These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Advice on avoiding the Suicide gank

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#521 - 2014-11-09 13:03:08 UTC
Nicolai Serkanner wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
[they have to be -10 for you to even shoot at them


Wrong. You can shoot them any time. You just have to face the consequences, like the gankers do.


Again wrong, the issue is having an impact, and ISK efficiency, think it through...

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
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#522 - 2014-11-09 13:27:51 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
Nicolai Serkanner wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
[they have to be -10 for you to even shoot at them


Wrong. You can shoot them any time. You just have to face the consequences, like the gankers do.


Again wrong, the issue is having an impact, and ISK efficiency, think it through...


The reason you won't have an "impact" is because your prior nerfs force them to fly disposable ships.

The insurance nerf is why they have to fly throw away ships. You can thank yourselves for that.

But if you want to stop freighter ganks, it's fairly easy. First of all, thanks to GCCs, you literally know when they are able to undock. (I'd kill for that kind of intel in a wardec)

Then, you have a variety of options. You can jam them, blap them en route to their target, duel and then web their target away, etc.

In all likelihood, once the bumping starts and the freighter is off grid of the gate guns (another mechanic you can thank for us having to use extreme measures by the way), you will need to blap about a third of their fleet to stop the gank.

Yes, this means you would have to use a fair number of players with Thrashers. But that's only fair, since the gankers themselves have to use thirty or more people just to kill one guy. So that does mean you lot would have to put in some effort yourselves. But if you're not willing to do that, then the problem does not lie with the game, it lies with you lot.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#523 - 2014-11-09 13:37:52 UTC
And that really is what this comes down to.

"We can't hurt the gankers and that makes it unbalanced and they should get nerfed yet again!"

"Well, yes you can hurt them, you just have to put the same effort in that they do."

"Well we shouldn't have to do that!"

And somehow this means that the game is broken. Well, I don't think it's the game that's broken... I think it's your attitudes.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#524 - 2014-11-09 13:49:24 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
Nicolai Serkanner wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
[they have to be -10 for you to even shoot at them


Wrong. You can shoot them any time. You just have to face the consequences, like the gankers do.


Again wrong, the issue is having an impact, and ISK efficiency, think it through...


The reason you won't have an "impact" is because your prior nerfs force them to fly disposable ships.

The insurance nerf is why they have to fly throw away ships. You can thank yourselves for that.

But if you want to stop freighter ganks, it's fairly easy. First of all, thanks to GCCs, you literally know when they are able to undock. (I'd kill for that kind of intel in a wardec)

Then, you have a variety of options. You can jam them, blap them en route to their target, duel and then web their target away, etc.

In all likelihood, once the bumping starts and the freighter is off grid of the gate guns (another mechanic you can thank for us having to use extreme measures by the way), you will need to blap about a third of their fleet to stop the gank.

Yes, this means you would have to use a fair number of players with Thrashers. But that's only fair, since the gankers themselves have to use thirty or more people just to kill one guy. So that does mean you lot would have to put in some effort yourselves. But if you're not willing to do that, then the problem does not lie with the game, it lies with you lot.


I liked this post, pity for this sentence:

"But if you're not willing to do that, then the problem does not lie with the game, it lies with you lot"

The issue here is that the prey you are after after not super organised 0.0 people who are used to working together which is what many of CODE are, but players who do their own things, I was always looking at it from an angle of developing a group to hunt and kill and yet there is no benefit in it apart from being bloody minded, and add to that limited chance of success in terms of getting kills and preventing ganks and its a pipe dream, its the same as saying to corps fight back when war dec'd but they then get dog pile war decc'd...

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
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#525 - 2014-11-09 13:55:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
Dracvlad wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

The reason you won't have an "impact" is because your prior nerfs force them to fly disposable ships.

The insurance nerf is why they have to fly throw away ships. You can thank yourselves for that.

