Haha 
I think you should be writing books instead of mining - it looks like you got the talent 
Bah…people aren’t shooting up Procs in lowsec for the thrilling combat experience of 760 DPS Tech 2 Catalyst vs 96dps of Hobgoblin 1.
bah humbug all you want 
Ganking in eve is a specific high sec mechanic.
I mean when you go to lowsec you even get a pop up at the gate saying…….”do you really want to do this?” the game provides a warning. And then you are in an area that has far more lucrative mining opportuntities which comes at the risk of pvp at every turn.
The other noticeable difference being the ships blowing up the procurer dont get destroyed by concord. So way less being added to the economy by the logic you have been expressing.
But however we slice it up…….Destruction makes the world go round
2 Likes
No, they would be fitted with other things. This does not amount to ganking adding material to the game.
Sure they would, if there is less profit in an activity then some individuals will switch to a different activity. That’s why so many people are running abyssals now, but the materials that drop from abyssal space are worth far less now so it is not as profitable and as soon as something new appears they will switch to that.
Obviously some people will continue mining for 2isk per hour but most will shift if the profits drop.
Switching to a different activity still keeps production output up, and at the highest possible amount each player is willing to grind, which is the entire argument. The other person was arguing that ganking is responsible for the creation of additional things, meaning that without ganking, players would simply output less, which is not the case in reality, as players will output according to the amount of time they’re willing/able to play. A PvE player who logs in to play for 4 hours per day will do that regardless of the activity they choose, and the removal of ganking isn’t going to decrease that (and if it did, that would be bad for a wholly new reason).
This means that whatever destruction is caused by ganking cuts away a flat portion of whatever is produced. Ganking has no effect on economic output itself (aside from shifting priorities within the market from some items to others).
If ganking is such low skill, it must take no skill to get ganked, huh?
Damn…………
I cant believe you took it there.
While I agree that ganking does not increase production, I disagree with almost everything else here. Players are not PvE or PvP, they are EVE players and if there is a profit to be made they will go for it. If not they will likely do something else, which could easily be something that takes resources out of the sandbox rather than add. Maybe they even take up ganking. Or maybe they log off because its not worth their time.
I assure you that there is a distinct (and considerably large) category of players who exclusively engage in PvE activities, and who play very consistently despite various in-game factors.
But that aside, you’ve probably missed the point of what I’m trying to say.
1 Like
But the intention on this particular thread is (was) to check on how recent --well, pretty much 2-3yrs on-- interventions have impacted destruction as it’s been tirelessly claimed the game needs.
To this point, I’m waiting for that post that names all those things --non PVE-- that have done so.
On the other hand, I do believe there is an impact from ganking but it’s hard to tally from a single perspective and here is why:
It does not take into account the ability of the victim to overcome the destruction --recover from it or leave the game, for example–.
In other words, no matter the hull, pilot’s specs or wallet size, a gank is a gank. It’s impact might be worse for the game if one accounts for those outcome examples.
If I were to incline towards one side, like saying that indeed it affects production quantities to certain degree, I’d have to contrast such assertion with the victims’ specs. and personal position on the matter. And that, I cannot do.
So, for the time being, yes, there is indeed an impact. --ganking–
Is it enough? No.
Has it increased since the claim, warnings and threats from the “need for destruction”? No.
Does it affect production? Of course! there is a demand for what’s in each cargo bay: Is it’s reason for existence!. We could talk for ever about the level but the fact is undeniable.
This does not mean that ganking needs an intervention --per se-- in order to increase destruction, BUT: We’ve discussed it before and my opinion is still that IF the victims had more chances --on acting against the event itself-- then more people would be willing to take the risk, deriving in more action which could then, make ganking a source of greater destruction.
A pilot should be able to Ahbazon a Bestower with better chances of survival. A ganker should get more Bestowers passing by, while exposing himself to less chances of success.
The typical outcome of each encounter is what’s stopping this to happen.
Of course, this applies to all types of HS ganking.
Hint: it cannot rely on Concorde. We’ve seen how it’s manipulated both using in game mechanics and interpretation of rules.
This is not out of topic. I consider it very important to discuss the almost sole source of destruction that actually IS based on free will: ganking.
Indeed you could mark this difference. I agree under the circumstances of that third party intervention.
Concord “guarantees” that in HS the ganker will die unless a loophole like the current permagank in Ahbazon is found.
But this is the definition of maximization of production capability adapting to demand.
Yes and no. Destruction is not alone creating demand for specifics based on value. Think of all those hangars full of billions upon trillions, in stuff stored for … nothing… those too, need to be produced. I agree with you but consider hoarding as a fact. But think also about things that most decide not to move. There is a constant piling of unwillingly hoarded stockpiles on both side of the gank routes.
