Then I dont really get why you would use these instead of just ganking the target?
Unless we ARE talking about rejigging the combat system so everyone had more HP or something.
EDIT: This is all just such spagehtti logic. Just tell new players that they can get shot at any point in space and be done with it. Bank regularly and trust no one.
In what way would the combat system change specifically to highsec that would make it different from null?
It’s only got that “general ease” because it’s highsec. Without concord it would be no easier that null. Regular freighters would pretty much cease to exist for example because it would not be economically viable to go back to the olden days of having a full fleet tagging along every time you want to move a freighter. Hell, even JFs would be a problem as cynos can’t be lit in highsec. I guess in that regard it wouldn’t exactly be NPC null, in many ways it would be worse.
That’s an oversimplification. It’s not just that they take longer to destroy, they’d be able to be destroyed without losses and with smaller fleets.
Your loss. Though I think it’s amusing that you can tell me what I believe but I can’t use the term “you think” when referring to statements you’ve made.
This is incorrect. For a start any ship that is difficult to gank but is shield or armor tanked would now be easily gankable as you’d freely drop shields and armor without consequence then have a small gank fleet drop in to finish off the hull.
This is their existing tactic, and they’re haemorrhaging so many players they aren’t making money anymore.
No…what you are talking about is a complete red herring. It is your usual style of picking a word and focusing on that one word to the exclusion of all else. Classic ‘argument ad dictionarum’ You try to force the debate into your terms and definitions…that you just invent on the fly.
Your whole ‘counterplay’ nonsense is a deliberate evasion of the fact that people can avoid being ganked…something you don’t want the debate to focus on.
Just for you…
Argumentum ad dictionarium is the act of pulling out a dictionary to support your assertions. More broadly speaking, it can refer to any argument about definitions, semantics, or what label to apply to a person or idea — an actual dictionary may not be involved, sometimes the definition is purely personal, sometimes it can be a case of picking and choosing definitions raised by other sources,[2] but the end use is the same. For the most part, “dictionary” is used as a short-cut to refer to any source of these definitions, including statement such as “well, if I define X like this…”, which is possibly the most asinine form of the fallacy. See, we’ve had to head off one use of this fallacy already in case someone says, “It’s not this fallacy because I’m not using a dictionary!”
It is a form of argument from authority combining attributes of a red herring argument and, frequently, special pleading. It’s very closely related to equivocation and doublespeak. About 91.3% of arguments on the Internet tend to boil down to this.
It’s not, and if you want to focus on that by all means go ahead but since we all agree ganks can be avoided it’s not much of a discussion.
What is a discussion on which there are multiple differing views is whether or not there’s any actual counterplay, as in a way to play that directly contests another playstyle.
As I apologised too. I’ll try to avoid it in the future, but I’m sure I’ll slip up and use the same phrasing at some point. Rest assured though at no point am I actually trying to explain to you what you think, I’m simply using it as a term to explain what I understand to be your position to provide context to my responses.
The reason why are drones useless is that locking a target takes 50+ second in t1 hauler. More so if you also fitted warp stabs.
The locking time is the biggest issue on this ship class.
This is purely a thought on how we might broaden the amount of pvp happening in high sec. It is not intended to replace ganking. Yes it will be a buff to the AG movement but I doubt they will ever be organised enough to really make a dent in ganking.
Nooooo ! You can’t point out blindingly obvious fact to Lucas. You have to argue in the most contorted manner possible, via Lucas’s own dictionary where he gets to decide what every single word means. You have to also accept that ‘nope’ is a valid response to 4 paragraphs of fact, be ready to point out the same facts 50 million times as Lucas just ignores them…AND accept the fact that it is Wednesday so Lucas will be countering comments that he himself made on Tuesday.
Not so because as soon as you warp scramble them you have the same timer. These weapons would require them to want to stay and fight you. You could always just warp off to safety before they did any real harm.
Not to mention anyone in a ship fitted with high sec weaponry is not going to be in a ganking ship.
I envision these weapons giving you a suspect timer if used to aggress so it would expand the baiting playstyle to more than just looting important mission items and goading the players.
Lucas seems to have been somewhat well behaved this afternoon so can we not antagonise him? I have no issue with him if he actually discusses in good faith.
So then what would their purpose be? A freighter isn’t going to get zapped with these new modules then just choose to stick around for example, so I’m not sure what these modules would add. I’ll reread your previous comments in case I’ve missed something.
I always discuss in good faith.
I do.
My argument is that new players don’t come into EVE with veteran knowledge of EVE and so allowing them to be destroyed with ease before they learn the game reduces retention - as CCP have stated clearly.
In terms of counterplay, I’m simply stating the fact that the actual counterplay mechanic to ganing (antiganking) is not viable, and change would need to be made if both playstyles are to exist.
Oh look. Yet again you fail to get through a single post without resorting to insults.
But again the argument goes round in circles as it has already been pointed out to you that noobs are PROTECTED in no less than 35 systems where it is a violation of Eve terms to hassle under 30 day old noobs.
Their purpose would be to give the carebears of high sec a way to interact with eachother outside of the ganker gankee dynamic as I said.
If you see an orca sitting in a belt afk mining on your favourite belt, hop into a battle ship and pew pew them. (I envision drones shutting down when all modules do) then their afk play has bought them a 1 billion ship unattended on a belt and you get to keep the rocks for yourself.
If someone is doing all the combat sites in a system that you feel is yours then you can drive them off with a little pew pew.
If you see a suspected ganker alt on a gate you can pew pew them till they have no modules left to warp scramble you before you bring your freighter/marauder/transport ship through.
Arguments don’t go round and round in circles and have to have people point out the same facts again and again and again…if people are discussing in good faith. Hoping that the latest counterfactual point will slip off the page if ignored long enough is most definitely not discussing in good faith.
A situation where you make one comment on Monday and its complete opposite on Tuesday, only to return to Monday’s stance, is not acting in good faith.
A situation where you quote a graph yet deliberately omit half the text that went with it…is not discussing in good faith.
Forcing everyone to accept your dictionary definition that is a complete red herring anyway and evades how people could avoid ganking…is not discussing in good faith.
In fact it would be simpler if you just pointed out in which of your 500 posts you have discussed in good faith…as I’m far from being the only one who cannot see any.
It only goes in circles because you think that’s a solution and aren’t willing to accept that some people disagree. You say it as if that’s the argument resolved. I don’t agree. And clearly based on CCPs claims that retention is still affected they don’t either.
I just don’t see it being used. You can already just go and bump miners out of belts. They’ve even added mining crystals that can deliberately waste ore, and so far I’ve barely seen anyone using them to affect miners, not even on moon ores where arguably you can have a significant impact.
They aren’t just going to sit there though, and since you’ll become suspect they’ll just have a fast-locking, high-alpha alt there to obliterate your ship, and since you’ve got these new modules you’re unlikely to be ready to counter actual combat.
Again though, that’s not what’s happening. I’m stating my view, you’re then stating yours then you’re getting irate and attacking me when I don’t accept your opinion as a fact.
This hasn’t happened. My arguments have been entirely consistent. I oppose ganking entirely, I think it affects new player retention, I think it should be scrapped. If it is not scrapped I think it should be limited and should be balanced along with its counterplay. Those have been my views for years and they have no changed.
The reason you think they have changes is because Aiko and her minions fling unrelated arguments from every possible angle then accuse people of moving goalposts when they respond.
And there’s the other issue Lucas just doesn’t get. Certain corps effectively ‘own’ certain parts of space, and that includes highsec. Lucas acts as if ore is just free manna from heaven that anyone has the right to grab unharmed…and completely misses the fact that a miner may be mining in what is someone else’s belt. Heck, half the reason for highsec wardecs is to demolish other people’s claims to moons, ore, etc.
It is perfectly legitimate for corps that do not want miners mining their ore…to blap the non-corp miners that do mine there. Not least because there is not an infinite supply of ore every day.
In a fight over resources, ganking is quite legitimate.
Easy answer you too can bring alts to the field. The ganker will be left deciding if he blows his load and brings his catalysts to the field to gank your AG ship instead of an actual juicy target.
I’m confused. I’m sure you suggested these modules would make you suspect, in which case all they’d need is a high alpha ship to blap you off the field when you go suspect, and they won’t get concorded for it.
You see, then we have the same motivation. Maybe our opinion what would be steps into a “better” direction just differs.