The suicide ganking isn’t a PVP - it’s beating the botanist with a football team before the arrival of the director. This concept was imported in EVE from USA school culture, I think, and this is why don’t expect any changes here. Just fix this or restrict this and many subs will go down, which CCP don’t like.
Welllll…
Okay you could have a really bad sample. There is always that possibility. But from the sounds of CCP Rise’s post that @Black_Pedro linked it sounds like they didn’t just grab a sample, look at it, see that ganking does not appear to a problem and go, “Welp, that’s that,” and stop. Sounds like they kept going, kept looking. Actually “trying hard to validate the myth…”
Maybe, but that is not actually an argument against ganking, but finding that “something” and fixing it.
Actually science is also opinion, or beliefs. That is why I believe the Bayesian method is better as it explicitly takes into account beliefs. I might have an a priori belief that ganking is not a big problem and assign a probability to that hypothesis of 0.1. Another person might have a belief it is a problem and assign a probability to that belief of 0.9. At which point we agree to disagree and wait for the data/evidence to roll in and then via Bayes theorem update our beliefs.
Science is, like EVE, a social activity. Scientists get together in a variety of ways. In the lab working together, at schools working together or competitively. At conferences. Etc.
The idea that scientists go into the lab look at the data and there is no disagreement because nobody has prior beliefs is errant nonsense.
It is through the tensions and pressures generated by struggles among scientists to persuade one another, as each is guided by his own inarticulate groping for truth, that the [scientific] process succeeds in continually discovering new knowledge, Participants [scientists] in this process contribute their own personal, professional judgement by committing to the theory each senses holds promise. From the competitive rivalry among such judgments there emerges [there is that word again] a gradual consensus in the scientific community as a whole.
[…]
Scientific knowledge, then, is seen as an evolving outcome of the interplay of scientists who exercise their tacit skills in pursuit of an improved personal understanding of the world. This discovery procedure can achieve progress only if members of the scientific community, no matter what their paradigm, share certain essential values, among which must be the attainment of there greatest possible clarity and precission in their attempts to explain reality. Contrary to the popular view of the scientist as a disinterested and detached observer of facts, this approach requires of the scientist nothing short impassioned commitment to his own conception of the truth and to the theoretical “spectacles” through which he perceives it.
That is, scientists will be champions for their preferred theories. When Barry Marshall and Robin Warren found that the bacteria H. pylori was found in the stomach of people who had gastric ulcers the initial reaction of members of the scientific community was the hypothesis was daft. Marshall and Warren had the data and the evidence, but the prior beliefs of the rest of the community was so strong that bacteria could not survive in that environment it took time for this new evidence to be accepted. When Lynn Margulis put forward her theory of endosymbiotic evolution it was immediately rejected by most of the members of the scientific community. Again, the prior beliefs of these scientists needed to be overcome.
The point is science is absolutely about beliefs…opinions. A scientist believes in a given theory and the hypotheses that it generates. Another scientist who holds a different theory (note there could be considerable overlap in these theories, as Lynn Margulis was not trying to over throw neo-Darwinian theory, but to add to it) which generates different hypotheses. These two are in competition just like two EVE miners in a belt may very well be in competition.
So stop ranting about how bad opinion is. It is there, you can’t get rid of it, so accept it, state it and work with what you got.
3 Likes
And alot of philosophers of science such as Elliott Sober and Branden Fitelson. Both favor a likelihood based approach to “doing science”, as do many, many others.
“How Not to Detect Design” – A Review of William A. Dembski’s The Design Inference
Exactly! Ironically it’s mostly people of faith in a dogma who proclaim 100% certainty while a scientist holds multiple possible hypothesis about the same thing at various degrees of certainty. I get that most people have problems with this and “not knowing” something makes them uncomfortable, so they opt for one simple answer they can treat as their truth.
1 Like
Your idea of adaptation seems incomplete, to me. Yes, sometimes adaptation is changing our own behavior, but that is only half of it, and not necessarily the interesting half. Adaptation is also taking the sand and building a castle out of it.
If humans simply submitted to their circumstance and always changed themselves, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion. Sand has an unrelenting will: don’cha know. (Some people do, too.)
Feel free to keep on overloading your freighter, anti-tanking it and auto-piloting it through 0.5 choke points. I’m sure eventually your insistence on refusing to change your behavior will eventually wear down the opposition. 
2 Likes
But gankers don’t do it.
