Your point? The fact that they think they have a reason to make a choice does not make it any less of a choice. And the fact that they choose to trade safety for efficiency does not mean that CCP needs to step in and give them safety back.
Why should the criminal career path have a risk free path to never ending supple of isk?
Because it only has that path because idiots keep making it happen, and there would be no profit in ganking if they stopped. It’s like complaining that being given free stuff by a generous player is risk free and accepting a 0 ISK contract needs to have a 10% chance of permanently deleting your character.
CCP has created a fly trap in some places where gankers go uncontested and face zero risk.
Then contest it and create more risk. Stop whining on the forums because you’re too lazy to do something about the problem.
More tears from a ganker is priceless. Let me hold your hand and walk you through this slowly. I am pro gank, I do not want ganking removed at all, I have a few ideas to spice up and add risk to the criminal carreer path. Do you remember what they are or do you need your hand held some more?
Yes I said, honor and integrity get in the way of me being a sociopath. Yes I play the game with honor and integrity. Yes I have a code (NRDS) I play by in the the sand box. Yes I try to treat the people behind the pixels as if they are standing in front of me, you know integrity is doing the right thing even if no one is looking, right?. Yes I don’t steal from others. Yes I don’t get enjoyment from hurting other people. Do I think others should play this way too? No I don’t!
You took what I said out of context which was a reply to someone else’s post that lead the debate into, emotions spilling into the sandbox. If you took that as, crying over a gank, then I can understand your thinking but that is not at all what my post meant. I’m not here to cry about some gank, I am here in defense of, keeping suicide ganks, in the game but I have a few ideas to spice up and add risk to the gank, thats it!
Maybe in your mind that is so but no I don’t see a post from you that shows I am wrong in my thinking. I had already admitted that the price of the kill does not represent the amount of loot that was picked up. However, you have yet to post anything anything that says gankers don’t have a never ending, risk free, fountain of isk. If you expect me to come up with all this data, just because I have a few ideas, than you should have the same data to back up your rants. I gave 4 or 5 ideas, I have yet to see you break down each idea I had for, added risk to the career criminal. All I have seen from is your dumb people debating points and you trying to give me advice on how to avoid a gank and neither of them are winning the debate for yea. Why, because your dumb peoples debating is you admitting to the risk free isk river. Your trying to blame other people for being dumb enough to be shot in a defenseless ship. As for your advice on avoiding the gank, I was never here looking for advice in the first place. You assume that I get ganked alot which I don’t. My entire point is keep suicide ganks and add some risk to the criminal career path. Do i know all the numbers? Absalutly not but that does not mean I can’t have an idea.
Here is another Idea, take the bank that CCP just created and use it for the loot that drops from the gank. Put a 24 hour timer on it so that the person ganked can have a chance to fight the gankers for the loot.
y’know, people have been complaining about suicide ganks since 2003.
learn to deal with it or find another game to play, because clearly EVE is not for you.
I hope no one is desperate for a reply from me. Earlier I had about a dozen posts summarily axed pretty much answering every question and accusation being directed at me now, which goes to show the deletions were a fail unless the idea was to hand this damned thread to the pro-gankers (I am in a neutral position overall). I am not interested in posting the same replies and links only to watch them evaporate again. So yeah, less than pleased and can’t f-ing be bothered.
But let me just say that the topic here is ganking in hi sec, so if you got confused about anything I said, for example thinking I meant blowing up ships in general, try referring back to what the thread topic is and apply everthing to that.
Rule 5: he who asserts must prove. You asserted that the risk of suicide ganking is not in line with its reward. You have provided no evidence to support that claim. You literally lost the debate.
No, you don’t. You use name-calling and you don’t provide evidence to back your claim. I don’t see much integrity in that.
No, you aren’t. Nor do you want to spice it up. You want to make it harder for no other reason than you want it to be… or rather you think (without proof, I might add) that suicide ganking has a better reward to risk ratio than other activities in the game. It doesn’t… null sec ratting has a much higher reward with far lower risk (the blackout proved how safe it was… remove local and they quit ratting).
See above statements. You can hide your dislike of suicide ganks behind this veneer, but anyone with an above average IQ can see past it. Again, no proof that the reward to risk ratio on suicide ganking is better than other activities. Your claim, your assertion, your burden of proof… if you really want to debate. And you don’t… because you keep trying to distract from your lack of evidence.
You want to debate? That’s your assertion that its a never ending risk free fountain of ISK. According to rules of debate, the burden of proof falls on you.
Wrong again. Rules of debate say you made the first assertion, you have to prove it… try again. Damn, I gave you a link to the rules of debate and you’re already breaking them…
Actually, we’ve already won the debate. Again, you made the assertion that the reward to risk ratio is off with suicide ganking… again, the burden of proof is on you.
Appeal to emotion along with a red herring argument fallacy… and an ad hominem attack. Seriously, you’re bad at debate.
Then you can’t prove your assertion… which means you lose the debate.
First you need to prove the reward to risk ratio for suicide ganking is off and then you can tell me your ideas to fix it.
Seriously, go read those rules of debate. And then go do your research and prove your assertion.
Like I said: don’t debate someone who has studied debate when you haven’t.
