CONCORD killing you is not the same as a player killing you. I’m talking about your targets actually fighting back against you. It never happens. Look, I know how ganking works. I do it. I have an alt I use for it.
I’m sorry, but losing a rookie ship to CONCORD is not the kind of PvP I enjoy most of the time.
No sir, you do not know how ganking works. You are blatantly ignorant, and EVERY Highsec ganker and PVPer will say the exact same thing. The idea that targets don’t fight back, never fight back? You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. You are ignorant, and you should learn what you are talking about.
I usually don’t poke around the forums as anything but a lurker, but I’m concerned that your opinion is reflective of your personal experiences and isn’t representative of the views of the larger EVE player population. Isn’t the CSM supposed to consider and reflect the views of the player community at large and doesn’t writing off hellokittyonline’s (great game by the way - sad to see it was closed) suggestion sort of fly in the face of that? I’m only speaking as a concerned nobody in the game because in this case, I really feel like the silent majority isn’t being acknowledged and generally agrees with Aiko Danuja in this particular situation.
Yes, my opinion is reflective of my experience. But I objectively looked at what OP was asking for, and I don’t think it’s in the best interests of the game. And a bunch of folks coming here to insult me, claim I don’t play and question my judgment is not going to persuade me that I’m wrong. Sorry.
I’m not really sure how I feel about this. I mean in terms of insults, your reply to the OP sort of set the tone (not sure how to quote stuff in here yet):
“I’m sure you guys can come up with a work around if you think about it long enough.”
That’s sort of an implied insult and there wasn’t really anything in the OP that warranted it. I’m just concerned that a good idea is going to get buried in back and forth fighting rather than being given the thought that it deserves. We can do better if we respectfully exchange thoughts instead of insulting what we do in EVE or brag about how we make advertising content while someone else does not. It isn’t good for any of us to lose a great idea over which of us gives CCP marketing material, because in this game, all of us contribute and none of us should be elevating the contributions of ourselves over those of others in a game that works best when all of us are present and playing it with one another. I’m sort of sad to see this kind of thing happen.
The OP is asking for a way to include recruits and friends in his activity of choice (in this instance baiting) so that he can play with them instead of against them. If you find the request unreasonable that he is asking for a way for them to, in some meaningful way, contribute to the effort and facilitate them learning how to properly do the activity and be a part of it for a sort of on the job training, it would be nice to see why you think he should be forced to solo play while others shouldn’t.
Objectively the argument is for him to be able to play with others. His suggestion for fixing this was remote repair change reversion. You have been solely focused on his suggestion to fix his problem and not his problem. This seems to be the cause of most of the fuss.
You’re arguments thus far can be boiled down to telling him that his gameplay is fine as is and he doesn’t need to play with others. This could very easily lead to you looking like you are not being objective and are simply just ignoring the issue and going against a mechanic that you don’t like.
If you’re goal is to be objective, would it be unreasonable to request that you answer the following?
Is it unfair that he wants to play a game cooperatively with others in some fashion?
What meaningful change would you suggest that could resolve the core problem and allow him to work with others so they can contribute in a way that is noticeable, meaningful, and in a capacity that can be countered from the other side?
With CCPs focus on making space more dangerous and increasing the risks of loss, doesn’t a change that helps create more HS pirates coincide with this goal?
If you wish to seem objective, would it be incorrect to say that not directly showing an understanding to the circumstances that they face would undermine your credibility in being objective?
Yes, it would be unreasonable.
The burden isn’t on him to fix OP’s bad ideas for him and suggest alternatives. The burden remains with OP to convince why a change should be made.
So, it’s unreasonable to ask someone to answer a direct question?
That seems reasonable…
I do not believe that wanting to play with others is his actual motivation for the request. That’s the issue. There are lots of different ways to be social that do not require this kind of a fix.
It was not an insult. These guys are well known for coming up with creative solutions around the fixed highsec PvP rule set. That’s literally their gameplay style. They are doing things that push the boundaries of what the game allows you to do in that area of space, so I am positive they can come up with a way to be social and get around this issue without requiring dev time to change it.
Feel free to correct the other folks in here who are being insulting, by the way.
OP and many others seem to forget about that little tiny ToS rule that sometimes CCP may make changes that are detrimental to someone’s play style. its up to the players to work around that change
To the First Response Segment:
It can’t be certain of anyone’s motivation for filing a request… For instance, I want more destruction because it increases the net worth of those who can manage their losses vs. income better. It also creates more market movement which can be useful for industrialists who can capitalize as well. This would be my purpose for such a change. There also isn’t enough risk in HS to balance out the rewards that you can earn in its relative safety.
Currently, in HS there aren’t many sinks that can’t be avoided by the people who use more traditional methods and simply brute force them. This means that over time, players that never leave the overprotective umbrella of HS can generate assets that wouldn’t be likely to be lost. I’d like to see something that would bring loss from player to player interaction that isn’t from a condition where they don’t have a choice (in griefing/baiting, the target always has the choice of interaction; this is especially contrary to the old war dec rules). I also believe that instilling taxes, upkeep, etc would be a bit more tedious and less of a situation that creates drama, excitement, or conflict.
So, this leads to that HS piracy in the forms where beginning the engagement is determined by the target can be a good way for things to be destroyed in a way that is consensual (again, the target has to agree to attack) can be very positive for the game.
I will say that I don’t believe logistics will solve the problem that there aren’t enough different HS suspect playstyles to generate content, or work in a way that can inspire suspects to work together in large enough forms that an opposing force of a reasonable size could become more viable. Such as if an area has enough frequent pirates to hunt, I’m sure there are others who would love to form up to try and beat their shenanigans.
To the Second Response Segment:
Is this not the same outcome as any change? The same qualities would extend to mining, PvE, PvP (referring to Null, Low, Wardec scenarios), etc…
A. It would seem you are fine with force multipliers and brute forcing through the use of alts in any other context than this.
B. Motivations aside, there are others that could benefit from a change that would encourage more HS piracy that isn’t outright criminal ganking.
Wouldn’t your point of view suggest a lack in understanding of the baiting/griefing communities of the game? These communities are definitely different from the suicide ganking areas and have a different set of mechanics and goals.
Meaningful losses translates to losses that would result in a lesson, increase in awareness, adjustment to strategy, or that would generate a change that can benefit others (market demand, experience, etc). Baiting/Griefing creates meaningful losses that players can learn valuable lessons from, it also helps others who utilize the additional market demand that is created from such losses. It can also inspire others to go after the baiters/griefers and attempt to take them down.
This was more of a psychological point, there was only one correct answer. If you claim to know something, but are unable to prove it or refuse to do so, it undermines your argument that you do understand the situation and can look at it objectively from another person’s point of view.
Apologies if any of this comes off as offensive or attacking, this is not my intention, however I can understand it being taken as such. I do not at this time have the words to soften or create a situation where it would be more likely that it wouldn’t be taken as such.
Brisc, you already said you don’t know who the OP is, so how can you claim to have been in fleets with people he routinely flies with? Isn’t the point of this post that he doesn’t routinely fly with anyone, because there’s literally no incentive for him to do so?
Is there any reason anyone should find you credible on this subject? I don’t go around pretending to be an expert on rorqual mining, why are you claiming to have some special insight into ganking, wardeccing, and suspect baiting?
So I don’t deal with suspect and limited engagement stuff. I may have this wrong then. But can’t you just have your logi/support/backup just hit whatever gave you suspect and then help out? IE grab a wreck, shoot the MTU or something?
I watched the stream you linked. I saw who was in fleet with MrUnluckie (a stream I’ve followed for months, btw). I’ve been on gank fleets lead by Miniluv. https://zkillboard.com/character/2114140654/
And this was less about OP, and more about your comment that I have no experience and should learn.
Because I’ve done it, because I spent a year talking to the war dec community. Because I hear from people constantly about it.
Again, you guys are asking me for my support for your changes. You will not get that by insulting me. You will get it by making a case that holds up. Spend more time doing that and less attacking me.
You’ve done one fleet since the bumping change that effectively killed miniluv. Go ahead and ask miniluv right now what they’ve done since then, they’ll tell you that they’ve ran fewer than a dozen fleets this year outside of Kusion and myself.
Ganking fails a lot, and you seem to not know this because you only participate in the less than monthly occurrence of nearly 100 man fleets.
Maybe try ganking on your own while people are trying to stop you and you can actually find out how difficult it is. Piggybacking with a single dps on a fleet of a dozen other guys doing 4 to 5 roles each isn’t ganking, it’s f1 monkeying. This is like going on a harpy fleet and saying “wow harpies are unkillable and easy” because you had half a dozen good fleets in a row.
I do not believe that wanting to play with others is his actual motivation for the request.
@Brisc_Rubal, assuming dishonesty and then responding based on that assumption is not nice.
I don’t know how to prove to you that our effectiveness has not suffered from the logi change. Our stats are on full display on ZKB. The point really is about how social the playstyle is, and at no point have you addressed this concern. Concord is irrelevant. Suspect baiting is not ganking, as you well know.
No we cannot. We are suspect, if someone shoots us we now have an LE but they are not suspect. So their logi could come and shoot us and rep them but our logi couldn’t come and shoot them (because they’re not suspect) and rep us. It’s completely unfair tbh.