Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 .. 157 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 25 post(s) |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
9437
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 06:53:00 -
[3661] - Quote
I know it's your schtick to just make up lies, Fabulous Rod, but you might want to think of better ones.
Especially if you're going to try it against Tippia, he lives for this ****.
If I trounced you before, he's going to have you apologizing for being born. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Clean Up Local 2014.-á |
Nitchiu
EVE University Ivy League
14
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 06:56:00 -
[3662] - Quote
NoLife NoFriends StillPosting wrote:Tippia wrote:No. Suicide ganking is balanced on being fairly difficult to coordinate and expensive to pull off (at least without help from the target), and with significant risks involved, against which you have the multitude of tools and ease of evading them if you play smart.
So now you are saying that the fact that suicide ganking involves no significant risk or cost and there is no significant penalty for inflicting devastating losses on others within the comfort of high is balanced by the fact that you think its hard? Oh, Tippia. You should hear yourself sometimes.
You say there is no significant risk or cost. In that case please name the dozens of organizations that gank to make profit? So far I've only heard 1. And it doesn't make money from ganking but from the sale of intangibles. IE Tears. Players give donations to keep them ganking. If ganking was so easy and profitable there would be dozens of organizations doing it. Since I haven't heard of any others I can only assume that in fact ganking is too hard and needs to be buffed |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
9438
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 06:58:00 -
[3663] - Quote
You don't get it, Nitchiu.
Their goal is to remove PvP from highsec. As long as one group exists that can still gank and dares to make a profit, that is too many for these people.
They will never stop until highsec is Trammel. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Clean Up Local 2014.-á |
John E Normus
New Order Logistics CODE.
191
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 07:04:00 -
[3664] - Quote
Once we reach 100% compliance the ganks will stop.
*pinkie swears Between Ignorance and Wisdom |
NoLife NoFriends StillPosting
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
20
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 07:08:00 -
[3665] - Quote
Tippia wrote:NoLife NoFriends StillPosting wrote:So you expect that every player should know everything about the game to avoid things like suicide ganking. No. I just expect them to know some basic mechanics and to take an active role in their own safety, so they can learn from and incorporate all the suggestions and help given to them. Quote:And that is how suicide ganking is supposed balanced? No. Suicide ganking is balanced on being fairly difficult to coordinate and expensive to pull off
I've got a direct quite right here. You have changed what you said previously about suicide ganking being balanced because people can be aware of it and now you are claiming you think suicide ganking is balanced because you think its hard to do.
This, somehow in your mind, makes up for the fact that suicide gankers earn insane profits with no significant risk or penalty, while inflicting devastating, potentially game-quitting losses on their victims, and all within the comfort of high-sec.
Also, being familiar with concord response times and concord delaying tactics are not "basic mechanics". Try not to be so obnoxiously unrealistic.
Its so very easy for a single vexor to gank a casual players indy that they have stocked to the brim with everything they own in .6 sec. Easy to do. Easy to fall victim to, especially for newer players. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24303
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 07:15:00 -
[3666] - Quote
NoLife NoFriends StillPosting wrote:I've got a direct quite right here. You have changed what you said previously about suicide ganking being balanced because people can be aware of it Where did I say that?
Quote:now you are claiming you think suicide ganking is balanced because you think its hard to do.
This, somehow in your mind, makes up for the fact that suicide ganking involves no significant risk or penalty, while inflicting devasating, game-quitting losses on victims, all within the comfort of high-sec. No. What I'm saying is that suicide ganking is balanced on being fairly difficult to coordinate and expensive to pull off (at least without help from the target), and with significant risks involved, against which you have the multitude of tools and ease of evading them if you play smart.
