These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Why do people assume how we play the game reflects us in real life?

First post
Author
Black Pedro
Mine.
#561 - 2016-09-17 12:57:37 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
So you are happy with the insane level of low risk vs massive reward in terms of gankers in hisec, so much for risk and reward Shocked.


Why complain about the levels of risk gankers run when the level of risk their targets run is so low that it's not worth taking even minimal precations to avoid or mitigate the gankers?


It is rather amusing to see the reaction to the point made about no risk and massive reward for hisec ganking. There is no doubt that this is massively out of balance with the concept of risk and reward in Eve, rather amusingly so.

Actually, not at all. Highsec ganking is a PvP activity and thus is balanced by the behaviour of the players. The risk and the reward is determined in large part by how individual players choose to play the game, and regardless of that, spawn no new resources into the universe, so is not subject to the classical risk vs. reward paradigm that the PvE activities are balanced. The developers couldn't completely balance it if they wanted to given haulers can and will just cram more ISK into each ship.

Besides, no matter how little risk you think highsec gankers experience, it has to be more than the near risk-free activities of many PvE activities in the game such as mining in a Skiff or running an Incursion in highsec. The chances of you dying are incredibly remote for both those activities, yet they reward tens or hundreds of millions of ISK per hour. Ganking, in general, has been nerfed into unprofitability and aside from a few pirates that prey on clueless/greedy haulers, only exists as part of larger part of a greater effort of emergent game play.

Sigh. As was pointed out, this thread has devolved into the age-old debate of highsec ganking despite its original question. I suggest we either let this thread die, or bring it back to how our actions in game do, or do not, reflect our personalities in real-life.
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
#562 - 2016-09-17 13:09:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Dracvlad
Fascinating to see the attempt to close of this point about risk and reward being very unbalanced in terms of hisec ganking.

The simple matter is we are talking about over all game balance, nothing to do with PvE as compared to PvP, ganking is an ISK making activity in terms of hauler/freighter just as shooting red crosses are. The risk for getting such huge rewards is obscenely imbalanced.

My suggestions which I detailed above make it a bit more challenging for the veteran players paying for their subs with such systematic and consequence free ganking. And if people think that this is going to make loads of players quit I will have to laugh at that.

CODE's actions against miners is more focused against CCP itself in terms of their lifeblood, new paying players...

And finally this is very relevant to the OP's post, ganking of haulers and freighters is totally rational, ganking by CODE is totally rational in terms of getting back at CCP That some players are so fixated on tears is of course worrying in terms of their mental health, but my opinion is that most gankers are purely in it for the ego of easy high value kills and to run many accounts without paying for them and that is totally rational.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#563 - 2016-09-17 13:11:42 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
Fascinating to see the attempt to close of this point about risk and reward being very unbalanced in terms of hisec ganking.

The simple matter is we are talking about over all game balance, nothing to do with PvE as compared to PvP, ganking is an ISK making activity in terms of hauler/freighter just as shooting red crosses are. The risk for getting such huge rewards is obscenely imbalanced.

My suggestions which I detailed above make it a bit more challenging for the veteran players paying for their subs with such systematise and consequence free ganking. And if people think that this is going to make loads of players quit I will have to laugh at that.

CODE's actions against miners is more focused against CCP itself in terms of their lifeblood, new paying players...

And finally this is very relevant to the OP's post, ganking of haulers and freighters is totally rational, ganking by CODE is totally rational in terms of getting back at CCP That some players are so fixated on tears is of course worrying in terms of their mental health, but my opinion is that most gankers are purely in it for the ego of easy high value kills and to run many accounts without paying for them and that is totally rational.


There is that new players comment again.
Giaus Felix
Doomheim
#564 - 2016-09-17 13:13:59 UTC
The only difference between someone who can't be bothered to take precautions against other players and an NPC is that one has a heartbeat.

TL;DR if you act like an NPC, you deserve to die like an NPC.

I came for the spaceships, I stayed for the tears.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#565 - 2016-09-17 13:20:34 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
So be cause it's not the gankers fault that newbies are new, game mechanics shouldn't be balanced to push people toward risk/reward balance? I'll remember that next time you ***** about carebears getting an easy ride.
Got any evidence its new players getting ganked?
According to you anyone with an ounce of experience can easily avoid a gank, thus most players getting ganked must be to one extent or another newbies.

Lacori wrote:
Well if they do this, they will lose a great majority of their existing playerbase.Evil
I seriously doubt that. A lot of veteran players will never quit. Hell supposedly everyone would ragequit if they put in microtrans, and now you can buy SP and people haven't been ragequitting. Then even if they did lose a chunk, say they lost a quarter of their playerbase, their existing playerbase is tiny so they'd not be losing that many, and the ones they'd lose nobody would miss.

