These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

"Eve is a game driven by consequences for actions." Not if you're into suicide ganking
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Danks
Fat Angry Toe Tappin Inbreds
#121 - 2011-10-24 11:45:35 UTC
Hey look it's the same thread that's been going on since 2004 when cruise kessies were killing indies in Yulai.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#122 - 2011-10-24 11:47:30 UTC
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:
Tippia, your posts are full of inconsistent misinformation.
…such as?
David Cedarbridge
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#123 - 2011-10-24 11:58:59 UTC  |  Edited by: David Cedarbridge
Hecatonis wrote:
also incorrect, as the ratio still leads itself in favor of the ganker, 3 fitting brutix still comes out to less then one fitting hulk. thus the gankers win


Lets see if you can ignore my alliance tag for long enough to make a coherent point.

Why does the ratio need to favor the gankee over the ganker? What sort of special place does the victim of the gank have that they should stand to lose less always than the ganker? It would seem that piracy has always been a possible gainful employ in EVE and would cease to be as interesting or gainful if the ratios were to be changed. Which would lead to the assumption that the game should favor the passive player over the active one. What logic is attached to this other than some concept that the non-consensual PVP should be hindered in the favor of more protections for players that would like to participate in all of the gains of an open market and an open playing field, without worrying about taking a loss for it.

In short, you're failing the burden of proof of your own argument. You state that this ratio favors the gankers but you fail to state why this is actually a problem and why it should be considered such.
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#124 - 2011-10-24 12:50:06 UTC
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:
Tippia wrote:
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:
Tippia wrote:
The ganker is worse off
This is utter nonsense and I think you yourself realize this.
Really? Prove it


Tippia, your posts are full of inconsistent misinformation. You're either:

a) Purposefully lying or

b) Genuinely believe this nonsense.


If the latter, then it's impossible reasoning someone out of an argument that they didn't reason themselves into in the first place. If the former, then you need to realize that you 're not fooling anyone. The people that chant your drivel already support it, not because they believe it to be true, but because it's what they do.

Carry on, goons.


the ironing is delicious

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#125 - 2011-10-24 13:09:07 UTC  |  Edited by: MatrixSkye Mk2
Tippia wrote:
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:
Tippia, your posts are full of inconsistent misinformation.
…such as?


Again, such as your ridiculous claim that:

Tippia wrote:
The ganker is worse off


Do you honestly believe the losses against the suicide ganker are worse than the losses to the miner? Roll.

As I said, arguing with you is pointless and a massive waste of time.

Successfully doinitwrong™ since 2006.
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#126 - 2011-10-24 13:10:33 UTC
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:
Tippia wrote:
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:
Tippia, your posts are full of inconsistent misinformation.
…such as?


Again, such as your ridiculous claim that:

Tippia wrote:
The ganker is worse off


As I said, arguing with you is pointless and a massive waste of time.


shut up dear, the men are talking

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#127 - 2011-10-24 13:11:54 UTC
if you don't want to be scourged like a peon next to a bored noble, maybe you shouldn't roleplay a space peon begging for someone to protect him while he plants potatoes

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#128 - 2011-10-24 13:13:56 UTC
And look at the goons, desperate for attention. Here, have some :).

Successfully doinitwrong™ since 2006.
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#129 - 2011-10-24 13:14:53 UTC
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:
And look at the goons, desperate for attention. Here, have some :).


posts like this are why you're not allowed out of the box when company is around

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#130 - 2011-10-24 13:18:05 UTC
eve is a game based on the premise that wherever you are someone can sodomize and murder you

so we don't really need to put much effort in to countering the brilliant oratory of the "please stop whipping me it hurts" crowd because we read the box before installing the game

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.
Rocky Deadshot
In The Goo
EVE Trade Alliance
#131 - 2011-10-24 13:38:24 UTC
Kengutsi Akira wrote:
Rocky Deadshot wrote:
Kengutsi Akira wrote:
Rocky Deadshot wrote:
so your only hope is to actually vote in the next CSM


Which wont matter two ***** cause whoever DCF gets together to vote for will win.

When 72% of 0.0 is aligned to vote for one person the rest of the game is pretty ****** for what theyll want.
Oh what glorious tears there will be after the next CSM


Wait ... there is only one person on this council? I know the chairman has an ego, but is it big enough to call 1 person a council?

Shocked

Roll


I know its hard to figure things like this out by yourself so Ill help...

DCF gets to vote for more than one person per CSM election correct?

sooooooo...

each person 72% of 0.0 wants in will GET IN

sooooooo...

noone else anyone wants in will get there cause theyll be outvoted.

So all those people will come qqing to the forums afterwards.

I hope that wasnt too hard for you.



I know this is difficult to get but I'll try and spell it out for you....

Its a council ... meaning more than one person is on it.
Sure they may be able to ensure they get their guy as the chairman, but they don't have enough votes to completely silence high sec.
IF high sec could get around a quarter of its inhabitants to actually vote for some representative.... they would make it onto the council... which that right there would be a enough to signal to CCP that high sec players are upset.
If you want change, quit whining on the forum and start looking for a representative....
I would suggest starting with incursion runners.... looking for a strong FC people trust.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#132 - 2011-10-24 13:43:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:
Again, such as your ridiculous claim that:
Tippia wrote:
The ganker is worse off
Yes? Where's the inconsistent misinformation?
Quote:
Do you honestly believe the losses against the suicide ganker are worse than the losses to the miner?
Yes. Mostly because I desperately cling to this silly notion that miners are reasonably intelligent people who do not operate at a loss.

