Well I've covered in other threads the reasons why balanced games are the ones where decisionmaking comes to the forefront of gameplay. The extent to which power can accumulate in EVE causes a huge reduction in the true importance of strategic decisionmaking -- even if it might feel like it was important to make that extra fleet manuever when you're in the heat of the moment.
You're confusing sports with conquest games. "That extra fleet maneuver... in the heat of the moment" is not where the critical decisions were made. The critical decisions were made well before the battlefield ever filled.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Ganking occurs because people are broken on a fundamental level. Also, people are lazy. It's much easier to hurt someone than to help them. We've all done it, the only difference is that some of us grow out of it.
Out of curiosity, although I probably should just hide my Scarlet Letter and steer clear of this thread completely, in which MMOs are people ganking (use whatever defintion of the word you want to use) those they could otherwise help?
WOW? DAOC? WAR? LOTRO? PotBS? It seems like out of the 350+ MMOs there's maybe four or five that your assessment could possibly refer to ... and even then that is a stretch.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Well I've covered in other threads the reasons why balanced games are the ones where decisionmaking comes to the forefront of gameplay. The extent to which power can accumulate in EVE causes a huge reduction in the true importance of strategic decisionmaking -- even if it might feel like it was important to make that extra fleet manuever when you're in the heat of the moment.
You're confusing sports with conquest games. "That extra fleet maneuver... in the heat of the moment" is not where the critical decisions were made. The critical decisions were made well before the battlefield ever filled.
?
I think you are confusing combat strategy on the fly with resource gathering and risk/reward calculations.
One is a real time response while the other is a time sink.
“It's unwise to pay too much, but it's worse to pay too little. When you pay too much, you lose a little money - that's all. When you pay too little, you sometimes lose everything, because the thing you bought was incapable of doing the thing it was bought to do. The common law of business balance prohibits paying a little and getting a lot - it can't be done. If you deal with the lowest bidder, it is well to add something for the risk you run, and if you do that you will have enough to pay for something better.”
Then you feel bad for about 80-90% of MMO gamers. The days of an understanding of "If I lose, I must learn from it and try harder next time" are gone. It has been replaced by "If I lose, then the other guy cheated, or the game is unbalanced, or it was a bug."
WOW raids fail all the time to defeat the bosses they're trying to kill.
Casual players fail all the time to defeat the casual content they attempt (the type of stuff the raiding players never die at.)
Players aren't chasing after games where they fail all the time, but they quickly tired of games where they win all the time.
So your statement just seems outright wrong.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Well I've covered in other threads the reasons why balanced games are the ones where decisionmaking comes to the forefront of gameplay. The extent to which power can accumulate in EVE causes a huge reduction in the true importance of strategic decisionmaking -- even if it might feel like it was important to make that extra fleet manuever when you're in the heat of the moment.
You're confusing sports with conquest games. "That extra fleet maneuver... in the heat of the moment" is not where the critical decisions were made. The critical decisions were made well before the battlefield ever filled.
Sports, Conquest Games, whatever...they're all just games. All I'm concerned with is the importance and frequence of strategic and tactical decision-making. The amount of strategic depth to a game.
Your statements only reinforce my critique of EVE's strategic decisions being infrequent and not strongly connected to the gameplay (more to the extreme time-delay than anything; they're important decisions, but weakened by time.)
I give EVE props for the management skill involved -- there's strategy and tactics to manipulating large groups of people -- but if you isolate the remaining tactics and strategy, there's not a whole lot else and the game is on the lower end of the spectrum.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Well I've covered in other threads the reasons why balanced games are the ones where decisionmaking comes to the forefront of gameplay. The extent to which power can accumulate in EVE causes a huge reduction in the true importance of strategic decisionmaking -- even if it might feel like it was important to make that extra fleet manuever when you're in the heat of the moment.
You're confusing sports with conquest games. "That extra fleet maneuver... in the heat of the moment" is not where the critical decisions were made. The critical decisions were made well before the battlefield ever filled.
?
I think you are confusing combat strategy on the fly with resource gathering and risk/reward calculations.
One is a real time response while the other is a time sink.
Tactics is the art of using resources to win battles. Strategy is the art of using battles to win wars. EVE is a game of strategy.
Well I've covered in other threads the reasons why balanced games are the ones where decisionmaking comes to the forefront of gameplay. The extent to which power can accumulate in EVE causes a huge reduction in the true importance of strategic decisionmaking -- even if it might feel like it was important to make that extra fleet manuever when you're in the heat of the moment.
