I despise gankers with every fiber of my being, but it’s really hard to say “I will ruin this game for others because I hate them specifically.” Even if it is a small minority, you can’t just hate someone so much you want to change a major aspect of a game just to spite those hundred or so people. That is the peak of pettiness, and I’m a petty person.
2 Likes
13 posts have been removed for the below posted reasons.
1. Specifically restricted conduct.
The purpose of the EVE Online forums is to provide a platform for exchange of ideas, and a venue for the discussion of EVE Online. Occasionally there will be conflicts that arise when people voice opinions. Forum users are expected to courteous when disagreeing with others.
In order to maintain an environment where everyone is welcome and discussion flows freely, certain types of conduct are prohibited on the EVE Online forums. These are:
- Trolling
- Flaming
- Ranting
- Personal Attacks
- Harassment
- Doxxing
- Racism & Discrimination
- Hate Speech
- Sexism
- Spamming
- Bumping
- Off-Topic Posting
- Pyramid Quoting
- Rumor Mongering
- New Player Bashing
- Impersonation
- Advertising
~Buldath
4 Likes
Infinity server has restricted Alpha pilots to destroyers and frigates. Would such a change on Tranquility be a postive thing for your ideals?
I am curious as to why you think that the ganking style of game play needs to be nerfed even more than it has been. They have done a lot in the past year to cut down on that style of game play. Is the end goal of yours to just have no ganking in Eve? As far as the New Player Protection, what incentives do you think player organizations would need to take part in your plan? How would you stop player organizations from just making alts and taking advantage of the incentives that you would provide to the organizations?
Firstly: From my understanding you’ve retired from the game so to be honest your opinion means very little to me and should be the same for everyone else here.
Secondly: I’ve never been ganked, and I have even ganked on a few occasions myself. Ive Spoken to and flown with several of them as well. Pretending like the game only has a dozen gankers left is a little on the crazy side even for you, the queen of the crazies. Ganking is extremely predatory in nature as someone so cleverly put before this post “seal clubbing”. Ive met a few gankers who aren’t over all horrible people. But just like any job you have the rotten apples that ruin the bunch. If i had to guess from the gankers I’ve met I’d say roughly 80% of them are disgusting trolls that harass the victims well after the kill. Berating them in chat, sending them mails, just over all being a scum human being. The other 20% are ok. They get the kill, scoop the loot, get out. Just another payday. The group you created and fostered are the 80%.
Thirdly: Ive heard a phrase used a lot, When you log in you agree to dying. I have to say I very strongly disagree and I believe that phrase to be very predatory. My reasoning behind this logic is when you go into low sec for the first time (and technically every time after if you don’t turn it off) you get a warning before it lets you jump. That message lets you know you could very well die past this point. Same if you are in a war and you attempt to undock from any station just as another example. Thats your agreement contract if you will, so you understand the risk of moving forward past this point. Strangely you don’t get any message like that by just logging into the game?
In closing:
I don’t mind being the bad guy because somebody has to fill that role and get things done. You do bad things for no reason. You do them to be a dick. If you’re going to be bad be bad with purpose otherwise you’re just not worth forgiving.
@Johnny_TurnYourGirlGenderFluid_Jones
I must apologize as I’ve clearly not specified enough in my original post. This was on purpose as I wanted to keep it brief so it would be a quick read simply to get my points across. I figured I would go into greater detail during the interview process. Ill explain a little more now about my plans for removing ganking, and yes that’s remove not nerf it slightly.
At first I could see why this would be considered a little strange but hear me out for a few seconds. I am not trying to create a massive safe haven for newer players so much as you’d think. With the removal of ganking I’d also be pushing for several of the outskirt HS system to become lowsec systems and the same for the outskirt lowsecs to become nulsec. No direct trade routes between factions will be completely safe. A few low sec systems in between the different factions trade hubs adding more risk to the game. To go from one race of space to another you will be required to go into a few lowsec systems. So over all less HS systems. For this logic I’m using the already fact based Lore friendly background of Concord being heavily low on funds because of the fighting with drifters. In response they are unable to protect as much of space as they have been able before. A few outer rim systems will have a slight decrease in security. (ie a 0.6 would become a 0.5) The fewer remaining HS systems would need an increase in belt sizes to make up for the over all lower amount of HS systems that should help with counteracting any massive price point issues on market.
