Yes please.
1 Like
Here are the two posts:
They overlap. At some point I’m going to update the list, and maybe add some dev blog/patch note links for some of the critical entries. Keep in mind that the list isn’t exhaustive, and I treat non-consensual PvP as one subject instead of isolating ganking specifically.
We’ll be able to add another significant mining barge EHP buff to the list soon, if they hold true to their words from the recent scarcity update response thread they made.
A list of whine. No meat.
If it was so awful then ganking would have ended or least cut waaaaay back. But it hasn’t.
Ganking will never end unless it becomes practically impossible to accomplish. However, it has become considerably more difficult and expensive to accomplish over the years. You seeing that as a “whine” is nothing but personal anti-ganking bias.
It’s not just ganking, either. Wars, scamming, theft, etc. have all been nerfed/made more difficult through new limitations over the years. There are various protections and limitations in place today that were unfathomable during the first decade of the game’s existence (e.g. the safety button).
I miss the scamming honestly.
High sec wars were ganking in all but name. The majority wardeckers simply camped the gates and undocks around Jita.
They also targeted at small groups who then left the game due to the intensive targeted attacks. Anyone who had any sense was either in an npc corp or had alts in an npc corp and avoided them. Basically it was ganking but with even less risk of loss for the wardeckers.
Now people can form small groups and not be at risk of sustained targeted attacks. This at least has to be an improvement. Once they are big enough to have a structure they are wardeckable. At which point you are going to say that they have their structure in a separate holding corp - but this is no different to the characters being in an npc corp and an improvement over the previous system as, as has been noted people can form groups with out being hounded out of the game.
Ganking at least is not directed at the same individuals, just starting to form groups and beginning their time in EVE.
This is much more the case today than in the past.
Now they just get ganked. At least in the past, they could hire someone to actively protect them and/or go after their attackers.
The “hounding” is still there, it just took on a much more close-ended form. This is evident by the amount of gank whine threads up at all times.
Wars are even easier to avoid/deal with than ever, which makes them of even less consequence.
The addition of a structure fee just means there’s even less of them, the majority Ive encountered are just oppportunists looking for abandoned structures.
1 Like
It took me years to work out how to get someone to transport my stuff, let alone hire merks without getting scammed, probably by the folk who are wardecking in the first place. Nah that’s not a suitable solution for newbie corps. Once they have the isk to afford a structure - sure.
It took you YEARS to learn how to make a courier contract or to check C&P for mercenary advertisement threads and check their feedback? I’m sorry, but if that’s the case, then you’re an outlier at the lower end of the player skill spectrum, and your views don’t represent the population as a whole.
Also, structures are literally cheaper than Orcas or faction battleships, and new players get into those within weeks of starting to play, so structures aren’t a viable milestone for determining whether someone is skilled enough to deal with aggressive PvP.
Look, I’m a gracious loser, and I get that my side lost that fight and that high-sec PvP isn’t coming back, and that the “new” EVE is moving toward the solo-grind loot-box model, but let’s not ignore the objective fact that the game was better and more balanced back then for pretty much anyone who wasn’t a solo mission-grinder. In fact, here’s how the player chart looked when wars could be declared against anyone, and only cost 2 million ISK per week:
3 Likes
Because the human survival instincts dictate we avoid dying, even if it’s in a video game. Immersion makes it so that the survival instincts stranslate to our clones so we do everything in order to not die.
I play EVE like New Eden is a real world in my head and I’m a citizen-capsuleer just making my way in the universe, serving the empire, buying, selling, manufacturing and learning to survive and hunt the enemy.
Dying for some abstract financial market or game health isn’t enticing at all. I’d rather die to defend a fellow capsuleer or defend a border point or escorting a hauler or miners, not simply because the ‘sky gods’ ( CCP ) wish it so.
I like both PvP and PvE, I have no favorite because they are both important in a game, but if there is no reason to die ( other than “it’s good for the game/economy” ) then I don’t see why I should seek death like a Kamikaze.
3 Likes
No one says that you have to go out and fill some kind of dying quota; that was never the argument. The argument is only that people should stop begging CCP to change the game in such a way that they can opt out of dying entirely if they so wish. If you can avoid dying by virtue of skill, more power to you. Natural selection will take care of the rest.
2 Likes
Its almost like they could join a larger coalition for protection. Like um an alliance or something. Or even maybe not dock up in stations but safes in space to prevent being camped. So strange they couldn’t figure it out.
So you’re bad at the game. Got it. Years to work out how to get someone to transport your stuff? Years? Literal years?
3 Likes
OH 
I didn’t understand the o.p then, shame on me. I will chalk it to the fact that English is my second language.
And I agree, players should quit trying to change the game for their benefits. Although the changes to the game only happen if CCP implements them, we players can’t do that on our own.
2 Likes
It was just quoting you.
Nice (though really weak) try at drawing a causation from a correlation. That chart had nothing to do with wardecs, and probably growth was held back by wardecs.
The growth profile you showed is just the standard “first X years of growth” chart for any popular game, with X taking more or less time depending how large/complex the game is or how long it takes to reach “end game”.
WoW shows essentially the exact same growth pattern over a similar time range:
The difference of course being that since Blizzard knew how to design games properly, their subscribers are in the millions as opposed to CCP’s thousands.
Another difference is that when Warcraft numbers start to drop, Blizzard does something about it. Not always the right thing, but something. All CCP does is yell “HTFU!” and try to con their whales and nullblobs into subbing two more alts. Oh, and moan about “legacy code we can’t touch”, I guess.
And yet when the argument becomes “Let’s have more death and destruction by making bounty hunting and criminal consequences viable”, strangely the whole PvP crowd is pretty much against the idea of even making the attempt.
Agree. Main reason why I don’t understand pushing destruction undersigned by an economic motto that no one feels. There are other ways to justify anything like for example, a creative twist on the storyline. Gotcha.
That’s not all. I see little consequential predictability when planning and applying changes. There is such disconnection between the effects of changes and the script that’s apparently founding them, that some rather have silent and just take the beating without swallowing all the BS.
I’ll let you know if you misunderstood me. Read this post so you can find that Destiny was focusing the scope a bit too narrow.
This position of focusing interventions and changes towards one side of the balance is what derives in unforeseeable consequences. Hence why I said that it seems that changes are pushed by isolated departments instead of stepping back and seeing the whole picture.
Change is hard.
1 Like
That is just nonsense. Nothing could be easier than ganking. Not even mining.
I mean…ALL I have to do to gank is go to a 0.5 system and blast a Venture to bits. There’s no rule that says ganking has to make a profit. I might simply want to have a good laugh.
If I was as obsessed with ‘kills’ as some are…that is what I’d spend all day doing. It could not be easier.
Thank you.
Yes. It would be very neat to risk ships for empire border protection or escorting a hauler or providing security for miners or something.
Also, are those empires ever at war? Where are the space battlefields where they duke it out? 
But wasting my isk and modules and ships just for some nebulous economic reasons that only CCP can benefit from? NO.
Nah…the real argument is that thieves…sorry, gankers…know they are onto a good thing and don’t like the local ‘police’ to be nerfed in their task of helping them. Its the gankers who are the real carebears, wailing at anything that even remotely smacks of making their already cushy lifestyle even the tiniest bit harder.
‘Natural selection’ is just pure nonsense…as it is precisely what gankers dont want ! Natural selection is precisely the change that makes it harder for the lion to catch the wildebeast. But you don’t want the wildebeast to be able to run 1% faster or the lion poacher to be 1% more timely and accurate.