Lacori wrote:
Just how many noobies do you expect to join exactly? Goons are 15,000 strong. You think CCP are gonna risk losing all those players? It would be suicide for the game if they made it more noob-friendly, as it's one of the main tenets of Eve differing to other sandbox MMOs.
Goons aren't going to quit just because thy improve highsec mechanics for newbies, what have you been smoking?

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#566 - 2016-09-17 13:27:44 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Lucas Kell wrote:
According to you anyone with an ounce of experience can easily avoid a gank, thus most players getting ganked must be to one extent or another newbies.




So you have no evidence to back that up.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#567 - 2016-09-17 13:31:39 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Given that said risk and reward is dependent upon the target being incredibly daft, yes.
But it's not. A hauler can take as many precautions as he wants, or none at all, and his rewards remains laughably low. Gankers on the other hand risk nothing and roll this dice on level of reward.

Malcanis wrote:
Why complain about the levels of risk gankers run when the level of risk their targets run is so low that it's not worth taking even minimal precations to avoid or mitigate the gankers?
Because their targets have an option of choosing low risk or high risk, but their reward remains low. Gankers have a choice of low reward or high reward but their risk remains low.

Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
The risk is low because people aren't generally willing to do anything to stop them, the reward is high because their victims often indulge in excessive stupidity and expect to get away with it.
Not much can be done to stop them in any reliable way and everything that can carries basically zero reward. Haulers and miners are the lowest income anyway so splitting that out to pay for support makes it pretty much a pointless endeavour, and even then all they can do is mitigate some gank attempts. I always find it funny that gankers are willing to say how easy anti-ganking is, yet not one has chosen to take up the challenge of proving it.

baltec1 wrote:
So you have no evidence to back that up.
No, I, like you have no access to CCPs database, but I do have basic common sense on my side. You are suggesting that experienced veteran players are ganked more often that inexperienced rookies, and claiming that I'm the one that needs to provide evidence. Lel. Seriously baltec, pretty much every conversation I've seen you in involves you making some ludicrous claim that defies basic logic then demanding everyone else shower you with evidence while you provide none.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#568 - 2016-09-17 13:38:33 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Lucas Kell wrote:
But it's not. A hauler can take as many precautions as he wants, or none at all, and his rewards remains laughably low. Gankers on the other hand risk nothing and roll this dice on level of reward.


The reward for a ganker is entirely dependent upon what the "victim" fits on their ship and in their holds. As for the gankers risk nothing, are we forgetting the simple fact that the gankers are going up against concord so a failed gank means they have to replace their ships.



baltec1 wrote:
No, I, like you have no access to CCPs database, but I do have basic common sense on my side. You are suggesting that experienced veteran players are ganked more often that inexperienced rookies, and claiming that I'm the one that needs to provide evidence. Lel. Seriously baltec, pretty much every conversation I've seen you in involves you making some ludicrous claim that defies basic logic then demanding everyone else shower you with evidence while you provide none.


Lets try this logic then.

You have whined about things like freighters, a ship that no newbie can fly.
Lacori
Doomheim
#569 - 2016-09-17 13:47:38 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
]Goons aren't going to quit just because thy improve highsec mechanics for newbies, what have you been smoking?


It's some fine ****, let me tell you.
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
#570 - 2016-09-17 13:48:33 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Lets try this logic then.
like freighters, a ship that no newbie can fly.


Skill injectors, and a month and a half train from new...

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp

Dirty Forum Alt
Forum Alts Anonymous
#571 - 2016-09-17 13:48:59 UTC
Welcome back to the forums baltec - was wondering where you went lol Smile

The dead swans lay in the stagnant pool. They lay. They rotted. They turned Around occasionally. Bits of flesh dropped off them from Time to time. And sank into the pool's mire. They also smelt a great deal.

Paula Nancy Millstone Jennings (Sussex)

Dirty Forum Alt
Forum Alts Anonymous
#572 - 2016-09-17 13:51:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Dirty Forum Alt
Dracvlad wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Lets try this logic then.
like freighters, a ship that no newbie can fly.


Skill injectors, and a month and a half train from new...

That is a stretch...

And then we begin the discussion:

If they've already gone and sunk a few hundred RL $$$ into the game to instantly train a freighter and load it up with valuables worth ganking...Will they *quit* when it gets blown up - or just spend another $50 to replace it?

The dead swans lay in the stagnant pool. They lay. They rotted. They turned Around occasionally. Bits of flesh dropped off them from Time to time. And sank into the pool's mire. They also smelt a great deal.

Paula Nancy Millstone Jennings (Sussex)

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#573 - 2016-09-17 13:51:48 UTC
Dirty Forum Alt wrote:
Welcome back to the forums baltec - was wondering where you went lol Smile


Japan for a few weeks, came back with a rice cookerBig smile
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#574 - 2016-09-17 13:55:18 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Lets try this logic then.
like freighters, a ship that no newbie can fly.


Skill injectors, and a month and a half train from new...


