You mean like you are quite happy to accept when people are ganked in asteroid belts ? Yet more double standards.
I mean, why wouldn’t one be getting comments from the likes of you and Gix saying ’ only a fool spends 2 minutes AFK at a stargate '…you know…like you are happy to deride with all those ‘foolish’ miners.
Your idea is bad because it would be massively exploitable for killing the players you wish to protect, and not because the mean griefers are salty that they’d start getting their dose of righteous justice from the “real” PvPers.
You should think through your ideas before publicly proposing them.
Your usual evasiveness. I never said there was no inflation. I said ganking is itself a cause of inflation…which is absolutely undeniable. There’s huge number of shield extenders, Damage Control, defensive rigs, etc, fitted in highsec solely because of the threat of ganking. My own Proc cost an extra 14m ISK over and above what it would otherwise do…solely as a result of the threat of ganking.
Thus, as with most crime, there is an entire industry around it. Gankers don’t just make stuff disappear…they cause new stuff to be generated ! That is infaltionary.
What a load of nonsense. You are quite happy for miners who sit in asteroid belts to be ‘exploited’…and be ‘massively exploitable’ … yet are suddenly concerned that the same miner sitting near a gate might get zonked by Concord…er…rather than by gate campers. LOL.
The level of hypocritical double standards just know no bounds. You have zero problem with gankers ‘exploiting’ every loophole they can find to destroy miners, etc…yet are all of a sudden a miner carebear, concerned about those poor, poor, miners being exploited, the minute a solution to gate camping is suggested.
Ok?
I just want you to know that I’m 100% in favor of your idea being implemented (as it has been presented thus far). You can put my name on top of the signatory list.
You nailed it. The entire reason ganker supporters love to rattle on about lazy miners in their safe comfort zones avoiding risk…is to divert from the fact that ganking is largely for lazy, even safer people who avoid any risk or actual combat PvP. If the miner is a lazy leech off of Eve…the ganker is an even lazier leech off of the miner ( or anyone else ).
That is why I compare gankers to leeches…and not the magnificent lions they think of themselves as being. It’s not some glorious Attenborough style lions and wildebeast on the African plains. It is leeches vs wildebeast. Lazy, safe, leeches who just sit there and suck the blood off easy targets all day.
I didn’t wanted to get too deep in the layers of scenarios, fittings, etc.
I try to focus on the facts and sorry if I don’t go to references or repeat what we’ve seen these 2 days on this thread.
Here, my partial findings:
The conclusion has not changed much, one thing to add is the fact that ganking in HS for example, is not that big of a deal when accounting the simple action on the battleground but it percolates to collaterals in such way, that it ends up moving more ISK than most here can calculate. I say since it’s a relatively small closed environment, the butterfly effect irradiates more effectively.
Being that the case, a simple and direct conclusion could be that there should be more ganking.
In order to increase ganking potentials, traffic must also increase.
To achieve this, pilots moving stuff should feel more secure. Gankers would not get the same success rate, but more potentials to compensate.
Does this logic fit? Let’s just leave the bias aside for a bit and focus on what’s described above. It’s a simple question, please peeps. Help me on this one.
All this, focused on ganking bottlenecks, of course. And under the strict assumption that more destruction is truly needed and how to channel it through means apart from PVE.
In theory yes, but in practice players view ganking as a zero-sum game, and won’t feel any more secure, regardless of the changes made, unless ganking is practically impossible. Ganking itself will also continue at its current or even increased rates (as history has shown) if CCP implements anti-ganking nerfs.
Also, the math just doesn’t work out. Let’s say you magically make ganking twice as hard, or cut the success rate in half. This leads to the pool of targets doubling. But the gankers still have have a 50% success rate compared to before, while operating at the same capacity. If they ganked 100 people before the changes, and now can only gank 50, then they’ll still only be able to gank 50 despite the target pool doubling (unless they double their accounts or whatever, but at this point the scaling is becoming unsustainable).
You forget that getting killed on a gate would be without concord intervention and could be done by anyone, without downsides. If you feel this is a great idea then by all means try and have it implemented, the only ones benefiting from this are the evil pvpers. You’d be opening Pandora’s box with this.