For the “new player protection” Its more about training newer players not really so much “protecting” them. The better educated a person is on the game the better chance they have of protecting themselves. Teach them the different things that can be done in this game. Show them the easier things as well as the more dangerous things. Several preexisting groups do this rather well as I gave examples with Eve Uni or Brave or even RvB. It would be about either creating similar groups or even helping the current existing groups. The game doesn’t have much in the way of in game tutorials so Its heavily reliant on the players teaching each other or off game tutorials. This needs to be fixed.
@ISD_Buldath
You are doing an amazing job thank you for your service.
Who, in the ganking community, is the rotten apple that spoiled everyone else?
1 Like
Imho ganking is as legitimate a playstyle as anything else. I don’t think CCP should really be in the business of removing more playstyles from the game. Tbh they’ve already reduced the viability of ganking so much (maybe too much) that any additional measures would be unnecessary overkill.
Also:
you’ve retired from the game so to be honest your opinion means very little to me and should be the same for everyone else here.
This feels unnecessarily mean and honestly kind of unbecoming.
6 Likes
From the outside looking in I could see why it would seem that way. The organization Aiko created in their time in game is the cause of most of the issues people have with ganking in general. If the game only had “a dozen gankers” it wouldn’t even be a topic worth discussion.
1 Like
EVE Online is designed for mature players seeking a challenging and intricate gaming experience. The game’s unforgiving nature is a major draw, attracting individuals who enjoy complex gameplay.
It’s important to highlight that EVE Online’s player base consists of grown-ups who understand and appreciate the game’s depth. In a universe where players engage in intricate political maneuvers, form alliances, and participate in intense battles and ganking is just a small part of that, player maturity is a key factor in shaping the game’s dynamics.
It’s crucial to remember that EVE Online’s community appreciates the complexities of the game.
An interesting dynamic in EVE Online where real-life investments (buying plex sell it for isk) can influence in-game protection. Maybe stop the ability to hire mercenaries for protection.
You’ve highlighted a pertinent concern regarding the current state of war declarations. While simplifying and reducing the cost of wardecs could enhance accessibility, there’s a potential for an upsurge in conflicts that could adversely affect newer corporations leading to a situation where people stop undocking their stations.
2 Likes
This whole situation is confusing, and probably not worth my time to worry about. At this point, whatever happens, happens, as far as I care.
It’s interesting you would say the game is designed for matures audiences yet the original complaint was the lack of maturity from most gankers during and after the entire process.
I believe the ability to “hire mercs” for wars has always been a thing, they have simply made it more user friendly. Instead of paying another corporation to dec a corp that’s harassing you they could simply put in an assist request.
For a comparison in an attempt to make this clear for everyone here. When CCP talked about changing the war mechanics to start involving structures, easily far more people complained and said they would leave the game because it means less war targets. Yet they made the changes and it would seem the game is still going fine. Growing pains are a thing. You’ll get past it same as we did when they changed the way wars worked.
If the changes to Netflix password sharing policy have taught us anything, its people don’t always put their money where their mouth is. Said they would all cancel subs if they pushed the policy through and as it turns out, that was a lie. The sub rate has drastically increased.
1 Like
Frostpacker believes that New Eden seals should be clubbed at least once in their pilot’s career and we are fine with being placed into that crazy bucket you have indirectly mentioned with your queen of the …. comment.
Ganking aka seal clubbing should stay just support the heads up warning approach to be given an opening on the voters list!
Good luck.
How do you intend to win the votes of Highsec players?
Do you have the backing of any large corps/alliances/blocs?
If CCP was to tell you they have no intention to iterate on wars and ganking during your time on the CSM, what would you do?
