Indeed. I mined for hours yesterday in a noob alt in a 0.5 system and never once saw a single gankerā¦though I was several times almost trashed by the local NPCs. Iād forgotten just how underpowered noob drones are against low highsec belt rats !
And this also explains why consistently there are more noobs killed on killboard via NPCs than by gankers. Yet another FACT that Lucas simply wont allow to be a fact. I donāt need to go by killboardā¦I have experienced why myself. Noobs go to 0.6, 0.5 systems and 3 or 4 rats show up ( as occurred yesterday with meā¦and I ran away when 4 turned up, which I would never do in my Altara account ) and get zapped by the rats.
He lies endlessly, griefs, bots. Heās literally the antithesis of a good EVE player
Hereās the rub, the EVE I fight for is actually the game. Now CCP owns it, they can change it any time. However, certain changes will make EVE not EVE anymore.
Now if those do come down the pipe, Iāll most likely mosy on anyways. Unlike Lucas, I can quit vidya games
Huh. A coward. Interesting
I do all the time. Griefing doesnāt happen there.
You might feel you are engaging reasonably and disagree entirely with my representation. However I feel that on many occasions you have not discussed with me specifically in good faith and that you have justified it effectively by saying others on your side of the debate donāt argue in good faith so Iām not going to take any of you seriously. If that is your stand point then there is no discussion, it is all propoganda. It only ceases being propoganda when there is discourse between both sides.
To be clear in my original comment I didnāt single you out because you arenāt alone in this. However immediately comes to mind is a three ways to improve the game thread which has multiple times devolved into the same old tired debate. Also if you go to the anti ganking thread it is riddled with threads that started out as something else and wind up derailing to becoming anti ganking threads and ultimately got merged.
I genuinely donāt know why you would feel that way but I apologise and will look to ensure thatās not the case going forwards - assuming you donāt misrepresent or attack.
I have very specific issues with the way Lukas debates/discusses. That isnāt to say nothing he ever says isnāt a valid point, itās just very hard to engage with someone on any point when they as a whole arenāt discussing in good faith and fall to being dismissive/reductionist in most of your interactions.
By the same token itās nigh on impossible to take you seriously because you are almost exclusively using those tools. You say you are farming him for content, and itās great that you are amusing yourself. However letās not pretend itās anything more than you amusing yourself or that a wall of emoticons and āno youā is valuable to anyone but you.
And thatās your right, however in my experience few people that shout about quitting actually do quit. Itās something people like to say with almost any change that upsets their status quo. If you do I think youāll 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 thatās all that would remain.
Youāre just trying to hide your intent behind semantic obfuscation. Instead of saying āyo man, I gonna stab you for yo wallet,ā youāre saying āI 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.ā Boy, the latter sure does sound more agreeable! But itās 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. Itās not even a consideration. What does happen is that CCP makes changes to PvE, and some players leave because they donāt 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 arenāt arguing to remove some ganking, theyāre 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 thatās your intent, isnāt 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.
āSafeā in the context of EVE PvP means that someone canāt 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 isnāt detracted from just because there is the possibility to accidentally give consent by clicking the wrong thing on the screen. User error doesnāt detract from the concept of safety from others. And no one else can give consent for you.
No, they arenāt. Their odds of not taking losses are higher, but as long as the possibility of an engagement being forced upon them exists, and theyāre out in space and not docked in a station, they arenāt immune to taking PvP losses. Youāre just being straight-up dishonest right now.
No you canāt. You can take steps to significantly reduce your risks, but you canāt eliminate them entirely.
Offloading the risk of loss to someone else doesnāt 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. Heās 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 wonāt teach the nubs these ways to make them immune.
Okay, great. You can have your own definition. You just wonāt get consensus from anyone on it.
Just because youāre the best player in the game, and outplayed everyone else with your superior skills, doesnāt mean that thereās no risk inherent to the system. The risk is there, it just doesnāt affect you personally. I really donāt understand why youāre trying to argue otherwise, because itās an untenable position, especially for someone whoās 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 wouldnāt be spending any time, because the hauling would be performed during time at which you donāt normally play the game.
New players donāt just fly āsmaller ships.ā 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 canāt 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 donāt, and this isnāt merely incidental.
