EVE General Discussion

I have seen several mining ops do it. It makes for at least 2 hours of concord protection.

Speaking as someone who is just now getting into the suicide ganking business, yes, it is difficult if you don't want to just throw isk away. It takes a lot of coordination to successfully gank a target, and the bigger the target the more coordination is required.

Why, you ask, am I just now starting to suicide gank? Because of threads like this. Every time ganking gets nerfed, the gankers adapt, and the carebears call for more nerfs rather than adapt themselves. I am a firm believer in Feyd's 'Kill it Forward' program.

As someone who has also just recently tried suicide ganking what exactly did you find difficult about it?

I mean most of the missioners we ganked didn't even shoot back.

You can Gank quite adequately without much organisation. Just fly to any Roid belt with an AFK miner. I just did it now. Within 5 minutes I had scanned and evaluated a target. They were none the wiser. Retriever with no tank. 0.7 security. What 3 Cata's? (I genuinely do not know).


Just as Gankers do not have to organise their Ganks. Success and Failure of any operation is down to how much you are prepared.

To survive a Gank you have to be prepared, organised and very lucky. Those that don't bother get Ganked. Like the Gankers that don't prepare, organise, and don't get lucky. The have a less successful Ganking session.

…so you spent 60 man-minutes (compared to his 1); you were entirely reliant on what he did; and you made… how much?

Not really, no.
To survive a gank, you have to fit a tank and be very very very very unlucky (or just stupid) to be targeted to begin with.

So, again: why do the gankers have to organise and go after a very tiny selection of targets (entirely reliant on the stupidity of the target), and the targets do not? Oh, and why is it that gankers — even if they take every precaution they can — still have to be lucky many times over to get a positive result, and the targets don't?

If there is any imbalance at all, it is massively in the favour of the target. Any argument based on balance must come in one of two forms: either more power to the gankers, or something that could only (with the highest degree of generosity) be described as sheer idiocy without even the slightest hint of connection to any kind of rational thinking or reality.

i would say that

- a person entering a game where ganking is a known, legal and practiced form of gameplay
- and who then does not make effort to avoid being ganked

does not deserve not to be ganked

I am not against Gankers per se. I detest AFKers a lot more than Gankers that's for sure.

Way to go in not answering the question and going off on a very odd and disconnected straw-man tangent.

Not really, no. He's reliant on himself — it's his decisions that determine the encounter. The gankers are pretty much entirely reactive in the process.

Can, yes. Will, no. You could conceivably be taken out of you tank, but you won't be because the gankers will go after a target they can readily kill with what they have at hand. And again, that's if you're so very very very very unlucky as to be targeted to begin with. So all you need to survive is a tank and some bad luck.

…aaaand? Why do the gankers have to organise and go after a small selection of targets and the targets not organise at all? Just because the gankers pick among the targets that are available to them does not mean that the selection is ridiculously small and that this in and of itself highlights a massive imbalance.

And no, playing that tanking your hull is not organising. Tanking your hull is fitting your ship. Absolutely no organisation is needed. Nice Pathetic try on the false equivocation though. Or wait… no, it is nice, because when people start pulling out the fallacies like that, and like with the entire initial straw man, you already know where it's headed.

…and yet it is far too difficult, as proven by its rarity, the minute target selection, the vanishingly small number of people doing it, and that it relies entirely on the litany of mistakes the target has to do in order to enable them.

Well, as soon as they implement such an area in EVE, I'm sure they can start thinking about skipping that part.

If they want to do it in highsec, though — an area that doesn't really have any protection, only retribution as a cost disincentive — they most definitely should.

Since the targets don't have to and since the argument has been made that there is a lack of balance, yes. After all, that's the only real point of imbalance there is: one party have to organise and actually do some planning, and the other does not.

We are. The punishment should be reduced a fair bit. In some cases, it should probably be voided completely since it's more of a service to the community than a crime, but that would require some pretty sophisticated intent- and activity-calculating pseudo-AI so I wouldn't get my hopes up.

The reason for the confict is simple.


Premise 1
All people that play online games are dysfunctional and suffer a range of neurosis and mental instabilities as outlined in DSM V.


Premise 2.
Eve attracts and is is designed for sociopaths with Antisocial personality disorder allowing them to manifest behavior they cannot manifest in real life.

Premise 3.
Eve also attracts individuals with Avoidant personality disorder who play EVE as an escape from real people and social contact.

Assumption.
People with Antisocial personality disorder and people with Avoidant personality disorder are inherently incompatible.



Conclusion.
The two most common types of neurosis displayed by EVE players are inherently incompatible and no agreement will ever be reached.