If the interest in getting kb points on ganking teams is as high as it is often suggested it is, then surely a citadel wont be much problem to an organised station breaking squad?
My disclaimer being that cits are new to me, so if destroying them isnt an option, I didnt know it.
Its an option, but:
A) The loss of the citadel is trivial. Thanks Asset Recovery. Citadels are cheap.
B) Gankers arent, in large part, dependent on a nearby player structure. They are mobile.
C) They can perhaps shave a few seconds off interms of deploying out of the player structure to join a gank, or re-join it after being CONCORDed, depending on how far NPC stations are in that system.
D) Gankers can also cycle through alts, join other corps, or join NPC corp, individually. Negating wardec.
E) They can cycle ownership of the player structure through new corps or joining an alliance, thus negating the wardecc investment largely, as well as potentially increasing the cost of subsequent wardecs.
F) Cycling player station corp ownership, also induces another 24hr “warning period” till the next wardec on the new owner is actualized.
G) Even if they dont cycle ownership, it still takes a week at least to destroy the player structure, due to vulnerability windows.
H) AG would have to deploy a separate contingent of differently skilled/shipped toons to effectively destroy those citadels, and take time away from actual AG action whilst doing so.
The odds are pretty heavily stacked against AG.
Will the upcoming changes to extend vulnerability windows not change that?
Asking these as much for my own benefit as for the topic. With station games being brought up I wondered if it was an avenue worth exploring and how vulnerable my cits really are.
Not very, Im glad to hear.
Why cant you
a) Find their staging
b) Kill their weakest tanked most expensive ships repeatedly with the cheapest ships that can achieve your purpose- destruction of target before concord
- if you kill their DPS ships, they will be fitted for DPS as time and DPS is their tank
- If you go for their bumping machs say, they will be fitted for bump not tanlk
c) Have spais in CODE so you can have these assets where they are going to be, not where they are, and can isolate targets
d) Do this enough to affect the moral of CODE agents, so they feel like they are losing regardless of Killboard stats- make it FRUSTRATING for them to PLAY their game- this is war in eve
e) Perhaps have a ‘moral’ RP framework that enables PVP players who are not anti-SG in principle, to get behind you and join in
f)Make it FUN for your pilots
g)Have a chance at least
h) This will involve AG going criminal and using tags etc as enemies do, and doing SG themselves
h)a This will stop some ganks, but not specific ganks
h)b If you want to protect specific haulers then consider this:
What would you charge someone to protect their freighter, if you went this route
I assume you would have to charge more as cargo value grew and thus likelihood of them being a target, and more if they were untanked and had a killboard history of such etc.
At this point the freighter pilot has to _give up some of their profits_to buy your protection-
But it is this unwillingness to sacrifice profits to lesson risk that leads to 6bil loads and poorly tanked ships, especialy using AP as time is the most valuable resource in eve
What am I missing here?
And one more thing; if the situation is a bunch of catties showing up on the freighter;
How many would be there on average?
Why cant they be shot at?
Im not aware of those. Im behind on upcoming changes.
Whilst I look into that, could you post how you see those changes having impact in this context?
See my post above, regarding how tit-for-tat, and cost exchanging with gankers is not viable.
My own personal priority, is finding a way to keep the gank targets alive along enough for CONCORD to wreck the entire gank fleet.
My hypothesis is this should be possible at significantly less cost to AG, than to the gankers.
Currently trying to find out what that is.
TLDR:
AG doesnt need to destroy all gank ships.
CONCORD will do that, in every case.
AG just needs to keep the gank target alive for long enough for CONCORD to do so.
Well without knowing how much dps you need to leverage on a citvto destroy it, its difficult to know how long it would take.
A POS could be destroyed or at least rendered unusable within a specific amount of time.
The larger the vulnerabiloty window, the more can be levered.
Worth pointing out I didnt think the opposing force would use them, just mentioning it because a previous poster brought them up.
#K-space Probs. Seriously though. This. If you lose assets when your ship goes down, why the heck is there no penalty when your citadel goes down? Farcical.
