These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

A Message Regarding "Hyperdunking"

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Valterra Craven
#1121 - 2015-02-10 18:18:49 UTC
Hiasa Kite wrote:

Bearing in mind he has a window no more than 10 seconds long at any given gate, every gank attempt is guaranteed to run a loss, security status and kill rights, along with the fact that low SP characters will have a significant penalty to their damage projection.


I never said the gankers would be profitable either. Besides, isn't 100% safety the very thing that you guys argue against?
Hiasa Kite
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1122 - 2015-02-10 18:34:34 UTC
"There's always a way. It just a question of how motivated the attacker is." - Source

Don't get off track. This is your claim, I just want to see you lay out the methods you think gankers use for guaranteed success against targets they really want dead.

I'm not sure anyone, not even the most hardcore gankers have argued against sufficiently prepared & aware players being safe. There have, however, been plenty of voices, my own included, against making 100% safety a trivial matter in HiSec.

"Playing an MMO by yourself is like masturbating in the middle of an orgy." -Jonah Gravenstein
Valterra Craven
#1123 - 2015-02-10 18:41:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Valterra Craven
Hiasa Kite wrote:
I just want to see you lay out the methods you think gankers use for guaranteed success against targets they really want dead.


Why would I do that? I don't know anything about ganking remember?

Hiasa Kite wrote:

There have, however, been plenty of voices, my own included, against making 100% safety a trivial matter in HiSec.


Well considering that a webbing alt/friend is so trival according to pro-gankers and you guys are arguing that it makes you 100% safe, then it seems like you've already lost.
Hiasa Kite
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1124 - 2015-02-10 18:46:39 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:
Hiasa Kite wrote:
I just want to see you lay out the methods you think gankers use for guaranteed success against targets they really want dead.


Why would I do that? I don't know anything about ganking remember?

Don't make sweeping claims about things you don't know about.

Quote:
Hiasa Kite wrote:

There have, however, been plenty of voices, my own included, against making 100% safety a trivial matter in HiSec.


Well considering that a webbing alt/friend is so trival according to pro-gankers and you guys are arguing that it makes you 100% safe, then it seems like you've already lost.

Straightforward, well within the capabilities of a freighter pilot & friends? Yes.
Trivial? No.

"Playing an MMO by yourself is like masturbating in the middle of an orgy." -Jonah Gravenstein
Valterra Craven
#1125 - 2015-02-10 18:49:52 UTC
Hiasa Kite wrote:

Don't make sweeping claims about things you don't know about.


I don't have to. Its easy to just use pro-gankers own words.

Hiasa Kite wrote:

Straightforward, well within the capabilities of a freighter pilot & friends? Yes.
Trivial? No.


Maybe you should tell that to the other pro-gankers in this thread saying otherwise.
Hiasa Kite
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1126 - 2015-02-10 19:06:37 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:
Hiasa Kite wrote:

Don't make sweeping claims about things you don't know about.


I don't have to. Its easy to just use pro-gankers own words.

Such as?

Quote:
Hiasa Kite wrote:

Straightforward, well within the capabilities of a freighter pilot & friends? Yes.
Trivial? No.


Maybe you should tell that to the other pro-gankers in this thread saying otherwise.

Guys. Please stop misusing the term "trivial".

"Playing an MMO by yourself is like masturbating in the middle of an orgy." -Jonah Gravenstein
Valterra Craven
#1127 - 2015-02-10 19:10:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Valterra Craven
Hiasa Kite wrote:

Such as?

Pick one?

