I know I’m referencing the best of the best, and that there’s more to this than kills and losses, but this is a reasonable snapshot into what goes on in highsec. For 200m I can have an orca destroyed. I bought an orca a month ago for over 2b.
Now, look back at a acknowledgment I made in my previous post:
Reasonable measures already exist to deal with war-eligible corporations
Even if I had the willingness to declare war to defend myself, I could not. And while I assume many members of Safety. are outlaws, some may not be. Asking me to go criminal to combat those who might also go criminal, in my opinion, defeats the purpose of having highsec to begin with.
If you thought my last proposal demonstrated my lack of understanding, wait until to get a load of my new one: No disabling safety unless you are in a war-eligible corp. This would allow me to hire mercenaries to permadec potential gankers, without requiring those mercs to ever go criminal.
Blame CCP for war eligibility. The game functioned just fine for 15 years when that wasn’t a thing. War eligibility certainly didn’t make the player count shoot up like the whiners said it would.
That said, removing war eligibility for gankers specifically is a very one-sided and inequitable proposal, as there are plenty of other activities that players can use to reallocate your funds in a very hostile manner (such as scamming, theft, and extortion), just as efficiently if not more so than ganking on average, that would continue to be war-immune.
What they should’ve done, instead of nerfing criminal tethering and citadel usage so badly, was reducing the efficiency/ability of criminals to use regular NPC stations, creating an incentive for them to use citadels instead, which players could then go after in retaliation for ganking. Instead, they made NPC stations the only viable option for gankers to use, pushing things into a more safe direction for everyone involved. CCP fundamentally misunderstands how their game is supposed to function, and how to create meaningful conflict/content drivers.
Blame CCP for war eligibility. The game functioned just fine for 15 years when that wasn’t a thing. War eligibility certainly didn’t make the player count shoot up like the whiners said it would.
I agree. I, admittedly, was pro war-eligibility because I liked the idea of being able to force a fight on a structure, whether offensive or defensively. Looking at the state of war now, I think it should go back to no structure requirement and cost 2mil per wardec, cumulative.
removing war eligibility for gankers specifically is a very one-sided and inequitable
No no no no, as Io Koval said, I am an elite one-man fighting force. I, too, would be effected by this change.
LOL. You just opened a z-kill and are basing your arguments on this? LOL
It is obvious that you don’t know why the ganker loses so “little” ISK. I will educate you then.
First of all, zkill only counts non-NPC loses to this summary. Gankers always loses their ship with which they ganked, many times even to facpo. But these loses aren’t recorded at zkill and even if they were they don’t count.
Second, the mechanics are so cramped against gankers that there is very very little time to do anything about the gank. Gankers have, at best 20 seconds to kill someone. If you want to kill them or stop them, you must be there and you must manage to kill them during these 20 seconds. The higher the security status, the less time they have and thus you have to inflict loses on them. Furthermore, since they already written the ship off when undocking (as it is going to be destroyed by NPCs one way or another), even if you kill them, you are not inflicting any loses to them. The ship was lost already.
So if you want gankers to take “an actual risks” then you would have to remove facpo and CONCORD mechanics. Only then would gankers used lower amount of the accounts/ships to kill their victim and it would take them more time hence the target himself and potential antigankers would have to inflict the ganker a loss he didn’t count with.
The more you nerf ganking and the harder you make it the less “risky” you are making it. (If we define risk the way you want.)
And third, it is because antigankers are either not patient enough, not skilled enough, not smart enough or simply not having enough players in their rank. Although gankers as an iniciators have always the upper hand - they decide where the gank will be and antigankers cannot be everywhere. But basically antigankers lacks all that, and there is no wonder because that gameplay is boring af and they are very rarely making any difference. You need to understand that the gankers must often use 30+ ships ie. players/accounts to gank someone. Why should a single player (with single ship/account) trying to stop the gank expect it to work? Hence they give up after failing several times. Plus, gankers are extremely persistent and diligent. For example, there were many antigankers trying to stop or mess my ganking by buying killrights, activating them and killing me. They all given up because they just could not force me to stop. Even if they were able to kill me I always undocked after 15 minutes again. Gankers are patient, antigankers aren’t. It is as simple as that.
