These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Crime & Punishment

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

War on Gankers

First post
Author
Ramcath
Boulder Shoulders Industries
#561 - 2015-01-11 00:52:35 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Ramcath wrote:

I don't want to be viewed as a "scare-monger"


I'm being perfectly honest with you when I tell you that ship has sailed.

You're in the same box as Lucas, Veers, Anslo and the rest as far as I'm concerned.


Quote:

We'll see what happens, maybe nothing, maybe something. I just hope it's something that improves the Eve experience, because if freighter pilots default move is to hit the 'log off safely' button as fast as they can then I don't see how this would bring anyone to Eve to play a game that most of us love.


One wonders why you spent five pages arguing for precisely that, then.



Since you offer absolutely nothing substantial to any discussion then you are also in your own ship that is sailing down the river "(crying... weeping...) pppllleeaasseee don't take my ability to gank a defenseless ship... how I love it so..."

As for spending five pages on it I was trying to show exactly how a game mechanic that is used can be used a way that it shouldn't. Doesn't mean it's not done, but it certainly wouldn't be the intention of CCP for the 'log off safely' feature to be used. Since 'bumpers' are almost always in NPC corps so they can't get war dec'd and can sit on gates all day long with no fear of being ganked themselves, I would say that a log off safety feature could be used to simply counter that. Should it? No... I don't think it should. Exploiting game mechanics doesn't make someone a bad Eve player, they're simply using what is given, even in ways it wasn't intended. Learn to distinguish the point of an argument instead of simply picking and choosing quotes that are taken out of context. I've made it very clear my feelings on ganking, how it should be allowed, it's part of Eve, etc. Your failure to recognize this is why I think you need to get off the forums and back to your homework.
Neo Kathura
Doomheim
#562 - 2015-01-11 01:01:10 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
That is a very Lucas-esque response. Just look at the killboards to see where most exhumers go boom. It also helps to know that this report from the good doctor happened just after the final triple whammy of the ganker insurance nerf, exhumer EHP buff, and the CONCORD response time reductions so you understand the wry phrasing of "[f]or reasons that are left as an exercise to the reader".

Miner ganking has never been more unprofitable in the game since these changes (mid-2012), and in fact it is now unprofitable for any normally fit barge/exhumer, so it is perfectly reasonable that miner ganking would be at an all-time low.

But yes, for the pedants out there like yourself and Lucas, I will concede that this says nothing about mining barges, and that it only applied in December 2012, and the statistics could have changed since.
I meant no offense. I wasn't sure if I'd missed something in the minutes, or if it was implied in a way I was unaware of.
Concord Guy's Cousin
Doomheim
#563 - 2015-01-11 03:13:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Concord Guy's Cousin
Ramcath wrote:
I hate to use RL examples for a game, but banks use armored vehicles to transport money. The drivers of those trucks are armed guards, so if the truck is attacked the men inside can respond back. The transporters themselves can fight back, and this obviously makes sense. Just to give a counter-example, most trains carry lots of freight but usually don't have armed guards, but if there was a rise of modern day train robberies then you could see armed guards on trains in order to help prevent attacks.
The same is true in Eve, those armed guards are your friends that are in fleet with you.

Quote:
Granted... I realize the ganker trolls who have nothing to contribute will latch onto the great train robbery examples to troll to death, but for those of you who are capable of critical thinking just look at my point. Give the freighter the ability to defend itself, that's a compromise that shouldn't cause a panic in Eve. If this were to happen would a freighter be able to withstand a ganking fleet of 5... probably. Could it survive a 20 man fleet, probably not. If this were to be allowed on freighters I think you'd see an influx of people wanting to gank and make freighter pilots more ready to lose their ship since they realize they have no excuse. I think it's a positive for both sides.
This is called fitting for EHP not cargo space, and is by design since the addition of low slots to freighters. Obviously gankers can bring more firepower to overcome that, via more pilots and/or more powerful ships but that is line with the gist of your proposal.

ISD LackOfFaith ~ "Your Catalyst was a hamster, and your Retriever smelt of elderberries"

NPC Forum Alt, because reasons.

