These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#921 - 2015-02-04 05:15:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Destiny Corrupted
Valterra Craven wrote:
Destiny Corrupted wrote:

So you're just trolling now. Okay.

It's amazing how a person can type that much and still not answer even 1% of the question.


What's amazing is how bitter someone can be about someone else not answering an unanswerable question.

I honestly can't speak to what you individually need or don't need.

But you did.

Valterra Craven wrote:
So you are saying that ganking is an outlier? Cuse while Code does have a fair amount of really good kills, they also have a fair amount of "what?"

No, I am saying that ganking unprofitable targets is an outlier. Just another example of you trying to twist someone else's words around.

Valterra Craven wrote:
Destiny Corrupted wrote:

Remember, he's never ganked before, but that doesn't mean that he's not qualified to talk about all aspects of the activity, and as such, his interpretation that ganking is indeed easy and always profitable is going to be completely valid.


Right, because you need to be a licensed plumber to see a leaky pipe that needs fixing. If I am a troll, the black kettle in the corner would like to have a word with you.

Context is relevant. You're comparing an objective, mechanical problem, to a perceived one in what essentially amounts to a work of art. If a pipe is leaking, then it's absurd to argue that it isn't. Meanwhile, the balance in a game is a subjective matter, and just because you perceive that the game is broken doesn't mean that it is.

When you balance a game, which is to say a work of art, you need to have experience and understanding from all angles in order to make meaningful changes that create a net positive impact. 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.

You need to know how to paint in order to fix a broken painting. Otherwise this happens.

Nice try though.

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
Concord Guy's Cousin
Doomheim
#922 - 2015-02-04 12:48:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Concord Guy's Cousin
Valterra Craven wrote:
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...
A single shard PvP game/universe, which is what Eve is, where you could safely AFK traverse an area, packed with shinies at zero risk or undock your barge, warp to an Ice anom, set lasers and walk away for 30+ minutes at zero risk would be inherently broken. How could it not be?

I do mainly mining and industry.
Without the current minimal risk, even more so because I actively mine and use a Procurer or semi disposable Retrievers, I wouldn't do it; I'd simply buy ore from the mindless drones who afk mine in Mackinaws, who tend to explode around me when the New Order come calling.

I do my own local hauling, I'm based just off the Uedama pipe, I don't get ganked because I'm not worth ganking, my hauler is tanked and my loads are value limited.

As it is the risk of being suicide ganked outside of well known chokepoints, and some independents patrolling the belts in the name of James, is so low that the sad truth is for the most part you can get away with being afk. Which is a sure sign that ganking is of no threat to the majority of Eve players.

With ganking eliminated everybody can safely afk mine, everybody can just afk a freighter full of isk around, that's not good gameplay. It also removes quite a chunk of gameplay from those amongst us that take active steps to make sure that gankers are more likely to gank someone else.

Anything that involves elimination of legitimate gameplay options or encourages further afk gameplay in space without risk is to be discouraged as far as I'm concerned.

ISD LackOfFaith ~ "Your Catalyst was a hamster, and your Retriever smelt of elderberries"

NPC Forum Alt, because reasons.
Valterra Craven
#923 - 2015-02-04 14:48:10 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:

But you did.


I went back ALLLLL the way to page 41 of this thread. I looked at every post between you and I. You know what I never did, spoke to what you individually needed or didn't need. From the get go this idea of individual needs was started and continued to be argued by you and only you.

Destiny Corrupted wrote:

No, I am saying that ganking unprofitable targets is an outlier. Just another example of you trying to twist someone else's words around..


Considering that I've seen ZERO evidence of that either on the killboards or in my personal experience, I will disagree with that point. Based on what I'm seeing more than half of all targets ganked are unprofitable.

Destiny Corrupted wrote:

Meanwhile, the balance in a game is a subjective matter, and just because you perceive that the game is broken doesn't mean that it is.


And on the flip side, just because you perceive that it isn't broken doesn't mean that it isn't.

Destiny Corrupted wrote:

When you balance a game, which is to say a work of art, you need to have experience and understanding from all angles in order to make meaningful changes that create a net positive impact. 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.


I disagree. In fact its funny because a lot of the people argue with CCP on "have you guys actually played the game" or not a lot of the times when they make changes. Yet they still do. I'm pretty sure Fozzie and Rise haven't been to art class...
Valterra Craven
#924 - 2015-02-04 14:56:28 UTC
Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:
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...
A single shard PvP game/universe, which is what Eve is, where you could safely AFK traverse an area, packed with shinies at zero risk or undock your barge, warp to an Ice anom, set lasers and walk away for 30+ minutes at zero risk would be inherently broken. How could it not be?