But if you want to stop freighter ganks, it's fairly easy. First of all, thanks to GCCs, you literally know when they are able to undock. (I'd kill for that kind of intel in a wardec)

Then, you have a variety of options. You can jam them, blap them en route to their target, duel and then web their target away, etc.

In all likelihood, once the bumping starts and the freighter is off grid of the gate guns (another mechanic you can thank for us having to use extreme measures by the way), you will need to blap about a third of their fleet to stop the gank.

Yes, this means you would have to use a fair number of players with Thrashers. But that's only fair, since the gankers themselves have to use thirty or more people just to kill one guy. So that does mean you lot would have to put in some effort yourselves. But if you're not willing to do that, then the problem does not lie with the game, it lies with you lot.


I liked this post, pity for this sentence:

"But if you're not willing to do that, then the problem does not lie with the game, it lies with you lot"
He's right though.

Quote:
The issue here is that the prey you are after after not super organised 0.0 people who are used to working together which is what many of CODE are, but players who do their own things,
That's hardly the fault of CCP or the game. Besides it's completely possible to still do your own thing and not get ganked, it just requires a little thought. Not getting ganked because of the actions you take before undocking is just as much PvP as ganking.

Quote:
I was always looking at it from an angle of developing a group to hunt and kill and yet there is no benefit in it apart from being bloody minded, and add to that limited chance of success in terms of getting kills and preventing ganks and its a pipe dream
It's only a pipe dream because people can't be bothered to do something themselves.

Quote:
its the same as saying to corps fight back when war dec'd but they then get dog pile war decc'd...
The ally mechanic allows you to dogpile right back.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#526 - 2014-11-09 13:56:41 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:

I liked this post, pity for this sentence:

"But if you're not willing to do that, then the problem does not lie with the game, it lies with you lot"

The issue here is that the prey you are after after not super organised 0.0 people who are used to working together which is what many of CODE are, but players who do their own things, I was always looking at it from an angle of developing a group to hunt and kill and yet there is no benefit in it apart from being bloody minded, and add to that limited chance of success in terms of getting kills and preventing ganks and its a pipe dream, its the same as saying to corps fight back when war dec'd but they then get dog pile war decc'd...


What do you expect me to say?

Yes, organization > not organization. That's MMOs for you. Yes, if you want to "do your own thing" in a PvP sandbox game, you are the prey animal.

The message here is that if you want to do something against an organized group of people, then organize yourselves. And not just a chat channel that tells you to disconnect yourself by opening fifty instances of the game client every time you jump into a 0.5.

But no one, absolutely no one can tell me that counters to ganking aren't effective just because the people who try it are publicly doing it hilariously wrong.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
malcovas Henderson
THoF
#527 - 2014-11-09 14:47:03 UTC  |  Edited by: malcovas Henderson
Dracvlad wrote:


The issue here is that the prey you are after after not super organised 0.0 people who are used to working together which is what many of CODE are, but players who do their own things, I was always looking at it from an angle of developing a group to hunt and kill and yet there is no benefit in it apart from being bloody minded, and add to that limited chance of success in terms of getting kills and preventing ganks and its a pipe dream, its the same as saying to corps fight back when war dec'd but they then get dog pile war decc'd...


The issue here is People are unwilling to adapt their gameplay. Avoiding ganking is not just about shooting back. Code can gank the "easy" prey all they like. I will not shed a tear, because they have made themselves "easy" prey. Pure and simple.

If after the gank they foam at the mouth and become a rabid animal. then they doubly deserved the gank and need to rage quit. If however, they go "OH what could I have done better", then a learning process begins. Making that player "Better". To me Ganking is a win win situation.

One person in this thread has already said he prefers to do somethings AFK, and as such he should be protected by immunity while doing such tasks. This is what the mentality of Hi Sec is becoming. If you cannot see this, then I don't blame you for asking for "Balance", because you cannot see the real problem here.

I do not like people telling me how to play my game within the rules CCP has laid down. As such I also do not expect people to change their playstyle to fit my agenda. I think Incursions in Hi Sec has far to much Reward for the risk, should I ask.......NO DEMAND!!!! that CCP lessen the Rewards for incursions? Put a GCC of 6 hrs on any player completing a zone?

