These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Crime & Punishment

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

War on Gankers

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Velicitia
XS Tech
#521 - 2015-01-09 13:08:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Velicitia
Black Pedro wrote:
(stuff)



Unfortunately, I can give you but one space-like.

Edit -- And I would also like to take a moment to thank all the "EvE Bad Guys" for educating me better on EVE over the years - either through reading your posts here (and elsewhere), exchanges of ammunition, and/or bothering to have a decent chat with me and telling me where I went wrong on [fit|tactic|whatever]. You guys don't get enough of that.

One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#522 - 2015-01-09 13:54:09 UTC
Velicitia wrote:
Falcon, or any of the devs/GMs, IS giving you CCP's official stance on whatever matter he is speaking about (except in cases where he explicitly says "guys, this is my take on it" -- as he did elsewhere in that same thread).
And like I stated, he is giving CCPs stance on the matter as it currently stands. That doesn't mean their stance won't ever change. You guys seem to act like him saying it once means nothing will ever change.

Velicitia wrote:
However, the "antisocial" behaviour that CODE (et. al.) engage in is, as of current rulings, not "griefing".
That's arguable. Strictly speaking, the ToS states you can't use RP as an excuse to grief (which purposely upsetting another player is), which is exactly what is happening. It's more akin to one of the many rules CCP simply isn't enforcing at this current time.

Velicitia wrote:
Yes, attrition is something that needs to be dealt with ... but the bigger problem is everyone and their brother not "getting EVE".

...

If the majority of that corp's players were pushed out of eve -- well, it's unfortunate that they couldn't stomach the game, but there are other games out there. If everyone liked the same thing, we'd still be playing Pong or Mario Brothers.

Thing is, every carebear miner could be pushed outta the game and it would still continue.
You realise it takes income for CCP to run the game though right? You are perfectly fine with players leaving, but it's clear from fanfest that CCP are not. Their financial statements are not in the best shape and they are losing developers to other, stronger companies.

EVE has a terrible reputation for being full of trolls, and it really wouldn't surprise me if CCP decided to do something abut that one day. I really don't think enforcing tighter restrictions on griefing would lose them many subs, and certainly none from the type of players anyone would care about. If you come to a game with the intention of griefing other players because that's what gets you off, in all honesty you deserve to be kicked out.

And honestly, I don't believe that the player run economy would survive a mass exodus of every highsec "carebear".

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#523 - 2015-01-09 13:58:02 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
Falcon, or any of the devs/GMs, IS giving you CCP's official stance on whatever matter he is speaking about (except in cases where he explicitly says "guys, this is my take on it" -- as he did elsewhere in that same thread).

This. CCP Falcon's primary job is to communicate CCP's view to the playerbase. His words are implicitly that of the company as community manager, and should be taken as gospel unless he says otherwise, or is contradicted by the few higher-ups like CCP Seagull.[/quote]See previous post.

Black Pedro wrote:
Sure, things can change in the future, and you can hold out hope that CCP will move the game in the direction you prefer Lucas, but you have to play the game according the actual, current rules, not how you think they might be in the future. All present statements, rulings from CCP indicate that ganking, even the New Order "we own highsec" variety, is perfectly acceptable, as is posting the bad behaviour of the victims on a website. All evidence points to CCP being fully aware of the situation and willing to act if a player crosses a line (see: Erotica 1) so therefore we have to believe that how the New Order plays the game is within CCP's rules. Not accepting that reality and using the "but it will eventually change because it must, right?" argument makes your position look quite weak.
Indeed, they are currently allowed, but that doesn't mean they will always be, and certainly doesn't mean I can't voice my opinion on where things should go from here.

Black Pedro wrote:
And to be clear I might not see any reply to this from you Lucas as I have chosen to hide your posts on the forum for a while now. I find that my forum experience is far more worthwhile without being exposed to your continual rebuttals to minutia that stems either from an inability to accept that your position may not be entirely correct or perhaps just an unhealthy need to always reply to everything in contrary fashion. It is ok to let an issue drop once in a while even if you still think the other person is wrong.
#rekt
Come back when you finish crying. I always like people telling me how terrible I am for having opinions, and desperately trying to claim that I'm somehow arguing wrong when they can't produce an adequate response.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Concord Guy's Cousin
Doomheim
#524 - 2015-01-09 14:07:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Concord Guy's Cousin
Lucas Kell wrote:
I always like people telling me how terrible I am for having opinions, and desperately trying to claim that I'm somehow arguing wrong when they can't produce an adequate response.
You having an opinion is fine, it's when you present it as fact that people take umbrage.

