Nerf Ganking Megathread

I don’t know what he who must not be named replied to you, but gank-haters won’t accept this.

You see, they refuse to aknowledge that tethering was also a nerf to ganking. But only as long until someone suggests something like this, when that happens is that carebears will say that they can’t accept that as that would be a buff to the gankers.

How can it be a buff if it didn’t nerf gankers before? :smiley:

Unfortunately we never do, not matter which claim it is being made.

This is a rather comical one though.

I can not speak for everyone, but Dracvlad agreed that it should be universally removed in a simple and straightforward statement. I do not think, as he does, that it is a particular boon to ganking because it would be difficult to exploit, but if he wants to try and exploit the opportunity to sniff out safes and ambush outlaws, I have no problem with giving up tether and the safety it provides me for the sake of more interesting gameplay. At least until someone gives me a good example of some benefit tether brings to the game as a whole.

3 Likes

Bigbud was especially hard hit by tethering as he hunted like that. Tethering enables the gankers to be ready to react very fast without they will have to undock. You cannot fleet undock, so for me this means that an excessive multi-boxer will either cheat (which we will watch for and report) or undock ahead of time to get ready alerting AG a lot sooner to being active. In that initial period of undocking there is perhaps possibilities to nab one or two due to this.

On the side of the victim, being smart and docking up and waiting for them to dock and then undocking and jumping through before the gankers can form up makes it viable as evasive play and more fluid and interesting

It is a real win for AG and the victim in terms of adjusting the balance a bit on Freighter ganking.

Does that give you a bit more information on why it would be a good thing?

2 Likes

Tether protects Freighters just as much as Gankers in highsec vs NPC’s even from faction NPC’s

Without tethering there would be so much hindrance due to the Pilot’s standings without even looking at the pvp side of things.

If I am not mistaken one cannot dock to citadel with point on him, at least that used to be the case in 2018. Not sure if that changed.

But isn’t this the intent of the faction standings?

Well I would say it is your opinion if you think it is PvP, but why don’t we call it PvP? No we and everyone else including the thread calls it ganking aka baby seal clubbing.

Lots say this, and well I guess okay, I guess this thread is PvP.

And no problem with the rest, just a more robust definition of PvP I guess. But real PvP is two players shooting, fighting, trying to eliminate each other. You can market, mine, thread post all we want, but there is not real elimination of your opponent on the battlefield. But my opinion and I know that.

JJ

Did you ever address my counterarguments to this? Well, let’s try again.

Ganking is a type of PvP. We refer to it as “ganking,” instead of “PvP,” because that distinguishes it from other forms of PvP, and clearly and concisely conveys to others exactly what we’re talking about. We do the same thing for roams, gatecamps, whaling, strat ops, incursions, mining, and abyssals. Nobody says, “do you want to go on a PvP,” or “would you like to run some PvE’s?” Everyone refers to every activity in the game by the specific type of PvE or PvP that it is, unless the actually have a need to discuss an entire class of activities. So, calling something by a more specific name doesn’t mean that it’s not a part of a larger set of things. For example, calling a tomato a tomato doesn’t mean it’s not a fruit. Moreover, the language that people use to describe things can be inconsistent with what that thing is. The fact that people think tomatoes vegetables, doesn’t change the fact that it’s a fruit.

Seriously, your argument is some straight up bad logic, and I’m baffled at the fact that you keep repeating it. Like, how you do not see the logical flaw in this is beyond me.

No it is not a more robust definition of PvP. Aside from certain gamers with an agenda, most gamers, devs, youtubers, and gaming journalists all consider PvP to be competition between players. And they contrast PvP with PvE, which is when the player competes against the environment (i.e. computer controlled characters, environmental hazards). Moreover, the first 3 (or 4) definitions of PvP that I found were consistent with this definition (which I linked in a previous post, but feel free to do a google search yourself).

So no, that is not a “more robust” definition. It is you who is trying to narrow the definition of PvP, because you want to delegitimize a play style that you don’t like.

5 Likes

‘Real PvP’ is just another variant of the ‘no true Scotsman’ fallacy.

In fact, the moment you undock you are engaging in PvP. The very act of undocking is the consent to it. This is something that a lot of carebears simply don’t grasp. And many simply don’t want to…as they are essentially playing the wrong game for them. Anyone can attack you anywhere, for any reason…or for no reason at all. There are no special protected ships or groups. Everything about the marketing of Eve makes that 100% clear. What’s not to get ?

The idea that you have to be armed and dangerous to engage in PvP is just sheer nonsense espoused by those who want to turn Eve ( and especially highsec ) into Bambi Disneyland with pixies dancing through the glades. It comes from those with a ’ you can’t shoot me…I’m flying a defenceless shuttle !’ attitude.

It comes from fools who like to use ‘baby seal’ analogies…but who are too silly to grasp that shuttles have extra-fast align time precisely as a counter-measure…or that Ventures have extra warp scram resistance precisely as a counter-measure…and so on.

3 Likes

I think the problem is that JJ has some archaic notion of some sort of ‘honourable’ PvP…like dueling with swords at dawn.

It simply never occurs to JJ that Eve is designed to be unfair, unjust, cruel, etc. He keeps wanting to correct a ‘fault’ that isn’t there. He refuses to grasp that the whole idea of Eve is carnage, deception, unfairness, and a world you are born into with zero power amongst massive corporations and alliances. The goal of Eve is to survive and thrive despite all these difficulties. And the clincher is that the sense of achievement is thus vastly more than you would or could ever get in Bambi Disneyland Farmville.

Most Eve players get that. But there’s always the ‘save the seal cubs’ sorts who don’t.

2 Likes

Didn’t the forum white knight JJ make the argument, and double down on it, that evasion is not a form of game play?

I take it you don’t agree with him and his sock puppets?

The only time evasion is not game play is if the evasion is docking up and logging off, which is the only option you had with the old bumping mechanic when in a freighter. Did that answer your question, by definition if evasion means to give up playing then it is not game play.

No, it did not.

It was a simple question. Do you agree with JJ that evasion is not considered a form of game play? Simple yes or no would have sufficed.

I think I answered the question.

You avoided it with exposition, which then has to be inferred by the reader. It’s a not so clever way of wiggling out of hard yes or no, claiming that you never answered one way or the other, -which would be true- and possibly pinned to you at a later date.

I am not sure why you are getting salty as I agreed with you with that single exception, if you don’t like the answer do not ask the question?

I dispute that, as it implies a person invariably only has one character. But if my scout looks ahead and finds things too dangerous, I simply log in another character elsewhere in Eve. This is precisely why, for example, I can always mine without being ganked. I’ve now increased to 5 characters, which gives me considerable scope for docking up and doing something in another character until gankers or whoever go away. I don’t need to ‘log off’.

It’s all good Drac. I have my theory concerning your inability to take a hard stance on, practically anything. Like a blob of jello. Wiggling here, jiggling there, slides off the wall when someone tries to pin it to it.

You’re all good bro. Your response was quite insightful.

2 Likes

Summary of this thread: Beating the dead rabbit.


Also alternatively: Beating the blob of jello.

:wink:

And equally unappealing.