Nerf Ganking Megathread

[Gix_Firebrand]

@Lucas_Kell

They did though. You’re just trying to claim that because they relabelled half of ganking as “griefing” that it somehow doesn’t count. I guess that means you agree with what they categorised as griefing and will be totally happy to see it removed from the game.

They did not actually. Ganking isn’t griefing.

Sorry bruv. Cry moar tho Its lovely

@Lucas_Kell

Because the mechanics are balanced overwhelmingly in favour of the gankers. I’m repeatedly said though that I’m more than happy to be proven wrong if a ganker wants to start up an AG group and show a sustained impact on ganking through AG activities. To date not a single ganker that claims AG is possible has accepted that challenge. Not. A. Single. One.

LOL why them? Why not you? You said you believe in a player driven universe right? Why cry to daddy CCP? Why not AG yourself or educate the noobs? ROFL.

But then you’d actually have to play huh?

Why would gankers do AG anyways? They are ganks brosef? They aren’t concerned about dying to ganking LOL.

I challenge you to AG You’re concerned about ganking. Do something about it

@Lucas_Kell

To pre-empt what Aiko and her minions will say, he’s not talking about EULA breaking “griefing” as it currently exists, he’s talking about a split in the way they look at ganking as it exists right now into a griefing and ganking category.

But he is tho

@Altara_Zemara

That really ought to be the closing words of this thread. After 7380 posts its all that needed saying.

What’s funny is people never know how good things are until their gone.

@Lucas_Kell

That’s not AG though. AG is the counterplay to ganking and it’s entirely useless because ganking is vastly overpowered.

No, I already posted a guide

AGing is actually easy, IF you aren’t terribad at the game.

The thing is, most people who cry about ganking are also bad at PvP. It tends to correlate

@Lucas_Kell

Go actually learn how to play the game, learn the mechanics and counter-mechanics and then come back with a straight face and claim that AG is even remotely balanced against ganking,

Bro you don’t even know how to play

@Lucas_Kell

AG is the counterplay to ganking and it’s completely useless because ganking is way overpowered. I get that you’ve been convinced otherwise but that doesn’t make it any less of a reality.

Actually if peeps followed opsec, AGing would be a lot easier LOL.

You can’t logi someone with no tank

@Altara_Zemara

I tell no-one.

Opsec is the best way to not get ganked.

@Lucas_Kell

Not undocking will avoid ganks, it’s not counterplay.

But you said veterans can avoid being ganked easily while unodocked. So how do they do that?

@Lucas_Kell

thus AG is entirely useless as a playstyle.

Only cause most AGers don’t know how to AG

@Lucas_Kell

Seasoned veterans can avoid ganks with ease

How they able to avoid ganks with ease if ganking is so unbalanced and easy to do?

@Lucas_Kell

And I explained why, to which you then started shifting goalposts and lobbing out insults because you knew you were wrong. Now you’re back to lying about it. Standard ganker tactics: “if at first you don’t succeed lob barrages of personal attacks and make stuff up”.

Bro you been doing exactly that in both threads. Whew chile the gas lighting. I pity the people in your life bruv

@Altara_Zemara

Oh God…here we go with your stupid resort to dictionary semanticism again. Gonna spend another 5 billion posts arguing your definition of ‘counterplay’ is the only one, like you have previously done with ‘winning’ and ‘advantage’ ?

You know who is alt is right? You’ve talked with him before too

[Iceacid_Frostpacker]

@Gix_Firebrand

No, I already posted a guide

If you put that on evemail to this pilot can file it away after holding a Frostpacker meeting to go over the details…

[Jesse_W_James]

@Gix_Firebrand

No, no they won’t. And that’s the whole point.

No it would bring more people, you are opening another door of opportunity that wasn’t open before. You are one of those, the game is great as is burns to the ground.

@Gix_Firebrand

It is a different type of PvP. If loss means nothing, neither does victory LOL.