Quote:Also, being familiar with concord response times and concord delaying tactics are not "basic mechanics". Actually, they are very basic as mechanics go. Being familiar with them is also pretty easy since they've been mapped out extensively and can be found through a simple google search (and since they prove not to be particularly complex to begin with when you look into them). GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2. |
Lady Areola Fappington
2166
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 07:19:00 -
[3667] - Quote
Nitchiu wrote: You say there is no significant risk or cost. In that case please name the dozens of organizations that gank to make profit? So far I've only heard 1. And it doesn't make money from ganking but from the sale of intangibles. IE Tears. Players give donations to keep them ganking. If ganking was so easy and profitable there would be dozens of organizations doing it. Since I haven't heard of any others I can only assume that in fact ganking is too hard and needs to be buffed
You gotta pick your cognitive dissonance to work with when arguing against ganking.
A. Ganking is exploding in popularity, it's entirely too easy, and the entire game is suffering and will shut down if we don't get a handle on it now, or;
B. Ganking has utterly no effect on anything or anyone all we need to do is ignore it to make it go away.
I've seen both arguments used in the same sentence. I've yet to get why direct ship combat is such a bugbear, but every other form of PvP in EVE can just get handwaved away.
I'm no good with the market myself, and I'm sure lots of others aren't super savvy businessmen. I think, for the sake of new players, we should get rid of the whole PC buy orders and go only to NPC. I don't want to interact with people who can rip me off via the market if I'm not paying attention. Kentucky Derby losers are not turned into Ikea meatballs. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev did not accidentally blow up vowels in his own name. The chupacabra does not deliver presents on Cinco De Mayo. Anytime minutes donGÇÖt let you call the future. |
NoLife NoFriends StillPosting
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
20
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 07:22:00 -
[3668] - Quote
Well, im not going to bother wasting any more time with you, Tippia. You don't want to see the facts or common sense, as usual. I would have to have some serious mental issues to find it worthwhile arguing with everyone endlessly in a pathetic attempt to validate my existence every night, and in such an obnoxious manner.
I'll let you and Kaarous think you "won". |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24305
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 07:25:00 -
[3669] - Quote
NoLife NoFriends StillPosting wrote:Well, im not going to bother wasting any more time with you, Tippia. You don't want to see common sense. Sure I do. I just don't want to see you trying to warp what I say into something else, and then getting all annoyed when your attempt falls flat.
I take it that you can't actually demonstrate the contradiction you were hoping for? I also take it that you realised you had no argument since you had to resort to fallacies in a desperate attempt to fill in the gap. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2. |
John E Normus
New Order Logistics CODE.
192
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 07:29:00 -
[3670] - Quote
Lady Areola Fappington wrote:Nitchiu wrote: You say there is no significant risk or cost. In that case please name the dozens of organizations that gank to make profit? So far I've only heard 1. And it doesn't make money from ganking but from the sale of intangibles. IE Tears. Players give donations to keep them ganking. If ganking was so easy and profitable there would be dozens of organizations doing it. Since I haven't heard of any others I can only assume that in fact ganking is too hard and needs to be buffed
You gotta pick your cognitive dissonance to work with when arguing against ganking. A. Ganking is exploding in popularity, it's entirely too easy, and the entire game is suffering and will shut down if we don't get a handle on it now, or; B. Ganking has utterly no effect on anything or anyone all we need to do is ignore it to make it go away. I've seen both arguments used in the same sentence. I've yet to get why direct ship combat is such a bugbear, but every other form of PvP in EVE can just get handwaved away. I'm no good with the market myself, and I'm sure lots of others aren't super savvy businessmen. I think, for the sake of new players, we should get rid of the whole PC buy orders and go only to NPC. I don't want to interact with people who can rip me off via the market if I'm not paying attention.
Please report to the minerbumping channel as soon as possible!
Topics we will discuss: 1) The amount of nerds in channel. 2) Mining together in Rancer. 3) That sandwich I've been waiting on. 4) Art. 5) Wardrobe options for various activities. 6) WHERE THE HELL YOU'VE BEEN!
TIA
Between Ignorance and Wisdom |
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12912
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 07:41:00 -
[3671] - Quote
Lady Areola Fappington wrote:
A. Ganking is exploding in popularity, it's entirely too easy, and the entire game is suffering and will shut down if we don't get a handle on it now, or;
Actually ganking is at a record low and has never been more punished or risk as today.
