EVE General Discussion

I'll skip over much of the repetition here.

ROFL, so when they were nerfing the hell out of force projection to break up the null blocks, I take it you were there saying "the game shouldn't be balanced because it's not relevant in a sandbox", right?

I don't have hard data because I don't have access to CCPs databases, but I can make an educated guess and I've laid out my reasoning. We make plenty of judgements based on no data and logical reasoning every single day.

And yup, plenty of firm pay to protect their reputations, and still Rockstar don't seem to care even remotely about getting rid of the scum from their community, and they are rolling around in money, so they are making the right decisions there.

ROFL, it's not risk reward if someone else takes a risk and you get a reward. The whole concept of risk reward balance is to stop people dogpiling onto easy tasks for massive rewards. That's broken, in most case directly reversed, for highsec aggression. I too have no sympathy for the freighter pilot, but that doesn't stop me thinking that taking a bigger risk should attract the most reward.

Goons minimised their risk and the majority of the community came together to get CCP to change the game to stop them being able to hold their space and stop them being able to rapidly deploy on attacks. If CCP simply let veterans reduce their risk and refine their gameplay and never balance them out, the game breaks. They have to ensure that they are always trying to bring that balance in, and that's what they are doing with recent changes.

Edit: Also, while you're banging on about you're twisted views on risk reward and how much risk a freighter pilot takes, consider how much a highsec freighter makes. It's one of the lowest forms of income and they have to take some risks. They fly a capital ship around that is easily disabled by a handful of alts and their only defense is to bring more pilots and split their already pathetic income down further. Honestly, I'm still surprised there's people actually doing it. Bring on NPC haulers.

Same problem, and that's why I supported MASSIVE nerfs to sov gameplay mechanics.

Sure but there's a balance between how people want to play and what is good for the game. That's why they balance mechanics and nerf gameplay for some people.

Sure, they can fly in one system and as long as they don't look at a chat channel and get baited out and know not to use stargate, they'll be fine.

No I don't and I've never stated as much.

^this

CCP has simply got the balance wrong in terms of Gankers, a point that Lucas Kell made very well. Lucas seems to see some movement on this front, I don't, which is why I am not putting my money where my mouth is and de-subbing. I would be interested Lucas if you could let me know what you actually see as movement here.

Lucas Kell has also correctly pointed out the gamers assumptions of what EVE is and why people say it is not for them.

Also Lucas Kell has pointed out the low level of risk and massive reward that gankers get and that they do this against those players who often have the lowest level of returns in the game. Gankers have no risk and massive rewards and they are based in hisec, while I can respect the organisation of the gankers, they are still using mechanics and consequences heavily in their favour which is due to CCP's chronic mismanagement in terms of balance in this area.

At a strategic point CODE is aimed at CCP, the objective of CODE is to punish CCP for removing can flipping by targeting new and fairly new casual players. They have been successful there, while other choices that CCP made have also affected player retention, such as Dominion sov, which Lucas Kell also correctly picked up on and supported a move away from.

It does amaze me just how unaware CCP are about their game at times.

Lucas I hope you can keep at it, posting on these forums is painful but you do it so well. Respect to you and keep up the good fight mate.

Got any evidence its new players getting ganked?

I think you got confused with your quotes...

But I will answer it from my prespective, first of all what we are talking about is a group of veteran players getting a very easy ride off of the back of other players, with no risk and massive reward, their activities are focused on the players who are most vulnerable. I do not think that this would have the impact that you say.

I am on record as saying that the mining ships with the procurer and skiff as they are is balanced, people have choices for less yield and more tank if they want to, the issue was before when that choice was not there. People now make choices to go with yield and ease of use, they get ganked, fair do's. What I find annoying is the amount of gankers trying to get the Skiff nerfed and I give CCP some credit for not falling for that.

I am on record as saying that the consequences for gankers in hisec are laughable, I would at this point do something about docking rights in NPC statons once a player is -10. Force use of a Citadel, so perhaps people can see a value in blowing them up to get back at gankers, there is none now...

The Bumping change is good, however easy to get around, what it will impact is ransom bumping, which is a good thing. In terms of ganking freighters it will have a slight affect on that. While some gankers seem to think them getting around it will be a massive surprise to AG players, I know differently, AG expect it to have minimal impact. It will however force gankers to be a bit more selective. Still bumping is no consequence for the bumper itself which should not be forgotten.

The loot scooping via DST's is a major benefit which allows the gankers to move consequences onto an alt with a noob ship, therefore making the loot scooping risk free.

So if we were to see CCP pull their heads out of the ass and do something along these issues then I think the balance will be healthy, gankers can get around the inability of NPC stations, they will get around the bumping, they just need noob ships to re-set the timer and they will have to work out ways to scoop the loot when people are protecting them, they are pretty good at that sort of thing anyway. If those gankers leave the game over what I have suggested then they are not really going to be missed are they?

My focus is to add challenge to the gankers, not make Eve more noob friendly.

In terms of alpha clones, I am not keen, just adding more cannon fodder to be easily killed will not change the perception of the gaming world about Eve, it will reinforce it, for me killing an alpha clone 1v1 has no value to me at all, it is a certain victory, it devalues playing eve to me.

The OP was about whether what we do in game reflect our RL selves. Now we talking whether high sec ganking is good/bad for the game and the good old risk vs reward argument.

As for OP's question I've already stated that what we do in game is an expression of out desires. Whether having certain desires make you 'bad person' or not is not my concern (as I personally think most people have desires they do not talk abouy IRL or even admit to themselves)

As for risk/reward, HS mining is just silly. If you want to be 'safe' in high sec, you actually need to take same precautions as people do in low/null (WH is at even more different level of paranoia).

The thing is that, if you are going to do this, you may as well mine in low/null/wh where 'reward' is greater.

If there were no suicide gankers in HS, then yes it would be low reward and low risk. But with CODE. rampant in high sec, it's just high risk low reward. Presence and activities of CODE. forces you to take precautions you would during war time in high sec. While I do not support CODE., this is pretty much what EVE is about. Always be vigilant, and be suspicious and paranoid.

From what I see, the rise of CODE. has got to do with the fact that this core theme of EVE has become so diluted. You don't have to literally buy their RP 'reasons' at face value, buy it is true that in 'function' they achieve what they claim to seek. It doesn't mean their 'reasons' are genuine, but in effect what they say they want is working.

You can grrr all you want, but that is just he way things are now. If you don't like it, you will need to find better ways than proposinh game mechanic changes or plea to CCP for help.

Given that said risk and reward is dependent upon the target being incredibly daft, yes.

Why complain about the levels of risk gankers run when the level of risk their targets run is so low that it's not worth taking even minimal precations to avoid or mitigate the gankers?

The risk is low because people aren't generally willing to do anything to stop them, the reward is high because their victims often indulge in excessive stupidity and expect to get away with it.