No lose means loss and victory means victory. You don’t get a trophy for winning a fight in Eve. So yes it is all the same and has meaning. Play call of duty if you suck and lose every match going to beat you don’t play long.

@Gix_Firebrand

Only if you’re bad at the game LOL.

Oh really, is that why there is ship replacement programs because PVP is so profitable in Eve. Or are you one of those types that thinks seal clubbing is a thing, because you suck at everything else in life you need to pick on the weaker only, this is call greifing as well.

@Gix_Firebrand

Uh double nope. It is quite obvious you have no idea the impact that would have on the game LOL. I’d only support if they capped missions at lvl 2, Abyss tier lvl 1 and could only mine veldspar in high. Then increased the rewards for low, WH and null.

Again please go read MER, they have lots of information, and you simply have no idea what you are talking about or how the game works. You don’t understand resource distribution, you don’t understand drop rates and you clearly have no idea how it work together. So don’t come to me like you are some expert.

@Gix_Firebrand

Nope again. You never heard of Trammel huh?

You are projecting your knowledge to a base of players that may have tried and quite or never had anything in the game. Again you can’t seem to think through this which is no surprise to be honest.

@Gix_Firebrand

It is the very soul of EVE. If you’re looking to mindlessly farm, I suggest Stardew

Yes you are the blockbuster store as Netflix hits the market, nope no need to change this model this is what we are made of. This is exactly what idiots say and how businesses fail. I am hoping CCP is smart enough to understand they need to keep the game-changing and moving to what keeps business and profits at their best. For you, well would guess you are owner of a failing business.

JJ

[Daekarus_Prime]

Greetings Commanders,

Since I’m pretty new to the game and it seems there’s a lot of players here with years of experience…

I’d like to ask: what would happen if CCP was going to force “Green Safety” only in 1.0 systems in order to reduce suicide ganking?

[Destiny_Corrupted]

Why would they want to reduce suicide-ganking?

[Lucas_Kell]

Player retention (as stated at fanfest). Though when CCP announced their intention to reduce ganking in their news article the reason was “to make PvP gameplay in Highsec more equitable and fun for all players”.

Improvements to several other aspects of EVE are also being explored, including balance changes to many different ship classes (including navy ships), adjustments to station jump clone cooldown, improving the readability of maps, and applying a clearer focus on reducing ganking to make PvP gameplay in Highsec more equitable and fun for all players.

Fanfest Day Two Wrap-Up!

@Daekarus_Prime

I’d like to ask: what would happen if CCP was going to force “Green Safety” only in 1.0 systems in order to reduce suicide ganking?

It wouldn’t do a whole lot since most ganking happens outside those systems anyway. But overall yeah, working with the weapon safety system would be a way to steer ganking.

[Destiny_Corrupted]

Logically their statement (as short and vague as it is, anyway) makes no sense. You can’t make something “more equitable” by reducing its amount. If you make pies, and a small number of people eats most of the pies while the rest get very few, reducing pie production wouldn’t make pie consumption “more equitable.” But increasing pie production would.

So it’s quite possible that their solution will be the implementation of a new way to attack players that would make ganking a viable alternative but not the sole available method of high-sec PvP, instead of the straight-up mechanically-enforced decrease like you’re hoping for.

[Raylan_Yutani]

@Daekarus_Prime

I’d like to ask: what would happen if CCP was going to force “Green Safety” only in 1.0 systems in order to reduce suicide ganking?

Why would they do that? There is very little ganking happening in 1.0 systems.

Did you even check zkill to see if this is actually an issue before posting? There have been maybe 3 Venture ganks in the last week in 1.0 systems. No barges or exhumers.

[Ferdiad_Silver]

@Daekarus_Prime

I’d like to ask: what would happen if CCP was going to force “Green Safety” only in 1.0 systems in order to reduce suicide ganking?

One thing that would happen is all the AFK miners chewing away at veldspar would descend upon these 1.0 systems so they can have their orcas earn them isk while they do their day jobs.

