The tactic they use is to neut a logi ship for a brief period and then neut a new one, in rotation. The purpose of this is to break the logi chain and its up/down linkage. Even with logi being on the ball and reporting neut in comms, there’s still a brief period where the chain is broken…and if the defender keeps shifting which logi ship is neuted, it can cause chaos.
I do think, though, that things are maybe weighted a little too much in favour of the attacker. I can think of very few structures we failed to destroy, and that’s sometimes with just a dozen people fleet.
I’d be in favour of allowing stations to have logi defence.
Incidentally…I have never heard of a mining fleet using logi for defence against ganking, though I have heard of the use of ships with ECM, which is also what the anti-gankers in Uedama area use.
Not really, as usually they just wait for the station bashing alliances to move to a new area and then they build a new station. They know it will probably be two or three years before we return to the area.
It’s nothing so sophisticated, it just automatically hides anything that receives more than three flags or something. A moderator is supposed to look at the flagged messages and whitelist any that aren’t actually against the rules, but that doesn’t happen.
Sadly automation and AI is a more cost effective method of moderation these days than a person .
In instances as such it’s understandable, I don’t agree with it but it’s understandable.
Needs to be from X number of users (persons) from different local (IP) or folk could just have X amount of Free to play accounts and effectively mute everyone.
Now in an attempt to to get us back on topic folks
We have agreed that Suicide Ganking happens, the constant disagreement is if it’s an intended feature but for the sake of sanity all round let’s not go there.
How much does negative aftermath in channels, Websites and streaming content etc have on new and older players who fall victim to it have on players choosing to leave ?
Keep it civil folks and on topic, the mods only got a dell in a garage after all lol
Well…we have long since ‘been there’ and read the book, got the t-shirt, etc. It is an established fact that ganking is intended roleplay. To any rational thinking person, the very design of the game also makes that very clear. What would even be the point of allowing red status in highsec if nobody could attack others ? What would be the point of varying Concord response times by security level if there was nothing for Concord to respond to ?
It is thus patently obvious that ganking is intended play. You might not like that, but that doesn’t stop it being a fact.
And you are still desperately flailing around trying to find evidence to support your biases. That is really not how things should work. You should not start out with a bias or belief and then look for ‘evidence’ to support it…as that just leads to confirmation bias. Rather, as in good science, you should start first with evidence.
The very fact that you need to ask ‘how much…’ despite the stats I provided above…shows that you don’t actually have any evidence at all. All you have is a belief. Well…there are people who ‘believe’ the earth is flat and who have more evidence for it than you do for your cause.
It really isn’t like there is some kind of “debate” or “disagreement” about that. It’s one or two trolls against the overwhelming majority of experienced players.
Again that’s a screenshot of what’s effectively the instruction manual.
What is lacking is the developer themselves saying in a post or newsletter etc “Suicide Ganking is an intended part of the game mechanics” or something along those lines. Perhaps that’s deliberate who knows .
Needless to say it’s something we should just agree to disagree on and be civil.
I don’t think I force you to extend this conversation. For me it is important to make absolutely clear that
there is no “well it could be that way or it could be this way”. Just not. It’s absolutely clear that ganking is an intended part of the gameplay and the absolutely overwhelming majority of players understands that. That is why messages like the above exist, that is why CONCORD has different response time in different security classes, that is why the “criminal” status has been implemented into the game.
Your tries to paint the picture in a way as if that was still “under debate” are in vain. There is no debate. There is an overwhelming agreement in the playerbase and you are just wrong. Thats the factual situation. And what you belive plays absolutely no role. You either troll or are completely delusional.
Be wary of the echo chambers you put yourself in. There are just as many who believe one way a they do the other. This topic alone does not include anything near 1% of the player base. That said you believe one way and I believe the other. We seem to be at an impasse so best to agree to disagree and move on yes
It was until the “Troll” and “delusional” part. name calling is not required .
Questioning things when all evidence points to the contrary and ignoring all the evidence is what people who believe the Earth is flat do.
I think it’s funny what they do, as long as they’re not hurting anyone, but I’d call them trolls.
Your attempts to question whether suicide ganking is intentional in a game which literally explains suicide ganking exists, made game mechanics specifically enabling suicide ganking (safety settings) when the game clearly also is capable of disabling it (Exordium), and has mechanics that specifically interact with suicide ganking (CONCORD response times) in the parts of the game it describes to have suicide ganking (High security space) reminds me of Flat Earthers.
You just ignore all the evidence and make your own story.
There is no echo chamber. The result is exactly the same whenver you ask experienced players.
The only time when the results shift (and only partially) is if you ask inexperienced players who simply need to be educated about the facts, because they don’t know better yet.
It is so a better approach for him would be is to attempt convincing FC to remove or severely limit it. All he has to do is cause reasonable doubt or assumption it would hurt or benefit their bottom line enough to warrant such decision and it will be done in a heartbeat.
Just as happened in the past even if it meant reversing their own decision (blackout aka nullsec local in delayed mode).
Safe to assume he included it as an added bonus instead of fulfilling a requirement.
There’s a difference between questioning what is said and questioning who said it. There’s also a difference between what is said and what isn’t said, often what isn’t said is what’s needed to provide confirmation and context to what is said .
I am by no means trolling, simply stating (and have been doing so for the motive been here) that there needs to be clarification, and that clarification must come from the developer and not a screen grab from an instruction manual that has been left to rot explaining the game mechanics.
There also needs to be accountability for those who do provoke and troll players in unwarranted ways such as external blogs and in game channels.
