These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Has suicide ganking become a problem? Empty freighters being ganked.

First post First post First post
Author
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#3921 - 2014-09-03 18:34:49 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
I was never opposed to all suicide ganking
Your earlier claims prove otherwise.

Quote:
And thinking that incentives should be altered to make there more +EV ganking and less -EV ganking does not mean that I am against ganking.
Why should there be, and why should the incentives be altered?

Quote:
And CODE is bleeding money like a beast, look at their bank account.
And you have yet to prove that their ganks are not profitable. In fact, everything you hint at (but don't actually cite) suggests the exact opposite of your claim, making those claims look an awful lot like lies.
Trixie Lawless
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#3922 - 2014-09-03 18:43:57 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
Did not contradict my own stance.
Yes you did, liar. First you were against ganking, then you were for it, then you were for it with condition (which means you're against it).

Quote:
No, CODE is institutionalizing -EV ganks
…except that you can't prove that they're not profiting from them, so that's quite a lie as well. And it doesn't change the fact that the incentives are already what you claim you want them to be (but then again, with your track record, this is probably a lie…). So why should they adjust the incentives?

Quote:
How do you prove that there is such a thing as proof?
Ask Popper. Or al-Haytham.



At this point does it even matter if he's right it wrong? Or if you're right or wrong? Throwing the word liar out there repeatedly makes you sound like your 13 and pissed off at the world. Honestly it's pathetic. Who cares if he has proof or not. State your piece and be done with it like an adult.
Devils Embrace
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#3923 - 2014-09-03 18:44:35 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
IIshira wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:

No, but people who want to make a profit don't intentionally blow up empty ships in an -EV fashion.


Okay Veers you have avoided my point on this topic.

Veers, Veers, Veers, Veers.

I don't care if I make a profit! I want to blow stuff up and I love PVP! Eve is a game where I can do that. Is it bad I don't make a profit and just play the game to have fun???


Well, there was a threshold question of if CODE is making a profit (I say no, others say yes). Once that is dealt with, then you would say ok, so its not a business, its just a tear creation program, is that legitimate?

And like you, I think the answer is "yes," that's legit. EvE is not sim city, you are allowed to do -EV things for fun. The question then becomes though, has CCP set up the game in optimal fashion, considering what CODE is doing, and are any changes warranted? To the extent that CODE is bleeding isk just to make people cry and humiliate them on minerbumping.com, is that the kind of conduct that CCP sees as socially valuable and wants to incentivize? And if not, are there ways to tweak the mechanics so that gankers focus more on +EV targets, and less on -EV targets to just harvest tears? For example, is it reasonable that people with -10 sec status can continue their spree of ganking in highsec, with no other contributions to the game in between to raise their security status?


"The carebear is only concerned with money. Agents value higher things--namely, the Code. For this reason, a miner and an Agent often seem to talk past each other."

It's like they usually say about fantasy MMO's and men playing female characters: "If I'm going to spend alot of time watching this character, it might as well have a good looking ass".

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#3924 - 2014-09-03 18:47:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Trixie Lawless wrote:
Who cares if he has proof or not. State your piece and be done with it like an adult.

The piece has been stated: everything he says is a lie. He has no proof. If he wants anything he says to be believed, he has to provide proof. He can't, so he tries to disprove his lies with more lies.

I'm just calling a spade a spade.
Helena Tiberius Mabata
Doomheim
#3925 - 2014-09-03 18:54:33 UTC
#Veer'sTearz

I think the general populace of this forum has seen though your supposed "Support of Ganking"
You just veil it and try to push for a safe high sec with "Communal PVE" and "Safety for autopiloting ships"
It has hence been beaten to death and I think its time to rack up the next idea
Bamboozlement
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#3926 - 2014-09-03 19:01:00 UTC
Devils Embrace wrote:

"The carebear is only concerned with money. Agents value higher things--namely, the Code. For this reason, a miner and an Agent often seem to talk past each other."


Nice logical fallacy, CODE don't "care" about money posting on CODE alts but most of them use alts not only to avoid CONCORD but also to make isk. Roll

Don't get me wrong, the carebear "gotta run hs missions for plex/pimp" life is pathetic imo, but CODE is ironically just as bad and despite being irrelevant keep being forced by the same people over and over.

I have a Ph.D

RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#3927 - 2014-09-03 19:14:44 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
No, I've explicitly laid out my position. Suicide ganking is an important part of the game, and should be retained. CCP should adjust incentives so that it occurs more when +EV, and less when -EV. That is hardly "lying" or "opposing suicide ganking." Keep it real Tippia.


There are quite large incentives to keep the expected value of ganking positive. In fact, they are such that 100% of ganks have positive expected values for the gankers.

Just because you can't see all the sources of value doesn't change this fact.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon

ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
#3928 - 2014-09-03 19:25:28 UTC
This topic has been discussed in this thread at length, viewed at from all possible angles and then re-discussed again. And again. And again. Multiple times. To start all over from there on. Rinse, repeat.

The only thing the continuation of this thread results in is not a better understanding of the many sides on and perspectives to this topic, or even a better understanding of each others motives behind the different standpoints taken.
No, it only results in more work for ISD's CCL division.

Hence, thread locked.

ISD Ezwal Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)