Black Pedro
Mine.
#564 - 2015-01-11 08:42:49 UTC
Neo Kathura wrote:
I meant no offense. I wasn't sure if I'd missed something in the minutes, or if it was implied in a way I was unaware of.

No my apologies. I actually re-read your comment and my response a little later and actually thought perhaps you weren't challenging the idea but just looking for clairification. The joys of the written word.

Clearly Lucas' replies have got to me more than I had realized! ;)

Mag's
Azn Empire
#565 - 2015-01-11 14:26:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Mag's
Mag's wrote:
Ramcath wrote:
.....Far too many words to quote, just take it I am responding to all......
First off, please show me there is a problem. Surely this would manifest itself in a high percentage of freighters being ganked per day. So what is a high percentage to you?
5%? Less? How about 3 or 2?
Does the figure of them dying to suicide ganks come even close to that? You claim there is a problem, I just wonder what you base this on?


Now I have issues with your disingenuous posting. You "don't want to ban ganking", you say no one is saying the solution "is to prevent all or any means of ganking." You say "I think ganking is just fine, but just not fine the way it is."
You then proceed to ask for the removal of aggro from freighters. Allowing them to log off safely.

Well if that isn't the removal of a means of ganking, then what is? Yes here you are telling us ganking is OK, but let's nerf it anyway?

You've even said yourself, pilots would be better off with a scout or in groups. So why do we need a nerf? You seem to want to balance the game around solo play, because it so happens that group play has more power in an MMO. It is a fact that you can move a freighter through high sec with very little risk, with one friend. That's one friend. How the hell is that not acceptable? On what logical basis do we ignore that and then go on to ask for no freighter aggro instead?


Now to Concord and security.

Concord are reactive. They punish acts, they do not prevent you from starting them. If CCP intended on them preventing ganking, they would implement it.
The security is about levels of punishment, as can be seen from the response times of concord within each level of high sec.
They have no interest in the pod, because they just want to stop the crime. Once the ship is gone, their job is done and they place you on watch for a set time.

I did wonder how long it was going to be, before someone asked for Concord to pod gankers after that clone change. No cigar here for you sir, it's already been asked for. But sure why not, we could even include pilots that shoot rats. Have rats shoot mission runners pods etc. I see this has already been brought to your attention.

The concord mechanic was created to differentiate the security of space. It was never intended to stop player interaction, merely to change the level of punishment of no consent, (flagged against the law) boat violence.

Now your talk of Exploits.

It's not unusual to find those claiming to support ganking, then asking for it to be nerfed, to also include some line that claims an exploit or two. Here is yours:
Ramcath wrote:
So if it's not meant to be used that way and is, then that is a form of exploiting the game mechanics. Much the same way a Machariel bumping a freighter is.
Let me make this clear now. You me and every other player, do not decide what is and is not an exploit. You use the term because you seek to elicit a certain response. One I'm giving now perhaps.
So I'll look at both mechanics.

Log off timer.
It wasn't ever a method that CCP deployed, that would allow for what you ask. You have the link, it's quite clear on the subject. But here are some bullet points.

    You cannot be safely logging off while:

  • You have active modules
  • You're ejecting from a ship
  • You have aggression from players or NPCs
  • Your ship is exploding or self-destructing
  • You're issuing movement commands
  • You're launching or jettisoning objects
  • You're joining a fleet
  • You're deploying or reconnecting with drones
  • You have a target lock or are targeted
  • You're warping
  • You're decloaking or under gate cloak


Bumping.
It's not an exploit, whether is be with a Mach, or a noobship. It's been discussed, it's been ruled on. It wasn't ruled solely on mining ships either, which is another line many like to trot out. It's a ruling on bumping ships.

Now I'm sure you'll be wanting to now point out, you merely meant exploiting in the term the dictionary states. But whilst we are discussing game mechanics, the term exploit has certain connotations. You know this, we all know this. It's their game, therefore their use of the term applies to that discussion.


So what do we have here? Well you claiming one thing, then go on the say another.
You also claim: "I've yet to see any pro-ganking thread that offered any type of relevant idea beyond the freighter pilots just need to be smarter." (as if that's a bad thing, but I digress.)

