Is Hisec ganking good for the game?

Communications Center General Discussion
913

Yeah now we are onto “black is white because I say so”.

You need to explain in what way any change to the status quo doesnt change it if thats your position.

Non specific “added retribution” not only is unspecific, its obviously another hurdle for ganking pilots to overcome in a paradigm where they already require an enormous number or either accounts, ships, personnel or specific skill simply to destroy a single unarmed transport ship.

While Im not ignoring direct replies, I will make the exception of ignoring childish barbs as unproductive from here on.

914

Oh cry me a river about the “hurdles” a ganker has to overcome - if you haven’t managed to finesse it by now that is a huge failure on your part. That is nothing compared to the logistic efforts of many parts of the game.

915

If someone hasnt managed to finesse new difficulties you want to introduce but wont be specific about thats their failure?

What? How on earth are to able suggest this is logic?

And you can easily use that position to suggest that haulers dont need further protection too, btw.

916

Nothing I’ve suggested adds any significant hurdles - you might occasionally have to defend yourself but according to the logic banded around by the likes of yourself these victims don’t want to fight back anyway so in theory that wouldn’t happen…

917

Nothing youve suggested has been specific nor the mechanics described, so you cant make that assertation.

But the very act of adding anything to change the status quo is either signifigant or isnt.

If it isnt what is the purpose of adding it?

Im one of these so-called “victims” and I dont need any further protection.

918

As much as anything protection from ganking is about using your wits - something I’ve said a lot of times - I’m not for any level of protection from ganking which doesn’t involve some action on the part of the player to provide that ability to mitigate it - but that doesn’t mean I think people who become victims through inexperience or their own lack of willingness to do anything about it, etc. should be prohibited from being able to exact revenge if they were inclined to do so and I apply that to myself as well - if I gank someone, and it is something I have done, I want them to have the possibility to bring the fight to me.

919

I know thats your position, but if you cant be specific about it then you cannot say its not adding signifigant risk.

I cant really think how someone unwilling to take basic steps to avoid being ganked is going to be able to extract revenge without that revenge being a signifigant additional risk that gankers will have to include in their calculations, therefore making ganking either more difficult, more awkward or more expensive.

This already exists. @Githany_Red literally does it all the time.

If you objection is that its not for new players, Im sure Githany has a place for them.

920

I’m not talking about generic anti-gank. Which I’m guessing you know and trying to deflect from but still.

I could gank someone on one of my alts then just switch to another alt and that is it, no possibility of any come back against me or that character. Sounds good for me but it isn’t balanced or the spirit of a PVP environment.

EDIT: Ganking is quite a wide spectrum - but one of the examples which always sticks in my mind - someone on a forum I frequent which has a significant Eve following despite being told a million times not to undock with PLEX did so as around a 2 week old player and was ganked - they turned around to me and said how do I get back at these players - wasn’t at that point too upset about the PLEX loss if they could get some gameplay out of it. I would have quite happily assisted them. But there was nothing either of us could have done - one of the characters who ganked him I never saw active again, the other only years later. At that realisation he did get upset and quit.

(Personally I have my suspicions he was setup by someone else on the forum sadly)

921

Ok to me it looks more like this:

Player in cargo ship runs Into system with gankers.

Player evades gank: they win the pvp encounter.

Player gets ganked: they lose
the the pvp encounter

What your saying sounds to me like:

Player evades encounter: Wins pvp encounter.

Player gets ganked, uses “retribution” mechanic, wins pvp encounter.

So unless you can be specific as to how the ganker gets a chance to defend themselves against this mulligan you want to give people who either got unlucky or have a

Then its only ever a loss of the ganker and would eliminate any risk in High Sec putside of easily avoided Wardecs.

3 Likes
922

Any such implementation would have to be balanced - but the idea is that they have some hope, even if it is the possibility of a moral victory or the idea that maybe they could have got revenge. It isn’t like the story ends there and the ganker has no potential come back, even if the victim takes the initiative they could just lose again - for example one gank the victim had killrights on one of my corp mates and while we were setup for a future gank they decided to chase him down with a stealth bomber (I think they didn’t realise you can’t use bombs in highsec) running straight down the throat of 1400mm arty…

I’ll copy in here my edit from above as one example which has lead me to this thinking:

"Ganking is quite a wide spectrum - but one of the examples which always sticks in my mind - someone on a forum I frequent which has a significant Eve following despite being told a million times not to undock with PLEX did so as around a 2 week old player and was ganked - they turned around to me and said how do I get back at these players - wasn’t at that point too upset about the PLEX loss if they could get some gameplay out of it. I would have quite happily assisted them. But there was nothing either of us could have done - one of the characters who ganked him I never saw active again, the other only years later. At that realisation he did get upset and quit.

(Personally I have my suspicions he was setup by someone else on the forum sadly)"

923

Good. Careless, lazy people are not supposed to get away from people that made everything correct to get them.
And definitely there is nothing to be proud if the only reason they get away is luck.

2 Likes
924

Ridley, I appreciate our differences in opinion, but I want to be clear: those that disagree with you aren’t being illogical. Also, I don’t mean to give the impression that you’re illogical, either.

There’s a lot of stuff I don’t consent to in life: getting older, deterioration of health, taxation w/o representation, but it all is happening to me anyway. If I had a guaranteed option to avoid all that by not anchoring a structure in EVE Online – which is the “action of is-it-consent” we’re discussing here – it is hard to imagine who wouldn’t take that.

