From dear, wonderful James 315:
“Going AFK in a 200m ISK ship with nothing but a Civilian Shield Booster is probably not a good idea.”
Until that sort of behaviour is addressed (by players), it seems to me that raising the cost of suicide-ganking is somewhat missing the point.
That is indeed one method.
As I pointed out earlier, HS ganking could be almost eliminated overnight if only people took precautions.
However, in my view, HS mechanics are currently imbalanced against 3rd parties, such as AG or a random local, intervening in or preventing a gank attempt.
It’s clear that you hold to your view firmly and, I have to say, sincerely, Salvos.
The question is ‘why has it been so difficult to persuade the game’s designers of the merit of such arguments?’
Yes, I agree. But I have not seen any proposal until now which would accomplish that.
I accept you are of that opinion, but for the sake of clarity, when you say prevention in this case what specific situation do you mean? At what point are they unable to intercene now that you would like them to be able to?
he means that AG should be able to gank the gankers.
in low/null, there is a gatecamp/whcamp from neuts, you get there with friend and destroy the gatecamp, or die in a fire with GFs in local.
In HS, you can’t.
Well, you can die in concordoken fire. Which is a problem : there is asymmetry in the engagement selection. This asymmetry is in favor of gankers.
Lets focus on finding that then.
Everyone agrees HS needs more PvP.
I propose we find a suggestion to increase gank potential, commensurate with more opportunity for 3rd parties to intervene.
We need to move HS aggression away from CONCORD, back to players.
good news, they already can
I edited after that.
And no, they can’t ( in regard to the comparison of LS/NS)
So what tool do Antiga lack to do this?
The concept of ganking to prevent a gank’s hypocrisy not withstanding.
The ganker dies in CONCORD fire as well, so how is this asymetry? The only asymetry is if the ganker is -5 already you can engage him without dying to CONCORD and that is clearly an asymetry in the favor of ag.
you forgot to read the part of my sentence where I use “engagement selection”
I agree with you though, the problem is more complex - and since I am not part of gankers nor AG I don’t really have a stance on this.
It just seems to me that gankers can decide when they will become vulnerable , and the fact they are vulnerable in a very small frame window which makes their antiganking much harder than them ganking.
On the other hand I think AG can still bait gankers using freighters with high value cargo and nestors (cloaked ?) to protect them, which reduces the asymetry.
I already proposed somewhere else to prevent people with negative status from undocking/boarding in HS, and people with <5 from doing so in HS/LS. This would give gankers an incentive to pay less tags at the price of getting ganked in turn on the road from low to their target, thus reducing their gain from the gank.
I tend to agree that reducing the - sec status required for HS pilots to engage without CONCORD intervention, or their capacity to dock to safety, is the way forward.
This widens the gap for HS locals to aggress low sec status players, without changing CONCORDs reaction to an illegal action by gankers once initiated.
How will that change anything?
If you cant dock, you cant be safe from aggression.
Wait so what happens if its a friendly citadel?
Most people don’t even care there’s a freighter being bumped or whatever
And you know as much as I do that if you give gankers a chance to shoot more people (since you’d like more player intervention)
No one said anything about proving anything. And didnt i say that the correlation itself is a fact? Again, you are confusing facts with evidence.
And jesus, that definition. As i said before, proof doesnt exist in science, because proof is a mathematical term, and not a scientific one.
Can you please get past this “proof” concept in science? Because it actually doesnt exist.
Science is tentative. It is dependent on evidence, and can be overturned on evidence. It is falsifiable, and no mater how much “Evidence” is piled up to support a theory of, say, Evolution, a single piece of contradictory evidence can throw the entire theory into jeopardy. Thats the nature of science. It follows and is guided by the evidence.
When you keep throwing around “Oh this does or does not prove ANYTHING” you make it sound as if science is concrete, and that evidence cements it as a fact. It doesnt. In science, evidence supports a conclusion, but does not prove it. Id suggest you go back to 10th grade science.
Well said, though I don’t expect CCP to not have confirmation bias or wholly inclusive data. How many people don’ t bother with the game because of this crap? If coward players can dip into pvp-for-dummies(SG) and have a safe space where they don’ t have to risk anything of value, why not others? Surely players would be willing to take on more risky environments in time. Either way I would like to see more equity. SGs seem to have it far too easy. Eve is not a harsh or dangerous place for them at ll.
Everyone can. Choosing to ignore this is not forced on you by design. Hence your confusion with cant/wont.