For the record, I am not supporting ganking because it is done by groups within the Imperium. I support ganking because I think it’s a fundamental part of what makes EVE and I don’t like it when the fundamental DNA of the game is changed so drastically. There have been dozens and dozens of nerfs to ganking over the years and I don’t want to see this aspect of the game and the players who partake in it walking away for the mythical ‘new players’ who will only stick around if ganking is nerfed.
10 Likes
From what I’ve read, there’s a big difference between “Griefing” and “Ganking”. Can you confirm or deny that CCP sees a difference as well?
Then please explain why ganking is easier than ever these days.
There have been also very powerful buffs. Beginning with the stronger short-range ammo, the implementation of Tornados, the resistance nerf, destroyer dropped in price by almost 50%, the security tags to quicky buy back secstatus, the much much easier training and maintaining of alts via skill injectors and later skill extractors. The ability to gank with alpha accounts for basically no costs at all. Tethering for maximum convenience and perfect timing to warp directly on your target on top of everything.
Also (that has nothing to do with CCPs decisions, but CCP has to count it in, computers and internet connections are much more powerful today than 10 years ago so it is a lot easier to multibox 10, 15 or even 20 clients. But that is only a sidenote.
I play the game for like 13 years now and I was a pirate (-10) for most of the time. We did HighSec ganks as well in the past and I can absolutely assure you that ganking has not been nerfed in the big picture during this time. Some aspects have been changed, thats true. Some changes made it harder, some made it easier. But thats the case for basically every other aspect of the game.
That’s not what I’m saying, I’m saying there should be a counter where the defenders effort can render the attack a loss without having to also sacrifice the defenders gameplay or assets.
Yes, they recognize the difference.
It’s not. I don’t know how anybody can credibly make this argument.
2 Likes
You know, if CCP could pop on the forums and say that instead of making the CSM a go between, then we might have a lot more faith in the dev team. “i” like the CSM. “I” think they’re a good prmo tool at the very least. But it’s not the same as having them come out and fly/work with the player base. Just being nostalgic.
1 Like
lol. If you truly don’t know you are either very ill advised by people lying to you or you simply have not ganked in that “past” you like to talk about. I have basically LISTED the reasons why the buffs over the years absolutely outweight the nerfs, you only need to read and understand why those buffs have been a LOT more powerful FOR ganking than the nerfs had impact against it.
Since none of these changes have officially been announced, it seems unlikely that CCP is going to start responding to people complaining about stuff on Singularity.
Compared to the things that were nerfed, especially the bumping changes, none of what you listed was a significant buff to ganking. And the whole “Ganking with alpha” accounts is obviously not a real buff, given you can’t have more than one alpha online and most of these gankers are ganking with multiple ships at the same time. We did a show a few weeks ago that discussed all the various nerfs and they are pretty significant.
1 Like
It’s not “easier,” it’s just more prevalent. And the reason it’s more prevalent is because CCP has removed most other avenues for high-sec PvP, and neutered the few that remain into oblivion.
The things you’re describing, with the exception of security tags, aren’t buffs to ganking, but rather adaptation to the environment and emerging game mechanics in order to find the path of highest efficiency for accomplishing a goal. To call any change to game mechanics that has the net effect of positively affecting ganking in some form or another a “buff” to ganking is rather disingenuous.
2 Likes
Oh? Quantify how its easier. You explain bruv. You made the claim 
ROFL. You realize the nado wasn’t introduced for ganking right? LOL.
These all super reaches, you must be taking yoga.
ROFL. So you’re saying the computer industry as a whole made stronger computers to benefit ganking in a vidya game.
LOL.
Yea, I doubt that very much.
No pirate I ever knew would cry like this
You can. Learn how to play bruv
Actually you listed your opinion which you think correlates to your position. However, you didn’t offer any real evidence.
Please learn how to debate with credible sources kthx.
Yep. MSI totally made stronger gaming comps to benefit ganking Drop the press release bruv
Yep. War dec nerf and basic emptying of low.
2 Likes
Not busting your butt. I just mean in general. The devs used to communicate better yrs ago now, that’s all.
In the past people could solo a barge, that’s not possible anymore.
The miners are super protected and now people can’t even bump an Orca anymore.
Then stop doing it.
2 Likes
Unforeseen consequences…
1 Like
Aiko how many of your members are alpha? Sorry if the question was already answered, I am 100 posts behind still lol.
I watched your show, so let me start with that one.
First of all, the title is bit misleading in my opinion, because I’d say the discussion is a bit one-sided with having four representatives of pro-ganking on the show and no one who has an even remotely opposite opinion. So calling that a “fair and balanced discussion” is … hmmm… not exactly fitting in my eyes. But you adressed this point yourself, you didn’t want a debate and thats okay. It was a good show and the points talked about surely enriched the whole discussion and gave some insight about the thoughts and feelings of the guys doing the ganks. Credits to you for doing it, I absolutely mean it. Thank you. Also the guys who were your guests, they are sympathic dudes and EVE would be a poorer place without them for sure.
So lets adress some of the points made:
-
Ganking vs Griefing.