Lady Areola Fappington wrote: B. Ganking has utterly no effect on anything or anyone all we need to do is ignore it to make it go away.
Ganking has resulted in a good many changes from the introduction of invicible concord to gate/station gun buffs, the barge changes and to the freighter nerf the other month. It is the single most punished activity in EVE and the riskiest after years of nerfs. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Grog Aftermath
Need more grog
81
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 09:28:00 -
[3672] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Ganking has resulted in a good many changes from the introduction of invicible concord to gate/station gun buffs, the barge changes and to the freighter nerf the other month. It is the single most punished activity in EVE and the riskiest after years of nerfs.
Doesn't seem very risky to me. You're protected up until the moment you open fire, if you get it right you get your kill. As for losing your ship to CONCORD, there is no risk as it's a given and you've already factored that lose into the gank. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12912
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 09:38:00 -
[3673] - Quote
Grog Aftermath wrote:baltec1 wrote:Ganking has resulted in a good many changes from the introduction of invicible concord to gate/station gun buffs, the barge changes and to the freighter nerf the other month. It is the single most punished activity in EVE and the riskiest after years of nerfs. Doesn't seem very risky to me. You're protected up until the moment you open fire, if you get it right you get your kill. As for losing your ship to CONCORD, there is no risk as it's a given and you've already factored that lose into the gank.
Most gankers are not protected due to being under -5 sec status. The fact that concord will blow up your ship every time does not remove the fact that it is a hefty punishment. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Grog Aftermath
Need more grog
81
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 09:45:00 -
[3674] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Grog Aftermath wrote:baltec1 wrote:Ganking has resulted in a good many changes from the introduction of invicible concord to gate/station gun buffs, the barge changes and to the freighter nerf the other month. It is the single most punished activity in EVE and the riskiest after years of nerfs. Doesn't seem very risky to me. You're protected up until the moment you open fire, if you get it right you get your kill. As for losing your ship to CONCORD, there is no risk as it's a given and you've already factored that lose into the gank. Most gankers are not protected due to being under -5 sec status. The fact that concord will blow up your ship every time does not remove the fact that it is a hefty punishment.
Normally the ship you attack is worth more than what you're using to blow it up, so I don't see that as a hefty punishment, seems quite light to me. Also gankers usually have someone ready to fly in to pick up the loot from the wreaks, both the target and the lost gank ship so that should help keep their loses down, in most cases probably a profit. So yeah, not hefty at all. |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
9441
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 09:48:00 -
[3675] - Quote
Grog Aftermath wrote: Normally the ship you attack is worth more than what you're using to blow it up, so I don't see that as a hefty punishment, seems quite light to me. Also gankers usually have someone ready to fly in to pick up the loot from the wreaks, both the target and the lost gank ship so that should help keep their loses down, in most cases probably a profit. So yeah, not hefty at all.
How many more times do I have to tell someone this?
Shoot. The. Freaking. Looter.
If you can't save the gank target, shoot the looter. Seriously.
Are you lot just unable to think of things on your own? Is that what having your hand held by the goddamned NPCs 23/7, 365 does to you? "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Clean Up Local 2014.-á |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12912
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 09:48:00 -
[3676] - Quote
Grog Aftermath wrote:baltec1 wrote:Grog Aftermath wrote:baltec1 wrote:Ganking has resulted in a good many changes from the introduction of invicible concord to gate/station gun buffs, the barge changes and to the freighter nerf the other month. It is the single most punished activity in EVE and the riskiest after years of nerfs. Doesn't seem very risky to me. You're protected up until the moment you open fire, if you get it right you get your kill. As for losing your ship to CONCORD, there is no risk as it's a given and you've already factored that lose into the gank. Most gankers are not protected due to being under -5 sec status. The fact that concord will blow up your ship every time does not remove the fact that it is a hefty punishment. Normally the ship you attack is worth more than what you're using to blow it up, so I don't see that as a hefty punishment, seems quite light to me. Also gankers usually have someone ready to fly in to pick up the loot from the wreaks, both the target and the lost gank ship so that should help keep their loses down, in most cases probably a profit. So yeah, not hefty at all.