If the value is too low it’s “not worth it”, when people feel it’s “worth it” then it’s pretty much also worth it to shoot it off. If bounties are tied to a standing evil pvpers will just make a dedicated “shoot off your bounty” character with maxed out standing.
If you feel you have actual numbers and ideas that could make it work then please, make it happen. I WANT a good bounty system but the problem is that, realistically, it’s either crap or will be gamed. But I’d be happy to be proven wrong, please create a thread in the ideas forum section with actual numbers, percentages etc so people can have a look because as long as people just yell “make it good, it’s not difficult” without actually stating factual ideas it’s really just talk.
It’s all just a form of Malcanis’ law. If you think it benefits casuals or carebears, it benefits pvpers more. Pvpers tend to be better informed, better prepared, have more teamwork and pay more attention. It’s in their nature, that is why they are pvpers.
No, it’s an incorrect conclusion to draw. First off, if you can’t calculate how much impact ganking has on the economy, then you can’t assume “we need more ganking”.
Second, if the premise is that “ganking causes destruction, which causes people to make their ships safer, which requires modules, which stimulates the economy and removes excess material”, you’re not following the chain properly.
The number of modules and items needed to achieve “more safety” is very small compared to the amount of production. It’s not the ship fits that matter as much as what’s destroyed in the cargos. Your argument then becomes circular: “more ganking would destroy more cargoes which would lead to more production which would lead to more traffic which would lead to more ganking”.
Except that in general, people don’t ship more the more they get ganked. They look for and learn safer methods of shipping, or pay a more skilled shipper to do it for them. Which leads to less ganking.
It also ignores the “ragequit effect”. Let’s look at a ganker. To keep ONE ganker happy and in business, how many ganks does he need? One per week? 10 per week? 20 per week? Whatever the number is, that ONE single ganker leads to many, many unhappy producers over time. Which again reduces traffic, reduces player numbers, and reduces ganking.
This isn’t theory, this is exactly what has happened to EVE for the past decade.
Ganking isn’t a benefit to the game or the economy, overall. It’s just something that was built into the game (choke point, slow ships, cheap destroyer fits etc.) because EVE was designed by devs who thought hiding in the bushes outside of town in Ultima Online and backstabbing some cleric and looting his life savings was “really engaging gameplay”.
EVE doesn’t need more ganking. It needs more engaging combat, so that more people participate in it. Can be PvE or PvP or preferably both. Gamers love combat, it’s what most games are built around. They just avoid it when it’s slow, boring, inaccessible and costly. Like in EVE.
Nonsense. If you have a semi-accurate item valuation algorithm (not the one they have now), and you limit bounty payouts to “50% of destroyed value”, then it’s impossible to ‘profit’ from shooting up your own bounties. If 6 million in value is destroyed and you get a 3 million bounty payout, you’re not ahead of the game to shoot your own stuff.
If you tie proper criminal standings into the picture, then anyone who’s destroyed as a pirate isn’t going to be getting insurance either, so again, more loss for them. If you tie standings and maybe some rewards into the combined “destroyed value” and “criminal rating of targets destroyed” then pirate hunting becomes a viable career and now pirates have to look over their shoulders and worry about their tank fits.
If there was any point to it, I can make threads describing significant improvements to many aspects of EVE gameplay. But CCP doesn’t listen and doesn’t care, and the people who don’t want to listen will just pick half a sentence out of one idea and say “it will never ever ever work”.
What does happen is I get a lot of likes from the people who aren’t inveterate arguers, which is why my like/post ratio is so high. But of course, no matter how many likes you get, it’s still a waste of time if CCP isn’t listening.
If destiny were to gank you and get a bounty. How is it worth it for me to track her down, wait patiently for the opportunity and then risk my own ship in an engagement against a competent pvp pilot for………3million isk.
If the isk return is not worth the time and effort for players to collect on them it won’t get used. If you make the isk return worth it then gankers can game it.
Either way. It’s bad
No victim will ever get even to a ganker. Flush that thing from your pumice.
As usual, you get the “I just want to argue and disagree” types, singling out one sentence of a whole concept to disagree with.
Strangely enough, I didn’t see you arguing how useless the whole concept of ganker-hunting was when the gankers were posting above “Tips on how to hunt gankers”.
