These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Teckos Pech
Patriotic Tendencies
Goonswarm Federation
#641 - 2016-09-17 22:19:11 UTC
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
Lads ye are entirely too sober for a Saturday night, go get messed up and asplode something


I wish, it is only 3:18PM here...although there is that old addage, "It's 5 o'clock somewhere...."

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#642 - 2016-09-17 22:25:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
Teckos Pech wrote:
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
Lads ye are entirely too sober for a Saturday night, go get messed up and asplode something


I wish, it is only 3:18PM here...although there is that old addage, "It's 5 o'clock somewhere...."
The sun is over the yardarm when it's approaching noon, thus anytime around noon is an acceptable time to start drinking.

Relevant imagery.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack

Rin Vocaloid2
DUST University
#643 - 2016-09-17 22:44:13 UTC
I just took a moment just now to reflect on my previous statement on ganking, risk & reward. Perhaps I'm half wrong about it. Let me explain.

On the one hand, the haulers/miners are still responsible for mitigating any chance of getting ganked in high-sec. They're pretty simple steps, really. Don't stuff any loot into your hold that's worth more than your ship (I'm looking at you, shuttle pilots with PLEX in the hold) or any loot that is worth about more than 1/4th of your ship's value. If you have something really expensive to move and you can't divide it into small groups for multiple round trips, hire a courier service or at least tank your ship as much as possible. But honestly, if you have something that expensive that not even a fully-tanked Orca with well over 200,000 EHP can't protect it then perhaps you're better off using a courier service like frog or your alliance's services.

But on the other hand, it is still relatively easy to amass a fleet of cheap catalysts or semi-cheap tornadoes to gank even a 200,000 EHP Orca. The security status of the ganker obviously means nothing to them if they have -10.0 and can move around high-sec in a pod (well, to some extent) and all they need is a hired hauler in a Bowhead to bring in a hold of full-fitted catalysts or tornadoes with a good security standings into the system, go to a safe spot, deploy them and then see all the -10.0 pods get in and warp to target to gank.

But of course we can't just outright ban -10.0 pods from entering high-sec at all. They should be allowed to roam in high-sec just still face being chased by everyone else which is possible today.

Obviously a fleet of gankers in tornadoes can afford a lot to lose. So assuming I'm somehow wrong about risk vs reward on ganking, how would you suggest CCP would go about making it more risky for them?

Should we nerf ganker ships? No, that would only hurt pvpers who never suicide ganked in their lives and might use them in fleet battles.

Should we buff miner EHP? I don't know about that because the Skiff can already be tanked like a battleship at this stage and industrialists are already getting plenty of love from CCP.

Should we buff haulers? How would we buff it so that ganking won't be completely pointless? Sure let's make it more risky in that ganking a hauler isn't a complete guarantee every time but not so risky that ganking haulers in general is a non-existent thing. I don't know how to address this part without killing hauler-ganking in general.

Should a warning be sent out to the entire system that someone with a recent history of suicide ganking has just entered the system? How recent are we talking? Hours? Days? Weeks? I have a mining character that did gank another miner but that was a long time ago. And if I'm just in the system to mine, I shouldn't be flagged to everyone for it a year later. Think "statute of limitations" for Eve Online.

Should stargates send out a message that ships have recently been destroyed on the other side of the gate just before haulers jump through and require manual confirmation on the part of the traveler to get through?
Rin Vocaloid2
DUST University
#644 - 2016-09-17 22:45:28 UTC
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
Lads ye are entirely too sober for a Saturday night, go get messed up and asplode something


I'll ready my Rifter and go into FW space.
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#645 - 2016-09-17 22:51:55 UTC
Rin Vocaloid2 wrote:
I just took a moment just now to reflect on my previous statement on ganking, risk & reward. Perhaps I'm half wrong about it. Let me explain.

On the one hand, the haulers/miners are still responsible for mitigating any chance of getting ganked in high-sec. They're pretty simple steps, really. Don't stuff any loot into your hold that's worth more than your ship (I'm looking at you, shuttle pilots with PLEX in the hold) or any loot that is worth about more than 1/4th of your ship's value. If you have something really expensive to move and you can't divide it into small groups for multiple round trips, hire a courier service or at least tank your ship as much as possible. But honestly, if you have something that expensive that not even a fully-tanked Orca with well over 200,000 EHP can't protect it then perhaps you're better off using a courier service like frog or your alliance's services.

But on the other hand, it is still relatively easy to amass a fleet of cheap catalysts or semi-cheap tornadoes to gank even a 200,000 EHP Orca. The security status of the ganker obviously means nothing to them if they have -10.0 and can move around high-sec in a pod (well, to some extent) and all they need is a hired hauler in a Bowhead to bring in a hold of full-fitted catalysts or tornadoes with a good security standings into the system, go to a safe spot, deploy them and then see all the -10.0 pods get in and warp to target to gank.