You're confusing sports with conquest games. "That extra fleet maneuver... in the heat of the moment" is not where the critical decisions were made. The critical decisions were made well before the battlefield ever filled.
?
I think you are confusing combat strategy on the fly with resource gathering and risk/reward calculations.
One is a real time response while the other is a time sink.
Tactics is the art of using resources to win battles. Strategy is the art of using battles to win wars. EVE is a game of strategy.
Where did you get those definitions—Wikipedia, the source of all inaccurate knowledge?
If you are going to make a semantic argument you could at least get the definitions correct.
You have forced me to go grab my anchor of an unabridged dictionary.
Tactics—The science and art of disposing military and naval forces in action or before the enemy.
Strategy—The science of planning and directing large-scale military operations.
They are synonyms of each other.
“It's unwise to pay too much, but it's worse to pay too little. When you pay too much, you lose a little money - that's all. When you pay too little, you sometimes lose everything, because the thing you bought was incapable of doing the thing it was bought to do. The common law of business balance prohibits paying a little and getting a lot - it can't be done. If you deal with the lowest bidder, it is well to add something for the risk you run, and if you do that you will have enough to pay for something better.”
Well I've covered in other threads the reasons why balanced games are the ones where decisionmaking comes to the forefront of gameplay. The extent to which power can accumulate in EVE causes a huge reduction in the true importance of strategic decisionmaking -- even if it might feel like it was important to make that extra fleet manuever when you're in the heat of the moment.
You're confusing sports with conquest games. "That extra fleet maneuver... in the heat of the moment" is not where the critical decisions were made. The critical decisions were made well before the battlefield ever filled.
?
I think you are confusing combat strategy on the fly with resource gathering and risk/reward calculations.
One is a real time response while the other is a time sink.
Tactics is the art of using resources to win battles. Strategy is the art of using battles to win wars. EVE is a game of strategy.
Where did you get those definitions—Wikipedia, the source of all inaccurate knowledge?
If you are going to make a semantic argument you could at least get the definitions correct.
You have forced me to go grab my anchor of an unabridged dictionary.
Tactics—The science and art of disposing military and naval forces in action or before the enemy.
Strategy—The science of planning and directing large-scale military operations.
They are synonyms of each other.
LOL, really?
I'm glad you know how to use a dictionary. I was paraphrasing military stratagist Carl von Clausewitz. Since we're being pedantic the actual quote appears to be "Tactics is the art of using troops in battle; strategy is the art of using battles to win the war."
Happy now?
My point still stands. EVE is a game where you can win the majority of the battles but still lose the war, in other words it is primarily a game that hings on strategic decisions as opposed to tactical play.
Well I've covered in other threads the reasons why balanced games are the ones where decisionmaking comes to the forefront of gameplay. The extent to which power can accumulate in EVE causes a huge reduction in the true importance of strategic decisionmaking -- even if it might feel like it was important to make that extra fleet manuever when you're in the heat of the moment.
You're confusing sports with conquest games. "That extra fleet maneuver... in the heat of the moment" is not where the critical decisions were made. The critical decisions were made well before the battlefield ever filled.
?
I think you are confusing combat strategy on the fly with resource gathering and risk/reward calculations.
One is a real time response while the other is a time sink.
Tactics is the art of using resources to win battles. Strategy is the art of using battles to win wars. EVE is a game of strategy.
Where did you get those definitions—Wikipedia, the source of all inaccurate knowledge?
If you are going to make a semantic argument you could at least get the definitions correct.
You have forced me to go grab my anchor of an unabridged dictionary.
Tactics—The science and art of disposing military and naval forces in action or before the enemy.
Strategy—The science of planning and directing large-scale military operations.
They are synonyms of each other.
LOL, really?
I'm glad you know how to use a dictionary. I was paraphrasing military stratagist Carl von Clausewitz. Since we're being pedantic the actual quote appears to be "Tactics is the art of using troops in battle; strategy is the art of using battles to win the war."
Happy now?
My point still stands. EVE is a game where you can win the majority of the battles but still lose the war, in other words it is primarily a game that hings on strategic decisions as opposed to tactical play.
I think you said exactly what he put down except i a colloquial manner.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
I think you said exactly what he put down except i a colloquial manner.