All this and other Ganking threads are all about "I lost my ship, through being a bad / lazy player. CCP fix now so I can carry on being bad / lazy, but in safety"
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#528 - 2014-11-09 17:19:15 UTC
The fact that something "could" be done to avoid ganking doesn't mean that ganking isn't unbalanced. Awoxxing could be essentially made impossible if corporations required $500 security deposits upon joining, to be forfeited in case of awox. They could also do extensive RL background checks. Obviously the highsec PvE playerbase isn't interested in doing that. CCP doesn't respond with HTFU, it responds by realizing that the practical effect of awoxxing is to discourage highsec social interaction, and thus gets rid of it. The same should go for suicide ganking...to the extent that it's practical effect is to dull play in highsec and increase risk aversion, it should be adjusted so that it no longer does that. The way to accomplish that is nerfs on -10 folks, which will encourage more selective ganks, not blockades on Uedama.
Lady Areola Fappington
#529 - 2014-11-09 17:42:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Lady Areola Fappington
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
What do you expect me to say?

Yes, organization > not organization. That's MMOs for you. Yes, if you want to "do your own thing" in a PvP sandbox game, you are the prey animal.

The message here is that if you want to do something against an organized group of people, then organize yourselves. And not just a chat channel that tells you to disconnect yourself by opening fifty instances of the game client every time you jump into a 0.5.

But no one, absolutely no one can tell me that counters to ganking aren't effective just because the people who try it are publicly doing it hilariously wrong.




I blame part of this on mass entertainment nowdays. As I said before, in movies, video games, books, etc. the Good Guys win and the Bad Guys lose. It's a universal trope, Bad Guy goes Bad, Good Guy gets stomped, Good Guy rallies, Bad Guy loses. It's the main reason you see all these "ganking just needs to be a LITTLE bit harder" threads. You got to have your Bad Guy nearly successful, before the Good Guy swoops in and wins (almost always because the Bad Guys tactics collapse due the evilness of said tactics, and the Good Guy's stout refusal to stoop to that level, even when tempted).

Carebears are looking for the exact same thing in EVE. It's one of the reasons why CODE is so successful at rustling jimmies, CODE plays themselves off as the Good Guys, while the carebear types are played as Bad Guys.

It's not that carebears want things to be a level playing field. The field is already pretty level, ain't nothing stopping a hauler from rolling a gank alt, gathering some other hauler buddies with gank alts, and chasing ganker supply lines.

I mean, by carebear's own words, ganking is basically without risk or loss, there's no real punishment, so why NOT use the same tactics?

No, what the carebears want is Good Guy Plot Armor. The Jedis beat the Sith, the Nazis are defeated by the Allies, John McCain defeats the terrorists, and carebears take down the gankers.

7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided. --Eve New Player Guide
malcovas Henderson
THoF
#530 - 2014-11-09 17:51:55 UTC
Tears Belvar wrote:
The fact that something "could" be done to avoid ganking doesn't mean that ganking isn't unbalanced. Awoxxing could be essentially made impossible if corporations required $500 security deposits upon joining, to be forfeited in case of awox. They could also do extensive RL background checks. Obviously the highsec PvE playerbase isn't interested in doing that. CCP doesn't respond with HTFU, it responds by realizing that the practical effect of awoxxing is to discourage highsec social interaction, and thus gets rid of it. The same should go for suicide ganking...to the extent that it's practical effect is to dull play in highsec and increase risk aversion, it should be adjusted so that it no longer does that. The way to accomplish that is nerfs on -10 folks, which will encourage more selective ganks, not blockades on Uedama.



There you go with the Awoxxing again. Stop it FFS.

If people cannot be "Bothered" then surely they have to pay the consequences. Nothing is worse for a game than Lazy / bad people, demanding changes to others gameplay, so it will not interfere with their gameplay.

