It’s so easy people make a profit suicide ganking in high sec.
Always at gates too because if they undock they can redock before invul fades.
Mmm I’m going to go with a big no hoss. I do not believe you kill people LOL.
So in other games you’re good, but in EVE you suck and die to gate camps?
Uh huh.
Hear me out bruv, maybe, just maybe, they outplayed you and you died 
Oh I know. They make so much money my pirate self was heavily considering just joining them.
But they make profit because people are lazy and stupid.
Suicide ganking makes the ORE i mine worth something. It makes the modules i find great loot drops. And it means that the salvage i find in relic sites has a value if i get it home safely.
As destiny said a massive amount of destruction occurs on high sec gates. That’s our economy.
I keep saying “be careful what you wish for”. Because many of the players that are being vocal about ganking and how it should be abolished will get annoyed when a whole day of mining nets 5mill isk and the return on rare modules tanks because there is no demand.
Nobody should have a ship for life. The game would break.
2 Likes
Being pointed by some hasbin’s sensor boosted alt with what appeared to be smartbombs in space with lights and bubbles full of castles in the sky is simply not good gameplay. It’s good defense because the only thing that can beat that is a bigger force. At least warping in randomly gives players a chance to breathe within a system. Don’t get me wrong, there are low effort gate campers because those are the ones people get away from, but at the end of the day the gate bottleneck makes it too easy. Remember all those structures in high sec and how there’s a whole lot less now? Just own sov or erect a structure if you want pvp but like I said, you guys don’t want to actually risk anything and just want free kills. I wouldn’t be surprised that people who put these memes that get parroted around here have something to lose if their operations out in null were interrupted but bottle necks do create a lot of safety for the larger powers when in real life, the larger powers typically have problems with smaller powers. America wasn’t formed because they had more numbers.
I earned my bubbles full of castles, and you can’t take them away from me.
2 Likes
I literally make more isk reprocessing items than selling them in the market because the market buys it under reprocess value while the sellers are sometimes selling below reprocess level but often times it’s not good enough to take advantage of.
Not all items though. One should always take the time to actually check live.
Firstly you really arnt going to reprocess a faction cap battery with an estimated value of 100mill are you? I don’t care how good your reprocessing skills are ……….thats dumb.
Secondly……so thats what you are doing now. While stuff is blowing up on gates. How is that going to change if your change as implemented and stuff isnt blowing up on gates? YOu really think the economy wont change?
The economy will change when some nullhead leader runs a propaganda effort and shakes hands with another power bloc to provide content. If you pay attention to the market you can even garner some wisdom from what people are using in their pvp fits but it requires looking at the graph and tables but I think I’m the only one who does that.
So why is it a good idea to change gate mechanics to make a large amount of ships immune to being ganked/hunted etc.
You get that that will just ripple through the markets with prices of everything going down. Which for some things thats ok. But for miners……? Ore prices are bad enough without reducing their demand through nerfing destruction.
Drag bubbles, smart bombs, and combat probes would prove that claim invalid but people just don’t want to put in the effort for their kills. In a game like eve sitting at a gate takes no effort and if any error is made it’s because of a lack of attention due to boredom of just staring at the same thing. Whenever that happens to people in a fast paced fps game, even if they’re camping, they’ll get owned by the guy running around the corner whose state of mind is not as low due to boredom watching the same thing.
In games where players can spawn randomly on the map, you can be solo against a full team and even win the game if you’re that much better than your foes. Gate camping reduces skill and strategy more than anything else. Because let’s be real, I bet these people have alt accounts specifically to closing whs while taking the pod express back. No risk. No consequence. Easy and safe kills.
Also, the only people who get the shakes in eve are people who do put things on the line. So pod squishing and being bored at a gate camp ain’t doing it. People most certainly ain’t going to risk if they understand there’s a sizeable force on the other side and people not in a power bloc, that’s a presumption they carry with them which causes behavior that keeps them out of those areas of space. No body in their right mind enjoys putting in substantial time just to lose it without even having a fighting chance and that is the most common form of death in eve online.
You talk about flawed logic and cognitive bias. Let me ask you this -are you familiar with the bias blindspot? Did you know that if you ask people if they are less biased than the average person, like 95% (I don’t remember the exact number) will say yes -which, of course, is mathematically impossible.
We are all prone to cognitive biases -including me; including you. It’s human nature. It’s how our brains think. And, quite frankly, I think you are not only blind to your own flawed logic and cognitive biases, but using these things as an excuse to dismiss other people’s play styles, values, and arguments out of hand.
Don’t believe me? Where is your evidence that CCP designed Eve to be a PvE game, that they designed Eve to have PvP-free zones, or that they have ever tried to prohibit “non-consensual PvP”? There is, however, plenty of evidence that CCP designed Eve to be a PvP game, and that they fully intended for non-consensual PvP to be allowed.
- The name “Eve” literally stands for “Everyone Versus Everyone.”
- There are no PvP-free zones -not even HS. CCP didn’t accidentally implement mechanics that allow for, or balance, the various forms of HS PvP.
- Eve is not separated into PvE and PvP servers.