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

NPC Forum Alt, because reasons.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#525 - 2015-01-09 14:49:52 UTC
Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
I always like people telling me how terrible I am for having opinions, and desperately trying to claim that I'm somehow arguing wrong when they can't produce an adequate response.
You having an opinion is fine, it's when you present it as fact that people take umbrage.
The only thing I've presented as facts are actually facts. Whether or not your warped mind reads my opinions and automatically explodes with spergy rage thinking they are presented as facts isn't my problem.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Velicitia
XS Tech
#526 - 2015-01-09 14:55:40 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:


Velicitia wrote:
Yes, attrition is something that needs to be dealt with ... but the bigger problem is everyone and their brother not "getting EVE".

...

If the majority of that corp's players were pushed out of eve -- well, it's unfortunate that they couldn't stomach the game, but there are other games out there. If everyone liked the same thing, we'd still be playing Pong or Mario Brothers.

Thing is, every carebear miner could be pushed outta the game and it would still continue.
You realise it takes income for CCP to run the game though right? You are perfectly fine with players leaving, but it's clear from fanfest that CCP are not. Their financial statements are not in the best shape and they are losing developers to other, stronger companies.

EVE has a terrible reputation for being full of trolls, and it really wouldn't surprise me if CCP decided to do something abut that one day. I really don't think enforcing tighter restrictions on griefing would lose them many subs, and certainly none from the type of players anyone would care about. If you come to a game with the intention of griefing other players because that's what gets you off, in all honesty you deserve to be kicked out.

And honestly, I don't believe that the player run economy would survive a mass exodus of every highsec "carebear".



No, I figured EVE ran on Unicorn Tears ... OFC I realize that CCP needs a certain critical mass of subs to keep the game going.

CCP's focus on lost subs is "getting people to stop leveling their raven". I'll have to find that fanfest presentation, but as I recall it, CCP wants to get some (all?) of that group to start "getting EVE" and staying in for the long haul.

While their devs have left for [reasons] -- perhaps that's more an indication of CCP's internal culture ('not enough pshhhh'), rather than whatever you're trying to get at.

As for "Griefing" -- CCP is already pretty strict there (See Erotica1 for example.) Most ingame activities that people feel are "griefing" are not so, according to CCP's official rules. The trouble is, EVE is the one MMO that goes against current trends in gaming -- even servers in other games that are "PVP Enabled" are typically set up as

Area 1 -> "Your Team" can engage "Their Team"; but "Their Team" cannot engage "Your Team" unless [reasons]
Area 2 -> Either team can engage the other side.
Area 3 -> Exact opposite of "Area 1".

(note - it's been a while, things may have changed).

EvE on the other hand is
Area 1 -> "Everyone vs. Everyone" with a lot of penalties / hurdles (CONCORD, sec loss, GCC, etc.)
Area 2 -> "Everyone vs. Everyone" with some penalties / hurdles (no CONCORD, but still sec loss, Suspect Timer, etc.)
Area 3 -> "Everyone vs. Everyone" with no penalties / hurdles.


So, players coming from [other MMO] unfortunately (and incorrectly) apply [other MMO trends] to EvE, and end up losing out pretty heavily (see: Stuff like this), and then raging.

Catastrophically, the people who SHOULD be telling these players the rules and how eve works (Rookie Help, Help, vets who've been in NPC corps since day 1) are not actually helping them out (although, to be fair, it could be quite possible that the newbros aren't actually participating in these channels). It's the gankers and the "criminals" who are typically the most helpful -- my FIRST real lesson in fitting came from getting blapped, and the perpetrator convoing me and telling me in enough detail (that my week old self could understand) exactly where I went wrong, and what I could do to fix it.

And to that end, every person I nuked in that war I mentioned got a convo and we went over their (sometimes god-awful) fit and tactics so that maybe next time we engaged, the outcome would be different.

As for carebears being pushed out -- yes and no ... the economy WOULD be hit pretty hard but I don't think it would collapse into "NPC Seeded Everything" like other places. Sure, CCP might have to bolster the market with NPC offers here and there ... but we're not talking about an exodus of "January 11, all Carebears quit", but rather keeping the mechanics the same (i.e. stop caving to their "One more nerf" campaign), and telling them to HTFU. So it would probably give people enough time to re-activate their mining accounts and get back to it.