That's not been my observation. Take this thread for example.
Or this one.
Both have people offering advice on how to freighter safely. You even talk of some of them yourself.
But it seems to be falling on deaf ears, even with you.

The conclusion to all this is that group play in an MMO, is OP compared to solo play. I hardly call this a revelation, but it seems to be overlooked by many most of the time. But why understand the game, when we can simply run to the forum and ask for a nerf?

Have a great day.
Re-posting this. You wanted discussion, I've even asked once already for you to reply to this. And a second time here.

Still waiting Ramcath.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.

Ramcath
Boulder Shoulders Industries
#566 - 2015-01-11 20:32:34 UTC
Mag's wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Ramcath wrote:
.....Far too many words to quote, just take it I am responding to all......
First off, please show me there is a problem. Surely this would manifest itself in a high percentage of freighters being ganked per day. So what is a high percentage to you?
5%? Less? How about 3 or 2?
Does the figure of them dying to suicide ganks come even close to that? You claim there is a problem, I just wonder what you base this on?


Now I have issues with your disingenuous posting. You "don't want to ban ganking", you say no one is saying the solution "is to prevent all or any means of ganking." You say "I think ganking is just fine, but just not fine the way it is."
You then proceed to ask for the removal of aggro from freighters. Allowing them to log off safely.

Well if that isn't the removal of a means of ganking, then what is? Yes here you are telling us ganking is OK, but let's nerf it anyway?

You've even said yourself, pilots would be better off with a scout or in groups. So why do we need a nerf? You seem to want to balance the game around solo play, because it so happens that group play has more power in an MMO. It is a fact that you can move a freighter through high sec with very little risk, with one friend. That's one friend. How the hell is that not acceptable? On what logical basis do we ignore that and then go on to ask for no freighter aggro instead?


Now to Concord and security.

p player interaction, merely to change the level of punishment of no consent, (flagged against the law) boat violence.

Now your talk of Exploits.

It's not unusual to find those claiming to support ganking, then asking for it to be nerfed, to also include some line that claims an exploit or two. Here is yours:
Ramcath wrote:
So if it's not meant to be used that way and is, then that is a form of exploiting the game mechanics. Much the same way a Machariel bumping a freighter is.
Let me make this clear now. You me and every other player, do not decide what is and is not an exploit. You use the term because you seek to elicit a certain response. One I'm giving now perhaps.
So I'll look at both mechanics.

Log off timer.
It wasn't ever a method that CCP deployed, that would allow for what you ask. You have the link, it's quite clear on the subject. But here are some bullet points.

    You cannot be safely logging off while:

  • You have active modules
  • You're ejecting from a ship
  • You have aggression from players or NPCs
  • Your ship is exploding or self-destructing
  • You're issuing movement commands
  • You're launching or jettisoning objects
  • You're joining a fleet
  • You're deploying or reconnecting with drones
  • You have a target lock or are targeted
  • You're warping
  • You're decloaking or under gate cloak


Bumping.
It's not an exploit, whether is be with a Mach, or a noobship. It's been discussed, it's been ruled on. It wasn't ruled solely on mining ships either, which is another line many like to trot out. It's a ruling on bumping ships.

Now I'm sure you'll be wanting to now point out, you merely meant exploiting in the term the dictionary states. But whilst we are discussing game mechanics, the term exploit has certain connotations. You know this, we all know this. It's their game, therefore their use of the term applies to that discussion.


So what do we have here? Well you claiming one thing, then go on the say another.
You also claim: "I've yet to see any pro-ganking thread that offered any type of relevant idea beyond the freighter pilots just need to be smarter." (as if that's a bad thing, but I digress.)

The conclusion to all this is that group play in an MMO, is OP compared to solo play. I hardly call this a revelation, but it seems to be overlooked by many most of the time. But why understand the game, when we can simply run to the forum and ask for a nerf?

Have a great day.
Re-posting this. You wanted discussion, I've even asked once already for you to reply to this. And a second time here.

Still waiting Ramcath.



