Talk about arrogance and stupidity. Your concept of balance was talking about the need for freighters to die as some overall destruction balance that you pulled out of your rear end and said it was so. So more freighters must die because nullsec are not fighting because they have blued everyone? Is that balance?
Of course you failed to convince me because that argument was a complete and total load of bollocks.
Wow, I started again in 2009 and there was a very healthy hisec with wars and ganking, go and look at the stats for 2009 per month in terms of CONCORD and then look what happened afterwards. When the change to destroyer ROF was made. Ganking exploded and the number of ships was based on the mass use of Catalyst. This is just utter bullshite and you should be ashamed of even posting it, especially to people who know exactly what went on during that period.
That would be unbalanced. It is natural for plenty of smaller, cheaper ships to destroy a bigger, more expensive ship. A clan of hyenas can kill a lion. A poisonous frog can kill pretty much anything of any size. Poison is super effective. There is no balance to be had with this and it would, in fact, be a nerf to suicide ganking as well, because you’d be limiting the amount of possible interactions massively.
Here’s the thing: You’re not talking about balance. Mechanics can’t be balanced, they can be tweaked. What is being balanced are numbers in equations. Data. Like, for example, the amounts of ships killed by suicide gankers in highsec or the amount of suicide gankers destroyed before their targets ship explodes.
If CCP cared about providing these two opposing sides with content, they would be looking at these numbers first. I’m not saying they’d be only looking at these numbers, but they’d definitely do look at them.
So they’d notice that there are a lot of ships getting ganked in highsec, with barely any opposition happening. Let’s assume they want antiganking to be a thing, of course. They advantage CCP has is that they can run scenarios and watch them live, because they save all that data.
They’d be likely looking at plenty of ganking scenarios, where people try to prevent the gank from succeeding. They’d be looking at the involved game mechanics and they’d be trying to figure out which game mechanics they’d need to tweak to balance the numbers attempting to increase the amount of successful suicide-prevention-acts.
Speculations about how this might be achieved are It’s outside of the range of your question and there is no point even trying, because we do not have enough insights. They do, they just don’t care. Suicide ganking gets rid of itself eventually and the fact that there are roaming Triglavians out there means that they do not even have to worry about suicide ganking, at all, because NPCs are doing this job now.
We are, actually, mostly, in agreement. I believe it’d be better if there was a point in an opposition. I believe it’d be better if < -5 capsuleers had an easier time flying around, because that’d mean more fights happening in highsec. We’d have more groups of suicide gankers and suicide-preventers. Hopefully, at least.
In any case, the question was about balance. It looks like that what you’re seeking is fairness, which can be mistaken as balance of course. I’m assuming, because you’d prefer “a gank on a ship using a ship of camparable value”, which of course could never be sanely codified into game mechanics anyway.
As a side question: Would you like to see arenas in this game? It seems you prefer artificial restrictions int he name of what you perceive as “fair”, thus my question.
You’re right, though, that talking about balance requires talking about opportunities. One side wants to shoot people randomly and is being forced to minmax the situation to their advantage, as much as they can. The other side wants to shoot the people who randomly shoot other people, but they can’t, because the suicide ganker is being forced to minmax the situation to his advantage as much as he can.
Current game mechanics don’t allow this at all and deviating from them will only create more people complaining about suicide gankers, because any and all changes would require suicide gankers to have more freedom. Without this freedom there is no room for suicide-preventers to engage the gankers. That’s why we’re in this situation.
I’m sorry for being unable to express things in a way even you understand them. That’s absolutely on me. Luckily, though, does it not matter even a single, tiny bit.
It appears to be more likely that no one cared about bringing new blood in. Game mechanics discourage the behaviour from the start and there do not appear to be new-player-corps for suicide ganking. The primary reason for any communities dying is that they’re not attracting enough new blood. There are additional reasons, of course, like the dissincentives and the unusually cruel punishment for doing something that’s supposed to be allowed according to game mechanics, BUT the number one reason nonetheless is the lack of fresh blood.
And now I will mute this thread, because I refuse letting myself getting sucked into this realm of bitterness, inflated chests and nonsense. I prefer playing the game without unnecessarily talking about things which are way out of literally everyone’s reach and, unlike quite a few others, am I well aware of the fact that everyone in this thread, including myself, is absolutely incapable of coming up with even a hint of an actually good solution to a problem that solves itself eventually anyway.
Please do not expect any further responses. If you do feel like responding to me anyway, then you’re doing so only, because your ego demands it.
You were trying to say that the destruction of freighters due to a poor mechanic was balanced at the destructive level of the entire game, that things needed to be blown up. You failed to convince me of that argument and trying to patronise me like this “in a way even you can understand it” is rather pathetic. I reject totally that simplistic argument that freighter ganking has to be made easy so that enough stuff gets blown up in the game, there have I put in in a way that even you can understand it?
