EVE General Discussion

It's not surprising that the underlying motivation here is to control how others play the game. The 'carebearist' view is always external ("you should do something, you should protect me") rather than more properly internal ("I should do something, I should protect myself").

All of This rather than simply expecting people to know how to play (my freighter has never been ganked and it only takes a little extra effort to ensure that it stays that way) and educating them how (hard to gank something that that insta warps almost as soon as it decloaks while receiving the benefits of certain boosts via links, boosters and implants).

Why play video games at all if you need to be hand held rather than seeing things as a fun challenge to be overcome?

…aside from suggesting that people are too stupid to analyse and adapt to their environment and therefore need more NPC-created protection.

Not really, no. For one, it's not something that's very difficult to understand or educate about. For another, there's nothing particularly unreasonable about the mechanic, and for a third, no-one has said that ganking adds a ton of content.

Education is, realistically speaking, the only conceivable and useful solution to players getting themselves killed in stupid ways.

We'll agree to disagree on what I'm actually asking for.



Oh, if its not very difficult to educate people about ganking and it is the only conceivable and useful solution, then why has it failed? Surely the word would have gotten out by now and surely the people hauling 10 bil worth of stuff through udema yeterday would have known better. I mean its not like newbros have the money to even have 10 bil worth of stuff to haul, nor would they even be able to afford cap ships in the first place...

Also, you yourself said that ganking adds tons of content. But I'm sure I just "misunderstood the context". *eyeroll*



EDIT: Not only did you say but so did someone else


So either you haven't read posts in this thread, or as you like to say it: you're a liar. You know what my vote is for.

So blatant and obvious that an 8-year old would have spotted it, which is what raises the suspicion that it was entirely deliberate attempt at providing false and unsupported data.

As a 10-year vet in EVE, you should know that the timers run from last contact to first ability to even be in a ship again. Now add the time for finding the target before that. Then add the time to warp into position. Then add time to manipulate CONCORD. Then add the time for the actual gank. So the 15-minute timer strictly prohibits a gank from happening every 15 minutes — it's yet another fence post error. The fact that you skipped over this basic functionality further raises the suspicion that it was a deliberate attempt at providing false and unsupported data.

I don't exaggerate needlessly. You are confusing me with the likes of you and Veers, who keep trying to “augment” the truth with obviously false claims. I am telling you that you are wrong, and I'm being very precise in telling you what the error was. Any “tearing down” you encounter at that point is not needless, but rather the appropriate response to the pigheaded attempt at trying to support obvious falsehoods.

No, being very precise. It was you, not me, who obtusely tried to pretend that the response applied to anything other than what it actually responded to. I have done my research and I have a mind for keeping track of these things, which is how I can quickly spot when you haven't done your research or legwork properly.

As mentioned above: CCPs internal statistics that show a decrease. A year after the insurance removal, ganking was at a historical low. This was with the advent of the dirt-cheap catalyst.

CODE does it for profit, and even CVA is subject to economic reality. Something that costs more simply cannot be done as often or using the same set of targets. When ganking is made more expensive, it must forcibly become less frequent.

Hyperdunking is an exploit of game mechanics regardless of it's legality. If the majority of players agreed that they don't want it in the game I would hope that CCP would listen to that.

Also, I think the idea of CONCORD going after criminal pods is a no-brainer. Or perhaps they could transport the criminal pods to a detention center or the middle of Thera? That would be hilarious

I'd like to point out that there's a VERY big difference between raising suspicion compared to the rhetoric you've been using in this thread.



Oh right, I'm the exaggerater. LOL. I've made a lot of attempts to at least SHOW my work and how I arrived at conclusions while also trying to keep the rhetoric down. You've done neither.



*Facepalm* You've done your research. I have no doubts that you are intensely educated about a vast majority of every little nuance in this game. No problem there. What I have a problem with is how you present that research, or in some cases not presenting it. Whats ironic is that you are espousing education so dang much, but actually doing none of it.



Do you have links to this research? Did CODE exist in the form that it does today?

The only difference is in how malicious the repeated lying is. It doesn't change the fact that it's a lie being offered as evidence for something that isn't actually the case.

Yes, you and Veers both. This is shown by how you arrive at “conclusions” that has no basis in the existing data, and in how you keep ignoring, distorting, and rejecting out of hand anything that doesn't fit your narrative.

See above. There's a reason why I'm not going to tone the rhetoric down until you start skipping things you don't want to read.

Yesterday — during the weekday that sees the most server activity — Uedama saw about one hauler (any type) killed per hour listed on zkillboard as far as I can tell. This is for the haven of hauler ganking, with two separate groups patrolling it for victims.

That is a pathetically low amount of kills and any notion that this is too high is nothing short of pure, unadulterated lunacy. The frequency is laughably low, especially since not all of those kills were actual ganks; the number of collectives doing it (two) is equally pathetic; and the threat this insignificantly low number poses to haulers is so low as to not even be worth measuring.

Not really, no. You simply haven't given any reason why freighters need to be made more safe. Indeed, you haven't given any reason why anyone needs more safety. Thus, there is no good reason: it is non-existant.

Yeah, aside from the whole “I made no error” and the repetition of the same claim over and over again. So no, the distortion is all yours.

The difference is that you are very clearly asking for increased NPC protection, as shown by your suggestions and your last post outright stating it. You can keep claiming that you haven't asked for it, but that doesn't change what's in your actual posts — the ones where you want NPCs to become even more of a hindrance to criminals.

Given that you keep asking for information you've been provided, the claim that you skip that information is entirely true.

It is when you explicitly state that you want to make haulers safer.

Do you have anything to support this opinion? How do you square this idea with fact that the population has gone up and down pretty much completely independently of the constant downward trend of ganking?

And how do you square it with the simple fact that the more the game caters to that part of the market, the more it competes with a number of (unsuccessful) games over a fickle set of gamers, rather than cater to the strong niche where it has a long history of forging immensely strong customer retention?

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.

Yeah, uhm… that's what the C-flag is, you know?

Asking me to provide evidence you've already been provided means you've skipped it, yes.

Fair enough. You did something much worse: you narrowed it down to just freighters. Of course, any suggestion that such increased safety would only benefit freighters is thoroughly disingenuous.

So that's a “no” then. You have nothing to support you opinion.

I'm going to expand on this point on CODE's irrelevance - because it turns out this is a pretty major point.

Over the last few days I've been invistigating the plausibility of being a profit-making anti-ganker. Specifically, breaking bump-tackles through the use of counter-bumping, tactical bookmarks and webbing freighters into warp. While the strategy looked trickier than first envisioned, it seemed viable. The biggest drawback was in fact the lack of ganking activity.

I checked the killboards for HiSec freighter ganks (suicide ganks, not war tallies) and at the time I looked, the last 3 days had seen two ganks in the whole of HiSec. Both of which were by Globby and his hyperdunking method against what were almost certainly AFK freighters (one was empty and both kills were accompanied with pod kills).

By far and away the most likely source of content for me was indeed CODE freighter ganking fleets. Going back over a week on the killboards, I can see 3 freighter killing events. All other freighter kills were so infrequent that it was infeasible for me to be in the right place at the right time. The only place where it looked like I could make a meaningful impact and profit was Uedama during these specific events. Even then, I would be met with freighter pilots that simply wouldn't pay me to save them not to mention the significant portion that would be straight up AFK.

These are insurmountable obstacles facing my attempts to save freighters from certain death and they all stem from the fact that freighter ganking simply doesn't happen enough!