Structures 2.0 can. not. come. fast enough.
As I said above, there is value to gankers from a local staging point on their pipelines:
A) To deploy out of when the batcall goes out.
B) To re-deploy from once their onsight gank ship is wrecked by CONCORD., and return to putting dps on the target on an alt.
Unfortunately, the assets they store there are not destroyable.
Honestly, its not worth destroying cits. Its too much effort that could be expended elsewhere, for too little reward, except as at the trivial cost of placing a new cit.
Fair points but we would need to know;
The likelyhood of that point being a cit in or very near the gank point (which admittedly isnt hard to forsee)
But then why not just use an NPC station?
Tbh your lastcedit pretty much closed the door on this line of thought as using a cit is pointless when they could just do that (use an npc station)
They can, but as I have said twice now, a cit can be deployed closer to the pipe, thus shaving time off for re/deployment to the gank.
Cits are not a gankers Achilles Heel, just a small convenience.
Even if they have 1k alts/catalysts stored there, they are simply moved to another owned cit, or nearby NPC, when the cit is destroyed.
Time/cost/effort taken by AG to destroy them, is time away from other AG action, and requiees a different ship/skill set than what other AG action does,
Its just not worth it.
I dunno I just would have thought burning down a billiob isk house might go some way to encouraging others to join the antiga train.
So back to the matter;
What is preventing ag from simply destroying ships that turn up to stop the run?
If we stick to your direction of thought, that CONCORD are the one who do the dps anyway, then it leaves us with…
Thinking in chances, electronic warfare is the best bet. have a high agility frigate curve around the freighter, so it doesn’t get ganked. Have it fitted with an ecm burst. It’s a throwaway. Also have other ships with tracking disruptors, sensors dampeners, ecm. Have a competent FC.
I’m sorry, but there’s no chance they ever manage this. The only way of making AntiGanking is thing, with the current highsec population, is by doing it ourselves. Any other case will just end in them whining and bitching about how it’s not possible, ignoring that it’s most likely their own fault.
BUT!
Even IF they manage to succeed, and evenIF they can prevent freighter ganks, people seem to be ignoring a huge part! The “narrative” is so fixated on freighters, that people are apparently forgetting that just a few years back people ganked EVERYTHING and ganking EVERYTHING is where it would go back to. Ganking isn’t just about freighters, and it’s in a bad state anyway. The isk metric does not indicate healthy ganking.
if we saw small groups rise up again, then AG would be just as lost as they have always been. People seem to have forgotten that they are NOT antiGANKERS. This whole thing only exists in the first place, because it is born out of hate. It’s antiCODE.
In a years time this whole situation will have changed. If you want to fight the imaginary threat of gankers, then the currently smartest thing to do is growing mining corps with teeth.
I’m up for it.
Who joins me? 
Your thoughts entrigue me and Id like to subscribe to your news letter.
AG, currently, has no assets, as there is no coherent organisation.
Gankers have trillions, and earn billions, per successful gank.
I understand what you are hoping might be an option, but even if AG spent all day, everday, just wrecking ganker cit bases of operation, it would barely scratch gankers existing assets, their capacity to field ganks, and would mean AG arent in the field preventing/interfering in ganks, which means gankers would still be earning more than their loss of those cits.
Gankers operated out of NPC stations already, even before cits where introduced.
The advantage to them is marginal, but so is the cost.
AG cant leverage cit destruction against that, no way, no how.
I get what you are driving at, but its not fiscally rational, nor an effective means for AG to hurt gankers.
Thank you for subscribing to CATFACTS!
The domestic cat is a small, typically furry, carnivorous mammal. They are often called house cats when kept as indoor pets or simply cats when there is no need to distinguish them from other felids and felines.
To unsubscribe, simply reply with “HuiiG&§§ÖZé”.
Fair dos.
Ill not muddy your thread with this line but I think Yellow is on the same wavelength about werebear miners.
I dont know what this means.
Thats ok its more or less offtopic so forget I mentioned it.