Proposal for Rebalancing of the Suicide Gank

Been a while, but then “epic fleet battles” bore me.

How epic was it btw, what did TiDi hit?

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.

Yet the presentation involved them splitting ganking in half and calling one half “griefing”. That’s the bit that Altara keeps skipping over. The difference seems to be broadly based around whether or not it’s profitable, so CCP wants to keep in ganking of players flying expensive ships shot down for loot but not players pointlessly gunned down for no reason - which is the case most of the time in terms of new layer ganks. I’m fine with them balancing it to promote the former and reduce - or eliminate - the latter.

You mean the slide had a left and a right hand side to list the characteristics of both ganking and rookie griefing ? Yeah, looks convenient and tidy. LMAO.
That doesn’t make it half of “ganking”.
Moreover, there was also a slide with only one list showing. I wouldn’t put it beside you to now claim it was ALL of ganking. You’d do and twist anything to make your nonsense more acceptable - but only acceptable to yourself. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


But ganking isn’t griefing bruv.

That’s the part you keep missing :smiley:

Also, newbs got systems to be protected in already.

And lets not forget now with alphas, it is insanely hard to actually parse who is officially a nub or not.

He’s a confessed griefer you know, he knows what he’s talking about. He may flag it, as he did, but he still confessed.

1 Like

They had ganking split into two lists, they called one griefing, the other ganking. That’s all I was saying, Mr. Argumentative.

think about what you wrote. It’s there, lol. I’m so sorry if you don’t see the irony, but we’ll help you spot it. Just like we often help rookies in becoming better pilots (which may involve some live fire).

Always want the final word ? That’s quite ambitious on a public forum :rofl:

what ?!

Oh, that old story with the duel ? Nah, that was a clone positioned conveniently close.

And to stay on topic: perhaps suicide ganking and hisec ganking in general could be made more interesting. Why does it always have to be catalysts ? Why not add a second option or a third, ccplease ?

Here Gix is going to tell you and ever increasingly elaborate story falsely claiming I made an account to grief someone.

I haven’t the quote to hand Lucas, but I don’t recall CCP’s dividing the incidence of griefing within the ganking community as a 50/50 split. Numbers are important. Perhaps you’ll let me know.

The Company’s recent commitment to tackling griefing seems to have arisen not just as a response to perceived misbehaviour within a minority playstyle community, but more generally within the game, and to some extent, outside of it.

You can see the problem; if griefing is bad and wrong, it is bad and wrong wherever it occurs in EVE, and must be eliminated or punished game-wide. Griefing is griefing; it doesn’t change its nature according to the activity in which the player is engaged.

The problem CCP will have is arriving at a definition of ‘griefing’ which both suits the Company’s intentions and seems reasonable to the player-base.

This is another thorny one. Your view, I know, is that ganking should be limited to ‘profitable’ targets (not ‘profitable new player targets’, presumably’).

Of course, this would rule out ‘empty’ vessels, some Ventures, and most barges and exhumers, unless they’re fitted with expensive modules which might drop, or valuable cargo, or mined materials.

Which would mean that only comprehensively scanned ships could be ganked, thereby introducing to the activity a compulsory element in addition to other considerations.

Perhaps they should make ship scanning less fiddly (than I find it).

All that’s really necessary is CCP’s support for the notion of Permits. If pilots pay a fee to the ganker (or any pirate, scallywag), they’ll be permitted to mine, haul, whatever, with some limitations.

O wait…

I think he’s already clarified it above. He just meant, divided into 2 lists, not numerically in half in terms of occurrence. One half of the slide they outlined griefing and the other half outlined ganking.

The presentation, like all at Fanfest wasn’t a definitive definition of what is griefing and what is ganking. It was an explanation that CCP currently see two distinct patterns - ganking, which is fine; and griefing - which they have a problem with, with no numbers presented either way in terms of how significant either is.

The two examples were just that - examples.

So between “new player in a new player ship with no cargo” and “veteran in a bling ship” there are a whole lot of other cases that they didn’t address at all; and we’ll eventually see, if CCP ever make a change, what falls out of that.


Yet more of your utter dishonesty. No, they did not ‘split ganking in half’.

Yes, he did, and the clarification is welcome.

I left the comment in because I too am quite particular about what people say and what they might mean.

I get in a muddle sometimes, so I guess we can all improve.

1 Like

I like when he spam reports me :smiley:

Nothing else tells me how desperate he is ROFL.

Can you imagine?

Someone being that bothered by words on the internet LOL.

1 Like

It’s not my fault that you’re a ■■■■. :clown_face:

1 Like

Flagging the post doesn’t change that fact, asshat. :clown_face:

1 Like

When one cannot debate, cancel!

We are back to “every post is flagged except Lucas’ posts” and “straight up insults” of “basement-dwelling incel” lore.

Quoting since someone is a serial deleter-of-posts.