These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Pirate Battleships & Absurd Ganker Arguments

First post
Author
Hazel TuckerTS
Doomheim
#161 - 2017-02-25 17:53:47 UTC
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
The only thing you will change is making this mechanik unavailable for people who have a problem going suspect. And no you will not need to get a new omega account, every account has 3 char slots and you don't need your ganking char until you scanned something worthwile.

Fun fact:
I don't scann mining ships anymore because more often than not it spooks them and they usually dock up. Progress obviously and another victory for the New Order.



code is dead

I win...always

kiss kiss bang bang

Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#162 - 2017-02-25 18:05:22 UTC
Mr Mieyli wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:
hystereological

Invented word detected

Its an alternative word...

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)

Glathull
Warlock Assassins
#163 - 2017-02-25 19:43:58 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Is ganking good for EVE? Probably not?


What are you basing this opinion on? CCP has specifically contradicted this idea in the past.

I think Ganking is very good for the game, and these anti-ganker types prove it.

First, it creates danger. Danger (whether people want to admit it or not) is why we are playing a video game about space, even though they pretend that what they really want is Comfort. Thing is, if people hated 'ganking', why do they keep playing here instead of the many MMOs that restrict that kind of behavior (even space theme'd games like Star Trek Online and now, Elite:Dangerous with it's private community mode)?

Secondly, it helps EVE by giving certain types of people something to hate. That's where these anti ganker folks come in, without ganking , would they just go on their merry way? Nope, they'd find something else to hate, because they need something to hate, it's part of their personalities.

Danger and something to hate, those are things that bind people to EVE Online, it's why these people don't go play other games as much as they play EVE despite the fact that all they do is complain about EVE and about how horrible 'griefers' are.

It's why I don't hate gankers even though when in high sec I take many precautions against the practice. I don't just need something to hate to feel like I'm alive, I'm happy killing NPCs (which i do hate, down with Sansha and his BS).

Also, TBH I appreciate the fact that gankers exist because in addition to riling up the kind of whiney, entitled, cluless players that I personally have no love for, they also enrage the holier than thou ,crusading, "will someone please think of the children" spaceship SJWs that I honestly cannot stand (I don't need to hate them to enjoy the game...but I'll admit, it's a nice bonus). So right there, gankers are improving my EVE experience Twisted


This is one of the great posts of all time. You're even carful with your words here. CCP hasn't proven that ganking is good for retention; it has shown that there's a correlation between ganking and retention.

But you bring some life to that correlation and some good ideas about why it exists. This is gold.

I honestly feel like I just read fifty shades of dumb. --CCP Falcon

Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#164 - 2017-02-25 19:52:16 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Mr Mieyli wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:
hystereological

Invented word detected

Its an alternative word...

Just like your facts as well.

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..."

Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#165 - 2017-02-25 20:03:33 UTC
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Mr Mieyli wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:
hystereological

Invented word detected

Its an alternative word...

Just like your facts as well.
What do you expect from a well known liar?

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack

Salvos Rhoska
#166 - 2017-02-25 20:30:06 UTC
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Mr Mieyli wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:
hystereological

Invented word detected

Its an alternative word...

Just like your facts as well.
What do you expect from a well known liar?


....

Dont do this.

Jonah, you atleast produce content, though I disagree with much of it.

Shae, howevevr is an outright recognized troll with nothing of value offered.
Avaelica Kuershin
Paper Cats
#167 - 2017-02-25 20:35:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Avaelica Kuershin
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Mr Mieyli wrote:

Invented word detected

Its an alternative word...

Just like your facts as well.
What do you expect from a well known liar?


....

Dont do this.

Jonah, you atleast produce content, though I disagree with much of it.

Shae, howevevr is an outright recognized troll with nothing of value offered.


I'd have to disagree with that (about Shae). Funny how that goes, eh.
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#168 - 2017-02-25 20:35:59 UTC
Glathull wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Is ganking good for EVE? Probably not?


What are you basing this opinion on? CCP has specifically contradicted this idea in the past.

I think Ganking is very good for the game, and these anti-ganker types prove it.

First, it creates danger. Danger (whether people want to admit it or not) is why we are playing a video game about space, even though they pretend that what they really want is Comfort. Thing is, if people hated 'ganking', why do they keep playing here instead of the many MMOs that restrict that kind of behavior (even space theme'd games like Star Trek Online and now, Elite:Dangerous with it's private community mode)?