Edit:
Oh, I did miss one thing in this.
Yes, you do. You’ve used name-calling to act superior to other types of game play (I’m not surprised you’re an NRDS guy… that system failed by the way).
And yes you do as you are trying to make suicide ganking harder than it already is without proving your assertion that the reward to risk ratio on suicide ganking is off compared to other activities in Eve.
Hull up and do yourself a favor: stay out of wormholes, you wouldn’t last long with your inability to learn and adapt.
Let me be clear on what you assert and how you can prove it.
Assertion: the reward to risk ratio on suicide gankong is out of line in comparison to other activities on Eve Online.
Here are some ways to prove it:
Show that the ISK invested on a suicide gank provides a better return than most other activities
Show that the time invested in suicide ganking (both failures and success must be included) shows a better return on ISK than most other activities in Eve.
There, I’ve even shown you what you have to research to provide evidence of your claim. Good luck, you’re gonna need it.
I know even you aren’t dumb enough to believe that if you impose more penalties for ganking that it won’t result in less ganking and more safety for gank targets.
You was in the resource redistribution post crying about how miners had a risk free supply of isk, why all of a sudden the change of heart?
Do you honestly not understand the difference between a risk-free supply of ISK that exists because the game gives it to you without limits and a risk-free supply of ISK that only exists because certain idiot players keep giving it to you voluntarily?
What I asserted was an estimation of one kill mail. CCP has added risk to the game to spice it up and the gankers should not be exempt from new risk. I mean lets face it, they are under great risk and stress when shooting those unarmed risk free defenseless freighters and mining ships. Funny how criminals have double standards. You loved it when CCP gave you risk free care bears to farm in low sec, you loved it when CCP gave you a bank to rob but the tears start to spill as soon as someone wants to add risk to your career path.
CCP has added risk to the game to spice it up and the gankers should not be exempt from new risk.
CCP has added risk where risk vs. reward was out of balance, not as a general policy of adding more risk to everything. Why is this so hard for you to understand?
Are you to dumb to figure out a new playing style if CCP was to add more risk to your criminal career? I can keep tossing your cliques Back at your all day.
So you admit there is a never ending river of isk because the game does not give the player enough options or paths to avoid the criminals? You admit that the career criminal is exploiting these options to have a never ending risk free isk river. Thank you for admitting that there is a never ending river of risk free isk that the career criminal has.
Hint for the clueless: I don’t do suicide ganking.
Also, that has nothing to do with your dishonesty in lobbying for more consequences for suicide ganking and then pretending that this won’t result in more safety for miners/freighters/etc.
So you admit there is a never ending river of isk because the game does not give the player enough options or paths to avoid the criminals?
The game gives plenty of options and the risk of getting ganked is negligible for a smart player. The fact that lazy and/or stupid players refuse to use those options does not mean that they don’t exist.
Thank you for admitting that there is a never ending river of risk free isk that the career criminal has.
There is ISK. There is not never-ending ISK because the idiots could end the river at any time.
Anecdotal evidence. Just because Shaq hit 15 out of 18 free throws in one game on December 9, 1993 doesn’t make him a good free throw shooter when you look at his career average of 52.7%. One example isn’t a trend. You really are bad at this whole debate thing.
Also, you haven’t shown how much time was spent waiting for that gank… or all the failed attempts made while preparing for that gank. Nor have you shown how much ISK was spent on failed ganks between this successful one.
Furthermore, you need to show the reward vs. risk of other activities in comparison. You haven’t done that, so even the data you have provided proves nothing.
I clearly explained what you had to show… and you haven’t shown any of it. Again, you are bad at debate.
Another attempted ad homenin attack. This one is untrue. My security standing is actually 2.93. No where near criminal status.
Also, there is no double standard here. You wanted a debate and I’m requiring you to obey the rules of one. Which you haven’t done… no surprise there.
Actually, there are no tears here. And this is technically another ad homenin (another different link) attack.
In short, you’ve lost this debate because you cannot even follow the basic rules of debate. And as I fully expected, you couldn’t even attempt to defend your argument.
Seriously, you aren’t nearly as smart as you think you are… Have a nice day.
Double standards. Dude, I just noticed: you’re a member of Goonswarm. You want to talk about double standards. What about Goonswarm’s Ministry of Love?
Damn, not only are you bad at debate, you’re also a hypocrite.
I don’t need to show all the stuff you listed. I’m not the one crying over having risk added to their game play. I simple tossed out some ideas. Your the ones that need all the data because your are butt hurt and unable to show how shooting an unarmed ship has risk. Never mind all those hours spent because they don’t count for the miner or the freighter pilot anymore either. Go grab any freighter kill mail you want and show that I am worng. I went by one kill mail, go pick another one to prove your point. The data your asking for could only come from CCP and as you have seen on the forums, the DEVs are to good to mingle with the players or answer player questions and input.
Then you lose the debate. The burden of proof is on you, the person requesting changes, to establish that they are necessary. If you don’t want to do that then you lose.
Not at all because your standards don’t apply to you and the other gankers. Show me the data that says killing a defenseless ship has risk. Go grab a freighter kill mail and show me one time where the gank costed more than the loot or kill was worth.