(Note --> there is, to me, a huge difference between a "carebear" and "an EvE Player, who happens to be a miner")

One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia
Tora Bushido
The Marmite Mercenaries
BLACKFLAG.
#527 - 2015-01-09 14:57:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Tora Bushido
Lucas Kell wrote:
The only thing I've presented as facts are actually facts. Whether or not your warped mind reads my opinions and automatically explodes with spergy rage thinking they are presented as facts isn't my problem.
Have you ever even considered you could be wrong and the other 99% is right ? Serious, think about it. At some point you must have thought, even just once, about why people hardly agree with you in all these long posts. Dont see this as a personal attack, I am trying to help you.

DELETE THE WEAK, ADAPT OR DIE !

Meta Gaming Level VII, Psycho Warfare Level X, Smack Talk Level VII.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#528 - 2015-01-09 16:47:11 UTC
Velicitia wrote:
CCP's focus on lost subs is "getting people to stop leveling their raven". I'll have to find that fanfest presentation, but as I recall it, CCP wants to get some (all?) of that group to start "getting EVE" and staying in for the long haul.
That's one of their focus points. That does not mean that PVE players can go die in a fire.

Velicitia wrote:
While their devs have left for [reasons] -- perhaps that's more an indication of CCP's internal culture ('not enough pshhhh'), rather than whatever you're trying to get at.
What I'm getting at is that CCP will have to make decisions that are going to **** some people off. I'd be incredibly surprised if they'd stick with supporting the type of players which bring them the bad press in the long run.

Velicitia wrote:
As for "Griefing" -- CCP is already pretty strict there (See Erotica1 for example.) Most ingame activities that people feel are "griefing" are not so, according to CCP's official rules.
Griefing ins griefing. If CCP chooses to allow certain activities which are griefing they can. All I'm saying is that long term, I expect them to make more rulings like the one they made about Erotica 1, not less. Perhaps I'm wrong and they want more people to troll new players out of the game.

Velicitia wrote:
Catastrophically, the people who SHOULD be telling these players the rules and how eve works (Rookie Help, Help, vets who've been in NPC corps since day 1) are not actually helping them out (although, to be fair, it could be quite possible that the newbros aren't actually participating in these channels). It's the gankers and the "criminals" who are typically the most helpful -- my FIRST real lesson in fitting came from getting blapped, and the perpetrator convoing me and telling me in enough detail (that my week old self could understand) exactly where I went wrong, and what I could do to fix it.
No, too many players don't help newbies, and instead choose to troll them, gank them, and humiliate them. A new player joins the game, works his way up to doing a bit of PVE, because that's what he enjoys (and is a valid style of play) then some idiot comes along blows him up, then repeatedly insults him in local until he rages out, before posting the convo on their forum to laugh at. That's not exactly "Welcome to EVE!". And I know, I know, cue the usual "Well if they can't take it obviously they shouldn't be playing EVE". The truth is what you get off on is pretty disgusting, even in EVE, and most of those players would take ganking fairly well if it wasn't paired with campaigns to cause as much upset as possible.

Velicitia wrote:
As for carebears being pushed out -- yes and no ... the economy WOULD be hit pretty hard but I don't think it would collapse into "NPC Seeded Everything" like other places. Sure, CCP might have to bolster the market with NPC offers here and there ... but we're not talking about an exodus of "January 11, all Carebears quit", but rather keeping the mechanics the same (i.e. stop caving to their "One more nerf" campaign), and telling them to HTFU. So it would probably give people enough time to re-activate their mining accounts and get back to it.

(Note --> there is, to me, a huge difference between a "carebear" and "an EvE Player, who happens to be a miner")
I really can't imagine there's enough players who want to mine enough to keep the market as supplied as it needs to be. It would basically just be the bots left.

And you seem to say there's a difference, but I don't think you really draw that line where you think you do. I think you'll draw it the moment someone even hints towards improving PVE. Like this entire conversation, it's sparked off by me stating that ganking - along with other mechanics - needs a balance pass, and that purposely trolling and attacking people with the intent of causing them grief should be bannable, and suddenly I'm a carebear, because most of you seem to be unable to differentiate between what I'm saying and "remove all ganking WAAH!".

