EVE General Discussion

The onus is on you to prove that. I know what I need, and what I don't need. If you know better, by all means convince me of it.


No, stop it. Stop constantly switching from role-play to real-life justifications for everything that happens in this game. CCP isn't an in-game entity (yes, I know about they actually have an alliance, but it does nothing). Choose one and stick with it. Stop jerking me around.


Okay. I have zero flight hours in an airplane, but I'll go ahead and make my way into the cockpit to tell the pilot which levers to pull. After all, just because I'm not versed in the mechanics of plane operation, I'm quite qualified to talk about them.

Or are you not going for that angle?

Maybe you're saying that I'm not qualified to talk about ganking despite being a ganker?

Considering that I did not see any listed, no I don't. I just have what the actual report linked to said. The bullet point was nothing but a footnote about mining barge ganking, which is a wholly incomplete picture when talking about all of ganking.



Well on that point you are right. They have no other powers but to use the game mechanics how see they fit, much like goons do. I won't use the term "abuse" here because god knows you'd just go into another tirade about the subtle nuance of the word, but the fact is that CCP can and has used player actions to base their decisions on how to change game mechanics/balance. My point is that player actions no matter how small can and do have relevance to how things can be changed. Therefore in that context, CODE is not irrelevant.



It will huh? Considering you've got nothing to back that statement up I will agree to disagree with you on that.



Not really. For example the opinion "I don't like apples" can't be wrong. In my original statement about CODE I said I thought they were "borderline" griefers. Which since you like to argue semantics so much means that I'm not saying that I think CODE are %100 full on griefers which would be wrong given the way CCP currently defines the term. What I am saying is that their activities, while they don't meet the definition of griefing, sometimes get pretty close to it. And given how many times CCP has changed ganking mechanics over the years based on exactly these threads we are talking in, means that time will tell how irrelevant my assessment is.

Well given that I've never stated that they wrongly defined the term, or even implied that they wrongly defined term, no I am not a hypocrite. Further to the point even IF I had, it wouldn't make me a hypocrite. Asking someone to change something because of my opinion does not make me a hypocrite.

Or another life analogy: People complain all the time that the government is wrong, or needs to change a law, or make more laws, they are no more hypocrites than I am.

Given how people attack others in this thread its no wonder that I'd try to cover my bases... or are you saying that that position is entirely illogical when the goal of the opponent is to make you look stupid and that you aren't qualified to have a voice?



Yes.



I guess the answer lies in whether or not you "need" to have Eve online exist or not. Because given everything I know about human nature and about how most humans are risk averse, I don't believe Eve would have made it out of the gate after a few months of release without a place like hi-sec existing. BUT I could be wrong. Do you know of any game that is roughly the size or duration of Eve that also has harsh consequences without any mechanically provided protection?

Back then it was possible to fight CONCORD. However, it wasn't meant that you could evade them based on the fact that they would keep spawning until they killed you.



Well I guess that would really depend on how you defined "safe". As a player just starting out, I went several years before ganks became common enough in hi sec that you actually needed to think about how you were going to do things. While a lot of the mechanics that exist today to keep you safe didn't exist back then, I don't remember there being a lot of empire ganking in the 2006 era that would have made them necessary. Granted I spent most of my time in Delve so I didn't really have to concern myself with empire comings and goings, so it could just be that I wasn't around when it all got started.



The idea of a PvP safe area in any game is not inherently valid or invalid. Eve included.

True, though I'd still say that'd make it easier to gank things.



I can't really say how it was in 2006; however even nowadays most of what I do to avoid ganks is probably unecessary - I just recognize that it rather cheaply drops my risk in highsec to pretty much 0. In fact, it's to the point where it's just really not worth it for me to attempt to conduct industrial activities in Nullsec; as my ability to move around and pick stations in empire space to build and research in based on their current costs effectively makes doing so rather cheap. The risk that my stuff will be blown up is so small that I could probably get by not even factoring it in, and the availability of materials means that even when trying buy orders I can rather quickly go from "I need these materials" to "I'm building stuff". My experience in Nullsec is that if I want to start any particularly expensive construction project, sourcing the materials can be difficult (not impossible, just difficult), and it's just easier, less risky, and at times more profitable to build things in highsec. Simply put, it'd require a significantly larger investment than I'm currently willing to risk to start building tons of stuff out in Nullsec, whereas the current items I'm looking to build can be built anywhere, and can be built with the same or greater profit in highsec, at a much smaller investment and lower risk.

I do argue against doing things that make you a suicide gank target, however I also recognize that the risk of being ganked at the moment is actually laughably low, and it's really only the propaganda and PR that makes most people that worried about having their freighters get ganked - many people keep autopiloting through Uedama just fine, regardless of anything else.

As such I'd argue that Highsec is particularly safe at the moment.



The idea of a PvP safe area in any game is not inherently valid or invalid. Eve included.
[/quote]

It depends on the game. Eve thrives on conflict; and making it possible to entirely shield yourself from that conflict goes against what Eve is set on.