Right now, there is zero useful incentive to hunt gankers or pirates in high sec. There are in fact disincentives, which is just the way crying gankers have begged to have it positioned for years.
Having a 3 million bounty on someone might not make it worth it, but it’s 3 million more worth it than it is right now. Then you add in the concepts of power core drops, bounty hunter standing, and peristent criminal activity counters and you have a viable bounty hunter career in EVE and a whole new form of PvP combat and destruction taking place.
Of course, the PvP ganker types would do anything to prevent that from happening.
See good changes fix things.
Bad changes end up in discussions about “oh but we need to change this as well, and this. And yeah we break this but…… so we need to change that as well.
None of which addresses the point.
What stops the ganker creating a bounty hunter alt to get these new standings, power core drops.
They gank someone. Get a bounty. Log in with the bounty hunter. Organise a lovely little pop pop by moon 4. And start themselves a little gank/bounty lp and standings farm. One fuelling off the other.
More ganking…… nobody else can use the new mechanic with the rewards as the gankers take it for themselves. And now instead of 1 problem we have 2.
It’s not singling out one sentence. It was highlighting a fairly significant flaw in the one mechanic you were able to provide in your grand plan to overhaul ganking. I thought discussion of pros and cons of ideas to improve the ganking situation was the purpose of this discussion. No?
As I explained before, the economic reach of ganking goes beyond what anyone can calculate.
The idea of a simple sum of tank modules, hulls and fitted catalysts is an absolute nonsense.
All the actions and omissions derived from ganking are without any doubt, an economic driver. It’s quantity is open for discussion somewhere else, for sure but it will end up nowhere.
For each delay, no matter how minute, that a cargo doesn’t reach it’s destination, there is an economic consequence. Please do not try on denying that fact. And BTW, who said that ganking is exclusive for cargo? These days, it has become so --insert adjective here-- that everything is getting ganked at the bottleneck’s rush hour.
No, not really. One, CCP doesn’t care. Two, it’s hard to believe you’re arguing in good faith when you quote me here:
and then turn around a few minutes later and say “but pirates will just farm their bounties”. I mean, they can if they like, but it’s already pointed out that it’s a losing proposition.
It’s also not a debate on improving quality when you want simplistic, one-sentence solutions to complex problems.
It seems like you just want to argue. If so, no worries. I’ll leave you to it. Enjoy.
Thats what you said yes.
Then i pointed out that in order for a bounty system to be used by players it needs to be worth it. Otherwise nobody will use the bounties and we are just in the same situation. heres were i used an example to illustrate the point.
to which you responded saying that their could be standings rewards and power core drops.
So my question was
how do you prevent gankers from benefiting from the standings and power core drops by creating an alt and killing their characters for the bounty. does the game Know its a ganker alt and say “nope no power core and standing rewards for you…you naughty boy”?
so in summary. if a bounty system is “worth it” for an average player then it is worth it for a ganker alt. and if its worth it for a ganker alt then nobody else will get to participate in the content as they will farm it themselves.
Actually id love to see a workable bounty system in game. it would be excellent content. However what you are proposing is bad. Worse than our current situation.
If you think highlighting legitimate issues with your suggestion is “just wanting to argue” then fair enough. have a great evening.
Okay, I’ll break it down real slow on the off chance you’re actually trying to understand.
If they get a power core back, it’s only their own power core. They make nothing on that. So they still lose the 50% of destroyed value. If they’re declared repeat-criminal standing by the persistent criminal rating system, they don’t get insurance either. More value lost.
Grinding bounty rep/standings would take a lot more work than just shooting up a few of your own bounties (losing value every time). So if they want to create a bounty-hunter alt and grind up the standings to do so, they will soon find they have a new career available. And it will be more useful to hunt other pirates, get their bounty, plus their drops, plus their power core, and lose nothing in the process. Unless they lose the battle, of course.
So, new careers. More destruction. Pirates are now faced with bigger choices than dropping a scanned cargo list into a 3rd-party cargo calculator and seeing if it’s worth more than their ship.
You need to resolve gameplay issues like this with multi-pronged approaches because you can’t simply address complex player behavior and motivation with simplistic solutions.