See I'm dedicated. I've been cataloging everything that's been said. Cuse spreadsheets in space isn't enough for me. I do spreadsheets in the forums! (I have more, but this is enough)

Destiny Corrupted: “players in the law-abiding category should get together in groups and enforce justice against EVE's criminal element.”
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=400977&p=30 post 599

Kaarous Aldurald: “Being a real player instead of a carebear.”
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=400977&p=31 post 601

Baltec1: “It requires an alt/corpmate in a webbing ship worth less than a million isk.”
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=400977&p=31 post 609

Destiny Corrupted: “CCP deemed the level of destruction fit for a sandbox game with a player-driven economy.”
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=400977&p=33 post 645

Destiny Corrupted: “applying realism to a single concept in the game when the others are as unrealistic as possible isn't good game design.”
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=400977&p=34 post 663

Tippia:” Really, the only thing that does not make sense is the hauler pilots' abject refusal to do anything about their situation, in spite of the metric fuckton of means at their disposal. If you want want to bring some sense into the game, that's where you have to start.”
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=400977&p=37 post 722

Tippia: “any kind of argument about mechanics have to talk about gameplay or it is just fails to have any kind of point.”
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=400977&p=37 post 729

Tippia: “if it acted as an effective police force, it would remove tons of content and gameplay, imbalance the game, and completely redefine the entire security system, for no practical reason”
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=400977&p=37 post 729

Tippia: “being able to kill something in the same spot in the same way every 20 minutes is called grinding — it comes with the genre”
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=400977&p=39 post 763

Tippia: “Change the profitability — especially on the loss side — and you change the behaviour.”
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=400977&p=40 post 800

Tippia: “Oh, and CODE is not relevant. Again, you are asking for safety for haulers. If all you have as a reason for this increase is “because CODE”, then you have no reason. They, and their minute impact on the overall hauler traffic in EVE, are not a reason to make sweeping balance changes to an entire group of ships or to core mechanics.”
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=400977&p=42 post 837

Destiny Corrupted: “In real life, we pay around half of our incomes to have these levels of safety.”
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=400977&p=41 post 812

Destiny Corrupted: “you're not qualified to make sweeping claims about ganking.”
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=400977&p=45 post 882

Destiny Corrupted: “If you're trying to somehow address ganking without having ganked yourself, you don't grasp the big picture, and the changes you propose end up being skewed.”
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=400977&p=47 post 922

Jenn aSide: “How can one be a 'victim' in a video game? I can't imagine how much an individual human being would have to suck to actually be a 'victim' in a situation like this.

And who cares what 'gankers' care about? they are the bad guys, they don't care about anything but themselves.

YOUR (the player's) job isn't to worry about what gankerss care about, it's to worry about what YOU are doing in the game and figure out how to neutralize the gankers before they so much as undock. This is why some of us who prefer pve are successful and happy (and unganked) in the game while 'others' spend thousands of man hours on forums begging CCP to make it all better for them because thinking , even in a video game, is hard.

You post is a perfect example of the carebearist mentality. Worry about what everyone else is doing while not exercising a single brain cell in the direction of taking care of self.”
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=400977&p=47 post 934
Hiasa Kite
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1128 - 2015-02-10 19:26:57 UTC
Not a single one of those quotes support your claim that players cannot render themselves entirely safe in HiSec.

"Playing an MMO by yourself is like masturbating in the middle of an orgy." -Jonah Gravenstein
Valterra Craven
#1129 - 2015-02-10 19:37:35 UTC
Hiasa Kite wrote:
Not a single one of those quotes support your claim that players cannot render themselves entirely safe in HiSec.


Oh I'm sorry, you wanted something ultra specific. Sure, no problem:

Paranoid Loyd wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:

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

Section 7 would like a word with you.
Valterra Craven
#1130 - 2015-02-10 19:42:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Valterra Craven
But please, continue this line of thought. Show the devs how broken the webbing freighter mechanic is based on pro-gankers statements so that I can lobby to have that mechanic removed because it goes against their idea that being 100% safe in Eve shouldn't be possible.
Hiasa Kite
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1131 - 2015-02-10 19:46:43 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:
Hiasa Kite wrote:
Not a single one of those quotes support your claim that players cannot render themselves entirely safe in HiSec.


