Except were talking about a game and how people play it, not marginalized/persecuted groups.
Not sure if that pathetic deflection works on others, but it won't work on me.
WHY!?
- Thread starter Commander Holroyd
- Start date
Except were talking about a game and how people play it, not marginalized/persecuted groups.
Not sure if that pathetic deflection works on others, but it won't work on me.
What's funny is when I pull someone, open the chatbox and give them my usual script about holding still for a scan or whatever, and they just wordlessly spool their drives and low-wake - only for me to pull them again and blow them to hell. Then they start salting in system chat about being killed "for no reason".
Like bruh. Now you find the chatbox?
Not to mention the irony in that statement given what Gankers spam syschat with.
Its why when people go on about wanting 'context' or reasons, its rubbish really. The fact is they don't like 'losing', even when the loss is easily got back or mitigated.
Calling people cowards for how you, probably falsely, presume they play a game, or their motives for doing so, sounds like persecution to me.
Even if 'gankers' were somehow deserving of the negative connotations you've attributed to them, the idea that someone must be something to tolerate, accept, or defend, that something, is ridiculous.
That was an attack on an asinine position, not a deflection.
Last edited:
let's face it the thread got there so fast you really need the eurobeat versionAannnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnd
O7
Wonder if there's a Nightcore version....Falsely presume how they play the game? You think I came up with the term "Ganker" all by myself two posts ago? LOL, you're "morbad" at arguments.
When someone cheats, and you call them a cheater, are you persecuting them?
As for your last statement: If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, and acts like a duck... you apparently think it's ridiculous to call it a duck! LOL
Gankers are cowards, been proven in more than just this game. Not all players who kill other players are gankers, it's why we just call them PvP'ers, or even roleplayers in some instances.
Unfortunately there are those that go out their way to ruin it for others. I suggest either PG, Solo or Private to avoid. Open is literally that, Open.
I enjoy the challenge (plus the rush) and while not fully destroying the "ganker", I sure do make them work for it.
A few times, however, few as in maybe 4, I have won out of most likely hundreds of "ganks".
To me, its a part of the excitement and risk you take (one time, really really bloodied the nose of a infamous (or famous) ganker).
As someone mentioned earlier, get a group of people together to fight off would be gankers. They (gankers) prefer lone targets and easy kills versus being confronted by a larger group where the odds are not in their favor (of course there are exceptions to every rule). This will most definitely add to the game play and make it all that more enjoyable.
Gary
I enjoy the challenge (plus the rush) and while not fully destroying the "ganker", I sure do make them work for it.
A few times, however, few as in maybe 4, I have won out of most likely hundreds of "ganks".
To me, its a part of the excitement and risk you take (one time, really really bloodied the nose of a infamous (or famous) ganker).
As someone mentioned earlier, get a group of people together to fight off would be gankers. They (gankers) prefer lone targets and easy kills versus being confronted by a larger group where the odds are not in their favor (of course there are exceptions to every rule). This will most definitely add to the game play and make it all that more enjoyable.
Gary
I think you're applying a label to people whom you have no experience with, based on their stated indifference or tolerance to those you view negatively.
When someone says they don't think cheating is a problem, or that they don't care about cheaters, or even that they like that cheaters exist, one who makes the leap to conclude that those making such statements must be cheaters themselves, and thus are worthy of removal from the game, that would be persecution.
Even in the case of identifiable cheaters, forms of disparagement, harassment, or other penalties beyond removing them from the game could also easily cross into unwarranted persecution.
No, I'm saying it doesn't look, walk, sound, or act like a duck at all. You somehow mistook someone ordering duck at a restaurant, feeding ducks at the pond, or just not shooting at ducks, for being closet ducks.
After looking at the names of the posters in this thread, most of whom I am at least vaguely familiar with (and the rest I did a few minutes of due diligence on), I do not think there is a single ganker present. They're are a couple of part time pirates and at least one non-PvP-adverse PowerPlay participant, but not a single player I think anyone could rationally mistake for anyone that would fit any vaguely reasonable definition of 'ganker'.
If there are no gankers present, who the hell could you possibly have been referring to in the post of yours that I originally took umbrage with?
I'm not sure what proof you could possibly have of a player's cowardice, nor how you'd be able to be able to conclusively demonstrate a causal relationship, or even a statistically significant overlap, with playing a 'ganker' character in a video game.