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#529 - 2015-01-09 16:59:05 UTC
Tora Bushido wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
The only thing I've presented as facts are actually facts. Whether or not your warped mind reads my opinions and automatically explodes with spergy rage thinking they are presented as facts isn't my problem.
Have you ever even considered you could be wrong and the other 99% is right ? Serious, think about it. At some point you must have thought, even just once, about why people hardly agree with you in all these long posts. Dont see this as a personal attack, I am trying to help you.
I've certainly considered it. to this date, I've not found myself on the opposite side to the 99% though, only some incredibly vocal minorities, usually because I purposely challenge vocal minorities.

I've been swayed on my opinions many times however, even Erotica 1 when I was against his banning following a large conversation with him, when previously I'd have hit the ban button myself (and had been very vocal about that). The issue is that in order to be swayed, I need realistic and well thought out responses, which this forum rarely produces. People read what you say and then assume you are saying something else - usually the worst thing they can think of.

As for this, I've made it very clear much of it is my opinion. there are certain facts which I generally accept to be true, like most gankers being alts (which was nicely proven for me by my opposition) and that botters (and most other people to be honest) benefit when their competition is removed.

My opinions, to name a few, are that the acts performed by code should often be considered griefing covered by RP (when they intend to upset a player to "harvest tears"), that the NPE is terrible and is best fixed by being more lenient on newbies before training them to become an EVE vet, that PVE is a perfectly valid form of play and being asocial (not antisocial) is fine and that CCPs situation is likely to cause them to make tough decisions in the long run. Obviously I believe these opinions to be true, as it would be pretty stupid to have an opinion you don't believe, but I'm certainly not claiming they are facts. Could I be wrong? Certainly. Has anyone convinced me I am wrong? Not yet, no.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Velicitia
XS Tech
#530 - 2015-01-09 17:29:22 UTC
well, people can certainly be asocial in EVE ... but when that social group (e.g. Break-a-Wish) shows up and blaps them, the ~entire~ community should be telling them they're doing it wrong when they come cry about it.

Look, it's true we all can play however we want ... be it mining, or AFK hauling, or whatever... UP TO THE POINT that you're within optimal + (2* falloff) ... at which point your gameplay can (and should) affect (or be affected by) the other person(s).

Problem is, too many people see their side, without acknowledging the other side is just as valid (even if it's boring as all hell). We used to ... where did we go wrong?

One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#531 - 2015-01-09 17:57:52 UTC
Velicitia wrote:
well, people can certainly be asocial in EVE ... but when that social group (e.g. Break-a-Wish) shows up and blaps them, the ~entire~ community should be telling them they're doing it wrong when they come cry about it.

Look, it's true we all can play however we want ... be it mining, or AFK hauling, or whatever... UP TO THE POINT that you're within optimal + (2* falloff) ... at which point your gameplay can (and should) affect (or be affected by) the other person(s).

Problem is, too many people see their side, without acknowledging the other side is just as valid (even if it's boring as all hell). We used to ... where did we go wrong?
And I agree entirely. What I don't agree with is when players go and blap someone, with the additional trolling and insults, specifically to upset the player they are shooting so they and their mates can laugh about how well they trolled them. I also don't believe that the system is balanced as it currently is.

In my opinion it should take fewer gankers with more at risk (but not necessarily cost, so not just a valuable ship) and there should be more active tools to prevent yourself being ganked as well as active counters to those tools. Sure, if you're AFK, you're just as screwed now, but if your active, there's a chance to escape. At the moment it's far too passive, where a player being ganked has to have done everything preemptively. For haulers, escorts are a pretty terrible concept as the gameplay involved in watching someone else's freighter warp is immensely boring.

Elite:Dangerous has an active interdiction mechanic which is a pretty good example of how a ganker and a gankee actively contend for the ability to execute the gank. At this point this is all just repetition of what was previous said.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Velicitia
XS Tech
#532 - 2015-01-09 19:15:37 UTC
Proof that they're actively only looking for tears? Perhaps the reason they post the tears on minerbumping / TMC / etc is because the other side is so damn awful most of the time. But again if the "victims" are that awful, then proof from the gankers is required. (Not taking sides or anything ... but it's far too easy to demonize "the other side").

"Escorts" used to be a thing. And realistically, you only need them for 1 or 2 jumps (e.g. in gates at Niarja and Uedama) Sure, that might just mean the gankers move one system over ... so keep it up til it's no longer "worth it" for them (and then come up with a new tactic when they come up with a new tactic ... and repeat for infinity). Trouble is, the "victim" side doesn't want to do the "and repeat to infinity" part.