Particularly CODE. members, ganking is overwhelmingly conducted by outlaw status characters.
3 Likes
as former engineering student i can say no requirenment for a proof requirenment for less than five percent error.
besides above is a lot of semantic and feels dislogical like need to dissect it word by word into each a definition to find the error.
If that was truly your attitude, would you even be in this thread?
Also, I don’t have a freighter. Never have.
Actually Alphas can contribute to the economy by generating isk or mining resource, If an alpha taps into an income stream then that’s more isk in game.
Also alpha can also be used as a marketing tool where people can play for free and if they like the game they can pay for a sub. Alpha status pilots can be viewed as prospective customers.
EDIT: I’m a bit tired of the same old threads to be honest. the bottom line is mechanics actually do exist for people to make ganking expensive. People need to analyse the game more, suicide gamkers have a specific target which is either a lone shiny ship, a pilot whose taken on too much value in their haulage, or a miner whose not tanked and not mining in a group with minimal defence.
Once you recognise trends you can go ahead and counter them, keep your haulage value low…mine in groups, pay some low skilled pilots to sit in cruisers and protect you if youre mining, stop flying shiny ships if youre going to complain on forums and then leave when it gets destroyed.
This thread should be titled “Look, I need help with these gankers, any suggestions?” then we can get a constructive convo going and work out a way where players can actually make ganking seem expensive.
I’m tired of typing the same old, work together more. create a mining community for example or join one that already exists. find some friends and talk to people as you will always be stronger working with others.
3 Likes
This topic is one of EVE’s ‘forever topics’, not unlike cloaky camping, scamming, plex prices and such. All these topics exist because some people think they are unfair, usually to ‘new people’ but that is usually just a lie to cover up the fact that most of those who complain have been ‘victims’ of the actions described in these hot button topics.
These topics do prove something about human beings though. It proves that people can be short sighted to a fault, especially when passion and hatred fuel their views. That passion and hatred stops them from understanding that the things they complain about are not just things that are (in the grand scheme of things) beneficial to all, but specifically beneficial to THEM.
In the cas eof cloaky camping, the passion comes from the fact that the people who do ganking can come of as (and in some cases, actually are) arseholes who enjoy the psychological pain they are inflicting. Anti-gankers don’t just hate ganking, they hate gankers because of that. This hatred prevents them from understanding that without ganking, things would be worse of all around.
Ganking (like all pvp) is a material sink that helps drive the game’s economy, the same economy the complainers depend on. Without ganking, and with the legions of high sec pve players able to stuff ever more materials into the game without chance of loss until someone blows it up in null sec/low sec/wormhole space, the prices of things would probably plummet.
High Sec players think they would like to live in a high sec without ganking (and war deccing) so people can farm in peace. The ganked fail to understand that gankers also gank their competition, which helps maintain a stable market for them, which makes their PVE activities actually have worth.
The irony of all the things that people complain about is that if those things (like ganking and war deccing and cloaky camping etc) were to go away or even be nerfed further, the people who would suffer aren’t the gankers and war deccers and cloaky campers (they just adapt), it’s the people who don’t do those things but who now have to deal with the negative consequences of those nerfs who suffer.
The actual best solution to these problems are trainina and education. Teach people to not get ganked and gankers die away naturally (in a way that’s healthy for the game). Teach people that Jita is not the end all and be all of markets in EVE and you kill the mass war deccers. Teach people to read 1st and click second and you kill scammers. Teach people to fleet up in defense fleets, have a cyno on their ratting ship and pvp fit their ratting ships and people can cloaky camp all they damn want, but if they decloak you screw them.
–
In EVE as in real life. You can’t legislate away things you don’t like as long as people are stupid enough to keep falling into the traps of criminals and greedy people. You can make laws outlawing theft and burglary till the cows come home, but if people are too dumb to lock their homes and car doors (theives and burglars go for low hanging fruit like all criminals… and some eve players), you won’t stop it.
7 Likes
Exactly. If players learn to use the appropriate ships and fittings then the cost of suicide ganking rises to where it’s uneconomic ISKwise. Before I’d heard of CODE., I’d read up on flying safe on the EVEUNI wiki, and implemented the recommendations.
One problem with the OP is suggesting that somehow ganking should require more expensive ships, without detailing whether the targets are to be buffed, or the usual gank ships nerfed. In neither case is there any suggestion that the other consequences of such actions were considered.
