I have very specific issues with the way Lukas debates/discusses. That isnât to say nothing he ever says isnât a valid point, itâs just very hard to engage with someone on any point when they as a whole arenât discussing in good faith and fall to being dismissive/reductionist in most of your interactions.
By the same token itâs nigh on impossible to take you seriously because you are almost exclusively using those tools. You say you are farming him for content, and itâs great that you are amusing yourself. However letâs not pretend itâs anything more than you amusing yourself or that a wall of emoticons and âno youâ is valuable to anyone but you.
And thatâs your right, however in my experience few people that shout about quitting actually do quit. Itâs something people like to say with almost any change that upsets their status quo. If you do I think youâll be an outlier. If all the gankers quit someone would move in to fill the vacuum. If all the high sec carebears quit someone would move in to fill the vacuum.
But you do want a 100% safe high-sec. That is what the total elimination of suicide-ganking would accomplish. The mechanic of being able to accept or decline a duel request is not risk, and thatâs all that would remain.
Youâre just trying to hide your intent behind semantic obfuscation. Instead of saying âyo man, I gonna stab you for yo wallet,â youâre saying âI am intending to engage in a scientific experiment to determine if the repeated application of a cutting instrument to the thoracic cavity can cause changes in respiratory function sufficiently quantifiable to create an environment suitable for fostering the reallocation of personal funds.â Boy, the latter sure does sound more agreeable! But itâs the exact same thing.
There are different reasons behind quitting. Some people quit because they get angry due to some kind of inconvenience, despite the product still being essentially viable for their needs. Others quit because they are simply unable to use the product anymore.
For all the gankers to quit, CCP would have to remove ganking from the game. If that were to happen, no one would move in to fill the vacuum, because there would be no vacuum to fill. How would other gankers take the place of those who quit, if ganking is no longer possible?
Hypothetically, the same could apply to the carebears, if CCP were to do something like removing all PvE from the game. But that will never happen. Itâs not even a consideration. What does happen is that CCP makes changes to PvE, and some players leave because they donât want to deal with the inconvenience of having to adapt to a different market environment. In that case, other players do move in to fill the vacuum.
But the existence of ganking is a zero/sum consideration. People arenât arguing to remove some ganking, theyâre arguing to remove all ganking. If all ganking were to be removed, gankers would no longer have a game to play. Why would they stay at that point?
Ganking is the only form of non-consensual PvP losses in high-sec. All other PvP losses are the result of expressed consent to PvP engagements. If the only way to suffer a loss is to have an engagement to which all parties must provide consent, the environment becomes 100% safe.
And your idea is horrible because to would constitute an utter lack of balance. A new player carrying 20 million ISK of Veldspar in a hauler would be a viable gank target, while a veteran carrying a set of capital BPOs in a cruiser would be fully immune.
But I guess thatâs your intent, isnât it? This was never about protecting the new players, but about protecting your ability to autopilot expensive things between trade hubs while not even looking at the game.
âSafeâ in the context of EVE PvP means that someone canât force an engagement on you. If you can only have the engagement by agreeing to the engagement, then you are safe. That concept of safety isnât detracted from just because there is the possibility to accidentally give consent by clicking the wrong thing on the screen. User error doesnât detract from the concept of safety from others. And no one else can give consent for you.
No, they arenât. Their odds of not taking losses are higher, but as long as the possibility of an engagement being forced upon them exists, and theyâre out in space and not docked in a station, they arenât immune to taking PvP losses. Youâre just being straight-up dishonest right now.
No you canât. You can take steps to significantly reduce your risks, but you canât eliminate them entirely.
Offloading the risk of loss to someone else doesnât eliminate the risk. The risk is still left in the environment.
A fundamental change like that will be the death knell of EVE, just a slow one.
It already slowly has been, esp with the war dec change which directly lead us to the upswing in HS ganking.
Shrug. Heâs welcome to think whatever he likes. But a big change like that would make it not EVE anymore. I got no interest in a game that has no risk.
Huh. Yet you wonât teach the nubs these ways to make them immune.
Okay, great. You can have your own definition. You just wonât get consensus from anyone on it.
Just because youâre the best player in the game, and outplayed everyone else with your superior skills, doesnât mean that thereâs no risk inherent to the system. The risk is there, it just doesnât affect you personally. I really donât understand why youâre trying to argue otherwise, because itâs an untenable position, especially for someone whoâs dismissed anecdotal evidence from other players, like Altara.
And now you could realize even bigger savings just by setting stuff on autopilot for the night. You wouldnât be spending any time, because the hauling would be performed during time at which you donât normally play the game.
New players donât just fly âsmaller ships.â Your idea does nothing for the new player who puts everything they own into a new battlecruiser or a faction cruiser after a week in the game. Your idea does, however, help older players who would be aware on how to exploit it to achieve absolute safety in certain activities (e.g. hauling large amounts of expensive items).
I canât perceive this as anything but the intentional use of new players as a shield in order to extract concessions from CCP that would boost your own play style. If you were truly concerned for new players getting ganked, but were in favor of older, wealthier players getting ganked, you would propose some kind of different solution that accomplishes that specifically, like for example making low-end ships easily replaceable, or making it impossible to gank in select clusters of new player training systems (but not, for example, Jita and Perimeter and Amarr). But you donât, and this isnât merely incidental.
Why am I bitter? The game, as is, is fine to me, and I play it daily (and unlike you, actually do stuff that doesnât involve only clicking things repeatedly to make my wallet grow).
But Iâm not looking or asking for changes that benefit me? I really donât know where youâre trying to go with this, but I donât think the last-ditch effort to try to armchair-psych me is going to be fruitful.