Much like no one owns a home in the hopes for them to be mugged while walking down the street, no one builds a structure in the hopes it gets them a wardec. However, I don’t see us disagreeing on the point that it would be risky to never identify, plan, and prepare to address this risk. It just so happens, however, that this is a low-stakes game where the “mugging” can be guaranteed turned off by never “purchasing a home”. So those who feel strongly about their idea of consent have a guaranteed-by-game-mechanics path that no adequate real life analogy of consent exists to describe.

I see your points, I just don’t believe in them, especially in the way you have turned them into analogies in the real world, for then I would forever have endless beefs with life being ■■■■, unfair, and violating my consent by design. It’s not how I live my life. I’m not saying you’re wrong, just its not for me.

4 Likes
925

We’re talking about high sec ganking mate. So you quoted a situation that has no relevance here as in high sec they could see local. Sit down lol. Solo scouting in high sec can def work. End of story.

A shame we’re talking about a PvP game and not real life lol. If you own a structure you knowingly accept the risks, end of story. You can sit down now too.

926

It’s been a while since I played around with it, but I am pretty sure there is a specific warning that you have to acknowledge/dismiss, that tells you that your Corp will become war eligible if you anchor your first structure.

There’s also, if I’m not mistaken, a notification sent to every member of the Corp/Alliance/

I could be remembering it wrong though, but if my recollection is right, then it is pretty explicitly accepted that you consent to the possibility of being wardecced.

1 Like
927

Highsec Hysterics:

A gank is an ambush, pure and simple. Whether it’s for fun, loot, tears – whatever – you have been stealthily and suddenly attacked by someone who wanted to blow up your ship. No harm in that.

It doesn’t matter whether you’re in Null, Highsec, Lowsec, or Wormhole Space; the only differences relevant to these locations, are your carefully manipulated expectations. You have still been ambushed.

It is this thwarting of expectations which is partly the cause of so much grief among the nay-sayers of Highsec, and not the lack of retributive game mechanics, or fitting options.

Using the phrase ‘I should be able to…’ in connection with the safe conduct of your activities in EVE’s open spaces, is a further example of this attitude. You feel entitled to go about your business free from molestation by those who have wicked designs upon your assets and/or person.

In this, you are reasoning as you would outside the Game. But EVE is not Real Life; far from it. Highsec is, in fact, a strictly and closely controlled environment, in which anything the would-be mischief-maker can think of – within the rules – can be visited upon his/her victim. That is down to CCP (Crowd Control Productions).

Outside the game, you might say, for example, ‘I should be able to walk the streets at night in safety’, or ‘I should be able to leave my front door unlocked and my car keys in a disused ash-tray on the small table in the passage, next to the umbrella stand.’ But you are wary of doing these things, because the likelihood of you or your property being targeted by criminals, causes you to be cautious. You fear genuine loss.

In EVE, your character is immortal, and your ‘property’ belongs to CCP. Perhaps you have developed tender feelings for that character, your ships, your dwellings, your Isk. You struggle to let go of them when Gustav the Ganker turns up and destroys your stuff.

You may have an opinion about ganking in the game, but in playing EVE you consent to the authority of the Company in taking the actual decisions. You may disagree with them, but at least try to understand the topic.

Only a fool refuses to change his/her mind when prompted by the receipt of new information; it is an even greater fool who expresses the notions he/she does hold in terms so vague as to be borderline-incoherent.

Ganking is neither good nor bad for the game; it is a playstyle supported by the game’s makers. Calm down…

6 Likes
928

Exactly, I’m not going to deck out and tweek that new shiny ship only to cower in fear in some corner because I don’t want to take the chance of having it pop.

929

One: I will sit down when I decide to sit down. Get over yourself.

Two: Does it make you feel special to pretend I said something I didn’t, then contradict it? I never argued against “knowingly accept risks”. I agree with that. The point was that the claim they consented to a war dec is false.

And since they didn’t consent and in fact, probably did not even want to engage in it, but rather simply wanted to give an aspect of this game a try without such a large risk, there may be grounds to change the mechanic someday.

Shoot, I used to just set up a small control tower and compression array, and that opened me and my lonely corp up to a war dec. Its a bit like a sole proprietor coffee shop trying to compete with McDonald’s Inc. directly, or defend themselves from a civil suit by the megacorp. Its silly and I don’t think its helping the game as is.

930

Yeah but I still dont see an actual suggestion.

If all you are saying is “there should be a way to get revenge that doesnt already exist but I cant think of how it should work” then Ive gravely misunderstood the point of your post and I apologise.

1 Like
931

I am sure that some feel entitled. The problem is that you are over-looking the many who are understandably confused. CCP has deemed a place to be “high security” even though it may look like a complete war zone or quickly devolve into one. Its a bit like putting a sign over your house that says " Free Apples" and acting shocked that people get mad when you tell them there aren’t any apples and the sign is just a name you made up for funsies.

This is in fact one of the key points where I think hi-sec ganking is hurting EVE. The game is already confusing naturally for new players, but misnaming swaths of space to set up false expectations sets up a few fails, one of which is the feeling that CCP is shoddy…or worse.

932

Now thats one thing we can all agree on

1 Like