I am absolutely on the gankers side here, ganking was, is and should be a legitimate game style and I absolutely want it to stay in the game. I sincerely believe that completely removing ganking from HighSec would hurt the game. It is not griefing in any way and the gankers are not responsible if their victims tilt out in chat or via mail. -
Ganking is easy vs Ganking is hard work.
I am split on that. Yeah you need multiple accounts for the different steps, but after all every one of these has a very simple task and you can easily multibox them without getting asweat. On current machines with multi-monitor setups it is not that big of a problem. So yeah its some effort, but nothing to complain about imho. Basically everyone who can get 10 chars in fleet, be it alts or friends could start doing it and will have a very high success rate after a bit of learning and training. The guys in your show even said it themselves: it’s not as easy as some people think, but also not that hard to do. Nothing to complain about in my opinion at all, on a difficulty scale as “fleet operation” I’d say its a quite easy task for a bunch of veteran players. -
Changes/Nerfs/Rebalances over time.
Yes, I agree that some of these changes (for example Insurance Payout, Freighter Buff or the bumping changes) had quite some impact on ganking. I would even take back the statement that the buffs outweight them and agree that the nerfs hit ganking quite hard. But lets be reasonable, in my eyes all of these changes have made EVE a better game because some of the mechanics they “rebalanced” were simply ridiculous.
- Insurance payout for ships intentionally “suicided” to CONCORD? Come on. That stuff should simply never have been in the game in the first place.
- Unlimited bumping? I can’t imagine a much worse way to frustrate your players than to have them sit in their ship, unable to warp even while not tackled and know for 20, 40 or 60 minutes that they will lose all their stuff. All that while the bumper himself is protected by CONCORD and basically just circumventing the need for tackle as a criminal act. A good change they removed that and as you can see at the killboards freighters still get killed all the time, it’s not like they have been made uncatchable, just a very frustrating way of killing them has been removed. And for the good of the game.
- Hitpoint Buffs: Freighter, Orca, Bowhead, Barges etc… Yes, they have been buffed so you need more firepower (either more Accounts in Cats or using more expensive ships like Taloses) to bring them down. However that rebalance was in dire need considering how easy they were killed before and considering their price tag. Currently very few people cry out for even more hitpoint buffs, for sure I do not, I consider the current balance quite good for most parts considering how much it costs to bring down one of these ships and what you can probably loot from them. Lets not forget that ganking still is incredibly lucrative, even after counting in all the failed attempts.
So, even after all these nerfs, ganking is still flourishing all over highsec. I’d even say it has grown quite a bit despite all these nerfs in the last couple of months. Which is in the end a clear sign that the nerfs so far have not stopped the gankers, but maybe have prevented an even worse situation. As someone said in your show: It would be immensely pro-ganking if all these nerfs would be reverted. But that doesn’t mean the situation is “good” right now. Maybe the gankers have just evolved faster in terms of organization and professionalism than the nerfs could hit them at all. So they have basically outpaced CCP in their attempts to limit them, which they can be quite proud of. But from looking at the killboards and the locals full of ganking groups these days, I absolutely don’t see ganking (and the career path of being a “badguy”) in a dire state and I also see absolutely no risk in ruining the game with the stuff that has been leaked so far. All of that will still allow ganking, it will still allow profitable ganking and if ganking is reduced by these changes a bit because some people quit this activity, EVE as a whole will not suffer from that.
But again thanks for the link to your video, it made me reconsider some aspects.
1 Like
I can see you don’t concern yourself with facts.
2 Likes
This:
and this:
are the same thing.
Fundamentally, the attacker is in control of if, where, and when any engagement takes place. You want an attacker to choose to attack, and after having done so lose an engagement without taking any losses. Think about that. You have to be able to always win an engagement where the attacking force is of sufficient size and skill to estimate that they’ll win that engagement. Because all competent attackers will have made reasonably accurate estimations, most attacks that actually happen will succeed and attacks that the defender ‘wins’ will leave no record behind of having not taken place when they otherwise might have were the defender less prepared or fit with more expensive gear, or carrying more expensive cargo. In this way it will always be possible for the defenders to claim on the basis that most attacks succeed that the game is unbalanced. That lack of balance stems directly from the fundamental differences between being an attacker and a defender.
What people do in high sec is the same as what they’d do in low or null. They try to make themselves unattractive or unprofitable targets to attack, and they avoid engagements they believe they are disadvantaged in through engaging in “negative gameplay”, if you want to call it that. What they do not get is the guarantee that any force brought to bear will be annihilated by an unstoppable NPC force. An advantage that is not good enough for people in high sec apparently.
If I do not want to be bothered, I mine in a ship that costs more to kill than it is worth and that alone is normally enough to be left in peace. If it dies anyway, as it sometimes does, I take some of the profit from mining in that ship and buy a new one. If I can’t afford the ship I want, I buy what I can afford and use that until I can cover the cost of what I really want. Again, though, this basic plan is not good enough for the people of high sec who seem to find losing a ship to or being set back in any way by another player unconscionable.
4 Likes
It was a joke.
1 Like