Not sure what you mean about needing to be more "active" -- I can fly a completely anti-tanked hulk in Halaima and still be 100% safe by watching local and d-scan. Dunno about you, but I don't consider d-scanning / watching local to be "passive". Furthermore, everything the gankers did was pre-emptive too ... the gank (or failure) is just the outcome of all the prep work.

As for gankers risking more ... well, I suppose ... but you have to break the bullshit "there's nothing we can do about it" mentality from the other side. So what if the gankers are flying -10 toons with no implants and 1m SP ... bring a few ~anything~ and blap the anti-tanked cats. GET GOOD with insta-locking falcons (bring rebos / links / anything),

Problem with those are that it takes some effort (and coordination) from players who just want to "level their raven" (or pretend eve is a solo game ... or whatever).

One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#533 - 2015-01-09 21:52:27 UTC
Velicitia wrote:
Proof that they're actively only looking for tears? Perhaps the reason they post the tears on minerbumping / TMC / etc is because the other side is so damn awful most of the time. But again if the "victims" are that awful, then proof from the gankers is required. (Not taking sides or anything ... but it's far too easy to demonize "the other side").
Lol, so they collect tears as proof, yeah, that must be it.
Sorry, but I'm not going to get into another endless debate where a code member claims they are just merrily flying around and miners keep exploding into a rage at random. We all know exactly what code are there for when you ingore the RP cover story. I understand you won;t admit it because that would make you vulnerable ToS wise, so lets just agree to disagree.

Velicitia wrote:
"Escorts" used to be a thing. And realistically, you only need them for 1 or 2 jumps (e.g. in gates at Niarja and Uedama) Sure, that might just mean the gankers move one system over ... so keep it up til it's no longer "worth it" for them (and then come up with a new tactic when they come up with a new tactic ... and repeat for infinity). Trouble is, the "victim" side doesn't want to do the "and repeat to infinity" part.
Yes, escorts used to be a thing. I've been in countless escort fleets. The problem is that they are boring, that's why JFs were made. Honestly, I can't understand why anyone would think that watching someone make some jumps in the slowest ship in the world would be considered actual gameplay. I'd rather see active gameplay mechanics than that.

Velicitia wrote:
Not sure what you mean about needing to be more "active" -- I can fly a completely anti-tanked hulk in Halaima and still be 100% safe by watching local and d-scan. Dunno about you, but I don't consider d-scanning / watching local to be "passive". Furthermore, everything the gankers did was pre-emptive too ... the gank (or failure) is just the outcome of all the prep work.
I mean active as in when the gank is going down, you are actively playing. It's gameplay. Not just preparing in advance, but on both sides being active in offence and defence.

Velicitia wrote:
As for gankers risking more ... well, I suppose ... but you have to break the bullshit "there's nothing we can do about it" mentality from the other side. So what if the gankers are flying -10 toons with no implants and 1m SP ... bring a few ~anything~ and blap the anti-tanked cats. GET GOOD with insta-locking falcons (bring rebos / links / anything),

Problem with those are that it takes some effort (and coordination) from players who just want to "level their raven" (or pretend eve is a solo game ... or whatever).
For the most part there is nothing they can do. Sure, they might be able to kill a few gank catalysts before the gankers just move to somewhere else. You are pretty much never going to catch a ganker who uses instant undocks unless you catch him on a gate. There's a reason white knights are ridiculed, it's because wasting hours of your life to kill a handful of disposable ships is laughably pointless. Even I laugh at people when they suggest white knighting.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Velicitia
XS Tech
#534 - 2015-01-09 22:09:13 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:

Velicitia wrote:
As for gankers risking more ... well, I suppose ... but you have to break the bullshit "there's nothing we can do about it" mentality from the other side. So what if the gankers are flying -10 toons with no implants and 1m SP ... bring a few ~anything~ and blap the anti-tanked cats. GET GOOD with insta-locking falcons (bring rebos / links / anything),

Problem with those are that it takes some effort (and coordination) from players who just want to "level their raven" (or pretend eve is a solo game ... or whatever).
For the most part there is nothing they can do. Sure, they might be able to kill a few gank catalysts before the gankers just move to somewhere else. You are pretty much never going to catch a ganker who uses instant undocks unless you catch him on a gate. There's a reason white knights are ridiculed, it's because wasting hours of your life to kill a handful of disposable ships is laughably pointless. Even I laugh at people when they suggest white knighting.