It is hefty, you just don't want it to be.
But hey, if you think the punishments and risks for ganking are too low to not matter than I guess you would be fine have the exact same mechanics put onto say, mission running. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
9441
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 09:53:00 -
[3677] - Quote
baltec1 wrote: But hey, if you think the punishments and risks for ganking are too low to not matter than I guess you would be fine have the exact same mechanics put onto say, mission running.
Ooh, ooh, pick me!
How about we make it so that mission runners with a sec standing above 3.0 are constantly chased by pirates (who don't drop loot), just like gankers are chased by facpo? "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Clean Up Local 2014.-á |
Grog Aftermath
Need more grog
81
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 10:00:00 -
[3678] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:But hey, if you think the punishments and risks for ganking are too low to not matter than I guess you would be fine have the exact same mechanics put onto say, mission running.
You said the punishments were heavy I said they were light. I didn't say they were too low, too low would imply they need to be harsher.
As for mission running, those mechanics wouldn't work.
Thanks for reminding me about missions, been months since I've done one, maybe I should try a couple for old times sake. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12912
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 10:01:00 -
[3679] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:baltec1 wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:baltec1 wrote: But hey, if you think the punishments and risks for ganking are too low to not matter than I guess you would be fine have the exact same mechanics put onto say, mission running.
Ooh, ooh, pick me! How about we make it so that mission runners with a sec standing above 3.0 are constantly chased by pirates (who don't drop loot), just like gankers are chased by facpo? Nah, just have them lose the same standing per ship killed as gankers do. Idk, people basically don't do faction missions anyway.
Oh I mean any missions in high sec. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12912
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 10:02:00 -
[3680] - Quote
Grog Aftermath wrote:baltec1 wrote:But hey, if you think the punishments and risks for ganking are too low to not matter than I guess you would be fine have the exact same mechanics put onto say, mission running. You said the punishments were heavy I said they were light. I didn't say they were too low, too low would imply they need to be harsher. As for mission running, those mechanics wouldn't work. Thanks for reminding me about missions, been months since I've done one, maybe I should try a couple for old times sake.
So if you arn't willing to take the same punishments and risks then they arnt light. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
|
Grog Aftermath
Need more grog
81
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 10:09:00 -
[3681] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Grog Aftermath wrote:baltec1 wrote:But hey, if you think the punishments and risks for ganking are too low to not matter than I guess you would be fine have the exact same mechanics put onto say, mission running. You said the punishments were heavy I said they were light. I didn't say they were too low, too low would imply they need to be harsher. As for mission running, those mechanics wouldn't work. Thanks for reminding me about missions, been months since I've done one, maybe I should try a couple for old times sake. So if you arn't willing to take the same punishments and risks then they arnt light.
It makes no sense in relation to missions, in missions you're shooting at criminals or invading factions. Gankers are criminals, do you see the link there?
CONCORD doesn't like criminals, it means they have to do something other than sit eating doughnuts. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12914
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 10:11:00 -
[3682] - Quote
Grog Aftermath wrote:
It makes no sense in relation to missions, in missions you're shooting at criminals or invading factions. Gankers are criminals, do you see the link there?
CONCORD doesn't like criminals, it means they have to do something other than other sit eating doughnuts.
Doesn't matter about the lore, what matters is you wouldn't do mission with those punishments and risks. Therefore you cant say there are no risks or punishments for ganking or that they are too low. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Grog Aftermath
Need more grog
81
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 10:21:00 -
[3683] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Grog Aftermath wrote:
It makes no sense in relation to missions, in missions you're shooting at criminals or invading factions. Gankers are criminals, do you see the link there?
CONCORD doesn't like criminals, it means they have to do something other than other sit eating doughnuts.
Doesn't matter about the lore, what matters is you wouldn't do mission with those punishments and risks. Therefore you cant say there are no risks or punishments for ganking or that they are too low.
You wouldn't be able to even completed a mission if you were the criminal. So there wouldn't be any combat missions, like I said it wouldn't/couldn't work with missions.