He's saying tactics and strategy are "synonyms of each other" when they are not, and then he goes on to say on that bases that EVE lacks either "One is a real time response while the other is a time sink."
It is true that EVE is a slower game but it is very strategically deep.
Now-Now guys. No need to get heated here. Let's try and relax and stay on topic here. No reason to "Gank" each other here in this thread. *chuckles*
~Miles "Tails" Prower out! Catch me if you can!
Sorry. I think the original point was that what would be ganking in many other games is just sound strategy in EVE, much the way that real armies prefer to have an overwhelming advantage when they go to war.
Now-Now guys. No need to get heated here. Let's try and relax and stay on topic here. No reason to "Gank" each other here in this thread. *chuckles*
~Miles "Tails" Prower out! Catch me if you can!
Sorry. I think the original point was that what would be ganking in many other games is just sound strategy in EVE, much the way that real armies prefer to have an overwhelming advantage when they go to war.
Nailed it. While PVP can be fun in itself in EVE, it is not the point of the game to PVP. The point of the game is to win in PVP, at all cost. And yes, people will withdraw if they don't believe they can win. What makes the game challenging is you can't be sure when you are going to win or lose.
Its not always about numbers, I've seen 20 ships kill 75 with no problem, there are so many factors and the tides of war can turn in an instance.
But as said, in EVE what some consider ganking really is sound practice and really the only way to fight.
Now I'll agree, i don't sanction some actions like suicide ganking miners in empire, or basically fighting non combat ships that have no chance to fight back, unless of course in 0.0, where its a free for all struggle to control space, even if slash and burn tactics have to be used on your opponents civilians.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Well I've covered in other threads the reasons why balanced games are the ones where decisionmaking comes to the forefront of gameplay. The extent to which power can accumulate in EVE causes a huge reduction in the true importance of strategic decisionmaking -- even if it might feel like it was important to make that extra fleet manuever when you're in the heat of the moment.
You're confusing sports with conquest games. "That extra fleet maneuver... in the heat of the moment" is not where the critical decisions were made. The critical decisions were made well before the battlefield ever filled.
<Snip> Sports, Conquest Games, whatever...they're all just games.<Snip>
<Snip>The game is on the lower end of the spectrum.<Snip>
Sports and conquest games are totally different. Just because their both in the game genre doesn't mean you can judge them equally.
Conquest is all about pre-planning, gaining the biggest advantage and crushing your enemy under your might.
Sports is fair, equal players on both sides following specific rules. Both have their place.
To say Eve is the lesser game is absolute biased bullshit. You prefer Sports type pvp so conquest blows, wtf is that?
My only comment is that the guy who wanted to share this has "sexual predator" in his avatar, probably because he thinks it funny or cute... I wonder why he ganks =P
My only comment is that the guy who wanted to share this has "sexual predator" in his avatar, probably because he thinks it funny or cute... I wonder why he ganks =P
/thread
*rawr*. You know it *wink*.
~Miles "Tails" Prower out! Catch me if you can!
Come Join us at www.globalequestria.com - Meet other fans of My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic!
I gank in mmorpgs because I find it much more fun than playing a scripted encounter.
In my mind, ganking might as well be a scripted encounter - it's one you know you'll win. I mean, that's the very nature of a gank; a 'fight' you won't lose.
In all, I think the OP's article is a heavily misguided attempt to define PVP under one term. Ganking existed prior to games as slang and is probably why its definition gets so mixed up on such a regular basis. That said, in all my years as a gamer, it's easily defined, in my mind, as a kill in which the victim has utterly no chance to fight back. On the other end, you have griefing, which is an entirely different thing where a player does whatever possible to ruin another's fun. To elaborate further would require looking at it on a game-by-game basis. Finally, there's consensual PVP, where players enter the field against each other, knowing they're about to compete. Personally, I've only ever focused on the latter, and while I understand the purpose of ganking in certain contexts of some games, griefing in any sense is sociopathic behavior at best, and has no reasonable explanation, even within the context of revenge.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." George Bernard Shaw
What is a cynic? A man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. Oscar Wilde
Well I've covered in other threads the reasons why balanced games are the ones where decisionmaking comes to the forefront of gameplay. The extent to which power can accumulate in EVE causes a huge reduction in the true importance of strategic decisionmaking -- even if it might feel like it was important to make that extra fleet manuever when you're in the heat of the moment.
You're confusing sports with conquest games. "That extra fleet maneuver... in the heat of the moment" is not where the critical decisions were made. The critical decisions were made well before the battlefield ever filled.
<Snip> Sports, Conquest Games, whatever...they're all just games.<Snip>
<Snip>The game is on the lower end of the spectrum.<Snip>
Sports and conquest games are totally different. Just because their both in the game genre doesn't mean you can judge them equally.
Conquest is all about pre-planning, gaining the biggest advantage and crushing your enemy under your might.
Sports is fair, equal players on both sides following specific rules. Both have their place.
To say Eve is the lesser game is absolute biased bullshit. You prefer Sports type pvp so conquest blows, wtf is that?
My post wasn't about the subjective overall enjoyment of the game.
It was about the objective frequency and value of strategic and tactical decision-making. When viewed with that lens, that is when EVE is at a lower tier.
Even a simple comparison between an RTS like DOW2 and EVE: in DOW2 you're going to make a few strategic decisions and a ton of tactical decisions in rapid succession which will (within the course of 30-40 minutes) have a definite outcome based on those decisions. That's a strong gameplay feedback loop. Strategic and tactical decision-making matters a lot every single time you log on to play. Whereas with EVE you have the management side of things (which is a reasonable source of strategic/tactical decision-making, and probably has decent depth too,) and then some strategic/tactical decisions apart from that -- but nowhere near the quantity or direct value of these other games.
The correct argument for a EVE player is not to deny these facts, but to claim it doesn't matter to them (because it doesn't matter; EVE players aren't purely seeking strategic/tactical decision-making, they're after the other traits that make EVE what it is.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
OKay, so this morning in AoC, I was running some quests with my Lv 34 char, when this Lv 25 Ranger comes out of nowhere and starts attacking me from across the way. Well, at first I let it slide. My character is a Bear Shaman, a healer and melee class similar to a paladin style i guess, well, I just heal his little strikes off and continue on thinking he'll just bug off.
Well, i keep going on, and so does he. Standing across the river, shootin me with his arrows, and I start getting annoyed. So I charge over to him. He sees my 34 Bear Shaman running at him and he takes off and goes stealth, so I turn around and go back to my business, and in a few minutes the punk is right behind me shootin me again.
So I charge at him, get him with a stun spell, and kill his ass. Is that considered a gank because I was 9 levels higher that him?
Stuff like this happens all the time in AoC PvP servers. A lot of times groups of lowbies will go after higher level chars. There are so many gankers, that you really can't trust anybody. I get in a good PUG with some really cool people, we run quests for a few hours, even get more people and hit a raid. When we're done we sit and chat for a while about life, other games, music, etc. The next day I see one and it's like we never met. Jump on my ass like a hungry lion!
Don't get me wrong, this is why I play on a PvP server, I love the excitement and unpredictability...but players are ruthless to hit their PvP Lv 5. Sometimes it's gank or be ganked. Run into a lower level toon and think he's alone so you don't look twice at him, and the next thing you know his five buddies come out of stealth and ambush you...you're done...unless you made the move to kill the bait, let his pals come out of hiding while you do it, then pick'em off one at a time.
Sorry...this became a ramble...I'm not defending ganking for the sake of ganking, by any means. But when lowbs are steppin on your toes, you gotta do what you gotta do.
PLAYING: NOTHING!!! PLAYED:FFXI, LotRO, AoC, WAR, DDO, Megaten, Wurm, Rohan, Mabinogi, RoM
<snipped down> Sorry...this became a ramble...I'm not defending ganking for the sake of ganking, by any means. But when lowbs are steppin on your toes, you gotta do what you gotta do.
I think if anything, this entire thread shows that it's all about context. My definitions are rather broad to really think about it, but as my own standard, are applicable to most situations - even yours. I would call that a gank, but a very well deserve gank of a griefer. I mean, clearly the guy was trying to screw with you, and got what was coming. It's like I said (if you were even talking to me); I understand ganking within certain contexts. It's just natural to swat the little gnat that keeps buzzing around your head...
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." George Bernard Shaw
What is a cynic? A man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. Oscar Wilde
Comments
Why do kids burn ants with a magnifying glass? I don't know the reason, but I suspect it's the same answer as for ganking.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
You're confusing sports with conquest games. "That extra fleet maneuver... in the heat of the moment" is not where the critical decisions were made. The critical decisions were made well before the battlefield ever filled.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Out of curiosity, although I probably should just hide my Scarlet Letter and steer clear of this thread completely, in which MMOs are people ganking (use whatever defintion of the word you want to use) those they could otherwise help?