If you have the cash for that the newbie is either an alt and not new to EVE or has rich friends in which case they should be helping the newbie and telling them what not to do.

Black Pedro
Mine.
#575 - 2016-09-17 13:57:32 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
The simple matter is we are talking about over all game balance, nothing to do with PvE as compared to PvP, ganking is an ISK making activity in terms of hauler/freighter just as shooting red crosses are. The risk for getting such huge rewards is obscenely imbalanced.
Not at all. There is a fundamental difference between an activity that spawns resources into the universe (like most PvE) that devalues the existing resources, and one which just redistributes them amongst the players or even consumes them (like most PvP). This is a core concept of the design of a sandbox game which many people fail to grasp. Ganking generates zero ISK or resources into the economy.

One can be game-breaking and have negative impacts on the overall economy thus needs careful attention. The other has only beneficial, stimulating effects on the game economy. This is game design 101 here and, when you get right down to it, why CCP often buffs the ability of gankers and other antagonists to catch their prey.

That is not to say PvP has it's own balance issues important for a building a good game, but when considering risk vs. reward as it applies to resource generation or acquisition as you are trying to do here, more PvP is only a good thing for the economy as it consumes resources and gives reasons to build things. You are trying to compare apples and oranges here.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#576 - 2016-09-17 14:04:36 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
The reward for a ganker is entirely dependent upon what the "victim" fits on their ship and in their holds. As for the gankers risk nothing, are we forgetting the simple fact that the gankers are going up against concord so a failed gank means they have to replace their ships.
Replace their disposable ships on their disposable alts. There's ammo more expensive than ganking ships. And no, their reward is based on which victim they choose.

baltec1 wrote:
Lets try this logic then.

You have whined about things like freighters, a ship that no newbie can fly.
Sure, in terms of risk/reward balance I certainly have raised them as an issues but then that's your problem if you think the only point being made is for the safety of noobs. Most ganks aren't against freighters, the vast majority of them are against much smaller ships that newbies can fly, and while there's certainly work to be done in terms of ensuring hauling is a viable playstyle (such as getting rid of infinite bumping) the biggest issue CCP are looking to address is new player retention.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
#577 - 2016-09-17 14:06:55 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
The simple matter is we are talking about over all game balance, nothing to do with PvE as compared to PvP, ganking is an ISK making activity in terms of hauler/freighter just as shooting red crosses are. The risk for getting such huge rewards is obscenely imbalanced.
Not at all. There is a fundamental difference between an activity that spawns resources into the universe (like most PvE) that devalues the existing resources, and one which just redistributes them amongst the players or even consumes them (like most PvP). This is a core concept of the design of a sandbox game which many people fail to grasp. Ganking generates zero ISK or resources into the economy.

One can be game-breaking and have negative impacts on the overall economy thus needs careful attention. The other has only beneficial, stimulating effects on the game economy. This is game design 101 here and, when you get right down to it, why CCP often buffs the ability of gankers and other antagonists to catch their prey.

That is not to say PvP has it's own balance issues important for a building a good game, but when considering risk vs. reward as it applies to resource generation or acquisition as you are trying to do here, more PvP is only a good thing for the economy as it consumes resources and gives reasons to build things. You are trying to compare apples and oranges here.


It is a way of creating an income, and CCP actually attempts rather badly to balance it as something that affects the game and risk and reward is a factor in that balance assessment.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#578 - 2016-09-17 14:09:27 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Replace their disposable ships on their disposable alts. There's ammo more expensive than ganking ships. And no, their reward is based on which victim they choose.


Please show me ammo that costs over 100 mil. Then by all means please show which mechanic forces people to stuff several billion into their cargo holds.

Lucas Kell wrote:

Sure, in terms of risk/reward balance I certainly have raised them as an issues but then that's your problem if you think the only point being made is for the safety of noobs. Most ganks aren't against freighters, the vast majority of them are against much smaller ships that newbies can fly, and while there's certainly work to be done in terms of ensuring hauling is a viable playstyle (such as getting rid of infinite bumping) the biggest issue CCP are looking to address is new player retention.


Fun fact here, less than 1% of people who quit EVE cite ship loss as the reason.
Black Pedro
Mine.
#579 - 2016-09-17 14:49:55 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
It is a way of creating an income, and CCP actually attempts rather badly to balance it as something that affects the game and risk and reward is a factor in that balance assessment.
Piracy doesn't create an income. It takes income away from one player and redirects it to another.

It's not at all the same thing when looking to balance risk vs. reward in a sandbox game.
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
#580 - 2016-09-17 15:02:24 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
It is a way of creating an income, and CCP actually attempts rather badly to balance it as something that affects the game and risk and reward is a factor in that balance assessment.
Piracy doesn't create an income. It takes income away from one player and redirects it to another.

It's not at all the same thing when looking to balance risk vs. reward in a sandbox game.


So you are saying that a pirate is not creating an income source for himself? ShockedRoll

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp