after all your belly aching…could you please show us on the Charon where the mean ol’ gankers touched you?
1 Like
OR you could just stop spamming nonsense without a proof. It’s funny how the number of posts with BS claims have increased lately…
1 Like
And this comes from someone who has been affiliated with PH , who happens to do suicide ganking … I couldn’t expect for less.
I’m sorry , but I don’t use Charon . I have a PLEX tanked Tayra.
well in that case go take a shower…I think i can smell you from here, go spoon the sand out of your Hoo-Ha while your at it.
I prefer to stand here and watch how people like you put to shame the Eve community . You can go and take that attitude and language to your parents home.
That smell must be the dead horse he’s beating.
1 Like
So you are here just to troll us all with your logical fallacies and inability to back up your own claims. Got it. Good luck in the game.
3 Likes
Check how many suicide ganks happen in Uedama , then draw conclusions. I don’t know what movie are you running in your head that made you come up with the idea that I’m trolling here …
Uedama is not all of high sec. Extrapolation against all of high sec based on a narrow case study of a travel bottle neck for lazy players is not going to give you accurate data.
Your continued shifting of the measures that should be used to substantiate your goal is a mark of failing to do any research ahead if time and not knowing what you are talking about; you are grasping at straws to support fallacious arguments, and attacking the people who call you on your failed logic.
Also: if you want me to look at data for Uedama: post the data. It is your job as the person establishing an argument to provide the evidence - no matter how easy it is for the audience to find it themselves, the burden is on the person making the argument to provide the supporting data.
2 Likes
You have to go through lowsec if you want to avoid Uedama system , if you want to move from Caldari space and Gallente space or vice versa , or you could wait and use a direct highsec wormhole.
You speak of laziness , but you too are too lazy to check zkill data …
I am not too lazy to check. The burden is on you to link to the specific data you are using to support your argument. This ensures that all parties are using the same data set and have the same information at their fingertips to discuss. Your refusal to provide the data you are looking at means nobody can share your experience with said data.
Uedama is not a necessary route to anywhere - nor is it a death sentence to travel through. You can in fact dip through low sec, or intelligently navigate Uedama as a system. The fact that a lot of players are too lazy to actually prepare themselves for the likelihood of a gate camp or gankers doesn’t mean CCP needs to change the games rules to coddle them.
2 Likes
It is pulled from the Eve ESI by zkill and I don’t have to copy/paste it here , the data is there and it’s legit. This will be my last reply to you , as you are a person that can’t be reasoned with.
Says the guy who won’t even link to the specific zKill page he is reviewing. How is that an unreasonable ask to ensure everyone has the same data set?
You could at least pretend your arguement is convincing by presenting the stats to back up your case. Nothing unreasonable about asking for this.
A great example can be seen from Scipio Artelius earlier in this thread, where he presented stats to dismantle your original claim that it was ganking in mission hubs that was the problem (I see you’ve widened your brush to all ganking since then).
Or you could stop smashing your head against this wall, accept that the survival rate of snowballs in Hades gives better odds than your proposal becoming a reality, and do something in-game that actually makes a difference.
3 Likes
Yes, it is enough to post where you got the data if its easy enough to search, and it is. No need for a link in that case, but I will still say a link is more helpful, always.
But some systems/ areas get targeted for ganking. That usually means ganking pilots moved from one system/area to another. I do not believe that ganking has increased overall for years and years.
I am not a fan of ganking mechanics myself and I think the whole system needs reworked. I think your proposal of safetys to red in high sec makes logical sense, in other words, its exactly what would be expected in any application of IRL logic to this video game. And I tend to favor that thinking in general, although I do have appreciation for those who like the more comic book notion of a crazy world where nowhere is safe despite all the power that exists to make it safe. The latter thinking does guarantee action.
However, the change you propose would need to be coordinated with other changes as, like it or not, ganking is an entire playstyle now and that die was cast long ago. In fact, a lot of changes were already implemented to make it easier to avoid getting ganked, and some of those changes would probably need rolled back.
But its very unlikely any ideas we propose will ever be implimented. So one of the best suggestions ever is to just get used to EVE as it is. Players can avoid getting ganked 100 percent if they really, really want to. (but it will be more work than fun, which is a bit odd for a GAME.) But I do think, in 1.0, 0.9 and 0.8 systems, at least, for the sake of new players, making it impossible to get ganked there would not be so bad. Heck, it could be made into a place where Concord is so efficient you get to shoot whoever you want, but Concord is so fast you won’t get through shields before they come target break and warp scram you, hold you there while telling you to behave, and let you go after 5 minutes. That would give people more PVP experience before they enter 0.7 systems where Concord issues harsher punishment because they are not as efficient there.