But of course we can't just outright ban -10.0 pods from entering high-sec at all. They should be allowed to roam in high-sec just still face being chased by everyone else which is possible today.

Obviously a fleet of gankers in tornadoes can afford a lot to lose. So assuming I'm somehow wrong about risk vs reward on ganking, how would you suggest CCP would go about making it more risky for them?

Should we nerf ganker ships? No, that would only hurt pvpers who never suicide ganked in their lives and might use them in fleet battles.

Should we buff miner EHP? I don't know about that because the Skiff can already be tanked like a battleship at this stage and industrialists are already getting plenty of love from CCP.

Should we buff haulers? How would we buff it so that ganking won't be completely pointless? Sure let's make it more risky in that ganking a hauler isn't a complete guarantee every time but not so risky that ganking haulers in general is a non-existent thing. I don't know how to address this part without killing hauler-ganking in general.

Should a warning be sent out to the entire system that someone with a recent history of suicide ganking has just entered the system? How recent are we talking? Hours? Days? Weeks? I have a mining character that did gank another miner but that was a long time ago. And if I'm just in the system to mine, I shouldn't be flagged to everyone for it a year later. Think "statute of limitations" for Eve Online.

Should stargates send out a message that ships have recently been destroyed on the other side of the gate just before haulers jump through and require manual confirmation on the part of the traveler to get through?

What does any of this (or the last few pages) have to do with the subject of this thread?

Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."

Brokk Witgenstein
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#646 - 2016-09-17 23:22:28 UTC
On topic: I find it hard to believe the ferocious forumwar is mere roleplay. It's almost like people's thoughts, convictions and beliefs drive how they play the game ...? Would this indicate that how we post reflects us in real life?

As per Teckos it's all roleplay, so if his theorem stands, then I postulate there can be only one conclusion: how we post does not reflect how we play! Ample evidence includes strong opinions on hauling while advising others to 'simply redfrog it', offering PvP advice backed with 78% snuggly killboards and more such goodies ;-)
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#647 - 2016-09-17 23:42:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Shae Tadaruwa
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:
On topic: I find it hard to believe the ferocious forumwar is mere roleplay. It's almost like people's thoughts, convictions and beliefs drive how they play the game ...? Would this indicate that how we post reflects us in real life?

As per Teckos it's all roleplay, so if his theorem stands, then I postulate there can be only one conclusion: how we post does not reflect how we play! Ample evidence includes strong opinions on hauling while advising others to 'simply redfrog it', offering PvP advice backed with 78% snuggly killboards and more such goodies ;-)

Well for me, the forum is definitely part of the game, just on a different level.

IRL I don't speak the way I post and I think based on how well events like Fanfest, Eve Vegas, Eve DownUnder and all the various player meets go, that's probably not unusual and I suspect also true of other people here also.

I know I don't make any judgement about anyone here IRL, all the discussion is between the characters as far as I'm concerned.

There's also an element that RL communication includes a lot of non-verbal indicators, where here the only thing to be able to get the information across is the words. I think that sometimes->often makes posts much stronger in language than people would discuss something face-to-face.

Lastly, I think we all mostly use the forum as a soapbox, not as a debate/discussion. A lot of discussions end up with people talking at each other, rather than to each other. It's rare that someone changes their mind based on other people's posts. We like the posts that agree with ours and argue against posts that don't agree. That just leads to more distance between the different sides of an argument, with everything thinking their own view is reasonable while others aren't.

That doesn't really make for measured communication, so it would be unfair to judge anyone based on what they write, at least in my view.

Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."

Teckos Pech
Patriotic Tendencies
Goonswarm Federation
#648 - 2016-09-18 00:15:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Rin Vocaloid2 wrote:


[snip for space]




You can put lots of ISK worth of cargo in some ships. A transport ship is very hard to catch in HS. Their most vulnerable window is docking and undocking and insta warp/dock spots can mitigate that. Jump freighters can also carry high ISK value cargo too. Again, if you are reasonable and prudent catching one of these ships is not easy.

And risk is not based on mechanics. Risk is due to player actions. And in this there are two sides. There is the gankers and the ganked. Gankers just don’t run around randomly ganking anything and everything. They usually gank for profit. They are, in a word, pirates. Pirates prowl the shipping lanes looking for targets. That is what these guys do. So they are going to look for the biggest and fattest targets they can find. So the actions of the ganked also matter, despite the comments of others to the contrary. Gankers go after the imprudent. If you are not imprudent your risk of being ganked drops precipitously.

