EVE General Discussion

Sheesh, I am continually amazed at the reading of this definition. The 'V' in that term is the clue. "Versus". This very important word. It suggests pretty clearly that both sides are involved in the activity. In reality, the ganker is the only one pursuing the activity in question and the victim is trying to survive via fleeing or trying to bunker. Therefore there is no "versus". The victim in the 'knock out game' is also not 'versus' their attacker. But by the quoted explanation, those encounters would be considered a 'fight' between the two people.

If you would prefer we could rename it from PvP to shooting at spaceships in a game about shooting at spaceships. Whether you defend yourself or not is up to you. Getting shot and subsequently removed from your ship because you were more concerned about ISK/hr than you were about defending yourself is still versus. You just decided to take it lying down.

And the mindless sheep will continue toe'ing the company line...

Your view of a gank as being a non-pvp encounter is still incorrect, but at least you have a point here that I can sort of agree with. If it were up to me, miners would have tactical abilities that could even the field just a little. Currently, a miner's best friends are buffed ehp and escape - neither of which are particularly conducive to pgc. I've written many times that if they stayed on grid and could successfully fight off a frigate or two that this would more beneficial to pgc than having miners simply tank the dmg or pray they escape in time. Hell give them mining charges and let them rig asteroids to explode. Something. Anything.

But is the activity - ganker vs. miner - player vs. player? PvP? Yes. Of course it is. Could the miner fit his barge with ecm drones, break a target lock, and escape? Could a crafty miner spot a scout, and sacrifice some of his yield to make his ship less gankalicious by giving up a single low slot? Could the miner fit his mining barge with weapons, ecm mods in the mids and sit in a belt doing nothing, appearing to be afk, as bait, waiting to turn the tables on would-be gankers? Yes again. Do both players have the same ability to target the other and activate a module which will result in the other failing at it's desired activity? Yes.

The possibilities are endless. EVE is a game of choices and consequences and everything I've described is pvp.

I think some of you fail to even recognize that the economy in this game is fueled by exploding spaceships. If ships did not explode, there would be no economy and your rocks, minerals, and mission loot would be worthless. It is both in everyone's best interests and in the game's best interest (both economically and for the quality of pgc) if everyone occasionally loses ships and causes others to lose them occasionally too. Players need to interact and Hulkageddon was good for the game.

Could we make it harder for people to gank each other? Hello. CCP just did this. It takes 2-3 frigates to gank a barge now. If they choose, miners can fit themselves with battleship-level ehp. Battleship-level ehp!!! And it doesn't even reduce their yield all that much. But even THAT still isn't enough because this argument will never end. What would satisfy the mining crowd? A 25 frigate requirement for a gank? 3 Battleships necessary to gank a barge? Full immunity from interaction with their environment? It's ridiculous. So I say nay. In fact, 2-3 frigates may even be too many. Should you even need a friend or lose isk to gank one solo, afk miner in a game about exploding spaceships?

For my part, it's clear to me that increasing nonengagment is simply not in the best interests of EVE and as anything else would be a major departure from the dystopia I have come to admire and call my space home, hopefully a majority of players will continue to agree with this view so long as I continue to play.

YK

If ganking is so easy, why is it at an all time low?

Excellent points made here. Too many of these anti-ganker minions do not see themselves as willing participants in the game. I am a Systems Analyst so maybe that causes me to oversimplify and Boolean value every damned thing but I see two choices:

1) Logon to game - thereby declaring yourself a willing participant in the game.

2) Don't logon - gankers will just find someone else to shoot who chose to be a willing participant in the game.

Measuring success in units of ISK/hr seems so cold and calculative.

I measure my success in fun/hr.

considering how ****** mining drones are, there's really no reason not to carry a flight or two of ecm drones.

OK, so what is your counterproposal?

With even a single low slot, a freighter with one DCII would be overpowered with all its hull hp granted resists. Freighters would be virtually immune to ganking. We can't do that. Even if it had a drone bay, as a capital ship, a freighter would take too long to acquire target lock for ecm drones to be particularly effective. So, are you proposing that attack BCs be removed from the game? It's their large weapon turrets on battlecruiser-class ships that make these attacks cost-effective, no?

Or how many of their turret points would you like to see removed? 1? 2? They have 8. Write up a proposal and submit it to features & ideas. You'll get trolled some but maybe a dev will reply telling you why it is/isn't a good idea.

And no one should be hauling hundreds of millions of isk worth of loot in t1 industrials. They CHOOSE to stuff it all in instead of making multiple trips to mitigate their risk.

It's the same principle.

YK

My world is purple.