There is no point to listening to this guy’s channel. He’s the YouTuber I was talking about before who is doing more damage to the community by turning his platform into one of hate and spreading a message of coddled demands. Compared to someone like HateLess who decided to just stop making video content for Eve – but still continue playing, just off-camera. HateLess understands the game, FirestormCarnage guy doesn’t get it.
There are asshole griefers out there but that’s not a free ticket to call for CCP to make ganking come to end. Just like how there are asshole miners that spew toxic stuff in chat but no one is calling on CCP for mining to end (the only calls are in-game roleplay – and that’s the difference).
No, I’m the one basing my view on the facts. Unlike you, if I get things wrong I change my stance…which is precisely why I used to have your stance on ganking but did a complete U-turn.
The fact is that noobs are already protected in all 35 starter, agent, and SOE mission systems. It is considered griefing to gank or harass noobs under 30 days old in any such systems…and CCP even provide a list of the systems. So the protection you seek for noobs already exists.
Now if some noob goes off to mine in 0.6 Isanamo in his Venture he is effectively declaring that he does not need that protection and can take care of himself. It is as simple as that ! If he gets ganked in Isanamo then he should go back to the starter systems and learn a bit more about how to be safe. Like I’ve said many times…I have never been ganked in a Venture.
When I buy a new ship in Jita I give it a fitting with as much shield as possible for the Journey to HQ at Oipo. It’s not the final PvP or PvE fitting…its just a temporary ‘travelling’ fit where I carry the final fitting as cargo.
With zero highsec ganking…I’d have no need to fit that ship at all for the trip. Other that the odd encounter with Triglavians, I could travel the length and breadth of highsec in any ship with zero armaments or tank, on autopilot, and be guaranteed to arrive safely. Other than Triglavians I have never once encountered threatening NPCs at gates.
That would make risky trips to Jita or Dodixie or Amarr meaningless…and would ruin their status as trade hubs. After all, if anyone can transport anything safely anywhere in highsec, there’s no need for hubs as all routes anywhere are equally safe. I could set up business in Uedama and it would be perfectly safe for anyone to come buy there…whereas currently you can hardly buy anything in Uedama.
So Lucas isn’t thinking about how his plans affect not just noobs but everyone. The trade in shielding and armour and ammo would plummet…as nobody would need that any more to travel around highsec. Wardeced people would be able to use alts to get more ammo and ships and drones, etc, in perfect safety so would not need to fit their alts ships with any tank. The net effect would be that there’d be far less demand for all that ore the noobs are mining !
This is typical of your self-contradictory responses. With zero risk there’s no need for anyone to avoid routes or even worry too much about slightly longer routes. The smaller traders then don’t need to move to Jita or Dodixie to trade…and can set up shop in nearby systems that people would normally avoid going to for stuff. Trade hubs only exist because people only need to take the risk of travel once for a significant load. If there is zero risk…people can just amble about Eve picking up the cheapest stuff. Why go to Jita when traders can safely distribute their stuff all over the place ? A Jita trader could safely move a whole bunch of stuff to Eudama to sell with zero risk…which they would not currently do because the stuff may well get ganked on the way.
Noobs aren’t being asked to be ‘happy’ with being blown up anywhere else. They are being asked to no GO anywhere else until they are ready. The act of stepping outside of the protected areas is the act of declaring themselves ready.
Lucas always maintains two lines of argument, if you argue against one point, he flips his argument to the other viewpoint and starts gaslighting. As you noted, he argues that gankers should be banned. However, if you object to this, he pretends that he isn’t arguing that gankers should be banned. He goes back and forth endlessly.
Likewise, Lucas likes to state that ganking is super easy and gankers are bad at PvP. They hide in Highsec for cheap easy kills, and wouldn’t do well outside of Highsec. However, he also claims that most Highsec gankers are actually the alts of people from outside Highsec. Furthermore, if you argue that Highsec should be converted into lowsec or nullsec, he immediately argues that this would make things even easier for the gankers. He simultaneously argues that Highsec gankers couldn’t handle lowsec/nullsec PvP, and yet also argues that Highsec gankers are from lowsec/nullsec and would thrive in a lowsec/nullsec environment.