Also to the war eligibility. Before CCP nerfed wars they were war eliglible and it wasn’t any different due to the reasons above. Most of them are already free to shoot/kill anywhere, but because it works the way it works you just won’t have a chance to shoot them and even if you do, as a single player you won’t be able to achieve anything because it is 1 vs many.
And lets not pretend that if they were war eligible that antigankers would wardec them , there was enough jokes already.
If war eligibility wasn’t a thing, anti-gankers wouldn’t exist at all. I mean, how would that hierarchy even look like? There would be a clump of Catalysts, then a clump of AG Caracals sitting next to it, and then like three or four mes sitting in officer-fit marauders next to the AG Caracals? You think with someone like Dryson or Githany or one of the regular local ragers that make it into the blog, it would even be a contest? There’s a reason why all of them make sure to stay war-immune.
I simply calculated that they would never work together. But if they were, Dryson and Githany, then you are right, with these two together it would be the end of the ganking as we know it.
No it isn’t. The act of undocking is consent to PvP. There is zero ‘non-consensual PvP’ in Eve.
And why is the silly ‘non-consensual’ argument never made over belt rats or other NPC hostiles ? Some of the PvE in Eve is ‘non-consensual’ by those standards…yet you never hear these same people whine about ‘non-consensual PvE’.
The current wardec system is crazy and almost everyone agrees on that. Ostensibly one declares war on a corp, but really one is declaring war on a structure. The corp one declares war on may be little more than a holding corp for that structure…with people able to swap corps into that corp for the duration of any structure timer…and back out again after. The war is only with the holding corp, and related corps will be totally immune to attack.
I would resolve this by having two overlapping types of war. Keep the current system, but allow all corps within an alliance to be targetted. With the additional proviso that if the latter option is chosen as well, then the defending alliance has to be more than a certain size in total and not less than a certain portion of the total attacking alliance.
Technically, the act of consent occurs when you agree to the EULA.
EVE is a multiplayer role playing game that allows the simultaneous participation of players around the world, interacting in the same game environment… it is possible that at any time there may be language or other material accessible on or through the System that you may consider inappropriate or offensive to some users. You acknowledge that other players may transmit communications or content, or access to content, that you may consider inappropriate or objectionable.
You have to consent to this, in order to legally play the game.
You’d be wasting your time. You won’t anti-gank me travelling from system to system in a Catalyst, because I’ve taken the wise step of placing fully armed and fitted Catalysts all over the place. I thus need only travel to a target system in a shuttle…which I also use for scouting. Thus by the time I am actually in a Catalyst it is already too late. The target is chosen. There’s no end of corp stations to tether at…and you don’t know who our target is.
Thankfully my little ganker corp is finally getting more members. The biggest problem has never been anti-gankers but not enough gankers online.
The only effective anti ganker I ever saw was a miner bumper who was often a gank target for being a pain in the proverbial, but who would sometimes lurk around as ganker bait, with nearby cloaked support ships that would attack the gankers. A clever method. In fact I think the bait method is really the only one that can work.
Even still, does this account for the 64:1 isk destroyed to isk lost ratio? Looking at some of the freighter kills, it’s clear that profitability can be a dice roll, but gankers are definitely punching way above their weight.
Gankers have, at best 20 seconds to kill someone. If you want to kill them or stop them, you must be there and you must manage to kill them during these 20 seconds.
This just makes it sound like I have zero options to defend myself, apart from remaining docked.
So if you want gankers to take “an actual risks” then you would have to remove facpo and CONCORD mechanics. Only then would gankers used lower amount of the accounts/ships to kill their victim and it would take them more time hence the target himself and potential antigankers would have to inflict the ganker a loss he didn’t count with.
I think this is a good idea.
And lets not pretend that if they were war eligible that antigankers would wardec them , there was enough jokes already.
I don’t think most players would use wardecs to defend themselves, but then they wouldn’t be able to use this as an excuse.
I was making that statement in the context of that scenario. Henceforth, ‘gank’ is a pvp kill that the victim wasn’t prepared for. In this thread, I am almost exclusively talking about suicide ganks, which are ganks that result in CONCORD intervention.