You're using that 'too low' again, like I said it's light not too low. Light because unless you're just ganking for the hell of it (isk not even an issue) then what you're ganking if worth far more than the lose of your ship that you knew you would lose and factored in to the cost of the gank.
If you want tougher penalties be my guest and continue to talk about 'too low'. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12914
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 10:27:00 -
[3684] - Quote
Grog Aftermath wrote:baltec1 wrote:Grog Aftermath wrote:
It makes no sense in relation to missions, in missions you're shooting at criminals or invading factions. Gankers are criminals, do you see the link there?
CONCORD doesn't like criminals, it means they have to do something other than other sit eating doughnuts.
Doesn't matter about the lore, what matters is you wouldn't do mission with those punishments and risks. Therefore you cant say there are no risks or punishments for ganking or that they are too low. You wouldn't be able to even completed a mission if you were the criminal. So there wouldn't be any combat missions, like I said it wouldn't/couldn't work with missions. You're using that 'too low' again, like I said it's light not too low. Light because unless you're just ganking for the hell of it (isk not even an issue) then what you're ganking if worth far more than the lose of your ship that you knew you would lose and factored in to the cost of the gank. If you want tougher penalties be my guest and continue to talk about 'too low'.
80 mil for a gank nado is not exactly light on the pocket and you are not garenteed to either get the kill or the drop. So no, its not light, you lose your ship as a punishment. If you faced that with a mission you simply wouldn't do missions, as you said.
Hell, I bet you wouldn't do missions if it was just the sec loss. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Grog Aftermath
Need more grog
81
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 10:58:00 -
[3685] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:80 mil for a gank nado is not exactly light on the pocket and you are not garenteed to either get the kill or the drop. So no, its not light, you lose your ship as a punishment. If you faced that with a mission you simply wouldn't do missions, as you said.
Hell, I bet you wouldn't do missions if it was just the sec loss.
For there to be risk there has to be more than 1 possible outcome.
Assuming a ganker isn't just doing it for the hell of it, then the only risk they face is will they make a profit or a loss. If suicide ganking didn't pay, suicide ganking wouldn't exist other than suicide ganking just for the hell of it.
You lose your ship, that's your choice you chose to lose your ship as part of the gank. You are using your ships as disposable tools to try and make a profit.
As for missions, main reason I'd do a mission is for corp. standing, which has nothing to do with sec loss.
Sec loss achieved by actively being involved in criminal behaviour, well that's not going to happen to me as I'd don't get involved with criminal behaviour. There's no reason for a missioner to get sec loss from killing criminals.
|
Nitchiu
EVE University Ivy League
19
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 10:59:00 -
[3686] - Quote
Grog Aftermath wrote:baltec1 wrote:Ganking has resulted in a good many changes from the introduction of invicible concord to gate/station gun buffs, the barge changes and to the freighter nerf the other month. It is the single most punished activity in EVE and the riskiest after years of nerfs. Doesn't seem very risky to me. You're protected up until the moment you open fire, if you get it right you get your kill. As for losing your ship to CONCORD, there is no risk as it's a given and you've already factored that lose into the gank.
Let me repeat. If there is no risk and the cost is so minor why aren't more players doing suicide ganking? The only people who are doing concerted suicide ganking are being paid to do so with an SRP. If your ship is being replaced then of course the cost is trivial. But if it isn't then the cost is prohibitive for the vast majority of players. Hence they don't gank. And apparently the statistics bear this out or did until recently. Ganking was/is at an all time low. We are hearing a lot about ganking not because there is a lot going on but because the ones doing it advertise it on their website. |
Grog Aftermath
Need more grog
81
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 11:12:00 -
[3687] - Quote
Nitchiu wrote:Grog Aftermath wrote:baltec1 wrote:Ganking has resulted in a good many changes from the introduction of invicible concord to gate/station gun buffs, the barge changes and to the freighter nerf the other month. It is the single most punished activity in EVE and the riskiest after years of nerfs. Doesn't seem very risky to me. You're protected up until the moment you open fire, if you get it right you get your kill. As for losing your ship to CONCORD, there is no risk as it's a given and you've already factored that lose into the gank. Let me repeat. If there is no risk and the cost is so minor why aren't more players doing suicide ganking? The only people who are doing concerted suicide ganking are being paid to do so with an SRP. If your ship is being replaced then of course the cost is trivial. But if it isn't then the cost is prohibitive for the vast majority of players. Hence they don't gank. And apparently the statistics bear this out or did until recently. Ganking was/is at an all time low. We are hearing a lot about ganking not because there is a lot going on but because the ones doing it advertise it on their website.
