Absolutely. That requires active input from both sides of the equation. I can’t gank someone’s hangar contents in a freighter if that player winds up in a hospital for a year and can’t log in to play. By undocking that freighter, they consent to the possibility that its contents will be lost. No one consents to the possibility of loss just by being unable to play the game for a period of time.
Protecting players’ account holdings during periods of inactivity is sacred.
But the impression I get is that item degradation is bad if it happens to you…but just fine if it happens to anyone else !
This is no different to the affront by which gankers self-declare themselves the lions and everyone else the wildebeast.
So with each passing day I come to see more of the double standards at play.
I never said that.
It didn’t need saying 
It did. Don’t put words in my mouth.
But they --or something else-- should have!
It is fundamentally wrong for assets to survive once the container is destroyed. --things magically moved to safe ground, for example–
I am in favor of Trigs doing it for real but since AI cannot measure and dose itself accordingly for each case, or assess if the owner is simply incapable of attending the emergency --we cannot ask that much–, it would have been unfair in most scenarios and indeed “catastrophic for player retention” but again, that is just a perspective. I guess EVE’s code can only go so far.
Trigs --or any other natural event-- didn’t destroy what they should have. They just blew some of what was neglected. Keep in mind it’s not personal… I’m just illustrating the lack of consequence.
Like a tornado in Sim City… just Trigs were not ballsy enough. They couldn’t because deep under it all, there is fear of the overprotective attitude that got us in this mess for starters.
But the point is that you object to your items being degraded as would naturally occur, and to the whole concept of item degradation. How convenient it is that they are ‘protected’ whilst the mere plebs who step outside are somehow deemed to have ‘agreed’ to item degradation in the form of theft. I bet you’d be up in arms if hangars could be thieved.
In what sense are you sitting on your little ( or big ) pile any less than those miners you complain about. Why aren’t you running your entire hangar through Jita if you demand everyone play PvP ?
I agree to “item degradation” too every time I undock. And I tend to fly some really expensive stuff. I have PvP fits into the billions of ISK because that’s the only way to survive outnumbered encounters.
Also, I’ve died to non-consensual attacks plenty of times. My biggest suicide-gank loss approaches 10B ISK in value.
Because I have no reason to, because that would be an utterly idiotic action. People who choose to do that are stupid, and pay for their ignorance.
I don’t. If everyone played PvP, I’d have much fewer targets to pirate. In a perfect world, however, everyone would play PvP on their own volition, at my expense. But they don’t, and that works in my favor.
But you do. The mere act of arguing for ganking is a demand that everyone PvP. If people insist ganking is PvP, then supporting ganking is supporting enforced PvP and you cannot be doing anything other than demanding everyone play PvP.
I don’t follow that at all. You’ll have to elaborate on that.
What’s not to understand about it ? You cannot support ganking…which is enforced PvP…and in the same breath argue that you don’t demand everyone PvPs.
Another amazing non-fact, made up on the spot for you by Destiny Corrupted. I suppose someone who can come up with “50-60% of players engage in mining as their sole activity” would easily believe something like this.
Quite the opposite, since the largest and most successful games are all based around creating exactly that. Meaningful conflict, without the one-sided ganking you so desperately cling to as your self-esteem crutch.
(Which is kinda weird btw, since you haven’t actually engaged in any conflict since 2014 it seems, and are sitting in a carebear corp that’s not even war eligible.)
You can have PvE, ganking, and meaningful conflict all in a game at the same time, no problem. The issue you have is that you’ll make up any ‘fact’ needed to avoid that. It’s called “living in denial”.
Your agenda is clear “I PvP, and I succeed at it, therefore I’m better than you”. And sure, so long as EVE is tilted towards ganking weak targets in safe space, you can tell yourself that forever. Maybe even believe it.
The thing gankers seem to fear most is the idea that EVE combat might some day become tilted towards hunting gankers. That pirates might have to suffer some consequence of their actions other than losing a 2-3M isk ship and re-shipping and being back out in under 15 minutes.
Utterly incorrect, with exactly zero facts or reference to back it up on, other than Destiny’s need to pretend ganking makes them better than someone who PvEs.