You are the worst of the worst of these people. You have never ganked. Yet profess to be a expert on it. You don't mine, but somehow you presume you are an expert on how hard it is to prevent a Gank.

Lets be honest here Tears. As an Incursion runner with absolutely no experience of Ganking, and being Ganked while actively playing the game. Doing activities that does not involve ganking or being ganked. Why are you even posting in a ganking thread?

That's like me posting in a Incursion thread and spewing forth nonsense showing my lack of knowledge on the topic.


Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#531 - 2014-11-09 17:57:24 UTC
Lady Areola Fappington wrote:

No, what the carebears want is Good Guy Plot Armor.


Bingo.

And all the while assuming that they are the "good guys" in this situation. But failing to properly defend yourself in the jungle does not make you a "good guy", it just makes you food.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#532 - 2014-11-09 18:12:45 UTC
March rabbit wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Fun fact:

More freighters and orcas die due to war decs than die to ganking in high sec.


proof?


2 years of killmail records.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#533 - 2014-11-09 18:15:34 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
Mara Pahrdi wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Its very easy to stop gankers, people are just too lazy to do so and just come here to whine in an attempt to get CCP to protect them from themselves.

Just to put "lazy" into the right perspective: While it's still fairly easy to make gankers look for other targets or even perceive you as a target at all with a decent amount of effort, "easy" is not what I'd associate with actively stopping a properly executed running gank. Also the isk efficiency is in most cases outright horrible.

I agree with the rest though Blink.


That was what I was going to say, before exploring each suggestion in detail, due to wife aggro that will have to wait to later on today.


Tell me what is hard about getting an interceptor in front of a bumped freighter for it to warp to?
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#534 - 2014-11-09 18:37:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Veers Belvar
malcovas Henderson wrote:
Tears Belvar wrote:
The fact that something "could" be done to avoid ganking doesn't mean that ganking isn't unbalanced. Awoxxing could be essentially made impossible if corporations required $500 security deposits upon joining, to be forfeited in case of awox. They could also do extensive RL background checks. Obviously the highsec PvE playerbase isn't interested in doing that. CCP doesn't respond with HTFU, it responds by realizing that the practical effect of awoxxing is to discourage highsec social interaction, and thus gets rid of it. The same should go for suicide ganking...to the extent that it's practical effect is to dull play in highsec and increase risk aversion, it should be adjusted so that it no longer does that. The way to accomplish that is nerfs on -10 folks, which will encourage more selective ganks, not blockades on Uedama.



There you go with the Awoxxing again. Stop it FFS.

If people cannot be "Bothered" then surely they have to pay the consequences. Nothing is worse for a game than Lazy / bad people, demanding changes to others gameplay, so it will not interfere with their gameplay.

You are the worst of the worst of these people. You have never ganked. Yet profess to be a expert on it. You don't mine, but somehow you presume you are an expert on how hard it is to prevent a Gank.

Lets be honest here Tears. As an Incursion runner with absolutely no experience of Ganking, and being Ganked while actively playing the game. Doing activities that does not involve ganking or being ganked. Why are you even posting in a ganking thread?

That's like me posting in a Incursion thread and spewing forth nonsense showing my lack of knowledge on the topic.




Blah, blah, more name calling and immaturity...time to go back to grade school?

Awoxxing serves as a perfect example of CCP's thinking here, and attempt to improve the game for EVERYONE, not just the 2% of the playerbase that gets its highs ganking and turning eve into Grand Theft Auto.

I have been ganked, and survived at least one other gank attempt. Stop spouting falsehoods. I don't haul because of the risk of ganking. My playstyle is affected by CONCORD's weak kneed law enforcement. I am quite familiar with the game mechanics, have studied the issue carefully, and am obviously entitled to my (overwhelmingly correct) opinion. I didn't realize CCP put you in charge of deciding who is allowed to post on the forums.
Concord Guy's Cousin
Doomheim
#535 - 2014-11-09 19:16:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Concord Guy's Cousin
Veers Belvar wrote:
Blah, blah, more name calling and immaturity...time to go back to grade school?