There is no need to tweak this or that. Players need to realize what kind of game they are playing, realize what the risks are and how their actions affect that risk. Just as you would not walk across a busy road wearing a blindfold you would not load up 8 billion ISK in your freighter and autopilot through Uedama.

As for warning systems and telling people of these risks you have to understand some of these people play the game as if they are in a bubble. They talk to noone. They pay no attention to what other things are going on inside the game. Whenever there was a Burn Jita event it was known weeks before hand. There was no attempt to hide these events. None at all. But yet the freighters came into Jita fat and dumb and died in droves. Short of reaching out through the computer screen and slapping them in the face I don’t think anything would induce them to look outside their bubble.

Edit: Let me clarify a bit, mechanics do not gank people. Players using the game mechanics can gank ships. Change the mechanics and you'll effect the level of risk players can impose on other players.

As for the claim that ganking is low risk/high reward, that is not true, not entirely. For those who gank it is low risk/high reward. It is low risk because they play in a way that mitigates risk. This is a good thing in that it is called playing smart. The high reward is NOT a result of the gankers actions. Not entirely. The high reward is based off of the high risk and high loss that the gank take on by their choices and actions.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Ralph King-Griffin
Lords.Of.Midnight
The Devil's Warrior Alliance
#649 - 2016-09-18 00:19:17 UTC
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:
On topic: I find it hard to believe the ferocious forumwar is mere roleplay. It's almost like people's thoughts, convictions and beliefs drive how they play the game ...? Would this indicate that how we post reflects us in real life?

As per Teckos it's all roleplay, so if his theorem stands, then I postulate there can be only one conclusion: how we post does not reflect how we play! Ample evidence includes strong opinions on hauling while advising others to 'simply redfrog it', offering PvP advice backed with 78% snuggly killboards and more such goodies ;-)

ah here, if we're using kill boards then i should have more authority than most and im spectacularly incompetent.
Tasspool Harp
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#650 - 2016-09-18 00:39:01 UTC
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:


I know I don't make any judgement about anyone here IRL, all the discussion is between the characters as far as I'm concerned.



Yikes. I just realised I'm a character in a European Post-modern novel.
Toobo
Project Fruit House
#651 - 2016-09-18 00:52:20 UTC
I will side step the risk vs reward issue for now, and answer Daclav about 'support' and preparation I organise for high value transport op.

1. Scout. Not just to check what's 1 jump ahead, but also to check various possible routes. IMO, if I need to go through Uedema and I see potential trouble in that area, I investigate routes that include low sec. There are times when a low sec route would be empty or almost empty, which actually makes it safer to take that route than HS choke point.

2. Rapier+Falcon as support/scout/instawarp. This works both in high/low, if it's not a massive grouo that's tackling your ship. Intel from Scout helps me to decide if Freighter can go through with these two support ships, if this is not enough,

3. Suicide blackbird/griffins/scorpion. If cargo I'm moving is more valuable than these ships, I wouldn't mind suiciding few of these to get the transport ship safely through. I didnmt have to use these in practice (because... Scout), but it's an option I have readily available and I have few of those fit and scattered around where I may need them.

4. Decoys - an extra hauler that carry something not too valuable. DST with fleet hangar can be an interesting optionn where you can swap cargo in safe space if you feel that you'd been 'tagged'.

5. Waiting for the 'quiet' TZ/or just before/after DT to go through risky zones

6. Cyno alts (if I want to move using JF) with various different jump options according to local situations.

7. Black Op + covert cyno + blockade runner team. Normally this is not necessary as blockade runner can warp cloaked and in low sec wihout bubbles your chance of getting caught at gate is slim. But if I see instalock Lokis and svipuls at gate I don't want to chance it even with a cover ops cloak.

8. Nullified, stabbed, fast aligning T3 cargo runner (for null transport)

Then there is also brute force options. I've seen people move 3 freighters through low sec jumps escorted by 20+ men fleet of proper pvp gang composition. From what I read about the first keep star move op they had prepared 5 freighters (1 real and 4 decoys) with 100 men fleet with lots of Tornados to alpha the hostile ships off the space at th first sign of trouble.

There are probably many more ways. The above is only a few that I know of petsonally.

Cheers Love! The cavalry's here!

Toobo
Project Fruit House
#652 - 2016-09-18 01:17:41 UTC
Read this PC gamber article on how Hard Knocks have successfully moved & anchored the first keepstar in EVE.

http://www.pcgamer.com/the-incredible-journey-to-build-eve-onlines-first-death-star/

The whole article is pretty nice, but for the specifics read the "Moving Day" chapter, here's a sample bit that gives you an idea.