- The fact that there are mechanics that specifically provide for non-consensual PvP (i.e. a delay in concord response, a safety that can be turned off, and kill rights) indicate that non-consensual PvP was by design, and not an accident born of an oversight.
Your talk of social contracts is irrelevant because… and stick with me here… this is a competitive game, and not a society. I mean, do you talk of social contracts when playing Parcheesi or tennis?
This is an absolutely absurd statement that I don’t even know how to address. Like, it’s not just wrong -it’s absurd. Every area of space allows for PvP and non-consensual PvP (including HS). Thus, if there are areas of space that people can PvP in without impacting your game play, it has nothing to do with designated PvE and PvP areas. These areas exist only because you do not play in those areas.
Second, you are literally arguing for the destruction of other people’s play styles because you are either incapable of or unwilling to adapt to the competitive nature of the game. So, you might want to get off of your high horse.
Look, if you don’t want to play a highly competitive PvP game that features non-consensual PvP, don’t play a highly competitive PvP game that features non-consensual PvP. Go play Elite Dangerous or something, and stop lobbying to destroy other people’s play styles.
Oh, and by the way, the fact that you are filling your guys heads with your nonsense pisses me off. You’re teaching a new generation of players to be whiny victims that don’t know how to adapt to adversity, and who don’t value the entire player ecosystem. You are a terrible member of our community.
4 Likes
Ok take my cov ops example from earlier.
Bubbles. If i only need to worry about a gate I’m flying to then i just activate my nullifier. Then I’m immune. Unlike now where bubbles on both sides could catch me as the cooldown for the module is long. more importantly NOT USABLE IN HIGH SEC.
Smartbombs. See above. I’m going to be through and at the gate jumping as the gate decloaks. Good luck with that.
Combat Probes. It takes me less than than 4 seconds to nullify, align, warp and cloak. Assuming the people are notified I’ve arrived in system and hit a system scan instantly. I’m not there by the time the probes cycle.
While I don’t object to a change if its a good change. This is just making my gameplay (which is already fairly easy if patient) super op in terms of being immune to threats while travelling.
Not everyone flies that and it’s a fact. Stop presuming everybody is like you. Not everyone can be a Tom Brady.
I’m not presuming everyone flies like me.
I’m pointing out a play style (and there are many others) that would have immunity if your suggested change was implemented. And i think thats an issue.
1 Like
I could say the same thing to you, since it took multiple and repeated attempts to get you to understand Higgs mining flying in lieu of your preferred way of mining away from warp-in and doing an uncloaked – so it doesn’t have the “trick” in “MWD-warp trick” – MWD cycle to get to warp in 10s.
Forgive me if as a reader and forum participant I am initially skeptical of your suggestion and read the follow-on responses – which shed no light on the depths of the idea – as a continued reflection of its author’s behavior of shallow thinking and hasty and off-the-cuff-dismissal of alternative viewpoints.
Back when I last mined, there was no higgs.
That is demonstrably false. Having a bigger force is, of course, an advantage, but smaller groups can and do take on gatecamps. In fact, you can even find videos of solo players using on and off-grid separation to isolate and kill gatecamp members.
Second, there is nothing saying that you have to fight back. It is easy incredibly easy to avoid gatecamps with a modicum of effort, and it is even possible to run gatecamps depending on their comp and what you’re flying.
Thus, I dispute the notion that gatecamping is unbalanced. The people who die to gatecamps are the same people who die to ganking -those that are lazy, impatient, and/or unknowledgeable. And making it harder to catch people in gatecamps won’t make things more “fair”; it will just make it so that inexperienced and terrible players can do stupid stuff without getting punished for it.
1 Like
It’s interesting how going into null is stupid.
Yeah, and that’s the nature of the game being played. There are no rules designed to enforce “fair fights,” like matchmaking based off of skill or even team sizes.
However, that does not mean that Eve isn’t fair. We all play by the same rules. We all have access to the same tools. And, for better or for worse, PvP avoidance is an easy skill to learn.
Personally, I think that hunting is already balanced heavily in favor of prey (as it should be). The problem, however, is that too many players would rather lobby for their enemies to be nerfed, rather than learn how to be hard targets. I mean, easy kills exist because player make themselves soft targets.
Don’t want to be food for wolves? Maybe stop rubbing yourself in puppy chow and running naked through the forest.
2 Likes
A response asserting ignorance does little to sway me from my previous opinon. When I last played before my decade hiatus, there were no citadels, only POSs. That doesn’t excuse an ignorance of citadels now.
There are people who have a playstyle, when applied to today’s game mechanics, that results in a certain risk profile. They can either adjust their playstyle in the face of the mechanics, to reduce their risk. Or continue to fly in “their way”, accepting of those risks.
What makes no sense is trying to drum up a grassroots forum outrage about which of those ship-flying styles ought to be the least risky way, especially with ill-thought out concrete proposals that might address the risk but most likely give EvE Online novel and awful side-effects.
As an example, for the “cloaky camping” change, there were two parts: 1) The CSM successfully argued that “cloaky camping” ought not to have the risk profile it had, and 2) CCP made changes that strike a balance. Your proposal brushes over 1 and goes straight to 2, which isn’t convincing on either point: 1) what ought to be and 2) how to mechanically do it.
1 Like