Awoxxing serves as a perfect example of CCP's thinking here, and attempt to improve the game for EVERYONE, not just the 2% of the playerbase that gets its highs ganking and turning eve into Grand Theft Auto.

I have been ganked, and survived at least one other gank attempt. Stop spouting falsehoods. I don't haul because of the risk of ganking. My playstyle is affected by CONCORD's weak kneed law enforcement. I am quite familiar with the game mechanics, have studied the issue carefully, and am obviously entitled to my (overwhelmingly correct) opinion. I didn't realize CCP put you in charge of deciding who is allowed to post on the forums.
In other words you want Concord to protect you, because you haven't got the gumption to do it for yourself. Concord don't protect anything except the donut shop in the food mall of every station, so you're SOL.

Your claim to have an understanding of game mechanics is laughable; anybody who is familiar with game mechanics, and their nuances, can see that your so-called familiarity is either flawed, or a blatant lie.

Your "overwhelmingly correct opinion" is invariably wrong, which is why people insult you. Check your ego at the door you pompous twit.

ISD LackOfFaith ~ "Your Catalyst was a hamster, and your Retriever smelt of elderberries"

NPC Forum Alt, because reasons.
malcovas Henderson
THoF
#536 - 2014-11-09 19:24:28 UTC
Tears Belvar wrote:


Blah, blah, more name calling and immaturity...time to go back to grade school?

Awoxxing serves as a perfect example of CCP's thinking here, and attempt to improve the game for EVERYONE, not just the 2% of the playerbase that gets its highs ganking and turning eve into Grand Theft Auto.

I have been ganked, and survived at least one other gank attempt. Stop spouting falsehoods. I don't haul because of the risk of ganking. My playstyle is affected by CONCORD's weak kneed law enforcement. I am quite familiar with the game mechanics, have studied the issue carefully, and am obviously entitled to my (overwhelmingly correct) opinion. I didn't realize CCP put you in charge of deciding who is allowed to post on the forums.


By your own admission you were AFK, in your shuttle. You never experienced that gank. And the other Gank failed. With the information you have passed in this thread, I am correct in my assessment of your experience of ganking.

I asked you why you were posting in a ganking thread, I didn't say you couldn't. Feel free to utter your ignorance in any thread you please. Be aware that your ignorance is plain for all to see.

Your Playstyle is actually affected by your inability to grow a spine, in a game of exploding spaceships, where you feel to scared to fly spaceships that are at risk of exploding.
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#537 - 2014-11-09 19:30:18 UTC
malcovas Henderson wrote:
Your Playstyle is actually affected by your inability to grow a spine, in a game of exploding spaceships, where you feel to scared to fly spaceships that are at risk of exploding.
I wish I could like this more, bravo sir.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack
Cancel Align NOW
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#538 - 2014-11-09 19:55:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Cancel Align NOW
Veers Belvar wrote:


Blah, blah, more name calling and immaturity...time to go back to grade school?



Pot. Kettle. Black.

Veers Belvar wrote:


Awoxxing serves as a perfect example of CCP's thinking here, and attempt to improve the game for EVERYONE, not just the 2% of the playerbase that gets its highs ganking and turning eve into Grand Theft Auto.



1. What CCP say serves as an example.
2. What you infer about CCP's thinking, CCP's direction, the 2% and Eve vs GTA is conjecture with no basis.

CCP Falcon wrote:
Why should CCP provide protection for your haulage in high sec?

CONCORD offer a level of deterrent just the same as any law enforcement agency, but as with any police for they're reactive and punitive rather than proactive.

If you want your haulage to be safer, bring the guns. If you don't have any guns, sacrifice some of your profit margin and hire someone who has them to escort you.

Welcome to New Eden, you just learned a very valuable lesson in being prepared and covering your back.

