People don’t understand what CCP means by “equitable”. They’ve been using that word a lot lately (in conjunction with “diversity” and “inclusivity”). What they mean, based on the logic of the progressive, neo-Marxist ideology they’re adopting, is precisely the reduction of PvP in HiSec… to zero. When everyone has zero PvP in HiSec, “equity” will have been achieved.
1 Like
If someone ganks you in a 1.0 system, the first reaction should not be the question “what can CCP do?”, but open a chat with the ganker and congratulate them to that not insignificant achievement.
CONCORD is really fast is 1.0 systems. It’s really hard to gank someone in there, such that this systems are largely ignored by most gankers (unless they hunt you specifically for some reason). Most highsec ganks happen in 0.5-0.7 systems.
But anyway, you asked what would happen…
They would be stripped of whatever already worthless resources there are by max yield fitted swarms of some try hard veteran miner or outright bots. Within minutes after the belts respwan they would be gone.
Oh you thought it would help new players? It will not.
2 Likes
I don’t disagree that this is what will happen but you will be raising the bar for entry to ganking. The solo gankers will be forced to give up that play style unless you also change the Concorde response time as you go.
You certainly paint a beautiful picture of what it could be like though.
You have no idea what they mean. You also really have to stop with trying to come up with excuses to break out your real world political soapbox.
1 Like
Great point.
Before the “Nerf Ganking Megathread” gained 2k posts in 24 hours, the last serious proposal was mine and it was precisely this. Or maybe it was a similar thread? I lost track with all the latest 
posting…
Anyway, I am indeed for increasing Concord response time.
When CCP stops injecting real world political catchphrases into the conversation, I will. 
1 Like
If you dislike the catchphrases why use them yourself? I’ve seen you use SJW and ‘virtue signalling’ seemingly oblivious of the fact you are fighting for your own idea of social justice and signalling your own virtues in doing so.
If you dislike them then maybe don’t perpetuate their use.
1 Like
Oh well!
CCP said that there was a positive correlation between being ganked and being retained.
1 Like
Citation needed.
If you need an example of what that looks like, here is one example of data-driven citation.
1 Like
That isn’t the subject of your post though. /thread
I guess it’s too late for me to create a ganking alt just to try the playstyle a bit. 
What about yellow safety though, will they remove that too?
What about duel invites?
And?
Any reason to believe that something magical happened between day 15 and 16?
Citation needed.
lol “coercng”.
I’m not going to get into a classic Lucas Kell back and forth where you do nothing but say you are just wrong over and over again.
I’ll respond to your post and that’s all you get, you can have the last word and restate your same arguments again.
You keep saying gankers are farming thousands of newbie kills like they are undocking and being shot on the spot in their velators for fun. Nothing you have provided supports this and neither does common sense. If a ganker was harassing a new bean in this way they would be removed from the game. They literally have protected status. The discussion here isn’t being driven by new players coming on and saying this happened to me and it’s completely unfair. It’s being driven by veteran players that clearly have their own personal feelings about ganking who are arguing in the new beans behalf instead of their own.
Yes CCP have said there is a correlation and they are looking into it but if the new beans aren’t actually being farmed (see lack of evidence) then it seems more likely that the correlation is the people who are so bitter about ganking are scaring the newbeans away by making them afraid of a ganking boogie man instead of showing them how much agency they have to actually play the game and keeping the boogie man at bay.
They are perfectly valid. If one person says they know multiple people that would abuse the mechanic and they would abuse it themselves then you can easily scale it up. Then newbeans come along and start learning the same tricks from the veterans and suddenly it’s the way. Everyone just undocks with high value cargo and clones in T1s and nothing else. You diminish and dismiss peoples concerns instead of actually engaging them on how that could be mitigated and try to shape your idea into something that is ready to be implemented. So the discussion falters. You don’t take them seriously and they don’t take you seriously. That whole thread is full of people being obtuse and arguing in bad faith.
Another valid reason why it’s not a good idea is a basic principle of shared storytelling style gaming. If you remove the agency of a player they cease being interested in the game. Ask any DM that decided to save a player with some form of deus ex machina instead of letting them die. The players that keep playing are the ones that die and feel like their actions in the world have weight. You don’t fix a problem by taking it out of the players hands, you fix a problem by teaching them how to take matters in their own hands.
Now I’ve said my piece, it may seem cheap and hit and run to respond and then leave you to your last words not caring what they might be, however your form in that thread gives no one any confidence in you to take the discussion seriously.
4 Likes
Let me just fast forward this discussion a bit.
We had that in the past and people actually went trough the trouble of crunching the data from the killboards to show that new players even long beyond 16+ are very rarely gank victims.
What do you think the response was to this data?
Something along the lines of “the data doesn’t show people quitting because they could be ganked”.
Just so you know how this will end.
2 Likes
the tactic that will come into play this time will be a redefinition of what constitutes “ganking”. It will become “griefing” and “harassment”.
Anyway, this thread should be merged into the Nerf Ganking thread. This stuff spreads like wildfire.
1 Like
This, exactly this right here. People build up the idea of gankers and terrify new players with them and then blame the gankers for making them quit. The myth does more harm than the act. If someone is quitting the game because they were ganked it’s more likely to be someone who got ganked in their first marauder or T3. By which time they were in the game long enough to know better than be that emotionally invested in a single ship.
1 Like
Every time Lucas Kell makes a post on the forums, an Eve Newbie quits the game permanently.
No citation needed.
4 Likes
No guys seriously we need to remove suicide ganking completely. This way, the newbie who would have quit after getting their 500k ISK Venture (that they got for free) popped by Safety will instead quit when they die to a rat, or a Triglavian, or by jumping to Ahbazon, or get stuck in the SoE arc or any other of the countless mildly inconveniencing experiences this game has to throw at them.
2 Likes
Green lock is even more stupid than removing suicide ganking, as it also means you can’t do suspect stuff like:
-
Baiting in all it’s forms
-
Can flipping
-
Neutral repping
-
Filamenting (ok, to be fair anything that limits use of abyssals is good but pochven/null ones don’t need this)
-
etc.
4 Likes