There was nothing that could be done about BoB either.

TBH, ~everything~ in this game is ultimately pointless. 2 weeks from now, who's gonna care if you white knighted or not? Did you have a good time?

The problem with the white knights (in very general and broad terms) is that they pretty much get on a soapbox, scream some stuff ... and then utterly fail at the first bit of resistance ...

... or do something hilariously stupid like giving their alliance over to their enemy.

Let's be honest here, code and/or the gankers would probably like to get some fights (because content) ... not to mention fuel for additional propaganda ...

One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia
Ramcath
Boulder Shoulders Industries
#535 - 2015-01-10 00:34:01 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
[quote=Ramcath]
Your view, that CCP will review ganking mechanics and make changes that are "over the top" is disingenuous and frankly just wishful thinking on your part. CCP Falcon, the lead community manager who is the man responsible for communicating with the playerbase, recently made it clear that freighter ganking is suppose to be in the game. The simple act of blowing up a freighter in highsec is not "griefing", it is ganking and has been an integral part of the game from the beginning. This will never be removed from the game unless CCP does a dramatic about-face about the structure of the game, and if this happens freighter ganking will be the least of our problems.

If in the future freighters are exploding too much, they will be re-balanced just like every ship as been done countless times before. Perhaps new modules will be added to make them safer, or base stats changed to improve their ability to tank or escape, but they will be not given a special pass from PvP or otherwise made invulnerable. Ships need to be at risk in the sandbox. Only CCP has the all data, but freighter ganking is incredibly rare - from the killboard and the number of freighters in space there must be a less than 1 in 5000 chance of a freighter dying per trip in highsec (granted this chance can vary greatly on where and what you carry). If CCP thinks that number is getting too high they will buff them - there is no need for scaremongering about the very future of ganking which you seem so concerned for.

Now, you also seem to be conflating "griefing" and ganking by raising Erotica 1 for some reason. Erotica 1 was a famous ISK doubler who ran a scam which turned into a controversy over "real-life harassment" for reasons that have been well discussed. This whole affair was unreleated to ganking in any way, except for the tangential connection that Erotica 1 was a supporter of the New Order of Highsec. Now regardless if you think Erotica 1's behaviour constitutes "real-life harrassment" or "griefing" it certainly shows that CCP is willing to act if they feel that something has crossed the line.

Now, the ganking and bumping activities of the New Order have been displayed for the world to see for well over two years now on minerbumping.com, one of the top Eve blogs by readership. Further, there have been no reports of gankers, New Order or otherwise, being banned for these ganking and bumping activities that I know of. CCP is well aware of the activities of the New Order both through these forums and minerbumping, as well as the countless petitions they must get from miners and haulers upset over their losses. Therefore, we can only conclude that the ganking activities of the New Order, including the ganking of freighters, are completely within the rules of the game.

But you want to have a conversation. Ok, let's first see if we can separate ganking from "griefing" in your mind. Is a freighter gank ever not "griefing"? If so, what are the conditions in which you think ganking a freighter is ok?


Ahh... a very intelligent reponse and I am happy to respond. To start I think you are implying some thoughts that I have that are not true, for example you said changing game mechanics is "wishful thinking" on my part. Let me assure you that I DO NOT believe that all ganking is greifing, or that abusing the ticket system to call a freighter loss is a type of griefing that should be validated. All that I have ever said is basically two points.

1. Review the game mechanics for ganking, not stop ganking.

2. If there is no true review of ganking then it is possible that with enough complaints CCP may act in such a way as to go 'over the top' in preventing it. That the mechanics of ganking should be reviewed, not that ganking should be stopped, but reviewed in such a way as to create the means for defense that may not currently be in game.

All I'm truly trying to say is to review the elements of game mechanics. For example, if a freighter had the ability to use Capital Drones then that would not only increase the amount of ganking going on but would be a modified means of ganking that wouldn't allow people to claim griefing. If someone had the use of Capital Drones then the response could be to that person, "hey, don't go afk, don't auto-pilot, and train up your drones."