New players that want to mine would probably then find the belts completely stripped by the time most people log on EU time. US time zone would have no hope. So the new bros you are looking to help would wind up mining outside of the 1.0 systems anyhow.

Would probably have an effect on the price of orcas, mining drones and veldspar.

Would it stop ganking? No. Very little ganking happens in 1.0 systems compared to high sec choke points and level 4 mission hubs. Gankers might blow up the odd venture but high sec pvpers hunting ventures would be like pvpers in low sec hunting industrial cynos. Something of a meaningless and unrewarding pass time. Sure you shoot them if they are there but they aren’t what you are looking for.

We would also probably be having multiple forum posts asking what is CCP going to do about all the afk orcas griefing the new bros by stealing all their ore.

[Uriel_the_Flame]

Maybe gankers will have to purchase a ganking permit from CCP’s ca$h shop.

[Lucas_Kell]

@Destiny_Corrupted

Logically their statement (as short and vague as it is, anyway) makes no sense. You can’t make something “more equitable” by reducing its amount.

While I see where you’re coming from I think what they mean is that ganking is entirely one-sided, it’s practically PvE because it’s really just the gankers playing against the mechanics. I imagine what they want to aim to do is reduce that type of PvP content and increase the content in which both sides are actively involved in the fight.

@Destiny_Corrupted

So it’s quite possible that their solution will be the implementation of a new way to attack players that would make ganking a viable alternative but not the sole available method of high-sec PvP,

Entirely possible. From my perspetive as long as the end result is a reduction in the number of new players pushed out of the game by bored vets, I’m all for it.

Though looking at the direction CCP is going I personally think they’ll be implementing more P2W mechanics, and the ability to be ganked after buying a pack is bad for business, so I think that any mechanic they put in will be opt-in.

[Arya_Yeshe]

@Daekarus_Prime

I’d like to ask: what would happen if CCP was going to force “Green Safety” only in 1.0 systems in order to reduce suicide ganking?

Well… to begin with… my Perimeter ganker would cry day and night for a month and then he would move somewhere else.

@Raylan_Yutani

Did you even check zkill to see if this is actually an issue before posting? There have been maybe 3 Venture ganks in the last week in 1.0 systems. No barges or exhumers.

Make an alt in a NPC corporation and gank someone at Perimeter and see if any zkillboard about it will show up!
Well, I have to say that you could end up impressed by the fact that if no antiganker kill whores you then you will not show up on zkill for days and maybe weeks.

That is one more reason I hate kill whores.

[Ramona_McCandless]

Whats in 1.0 systems worth going there for?

[Destiny_Corrupted]

@Lucas_Kell

Though looking at the direction CCP is going I personally think they’ll be implementing more P2W mechanics, and the ability to be ganked after buying a pack is bad for business, so I think that any mechanic they put in will be opt-in.

They already have a PvP mechanic that’s opt-in; inviting other players to duels.

How many times in the history of EVE has a freighter pilot moving cargo, a miner mining Veldspar in an exhumer, or a mission-runner doing level fours in a faction-fit Golem voluntarily accepted a duel?

Exactly zero times.

As such, ganking being replaced with an opt-in mechanic will amount to a direct reduction/removal of ganking, which won’t “make PvP gameplay in Highsec more equitable” because the effective removal of something can’t make its use/consumption “more equitable,” unless they’re playing fast and loose with the understanding of the term to encompass everyone not having access to that something at all as equality.

So it’s a garbage, incomplete statement (which CCP has a habit of making), and I wouldn’t put any stock in it, let alone use it as a sign of vindication to proselytize for some kind of anti-grief moral agenda.

[Io_Koval]

@Daekarus_Prime

I’d like to ask: what would happen if CCP was going to force “Green Safety” only in 1.0 systems in order to reduce suicide ganking?

Counterproposal: What if CCP changed 0.5 systems to be considered lowsec and have lowsec criminal mechanics in order to reduce suicide ganking?