Smile



Veers Belvar wrote:


I have been ganked, and survived at least one other gank attempt. Stop spouting falsehoods. I don't haul because of the risk of ganking. My playstyle is affected by CONCORD's weak kneed law enforcement. I am quite familiar with the game mechanics, have studied the issue carefully, and am obviously entitled to my (overwhelmingly correct) opinion. I didn't realize CCP put you in charge of deciding who is allowed to post on the forums.


You are not familiar with game mechanics. Every second or third post from you illustrates a lack of understanding of the implications of specific game mechanics and how they came into being and why they are there.
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#539 - 2014-11-09 20:38:47 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:


What I mean by that is something that directly impacts docking rights based on acts in hisec, that does not exist.

And please list how you would stop gankers, so I can pick it apart in detail rather than deal with a throw away statement!


Gank them on the undock, provide an escort for your freighter, use the right ship for the job, dont stuff billions in the hold, avoid high risk systems, use instalocking thrashers to gank them on gates, bump their bumping ships, have an alt in a web ship, have an intercepter to use as a mobile warp point for a bumped ship, use a bait ship to kill them, tank your ****...

The list goes on.


Freighters, when I first started playing the corp I was in actually did some escort duties in fact my first death was acting as a diversion in low sec for a hauler moving POS stuff.

First off lets look at the killing part, you say gank them on undock, gank them on gates, this is of course one of the issues, if people wanted to gank they will be ganking something worthwhile, not a gank ship, I know that people are going to say HTFU and all that, but its not exactly a major draw is it? In terms of instra BM's at stations, taht can make it hard to get them, but is doable, though ones ping can have an impact.

Your main focus is freighters and that is not a surprise, anti-bump ships is one way and having interceptors for them to warp to may help, but may make it worse, gate guns help, however the issue is simply that webbing requires that you be in the corp of the freighter or a supreme amount of trust in terms of a duel. If the target is a mining ship you have no chance to stop a gank, only to get on a kill mail of a worthless catalyst, so very impressive.

There is nothing here to interest anyone, its is the definition of slim pickings and something that only a very few focused people would have the attitude to try it.

The list did not go on did it?

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
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#540 - 2014-11-09 20:48:18 UTC
malcovas Henderson wrote:
Tears Belvar wrote:


Blah, blah, more name calling and immaturity...time to go back to grade school?

Awoxxing serves as a perfect example of CCP's thinking here, and attempt to improve the game for EVERYONE, not just the 2% of the playerbase that gets its highs ganking and turning eve into Grand Theft Auto.

I have been ganked, and survived at least one other gank attempt. Stop spouting falsehoods. I don't haul because of the risk of ganking. My playstyle is affected by CONCORD's weak kneed law enforcement. I am quite familiar with the game mechanics, have studied the issue carefully, and am obviously entitled to my (overwhelmingly correct) opinion. I didn't realize CCP put you in charge of deciding who is allowed to post on the forums.


By your own admission you were AFK, in your shuttle. You never experienced that gank. And the other Gank failed. With the information you have passed in this thread, I am correct in my assessment of your experience of ganking.

I asked you why you were posting in a ganking thread, I didn't say you couldn't. Feel free to utter your ignorance in any thread you please. Be aware that your ignorance is plain for all to see.

Your Playstyle is actually affected by your inability to grow a spine, in a game of exploding spaceships, where you feel to scared to fly spaceships that are at risk of exploding.



Once again failing to comprehend why CCP is taking out awoxxing, despite the fact that perfect protections are available. Why don't they tell people to grow a spine? Because fundamentally the mechanic makes the game less fun, and encourages risk aversion. Therefore it gets thrown overboard. I'm not interested in being the prey in a predator-prey game, nor the run over bystanders in GTA...no thanks. And it seems that people in highsec have responded the exact same way to awoxxing - nice mechanic, no thanks. The same is already happening to hauling. The failure of CONCORD to crack down on -10s doesn't lead to a more fun or more interesting game, or more risk taking...it just leads to people doing other things or quitting the game entirely. What a success story....