I'm even more mystified as to what possible relevance the courage, or lack thereof, of someone could be in the context of playing a video game with them.
Last edited:
Your analogies just don't work, they're always one of two layers off actual comparison.
As far as cowardice, you seem to be confusing cowardice game-play with IRL cowardice. To the best of my knowledge, out discussion has always been about game-play, not personal attributes outside the game. You can discuss a persons actions in regard to a game without without assuming those actions have anything to do with the person outside the game.
As far as cowardice, you seem to be confusing cowardice game-play with IRL cowardice. To the best of my knowledge, out discussion has always been about game-play, not personal attributes outside the game. You can discuss a persons actions in regard to a game without without assuming those actions have anything to do with the person outside the game.
There is one, I watched them send 5 Cmdrs to the rebuy screen. I assume I didn't show up on their scanner thus didn't get added to the tally myself.
I was under the opposite assumption. The most common attacks I see against 'ganking' revolve around the idea that one player is attempting to ruin the experience of other players; i.e.not simply attempting to harm in-game characters or achieve in-game aims, but trying to use in-game violence as a vehicle for out-of-game harassment. Your comment about 'people who defend' gankers also threw me...we aren't roleplaying our in-game characters in this thread, so ganking in any possible in-game context doesn't need defending any more than trading canisters of slaves does...it would just be part of the game. Indeed, most active CMDRs 'gank' huge numbers of NPCs, often for reasons as trivial as collecting debris or seeing how their new guns work.
Personally, I do try to distinguish my actions from the actions of the character I portray when discussing such things, but this actually appears to be quite a foreign concept to large segments of this community.
How were you sure they were a ganker? What was the context of this scenario? Is sending CMDRs to the rebuy screen the only prerequisite for being labeled a ganker?
I've had my CMDR send several other CMDRs, and/or individual CMDRs multiple times, to the rebuy screen within the course of multiple, individual, discrete encounters. This occurs most often in self-defense, and second most often as part of clearing opposing forces in CZs (even before Engineering, it took a lot of casual/novice combatants with stupid loadouts to threaten someone with meaningful PvP experience who was kitted to fight their peers).
Much more rarely, I've had my CMDR attack CMDRs in other scenarios, usually in response to some prior (if I recognize a name as CMDR that has attacked mine in the past, my CMDR will usually retaliate, even if it's been months, or years, if a good opportunity presents itself) or current provocation, often without telegraphing his attack before it occurs (I try not to play a total fool). However, unless it was a beta test, organized match, or some other explicitly or implicitly out-of-character scenario, there has not been one single time have I done so without a contextual in-character reason and I have never gone out of my way to upset another player in-game without them instigating clearly OOC harasment first. That said I'm also not going to go out of my way to coddle, or appease, someone who mistakes my CMDR blowing up their CMDR for interfering in my CMDR's business for some personal attack on them as a person, either. They can keep leaving death threats on my YouTube channel, if it makes them feel better.
Last edited:
And it's funny 'cause back in the day it was mostly PvE types who argued against the idea of shield boosters not stacking, because "making ships more vulnerable to gankers" and then you look at the average encounter between a ganker and their quarry and... oh look which one of the two is the one stacking shield boosters.
Defensive hitpoint inflation is absolutely one of the biggest factors that enables ganking too, not least because things like the mirrorball hulls that are specifically tuned to resist station lasers and enable ganking at farseer directly above the base are only possible because of engineering.
The five other cmdrs were at a particular location performing a known task. This requires a specialized ship which precludes defensive capabilities. I was doing a separate activity at the same location. The individual concerned arrived and began shooting the other cmdrs without any communication (contrary to what was claimed earlier) despite several requests by the other cmdrs asking "why [the individual] was shooting them?" Only after they'd been destroyed did the individual communicate; "Five more souls for [something]' before leaving.
ah yes, those known tasks that you perform at particular locations, how gloriously specific
hauling powerplay merits meets that description dude, and nobody in their right mind would claim that an opposing powerplay cmdr shooting down merit-haulers is invalid
hauling powerplay merits meets that description dude, and nobody in their right mind would claim that an opposing powerplay cmdr shooting down merit-haulers is invalid
You'd be surprised.
Not powerplay or BGS, neither requires you to not be geared for a PvP encounter without the possibility of escape.
You're being awfully cagey about what it was they were doing and it honestly just makes it sound way more suspicious than it most likely is.