Section 7 would like a word with you.

Well considering that I'd readily acknowledge that what I would be asking for would be a nerf to ganking then it would stand to reason that I would have no problem admitting that it would be a buff to people getting ganked. That's pretty apparent.

What I'm essentially arguing however is that in my view more safety != more protection.

I run a shuttle that I call the "Party shuttle" on autopilot as a screensaver through the trade hubs. It's loaded with exotic dancers, spirits, holoreels, etc. I've been running it pretty much since I started... and I'm on shuttle #4. In fact, the first one survived Burn Jita, despite having a PLEX-sized double wrapped container (I was using it to watch the Perimeter gate/stream it on Twitch)



It's an idea, yes. However no such area is intended in this game and the developers fairly clearly state that they feel that such an area is against the core idea of the game, so I think it's safe to say that no such area will ever be implemented. As such attempting to structure balance arguments using that idea lead to an invalid argument, because such an area will not exist in this game.



Who cares about them? I've not said they were the only ganking group, nor do I have any particular respect for them. On the contrary, I find many of them to take what they do far too seriously and in serious lack of a sense of humor, and they're fairly transparent in their attempts to elicit a response from their gank victims and do so in ways that I feel are uninteresting and uninspired, so even from a trolling standpoint I can't say I find much enjoyment in what they do (this is of course not a blanket dislike of all their members - there's some whom I've conversed with and I've found quite likable - though there's many whom I just don't like or actively dislike, same with any alliance). I will grant that others treat them as if they are the only suicide ganking group, and they are most certainly the most public one - second being MiniLuv with Goonswarm - but I do try and keep tabs on players and organizations which participate in suicide ganking and the list is longer than CODE.'s proponents sometimes state, and not all groups are affiliated with them (though they do claim a by proxy affiliation if you suicide gank, though I could make a similar claim that all haulers haul in my great name by proxy). Additionally I might point out that Globby - the guy who popularized the ganks - is in Goonswarm and although he may or may not follow their code of conduct (I'm not in a position to log in to the game and Eve Gate shows his bio as "a"), he's not actually in CODE. So there are quite a few groups trying to do suicide ganking...

And yet all evidence shows that despite this, the vast, vast majority of freighters gets through - earlier in the thread Red Frog apparently reported a 98% success rate. The number of hauler jumps through Uedama compared to the kill count is rather disproportionate, and that's before you take in to account that the kill count also includes the dead gankers, and also includes the dead gankers for ganks where they didn't succeed, which do happen (they're just not widely publicized). Ganking people is actually rather difficult and a bit expensive, so despite it being a conflict driver it's just not something to worry about on a day to day basis; Hyperdunking (the original topic of this thread) even less so. The big thing though is that a lot of these people arguing for changes to the ganking mechanics are 1) Arguing for things which could be significantly game breaking in other areas of space, 2) Go completely against the idea of the game, and 3) Are a substitution for using a small bit of effort to protect themselves. So all trolling aside, hyperdunking - and ganking in general, isn't a big threat and doesn't really need to be nerfed. It does create some small conflict and thus is relevant to the game, even if the people who partake in it may not really be that terribly important (I mean, you've lived in Delve. Certainly you've encountered propoganda before now. People *always* set themselves out to make themselves look better than they are). Additionally, just because someone supports the playstyle doesn't necessarily mean they support the players who partake in it.

I think you've misunderstood what I'm saying here. I'm saying that I don't look at things the same way. Both sides have relevant arguments, whether each chooses to acknowledge them or not. I don't for a second think that CCP would ever completely eliminate ganking, nor would I ever advocate such. Therefore I am not using the idea of a pvp-free area to structure any of my arguments. That being said, I don't think that if ganking were eliminated that it would in any way shape or form break or unbalance the game, ya know especially given how low the risk of getting ganked already is...



The people that they kill? I also haven't said that they are the only ganking group. In fact, even given my past history with goons (relatively minor given my spot in BoB at the time) and their very high profile ganking events, I wouldn't even call them gankers. Me thinks that they have much bigger issues to concern themselves with on a regular basis... Regardless, CODE does seem to be the most high profile group. So if the most talked about group is irrelevant, then...?



1. Well I don't think the suggestion I proffered is particularly game breaking, and while a lot of people have argued about its necessity, I don't think anyone has combated the idea on the game breaking front. 2.) Given that the same mechanic I'm proposing already exists in another form, I wouldn't think what I'm suggesting goes completely against the game either. 3.) Given the goal is to protect people that are not profitable to kill I don't think any amount of effort on their part to protect themselves is going to matter. I'm still getting hung up on the fact that you are arguing that its not a big threat, while saying that its relevant to the game though. And OOOHHH yes I'm familiar with propoganda. I don't know that I'd call Sir Molle the best at it as I think that title would be better served under Mittani, but I've definitely encountered it lol.