WOW? DAOC? WAR? LOTRO? PotBS? It seems like out of the 350+ MMOs there's maybe four or five that your assessment could possibly refer to ... and even then that is a stretch.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
You're confusing sports with conquest games. "That extra fleet maneuver... in the heat of the moment" is not where the critical decisions were made. The critical decisions were made well before the battlefield ever filled.
?
I think you are confusing combat strategy on the fly with resource gathering and risk/reward calculations.
One is a real time response while the other is a time sink.
--John Ruskin
WOW raids fail all the time to defeat the bosses they're trying to kill.
Casual players fail all the time to defeat the casual content they attempt (the type of stuff the raiding players never die at.)
Players aren't chasing after games where they fail all the time, but they quickly tired of games where they win all the time.
So your statement just seems outright wrong.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
You're confusing sports with conquest games. "That extra fleet maneuver... in the heat of the moment" is not where the critical decisions were made. The critical decisions were made well before the battlefield ever filled.
Sports, Conquest Games, whatever...they're all just games. All I'm concerned with is the importance and frequence of strategic and tactical decision-making. The amount of strategic depth to a game.
Your statements only reinforce my critique of EVE's strategic decisions being infrequent and not strongly connected to the gameplay (more to the extreme time-delay than anything; they're important decisions, but weakened by time.)
I give EVE props for the management skill involved -- there's strategy and tactics to manipulating large groups of people -- but if you isolate the remaining tactics and strategy, there's not a whole lot else and the game is on the lower end of the spectrum.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
You're confusing sports with conquest games. "That extra fleet maneuver... in the heat of the moment" is not where the critical decisions were made. The critical decisions were made well before the battlefield ever filled.
?
I think you are confusing combat strategy on the fly with resource gathering and risk/reward calculations.
One is a real time response while the other is a time sink.
Tactics is the art of using resources to win battles. Strategy is the art of using battles to win wars. EVE is a game of strategy.
You're confusing sports with conquest games. "That extra fleet maneuver... in the heat of the moment" is not where the critical decisions were made. The critical decisions were made well before the battlefield ever filled.
?
I think you are confusing combat strategy on the fly with resource gathering and risk/reward calculations.
One is a real time response while the other is a time sink.
Tactics is the art of using resources to win battles. Strategy is the art of using battles to win wars. EVE is a game of strategy.
Where did you get those definitions—Wikipedia, the source of all inaccurate knowledge?
If you are going to make a semantic argument you could at least get the definitions correct.
You have forced me to go grab my anchor of an unabridged dictionary.
Tactics—The science and art of disposing military and naval forces in action or before the enemy.
Strategy—The science of planning and directing large-scale military operations.
They are synonyms of each other.
--John Ruskin
You're confusing sports with conquest games. "That extra fleet maneuver... in the heat of the moment" is not where the critical decisions were made. The critical decisions were made well before the battlefield ever filled.
?
I think you are confusing combat strategy on the fly with resource gathering and risk/reward calculations.
One is a real time response while the other is a time sink.
Tactics is the art of using resources to win battles. Strategy is the art of using battles to win wars. EVE is a game of strategy.
Where did you get those definitions—Wikipedia, the source of all inaccurate knowledge?
If you are going to make a semantic argument you could at least get the definitions correct.
You have forced me to go grab my anchor of an unabridged dictionary.
Tactics—The science and art of disposing military and naval forces in action or before the enemy.
Strategy—The science of planning and directing large-scale military operations.
They are synonyms of each other.
LOL, really?
I'm glad you know how to use a dictionary. I was paraphrasing military stratagist Carl von Clausewitz. Since we're being pedantic the actual quote appears to be "Tactics is the art of using troops in battle; strategy is the art of using battles to win the war."
Happy now?
My point still stands. EVE is a game where you can win the majority of the battles but still lose the war, in other words it is primarily a game that hings on strategic decisions as opposed to tactical play.
You're confusing sports with conquest games. "That extra fleet maneuver... in the heat of the moment" is not where the critical decisions were made. The critical decisions were made well before the battlefield ever filled.
?
I think you are confusing combat strategy on the fly with resource gathering and risk/reward calculations.
One is a real time response while the other is a time sink.
Tactics is the art of using resources to win battles. Strategy is the art of using battles to win wars. EVE is a game of strategy.
Where did you get those definitions—Wikipedia, the source of all inaccurate knowledge?
If you are going to make a semantic argument you could at least get the definitions correct.
You have forced me to go grab my anchor of an unabridged dictionary.
Tactics—The science and art of disposing military and naval forces in action or before the enemy.
Strategy—The science of planning and directing large-scale military operations.
They are synonyms of each other.
LOL, really?
I'm glad you know how to use a dictionary. I was paraphrasing military stratagist Carl von Clausewitz. Since we're being pedantic the actual quote appears to be "Tactics is the art of using troops in battle; strategy is the art of using battles to win the war."
Happy now?
My point still stands. EVE is a game where you can win the majority of the battles but still lose the war, in other words it is primarily a game that hings on strategic decisions as opposed to tactical play.
I think you said exactly what he put down except i a colloquial manner.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Now-Now guys. No need to get heated here. Let's try and relax and stay on topic here. No reason to "Gank" each other here in this thread. *chuckles*
~Miles "Tails" Prower out! Catch me if you can!
Come Join us at www.globalequestria.com - Meet other fans of My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic!
He's saying tactics and strategy are "synonyms of each other" when they are not, and then he goes on to say on that bases that EVE lacks either "One is a real time response while the other is a time sink."
It is true that EVE is a slower game but it is very strategically deep.
Sorry. I think the original point was that what would be ganking in many other games is just sound strategy in EVE, much the way that real armies prefer to have an overwhelming advantage when they go to war.
Sorry. I think the original point was that what would be ganking in many other games is just sound strategy in EVE, much the way that real armies prefer to have an overwhelming advantage when they go to war.
Nailed it. While PVP can be fun in itself in EVE, it is not the point of the game to PVP. The point of the game is to win in PVP, at all cost. And yes, people will withdraw if they don't believe they can win. What makes the game challenging is you can't be sure when you are going to win or lose.
Its not always about numbers, I've seen 20 ships kill 75 with no problem, there are so many factors and the tides of war can turn in an instance.
But as said, in EVE what some consider ganking really is sound practice and really the only way to fight.
Now I'll agree, i don't sanction some actions like suicide ganking miners in empire, or basically fighting non combat ships that have no chance to fight back, unless of course in 0.0, where its a free for all struggle to control space, even if slash and burn tactics have to be used on your opponents civilians.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Good idea
You're confusing sports with conquest games. "That extra fleet maneuver... in the heat of the moment" is not where the critical decisions were made. The critical decisions were made well before the battlefield ever filled.
<Snip> Sports, Conquest Games, whatever...they're all just games.<Snip>
<Snip>The game is on the lower end of the spectrum.<Snip>
Sports and conquest games are totally different. Just because their both in the game genre doesn't mean you can judge them equally.
Conquest is all about pre-planning, gaining the biggest advantage and crushing your enemy under your might.
Sports is fair, equal players on both sides following specific rules. Both have their place.
To say Eve is the lesser game is absolute biased bullshit. You prefer Sports type pvp so conquest blows, wtf is that?
Playing: Rift, LotRO
Waiting on: GW2, BP
I gank in mmorpgs because I find it much more fun than playing a scripted encounter.
/thread
/thread
*rawr*. You know it *wink*.
~Miles "Tails" Prower out! Catch me if you can!
Come Join us at www.globalequestria.com - Meet other fans of My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic!
In my mind, ganking might as well be a scripted encounter - it's one you know you'll win. I mean, that's the very nature of a gank; a 'fight' you won't lose.
In all, I think the OP's article is a heavily misguided attempt to define PVP under one term. Ganking existed prior to games as slang and is probably why its definition gets so mixed up on such a regular basis. That said, in all my years as a gamer, it's easily defined, in my mind, as a kill in which the victim has utterly no chance to fight back. On the other end, you have griefing, which is an entirely different thing where a player does whatever possible to ruin another's fun. To elaborate further would require looking at it on a game-by-game basis. Finally, there's consensual PVP, where players enter the field against each other, knowing they're about to compete. Personally, I've only ever focused on the latter, and while I understand the purpose of ganking in certain contexts of some games, griefing in any sense is sociopathic behavior at best, and has no reasonable explanation, even within the context of revenge.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."
George Bernard Shaw
What is a cynic? A man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.
Oscar Wilde
You're confusing sports with conquest games. "That extra fleet maneuver... in the heat of the moment" is not where the critical decisions were made. The critical decisions were made well before the battlefield ever filled.
<Snip> Sports, Conquest Games, whatever...they're all just games.<Snip>
<Snip>The game is on the lower end of the spectrum.<Snip>
Sports and conquest games are totally different. Just because their both in the game genre doesn't mean you can judge them equally.
Conquest is all about pre-planning, gaining the biggest advantage and crushing your enemy under your might.
Sports is fair, equal players on both sides following specific rules. Both have their place.
To say Eve is the lesser game is absolute biased bullshit. You prefer Sports type pvp so conquest blows, wtf is that?
My post wasn't about the subjective overall enjoyment of the game.
It was about the objective frequency and value of strategic and tactical decision-making. When viewed with that lens, that is when EVE is at a lower tier.
Even a simple comparison between an RTS like DOW2 and EVE: in DOW2 you're going to make a few strategic decisions and a ton of tactical decisions in rapid succession which will (within the course of 30-40 minutes) have a definite outcome based on those decisions. That's a strong gameplay feedback loop. Strategic and tactical decision-making matters a lot every single time you log on to play. Whereas with EVE you have the management side of things (which is a reasonable source of strategic/tactical decision-making, and probably has decent depth too,) and then some strategic/tactical decisions apart from that -- but nowhere near the quantity or direct value of these other games.
The correct argument for a EVE player is not to deny these facts, but to claim it doesn't matter to them (because it doesn't matter; EVE players aren't purely seeking strategic/tactical decision-making, they're after the other traits that make EVE what it is.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
OKay, so this morning in AoC, I was running some quests with my Lv 34 char, when this Lv 25 Ranger comes out of nowhere and starts attacking me from across the way. Well, at first I let it slide. My character is a Bear Shaman, a healer and melee class similar to a paladin style i guess, well, I just heal his little strikes off and continue on thinking he'll just bug off.
Well, i keep going on, and so does he. Standing across the river, shootin me with his arrows, and I start getting annoyed. So I charge over to him. He sees my 34 Bear Shaman running at him and he takes off and goes stealth, so I turn around and go back to my business, and in a few minutes the punk is right behind me shootin me again.
So I charge at him, get him with a stun spell, and kill his ass. Is that considered a gank because I was 9 levels higher that him?
Stuff like this happens all the time in AoC PvP servers. A lot of times groups of lowbies will go after higher level chars. There are so many gankers, that you really can't trust anybody. I get in a good PUG with some really cool people, we run quests for a few hours, even get more people and hit a raid. When we're done we sit and chat for a while about life, other games, music, etc. The next day I see one and it's like we never met. Jump on my ass like a hungry lion!
Don't get me wrong, this is why I play on a PvP server, I love the excitement and unpredictability...but players are ruthless to hit their PvP Lv 5. Sometimes it's gank or be ganked. Run into a lower level toon and think he's alone so you don't look twice at him, and the next thing you know his five buddies come out of stealth and ambush you...you're done...unless you made the move to kill the bait, let his pals come out of hiding while you do it, then pick'em off one at a time.
Sorry...this became a ramble...I'm not defending ganking for the sake of ganking, by any means. But when lowbs are steppin on your toes, you gotta do what you gotta do.
PLAYING: NOTHING!!!
PLAYED:FFXI, LotRO, AoC, WAR, DDO, Megaten, Wurm, Rohan, Mabinogi, RoM
WAITING FOR: Dust 514
I think if anything, this entire thread shows that it's all about context. My definitions are rather broad to really think about it, but as my own standard, are applicable to most situations - even yours. I would call that a gank, but a very well deserve gank of a griefer. I mean, clearly the guy was trying to screw with you, and got what was coming. It's like I said (if you were even talking to me); I understand ganking within certain contexts. It's just natural to swat the little gnat that keeps buzzing around your head...
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."
George Bernard Shaw
What is a cynic? A man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.
Oscar Wilde
And there are plenty of "Gnats" in AoC...
PLAYING: NOTHING!!!
PLAYED:FFXI, LotRO, AoC, WAR, DDO, Megaten, Wurm, Rohan, Mabinogi, RoM
WAITING FOR: Dust 514
Ganking is the purpose of RvR games.
Make games you want to play.
http://www.youtube.com/user/RavikAztar