And why is the silly ‘non-consensual’ argument never made over belt rats or other NPC hostiles ? Some of the PvE in Eve is ‘non-consensual’ by those standards…yet you never hear these same people whine about ‘non-consensual PvE’.
Losing a ship to an NPC is embarrassing, and I can’t imagine anything that could get you flamed more than saying “the NPCs are too hard”. Although, if a belt rat popped my mining barge and then said “calm down miner”, I would probably start a thread about it.
You need to understand that gankers are using cheapest ships possible due to the fact they 100% lose them. Most gankers are also using several accounts that they multiboxing to be able to use cheaper ships and reduce the total cost further, ie. 20 catalysts (~300mil) instead of 8 taloses (~900mil).
We aren’t stupid, why should use use 2bil gimped Proteus to kill the 2bil cargo Tayra when we can use 30mil Vexor?
The very limited time and guaranteed loss of the ship you are attacking with does not leave you any other option. Not even that gimped 2bil Proteus would be able to do more damage than 130mil Talos. That is the way it is in EVE - the game is badly balanced from the start and this is result.
Anyway, so I take it that you are one of those gank-haters who can’t stand the idea of “ganking for profit” right? Yeah, the gank-haters community is split 50/50 to those who can’t stand you can “illegally” kill someone and make a profit and those who can’t stand you could gank someone without making profit. And so they argue, whine and cry endlessly to ganking cannot be used to either of the options, ie. their real goal is to make highec 100% PvP free despite they claim that not be the case. As I said, dishonest and nasty bunch.
Once they land on top of you and scramble you there is very little you can do indeed. Defense against ganking is not letting that happen. In fact you have much more choices how to defend/survive and avoid gank in highsec than in any other part of the space where the attackers are not limited in time to kill you. (if we define gank as unwanted PvP encounter)
Great, but 99% gank haters doesn’t think so because ultimately this would be a buff to gankers. So it doesn’t really matter.
Here you go, you hit nail on the head. This is merely an excuse indeed. Nothing else.
So why would you care about someone elses excuse as to why he lost ship to gankers or why is he unable to fight against them?
You see, as a ganker I can see the other side of the equation as well and thats incoming conversations and emails with (death) threats, dead wishes, insults, mocking and verbals. I don’t get these that much often given of what I am ganking, but it is no suprise that this lead some gankers to be as much toxic back.
Thing is, I don’t see the threads here started by gankers about some miner they killed in game (or rather his ship) wished death to his family and used racistic or homophobic insults. Yet miners can’t stand even this “calm down miner” sentence lol.
I am not sure if it is still allowed, but few years ago what would you get complaining about this would be a massive HTFU.
No, I like suicide ganking (as long as it doesn’t happen to me). But I do think that the average player, after glancing at zkillboard, could be persuaded into thinking that gankers can stand more nerfs.
The profit aspect makes it even better, as this is another service available to me. There are some miners who can quite rude at the belt, and being able to hire someone to gank their orca is awesome. I also think the profit restriction is inappropriate, and one should be able to suicide gank just to be a jerk.
Great, but 99% gank haters doesn’t think so because ultimately this would be a buff to gankers. So it doesn’t really matter.
I think players can get on board with this for two reasons:
It doesn’t do anything meaningful to prevent ganks anyway
An outlaw undocking in a mining barge would be good for the game
So why would you care about someone elses excuse as to why he lost ship to gankers or why is he unable to fight against them?
Because I still want that option available to me. But, as you pointed out, it wouldn’t do much anyway.
Thing is, I don’t see the threads here started by gankers about some miner they killed in game (or rather his ship) wished death to his family and used racistic or homophobic insults.
I wouldn’t expect those kinds of threads, as tears have always been considered an additional reward. I think there’s still some pilot bio’s out there that have my rage comments in them.
Eve is full of awkward and embarrassing things. Like me not being able to find the fleet discord tonight ( yet still managing to get on 11 kills ). So I ended up stuck in the wardeced station while the rest of the fleet flew home…duh. Funny, really. I thrive in an environment where I can laugh things off…which I often do. Contrast with the person who suffers major PTSD and bust a blood vessel just because they lost 2p worth of Venture to a ganker.
Its a game. You win some. You lose some. You make major screw ups from time to time.
Then they should always be prepared. It’s really not that hard.
, there was enough jokes already.