Do me a favor Mag, since I have spent more time than I care on this subject I honestly don't feel like going through your whole post to pick out every point you're making, just copy/paste small sections or ask some specifics without quoting the whole passage. I had to delete part of this post just to write this section, so that validates why I'm not wanting to go back through the whole thing. I grade enough papers as it is so give me the bullet points on a fresh post and I'd be happy to banter with you. I do apologize for not responding before.
Velicitia
XS Tech
#567 - 2015-01-11 22:29:38 UTC
Ramcath wrote:
Mag's wrote:
good stuff


Do me a favor Mag, since I have spent more time than I care on this subject I honestly don't feel like going through your whole post to pick out every point you're making, just copy/paste small sections or ask some specifics without quoting the whole passage. I had to delete part of this post just to write this section, so that validates why I'm not wanting to go back through the whole thing. I grade enough papers as it is so give me the bullet points on a fresh post and I'd be happy to banter with you. I do apologize for not responding before.



All I'm reading here is that you're unwilling to respond to the salient points in a rather long post.

Pretty hypocritical seeing as you have more than a few wall o' text posts in this thread.

One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia

Mag's
Azn Empire
#568 - 2015-01-11 23:24:31 UTC
Ramcath wrote:
Mag's wrote:
....Snip....

Have a great day.

Do me a favor Mag, since I have spent more time than I care on this subject I honestly don't feel like going through your whole post to pick out every point you're making, just copy/paste small sections or ask some specifics without quoting the whole passage. I had to delete part of this post just to write this section, so that validates why I'm not wanting to go back through the whole thing. I grade enough papers as it is so give me the bullet points on a fresh post and I'd be happy to banter with you. I do apologize for not responding before.
Ahh, so you couldn't edit the post and do as I did? I do find that reply rather odd, considering what you claim to be.

It does seem as though Velicitia, may just have hit the proverbial nail on the head. But if that is indeed not the correct situation and you're merely being a little lazy, it's all there. I'll wait.

Have a great day. Big smile

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.

Tear Jar
New Order Logistics
CODE.
#569 - 2015-01-12 03:19:59 UTC
Ramcath wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Ramcath wrote:

I don't want to be viewed as a "scare-monger"


I'm being perfectly honest with you when I tell you that ship has sailed.

You're in the same box as Lucas, Veers, Anslo and the rest as far as I'm concerned.


Quote:

We'll see what happens, maybe nothing, maybe something. I just hope it's something that improves the Eve experience, because if freighter pilots default move is to hit the 'log off safely' button as fast as they can then I don't see how this would bring anyone to Eve to play a game that most of us love.


One wonders why you spent five pages arguing for precisely that, then.



Since you offer absolutely nothing substantial to any discussion then you are also in your own ship that is sailing down the river "(crying... weeping...) pppllleeaasseee don't take my ability to gank a defenseless ship... how I love it so..."

As for spending five pages on it I was trying to show exactly how a game mechanic that is used can be used a way that it shouldn't. Doesn't mean it's not done, but it certainly wouldn't be the intention of CCP for the 'log off safely' feature to be used. Since 'bumpers' are almost always in NPC corps so they can't get war dec'd and can sit on gates all day long with no fear of being ganked themselves, I would say that a log off safety feature could be used to simply counter that. Should it? No... I don't think it should. Exploiting game mechanics doesn't make someone a bad Eve player, they're simply using what is given, even in ways it wasn't intended. Learn to distinguish the point of an argument instead of simply picking and choosing quotes that are taken out of context. I've made it very clear my feelings on ganking, how it should be allowed, it's part of Eve, etc. Your failure to recognize this is why I think you need to get off the forums and back to your homework.


I can think of 3 counters to being bumped. They rely on forethought or having friends/alts though.
Ramcath
Boulder Shoulders Industries
#570 - 2015-01-12 06:37:16 UTC
Mag's wrote:
Ramcath wrote:
Mag's wrote:
....Snip....

Have a great day.

Do me a favor Mag, since I have spent more time than I care on this subject I honestly don't feel like going through your whole post to pick out every point you're making, just copy/paste small sections or ask some specifics without quoting the whole passage. I had to delete part of this post just to write this section, so that validates why I'm not wanting to go back through the whole thing. I grade enough papers as it is so give me the bullet points on a fresh post and I'd be happy to banter with you. I do apologize for not responding before.
Ahh, so you couldn't edit the post and do as I did? I do find that reply rather odd, considering what you claim to be.

