Thank you and you’re right, it’s player created emergent gameplay. In fact over the years CCP has said on multiple occasions that they are often surprised and amazed at the things players think of doing in the game.
2 Likes
that brings back memories. i used to bookmark mission sites with lots of asteroids in places like Dodixie, and sell the bookmarks on the market so that miners could mine undisturbed. sad to see that this playstyle got nerfed.
2 Likes
Ahhh, thanks for mentioning that. Mining regular Ore in mission sites is another PvE activity that can no longer be done.
Does it really matter how suicide ganking emerged since all in one CCP created game … and noone allowed to exploits and has to thrive inside the rules ?
Well yes, it mattered to me and the other person.
Very incorrect. The pirate cannot precisely calculate at all. There are MANY variables that lead to failed ganks all the time. Just shut the ■■■■ up with the “gankers have no risk” ■■■■■■■■. It’s already hard enough to be profitable ganking and the ganking community has shrunk considerably in the last year because of it.
The gank ‘victims’ were not nerfed at all. None of the things CCP has changed has allowed any of the ships gankers use to gank anything bigger than they already were. Again, there are WAY LESS gankers than there were last year and most of the ones remaining have 20+ accounts. Furthermore, since the removal of Niarja, there is basically 1 pipe instead of 2 making anti-ganking far more annoying as gankers have nowhere to move to.
CCP has basically placed a cap on how many gankers can even operate by removing Niarja so the entire basis for your post is incorrect. Gankers are at massive risk, ganking is almost entirely extinct, CCP needs to buff HS PvPers BIG TIME or the game WILL crash.
Why matter ?
As legend tells it many of the original devs were UO players, some partaking of the art of the gank in that game; CCP should have at least guessed what was going to happen when they made it possible to do the same in Eve.
3 Likes
I’m only answering to Ramona McCandless suggestion,don’t blame me for this idea.
Rabid carebearism.
You’ve got to understand that the reason these people label PvP as “emergent behavior,” and not developer intent, is because it allows them to frame it as something that wasn’t intentional; almost like some kind of oversight that needs to be fixed, as if ganking is some kind of bug or exploit that players found, and needs to be patched out of the game. They will conveniently ignore the fact that if CCP didn’t want players to be able to attack other players outside of wars, duels, et cetera, they would’ve simply changed aggression mechanics to make it impossible, instead of making CONCORD act as a punishment mechanism for it, as opposed to a prevention mechanism.
4 Likes
Carebearism is the way to go.
Embrace carebearism and see the light.
This pew pew paradise will only eat itself over time.
I can try, if you provide the drugs…
1 Like
Now I understand the need for a drone with a 5lb payload.
1 Like
Ey yo man, this kid’s 'aight.
True story: when I was in school and they made us do an exercise where we wrote what we wanted to be after we were done with education, I wrote “cocaine-sniffing dog.” Everyone looked at me and the teacher said “you can’t be a dog,” and I said “I’m alright with that.”
1 Like
By the way, did I ever specify suicide ganking to be made by CCP?
Maybe that’s where you went wrong when you interpreted my posts.
I was talking about ganking in the general sense of the word and I never specifically talked about suicide ganking, a subcategory of ganking unique to EVE which may indeed be emergent behaviour following the introduction of CONCORD.
The simple act of ganking someone in an unfair fight is not emergent behaviour as much as mining rocks isn’t emergent behaviour. CCP enabled the ability to shoot players and shoot rocks in the full expectation that players would shoot those targets.
1 Like
Did the removal of Niarja not make more haulers travel through the multiple 0.5 systems between Hek and Dodixie? Is hauler ganking that dead now?
You would be correct if you did anyway. Creating a punishment mechanism for ganking is the same exact thing as creating suicide-ganking. Just like creating the ability to attack players in all areas of space is the same exact thing as creating ganking. No different from creating “mining” by adding space rocks to the game; players didn’t start “emergently behaving” by extracting ore from them with mining lasers
Don’t give these people even a shred of benefit of doubt. They’re wrong.
There seems to be very little traffic in that pipe. I actually scouted it for a while. Amarr seems to exist as an island now. Either it’s self-sufficient, or it’s running on stockpiles. We won’t know for some time.
Well there is a slim possibility that CCP created the CONCORD response and didn’t expect people to try and kill their target within the response timer. Only when severely underestimating the intelligence of CCP we can believe that suicide ganking is indeed emergent player behaviour.
Zero possibility. Why even have a timer? And furthermore, why have variable timers based on system security rating?