—on a side note:
I see people comparing the losses on each side --ganker vs victim–, attempting to argument the level of destruction in general, derived from ganking.
Don’t do that. High Sec gank itself is based on minimum guaranteed losses from the attacker against maximum potential losses from the victim, yes but both sum to the overall event’s impact.
Each faction has two basic haulers, one smaller that’s better tanked and is faster and the other is a super guppy. You don’t fly a super guppy through hostile airspace, that’s asking for trouble. The smaller one can use cloak/MWD which combined with some preparations and effort makes it 99.9% safe to use in high sec. And for even smaller loads there’s the Sunesis which is pretty OP for hauling.
So people have choices: smaller but safer, bigger but unsafe, courier contracts. The solutions already exist.
The problem is, as always, that people refuse to accept the consequences of their own choices and actions and when it then, inevitably, goes wrong they will point fingers at everyone and everything… but themselves.
I understand your point. Then again, as you did, I could too put in more variables into the equation. As I explained before, the things that don’t get moved because of ganking could indeed represent even more value than whatever is destroyed plus the demand generated by preparing a hull to confront the event. And so on.
Those things pile up in something that also can be part of the whole deal: people that get frustrated for not being able to solo EVE. Take me, for example: I have dunno hoe much all over the place just to avoid feeding gankers. I buy stuff wherever I go because I can. We have to keep in mind that it could be in fact, the majority.
We see ganking as a big part when it’s not. It keeps reigning the headlines just for the sake of drama but the level and quantity it adds to destruction is not that important. It would be easier if we removed ganking as “the big deal” but it’s not gonna happen.
If we jump to conclude that it is and will remain one of the few paths to destruction, then sadly, it has to be way, waay much higher than it is. But no one would go there, I guess… at least not in the current typical scenario of HS ganking… right?
Not really… what I see, is a problem or better a contradiction, a misunderstanding when it comes to destruction believing that eventually, people will expose themselves to it under a false sense of security that people think are entitled to.
We discuss ganking simply because it is one of the very few paths to destruction but I don’t think it has much to do with the whole concept.
Depletion is a path to destruction too… but think of the mechanics attached to it… Those are based more on the effects of neglect or abandonment of assets for not following the rules of adequate maintenance. --for example–
What else do we have that adds to destruction? I mean, free will cannot be the mechanism: read up and you’ll see why: nobody wants that. It’s simply not going to happen.
Some say we need conflict… I see conflict has already been tapped on to by nerfing production… ‘scarcity’ et.al.
I don’t see it worked for the case and created an opposite effect… think of it as rushing the supermarket on a tornado warning but without the supermarket. Peeps just held to their hoard.
There you have it. These could be the extreme ends but they fit.
But it seems to be pushed to behave like what it’s not, especially towards something that was “natural occurrence” like destruction by free will?
Tell you what: I think there are interests so deep under, that no one wants to even look at --other ways-- fearing an unpopular outcome. Think of it as avoiding a newspaper rubble on the road by throwing the car to a ditch.
I understand the need for destruction but I can’t see clear, consequent actions. Whatever has been done, if worked, is still not near enough.
I see it more like you’re ready to fail trying it day one. --jk-- Indeed anyone can engage immediately in most careers to a level of success proportional to their age and specs. In most, that level is fixed and cannot be surpassed… you cannot mine more than what you’re trained to.
But you can indeed kill way more than what you --or people-- think you’re trained to, be successful to a point that there’d be doubt on facts like true experience in relation with toon’s age. The idea that experienced pilots know it, voids part of the interaction the learning curve requires–for true new players–.
Not sure why you make a distinction between PvE and non-PvE regarding CCP’s stated ‘need for more destruction’. If they put in the Triglavian invasion and caused trillions of destruction with PvE then that’s part of “more destruction”.
From a non-PvE perspective, CCP used Pochven to break up the standard trade routes and put more risk (both PvE and PvP) near Jita. They yanked the carpet out from under citadel owners with very little notice, and more trillions of citadel explosions occurred. On a smaller scale, they’ve been doing a few “higher drop rate from kills” events to stimulate more PvP. Also, events which could be seen to lead to ships fighting over sites and drops are a (very small) bonus to destruction.
So they have done a few things. The larger/more destructive things they did, are sort of one-time events which also had the side effect of destroying players goodwill towards CCP and probably costing them players.
I made a thread some time back calling BS on the whole “the economy is broken, we need destruction to balance it” idea. It’s just more CCP spin to justify whatever demented direction some dev managed to talk the other devs into.