Now, before all the ganker trolls come out to start yelling and screaming about what pilots should or should not do under the current system, please have an intelligent discussion on the points I've simply made. I'm not arguing afk pilots, or traveling in fleet, etc. My points are focused on the solo pilot who is hauling cargo that, for whatever reason, is not traveling in a fleet. Bumping is at times a form of griefing, so has been stated by previous Devs throughout Eve's existence. This doesn't mean ALL bumping is griefing, but there will be, if there isn't already, a gray area when it comes to bumping as griefing if there has already been an established line of thought, via the Devs, that in certain cases bumping is griefing.

The point many of us are trying to make is don't change the game, make it better. If hi-sec is going to be a stomping grounds for gankers to a level that hasn't been seen before, and I think we can agree with the rise of CODE that is has, then let's help Eve evolve into a place where ganking in hi-sec is not only understood by all parties, but the means of offense and defense for these encounters prevents CCP from 'going over the top'... something no one should want.
Leto Thule
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#536 - 2015-01-10 01:24:27 UTC
I disagree that any change is required.

Does that make me a troll?

Thunderdome ringmaster, Community Leader and Lord Inquisitor to the Court of Crime and Punishment
Paranoid Loyd
#537 - 2015-01-10 01:49:54 UTC
Leto Thule wrote:
I disagree that any change is required.

Does that make me a troll?

And a bully
And a sociopath
And a BFFM! Oh wait you already had that title.

"There is only one authority in this game, and that my friend is violence. The supreme authority upon which all other authority is derived." ISD Max Trix

Fix the Prospect!
Ramcath
Boulder Shoulders Industries
#538 - 2015-01-10 01:53:35 UTC
Leto Thule wrote:
I disagree that any change is required.

Does that make me a troll?



You're entitled to your opinion. An opinion is not a troll. Refusing to discuss the points I made however leads me to believe you have no response to them because you don't want anything to change, because that means you may not get to gank the way you currently do. That's what's so funny to me about the whole thing. If you do gank then what you're implying is that you don't want anything to prevent a ship from bumping, preventing warp, and having 5 catalysts show up to take down billions of isk. If CCP made it more difficult to do that, well... I guess that just takes the fun right out of it. Since the argument by previous posters is the point of ganking is to create 'loss' so as to stimulate the economy then why having capital drones on a freighter would not help with the 'loss' the gankers defend so greatly? Seems to be a one-sided coin that is argued, and that truly is a shame.
Leto Thule
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#539 - 2015-01-10 02:15:39 UTC
Ramcath wrote:

You're entitled to your opinion. An opinion is not a troll. Refusing to discuss the points I made however leads me to believe you have no response to them because you don't want anything to change, because that means you may not get to gank the way you currently do. That's what's so funny to me about the whole thing. If you do gank then what you're implying is that you don't want anything to prevent a ship from bumping, preventing warp, and having 5 catalysts show up to take down billions of isk. If CCP made it more difficult to do that, well... I guess that just takes the fun right out of it. Since the argument by previous posters is the point of ganking is to create 'loss' so as to stimulate the economy then why having capital drones on a freighter would not help with the 'loss' the gankers defend so greatly? Seems to be a one-sided coin that is argued, and that truly is a shame.


I am not a ganker. I have ganked, but it comprises about 1/100th of my kills in EVE.

I am also not a bumper. The only time that I have ever bumped, it was to prevent a carrier from getting to its POS.

I am not part of CODE. alliance, and have never flown alongside them.

However, I value the danger they bring to the game. If you are truly an educated person, you should be able to take that into account.

Let's use your personal game experiences as an example. You obviously run cargo. Thats fine, economy thrives on transport of goods. Now, lets look at why people play games.

For me, (and I will encompass a good bit of others in this) I play the game for the interaction with other players, and strive for events that I will remember. Hence the term "fun".

Now, will you remember the 212310th time you ran cargo, uneventful, from trade hub to trade hub?

NO.

BUT -- you WILL remember the time the gankers caught you. They destroyed your ship, and stole whatever cargo didnt perish in the explosion. Those players changed your game. Those players have given you a purpose.

And you want to give that up? You want to give up your right to be blown up by the enemy?

This has HAPPENED to me. Check out the zkill page for Arcturus Draxxon (my hauler alt) and find out how much ISK I lost just a year ago while attempting to fly a blinged out autism chariot in a T1 hauler. I didnt get mad at the gankers. I had to think quick to salvage what I could. I ended up racing them back to the wreck (they couldnt carry it all). As I stated, they turned a trivial cargo run into something ill remember for as long as I play this game.