I will agree that AFK mining is currently imbalanced and it would be even more so if Hi-sec was PVP safe. That being said IF (which we both realize will never happen so I'm not sure why its a point worth discussion) Hi-sec ever did become PVP safe, the answer to AFK mining would obviously be a design change to make the activity more active. One way would be to drastically reduce the size of of rocks in the game to force you to have to cycle targets a lot, much like you do in missions. Given how mined empire is, this wouldn't exactly be lore breaking either. As far as travel is concerned, shinnies exist to be used. So what if goods move 10 jumps to somewhere else 10 jumps away. That's not inherently game breaking. They are sitting in a station either way not being used. So the second someone puts them on a ship and uses them to PVP then they get risked. The whole point of goods transport is to get things where you need them so they can be useful. Its not like junk sits in jita forever.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#925 - 2015-02-04 15:04:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:
It also removes quite a chunk of gameplay from those amongst us that take active steps to make sure that gankers are more likely to gank someone else.


You're telling this to people who don't care how something they want affects other people. "Carebearism" works that way: pretend that a desired gameplay situation is 'for the people' (especially the new people, because "think of the mother ******* children") when in reality the desire is simply selfish.

Some of us have "Indiana Jones" style avoidance of non-consensual pvp at the heart of our game play and (unlike 'carebears') don't want or need CCP to intervene on our behalf. We don't need CCP to play our game and beat the 'bad guys' (gankers, scammers, afk cloakers, awoxxers, gate campers etc etc) for us, WE use the tools available to do so while still raking in isk like Mad futuristic Space-Trumps (lol).

The Carebearist zeal to meta-game away people they don't like (this is what they are doing when the lobby CCP for more protections) so that they can gather ever more resources (ie affect the game world) in peace isn't a threat to the 'bad guys', those guys adapt and find a way to screw with people. It's a threat to REAL PVErs who take the time and make the effort to compete with PVP players on their own turf and win.
Concord Guy's Cousin
Doomheim
#926 - 2015-02-04 15:19:54 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:
As far as travel is concerned, shinnies exist to be used. So what if goods move 10 jumps to somewhere else 10 jumps away. That's not inherently game breaking. They are sitting in a station either way not being used. So the second someone puts them on a ship and uses them to PVP then they get risked.
The second they leave the hangar they should be at risk, fitted or not.
Quote:
The whole point of goods transport is to get things where you need them so they can be useful. Its not like junk sits in jita forever.
The whole point of Eve is that other players make up a lot of the content, haulers aren't exempt from that.

ISD LackOfFaith ~ "Your Catalyst was a hamster, and your Retriever smelt of elderberries"

NPC Forum Alt, because reasons.
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#927 - 2015-02-04 15:20:21 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
The Carebearist zeal to meta-game away people they don't like (this is what they are doing when the lobby CCP for more protections) so that they can gather ever more resources (ie affect the game world) in peace isn't a threat to the 'bad guys', those guys adapt and find a way to screw with people. It's a threat to REAL PVErs who take the time and make the effort to compete with PVP players on their own turf and win.

The answer is obvious, then: everyone needs to become a carebear. That's the logical conclusion of the EVE player evolution process! It's the only noble outcome, and the only one that will result in a game that everyone will enjoy!

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
Valterra Craven
#928 - 2015-02-04 15:20:42 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:


You're telling this to people who don't care how something they want affects other people.


Well this works both ways. Gankers don't care how something they want affects their victims. I'm not sure why gankers get a pass and carebears don't.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#929 - 2015-02-04 15:21:12 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
The Carebearist zeal to meta-game away people they don't like (this is what they are doing when the lobby CCP for more protections) so that they can gather ever more resources (ie affect the game world) in peace isn't a threat to the 'bad guys', those guys adapt and find a way to screw with people. It's a threat to REAL PVErs who take the time and make the effort to compete with PVP players on their own turf and win.

The answer is obvious, then: everyone needs to become a carebear. That's the logical conclusion of the EVE player evolution process! It's the only noble outcome, and the only one that will result in a game that everyone will enjoy!


It's emotional fascism at it's finest.

"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.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#930 - 2015-02-04 15:23:23 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:


You're telling this to people who don't care how something they want affects other people.


Well this works both ways. Gankers don't care how something they want affects their victims. I'm not sure why gankers get a pass and carebears don't.


Because we're playing the game. By the rules that exist already.

You want the rules changed to favor you even further than they already do, and to hurt the playstyle of others. It's intellectually dishonest to the highest degree to claim any kind of equivalency between the two groups.

"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.
Valterra Craven
#931 - 2015-02-04 15:28:26 UTC
Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:
The second they leave the hangar they should be at risk, fitted or not.