Oh I'm sorry, you wanted something ultra specific. Sure, no problem:

Paranoid Loyd wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:

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

Section 7 would like a word with you.


Section 7.2, specifically the last sentence supports the pro-ganker argument.

Everything you've quoted does an excellent job of supporting the notion that ganking is a legitimate and balanced part of the game. Yet somehow you're reading these passages and literally drawing the opposite conclusion from them.

"Playing an MMO by yourself is like masturbating in the middle of an orgy." -Jonah Gravenstein
Valterra Craven
#1132 - 2015-02-10 19:53:20 UTC
Hiasa Kite wrote:

Section 7.2, specifically the last sentence supports the pro-ganker argument.


Which is what again...?

Hiasa Kite wrote:

Everything you've quoted does an excellent job of supporting the notion that ganking is a legitimate and balanced part of the game. Yet somehow you're reading these passages and literally drawing the opposite conclusion from them.


Oh, what conclusion would that be? Last I checked I haven't argued that ganking should be remove or is illegitimate.


Just so we're clear on where this discussion is going, the argument as presented by pro-gankers:
It is possible to achieve 100% safety in Eve.

My argument is:
If it is possible to achieve 100% safety in Eve then something is broken, or you are exaggerating your claims.

So which is it?
Hiasa Kite
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1133 - 2015-02-10 20:33:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Hiasa Kite
Valterra Craven wrote:
Hiasa Kite wrote:

Section 7.2, specifically the last sentence supports the pro-ganker argument.


Which is what again...?

It states that pilots must be vigilant to protect themselves from gankers. Apologies for paraphrasing, I'm posting on a phone that cannot copy text from PDF files.

Quote:
Oh, what conclusion would that be? Last I checked I haven't argued that ganking should be remove or is illegitimate.

Post 1101

Quote:
Just so we're clear on where this discussion is going, the argument as presented by pro-gankers:
It is possible to achieve 100% safety in Eve.

My argument is:
If it is possible to achieve 100% safety in Eve then something is broken, or you are exaggerating your claims.

So which is it?

What's wrong with being able to defend yourself? Why is a performance index a sign that a game is broken? Surely people that play poorly will lose while people that play well should be rewarded, right?

"Playing an MMO by yourself is like masturbating in the middle of an orgy." -Jonah Gravenstein
Valterra Craven
#1134 - 2015-02-10 20:42:52 UTC
Hiasa Kite wrote:

It states that pilots must be vigilant to protect themselves from gankers. Apologies for paraphrasing, I'm posting on a phone that cannot copy text from PDF files.


Ok, no problem with that, that wasn't the argument remember. The argument is that it is possible to achieve 100% safety in hi-sec.

Hiasa Kite wrote:

What's wrong with being able to defend yourself?

No one ever made the argument that you shouldn't be able to defend yourself.

Hiasa Kite wrote:

Why is a performance index a sign that a game is broken? Surely people that play poorly will lose while people that play well should be rewarded, right?


Again, that's not what the argument is about remember? The document you paraphrased, the devs in this thread, the pro-gankers in this thread have all argued that Eve is NOT a safe place to play. Therefore it stands to reason that if %100 safety is indeed achievable that the method to achieve that safety is game breaking since it goes against the intentions of CCP itself.
Hiasa Kite
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1135 - 2015-02-10 21:08:22 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:
The document you paraphrased, the devs in this thread, the pro-gankers in this thread have all argued that Eve is NOT a safe place to play. Therefore it stands to reason that if %100 safety is indeed achievable that the method to achieve that safety is game breaking since it goes against the intentions of CCP itself.

Actually, no, it does not stand to reason that an unsafe environment should prevent a player from attaining 100% safety. The player that keeps himself safe is, by definition playing well and is justly rewarded. His actions however, are only part of the overall activity in space. So while he may make the game look statistically safer, the fact of the matter is there are still plenty of players that don't take those measures and consequently die.

Your assertion may hold water if literally every player that flew through HiSec would take appropriate measures to mitigate risk, thus making ganking impossible. In such a scenario CCP would likely revise game balance in favour of the gankers but we're nowhere near this kind of issue.

"Playing an MMO by yourself is like masturbating in the middle of an orgy." -Jonah Gravenstein
Valterra Craven
#1136 - 2015-02-10 21:14:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Valterra Craven
Hiasa Kite wrote:

Your assertion may hold water if literally every player that flew through HiSec would take appropriate measures to mitigate risk, thus making ganking impossible. In such a scenario CCP would likely revise game balance in favour of the gankers but we're nowhere near this kind of issue.


Oh right, I forgot. CCP waits to change things based on the fact that 100% of the population of Eve is abusing something wrong.
Hiasa Kite
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1137 - 2015-02-10 21:24:40 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:
Hiasa Kite wrote:

Your assertion may hold water if literally every player that flew through HiSec would take appropriate measures to mitigate risk, thus making ganking impossible. In such a scenario CCP would likely revise game balance in favour of the gankers but we're nowhere near this kind of issue.


Oh right, I forgot. CCP waits to change things based on the fact that 100% of the population of Eve is abusing something wrong.

Using game mechanics as intended is by definition not abuse. I very much doubt CCP would allow such an imbalance to exist.

Are there any more deflections or straw men you'd like to post?

"Playing an MMO by yourself is like masturbating in the middle of an orgy." -Jonah Gravenstein
Valterra Craven
#1138 - 2015-02-10 22:30:55 UTC
Hiasa Kite wrote:

Using game mechanics as intended is by definition not abuse. I very much doubt CCP would allow such an imbalance to exist.


You can doubt it all you want, but CCP is not infallible.

Hiasa Kite wrote:

Are there any more deflections or straw men you'd like to post?


That depends on your definitions.

See here's the thing, the argument "%100 safety in Eve if achievable would be game breaking" is not a strawman or a deflection.

Disputing the notion that a mechanic is only broken if everyone is using it is not a stawman or a deflection.

If something is gamebreaking, its gamebreaking regardless of the amount or the extent to which it is used.

Now, your argument "it does not stand to reason that an unsafe environment should prevent a player from attaining 100% safety" is false based on the parameters that have been laid out in this thread.

Its been argued that a PVP Safe area would be game breaking for EVE.
Its been argued that webbing mechanics make you %100 safe.

Therefore, if both arguments hold true, webbing mechanics make a player PVP safe and therefore are game breaking.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#1139 - 2015-02-11 01:07:18 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

Because if my webber is ganked I'm totally just going to keep going along my route, and not, you know, dock. Nevermind that snagging my Dramiel before it warps is a worthy feat for a Catalyst.


You don't sound like a dedicated attacker.


What? What in the actual hell does that mean?

First of all, if they actually want to gank both of my ships at once while they're on grid together, they have about a six second window to actually do it. After that, the freighter is in the air.

Secondly, it's a freaking Dramiel. I can kite a Catalyst for more than long enough for them to be destroyed by facpo. Hell I can kite ten of them for long enough. A Thrasher will have some trouble as well, since that thing has a sig radius only slightly higher than a drone, and can get some pretty insane speeds with a T2 afterburner.

So please, I would like you to try and explain your ridiculous statements. And hopefully, actually elaborate this perfect gank you keep talking about.

"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
#1140 - 2015-02-11 01:26:19 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:



Given that I've never made the argument (nor have I seen anyone else in this thread) that a lone player should be able to survive a combined fleet, its not incompetence and its not whining.


You demand more NPC action to be made against gankers. You have spent most of the last half of this thread to insist that you should not need to work with others. Christ I was just responding to you saying it.

Frankly, you lost this argument days ago but you simply cannot accept defeat so you continue to dig an ever deeper hole with ever more pants on head arguments. You cant even describe to us how a "perfect gank" can happen without someone instantly telling you that the tactics and ships currently used would render the gank a failure.