By definition, suicide ganking can only happen in high sec where CONCORD is. If 0.5 is now lowsec and has all the normal rules of lowsec, all those GANK tags you see on zkill for 0.5 systems go away.

You just have pirates per usual.

[Raylan_Yutani]

@Arya_Yeshe

Well… to begin with… my Perimeter ganker would cry day and night for a month and then he would move somewhere else.

Good point. I was forgetting alpha ganking haulers in Perimeter is still a thing.

Worth CCP’s dev time tho? Doubtful. It would just be abused by multi-boxing miners.

[Lucas_Kell]

@Destiny_Corrupted

As such, ganking being replaced with an opt-in mechanic will amount to a direct reduction/removal of ganking, which won’t “make PvP gameplay in Highsec more equitable” because the effective removal of something can’t make its use/consumption “more equitable,” unless they’re playing fast and loose with the understanding of the term to encompass everyone not having access to that something at all as equality.

Of course it will. If the goal is to have both sides equally ready and able to be in a fight then removing a mechanic that allows people to be forced into one-sided fights fulfils that goal. For it to be “more equitable” there doesn’t need to be more of it.

In your pie example, if the greedy eaters were eating 100 pies and everyone else was having one pie, then removing the ability to have more than one pie would still make it equal. It would mean a net loss of pies but the distribution of pies would be more equitable.

@Destiny_Corrupted

So it’s a garbage, incomplete statement (which CCP has a habit of making), and I wouldn’t put any stock in it, let alone use it as a sign of vindication to proselytize for some kind of anti-grief moral agenda.

Is this just wishful thinking? Because CCP have commented in a few places now about ganking affecting retention and that they want to reduce ganking. Sure, there’s every chance it could lead to nothing but I think it’s a fairly strong indicator of where they want to go. Considering they are currently rolling out a server with an entirely safe highsec in China too, it’s not farfetched to assume they actually will be looking at reducing ganking going forwards.

From their perspective if they’ve got stats that player numbers are being impacted by ganking then they’ll want to act, and considering most of the volume of ganking is carried out by a relatively small number of players, what incentive do they have to continue to pander to those players rather than try to increase retention?

Bear in mind, while I’m openly opposed to the existence of ganking, I’m unaffected whichever way CCP goes, it’s just an interesting thing to watch unfold and speculate on, particularly with so many people seemingly in denial of reality when it comes to CCPs antics over the last year or two.

[Ferdiad_Silver]

@Io_Koval

Counterproposal: What if CCP changed 0.5 systems to be considered lowsec and have lowsec criminal mechanics in order to reduce suicide ganking?

While I’m all for there being more spicy space, I think this is rather unfair to the gankers. New bros can learn and mine and be inducted into the eve community in just about any space, but ganking by the EVE definition can only happen in high sec.

I do sometimes wonder though what would happen if there was a complete removal of ‘Concorde space’ what the universe would look like. I feel like we would see things happen on a much bigger scale. There would be convoys of freighters with whole fleets protecting them moving to the player owned trade hubs that could actually maintain the level of protection needed to keep people in line around the station. Mining fleets would decend on a system with hundreds of barges and security demolishing the roids in minutes before moving on. In amongst this there would be the brave pioneers in cloaky ships darting through space around the big mega corps like a black market, hunted by the corps who want to own all the trade in the universe. The outer reaches of the galaxy would become lawless space where small groups of settlers and bandits would live and prey on eachother.

That is what I imagine anyhow.

[Daekarus_Prime]

Hi,

I maybe got a misleading perception that this was an issue brought to attention by players and that not all players appreciate this kind of gameplay (there’s an entire megathread about it with 7.1k replies, 33.3k views…)

But I see your point, for you this could not be an issue at all.

[Destiny_Corrupted]

I don’t appreciate cars that only have two doors instead of four.

Should they stop making cars with only two doors?