troll thread to stir up ■■■■ ?
do you even know that the Amarr trade hub is in a 1.0 system ?
1 Like
Hello Raylan,
I was not familiar with this zkillboard website, so thank you for having introduced me to it.
If that’s the case then I guess I have overestimated the issue for 1.0.
I wonder if the same applies to all high sec though.
Truly?
Imagine you phase out 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8, and 0.9 sec space to low sec mechanics over time. What you’ll see are two kinds of pilots congregating in the remaining shrinking parts of high sec: newbros and carebear bittervets. It’ll be quite obvious that the newbro venture is struggling to find rocks in an available belt in a shrinking high sec because carebear bittervets – whose hoovering up with orca fleets+hulk alts, and are usually spread out – is now densified and much more visibly and tangibly in competition, wrecking the new guys.
That’s some of the strongest motivation for:
- gankers receiving sympathy for ganking in the remaining high sec space, because it is the only reliable way for a newbro to be up-leveled and have space carved out for them
- the newbros to develop a better sense of appreciation for a ganker’s role in instilling fear in bittervet carebears trying to just vacuum up ISK, maybe they also become gankers early on to make isk from PVP
- gives ample reasons and opportunities to newbros to venture into lowsec to cross into high sec islands. Who knows, maybe they’ll learn to live out in lowsec and get out of high sec
- gankers now have a very easy time looking for targets.
The kinds of players that think “theyre being harassed” by being on the wrong side of ganking would look at this proposal as an attack on their playstyle, if only because it literally exposes the ugly truth: they are a X-year-old-newbro that hasn’t grown up. That’s who they’re playing alongside with. They’re not actually interested in addressing ganking. They just want a “wealth goes up” game, and the starting space happens to be one of the least risky and least social way to do it.
Actual newbros next to them wouldn’t be shackled by rose tinted glasses of the past and can grab their own Eve life by the horns. It doesn’t matter the “kind” of space they fly in.
That thread is a bit miss leading. The majority of talking is done by a handful of people arguing at cross purposes or in bad faith. It has become a hive of trolling and shitposting.
There are people that have a problem with ganking, however when you listen to their expectations they are wholly unreasonable and unrealistic. One person wanted to be able to run one mission in high sec in a 2billion ship and have it pay for the ship in a single mission! Even the best sites in nul sec won’t pay out 2billion in a single site. Then there is a guy that wants to make all T1 frigates completely immune to ganking and sticks their head in the sand any time someone comes up with completely reasonable responses to how that is open to a lot of abuse.
The core problem seems to be that players who want to stay in high sec and commit expensive ships in the field don’t like ganking because they can lose those ships. They then co-opt an idea that ganking is harming new player retention as though new players are really on the ganker’s radars. The gankers are worried that their play style might get nerfed if they don’t shout just as loud as those calling for nerfs and the whole thing dissolves into pettiness.
3 Likes
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!
To you. I don’t think a small handful of players should be able to farm thousands of newbie kills with zero risk and think CCP should balance their gameplay like they would with any other mechanic if it got out of control to those levels.
Show me a “completely reasonable response” then. Because almost all of their responses were “Veteran players who can already move infinite values of small items will suddenly start doing so on autopilot in ventures” or my favourite “People will make thousands of alpha accounts and start a hauling empire using frigates”.
How can you possibly think criticisms like that are valid but pointing to CCP literally telling us that ganking affects new player retention isn’t?
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
Citation wanted. It’s not needed.
CCP Rise said that, 7 years ago based on flawed data that arbitrarily only looked at ganks occurring with 15 days of account creation. If someone got ganked on day 16+ and left, it didn’t count. And since the chance of a newbie leaving increases as the amount of progress they lose increases he pretty much coerced the stats to fit the conclusion he wanted.
In the 2022 fanfest though CCP stated quite clearly that ganking affects new player churn rates and that they are looking to bring in changes to address that.
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