It does seem as though Velicitia, may just have hit the proverbial nail on the head. But if that is indeed not the correct situation and you're merely being a little lazy, it's all there. I'll wait.

Have a great day. Big smile



I said that your post was so long it prevented me from typing more than a few words, and that's why I requested you take your points and cut/copy/paste them. If I could see them clearly, perhaps in a bullet format this would've helped, because I didn't want to delete any of your points and inadvertently skip one or two. I even apologized for not responding sooner, and I honestly forgot to from responding to other posts and you got lost in the shuffle. Since it seems that the following two posts which followed yours were in an effort to simply disparage my honest attempts at a dialogue I no longer see the point in responding further to any of you. I've made my points and everyone is free to review them on their own. Arguing on the forums at times is pointless and we seem to have reached that impasse, so for those of you who tried to have a civil debate on ganking, thank you, and for those of you who would rather flex your internet muscles with condescending troll posts that show nothing more than your total and complete lack of critical thinking and cognizant thought... adieu.
Concord Guy's Cousin
Doomheim
#571 - 2015-01-12 09:11:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Concord Guy's Cousin
Seeing as you can't be bothered to do it for yourself, here's a list of the salient points that I believe Mags made

  • Show that there is a problem with the ganking of freighters.

  • What do you consider to be an unacceptable percentage of freighter journeys ending in an explosion?

  • Does the figure of freighters dying to suicide ganks come even close to the percentage you consider to unacceptable?

  • You claim "don't want to ban ganking". You claim no one is saying the solution "is to prevent all or any means of ganking.". You claim "I think ganking is just fine, but just not fine the way it is." You then proceed to ask for the removal of aggro from freighters. Allowing them to log off safely. What is that if it's not the removal of an aspect of ganking?

  • You're telling us ganking is OK, but want to see it nerfed regardless. Which is it?

  • You've even said yourself, pilots would be better off with a scout or in groups. So why do we need a nerf to ganking? Why don't you fly in a group or use a scout?

  • You seem to want to balance the game around solo play because group play has more power in an MMO. Group play is one of the major selling points of an MMO, there's plenty of single player space games, so why should a multiplayer one be balanced around solo play?

  • It is a fact that you can move a freighter through high sec with very little risk, with one friend. On what logical basis do we ignore that and then go on to ask for no freighter aggro instead?

  • Why should Concord pod gankers? CCP have set them up very specifically, along with every other NPC in the game, to not pod players.

  • NPCs podding players has been asked for repeatedly in the past, CCP have decided not to follow that suggestion, they're unlikely to change their mind about it any time soon.

  • If NPCs were to pod players it should apply to all players. Have rats shoot mission runners pods etc.The resulting tears and backlash would be epic and come mainly from the people that demand changes such as this.

  • The concord mechanic was created to differentiate the security of space. It is reactive, not proactive. It was never intended to stop player interaction, merely to change the level of punishment of no consent, (flagged against the law) boat violence.

  • You've misinterpreted the use of the safe log off function, it is a situational mechanic. Certain criteria must be met before you can safely log off, if those criteria, some of which are not under your control, are not met you can't safely log off. Working as intended TBH. See quote below for the criteria that must be met.
Mags wrote:

You cannot be safely logging off while:

  • You have active modules
  • You're ejecting from a ship
  • You have aggression from players or NPCs
  • Your ship is exploding or self-destructing
  • You're issuing movement commands
  • You're launching or jettisoning objects
  • You're joining a fleet
  • You're deploying or reconnecting with drones
  • You have a target lock or are targeted
  • You're warping
  • You're decloaking or under gate cloak


  • Bumping is not an exploit, CCPs word regarding this is final regardless of your personal thoughts about it. Under certain circumstances it may be considered harassment, if you feel you're being harassed by bumpers raise a support ticket; after making sure you've read the GMs rulings (here and here) on what is and what is not considered to be harassment with regards to bumping so that you don't waste their time.

