EVE General Discussion

The person without a ship did it themselves... consciously

Seriously put more effort into this.

I did, and I did. I gave you eight answers off the top of my head, and your not liking the answer because it turns out reality conflicts with your hallucination does not constitute a lack of answer.

Reality conflicts with your hallucination. The reality of the matter is that as costs have gone up, ganking has gone down. If you don't understand why, Economy 101 will probably help you.


Incorrect. It is a conflict between a predator and a prey. The prey wins by denying the predator. It's called a mission kill, and it counts as winning every time. Doubly so in this situation, where the predator actually incurs a loss, and all the prey has to do to come out ahead is to survive.

the parting in your hair, i love it.

must have happened as the point sailed over your head.

the cost hasn't changed.

that's fine, hauling is still cheaper than a second rate hooker anyway. even if the prices did double i'd still outsource my hauling because it'd still be comically cheap.

eh, it has been a reasonably long time since i had to create a courrier contract, or haul anything in a freighter myself. so yes, i am pretty immune to it being diminished.
as for how far do i want to push them? far enough so they'll actually stop whining about ganks, and start protecting their cargo.

doubt he'll find one, since there's literally a whole community built around said activity.

Anything that costs more than the Catalysts, for one. A freighter requires far more than 20M, and costs go up quite rapidly as you add in contingencies to ensure you actually get anything out of it.

You payment structure seems rather odd, I must say, but the cost of hauling is utterly minute so if that's what's needed to make stuff arrive, then pile it on. No-one will even notice.

The thing is, we're not really being pushed at all at the moment. We've had our lives made easier in numerous ways, which is part of what makes it boring as **** — there's pretty much nothing to fear or worry about. That's where the complacency sets in, which gets some people killed. Take this non-change for instance: it seems many haulers are so used to everything being a gentle roll down the hill of diminishing obstacles that this one patch where something actually remains at a level, it is suddenly perceived as a brick wall.

To keep things civil and all that, I agree with your sentiment on post quality entirely. I disagree with your assertion she's a troll. That's what it's going to boil down into, so I suppose we can leave it at that?



That is an interesting perspective on the discussion, but one I obviously don't agree with. What I see, and I am being 100% honest here that this is merely my perspective, is that after having witnessed this song and dance play out hundreds of times on the forums over the past few years, is that the gankers do complain, yes. They complain about constant nerfs like every other person. But they've gotten very little to balance out those nerfs. Whereas I have seen the same arguments from the carebears that "it isn't safe enough yet!" screamed at the top of their lungs no matter how many times gankers got nerfed. So you see it as entitlement on both sides. I don't. I see one side getting nerfed more than is necessary, but adapting nonetheless and asking for a bit more to compensate, and the other side gettting more of what they want, and still asking for a bit more. That does not seem equal to me, so I do not put an equivalence there.

Why should one side get nerfed, adapt, and still get nerfed, while most other aspects of the game get buffs and nerfs as a "rebalance". Where's the ganker rebalance? The scope of ganking is so narrow, the ships and tools so few, the locales so few, that I don't see how it is a problem or even that the game might suffer from a few select buffs. Heck, piracy as a legitimate playing option was supposed to be a cornerstone of selling this game to the masses, why is it still being marginalized?

The mechanic/topic of this thread, however, is so fundamentally different than the aforementioned exploit that the Dev's don't agree with you. To paraphrase, they have basically put forth in this thread, "We've had long discussions about this, analyzed it, and found that there is a very fine line that this tactic does NOT cross". Again, I'm paraphrasing what they said, but that is basically what the conclusion was. The added bit of "we'll see if this becomes widespread and might reconsider it then" doesn't mean much in this context because as others have already pointed out in this thread, the use of this tactic is so niche, no easily disrupted, that it can't be widespread because the conditions required for it to happen just don't happen that frequently. Even so, Devs have taken steps to slightly limit things that people decried as exploits because of widespread abuse, but kept the mechanic in place because it itself wasn't an exploit. Remind me how that drone assist thing is these days? Banned yet? Mechanic removed yet?



Again, I agree with what you wrote, just not the implications between the lines. I accept that entertainment comes in many forms, including piracy, which inherently has a victim that isn't a red-cross-NPC. I also have not seen Tippa declare only one playstyle as correct, but if I read through her posts I'm sure I'd find her, at some point, advocating for people to take responsibility for themselves and do something. Do something is NOT the same as saying "you can do only one thing". Quite literally it is the opposite, and there's been dozens of suggestions in this thread alone, not to mention every time this topic comes up. So you put forth an assertion, and I find it completely without merit, therefore it is dismissed.



