No, it’s all about the bumping. Stop trying to shift the goalpost. The destruction is only possible because someone pointed you indefinitely until the 10 alts to hit the target were finally ready, logged in and setup for their bot-aspirant behavior attack.
Without bumping, gankers would actually have to be ready to gank and can’t travel 5 or 6 jumps to hit a bump-tackled target.
No one reasonable expects to survive a gank attempt without help, that’s not how EVE works. But for some reason, gankers expect to be able to tackle a target indefinitely without concord intervention until they are ready to strike. This is what this entire boring debate is all about.
Funnily enough, there used to be times when gankers didn’t have to bump and just ganked a target they had spotted. Back then, gankers used actual people to gank and not 100 alts.
Yes, of course it is ok. Why wouldn’t it? The one thing has nothing to do with the other.
When I lose my ship, someone was there in time to intercept me and had enough force to destroy my ship.
When I was bumped, I was kept in place so that other people could get ready to destroy a target that had been prepared and held in place for them to get ready after they spotted me.
That’s a big difference.
If I have 10 alts, why do I need to get them ready? Aren’t they ready already? At most wouldn’t they be waiting out a 15 minute timer plus travel time?
I have tried on the old forums to have a discussion about the bumping mechanic that would allow for more direct options for those being bumped. In particular @Black_Pedro had some interesting ideas about using, IIRC, scramblers (not disruptors) and limited engagement timers so there could be actual defense fleets vs. actual gank fleets and change things up. The response was completely and totally lackluster. Pretty much nobody wanted to have the discussion.
The discussion exemplifies a point made by Malcanis in a thread whining about war decs. That neither side wants to adapt. Both sides want the other side to adapt and both want to be able to hide behind the skirts of CONCORD whenever possible. Proposals about bumping are basically ‘do nothing’ or ‘remove it (for all intents)’ an extremely small group of players even consider something in the middle.
Yes, but here is my conjecture: many of those people had other forms of content in HS that have largely now gone away due to mechanics changes. This is why I think that tweaking mechanics is something should be viewed with greater skepticism and suspicion that it is. We often do not see the unintended consequences and even when they were foreseen and warnings were made they were ignored.
For example, there were lots of complaints about war decs. That they were bad and driving people away, etc. etc. One argument was that they should be made more expensive. CCP complied. Complaints were raised about he watchlist (although not for war dec reasons) so it was removed, and focused war decs largely faded away. The result was we end up with more trade hub war deccers who just dec everything in sight. Ironically, we might actually have more war decs on a relative basis (e.g. war decs per active in game corp or per number of players logging in). So we still have the whining when it comes to war decs.
And then we see a rise in “professional ganking”. Groups dedicated to it to turn a profit. And even people running small alt armies as well. Could there be a link!?
I have argued that when we consider the game from a perspective that includes both CCP and the players as actors the game is a “co-evolutionary” process. That is the actions of the Devs and the players determines what we see in the game. The Devs react to the players behavior and the players to Dev behaviors (i.e. changes). The Devs can also make changes independent of what the players are doing, but those changes will in turn affect how the players behave as well. If this view is correct, then it is probably not a good idea to look at changes in isolation from other parts of the game. Especially given that such process can give rise to “novelty” that is behavior we had not seen before.
No, they are not ready if they are not in the system with me when I land in the system. IF you need to bump me to give your alts time to arrive in the system I am in, your alts are not ready. And under this scenario I think it’s presumptuous to expect to get me ganked because you could hold me tackled until you were ready.
But nothing really changed with regards to ganking. The only thing that got worse is you do not receive insurance any longer. Everything else from freighter HP to people moving expensive things to scan-scouting targets is still the same as back then or has gotten worse for freighters.
Which risk? I sometimes get hassled with bump attempts for an empty freighter, mere 500M of ore in a non-expanded freighter or because I web my freighter. Once I even got bothered with a bump attempt because I warped to an insta undock station in Jita and prevented the scan attempts on the 4-4 undock.
These are obviously personal anecdotes and have limited general validity.
Furthermore, I do not ignore the risk. IF you transport 5 or 10B in an unscouted, un webbed freighter and didn’t make sure to prevent the scans, you deserve to die. But if you heed the things I just mentioned and then still get bump-tackled to give the gankers time to prepare, I find this very presumptuous.
Yes, I know. That is what I wrote. That ganking became more common and changed as people deprived of their initial content moved to another aspect of the game environment. Well and people also noticed that ganking freighters was lucrative.
Both of those things would change ganking. If you can no longer do targeted war decs and there are big fat whales running around with billions of ISK worth of cargo…yeah, maybe switch to ganking. And as people do it they try new and different tactics they get better at it and look for new ways to increase the profitability by lowering the costs. Shocking…that is what most people do IRL.
The EHP did, but not really significantly. Not significantly enough at least that you would need more chars to gank a freighter. Back when I did some ganking 5 years ago, we needed 20 people to gank the then unfittable freighters. Today you can do it with 10 people.
Yeah, but what is the real risk there? Based on dead freighters it is pretty small. Log off and wait 15 minutes that guy will be off bumping somebody else.
If you are going to get seriously bumped and then ganked you most likely have an overloaded freighter.
Should that guy with an overloaded freighter get a free pass just so you too can avoid being bumped?
I would add you deserve to get bumped too if that facilitates imposing the consequences of risk on that player.
Yeah…well, welcome to EVE Online where players can get away with stuff like that. Do what I do, log off. Especially if your empty freighter has bulkheads.
Yes, because CCP often does that. First they nerf then they buff. They made is so to get back to the original EHP you had to fit bulkeads. They made freighter fitting into trade offs. And as a result many players opt of cargo hold size and stuff way, way too much stuff in there…and their freighters die in a ball of fire while providing loot to the gankers to keep them going.
It is actually kind of funny, IMO. It highlights how people really don’t understand risk in game and have to be taught about it the hard way…after being bumped then ganked.
Yes, which is to be expected. If I were a professional ganker I’d always be looking for a way to reduce my gank costs and thereby increase my gank profits wherever feasible. That is what just about everyone who runs a business does…why should a professional gank squad be any different?
Back when I did some ganking 5 years ago, we needed 20 people to gank the then unfittable freighters. Today you can do it with 10 people.