    CCPs definitions of exploit, harassment and griefing are the only ones that matter in relation to Eve. Many activities that are considered normal gameplay by CCP would get you banned from most other games.

    There's plenty of advice on how to not get ganked while flying a freighter, that you choose to ignore it because it requires paying attention, planning and not being complacent is entirely your own problem. Play smarter is valid advice BTW.

    Eve is a primarily a PvP MMO, as such it is an extremely competitive and social game where the efforts of a group nearly always overcome the efforts of an individual. Use that to your advantage, involve others in your gameplay, or others will take it upon themselves to involve you in theirs.

    The ball is now in your court Ramcath

    ISD LackOfFaith ~ "Your Catalyst was a hamster, and your Retriever smelt of elderberries"

    NPC Forum Alt, because reasons.

    Velicitia
    XS Tech
    #572 - 2015-01-12 11:36:34 UTC
    Ramcath wrote:
    Mag's wrote:
    Ramcath wrote:
    Mag's wrote:
    ....Snip....

    Have a great day.

    Do me a favor Mag, since I have spent more time than I care on this subject I honestly don't feel like going through your whole post to pick out every point you're making, just copy/paste small sections or ask some specifics without quoting the whole passage. I had to delete part of this post just to write this section, so that validates why I'm not wanting to go back through the whole thing. I grade enough papers as it is so give me the bullet points on a fresh post and I'd be happy to banter with you. I do apologize for not responding before.
    Ahh, so you couldn't edit the post and do as I did? I do find that reply rather odd, considering what you claim to be.

    It does seem as though Velicitia, may just have hit the proverbial nail on the head. But if that is indeed not the correct situation and you're merely being a little lazy, it's all there. I'll wait.

    Have a great day. Big smile



    I said that your post was so long it prevented me from typing more than a few words, and that's why I requested you take your points and cut/copy/paste them. If I could see them clearly, perhaps in a bullet format this would've helped, because I didn't want to delete any of your points and inadvertently skip one or two. I even apologized for not responding sooner, and I honestly forgot to from responding to other posts and you got lost in the shuffle. Since it seems that the following two posts which followed yours were in an effort to simply disparage my honest attempts at a dialogue I no longer see the point in responding further to any of you. I've made my points and everyone is free to review them on their own. Arguing on the forums at times is pointless and we seem to have reached that impasse, so for those of you who tried to have a civil debate on ganking, thank you, and for those of you who would rather flex your internet muscles with condescending troll posts that show nothing more than your total and complete lack of critical thinking and cognizant thought... adieu.



    Mag's has posted one of, if not the, most well reasoned and "civil" responses to your wall of text posting in this thread (aside -- seriously, while your paragraph structure is probably "okay" in an academic sense, reading it on the forums here is torture on the eyes).

    The shorter responses (like mine, where I called you a hypocrite) were likely posted via a smartphone (mine was, anyway), as they're simply awful to type on. Would be nice if we had something like tapatalk here, but we don't ... so we make do. However, this does not preclude someone from badposting from a PC.

    If you had quoted only what you believed the salient points were (and missed something), Mag's would have called you out on it, and raised said missed point(s) again. However, he may have also just dropped it, as said point(s) in his rebuttal may have only mattered in the context of that post he was initially replying to -- the implication there being that you agree with the points. He, along with many of the other "bad guys" of EVE, is actually a pretty decent guy to talk to. You just have to approach the subject at hand in a non-emotional manner.

    TBH, I think many of the "bad guys" are likely highly educated professionals -- you just have to work to separate out the chaff, especially when participating in typically "heated" topics like "carebears vs. eve". Or, if they're not ... they're at least better at keeping emotion out of their posts, so they seem more on-point.