Like almost everything in life, sure it's easy when you know what you're doing. I'm sure Michael Phelps considers swimming like a torpedo easy. But again, not any Joe Shmoe can do it. He'll just get popped by concord and have a killright on him with nothing to show for it. You have to understand the mechanics of the game, nuances like Concord response times, your damage output, the enemy's resists/tank/buffer, what ammo to use, what ship to use, and all this assumes the other pilot does nothing for his own defense. Literally one thing that isn't accounted for, whether it be a DCUII or a thermal resist module can ruin your attempt. Or, you know, the other pilot seeing you coming and actually doing something besides sitting on his thumb. Ganking relies almost exclusively on players being complacent.

This is a (possibly intentional) strawman to ensure that bumping is never fixed. A rewrite of the physics engine is NOT required to address bumping, nor is the only way to fix the issue with bumping the total and complete nerf or removal of bumping as a mechanic. These are the typical over-exaggerated counter-arguments raised whenever the very real issue of bumping is brought up.

Bumping simply needs a mechanical counter so that it's not a black and white, all or nothing experience. There ought to be a game-mechanics way to counter bumping that doesn't depend solely on the bumper screwing up. The counter should not be 100% certain to succeed, but neither should the act of bumping be so certain either. The current "counter" to bumping is... don't get bumped. That's not a counter.

There is one other sorta half baked thing involving flying inty's off in the best guess of the direction your freighter might be going, but I'm sorry to say a manual piloting trick in an RPG running 1s ticks on a 10 year old submarine simulator is not an acceptable counter to anything. EVE is not a flightsim and any attempt to turn it into one or to heavily depend on piloting tricks is going to wind up losing badly to modern games like Elite in that regard.

I not only disagree, but I can point out that half of this thread has been gankers giving out every tactic they can so you can defeat what they are doing. Your enemy is offering up their own kryptonite on an engraved silver platter, but you're going to sit there and tell me they're going to endlessly demand buffs in complete parallel to the carebears' constant demands for ganking nerfs? That's a very big disconnect between what is happening in this thread, and what you're claiming.

On your other point, people would come in and leave if they weren't able to defend themselves? That might happen yes, but they already can defend themselves quite well. Too well, in fact. Only the laziest, slowest, fattest targets are getting ganked anymore. The tools are available to them to defend themselves as outlined numerous times already. But to be more direct, no, I don't think most of them will leave, and I genuinely hope most won't. I hope they start doing that awesome HTFU thing, fight back, fit their ships right, fly smart, and make this game more interesting. This game revolves around player choices, risk, playing smart. The gankers are doing it, why can't their victims? I blame the too-safe highsec for creating a headspace where people believe they should be safe. I believe if they were relieved of that notion, they'd play the game better and ENJOY the game better too. I want THEM to have fun too. But they have to play the game, not have the game played for them.

Lastly, do I think gankers would essentially give up? No. I think their ability to gank targets would be severely limited if targets started flying smarter. They still would, but much less than what we see today. But CCP can't protect you in a sandbox, only you can prevent forest fires protect yourself. And if people wouldn't wander into the hornet's nest thinking they were safe because they knew the risks and took all available precautions to prevent 99% of gank attempts, we wouldn't be seeing whiney threads on the forums because they understood the risks better. Problem solved.



I think ganking needs to increase. Not by a lot. Within reason I've heard stories of some heroic men who, between the four of them, could completely shut down systems with their ganking prowess. That's what started the Concord buffs. And those four were banished to the four corners of null. So help me, I hope those guys got immortalized somehow. Anyway, EVE thrived under much worse ganking, and it's about time to reverse the trend of too much safety. Get people's heads back in the game, create more demand for ships and minerals by virtue of more of them exploding, and now we're talking!

This does not legalize an old exploit, and again, the DEVs already pointed this out. The two aren't related. Stop linking them, there's nothing to link.

as I read through this ....cesspool it becomes apparent that most of the posters are under the impression (on both sides of the issue) that concord exists to protect individual players giving rise to this "nerf them buff us or EVE will die" IDIOCY!........the fact is concord mechanics show this to be false.

the actual mechanics show that concord exists to protect the trade hubs and commerce between them in order to insure that a bare minimum functional economy exists in the game PERIOD no more no less. players as individuals are expendable , losses are expected and part of the game.

EVE is not and never has been simply a game about "blowing up space pixels". sorry "leet" PvPers but if this were COD in space ships we would all be running around in game spawned ships with fixed stats , a match making system , leveling and "leader boards"(in case you missed it all those stats are on out of game sites)

EVE online is at its core an economic simulator set in a scifi sand box as such it must have resource gathering , industry , trade and a competitive context to give it all purpose. sorry PvE fanatics but if you don't want to compete with other players (who can and will shoot you) your playing the wrong game.