No it wasn’t. It was 50vX when the engagement started, one side just had some of its ships concealed and therefore had an intel advantage.
Now, you might have a point if the reinforcements for the defender were not part of a coordinated bait and trap plan and actually came in response to assist a genuine solo player’s call for aid. But I would bet that the success rate of that is extremely low given how quickly the solo ship is going to die when attacked at 50v1 odds.
So in effect you’re saying that no defense mechanics that call on other players are valid.
No, that’s an utterly stupid claim to make. The point is not whether or not certain mechanics are “valid”, it’s that in every other situation in EVE when 50 players execute a competent attack on a single player the 50 players are virtually guaranteed to win. Trying to give counter-examples that do not involve 50 players attacking a single player is incredibly dishonest and/or stupid.
As time goes on gankers focus more and more on newer players and retention is getting tougher and tougher.
So I take it you have some actual numbers on what percentage of new players are quitting over being ganked but would not have quit anyway for other reasons? Or are you just assuming that if you feel like that’s what is happening that the game must be changed to suit your opinions?
And you don’t think an increasing number of players within the playerbase complaining about the same thing is important to CCP?
I don’t think it’s increasing at all. I think we have about the same number of stupid players losing their ships and going to the forums to whine about it that we always did. Nothing here is new, the only thing that changes is the identity of the highsec trash posting the threads.
And yet you still haven’t bothered to provide a plausible scenario where the solo player defeats 50 competent enemies at once, not with anything resembling meaningful odds of success.
I have as more evidence for my position as you have for yours.
So, you don’t have anything but your personal opinion. Which is fine, you can have that. But if there’s no difference in evidence between “change this” and “leave things as they are” the status quo wins.
No you haven’t. You’ve given a ridiculously unlikely scenario that a player will probably never experience in their entire time in EVE (ECM bursts) and a scenario or two that depend on the attackers being utterly incompetent (attacking a target within jump range of a gate and not keeping a reserve to jump through and catch it on the other side).
CCP is quite clearly changing the game to increase PvE, which is what you should expect from an MMO this late on in its life.
Fine, I will rephrase that: the status quo should win. Whether or not CCP chooses to make good long-term decisions or PA milks the cash cow for as much short-term profit as possible before they run it into the ground is a valid question.
Sigh. Yes, I am assuming at least a minimum level of competence because you insist on posting idiotic scenarios like “what if 50 unarmed haulers attack a solo carrier” that have nothing to do with reality. I acknowledge that given sufficient sheer stupidity you can lose a 50v1, but that has nothing to do with balance discussions.
What’s that based on? Do you have particularly broad experience of game development? Or is it just simply that you like the status quo and thus have decided that nothing should ever change?
It’s based on basic design principles in any field. The status quo always wins unless there is a good enough argument to make a change. If you can’t justify a change you don’t make it. Doing otherwise is a great way to guarantee that you make bad changes just for the sake of being able to say that you had change.
And no, I don’t oppose all change. There are changes I would love to see. But removing suicide ganking because idiot highsec players keep generating comedy lossmails and whining about it is not one of those changes.
The status quo isn’t necessarily good for the long-term. New generations of players have different interests and game developers have to keep up with those changing interests.
Sure. This is possible. But until you provide some evidence of your claims then it is nothing more than opinion vs. opinion and the status quo wins.
And it also gets into the question of why EVE succeeds at all: the fact that it has a market niche and has so far maintained that identity. Make EVE into a generic PvE farming game and it may attract new players, but it is a long-term death sentence because doing so would require sacrificing everything that gives EVE a reason to exist.
He’s got ‘no need’ to prove himself, because he doesn’t care if anyone believes him, although he is motivated to tell everyone in the hopes that they do.
Yes, you don’t care if we believe you, however you feel some incessant need to talk about it, and repeatedly state your unverifiable claim, insisting that it somehow lends you credibility.
Man up! Own your alts, or accept that nobody will believe a word you say.
If you say so. I am so helpless and impotent, a gankbear on the Eve forums said it, so it must be true.
And the one I got two kills on has not logged in since, such a fragile little flower being blown up by someone so helpless and impotent, must have hurt his feelings, so he ran away to recover his self-worth in some way, while dreaming of your dainty feet at a guess.
Has not been active then, he is not in the area he normally ganks in and no kills on Zkill when I posted that. And this is a guy who was ganking in the same area. So if it looks like a pig, smells like a pig oinks like a pig, it is likely a pig. He could have decided his mother’s basement needed a paint job though? Still AG wins again and even got some kills before the ganker gave up which is always a brucey bonus as far as I am concerned.
