Proposal for Rebalancing of the Suicide Gank

Seems like you didn’t have a fun time in nullsec, and ended up with big fleets. However… equating that with all that nullsec has to offer is not a balanced opinion. Plenty of people here fly solo, duo, jump in quick response fleets, go scouting, do small/medium roam groups. I know that’s not for you, but maybe it is for anyone else.

Sucks to have to be in fleets once in a while ? Not at all. Behind the curtain a small group of people do a ton of work to keep the operation going, provide content, (relative) safety, and income so that members have a good time. It’s only normal to be requested to at least make a token effort to defend the space you live in… and fair from the “trading” player’s side. Don’t worry, your sell orders never sleep and never log off :rofl:

I had plenty of fun in nullsec, but mandatory fleets were necessary for some of my characters to retain positions that gave them access to markets and those were dull. For the most part I prefer smaller gang NPSI fleets.

I didn’t say it wasn’t normal. I just said it wasn’t boring and denied the accusation levelled at me that I’ve claimed sov fleets are somehow skilled PvP - something I’ve never said.

Hmmm, sounds like you never FC’d. Sure the fleet members have to do as told, and for good reason. Most FC’s I’ve flown with were/are highly skilled pvp’ers for that type of combat. But don’t let that be a point of debate in this thread.

I do, which is why I made a thread detailing how the nubs should be educated.

They don’t need to be invulnerable. They need knowledge :smiley:

Sure you do bruv. You don’t even know about manual flying :smiley:

You know he hasn’t. You know he was just an F1 monkey himself :smiley:

1 Like

I’m curious, is there anything you won’t argue about?

Pot meet kettle ROFL.

1 Like

Of course, trading for instance, as you know.
Arguing ? Not at all, just fixing your errors.
You downplaying nullsec pvp or hisec gankers, as often as you do, simply evokes/provokes the necessary response, especially if you’re not really knowledgeable about the subject. No need to get upset if someone responds on a public forum, get a smaller bullhorn perhaps ?

1 Like

What error did I make? Someone claimed that I thought nullsec PvP was skilled PvP. I didn’t so I stated so. I get that you think it requires some skill, I still disagree, neither of us is likely to change our minds and there’s no objective answer to purely subjective question, so that’s that.

Oh don’t worry, I’m not upset, I just find it endlessly fascinating that this is where you choose to direct your comments. Clearly at some point I triggered you so now following me around telling me you think I’m wrong is your new hobby.

You just need that attention don’t ya bruv? :smiley:

I love how we define your life :smiley:

1 Like

In this age of public platforms, especially if they span the globe and not just 15 yards around a soapbox in Speakers’ Corner, it is increasingly important to establish a counter to what is clear nonsense. Saying that nullsec pvp’ers are unskilled is clearly nonsense (you deny ever thinking that nullsec pvp’ers were skilled). Where EvE is concerned, and its new players especially, I notice your endless repetition of a particularly myopic vision on the game does not help anyone, if not worse.

On the subject of this thread for instance, a rebalance of suicide ganks can be either upwards (making it easier) or downwards. The keyword is “balance”. My view, which I posted in the megathread on “nerf ganking” and which you completely ignored, explained that balance can be achieved in a variety of ways, and most likely needs to be achieved via combination of several elements. Moreover, the shape of suicide (and other) ganking is a direct consequence of several design choices that all interplay, even up to the location of starter systems.

Nerfing ganking into the ground, or making players temporarily untouchable, or preventing other players from entering hisec for extended periods, are not balanced solutions. Saying that there is no counterplay against ganking because you don’t consider avoiding ganks valid counterplay, is also wrong. Besides avoidance there is also “shooting back”, it’s a pvp game, and the game’s rules allow it.

Does that make it clearer ?


He won’t agree. That would mean having to accept he is wrong :smiley:

1 Like

That’s why these darn threads get so long

1 Like

Oh very true. I just enjoy farming him for content.

He’s sad right now and attempting to ignore me because my exchange with DC hit him a little too close to home.

What’s funny is he repeated this same pattern with his other alt. I’m sure he’ll cycle this one out eventually and come back in with a new one eventually.

1 Like

He’s ignoring me as well, since I caught him red handed abusing the flagging system with his army of alts, called him out on it, and set him up.


And he took the bait, hook, line, and sinker.

1 Like

I mean, nullsec PvPers can of course be skilled, but sov null PvP requires little to no skill.

Balanced solutions get rejected by gankers who start saying “well if you make it harder by doing X you have to give us a buff too!” usually in demanding the complete removal of concord. I’ve long given up on the idea that any compromise can be found, so purge the whole playstyle and move on.

Of course I won’t agree. Why would I agree with someone who is objectively wrong?

Of course a balanced compromise needs to be established, because this is your, my, everyone’s game, regardless of playstyle. Purging is not a compromise.

Of course, shooting back or avoiding a ship loss are “objectively wrong” solutions. Vets teaching how to do it is “objectively wrong”. Your view that there shouldn’t be any need to avoid or to shoot back is “objectively right”. That’s the gist of it. Please make the “bad” people go away.

How do you expect to be taken serious ? By endless repetition ? No way …

1 Like

Again, compromise has been suggested and repeatedly rejected. Therefore purge.

I don’t expect you to take me seriously, since you and your ilk reject the views of anyone not nodding along with you without consideration.

You know, you could regain the benefit of the doubt if you made a single attempt at coming up with a balanced solution, one that was previously “rejected” perhaps. It would move the discussion to more constructive debates. It seems that you are now the one who rejects any compromise and consideration. Just saying…

1 Like

I think balanced compromise is CCP’s job, not ours.

We have no power to implement any change, so the only thing we can do is put our own individual views and any evidence we have; and when CCP do come to effecting change, hope they consider all information, including discussions in the forum.

Looking for compromise is futile unless everyone is looking for a compromise. Only those willing to compromise lose out, since the people with an absolute position won’t budge. That just leads to frustration, not only because if you compromise but they don’t that leads to a win:lose position (which isn’t what compromise should be about), but also because as soon as you move, they see it as validation of their absolute position and double down.

It would be great if everyone came to the forum with an open mind, but ganking in particular is very emotive and emotions tend to close people’s thinking down.

Might be a jaded view to have, but after trying to compromise for so long in discussions here over the years, it just never occurs.


100% agreed.

These discussions are often flashes in the pan, the thread is a lightning rod, this one in particular after the megathread got closed. Too often it’s a question of balancing out the number of posts from one side vs. the other. It doesn’t lead anywhere, but only demonstrates that mindsets and opinions differ.

Even if players can reach a compromise, a balanced “solution” to a perceived problem, it still needs to pass the acid test with ccp. Still, I think CCP does read these forums and others like it, and do try to gauge the opinion, perhaps even identify some new points. Not that they will find evidence in the mere number of posts on this or that side.