This is why I find you guys so laughable, absolutely no-one is calling for the removal of 'mass destruction' in Eve. All some people are asking for is that you carry out the majority of your mass destruction in parts of the game where it doesn't drive away new players.

Incidentally, you appear to want it both ways. Either suicide ganking is 'laughably rare' or it constitutes 'mass destruction' on a level that would make Eve 'instantly collapse' were it removed. Well, which is it?

You should really slow down, if you make many more comments as utterly ridiculous as this, we're going to end up passing some form of idiot event horizon

So you can't damage new players?

Ganking isn't laughably rare, which is why CODE keep posting huge lists of all the ganks they're carrying out.

Side note, this is why people like this get pwned on the forums all day every day by the Tippias and Kaarouses (Tippii and Kaarousii?) of the forum. Kaarous said DESTRUCTION, ganking is a form of destruction and it's existence is demonstrably good for the EVE economy.

Ganking also creates an air of danger and uncertainty, which are also great qualities to have in a sandbox game. I've spent 7 years learning how to not get ganked, how to avoid scams and danger. For a sandbox PVE player (like me), that's content in the same way that this game taught me as a child how not to get eaten by crocodiles.

I will NEVER understand the people so 'victimish' and weak that they can't even deal with a small amount of danger in a video game. If ganking scares you, sleeping without a night light must be cause for some very wet bedsheets.......

you look like a monkey, and you smell like one, too.

The other day we went over the zkillboard data which also showed a huge rise in suicide ganking, and it was brushed off as 'bad historical data'.

No-one said that it constitutes mass destruction.

GǪwhich, of course, wasn't what I said.

The damage suicide ganking can do to new players is very close to zero for one simple reason: they're new players. By virtue of being new, no damage dealt to them can be very high.

Ganking is laughably rare, as demonstrated by the minute number of kills even a supposed mass-murdering entity as CODE can produce. It is also demonstrated by how much attention this one group generates GÇö if ganking was commonplace, they'd be a single player in the vast field of gankers and their activities would just be noise. Instead, their activities are such a shocking departure from the norm of highsec life that people keep coming to the forums to complain about what would otherwise be an every-day event.

Can you share this data? So far it's been a unicorn that people keep referring to.

So it's laughably rare yet at the same time such a 'shocking departure from the norm of highsec life' that everyone's up in arms about it? Can you explain how those two statements fit together in any way please?

So it's laughably rare yet at the same time such a 'shocking departure from the norm of highsec life' that everyone's up in arms about it? Can you explain how those two statements fit together in any way please?

Ah so when you started talking about how mass destruction is an essential cornerstone of the game, that was just a completely irrelevant topic you just happened to mention in passing?

Except that you did.

So it's laughably rare yet at the same time such a 'shocking departure from the norm of highsec life' that everyone's up in arms about it? Can you explain how those two statements fit together in any way please?

Sadly, this is the part of the show where someone in the audience has to point out that "laughably rare" and "shocking departure from the norm" go together quite nicely...

As in:

"Bob showing up for work on time was so laughably rare that when he did it was a shocking departure from the norm."


sorry...

This would certainly explain events like this very 99 page thread where everyone's complaining about how rare suicide ganking is.

This would certainly explain events like this very 99 page thread where everyone's complaining about how rare suicide ganking is. Oh wait..

This would certainly explain events like this very 99 page thread where everyone's complaining about how rare suicide ganking is. Oh wait..

Yeah, 15 people on either side repeating the same arguments in different words for 99 pages is clearly indicative for how rare or often the subject of discussion is.

In all, 40 freighters and 3 jump freighters were terminated during the week covered by the Kills of the Week post. Adding kills from the last two days, the number rises to 59 freighters and 4 jump freighters.

To put the slaughter into perspective, consider the first Burn Jita event in 2012. The combined forces of the CFC and HBC, somewhere around 40,000 characters, were called upon to participate. Thousands showed up, including many players in leadership positions. It was publicized throughout EVE, and CCP was forced to add a warning to the splash screen for everyone logging into the game. Burn Jita was covered by video game media, not just EVE media. During Burn Jita, 53 freighters and 12 jump freighters were killed. That's more isk damage than was inflicted by the New Order's activities in Uedama--but actually not that far off. Our gankers are becoming remarkably efficient killing machines.

This would certainly explain events like this very 99 page thread where everyone's complaining about how rare suicide ganking is. Oh wait..

Well every time we've tried to pull actual data, it's just dismissed out of hand despite each set showing exactly the same trend. I guess that's what happens when a handful of suicide gankers sense their favourite pastime might be at risk as a result of their own reckless actions.

I'm pretty bored now, so I'll just leave you with the words of James 315 in his latest post on BumpMining..



Yes you are guys, and we all know what happens when any predator becomes too good at killing..

Well every time we've tried to pull actual data, it's just dismissed out of hand

Yes you are guys, and we all know what happens when any predator becomes too good at killing..

That'll be the data where Kal counted the number of Charons killed in June 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 by referring to zkillboard, all the while ignoring or ignorant of the fact that the zkill and evekill boards weren't integrated until 2012, without taking the time to remove any kills that were down to wardecs/ didn't involve Concord intervention; thus not suicide ganks.

This would certainly explain events like this very 99 page thread where everyone's complaining about how rare suicide ganking is. Oh wait..

On an unrelated note, today is my birthday, and I'm posting to the EVE-O forums. How sad is dat?

Happy birthday! I ate all your cake but you wouldn't expect any less of an Eve player.

Well every time we've tried to pull actual data, it's just dismissed out of hand despite each set showing exactly the same trend. I guess that's what happens when a handful of suicide gankers sense their favourite pastime might be at risk as a result of their own reckless actions.

I'm pretty bored now, so I'll just leave you with the words of James 315 in his latest post on BumpMining..

There was a very strong trend in 2012, 2013, 2014 with each year showing huge growth (over a 50% increase) in both # of concord kills and # of charon losses. As for the wardec issue the data was compiled from the same source, unless there was some patch between 2012-2014 that would have increased the number of wardecs significantly it would be safe to assume the % lost to wardecs would remain constant throughout.

I think we did it guys this has to be 100! I'm proud of each and every one of you.

You mean this 99 page thread that has 314 different posters in a game of more than 400,000 active accounts


http://eve-search.com/stats/thread/352595-1

You do understand that the size of a forum thread in a forum most EVE players don't use doesn't mean jack s$%^t right?

We need *1* more poster to make it appropriately "315".

There was a very strong trend in 2012, 2013, 2014 with each year showing huge growth (over a 50% increase) in both # of concord kills and # of charon losses.

As for the wardec issue the data was compiled from the same source, unless there was some patch between 2012-2014 that would have increased the number of wardecs significantly it would be safe to assume the % lost to wardecs would remain constant throughout.

We already told you why what you just said is wrong. Many times.

Really? must have missed that post. All I ever saw in refute to this was:

"I personally haven't seen any change, therefore it's not true".

"The boards weren't combined until 2012" - no problem just look at 2013 onward

"Wardecs and other" - as mentioned this should remain consistent throughout the data sets.

"We have to use cheaper ships right meow because nerfs" - between 2013-2014?