    One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia

    Mag's
    Azn Empire
    #573 - 2015-01-12 14:45:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Mag's
    Ramcath wrote:
    I said that your post was so long it prevented me from typing more than a few words, and that's why I requested you take your points and cut/copy/paste them. If I could see them clearly, perhaps in a bullet format this would've helped, because I didn't want to delete any of your points and inadvertently skip one or two. I even apologized for not responding sooner, and I honestly forgot to from responding to other posts and you got lost in the shuffle. Since it seems that the following two posts which followed yours were in an effort to simply disparage my honest attempts at a dialogue I no longer see the point in responding further to any of you. I've made my points and everyone is free to review them on their own. Arguing on the forums at times is pointless and we seem to have reached that impasse, so for those of you who tried to have a civil debate on ganking, thank you, and for those of you who would rather flex your internet muscles with condescending troll posts that show nothing more than your total and complete lack of critical thinking and cognizant thought... adieu.
    I don't need you to reposting all my post, just as my reply didn't need yours. I have a brain, I can read and understand what you write. When all the points are there, it's rather rude to expect me to rewrite it again and for what? Going by the length of Concord Guy's Cousin's valiant effort, it doesn't really help much. It's still a long post.

    I hope this isn't how you treat your students, if you have any.

    Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.

    Ontariuss
    Golden Fleet Rearch Industry Corporation
    #574 - 2015-01-14 11:30:46 UTC
    Leto Thule wrote:
    One must laugh at the intent on blowing up ships that never intend to make it back to the docking ring anyhow.

    Want to win against gankers? PM one and they will tell you how:

    Tank your fit, use a scout, and watch dscan. Victory!


    This
    Omar Alharazaad
    Spectrum Reborn
    #575 - 2015-01-14 16:17:16 UTC
    There seems to be this pervasive notion that the advice that gankers give to their victims is either a trap or otherwise disingenuous. The funny thing is that the exact opposite is true. Over the years I've seen ganker after ganker give EXACTLY the SAME advice over and over again, only to be met with the same skepticism or flat out disbelief. PVE players cannot seem to grok that those who just insinkerated their boat and then summarily podsploded them might actually be willing to share true insight on how to not have it happen again.
    The same tired excuses come up in response... over and over again.
    Being unwilling to be get out of your proverbial chair to do ANYTHING to try and ensure your own safety is not the same as being defenseless or 'helpless'. It's tiring to hear, and to be honest it robs you and your fellows of any modicum of sympathy or respect you may feel yourselves to be entitled to from your erstwhile peers and foes.

    Come hell or high water, this sick world will know I was here.

    Mag's
    Azn Empire
    #576 - 2015-01-14 16:18:58 UTC
    Omar Alharazaad wrote:
    There seems to be this pervasive notion that the advice that gankers give to their victims is either a trap or otherwise disingenuous. The funny thing is that the exact opposite is true. Over the years I've seen ganker after ganker give EXACTLY the SAME advice over and over again, only to be met with the same skepticism or flat out disbelief. PVE players cannot seem to grok that those who just insinkerated their boat and then summarily podsploded them might actually be willing to share true insight on how to not have it happen again.
    The same tired excuses come up in response... over and over again.
    Being unwilling to be get out of your proverbial chair to do ANYTHING to try and ensure your own safety is not the same as being defenseless or 'helpless'. It's tiring to hear, and to be honest it robs you and your fellows of any modicum of sympathy or respect you may feel yourselves to be entitled to from your erstwhile peers and foes.
    Well said.

    Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.

