You realize this is your opinion again right bruv?
You’re confusing it with fact 
With griefing. Not ganking. As it has been pointed out to you several times. LOL. You give me strong secondhand embarrassment bruv. Imagine lying this hard about a vidya game.
I truly am embarrassed for you.
So shall we make an accord to just ignore Grampy Kells then?
The discussion isn’t around !accepted" though, it’s a ludicrous claim that the majority have no issue with ganking, even though there’s no way to quantify that. Logging in does not mean you have no issues with ganking.
Again, you you did not understand what I said. I did not say "no issue with ganking”:
Please reread what I wrote, again. Do try this time.
Hint: you don’t have to “support ganking” and you “can have issue with ganking”. But people that log in, ultimately, accept it is in the game. People that truly have “problems with ganking” do not log in.
Yeah, I’ve read it mate. I get it, you’re trying to paint the picture that anyone logging in is fine with ganking. It’s simply not true though. And considering it’s off the back of one of your little mates claiming that support for ganking is a majority view it’s not exactly hard to see where you’re trying to go with it.
And CCPs issue is that ganking is causing churn, so it’s literally causing people to not log into the game.
Quite literally not what I am saying:
You work hard for your reputation.
Mm no, that’s griefing bruv.
You seem to be confused again
Then you know he’s right
Any negative outcome can be argued to cause churn. As can any activity a player ‘has’ to do in order to be competitive that they do not like. People do not like to lose, but inevitably some people will.
Whatever CCP says, if it changes the rules now it will be an admission that they believe there aren’t enough players with the ability to cope with loss left to sustain the game moving forward. I see no evidence that there is a serious problem with gankers targeting and stalking newbies to make them quit, and what few there might be are already subject to disciplinary action if caught.
If ganking is a threat serious enough to take active measures to protect against, then there are active things to do that discourage ganking or defend against it. Remote reps, webbing into warp, ECM jammers, warp disruptors, or just old fashioned guns will work if you have enough of them to blap a target before CONCORD shows up. Players who maintain there’s no ‘active’ defense just don’t want to put effort into having an active defense.
If you want to argue that’s boring and you shouldn’t have armed guards wasting time waiting for an attack, then I would argue gankers are twiddling their thumbs while waiting for a suitably vulnerable target and could complain that there is no ‘active’ counter to a well prepared mining group. It seems fair to me.
The possibility of loss, in my opinion, should be ever present. New or old you should have a plan to cope with losing whatever ship or stations you put in space. Players should be made aware in no uncertain terms that loss is a fact of life in New Eden and that they need to either prepare for it or save themselves the time and quit there and then.
That CCP does not make this clear, and further muddies the water with their presentations, is frustrating. They are trying to have their cake and eat it too. That’s why these arguments go nowhere. They look both sides square in the face and say we agree with you both and promise you that both of you can play the way you want when it is clear to most of us that’s not possible.
So it has to be the view of the majority to justify its existence as a game mechanic?
I’m pretty sure this is a logical fallacy.
Yes. He is the only person in my forum history I have ever put on a lifetime ignore. It’s very nice, 10/10 would recommend. It cuts down the number of new posts on the forum each day by probably 45%. Now if you guys would stop quoting him I would never have to know he’s here at all:)
It can, but it’s a cost/benefit analysis, right? The problem with ganking is that it’s overwhelmingly negative as a mechanic. It’s very much one-sided and engaged in only by a relatively small number of people that affect a large number of newbies.
Not really, it’ll just be an indicator that ganking has got out of control. Bear in mind that when I joined EVE, the idea of being ganked as a new player with no value was completely unheard of. It wasn’t really a big thing until about a decade ago and it’s become increasingly about salt mining over financial or strategic gain.
None of these really work as you tend to need more people with counters than there are gankers and the pilots involved have to be significantly more skilled and put more ISK on the line. All for very little gain. It shouldn’t take a fleet of people just to move around highsec.
That’s all well and good for you to say as a veteran player with plenty of options to recover from a loss. New players don’t have those options yet, hence CCP stating that churn tends to come from their lack of ability to bootstrap back into their ships after a loss.
This I agree with, just the solution we differ on. I think they should ban ganking and advertise it, then watch as nearly no paying veterans actually leave the game but plenty of new players join. The claims that people would abandon the game in droves is something I genuinely don’t see as a reality. Very few people care that much about ganking.
Nope. I’m not the one claiming that the majority holds a given view. I just pointed out to Altara that she can’t possibly claim that the majority support ganking based solely on how many people on C&P argued on each side of the debate. I’d bet that the majority view is that most people don’t care one way or another about the existence of ganking in highsec.
That’s like ignoring a dentist’s drill, or an underfoot child.
I happen to agree with this. Most people probably aren’t aware or just don’t care.
And that is not a reason for a re-design of ganking in hisec. But since neither you nor anyone else has a shred of evidence for that statement, similar to the “discussion” on small ship losses and massive rookie griefing, it’s an empty statement.
“Perhaps” the majority of people accept it as part of the game…
He’s bullying people out of the forums, or into blocking him, so he can continue his personal joke. One of the ways he’s doing this is by flagging, of course. Just another level of toxicity.
I didn’t suggest it was a reason. The reason is that it’s an unabalanced mechanic, creates more negative gameplay than positive and reduces retention.
That’s a funny claim considering gankers have repeatedly pushed out anyone that disagreed with them for several years. You can go look at the old forums and see the same going on there. Anyone who disagrees with gankers is immediately pounced on by groups of gankers and are insulted, misrepresented and berated until they give up. The reason you guys get so emotional about me posting is because I don’t buckle.
these aren’t your forums, where only you do the talking.
Perhaps not, but your mirror cracked…
Droll troll cabaret indeed.
Because unlike you I don’t sit on my ass in Jita but have half a dozen characters all doing completely different things ( including ganking ) and getting a wide variety of people’s views.
When’s the last time you were in an epic fleet battle ? I was in one just half an hour ago.
That is where you are disingenuous…because CCP never stated there was a problem with ganking, per se. In fact the presentation ended with ‘gankers you are safe’. You keep trying to mis-represent things.
I take this to imply that ganking, as in ‘suicide ganking in Highsec’ as a discrete playstyle, is both supported and protected, and will continue to be so until something occurs to change the Company’s mind.
It doesn’t mean that CCP won’t continue to seek what it considers to be ‘balance’, which might involve nerfing or buffing the activity.
If CCP agrees with Lucas, we may expect to see something along the lines of an expansion of active counter-play options and increased invulnerability for genuinely new players.
More generally, the Company seems to be determined to address griefing (which is by no means limited to a single playstyle).
Lucas appears to believe that ganking is the source of most of the griefing, but CCP cannot limit its scope in that way. It must address the issue across the broader cultural spectrum of the game. I think this is likely to be a particularly thorny problem for CCP.
If, on the whole, CCP disagrees with Lucas, we may see changes of which he might approve paired with others of which he may not.
Either way, the wrangle is likely to continue.