Suicide gankers, on the other hand, very often operate at a loss — or so they say — since they're not in it for the money. Thus, they're worse off because they actually take a loss, whereas the miners don't.

The problem you're having with this line of thinking is that you're still stuck in the single-point comparison, which tells us just pretty much nothing about the how much the two parties actually end up earning or losing. I'll grant you that both of these are assumptions: that miners are smart enough to actually earn an income, and that the gankers have fun enough not to care about those matters, but that is also why I said “prove it”: because people keep making this claims without offering any numbers to support it.
March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#133 - 2011-10-24 15:10:53 UTC  |  Edited by: March rabbit
David Cedarbridge wrote:
Hecatonis wrote:
also incorrect, as the ratio still leads itself in favor of the ganker, 3 fitting brutix still comes out to less then one fitting hulk. thus the gankers win


Lets see if you can ignore my alliance tag for long enough to make a coherent point.

Why does the ratio need to favor the gankee over the ganker?

maybe because ganker chooses time, place, victim and fit to attack? And no gankee? So ganker ALREADY HAS favor. Well yes. Place and time ganker and gankee choose "together". But final decision about attack belongs to ganker. So gankee should have something too.

David Cedarbridge wrote:
In short, you're failing the burden of proof of your own argument. You state that this ratio favors the gankers but you fail to state why this is actually a problem and why it should be considered such.

Don't close your eyes when someone shows you something. This doesn't make you looks smart but blind.

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#134 - 2011-10-24 15:13:29 UTC
March rabbit wrote:
maybe because ganker chooses time, place, victim and fit to attack? And no gankee? So ganker ALREADY HAS favor. Well yes. Place and time ganker and gankee choose "together". But final decision about attack belongs to ganker. So gankee should have something too.


ok, we'll give you an invincible police force that instajams and neuts as soon as it shows up on the field, will show up within 20 seconds at the outer end, and destroys the ganker 100% of the time

there, problem solved

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.
Tanya Fox
Doomheim
#135 - 2011-10-24 15:22:23 UTC
Weaselior wrote:
March rabbit wrote:
maybe because ganker chooses time, place, victim and fit to attack? And no gankee? So ganker ALREADY HAS favor. Well yes. Place and time ganker and gankee choose "together". But final decision about attack belongs to ganker. So gankee should have something too.


ok, we'll give you an invincible police force that instajams and neuts as soon as it shows up on the field, will show up within 20 seconds at the outer end, and destroys the ganker 100% of the time

there, problem solved





Ganking is a bit one sided, they're usually an organised group they kill the target, don't care if their ships are destroyed because they get the insurance and they have a pick-up person ready to loot the wreaks. So the gankers get the loot plus insurance and the laugh, the guy getting ganked just gets the insurance which is nothing to his/her loses. Loses depending what kind of target.

Don't know about you but it seems one sided to me.
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#136 - 2011-10-24 15:26:21 UTC
Tanya Fox wrote:
Ganking is a bit one sided, they're usually an organised group they kill the target, don't care if their ships are destroyed because they get the insurance and they have a pick-up person ready to loot the wreaks. So the gankers get the loot plus insurance and the laugh, the guy getting ganked just gets the insurance which is nothing to his/her loses. Loses depending what kind of target.

Don't know about you but it seems one sided to me.


yes, the gankers are forced to rely on superior organization and numbers to corner and devour their prey

this is one sided...in favor of the gankers

maybe you should stop botting and make friends

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#137 - 2011-10-24 15:28:17 UTC
Tanya Fox wrote:

Ganking is a bit one sided, they're usually an organised group they kill the target, don't care if their ships are destroyed because they get the insurance and they have a pick-up person ready to loot the wreaks. So the gankers get the loot plus insurance and the laugh, the guy getting ganked just gets the insurance which is nothing to his/her loses. Loses depending what kind of target.

Don't know about you but it seems one sided to me.

You're wrong when you think that the reason they don't care is because they get insurance. They don't care because they aren't massive pansies who get butthurt over internet spaceship explosions.
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#138 - 2011-10-24 15:29:10 UTC
when I fly my hauler blind into a gatecamp and get owned by bubbles and interceptors, this is evidence of a game inbalance in favor of the gankers: you see, their superior organization, numbers, and tactics mean the game is unfair because my incompetence did not beat all three of those

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.
March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#139 - 2011-10-24 15:31:14 UTC
Weaselior wrote:
March rabbit wrote:
maybe because ganker chooses time, place, victim and fit to attack? And no gankee? So ganker ALREADY HAS favor. Well yes. Place and time ganker and gankee choose "together". But final decision about attack belongs to ganker. So gankee should have something too.


ok, we'll give you an invincible police force that instajams and neuts as soon as it shows up on the field, will show up within 20 seconds at the outer end, and destroys the ganker 100% of the time

there, problem solved

who are you again?

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#140 - 2011-10-24 15:32:35 UTC
March rabbit wrote:
Weaselior wrote:
March rabbit wrote:
maybe because ganker chooses time, place, victim and fit to attack? And no gankee? So ganker ALREADY HAS favor. Well yes. Place and time ganker and gankee choose "together". But final decision about attack belongs to ganker. So gankee should have something too.


ok, we'll give you an invincible police force that instajams and neuts as soon as it shows up on the field, will show up within 20 seconds at the outer end, and destroys the ganker 100% of the time

there, problem solved

who are you again?


i'm the dread pirate weaselior, scourge of exhumers and cfo of goonswarm

who the **** are you

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.