EVE General Discussion

I liked the part where a codie was concerned for newbies. You know, because they give a flying's rats arse about newbies. remember that time they had a competition (with plex prizes) on who could kill the most newbies in ventures*?

Good times, good times.

The newbies were in the ventures, obviously

I snipped out your ranting.

Please, keep trying to make excuses for your blatant ignorance of this game and it's mechanics. It amuses me.

Salvos, as a mainly high sec resident (though I do take part in FW also), shut up.
You are talking a load of rubbish.

If you actually want to make gankers targets have the ability to fight back in a reasonable way (ignoring all the 'have five alts' ways the gankers currently promote.) two things need to happen.

Industrials need to get real fittings. Slots, PG & CPU based relative to their size. I'd rate Barges & Transports as BC size, give them BS level agility & speed, and cruiser level Slots, PG & CPU perhaps. This is a buff to them yes, now gankers STFU and read the next part. (Cargo extenders should also get a stacking penalty since basically every other percentage based module has a stacking penalty)

INCREASE concord response time. Yes, Increase it. If barges & industrials have real fittings and the option to fit both passive & active tank, they won't die anywhere near as easily to alpha ganks. So INCREASE concord time. This allows ganks still to happen, but allows the industrial pilot to overheat tank and reps to make a difference, it allows logistics pilots to land reps. It allows white knights to decide to intervene. It allows time for Ewar to matter on both sides.
(Note, increasing concord response time with current industrial & barge fittings will just be crazy)

Now this can't be taken too far or it becomes way way to easy to gank combat fitted ships as well since they won't be getting increased stats, but overall if both things happen then ganking should become a more fun experience for EVERYONE involved. Both the attacker and the target. Rather than a blink and you miss it mathematical certainty like it is currently.

You know, although I dont always agree with Salvos (no offense), his idea to increase sec status loss has a lot of merit. Aside form some very thinly vailed 'concern', there still isn't a valid objection against it. In fact I can see a LOT more positive that can come of it. Most importantly however is to note that this is not aimed at 'nerfing' gankers. Yes, it's a convenient shield that you're all spouting to try and deflect but from what I see this is purely to increase PvP in HS as well as various other advantages;

- Increase security tags usage. A lot of good things here, buffing low sec player income, maybe even drawing some of the more adventurous (but greedy) Hi-Sec players into Low. Show them there's not that much to be afraid of really. Bigger isk sink as well.
- In case the gankers wants to go farm tags themselves then this adds more activity to LS in general. This is a very good thing.
- More reds flying around in HS means more opportunity for PvP. If people fighting around gates and stations (and not just the undocs of trade hubs) become more common, PvP wont be this big giant scary thing for HS bears. It's actually the main complain a friend of mine had regarding eve. I was trying to sell him on the PvP as thats his thing and he didn't experience ****, even going into LS.
- Heck this might also in fact give the bounty system a tiny boost and with it, more people getting into bounty hunting.

Now the 'concern' with new players 'accidentally' triggering concord, by default the security is set to green, meaning it's impossible to trigger Concord. A very robust mechanic really, protect new players from getting concorded, waaaaaaay better than was there a few years ago. A single text box with a nice big OK button. That was some good times. Easy to hit it by accident even for more experienced players. These days you're informed quite clearly when you set your security to red or even yellow. I mean really, maybe the new players are so soft because you guys think that even a robust security mechanic like that is too hard for em. Where's all the HTFU from all these grizzled nullsec veterans? All I hear is squeels of 'oh but think of the children!' Transparent and hypocritical.

Quite amusing.

CODE to me just seems like an embodiment of the sacked Devs trying to ruin a game that has done so much better since they were shown the door.

Ganking is also an abusable mechanic to defraud a customer to perpetuate further sales.

5 full pages since I last checked the thread. Pretty impressive response.



I'd really like to see some knd of statistical evidence to support this theory; because I seem to remember ganking alreadt being a very popular thing back in '09 & '10 when I signed up. Infact without CODE what kind of ganking would there even be?

It's hyperbolic to have to do this: preemptively state that I am neither for nor against them in principle but that I am against their existence as a consolidated entity because it represents a significantly increased difficulty in one of EVEs rather unique features to the point where it takes the coordination of an 11,000 strong alliance to keep the ball rolling.

It's the loss of this feature I lament the most - even though I personally may only have been a victim of it once or twice. I don't perform the act personally either - this whole thread was created as a critique of the critical direction of EVE away from what it was and in to something new and that this new game is frustrating the existing playerbase while from the publics perspective failing to capture the imagination of new players as well.

I do support CODE as a movement - the ongoing protest against the marginalisation of gameplay in the name of ease of use. There's a reason why gameplay mechanics and corporation functionality was changed rapidly to accommodate BRAVE while it was growing - because CCP had to.

Emphasis added.

Nerfing one group of players to get at another group never, ever works.

Pretty simple, really.

People do go GCC by accident relatively often. It's normally people who don't usually play in highsec who decide that they want to participate in some kind of impromptu highsec PVP activity and didn't realize how important it is to set your safety to anything other than red.

That would be like taking all the sharks out of the ocean, or lions off the savanna. The weak, lazy, and vulnerable would not be punished , and the value of ore and hauling goods would tumble even more as all opportunity cost associated with them would have been totally removed. Not to mention all of the other things wrong with arbitrarily suspending a group for operating entirely within intended game mechanics.


If they didn't want to play that part bad enough, they would have read how to avoid being ganked. That easy. Part of what makes EvE, EvE, is that if you succeed at something, you can walk away from the keyboard knowing that you succeeded in spite of a world of players trying to see you fail, for their own profit, amusement, or both. What would the value of ore be if there was no risk in mining it? What would the value of hauling be if 100% of freighters survived unchallenged? How would you know if someone was good at a given aspect of the game if failures weren't both possible and preventable? Gankers provide that mechanism, and you should be happy they do.

They are still gankers, and doing exactly what the person I replied to said did not happen, you just confirmed my point with your reply, thank you.