Gankers only have themselves to blame, groups like C.O.D.E. don't help the situation they just bring the issues to the attention of those that can make the changes. CCP runs a business and groups like C.O.D.E. can undermine that business, CCP doesn't want to stop such behaviour as it part of the game, but the more something starts to get out of hand the more the company will have to bring in new controls to keep it under control. |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
9441
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 11:17:00 -
[3688] - Quote
Grog Aftermath wrote: Gankers only have themselves to blame, groups like C.O.D.E. don't help the situation they just bring the issues to the attention of those that can make the changes. CCP runs a business and groups like C.O.D.E. can undermine that business, CCP doesn't want to stop such behaviour as it part of the game, but the more something starts to get out of hand the more the company will have to bring in new controls to keep it under control.
Except for the part where CCP recently affirmed that they are absolutely, 100% okay with the current state of suicide ganking.
If there was something to worry about, I would not imagine they would have been so encouraging of us. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Clean Up Local 2014.-á |
Nitchiu
EVE University Ivy League
20
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 11:19:00 -
[3689] - Quote
Grog Aftermath wrote:Nitchiu wrote:Grog Aftermath wrote:baltec1 wrote:Ganking has resulted in a good many changes from the introduction of invicible concord to gate/station gun buffs, the barge changes and to the freighter nerf the other month. It is the single most punished activity in EVE and the riskiest after years of nerfs. Doesn't seem very risky to me. You're protected up until the moment you open fire, if you get it right you get your kill. As for losing your ship to CONCORD, there is no risk as it's a given and you've already factored that lose into the gank. Let me repeat. If there is no risk and the cost is so minor why aren't more players doing suicide ganking? The only people who are doing concerted suicide ganking are being paid to do so with an SRP. If your ship is being replaced then of course the cost is trivial. But if it isn't then the cost is prohibitive for the vast majority of players. Hence they don't gank. And apparently the statistics bear this out or did until recently. Ganking was/is at an all time low. We are hearing a lot about ganking not because there is a lot going on but because the ones doing it advertise it on their website. Gankers only have themselves to blame, groups like C.O.D.E. don't help the situation they just bring the issues to the attention of those that can make the changes. CCP runs a business and groups like C.O.D.E. can undermine that business, CCP doesn't want to stop such behaviour as it part of the game, but the more something starts to get out of hand the more the company will have to bring in new controls to keep it under control.
Or maybe the gankers didn't spend their time asking for buffs to their playstyle while the 0 PvP crowd did and when they finally started to mount a platform to complain about the rampant anti-PvP sentiment in the game CCP gave them a freighter nerf. Seems like minerbumping is encouraging CCP to stop catering to the anti-PvP crowd rather than pushing them to nerf ganking. |
Grog Aftermath
Need more grog
81
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 11:28:00 -
[3690] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Grog Aftermath wrote: Gankers only have themselves to blame, groups like C.O.D.E. don't help the situation they just bring the issues to the attention of those that can make the changes. CCP runs a business and groups like C.O.D.E. can undermine that business, CCP doesn't want to stop such behaviour as it part of the game, but the more something starts to get out of hand the more the company will have to bring in new controls to keep it under control.
Except for the part where CCP recently affirmed that they are absolutely, 100% okay with the current state of suicide ganking. If there was something to worry about, I would not imagine they would have been so encouraging of us.
Except I wasn't talking so much about the current state, more the how we got to the current state. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 .. 157 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |