It irks the hell out of me every time I see this line of reasoning out of a gank victim. And it is quite common too, especially during Burn Jita and Hulkageddon type events. It's the usual argument from the super-carebears and the theme parkers, folks who are incapable of understanding the design philosophy differences between an EVE Online and a World of Warcraft.
I find it totally intolerable, that three 1M ISK ships can easily gank my tanked 300M ISK Hulk.
Let's quote the fool again:
I find it totally intolerable, that three 1M ISK ships can easily gank my tanked 300M ISK Hulk.You find it intolerable?! Well, fucking, waah! This isn't some dumbass themepark MMO or first-person shooter, that only has a single style of play, where every damned item can be measured against every other similar item by market value alone.
This is EVE Online. It's a damned sandbox. There is no one official approved way to play the game. There are a hundred different roles. Roles are not always interchangeable or comparable. Just because you bought a shiny expensive mining ship, does not mean it's any good at war things. So, yes, a cheap war thing will be able to blow the fuck out of your expensive non-war thing. If you want to protect your non-war thing, then bring along some goddamned war things.
No different than a single German U-boat sinking entire convoys of transport ships. Roosevelt and Churchill weren't crying that it wasn't fair that a damned single submarine was taking out dozens of transport ships at a time. You know why? Because they understood roles. Transport ships are good at transporting stuff, they are not good at defending themselves. Submarines are good at blowing stuff up and getting the hell away. What Roosevelt and Churchill realized, is that if you want to protect your transports, then tag along some navy combat ships with them.
(We pass over Basilisk protected mining fleets frequently. It's not worth the trouble. They are hard to gank without numbers. That's a smart miner realizing that he needs combat support to protect his non-combat vessels. So, while you're whining and losing at EVE, Mr. Intolerable, Mr. Basilisk is adapting and winning at EVE.)
If that doesn't convince your whining ass, then think of highsec ganking as internet space terrorism. It's an internet space jihad against internet space miners.
How the hell does a $10000 speedboat ladened with $10000 in explosives completely disable a $1 billion navy destroyer? How do two $75 million jetliners topple $2.3 billion in buildings? How does a van with a few thousand dollars in explosives take out a few hundred million dollars of government building?
Life sucks. EVE sucks. And if you're unprepared, small inexpensive things can totally ruin big expensive shiny things. That is the lesson of EVE.
Awesome point and post. Nuff said. :-)
ReplyDeleteThanks, man! So now that the CFC is all friendly with their new northern economic buddies, when is -A- going to shake up some of the influence map?
DeleteThey're not going to shake it up at all.
DeleteYeah, we're just gonna fling poo like porch monkeys. Hey, we're takin it back! ;-) lol
DeleteThe Ganking in Hi Sec. Isn't the problem. The problem is a 19 day old character in a frig or destroyer is able to pop a T2 fitted Hulk in Hi Sec. With a T1 ship and weapons...What the hell!
DeleteA miner sends 3 month to get into one (Hulk), another 3 months to skill right to mine with it. 1 year to skill out shield,Armor,and Evasive. Then another 3 months to 6 months to acquire Leadership Skills to use ship links right.
How in the hell is this fair. What's the point in spending all that time training and (real dollars) for game time. To loaded out a Hulk with T2 protection and modules. That doesn't protect him for 20 damn seconds so Concord can do what the hell its suppose to do.
Hell Newbie's have a hard time with NPC's. But can blow the hell out of a T2 Hulk in seconds with a semi season pilot in it. While the Lead Pirate sit in a cloaked ship to salvage the wreckage to make 100 mill if their lucky....I say fuck that...
The Ganker says there is no foul. I say bullshit! If he wants to get that seasoned pilot he should have to work for it. That Ganker can train up to use a better ship and weapons. The Miner can not! He has no recourse but to complain...he doesn't want to...but what the hell else can he do. There's no Alien technology to recover or learn. There's no better shields to be had or to be made...The Miner is "FUBAR"!
Even in War each side develops new weapons and ships to counter the others advances...But were talking Hi Sec. Using Logistic is a good counter measure...but that's another pilot not mining. And yes! It could be considered as cost of overhead. And I do use this in lower Sec. areas. But that also with protection and not the worries of losing my Sec. Level or Corp Stats just for protecting the mining ops.
Its a loop hole the Pirate is taking complete advantage of and is saying what ever... to keep it. Its just not fair to those who have put in the time....(anyone who has played EVE knows what I mean by that) and trained...Plus I feel CCP has already gotten enough of my hard earn money...this is like a little scam that is being played on all of us.
You're obviously completely missing the point of this post, sir.
DeleteThat miner is spending his year and a half to two years learning how to perfectly use a ship that has, by nature, no role in war at all other than an easy target. Doesn't matter how long it took, it'll still be useless in a combat situation, which is what a suicide gank is.
OhmyGod, I totally <3 you for this post.
ReplyDelete10/10!
(And @The paragon of critical thinking you quoted: Ur stuffs, I can haz?)
How's the sec-status, by the way, Poetic? The rat-grinding to bring it back up (I had to do that after sui-ganking a few Mack-botters with my mates, and then accidentally'ing a few of their pods for good measure a few months ago. -7.9 ---> -1.7 so I could enter hisec again)...Ugh. Just total, utter, ugh :(
Ratting sucks. 'Nuff said. ;)
DeletePro mining tip: mine inside a mission. Keeps the filthy pirates away and gives advance warning if people are trying to kill you.
ReplyDeleteHulks in the nearby highsec are doing this and as pirates we can't get to them :(
Clearly you don't know how to scan.
Deleteinternet space jihad lol xD
ReplyDeleteThe only problem I see with your argument is that the "alternative" you present ("If you want to protect your non-war thing, then bring along some goddamned war things") isn't really an option against high-sec suicide ganks. In fact, there is nothing a player can really do about about high-sec ganking other than to turn tail and run.
ReplyDeleteJust to be clear, this isn't designed to be a criticism of suicide ganking. Rather, it's a criticism of the substance of the argument you've presented here. Personally, I don't mind the basic existence of suicide ganking. But I do think there is validity to the notion that this sort of design philosophy, which makes it very easy and cheap to build throwaway ganking ships that can easily kill 300m+ mining vessels, basically constitutes an incentive toward and endorsement of that activity on the behalf of CCP.
I think the game should be a sandbox, but I'm not so sure that CCP should *endorse* any style of play. In my mind, that street runs in all directions. It should be that way for PVE carebearing just as it should be for high-sec suicide ganking.
(This is the same argument I always had about "troll" wardecs in high-sec. I don't really mind that they exist, but I always felt like the trivial barrier to entry basically *incentivized* the activity, and constituted what might as well have been an explicit endorsement of it. And as far as I'm concerned, no single play style deserves that sort of position in the game.)
Here's a gem from the EVE-O forums, for anyone whinging about losing their fucking Hulk to some "stupid no risk gankers"
Delete"It is YOUR fault you lost your Hulk. And if you can afford that, another one is not far behind IF you work for it. Or do you want to be given things easy ?
If so, this is not the game for you after all.
So harden up or GTFO."
I'm not sure how that really speaks to my point, but okay.
DeleteSo what you're _really_ saying is you'd like a CONCORD nerf so Han actually CAN shoot first... ;-)
DeleteIf it's going to be that easy and cheap to suicide-gank ships worth hundreds of millions of ISK, then I think there needs to be some possible way for them to defend themselves which doesn't automatically mean just turning tail and quitting their activities.
DeleteBut I actually believe in there being a highsec, just like I believe in there being a lowsec and a nullsec. So I don't think a CONCORD nerf really constitutes a solution to the problem.
Honestly, though, my problem isn't really with suicide ganking itself. It's easy to do. It happens. Whatever. The problem I have is when people trump up reasons why the game should seemingly *promote* that specific line of activity, but not others, and give out "reasonable alternatives" that aren't actually alternatives. There is nothing a Hulk pilot can really do to stop a suicide ganker other than run. The game essentially promotes (via cheapness/ease) an activity that one cannot defend against except by doing something else or going offline. A lot of people (including myself) may think that's fine. But I'm not going to sit around acting like there's some high-class justification for it, or drumming up false options to make it look reasonable. It's simply the state of the game. That's all. It's an arbitrary feature, not a fair representation of the real world, to be justified on that basis alone.
"this sort of design philosophy, ... constitutes ... endorsement of that activity on the behalf of CCP. ... I'm not so sure that CCP should *endorse* any style of play."
DeleteHere are two (counter) examples which make your argument seem silly:
1. The deliberate design of mining barges and exhumers is an endorsement by CCP of the activity of mining. CCP should not be endorsing mining.
2. The design of electronic warfare ships in EVE is an endorsement by CCP of the activity of jamming other ships. CCP should not be endorsing that style of play.
Reductio ad absurdum.
Umm, those are silly arguments, though, because you're not balancing one thing against another, as I've done in my argument, you're just listing off a couple things you can do in the game. Like, CCP made EVE, therefore they are endorsing playing it! Flying Spaghetti God made the world, and therefore He is endorsing living in it! That's not how it works. You have to weigh one behavior against another.
DeleteSo in the example I've presented, yes, there are indeed miners with mining ships in the game. Obviously EVE has created the option to mine. All that means is that they want it to be an option. It's no more endorsed by CCP as a recommended activity than anything else. But when you take CONCORD mechanics into account, and combine that with the ease and cheapness of putting together suicide gank ships that can reliably take out mining vessels of even the most expensive variety before CONCORD ever shows up, that seems to betray an endorsement by CCP of that activity.
See, you have compare one activity against another. It's all relative, and has to do with game balance.
And again, I'm not proposing that CCP work to end suicide ganking. What I'm saying, though, is that I'd prefer that the game didn't endorse it by making it super easy and cheap to do it. If people are going to suicide gank, they should have to risk more than a couple throwaway Catalysts and a minor sec-status hit.
Another thing that's always interested me about these back-and-forth debates is how they both seem to be coming from the same place, but merely drawing from different contexts. It's interesting, for example, that you show disdain for this hypothetical complainer's misplaced (in your point of view) sense of fairness. And yet, your argument could also be summed up as something like, "It's only fair that, since the real world isn't a fair place, the game should be a reflection of that." What is fairness, after all, other than a sort of symmetry? You believe that the game should match the outside world. The hypothetical miner believes that the game's risks should match the game's rewards. Why is one belief any more "reasonable" than the other?
ReplyDeleteYour examples are in poor taste. All those people who died IRL are dead forever. Some of them were my personal friends. Maybe you need to step back a moment and figure out were the line is. EvE is a game and capsuleers get another chance. My friends are gone forever. Think about that before you compare your faux indignation to their tragedy. So far I've enjoyed your blog. I'd like to continue enjoying it.
ReplyDeleteIf someone pointing out that internet space war is similar to real war causes you to be offended, since you have friends who died in real wars/violence; then perhaps you should not enjoy his blog, or EVE, out of respect for your friends. I am not a griefer and I would not enjoy knowing that I caused you sadness over your and their loss. However, a consistent application of your principles would seemingly lead you to quit EVE of your own accord, and if you are going to ask others to respect and abide by your principles, than would behoove you to do so as well.
DeleteYour comment is in poor taste. It was made on the Internet. Some people who have died while using the Internet were my personal friends. Maybe you need to step back a moment and figure out where the line is. The Internet is a game and commenters get another chance. Except for my friends. Because they're dead. All of them. On the Internet.
Delete"If that doesn't convince your whining ass, then think of highsec ganking as internet space terrorism. It's an internet space jihad against internet space miners."
ReplyDeleteAlright, but all the examples of terrorism you actually listed are very rare incidents, pretty much happened once and then people started watching out for out and now they don't happen again. So, by your own analogy, hulk ganking should be nearly impossible, and only happen every decade or so, in all of EVE. I live in San Francisco...when was the last significant terrorism incident within 500 miles of me? Never? That's the whole reason terrorism is called terrorism, it's about fear grossly disproportionate to any actual damage. If there's tons of damage and not just fear, we call it war, or just a normal day in any of a number of violence-prone countries. The situation now could easily be termed uncontrolled violence is supposedly law-abiding space, where mining ships are basically little children sent out carrying thousands of dollars in a bag with a sign on it reading "this bag contains thousands of dollars". Your argument saying that miners can protect themselves by fleeting with logis basically boils down to the statement that little children on bicycles are safe, because there are so many children carrying 10 grand not on bicycles, and it's less tiring to chase those on foot down. A statement with much truth in it, and yet I don't find it relevant to the question "should barges/exhumers tank be increased?"
Is that situation a bad thing? Eh, how to evaluate that question...my first instinct is to want CCP to tune suicide ganking and industrial tank-capability in such a way that discourages bot-mining, and secondly to make it seem more realistic. This may or may not be a coherent wish.
Realism for me would entail dropping the cost of barges/exhumers by a factor of 5. A covetor is basically a t1 indy hauler, which currently costs 1M, with a few slots for mining lasers on it. Someone who'd never played EVE before would say, ok, that should cost 4m ISK, hull price. Instead it costs nearly an order of magnitude more. Dropping the mineral requirement for production of covetors and hulks by a factor of 5 would make the ease of ganking them make much more sense to me. With the current mineral requirements to build them, having them be so paper thin doesn't make any sense to me. Goes back to your world war 2 ships examples...if transport ships were built with as much armor plating and damage control as battleships, then they should be as hard to sink as battleships. If they are built with paper thin hulls, then they should not take the same amount of steel. One or the other.
The guys who drove their ship into the side of the USS COLE saw themselves as holy warriors attacking a war target. They didn't attack the COLE for kicks. It wasn't a game to them. It was jihad.
ReplyDeleteThe men and women on USS COLE accepted that risk when they signed up to serve their nation. It wasn't a game to them. They willingly jumped into low sec.
The innocents killed in Oklahoma City and New York City didn't sign up for that shit. The passengers on four airliners didn't have the promise of virgins in paradise. It wasn't a game to them. They were busy just enjoying their lives in high sec, right up until their lives were violently ended.
Poetic, today you've attempted to justify anti social behavior in a video game, by pointing out that we should "think of highsec ganking as internet space terrorism".
But you left out the most important thing:
Terrorism is wrong.
--------------------------------------
High sec gankers are not terrorists, they're just jerks preying on the weak or the ignorant, or even the innocent and calling it building character: HTFU.
If you gank a miner in high sec, you're killing a carebear for the tears. It's not for any reason other than to have fun at someone else's expense.
Personally, I've come to think it's like 14 year olds running around beating up 9 year olds: HTFU.
Oh, and why tell them to not to cry about it? That's the whole point of the exercise, isn't it? Goons are paying good money for tears.
Don't get me wrong, I don't have a problem with the game mechanic that allows high sec ganking. I just think that high sec pvpers cry too much about how the high sec carebears cry too much.
That's why I get my tears in null.
Actually, I gank Hulks for profit a t2 fitted catalyst costs me around 12-14 million an Intact armour plate goes for around 20 million, t2 strip miners for around 6 and when you hit a jack pot like an ellara's or some idiot with a gist-b or pith-c booster... Add to that I usually get a fair bit of my catalyst back as well and I run a very healthy profit blowing miners up. Oh and if can mining I usually steal the ore too for good measure.
DeleteIt's nice that the goons give me extra money at the moment but solo ganking hulks is *quite* profitable without it if you're efficient about it.
And yes watching thing explode is satisfying too. But I don't gank miners for 'the tears' tears don't replace my ships and they aren't all that common I had none during Hulkageddon so far. One creepy stalker though/
@Ben @Ramm The point of the terrorism examples is that the cost ratio of cause to effect is often very very skewed. It doesn't cost much to cause a whole lotta damage.
ReplyDeleteI used those examples because they are very well-known. I was not suggesting that killing a Hulk in an internet space game is the same as driving a speedboat into a US Navy destroyer for a political/religious reasons.
"The point of the terrorism examples is that the cost ratio of cause to effect is often very very skewed. It doesn't cost much to cause a whole lotta damage."
ReplyDeleteYes, if you take down the proper target it doesn't cost much to cause a whole lot of damage-- but you didn't offer any kind of explanation as to why "mining ships" are analogusly a proper target to your examples. Note that your real life examples were not of real life terrorism to real life mining operations. People don't suicide bomb oil derricks or dump trucks. Your examples in Eve would more perfectly translate to people taking out a pos in null sec by suicide ramming it with a t1 hauler loaded with explosives, or cloaking up next to a titan and then suicide bombing it. Neither of those actions are possible, but those would be more perfect analogies. I completely agree with what I quoted above about RL. We're totally on the same page there. When it comes time to translate that into EVE, it's clear that the line of argument doesn't really support hulkegeddon, but actually works better for a bunch of other consequences, some of which I listed above and which I'm not sure whether you support or no.
Two problems with your analogies:
ReplyDelete1) The USS Cole did not go down. A very expensive ship, it was sufficiently "hardened," with resilient damage control & repair systems, to survive the attack by an inexpensive suicide boat.
The miner you quote is protesting an imbalance that in the real world would be and historically has been redressed not just by military escort, as you rightly note, but also, as you chose to overlook, by re-engineering of industrial ships and freighters for greater survivability.
2) You write, "Think of highsec ganking as internet space terrorism. It's an internet space jihad against internet space miners."
Yes, the USS Cole analogy is somewhat a red herring. This is in no effective sense a jihad against an EVE superpower. And, as others have noted, the barges of highsec miners are not analogous to the warships of the greatest military power in the history of this planet.
Rather this is a "jihad" against peaceful, relatively defenseless civilian targets serving no particular military/political interests at all. Terrorism, indeed. And to the extent this is a kind of "terrorism," a kind of "jihad," it is more accurately in the sense that Goonswarm originally invoked the term "JihadSwarm": http://bit.ly/JpB3UU
Do you endorse that kind of "jihad," that kind of "terrorism," that kind of rhetoric applied to other EVE players, as just a matter of "fun" and EVE being "hard"?
People, people, people!
ReplyDeletePeople?
EVE =/= RL. OK?????
The terrorism analogy might not be the best though: I think perhaps "Internet Space wilding" or "Internet Space random drive-by shooting" might be better, myself :)
That miner Poetic quotes does not belong in this game, in any case. Full-stop, end-of. And that's absolutely A-OK: EVE is not supposed to be for everyone, there are literally hundreds of games out there that would suit that type far better than them ruining our sandbox to suit their mindless risk-aversion would suit us.
The irony of you boldly stating that the corner of the internet called EVE is not for everyone and that this miner should just leave, while charging into the corner of the internet called this discussion complaining that it is not for you and that its should be upended is not lost on me ;)
DeleteBe that as it may, while EVE indeed is not == to RL, comparing any form of art back to nature is always a valid means of analysis. In this case, several people have made points that add up to a cohesive criticism--the problem is not that too many Hulks get ganked in high-sec, but that too few get ganked in low and null-sec. I.e., the criticism obtained by comparing EVE to RL is exactly the same criticism Mittens came up with by analyzing how null and lowsec could be made more vital.
EVE actually DOES = RL, and I'll kindly ask you to stop making that silly assertion beings as I make a blogging of comparing EVE directly to RL. Hisec = America (fuck yeah!), where people are "safe", random acts of violence are relatively rare, but always in the headlines, thus making it seem as if every small-town Main St is a virtual warzone... And of course people crying bout "There should be a law..." bout whatever they think will magically stop "all the bad things" from happening. The only real diff is that the average hiseccer isn't taxed to fucking poverty, and while you can't "agress" in either one, at least in hisec you can fight back while awaiting CONCORD... in America self -defense is now referred to as vigilanteeism and results in being CONCORDOOKENed as well. ;-)
DeleteWhy does the fairness or unfairness of real life have anything to do with EVE? "Churchill didn't bitch about U-Boats, you shouldn't bitch about gank dessies" is one of the stupidest arguments I've ever heard in favour of suicide ganking.
ReplyDeleteYou clearly think that the fact that it takes about 10 mil worth of dessies to destroy a tanked Hulk worth 300 mil or more is perfectly normal, but exhumers - Hulks in particular - actually occupy a unique price point compared to other ships. They cost about 50% more than any Tech 1 battleship, but have about 1/10th the defence. Looking specifically at other non-combat ships, they cost 15,000% more than a T1 Industrial and have broadly comparable tank. They cost 300% more than a T2 industrial and have significantly weaker tank. They cost a bit less than half the price of an Orca and yet have about 1/30th of its tank. It's also key to note that NONE of those other ships can be killed in hisec by a small gang worth less than 5% of their hull - that's unique to the Exhumers.
As to your suggestion that this can be solved by bringing combat ships to mining ops... I laughed. Gankers will always target the Hulks first and standard combat ships won't do squat against them before the Hulk dies. Logistics make a tiny difference in that gankers might need more ships to do the job - maybe it'll cost them 10% of the lost Hulk's value instead of 5%. Even in the example you gave of a basilisk working you admit that you only left it alone because there were easier targets, not because it made ganking unfeasible.
Hopefully those numbers have given some insight into why the op was complaining so much about losing his hulk to a few dessies (incidentally, one more comparison for you: For unfitted hulls, a hulk costs about 25% the price of a carrier, and has about 1.5% the tank). Even better, I'd like to hope that seeing these comparisons convinces you that there is something genuinely unbalanced about the fragility vs cost for Exhumers.
Oh my god. There is so many things you can do to save yourself from the gankers.
DeleteSacrificing yield in favour of tank is one.
Using D-scan is another (pro-tip, there is a 'default' pvp overview template which is sufficient for d-scanning).
Mining in a quiet system where you can easilly keep track of the comings and goings of others is a third.
Tanking the bejesus out of your Orca is something else you can do (gankers are greedy, they will go after the shiney targets - if you sacrifice cargo space you can take the living crap out of an orca which makes great bait...and you acn use it as an RR platform for your hulk)
Not mining at the warp-in point (get as far off the belt as your mining lasers can take you).
Stay passively aligned to station and get out as soon as you see something suspicious in local.
Fleet boosts to improve tank on your mining ships...
Mine in grav sites instead of asteroid belts (forcing your would be attackers to scan you out, you were watching d-scan for probes weren't you?)
I could go on and on and on about ways to reduce the risk to your mining ops during hulkageddon. How do I know all this works? I mined, solidly, through the last 2 hulkageddons. Not one hulk or orca in my fleet lost (through we did lose a retriever... no biggy)
10 mil worth of dessies destroying a hulk is perfectly fine - working as intended. In fact the isk value of the dessie means nothing - if the dessie was worth 1 isk the fact wouldn't change.
Eve, like real life, isn't meant to be fair. Its DESIGNED to be unfair and harsh. If you don't like it, stay docked up.
The simple fact is you want to buy your shiney hulk, set it up for maximum yield, and mine all day long...you refuse to change your strategy and you cry about it being unfair.
I'm sorry, did you read my post or just scan it, see that I wasn't baying for the blood of miners and post a standard form response assuming I was bitching about Hulkageddon being unfair?
DeleteIf you want to know what I personally did for Hulkageddon, I docked my Hulks up and switched to a group of Mining Rokhs, and tanked the hell out of my Orca, which habitually runs 2 mining and 1 shield resist link anyway, or 1 mining, 1 shield resist and 1 armor resist link for when I'm ice mining. I have yet to lose any ships to suicide gankers. Oh, and prior to Hulkageddon starting I acquired myself a nice little stockpile of resources produced by barges and exhumers, and I've been keeping a close eye on the prices as they continue to rise. Without going into specifics, even if I'd lost my entire mining fleet the price fluctuations from Hulkageddon would already have paid to replace them.
That's not exactly my point though; my point was that Exhumers have the worst ratio of cost to EHP out of ANY ship in the game, by a very wide margin, and maybe that actually is unbalanced.
Actual numerical example:
Defensive hulk fit - Damcon II, PDS II in lows, 2x Invuln II, 2x SSE II in mids, 3 Modulated Strips in high, 2x Medium Extender Rig Is
Total EHP w/ max skills, no boosts: 27,151
vs
Max cargo Occator fit - 6x Expanded Cargo Hold IIs in lows, 2x LSE IIs in mids, 2x Medium Cargo Rig Is
Total EHP w/ max skills, no boosts: 32,030
So, you have the Hulk setup purely for defense, and you have the Transport ship (another tech 2 pure non-combat ship) that's been covered in Structure- and Armor- reducing rigs and modules with the 2 LSE IIs thrown on as the only concession to defence... and it's still significantly tougher than the defensively fit Hulk, which has a price tag three times higher. Putting aside Hulkageddon and the eternal gankers vs miners debate, looking solely at those numbers... does that seem balanced to you?
For the record I think barges and T1 industrials need moar EHP in general, but as they're big slow civilian vessels, not combat ships that rely on shields or armor, it should be structure hp. Also makes it really easy to "tank" one: add damage control, voila done.
ReplyDeleteWonder why nobody thought of reinforced bulkheads in bait-Hulk setups... that plus DCU would add a lot of EHP.
I sometimes like your posts but IMO you should raise the tone of this post. It's almost like you are crying about the cryers and how they dare to cry. A serious mining op during hulkageddon MUST be protected by logistics. Anybody should have learned that by now.
ReplyDeleteMind your language when posting.
There is one significant problem with the analogy: in EVE you can't hit back. In real life the attacked countries could attack the terrorist hideouts and bomb terrorist leaders.
ReplyDeleteIn EVE, if he ratted his status back, he is considered a fine citizen by the authorities. If I see him tomorrow and shoot him, I get concorded. He needs no hideout, he can even live in highsec unharmed. Imagine how the World would look like if Osama could get away from punishment by doing two days of community service (picking trash in the park)?
Steady on people its just a game. Non of it really matters. Does playing eve cause you suffering, anger and bring out the worst in you ? Breath deeply, live in the moment. Real Life is wonderful.
ReplyDeleteGood post, Poetic!
ReplyDeleteI understood your analogy from the beginning, and I didn't infer anything beyond your intended meaning. Unfortunately, there's always someone who feels they need to take things way the frack out beyond.
"How in the hell is this fair. What's the point in spending all that time training and (real dollars) for game time." - Anon
LOL! Eve is not supposed to be fair. Read that statement as many times as you need to in order for it to sink in. Learning that lesson now will help you in this game.
Can you see a caveman standing out in the open waving his fists in the air, whining and complaining: "It's not fair for these dinosaurs that are surrounding me to be 100 feet tall! It's not fair that they can run faster than I can! It's not fair that they have all those rows of razor-sharp teeth!"
Good lord, man! Get with the program. After all that training to get into a Hulk and once you do you turn your brain off??
An even safer pro mining tip: Don't mine in Empire during Hulkageddon.
Your chances of being ganked are increased exponentially. Pretty simple, no? And yet judging from the Hulkageddon killboard people are just not getting it.
"A serious mining op during hulkageddon MUST be protected by logistics. Anybody should have learned that by now."
If you absolutely, positively need to mine during Hulkaggedon: ^^ THAT!!
Or just probe out gravi sites in a quiet 0.5/0.g in like, Derleik or Devoid, or the arse-end of the Forge (where the Caldari COSMOS constellation is), or Black Rise, or Verge Vendor, or, ...,(want me to go on?)
ReplyDeleteAnd watch local.
And watch D-Scan for probes.
And tank your mining ships and haulers.
But oh no, can't have that, that'd be being proactive--that simply won't do, and why should it? When it's so much easier to just scream for CCP to nerf everything until nothing left of EVE as it should be remains.
Leave our game, you bleating parasites:
You are not welcome here, you were never welcome here, and what you represent is anathaema to everything EVE ever was, is, and should be.
So, so fucking sick-to-death of these crybears, and how CCP seems to cave to them more and more by the month, when they're not caving to the walking-garbage nulltards with exactly the same result.
Leave us alone, you parasites!
have you ever thought that YOU are the one not welcome here, and what you represent is anathema to everything eve ever was and "should" be? (and just who are you to get to decide what constitutes "should")
Deletein your mind, anyone who doesn't mine in low-sec is evil, but have you ever stopped to think that a lot of people don't have the skills or fast enough computer to survive in low-sec? how does a new player survive rats who fly around in battleships ?
in my opinion, gankers are just cowards who are too scared to take on real targets in low sec. I mean you're really the hero for taking on an unarmed opponent
you obviously don't know the meaning of the word 'parasite'. A parasite is a lifeform that only takes from its target in destructive ways; Miners are the very basis of the eve market, producing the bottom rung, and probably also building the subsequent tiers
YOU, however, are the parasite, since you don't produce anything, don't contribute to the eve-market, don't help other people. All you do is latch on to another player and feed on his unhappiness.
Coward
Stopped reading the instant I saw your name as "Anonymous."
DeleteHypocrite.
You can go fuck yourself, mate, I don't have to justify fucking anything to the likes of you, you generic walking garbage.
Watch out, we got a badass over here.
DeleteHere is an idea for Hulkageddon. I would have no problem with it what so ever if a few things were tweaked.
ReplyDeleteThose who choose to suicide gank mining ships in high sec should have nearly as much to lose as those they gank.
There have been those in this thread that have equated Hulkageddon as Eve Jihad, so lets go with that. If you want to be a suicide ganker the death that is your reward should be permanent. End of that character, time to start and train a new one.
Suicide bombers don't get to blow up the people on the bus and then wait a few minutes and then do it again to those in a market. So those who chose to suicide gank should not either. I mean after all, all of you want to compare this game to real life, so lets make it that way.
Oh, for fuck's sakes...
DeleteI'm going to say it really slowly, OK?
VIDEO-GAME......=/=.......RL;
Video-game is made to be fun, first, even if RL principles/realities must be broken to achieve this.
If you find aspects of a video-game that's done for fun, to be not-fun, then maybe you should find another game?
Mother of All Gods, I really don't see what's so bloody hard about this!
[/facepalm]
Sure - perma death for suicide gankers would be fine as long as it was similarly perma death for the miner. Victims of a suicide bomber don't get to keep riding the bus. They are just as dead as the guy with the pipe bomb.
DeleteLets see, loss of a 3 day old catalyst pilot vs loss of a however many day old perfect hulk pilot.
The one slight issue I have in all of this (as it applies to high sec): Even if you guard your fragile mining vessels with combat ships, you are still at the mercy of the ganker. Why? Because if those support vessels preemptively fire a shot to protect your assets, your protection gets CONCORDOKENed and if the ganker(s) survives, kiss your Hulk goodbye.
ReplyDeleteIn RL, if you shoot someone approaching you with a firearm pointed at your head, the police will give you a pass under the heading "Justifiable Homicide". In EVE, it is IMPOSSIBLE to code "intent" into CONCORD'S programming.
A sandbox is a sandbox and high sec ganking is part of the game, but comparing RL and EVE in any way is folly. The advantage will always lie with the aggressor because of the limitations of AI.
Only just got to reading this post, it is even better with all the mongified tears/comments to read after. :) I like how you compared the terrorist acts to the pixelated ones, bravo, well played good sir. +1 etc.
ReplyDeleteMB.
If we keep the analogy with RL terror and suicide ganking then what is the problem with someone that only wants some "US citizens tears"? Next bomb just say gf and keep on going!
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry but your point is invalid (Ok, I'm not sorry). EVE mechanics is problem here. $10000 boat had to approach destroyer, this took her some time and made her vulnerable to attack. Imagine that you have transport ship protected by bunch of battleships. Suddenly enemy destroyer appears out of nowhere at point blank and sunks transport ship with one shot. Is that ok ? You had no chance of defending transport, because you had no chance of intercepting enemy before he fired. Gank warping at 0 to its target is untouchable until few second after coming out of warp. There are not warp bubbles in hisec or any way to stop them, and mounting escort fleet has no sense.
ReplyDelete