"The plan was broken down into multiple initiatives that required every pilot to be on their best game. In the system of Paara, where the Keepstar was built, four pilots were chosen to fly freighters. Three would act as decoys to lure off any ambushes while one carried the Keepstar. Between the four freighters, an escort of almost 100 Tornado battlecruisers would accompany each vessel. "If anything comes at [the freighter], it's pretty much over," Jerzii says. "So we decided we didn't want anything to come at it. If we saw anything get near it or anything that even just looks like it might be an issue, we'd just destroy it.""

So yeah, that's one way of doing it.

Cheers Love! The cavalry's here!

Isaac Armer
The Soup Kitchen
#653 - 2016-09-18 01:27:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Isaac Armer
Elite Harvester wrote:
stuff


I think you missed my point. Why don't you, as a ganker, fight in LS/NS/WHs? For non-spawn camper/easy kills reasons? Every time I hear code talk, all I hear is rhetoric to pwm noobs

Again, play that way if you want. This is a sandbox, but the rhetoric does get old

Teckos Pech wrote:
Actually no.

The players behind the freighters that get ganked....if they are not foolish and imprudent and ignorant....then they are risk seeking and have literally nothing to complain about.


No, miners/freighters do seek some risk by what they do (especially ones who don't pay attention). Conversely, gankers never take the risk of any action where they might lose. That's a more risk averse behavior by far simply because its a conscious choice to be risk averse. Gankers are risk averse by choice. The ignorant hauler is...ignorant. The person choosing a risk averse playstyle after knowing the mechanics is choosing to be more risk averse. Isn't that worse?
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#654 - 2016-09-18 01:33:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Shae Tadaruwa
Isaac Armer wrote:
This is a sandbox, but the rhetoric does get old

No more so than the rhetoric of those that cry about people not going to ls, ns, wh space to pvp, while knowing it's a sandbox.

Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."

Isaac Armer
The Soup Kitchen
#655 - 2016-09-18 01:44:55 UTC
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:
No more so than the rhetoric of those that cry about people not going to ls, ns, wh space to pvp, while knowing it's a sandbox.


Believe it or not, I can find the playstyle of someone else as boring and idiotic as spawncamping in FPS's (lets go pwn some noobs man!) and still agree that they have every right to play that way.

Shocking, I know

The simple fact is HS gankers aren't trying to "improve HS", they are looking for relaxing, easy ways to kill people in a game, and in code's case earn some ISK through a scheme on the side. Nothing wrong with that, but just be honest with what it's really about.
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#656 - 2016-09-18 01:59:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Shae Tadaruwa
Isaac Armer wrote:
The simple fact is HS gankers aren't trying to "improve HS",

What's this 'improve HS' BS?

Why is that even a measure?

LS pvpers aren't trying to imporve LS. Nullsec sov alliances aren't trying to improve NS and HS miners, traders, haulers, etc. aren't in it to 'improve HS'.

That's got to be one of the dumbest things I've ever seen written in the forum.

Everyone plays their own game, for their own reasons. 'Improving HS'...sure mate. Yeah that's what everyone should be doing. Roll

Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#657 - 2016-09-18 03:48:50 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Because most gankers use 100m isk ships and noth 1.2m isk catalysts, right?


Solo gankers and small gangs use attack batlecruisers. The bulk of gankers that use destroyers use t2 fitted catalysts which are between 10 and 12 million.



Lucas Kell wrote:
I'm sure that's true, I'm also sure that the vast majority of players who quit during trial don't fill in a reason.


We would still see a higher number than 1% if ganking was an issue with player retention. Simple fact here is ganking has no negative impact on subs.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#658 - 2016-09-18 04:05:26 UTC
Isaac Armer wrote:
Elite Harvester wrote:
stuff


I think you missed my point. Why don't you, as a ganker, fight in LS/NS/WHs? For non-spawn camper/easy kills reasons? Every time I hear code talk, all I hear is rhetoric to pwm noobs

Again, play that way if you want. This is a sandbox, but the rhetoric does get old



Pirates go where the money is. If you want gankers to move to low, null and WH space then you have to move the trade lanes to low, null and WH space.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#659 - 2016-09-18 04:33:59 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Stupid shite isn't restricted to the value of the cargo Roll, it includes such idiocy as being AFK or using the Autopilot.
Both of which are irrelevant if someone wants to gank you.


If you are AFK you cant react to things going on around you.

If you are autopiloting then you land 15km away from the gate and slowboat towards it.

Both are very large factors in making you a lot more vulnerable. Hardly irrelevant.
Rin Vocaloid2
DUST University
#660 - 2016-09-18 06:07:29 UTC
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:

What does any of this (or the last few pages) have to do with the subject of this thread?


It was in response to someone else.