Secondly, it helps EVE by giving certain types of people something to hate. That's where these anti ganker folks come in, without ganking , would they just go on their merry way? Nope, they'd find something else to hate, because they need something to hate, it's part of their personalities.

Danger and something to hate, those are things that bind people to EVE Online, it's why these people don't go play other games as much as they play EVE despite the fact that all they do is complain about EVE and about how horrible 'griefers' are.

It's why I don't hate gankers even though when in high sec I take many precautions against the practice. I don't just need something to hate to feel like I'm alive, I'm happy killing NPCs (which i do hate, down with Sansha and his BS).

Also, TBH I appreciate the fact that gankers exist because in addition to riling up the kind of whiney, entitled, cluless players that I personally have no love for, they also enrage the holier than thou ,crusading, "will someone please think of the children" spaceship SJWs that I honestly cannot stand (I don't need to hate them to enjoy the game...but I'll admit, it's a nice bonus). So right there, gankers are improving my EVE experience Twisted


This is one of the great posts of all time. You're even carful with your words here. CCP hasn't proven that ganking is good for retention; it has shown that there's a correlation between ganking and retention.

But you bring some life to that correlation and some good ideas about why it exists. This is gold.

Since the data was obtained from characters of 14 days or less the data is worthless. Characters 14 days or less are not the primary targets of gankers. Losing a frig is not going to make someone quit while losing a battleship or freighter might.

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)

Mr Mieyli
Doomheim
#169 - 2017-02-25 21:29:02 UTC
The "problem" if it's willing to be accepted as such is the amount of dps a destroyer can put out. To be honest it's a little broken. A destroyer like the catalyst can get near battleship levels of dps while having no tank. They are the only class of T1 ships to be so out of line; T1 ships have a fairly linear dps progression.

I suggest that destroyers in their initial concept lacked a focus on how they would be used against bigger ships. A destroyer is meant to be a frig killer, and with 7/8 guns it normally is very good in that role, but the amount of guns pushes it's dps way too high. For example the dps difference between cruisers and battlecruisers is fairly small but a BC will still beat a cruiser any day. I propose destroyers are looked at, the amount of guns reduced to say 4/5 and those slots given to mids and lows. This would keep a destroyer with more firepower than a frig, and give it a more solid tank too, keeping it in it's role as a frig counter. Ideally this would bring destroyer dps more in line with the other t1 hulls. The effect of this is it would take more catalysts for a gank, or bigger ships, skewing the cost of a gank on larger ships.

This post brought to you by CCP's alpha forum alt initiative. Playing the eve forums has never come cheaper.

Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#170 - 2017-02-25 21:33:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Dont do this.
That's a fair request, I wasn't going to go beyond the comment anyway. I learnt that lesson recently with yourself, it drives things off topic and tbh that's not in the interests of anybody.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack

Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#171 - 2017-02-25 21:47:27 UTC
Mr Mieyli wrote:
The "problem" if it's willing to be accepted as such is the amount of dps a destroyer can put out. To be honest it's a little broken. A destroyer like the catalyst can get near battleship levels of dps while having no tank. They are the only class of T1 ships to be so out of line; T1 ships have a fairly linear dps progression.

I suggest that destroyers in their initial concept lacked a focus on how they would be used against bigger ships. A destroyer is meant to be a frig killer, and with 7/8 guns it normally is very good in that role, but the amount of guns pushes it's dps way too high. For example the dps difference between cruisers and battlecruisers is fairly small but a BC will still beat a cruiser any day. I propose destroyers are looked at, the amount of guns reduced to say 4/5 and those slots given to mids and lows. This would keep a destroyer with more firepower than a frig, and give it a more solid tank too, keeping it in it's role as a frig counter. Ideally this would bring destroyer dps more in line with the other t1 hulls. The effect of this is it would take more catalysts for a gank, or bigger ships, skewing the cost of a gank on larger ships.

They initially had something like 50% reduced rate of fire to make up for the 8 guns meaning itd take them twice as long as it does now to gank.