No it’s not. There is nothing in zkillboard that says “ganking increased”.
He is the one making such a claim so he is the one having to bring evidence. Asking other people to do his own job IS laziness.
So if he actually has no data back his claim, then this is rumor mongering which is forbidden by the EULA.
Too bad, I expected someone to actually have interesting data. That teasing and that let down … What a troll.
What? @Mkikaden_Tiragen comment was entirely correct and to the point, as are all her posts in every thread where she participates.
The OP pretending he’s entitled to have only CSM members reply to him in this thread just because he choose to post it in this forum was ■■■■■■■■ — as is his whole “proposal” and his “reasons”, btw.
Heck, I would have replied to that self-entitlement ■■■■■■■■ along the same lines myself, but @Mkikaden_Tiragen did it much better than I would have…
3 Likes
OP, really, as others have pointed out already, you don’t know what you’re talking about. You don’t seem to even understand how you’re failing to provide the evidence to support your claims that you’re being asked to provide…
Yes, we may all check zKill to see how much ganking happens and where, but that does not show what you’re claiming it shows. It just shows that suicide ganking happens in high sec, not that it has increased “exponentially” or “like never before” like you claim. Actually, it does not even show that it has increased at all…
Nor is ganking for fun and not for profit something new or that has increased either. That’s something that depends on the gang. Some gangs only gank for profit, but others, CODE in particular, may gank to enforce their Code, which means they may gank you at a loss for the sole reason that you’re AFK or don’t have a permit. That you seem to have been unaware of this until now just shows how little you know what you’re talking about…
1 Like
OK, doing that:
| Criteria | Most Ganks | Ship Ganks | ISK Value (B) | ISK Per Gank (B) | Ship Ganks in Dec-2020 | ISK Value (B) | ISK Per Gank (B) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Osmon | Aug-2013 | 146 | 14.23 | 0.098 | 18 | 2256 | 1.253 |
| Apanake | Dec-2014 | 15 | 1716 | 1.226 | 10 | 1296 | 1.296 |
| Lanngisi | Jan-2014 | 23 | 3273 | 1.423 | 3 | 2429 | 0.809 |
Note: These were manual counts from the data, so might be off by 1 or 2, but I’ll double check and update as needed, or if anyone points out an error.
Obviously, December isn’t complete yet, but with only 6% of the month left, the data isn’t likely to change significantly (but happy to reconfirm in the first couple of days of January).
Ganking is way down across the board from 2013-2017 values (and it peaked in 2013-2015). In addition to that, going beyond just the number of kills, the value of kill per gank hasn’t dropped either.
Looking at Osmon for example, the Aug-2013 ganks were dominated by Goons and Space Monkey Alliance ganking lots of low value barges and T1 haulers. The value was dragged up by some T1 haulers hauling good value. Lately, the ganking has targetted much higher value targets.
Total pvp kills are down across the board, still dominated in a lot of the mission hubs by killing MTUs. The below graphs for example plot the pvp losses (not losses to NPCs):
Note: PVP data prior to mid 2013 is very unreliable. zkillboard didn’t exist until mid 2013, built around the same time that evekill was created sharing the same data, and both initially replaced BattleClinic, which stopped being updated. In addition, a lot of killmails were manually posted to BattleClinic in the old days and the old killmail servers didn’t produce the quality of data that they produce now. zkillboard used to allow manual killmails to be posted, but all manual killmails were removed a couple of years ago, so the data prior to mid-2013 is largely lost to us as players.
This isn’t just ganks. It’s all pvp and looking at Osmon for example, ganks account for a small percentage of pvp kills and over the last 3 months, from yesterday’s data there was 74 ganks, whereas August 2013 alone had almost double that number.
The same trends occur when other systems are looked at, with ganking down to about 20% across highsec of what it was in 2013-2014, while concurrent users online hasn’t dropped to only 20%, of what is was in the same period.
All the data that we can access shows that not only is ganking down with lower numbers, but it’s down lower than the reduced players would expect. The risk of being ganked is lower now than just a few years ago.
Yes it’s there and it’s legit and it just doesn’t support your claims.
So how about posting the actual analysis you claim to have done of the data that proves your point (you can’t because the data no matter how you slice it, still shows ganking and the risk of being ganked are lower now than in the past).
7 Likes