(The Economy isn't Broken, and Destruction is not Good)
EVE doesn’t actually need gank-PvP for destruction, since it’s been demonstrated that NPC’s can easily out-destroy the PvP-ganker crowd. Ganking as a whole simply isn’t as big a portion of EVE’s economy as all the noise about it makes it seem.
Worrying about whether there is too much ganking, or too little, or too likely to drive players away is missing the point, really. EVE lacks enough destruction because it’s actually got pretty boring, poorly designed combat, and layers a really bad PvP design on top of that boring combat. (This is in general, not to say that some battles here and there aren’t pulse-poundingly thrilling to the participants.)
If EVE had more interesting combat, and if we had more interesting reasons to participate in PvP besides salt-mining for the malcontents or profit-farming for the freighter gankers, then we would have more PvP-related destruction.
Overall, CCP’s “destruction interventions” haven’t really worked, and haven’t led to more destruction (in fact we’re trending to less), because they are addressing the wrong problem. It’s no wonder they get the solution wrong if they’re not even looking at the right issues to begin with.
2 Likes
No, this is simply not true. A person may go to rl work for 7.5 hours but that doesn’t mean they will do 7.5 hours worth of work in that time. I’ve had times when I 've done 15 hours worth of work in that time…and other times when I took the art of looking busy to a whole new level. And it is no different in Eve. There isn’t some ‘4 hours worth of play’ metric as you seem to apply. I’ve had times when I’ve made over 100m ISK in that period, and others when I’ve made almost nothing.
So there is no direct time/output metric and that whole argument is absurdly simplistic.
You’ve hit the nail right on the head…that ganking is the worst possible way of controlling things.
One has to look at the very cause of the problem in the first place. The logjam of indestructible stuff. One of the things that makes the Fallout games so riveting is the wear and tear on stuff…and you have to work hard on keeping stuff maxed out. This, plus a general scarcity of stuff, perfectly controls the level of combat and interaction.
The absurdity of Eve economics is not so much that of indestructible stuff, but that the whole point of the game ends up becoming the destruction of stuff. Heck, you might just as well take a pile of freshly minted ISK and burn them, or blow up asteroids as fast as they spawn. If the entire goal is focused purely on destroying stuff then it ceases to even matter how it is done. And that is precisely what has happened. ’ We must destroy more stuff’ becomes the entire goal of Eve…rather than the means by which people get to play and enjoy PvE and PvP.
Ganking is not the solution, as it makes Eve a ridiculously predictable place. Heck, I can avoid gankers almost completely just by mining at certain times. The concern of being ganked simply leads to more tank fittings being created, and the avoidance of certain routes. It actually makes me LESS likely to be destroyed because it restricts what I do.
That restriction is BAD for Eve. For every ISK destroyed by gankers, there must be many ISK sitting in stations concerned to even go out for fear of being ganked. Ganking doesn’t just destroy stuff, it reduces activity and starts to make Eve a boring place.
Why ? Because the entire focus of Eve is way too much on ‘kills’ and people don’t want yet another kill loss on their record. The absolute obsession with kills feeds the entire ganking mechanism and leads to the absurdity of 15 Catalysts vs a largely defenceless Proc being called ‘PvP’…,rather than PvP being the genuine combat ship vs combat ship play most people joined the game for. The inability to proactively fight gankers only serves to feed this absurdity. WHY can we not actively go after and legitimately destroy ganker ships sitting at gates with the full blessing of Concord…rather than anti-gankers being destroyed themselves for defensive measures ? I mean…how utterly absurd !
So you end up with the ludicrous situation where most of the ‘PvP’ ISK loss in Eve is not enthralling dogfights or mammoth cruiser battles, but the utter banality of Orcas and Providences and the like being zapped by 23 Catalysts.
No wonder 9/10 of noobs exit within the first month.
2 Likes
I believe most of what Trig destroyed came from neglected assets, dormant things that were likely to be neutral in contrast to what needed to be destroyed. One could call it “unhealthy destruction” as most of what’s gone down that drain deserve no replacement or reconstruction.
I make the distinction just because I rather have it by players, not a sketchy “natural event” that could be avoided by the exercise of maintenance in any form of repelling Trig. But that’s just me, dunno what the majority thinks. I might be wrong, tho. Trig was not the end game for the area, just an enema IMO.
Pochven is a good example. Point.
Agree. It’s kind of another ingredient that adds to the reason why I made the PVE distinction.
I can’t get my head round this at all. It’s just bizarre.
It’s like we are looking at the same wall…… and it’s red. But your telling me it’s yellow.