And I agree with you. But again my point wasn't that they shouldn't be at risk, my point is it wouldn't break the game if someone moved items not being used from one station to another because they still have no affect on the game. Heck even devs see un-use and argue that as people leave the game with billions of assets in their hanger that it helps to keep inflation down.

Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:
The whole point of Eve is that other players make up a lot of the content, haulers aren't exempt from that.


I agree with you here too. And I don't even have a "but" this time.
Valterra Craven
#932 - 2015-02-04 15:31:47 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:


Because we're playing the game. By the rules that exist already.


If ganking didn't have to use bumping to keep targets in place then I'd agree with you. The whole point of bumping is to avoid the aggression mechanic. But given that this tactic is so heavily used, I don't agree with you.

Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

It's intellectually dishonest to the highest degree to claim any kind of equivalency between the two groups.


I agree completely.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#933 - 2015-02-04 15:33:26 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:


You're telling this to people who don't care how something they want affects other people.


Well this works both ways. Gankers don't care how something they want affects their victims. I'm not sure why gankers get a pass and carebears don't.


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.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#934 - 2015-02-04 15:35:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Kaarous Aldurald
Valterra Craven wrote:

If ganking didn't have to use bumping to keep targets in place then I'd agree with you. The whole point of bumping is to avoid the aggression mechanic. But given that this tactic is so heavily used, I don't agree with you.


That isn't the point of bumping. It surprises me that you don't know that, given that you've chosen to try and lecture about it.

Hint: Gate guns.

[edit: Oh, and that is still playing the game by the existing rules. Bumping is a 100% legitimate mechanic, confirmed by CCP themselves. You're the one trying to get the rules changed in your favor, in a completely selfish and lopsided manner no less.

"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.
Valterra Craven
#935 - 2015-02-04 15:38:56 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:

Worry about what everyone else is doing while not exercising a single brain cell in the direction of taking care of self.


Check my killboard stats. This is not a problem I myself face.
Valterra Craven
#936 - 2015-02-04 15:40:37 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:


That isn't the point of bumping. It surprises me that you don't know that, given that you've chosen to try and lecture about it.



I think you need to look up what the word lecture means. That being said, please enlighten me on why bumping is necessary to keep a target in place due to gate guns?
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#937 - 2015-02-04 15:49:42 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:

Worry about what everyone else is doing while not exercising a single brain cell in the direction of taking care of self.


Check my killboard stats. This is not a problem I myself face.


The forum tactic of replying to a small section of a post instead of the post proper is another example. A person with a carebearist mentality isn't interested in the actual truth of a situation, they are interested in their specific (and selfish) agenda.
Black Pedro
Mine.
#938 - 2015-02-04 15:52:42 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:
And I agree with you. But again my point wasn't that they shouldn't be at risk, my point is it wouldn't break the game if someone moved items not being used from one station to another because they still have no affect on the game. Heck even devs see un-use and argue that as people leave the game with billions of assets in their hanger that it helps to keep inflation down.

Break the game? Well the game client would still function, but the game would be completely changed. Without risk, every hauler would do the simple calculation to find the maximum cargo ship and fit and fly only that. And fly that AFK too.

Is that better or more compelling game play? I'd argue that that isn't even game play at all.

Sure, if they move a completely useless item from one station to another without risk that wouldn't change the game (by why would you even want to?) like how you can deliver goods from the NES magically to any station, but using that as an argument to make all hauling 100% safe, including for the stuff with value but that is presently "unused", is silly.

Removing all risk to haulers makes New Eden a smaller and much less interesting place.

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
Concord Guy's Cousin
Doomheim
#939 - 2015-02-04 15:54:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Concord Guy's Cousin
Valterra Craven wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:


That isn't the point of bumping. It surprises me that you don't know that, given that you've chosen to try and lecture about it.



I think you need to look up what the word lecture means. That being said, please enlighten me on why bumping is necessary to keep a target in place due to gate guns?
It's not always about keeping them in place, sometimes it's about getting them out of range of the gate guns, much like tugs directing a tanker or container ship, except for more nefarious purposes.

ISD LackOfFaith ~ "Your Catalyst was a hamster, and your Retriever smelt of elderberries"

NPC Forum Alt, because reasons.
Valterra Craven
#940 - 2015-02-04 16:01:43 UTC
Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:

It's not always about keeping them in place, sometimes it's about getting them out of range of the gate guns, much like tugs directing a tanker or container ship, except for more nefarious purposes.


Ok, so once the target is out of range of the gate guns then why keep bumping it? What risk does the bumper face? Its not like the bumper gets a GCC flag... its not like the ship gets blown up or sec status is lost...