2 Likes
This is another part of what makes the game feel so stupid. It’s like you are a fish in the ocean who is constantly at the mercy of sharks, and the only way to for you to not be an appetizing target is if you eat sewage instead of delicious plankton, and then maybe they will eat you anyway. You are at the mercy of numbers and if they are all willing to pay 10 mil to make you lose 200 mil, then it just sucks to be you. It is hard for me to imagine many people find the tedium and abysmally low profits to be worth it when it comes to hauling and mining in high sec considering all you must to do to prevent dying in that .05% of the time gankers appear.
I imagine CCP were thinking that if 50 people are having fun at the expensive of one individual , then its a net bonus. However, what could be happening over time is that a growing number of people wonder why they put up with this ■■■■ and it reaches a tipping point. For me it was the fact that gankers costs are so minimal that they will go after mammoths with empty cargoholds just because they can, just to ■■■■ with you, to grief you. I didn’t quit the first time I got ganked but if I understood more about the inequity of what was happening, I probably would have sooner.
I’m not really back playing the game either. I haven’t even been passively playing it for the past 6 months or so. My buddy started playing again and he wanted me to join him, and so thought i’d look back into EVE, but he quit again soon after.
No, it is called being prudent. If you need to move more valuable cargo, then you need to take the necessary steps to move that cargo safely. This is a game of choices, actions and consequences. If you make bad choices, take imprudent actions, then you can face some serious downside consequences.
Red Frog does alright and suffers few ganks. As for mining, getting into a procurer is not that hard nor expensive. Mining with a group of buddies also in procurers makes you an even less appealing target.
What ■■■■? People who get ganked in a freighter, generally speaking, have put way too much cargo value into their ship. They turned it into a loot pinata. Loot pinatas have been ganked since pretty much day 1 in this game. Playing smart is what you should do.
Vast amounts of ISK value moves around HS. Huge amounts. Stupendous amounts. So much it is staggering. Trillions and trillions of ISK. Looking at the Oct. 2017 MER, imports into just the Forge was around 896.5 trillion ISK, and exports were around 957 trillion ISK. Converting those over to U.S. dollars we are talking $560,000 and $598,000 respectively. Destruction in the Forge was about 2.5 trillion ISK or about $1,563. So destruction, as a share of imports and exports was 0.279% and 0.261% respectively. In other words, most hauling is not ganked. Ganking haulers is the exception not the norm.
1 Like
Funny that you still think anyone still reads your inane babble.
1 Like
Address the points, don’t attack the poster.
Practice what you preach lest you be hoisted by your own petard.
5 Likes
But I saw your alt, or at least your CEO, flying in Minmatar space the other day? Well, doesn’t matter I guess.
Make sure you give your reasons as to why you are leaving to CCP. I doubt it will make any difference, but you probably have a better chance effecting change by providing a concise statement of why you are leaving to the developers than arguing with other players on the forums.
Fly safe.
1 Like
now you sound like angry nerd on people however he is on games that’s why he is loved you on the other hand seem to seek something else conflict? maybe. conflict can be had in eve just pull on the righteousness pant and buy a destroyer or frigat fit it and join FW.
While you’re welcome to your opinion, it doesn’t make it right, incidentally the exact same things could be said of yourself.
You don’t argue, you harangue and insult people that don’t subscribe to your skewed view of the game we choose to play.
None.
What’s that line you keep spouting?
Oh yeah “Don’t attack the poster, address their points instead”
As such I shall continue to point out your hypocrisy until you either stop posting or you stop being a hypocrite.
4 Likes
I’m in a similar position, Rod. I quit months ago, but didn’t burn. I did that the first time and regretted it a bit.
It’s odd that someone like yourself and an avowed suicide-ganker both came to the same point and responded in largely the same way.
But I think quite a few players take a break from EVE, for various reasons.
I’m kind of back - as an Alpha - but the gold is tarnished, the magic, gone.
The real lifeblood (geddit?) of an MMO is not content as such, but the management of content in order to produce and fuel addiction. Game designers have always done that, from as long ago as ‘Pong’. It really doesn’t matter whether you haul, mine, or gank, the game is designed to ensnare as many player types as possible.
If a player becomes discouraged because of the challenges posed, he’ll likely decamp, popping back now and then because the drug has such a powerful drawing effect.
However, I guarantee that for those who completely beat it, there’s a sense of wonder that it ever had the power to do what it did, in the first place. There’s no return for those, for they ‘won EVE’. The phrase itself is almost ‘beat the addiction’, isn’t it?
2 Likes