucrative target.

The swarm of gankers landing on a freighter/miner is just the closing act. The time to prevent the gank had long passed.

(Clockwork Robot) #640

No. As was covered in your earlier worthless thread, you were not interested in discussing jack, nor ■■■■.

What you wanted… was to create another stupid discussion about a topic that we already have far too many open threads on. That’s why your thread was locked. That’s why you were told to take it to the existing threads.

But clearly you are unable to read. You were told where to discuss this, so you came here instead in order to cry and whine and moan that you didn’t get your own personal drama Factory up and running.

(Lucas Kell) #641

Please cease personal attacks and harassment. Thanks

No, what I wanted was a legitimate discussion over ganking and a potential counter. This thread is about the existence of ganking, and ganking should exist. But ganking should not be a one-sided mechanic.

Now until you learn to engage without insulting people, I’m done discussing anything with you. If you continue to harass me in every thread you see me in, I’ll file a harassment ticket with CCP. Good day sir.

(Lucas Kell) #642

Of course they do. Gankers don;t want to talk about it because they know their current gameplay is unbalanced in their favour and any reasonable discussion would rapidly expose that. This is why they insult and spam thread. I was hoping the new forums would put an end to that kind of behaviour but apparently the ISDs are still mates with gankers and so they continue to get a free pass.

That in itself shows it’s a broken mechanic. Mechanics in EVE should have active counters, that’s what makes EVE what it is, the player interaction. What you are stating here is that the only counter to ganking is the fit and value of the ship and its contents, which mean it has no active counter.

Why is it gankers fear the idea of there being an active counter?

(Australian Excellence) #643

It’s the same ■■■■ every time.

We had like 10-15+ antigankers trying to stop us yesterday. Why should 10 guys be able to stop the 70+ gankers we had in fleet yesterday? We’re not only several times more skilled at eve and know the game and it’s mechanics much better. We’re also much more prepared than they are, risk billions worth of ships and what we do actually requires effort.

What you want is 10 frigates to beat 70 battleships in a fight, because “muh unfair” “muh feels”

(Eve Griefer) #644

What do you propose would be the active counter to the final act of the gank?
In an industrial or mining ship I have the option of overheating the hardeners, but if I have to do that then I’ve already screwed up by being a good target in the first place. (yes, an alt of mine was in exactly that position carrying a Legion and subsystems in a Badger. The Badger was tanked enough though)

(Eve Griefer) #645

Well, if they were willing to risk security loss then they probably could have stopped you.

(Australian Excellence) #646

That’s the thing.The mechanics are stacked in ags favor, they’re just too trash to use them. The only thing they don’t have in their favor is that antiganking doesn’t reward them with isk. But unlike ganking, antiganking is super cheap.

(Lucas Kell) #647

I doubt it was 70. Most of the kills on the killboard show 20-30. And many of them are being multiboxed. No other form of PvP can be multiboxed at roughly the same efficiency as multiple players.

You’re not though. You’re just using an easy mechanic. There’s no way you could counter ganks either without asking your mates to not do it.

It would actually be the exact opposite. Gankers tend to be running cheap destroyers while anti-gankers pretty much need to bring 100m+ ships to even remotely be a nuisance. I tell you what, if CCP make it so that it takes 70 battleships to gank I’ll stop saying that ganking is cheap and easy.

(Lucas Kell) #648

I don’t know. All I know is it should be something where a group of players can go against the group of gankers and through some mechanic fight it out to determine a victor. I did try to have this discussion but gankers spammed it up, insulted me and got their ISD mate to shut the thread.

I wouldn’t expect a solo hauler to be able to fend off a gank through a mechanic. I would, however, prefer AFK haulers to be worse off than active haulers. As it stands it makes no difference because once a hauler starts getting bumped there’s nothing that individual hauler can do. Seems a bit off to allow an AFK player the same defense as an active one.