Before you ask for something to change because you dont like it, make sure the change is actually for the good of all the people who play. Losses matter in EVE. Thats one of the things that sets it apart.

Meaningful interaction. Its worth more than any amount of ISK.

Thunderdome ringmaster, Community Leader and Lord Inquisitor to the Court of Crime and Punishment
Ramcath
Boulder Shoulders Industries
#540 - 2015-01-10 02:30:28 UTC
Leto Thule wrote:
Ramcath wrote:

You're entitled to your opinion. An opinion is not a troll. Refusing to discuss the points I made however leads me to believe you have no response to them because you don't want anything to change, because that means you may not get to gank the way you currently do. That's what's so funny to me about the whole thing. If you do gank then what you're implying is that you don't want anything to prevent a ship from bumping, preventing warp, and having 5 catalysts show up to take down billions of isk. If CCP made it more difficult to do that, well... I guess that just takes the fun right out of it. Since the argument by previous posters is the point of ganking is to create 'loss' so as to stimulate the economy then why having capital drones on a freighter would not help with the 'loss' the gankers defend so greatly? Seems to be a one-sided coin that is argued, and that truly is a shame.


I am not a ganker. I have ganked, but it comprises about 1/100th of my kills in EVE.

I am also not a bumper. The only time that I have ever bumped, it was to prevent a carrier from getting to its POS.

I am not part of CODE. alliance, and have never flown alongside them.

However, I value the danger they bring to the game. If you are truly an educated person, you should be able to take that into account.

Let's use your personal game experiences as an example. You obviously run cargo. Thats fine, economy thrives on transport of goods. Now, lets look at why people play games.

For me, (and I will encompass a good bit of others in this) I play the game for the interaction with other players, and strive for events that I will remember. Hence the term "fun".

Now, will you remember the 212310th time you ran cargo, uneventful, from trade hub to trade hub?

NO.

BUT -- you WILL remember the time the gankers caught you. They destroyed your ship, and stole whatever cargo didnt perish in the explosion. Those players changed your game. Those players have given you a purpose.

And you want to give that up? You want to give up your right to be blown up by the enemy?

This has HAPPENED to me. Check out the zkill page for Arcturus Draxxon (my hauler alt) and find out how much ISK I lost just a year ago while attempting to fly a blinged out autism chariot in a T1 hauler. I didnt get mad at the gankers. I had to think quick to salvage what I could. I ended up racing them back to the wreck (they couldnt carry it all). As I stated, they turned a trivial cargo run into something ill remember for as long as I play this game.

Before you ask for something to change because you dont like it, make sure the change is actually for the good of all the people who play. Losses matter in EVE. Thats one of the things that sets it apart.

Meaningful interaction. Its worth more than any amount of ISK.


I do run cargo at times, and I am relegated to hi-sec at the moment because of my job and being able to be on comms. I have been in null sec, and those interactions were truly my favorite. At no point have I ever made any argument that I wish to quell the interactions with other players, and I don't insinuate it now, nor have I. If you want to read into what I've written I'd prefer you simply state what I've discussed. Your previous post where you asked if you were a troll was two sentences, therefore I had to read into what was written. I have not made that a part of my posts, I try to clearly spell out what I think. I'll do it again.

1. I'm not against ganking

2. I'm not against interactions

3. I'm not against people playing the game the way it is designed, and under the current game mechanics ganking is what it is.

4. I'm looking for ways to improve it.

5. By your own example, how much more will the gankers remember the time(s) they attacked a freighter only to have Capital Drones come out trying to kill them/pod them before their freighter goes down? Seems like this is a valid point of discussion based on your own example.

Eve is a unique MMO when compared to so many others. There are elements of Eve that simply don't exist in others and that's why the fanbase is so much more zealous in what they believe. However, zealous attitudes can either ignore a situation or choose to ignore a differing point of view. Since I have been on all sides myself, from noob pilot, to wreck thief, to wars in hi-sec and null, to hauling cargo, and everything in between, I think I have enough experience in the game to offer up ways to improve the game. I've played since 2008, which doesn't mean my opinion is more valid than someone who's played since 09,10, 11, etc. It does mean that I've had enough time to see the many different ways to approach Eve from a game-player standpoint. I don't want people to listen to me, or think they should listen because I'm smart, but rather just approach this subject without clamoring that everything is fine and nothing should change. If that were the case then no one, and I mean NO ONE, would be playing Eve today if that were the thinking of CCP over this last decade.