    Arashi Mina
    #577 - 2015-01-14 16:26:36 UTC
    Omar Alharazaad wrote:
    There seems to be this pervasive notion that the advice that gankers give to their victims is either a trap or otherwise disingenuous. The funny thing is that the exact opposite is true. Over the years I've seen ganker after ganker give EXACTLY the SAME advice over and over again, only to be met with the same skepticism or flat out disbelief. PVE players cannot seem to grok that those who just insinkerated their boat and then summarily podsploded them might actually be willing to share true insight on how to not have it happen again.
    The same tired excuses come up in response... over and over again.
    Being unwilling to be get out of your proverbial chair to do ANYTHING to try and ensure your own safety is not the same as being defenseless or 'helpless'. It's tiring to hear, and to be honest it robs you and your fellows of any modicum of sympathy or respect you may feel yourselves to be entitled to from your erstwhile peers and foes.
    What happens if they all follow the advice? If all targets of ganks start playing in a way that stops them being gankable, does ganking stop, or will the game need to be changed so ganking is easier? Real question.
    Velicitia
    XS Tech
    #578 - 2015-01-14 16:33:49 UTC
    Arashi Mina wrote:
    Omar Alharazaad wrote:
    There seems to be this pervasive notion that the advice that gankers give to their victims is either a trap or otherwise disingenuous. The funny thing is that the exact opposite is true. Over the years I've seen ganker after ganker give EXACTLY the SAME advice over and over again, only to be met with the same skepticism or flat out disbelief. PVE players cannot seem to grok that those who just insinkerated their boat and then summarily podsploded them might actually be willing to share true insight on how to not have it happen again.
    The same tired excuses come up in response... over and over again.
    Being unwilling to be get out of your proverbial chair to do ANYTHING to try and ensure your own safety is not the same as being defenseless or 'helpless'. It's tiring to hear, and to be honest it robs you and your fellows of any modicum of sympathy or respect you may feel yourselves to be entitled to from your erstwhile peers and foes.
    What happens if they all follow the advice? If all targets of ganks start playing in a way that stops them being gankable, does ganking stop, or will the game need to be changed so ganking is easier? Real question.


    1. The ones who learned are now "ungankable"
    2. The gankers change their MO
    3. The "ungankable" people are now "gankable" again.

    (repeat ad infinitum)


    The game doesn't need to be changed to help ganking be better -- ganking hasn't stopped, even with all the mechanics changes to make it harder.

    One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia

    Omar Alharazaad
    Spectrum Reborn
    #579 - 2015-01-14 16:34:38 UTC
    Kind of a trap there, as there is no way that they will ALL follow the advice. That's just human nature. It's safe for the gankers to tell folks how to avoid it because they know that most wont bother to heed the advice given. If, hypothetically, they were to all actually do this then I imagine that ganking would become a very difficult profession to follow.

    I'm sure most would adapt to different methods or styles of game play as a result. What I doubt is that they would cry out for changes to the game to make it easier, as in this case it would not be a matter of mechanics working against/for them so much as a player base of wily folks who were actively trying not to be killed.

    This is strictly hypothetical, mind you, as there is NO chance that all of them or even a majority of them would heed the words of warning on the wind.

    Come hell or high water, this sick world will know I was here.

    Concord Guy's Cousin
    Doomheim
    #580 - 2015-01-14 21:44:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Concord Guy's Cousin
    Arashi Mina wrote:
    Omar Alharazaad wrote:
    There seems to be this pervasive notion that the advice that gankers give to their victims is either a trap or otherwise disingenuous. The funny thing is that the exact opposite is true. Over the years I've seen ganker after ganker give EXACTLY the SAME advice over and over again, only to be met with the same skepticism or flat out disbelief. PVE players cannot seem to grok that those who just insinkerated their boat and then summarily podsploded them might actually be willing to share true insight on how to not have it happen again.
    The same tired excuses come up in response... over and over again.
    Being unwilling to be get out of your proverbial chair to do ANYTHING to try and ensure your own safety is not the same as being defenseless or 'helpless'. It's tiring to hear, and to be honest it robs you and your fellows of any modicum of sympathy or respect you may feel yourselves to be entitled to from your erstwhile peers and foes.
    What happens if they all follow the advice? If all targets of ganks start playing in a way that stops them being gankable, does ganking stop, or will the game need to be changed so ganking is easier? Real question.
    Never going to happen, most are too lazy, ignorant or set in their ways to do so; and have been for the last decade. Never underestimate the power of stupid.

    Anyone who does follow the advice tends not to get ganked as they are undesirable targets, by virtue of those that don't follow it being much easier to prey upon. As the saying goes "You don’t have to outrun the bear…you just have to outrun the other guy."

    If everybody followed the advice they give out, they'd adapt just as they have every time CCP has changed the mechanics related to ganking, and keep on ganking; after all there is no such thing as too much DPS.

    On the other hand, the ignorant or foolish who refuse to take steps to protect themselves from predators, they keep on whining and demanding that CCP nerf the ebil piwates, again.

    ISD LackOfFaith ~ "Your Catalyst was a hamster, and your Retriever smelt of elderberries"

    NPC Forum Alt, because reasons.