Ganking isn’t even ‘so prevalent’. It’s a tiny fraction of the traffic passing through high sec. The economy doesn’t even need it, since CCP has already shown they can get NPCs to do the job better. Ganking is only a frequent topic at all because EVE’s PvP combat scene is such an utter wasteland of boredom that 90% of the time there’s literally nothing else to talk about.
Apparently you fundamentally misunderstand what ‘asset degradation’ is. For instance, you can have higher maintenance fees for ships or corps or fleet ops. You can have ships that, once they go over 50% into armor or hull, never get their full strength back, but only repair 90% of the damage. You can have needed consumables required to operate, like we already do with fuel, or key components added to ships, like cores for citadels. Assets wearing out only means things need to be replaced as they get used and consumed.
You should stop freaking out and making up all this nonsense just to protect your (apparently retired) ganker ego. There are better ways to puff up your self-esteem than punching out the smaller kids in the playground.
I support the existence of ganking, but I never said that everyone should gank, or that players shouldn’t take measures to avoid being ganked.
EVE is an open-world PvP game.
I brought degradation as an alternate path to relieve the anxiety derived from exposing assets to destruction at will, not to balance the economy.
In other words, it could help players to risk what eventually will become dust and it could best be via PVP. How else can this protective attitude be dealt with?
It’s an environmental aspect what allows --if not encourage-- us to hoard eternally in theory. I think it’s wrong IF there is such need for destruction.
Can’t deal with it—hoarding mentality always takes over. I’ve played games with degradation mechanics, and I’ve often had items “lapse” because I was always saving them for later. I’m just as guilty of it as anyone else. The only difference is that in EVE, it’s possible to advance your own goals through competition with other players, so I’m able to break through the hoarding mental barrier and risk my items in order to try to profit. In other games, like those without full-loot PvP, hoarding is much more difficult to overcome because you treat every fight as inconsequential, and keep saving up valuable consumables “for later.”
That is just evasive. If you support ganking then by definition you are supporting enforced PvP as that is precisely what ganking is. You cannot in one breath say people don’t ‘have’ to PvP…and yet in another breath support an activity that forces them to PvP. The two stances are mutually contradictory.
You’re going to have to define what “play PvP” means.
I never said that all players have to go and seek out PvP, just that all players have to accept the possibility that they can get attacked anywhere in the game. If accepting the possibility of attack means “playing PvP” to you, then yes, I think that everyone needs to “play PvP.” But I’ve defined “playing PvP” as actively seeking to attack other players, and in that regard, I don’t think that everyone needs to “play PvP.”
Hope that clears things up.
Oh it will. The biggest problem at the moment is that it is all but impossible to take on gankers without ISK loss…as gankers by definition choose the cheapest ships and fit. So hunting gankers, at least for the time being, means ISK loss…and that is largely why gankers are not taken on and people just apathetically sit around watching like wildebeast watching one of the herd get munched by lions.
The other side of it is that it is all but impossible to proactively take on highsec gate campers, gankers, etc…because of the Concord dynamics.
Personally I think a battle between gankers and anti-gankers would be the best thing that could possibly happen in Eve. It would destroy a lot of ships, be really good fun, and could be something that could be allowed to continue indefinitely. But it would require a few changes to really make it practical.
Goals are subjective. There is no “Boss” scenario to deal with in EVE. You could theoretically live in Dakba forever just for the sake of burning time mesmerized by GFX while mining in a retriever for no particular reason.
We give too much value to stuff encouraged by mechanics that make fights too consequential. Degradation is just a proposal to reduce that artificial value, only IF destruction is such necessity. I’m of the opinion that it’s better to channel it through PVP over PVE. It’s EVE, not Pac-Man.
Yeah, I’ve put a number of proposals out over the years on how it wouldn’t be terribly hard to make actual PvP (you know, combat ships vs. combat ships) at the solo/small/ganker level viable.
The gankers are terrified of the idea. They generally pile about 4-6 of them in to spam trolling and get threads like that shut down. Kinda silly, since CCP isn’t listening and isn’t really competent to make it happen anyway, but there it is. Egos must be protected at all costs.