The bitterness is on the side of the gankers, I am happy that the mechanic that pushed it so much in their favour has been adjusted so that they have to be logged in and ready and have to hurry to get the kill and are now stuck with the same paper rock scissors as the rest of the game so that the use of ECM, tracking disruptors and sensor dampeners and so on cannot be instantly solved by an at their leisure re-dock. They have to go with what they have and the game is better for it and yet they don’t want to accept that greater risk of failure.
Can you even understand it?
And that last comment is Solstice Pojeckt run away troll posting on steroids.
If it’s not engaging for you then don’t do it. CCP should be trying to make flying poorly more attractive. Not losing your ship is the victim’s engagement while the hunt and successful attack is likewise for the ganker…we don’t need more bells and whistles. I mean, why add another layer to combat for ganking yet then ignore normal PvP? You’re just rewarding poor flying…
And yes, there is a correct way to fly and that is part of risk acceptance…AFK in an 0.5 flying a Cov is very poor risk management, for example. That is very wrong.
No I am not. I saying don’t do what you are suggesting…I’m saying stop asking CCP to do things for you when everything is already there. Just because you are not interested in something doesn’t mean that we need to Pimp-da-Mechanic.
Who cares…like anybody who rage quits, we shouldn’t be running after them with a warm blanket and sweat words. That can’t hack it the there’s the door just like for everyone else.
Oh so this is really a “let’s redo all PvP mechanics” idea then?
Not caring about losing a ship doesn’t make it the right way to fly. It’s still wrong, they just don’t care if they lose it. Nobody is going to hold that up as an example of a right way to fly…heck it’s just bad business for a miner…
I remember having this very conversation in the AG channel, where a guy was flying a max yield Covetor, his yield was much higher than my tanked skiff, he had picked a system which saw very low gank activity and for him it was the right way. I did not presume to say he was wrong, his logic was sound. I prefer to be hard to kill so my approach is different, but his approach made total sense.
Would not work in Kamio though.
Still I am not sure that your example links in to freighter ganking, perhaps an AP story is what you were looking at as being the wrong way to fly a loaded freighter?
…nope. I am arguing against YOUR premise, not for something. Repeating it over and over wont change that.
No. If CCP needs to and bells and whistles to EVE to hold the attention span of the next generation of gamers then I don’t care if EVE dies as it wont be EVE anymore anyways. The “I’m bored entertain me or else” crowd should be ignored…catering to them is a trap…
Yes but what you are suggesting is a rather large rewrite for how PvP works with special conditions for ganking. That could be the biggest combat change ever in EVE…and for why? To appease gankers?
Ok, you think it’s right…got it…
You don’t seem to include travel time…which is a huge issue for the Cov due to its tiny hold. It’s a great idea TBH but in reality you need to factor in flight time for miners.
Exactly. “Yield tanking” is on paper maybe slightly viable but you are almost guaranteed to be hit where as in a tanked Proc it’s the opposite; almost guaranteed to be ignored.
Covs are great when time on the rocks need to be minimized…or when you have hauling support. Else, they are deathtraps.
So ganking is incredibly easy and profitable… but for some mysterious reason miners are unlikely to be ganked? This sounds like the old “CODE is killing the game, but it also has no relevance” argument.
So what you are saying is that ganking is easy, profitable, and yet for some reason few do it? It sounds like ganking might be the next ‘big thing’ - we just need to get the word out. All you miners listen up, ganking is EASY and PROFITABLE, so put down those mining lasers and get ready to make some easy isk!
If somebody doesn’t like doing something, don’t do it. I would hope I don’t need to explain this. And again, just because one is against something. it doesn’t automatically make them a proponent of the opposite. Please stop accusing me of that.
No because your false dichotomy is based all on an assumption; that there is something fundamentally wrong with ganking mechanics. That’s your opinion…CCP has a bit more than just two options here…
Yes, I know. Your example adds more conflated mechanics for one action that only happens in HS with one end goal; make mining/hauling safer.
Miners and haulers don’t want conflict…YOU want to make it safer for them…that’s the only thing you’re pushing here.
This is ironic…really, are you going to drop that?
It was a relative point! Where there are gankers, given the option, they will hit Covs all day long over Procs…
Wow, yah, CODE has really been imploding. Ever since you started writing these long rants, you’ve just been imploding CODE left and right. They call you THE IMPLODER.
Sure, that’s what happened - you are not in any way ignorant or filled with bluster. I admire your ability to know so much, and I never think that you are misinformed.
I’m not sure what you are talking about, but I’m sure you are very wise, because you spend a lot of time writing long posts on this forum. I truly respect your opinion and I would like to learn more about your thoughts and ideas.