|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
3075
   |
Posted - 2015.08.24 00:42:14 -
[1] - Quote
Its like I always say. There's no point shooting at someone who wants you to shoot at them. You need to find the people who least want to be shot at and shoot at them. |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
3083
|
Posted - 2015.08.24 15:20:21 -
[2] - Quote
That's more sportsmanship than anything. |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
3093
|
Posted - 2015.08.26 03:03:28 -
[3] - Quote
If ganking was particularly easy I'd probably do it. It isn't so I don't. |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
3248
|
Posted - 2015.10.01 12:38:00 -
[4] - Quote
Well, I did start playing EVE then years later found myself driving an actual nuclear powered warship.
So obviously there must be a causal relationship between playing spaceship games and real life behavior. |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
3250
|
Posted - 2015.10.01 16:49:22 -
[5] - Quote
I'm imagining someone creeping around the edge of an open pit mine with binoculars and a baseball bat grumbling that they all look like they're paying attention and not just standing perfectly still staring blankly at the dirt like EVE miners do. |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
3258
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 01:26:22 -
[6] - Quote
You can blow up gankers whenever you want. They're pretty much always legal targets in highsec and generally speaking either FACPO or CONCORD will help you do it.
If the fact that gankers fly cheap disposable spaceships of very little value then your argument really lies with CONCORD, FACPO and sentry guns. Gankers don't fly disposable spaceships because they want to, they do it because these mechanics render loss of literally any ship they fly inevitable within literally seconds of engaging.
The very protection mechanics in highsec are what make player enforcement and retaliation against gankers non-viable. NPCs do all the retaliation for you and they do it perfectly every single time, which means that retaliation is already taken into account by the gankers before they do anything. |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
3288
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 19:34:17 -
[7] - Quote
Paradoxically (since their gameplay relies entirely on gankers existing to begin with) anti-gankers don't want more content, they want less.
While some anti-gankers do actually do it for fun and appreciate the existence of the gankers that enable their gameplay(some have even posted about it in the forum) many anti-gankers legitimately want ganking and highsec PVP content in general to not exist at all so they can instead pursue more righteous activities like running missions until they get bored and quit the game.
Telling us in C&P that tools that enable content generation would be good for highsec is preaching to the choir. This is quite specifically a community of people that understand that players generating conflict in all types of space is necessary for the game to be interesting, it's people who don't normally engage in that kind of gameplay and CCP that you need to convince, not us. |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
3297
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 21:12:39 -
[8] - Quote
If you don't believe me about the bizarre views of anti-gankers you should go hang out with them. |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
3311
|
Posted - 2015.10.04 20:48:50 -
[9] - Quote
It's actually very interesting when you look at the history of it. Earlier in EVE history when NPC enforcement was less powerful there was no ideologically motivated, highly organized ganking community. General for-profit ganking was fairly uncommon and ganking of miners was largely limited to yearly events.
It was only after years of carebears pushing for and receiving buffs to their safety that the motivation for people to continuously actively pursue them came into existence.
The net result is that they were actually safer when they were less safe. |
|
|
| |
|