Why it was removed im not sure

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)

NofriendNoLifeStilPostin
State War Academy
Caldari State
#172 - 2017-02-25 21:47:43 UTC
suicide ganking really has become ridiculous and is a big part of why EVE is such a joke of a game. Why doesn't risk vs reward apply to high sec pirates? Its even used as a griefer tactic since the costs/risks are so negligible.
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#173 - 2017-02-25 22:42:41 UTC
NofriendNoLifeStilPostin wrote:
suicide ganking really has become ridiculous and is a big part of why EVE is such a joke of a game. Why doesn't risk vs reward apply to high sec pirates? Its even used as a griefer tactic since the costs/risks are so negligible.

This is the result of CCP failing to keep the player base separate from the development team. When developers and players become friends and you start recruiting players as devs, you have ex-devs leading some of the richest and most powerful organizations in game and you create a system designed to favor those same dev friends, ex-devs (CSM) you'll have a system that only considers one mindset.

Thats why we had devs giving out T2 BPOs, dropping half trillion isk worth of items in PLs system and taking weeks to ban tards like Erotica. Its why we have devs who cant fix 10 year old broken systems but who are happy to drop broken ships like T3Ds into an already imbalanced array of ships.

CCP dug a hole years ago and ended up in China they dug so deep.

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)

Chopper Rollins
hahahlolspycorp
Brave Collective
#174 - 2017-02-25 23:05:09 UTC
Oh, it's all a conspiracy.
Makes perfect sense if you're a weak but hostile type. Also removes all agency and responsibility from you.
Not a problem with the game though, which has been shown and explained repeatedly.


Goggles. Making me look good. Making you look good.

Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#175 - 2017-02-25 23:27:50 UTC
Chopper Rollins wrote:
Oh, it's all a conspiracy.
Makes perfect sense if you're a weak but hostile type. Also removes all agency and responsibility from you.
Not a problem with the game though, which has been shown and explained repeatedly.



Speak of the devils. Not a conspiracy, an inexperienced company that failed to keep a professional distance between itself and its playerbase.

A quick google search is all you need to see devs and players representing organizations who have consistently controlled EvE, players who became devs, players who are devs. There is even video of a player urging another player to kill themselves and devs and other "important" players laughing in the background? Like a link?

Fact is the devs know that the way the CSM vote is rigged ensures only the big blocs get elected yet its not changed to ensure all players are represented.

CSM is a scam.

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)

Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#176 - 2017-02-25 23:31:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
I wonder if Dinsdale knows that his stash is gone? It appears to have been consumed by several posters.

The whole premise of this thread is absurd.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack

Chopper Rollins
hahahlolspycorp
Brave Collective
#177 - 2017-02-25 23:46:16 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:

Fact is the devs know that the way the CSM vote is rigged ensures only the big blocs get elected yet its not changed to ensure all players are represented.

CSM is a scam.


None of this is true or relevant.
Classic Ziona.



Goggles. Making me look good. Making you look good.

Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#178 - 2017-02-26 00:04:29 UTC
Chopper Rollins wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:

Fact is the devs know that the way the CSM vote is rigged ensures only the big blocs get elected yet its not changed to ensure all players are represented.

CSM is a scam.

None of this is true or relevant.

All of it is true and its relevent because its the reason they ignore the majority of players who dont gank or fap over sov / null and pander to the tiny majority who do.

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)

Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#179 - 2017-02-26 00:18:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Chopper Rollins wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:

Fact is the devs know that the way the CSM vote is rigged ensures only the big blocs get elected yet its not changed to ensure all players are represented.

CSM is a scam.

None of this is true or relevant.

All of it is true and its relevent because its the reason they ignore the majority of players who dont gank or fap over sov / null and pander to the tiny majority who do.

IMHO CCP are trying to stay as true as possible to a game that they want to play, and more importantly the game that they set out to make. It just so happens that the people that you're constantly disparaging want to play the same game that CCP staff want to make and play; I do too, and I'm a non combatant.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack

Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#180 - 2017-02-26 00:35:09 UTC
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Chopper Rollins wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:

Fact is the devs know that the way the CSM vote is rigged ensures only the big blocs get elected yet its not changed to ensure all players are represented.

CSM is a scam.

None of this is true or relevant.

All of it is true and its relevent because its the reason they ignore the majority of players who dont gank or fap over sov / null and pander to the tiny majority who do.

IMHO CCP are trying to stay as true as possible to a game that they want to play, and more importantly the game that they set out to make. It just so happens that the people that you're constantly disparaging want to play the same game that CCP staff want to make and play; I do too, and I'm a non combatant.

Comedy gold.

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)