Another example is in regards to whether Lucas plays EvE. He likes to pretend he is too smart for EvE. Consequently, he has repeatedly stated that he does not find EvE interesting and has not played in years. However, if you call him out for having no meaningful experience with current game mechanics, he immediately starts to claim that he has a mysterious main account which remains active. In every case, he has two mutually exclusive lines of argument, and he never commits to a single point.
He isn’t here to discuss. He is here to argue endlessly.
Well, my ‘solution’ would probably too dark and harsh for the gankers to endure. Even if it would be the easiest and most logical one.
I count that as game-design decision, not lore.
I disagree, it is a big change, because currently safety requires attention, knowledge and skill. Invulnerability removes risk and thrill. And immersion. And if you are invincible, “time” is not really an issue, so yeah, it would not be a good change.
I know that was said in some lore article about the beginning of capsuleer tech, maybe CCP should just release a statement that by now the capsuleer tech is far more advanced and the ships are fully automated. Would at least remove this argument from the table.
I agree, it should be discussed, but civilized and constructive.
Utter balderdash. Even a cursory look at killboard shows numerous vets being ganked by Safety.
Again you completely miss the point.
When someone sells something for 4m ISK at Torrinos that would only cost 1m ISK at Jita, they are relying on the fact that for a large area it is safer to travel to Torrinos than to Jita. If all routes are equally safe because there is zero risk, that entire equation is thrown out. That means those extortionate prices can no longer be maintained. Leading to a levelling of prices across Eve. Which in turn reduces the need for a central hub that one only needs to travel to once for a huge load with one risky trip.
I started out in noob protected 1.0 Bourynes at the Air Laboratories. The agent system is just two jumps away at noob protected 0.9 Trossere…one simply has to pass through 0.9 Vittenyn, which is not noob protected. Trossere has a pretty good market too, removing the need to go anywhere else to buy stuff. I mined in my Venture in 0.8 Mirilene…next door to Vittenyn…which is not noob protected. I still mine there in a Venture sometimes…it is where I got a kill right against gankers twice !
Altara in Venture 2 Gankers 0
But of course…you don’t want to hear about Ventures escaping ganks, do you.
What nullsec person would rather spend 100m…than 25m by simply travelling 15 jumps to Jita in perfect safety under your new system ? 75m ISK saved for a 20 minute round trip is a bargain ! And with zero risk, the nullsec corps could save billions.
It is nonsense to argue that the overall reduction of risk by being able to haul stuff with fewer trips is not part of that convenience. I don’t just go to Jita because lots of stuff is there, I go because one trip involves only one taking of risk. If there was zero risk anywhere, then it would not matter if stuff was more spread out, as any extra time taken up would be more than compensated for by the complete absence of ever losing anything !!
People that make sweeping generalisations about whole groups of gamers are probably not the best people to try and discuss balance changes with. They are discussing from a viewpoint based on assumptions not facts.
I would just give it a rest, let them have their last word because their last word is as meaningless as their first.
Aiko is right about how you chop and change. One minute you are ‘protecting noobs’…the next you are rambling on about ‘benefit to veterans’. And somehow, all killboard evidence to the contrary, those veterans are all perfectly safe everywhere in highsec and never get ganked…lol.
Buying stuff from anywhere, and the relationship with trade hubs, is entirely a time/price/risk balance. You rattle on as if time and price were the only factors and risk had absolutely nothing to do with it…which is quite categorical nonsense. Eliminate all risk and it is bound to affect the trading hubs…that is absolutely undeniable.
Your ‘argument’ changes with the wind. As Aiko says, you have multiples lines of arguing going, and you just flip between them to respond. So if someone responds to argument A, you just give a response to argument B.
One minute you want to ban all ganking, the next you ‘only’ want to buff newbie frigates, and the next it is something else. When a person responds to ‘ban all ganking’…you respond with ’ but…I only wanted to buff noob frigates '. Then half an hour later it is back to ‘ban all ganking’.
This is some of the most dishonest arguing I’ve seen on the forums.