How many T2 catalysts should it take to gank an autopiloting anti-tanked Obelisk in a 0.5 system, compared to now to make it more balanced?
Can you explain what rules/guidelines you would want to put in place in this new iteration on wardecs?
1 Like
-
Eliminate ganking ( no safety red in highsec)
-
Cut back on the number of HS systems. This would make it so no direct routes from one trade hub to another would have all HS systems. As an example, going from Amarr to Jita or Jita to Dodixie would now have at least 1 or 2 LS systems, if not more, no matter the route you try to take. Auto pilot would be suicide.
-
lowering the overall number of HS systems means you have to counter the drop in HS ore so the current remaining HS belts would need more ore making it more competitive. As well as lower end HS systems having slightly bigger rats. (ie 0.6s would have a cruiser or the occasional rare battleship rat that could spawn in belts, 0.5 would be a little more all as a way to counter afk miners)
-
The drop in HS systems also means less HS missions for the mission runners. In an attempt to counter that loss I want to bring at least 1 lvl 5 mission agent per faction to HS trying to increase content and overall HS difficulty. People seem to think I am trying to make HS a safe haven and its not the case, I’m wanting to make it harder.
-
For Wars I’m wanting to return to an older format of not needing structures to wardec/be wardecced. This would require a few guidelines in an attempt to prevent people from abusing it like the old days.
-Take into account the member number difference. A massive pvp corp (few hundred members) shouldn’t be able to dec a smaller industrial corp. (anything under 100)
-A max number of wars you can dec at one time to prevent those corps that just dec everyone because they can.
-Some sort of recruitment stasis during a war to prevent a spike in numbers from people trying to get around the first ticker listed here
-Some sort of stasis on leaving a corp during a war to prevent people from dodging a war just by leaving a corp.
-Max number of allies you can have in a war assisting you.
2 Likes
+1 vote
What dozen left? I see them in jita every day and not dozen of them, there are like hundreds of them. most of them left null and they roam hi-sec. they know where is excitement. i mean let them roam hi sec. there is not a thing to stop me to smoke them all if i see them in hi sec.
1 Like
you got my vote and its out of spite to someone we all know
1 Like
I’m not sure if this was a response to my questions… If so I’m still curious about the first three.
I’ve always liked the idea of splitting up Highsec into islands as you mentioned, or at least shrinking Highsec as is.
I also like your suggestion for scaling wars based on size, it would give small wardeccers a home again after getting largely squeezed out, where they could target some of these fat industrial corps that using holding corps to protect their members. Only really a threat if the defending corporation is unwilling to face a much smaller group.
I guess this position has changed.
These ideas are for the off chance CCP Isn’t willing to remove ganking. They are more of a back up plan in an attempt to make it harder. I can explain what I mean by awareness and educational resources if you’d like?
1 Like
@RGC_Godfather
I understand the concerns about ganking.
Although CCP has done relatively heavy duty manuevers to stop some of the more serious problems like the continual use of alpha accounts to create nearly impossible positive feed back loop accounts centered around ganking. All reward no risk or cost. So in order to gank in highsec you must be omega. Alphas can’t set to red, unless they go down to low and do it there. But I think there is a safety feature that resets it once they come back up into highsec. [I would hope that loop hole has been “fixed” especially with ganking hotspots having lowsec gates right next door]
Although, I think there needs to be some changes to security status levels.
Right now its +5 to -10. My argument is +10 to -10. Because it would allow aggression if players could get to +10. And if they saw one of the more aggregious gankers or their scoop alts they might attack them more readily. [As a compensation -5 sec status gives Pirate ships bonuses]
Maybe some changes to killrights and bounties [or bringing it back] are in order. The killright redemption process is really clunky. I should be able to right click on a character…if I see a killright icon and activate-engage. Also Killrights should not be visible…they should be anonymous. [Randomized as it were…once a person “buys the kill right” from a pool of kill rights the targets ID and information is given.] This would ensure that people can’t buy their own kill rights or buy their kill rights and use alts to kill clear the kill rights and get money.