i guess, what i’m trying to say is that the idea of a central organization isn’t viable and that it’s more likely that people will simply learn how to deal with it themselves, instead of hoping for a false saviour who promises them protection from ganking… 
And that, despite being an obvious pun, has a huge likelihood in a reality with one AG organization run by power lusting white knights.
AG doesnt particularly need a centralized leadership/organisation, anymore than CODE or other suicide gank orgs do.
The AG movement, can be adopted by anyone either on their own, or with others.
Some form of central org would however help with disseminating information, accruing donations/funding AG actions, and as the rebar around which AG concretes itself as a loose organisation of likeminded individuals.
Just as CODE proselytizes for a license, AG can proselytize for safer flying, and perhaps even provide escort services for isk (as compared to CODE demanding 10mil for a spurious license).
As I said in my previous post, you can either call this a “dead horse” and thus basically say that only the gank target/gankers/CONCORD decide the fate of that engagement, or explore/endorse the possibility of an emergent system/order of AG (which you yourself have predicted as inevtivable, and good, in a previous post).
I dont want to believe, that EVE doesnt have somewhere within it an opportunity for AG to congeal as a 3rd party player participant in suicide ganks.
Highsec PvE oriented players are not going to join an ag crusade if it means they actually have to do anything, which will scupper any options relying on pure numbers, at any rate.
There are PvP players everywhere, of course, and they must be persuaded that ag is both fun and rewarding, otherwise why do it? We’re all paying for our pleasure in one way or another.
You do need a credible figure around whom to focus this initiative, and probably something similar to a business model to present to would-be white-knights.
I’m sorry to sound so negative, but it’s just that, after 4 years of hearing what’s possible, I grow tired of seeing each and every well-intentioned ag thrust parried by rank apathy.
So EVE should resign itself to the fact that HS suicide ganking is only a result of targets tank vs gank vs CONCORD, with no reasonable avenue for a 3rd party to intervene?
I hope that is not true, specifically because it means its basically just admitting that only CONCORD has the force required to intervene in a gank.
Gankers can calculate their optimal, no matter how tanked the target is.
They either bring more ships, or more expensive ships.
In other words, there is no way for ANY single target in HS to EVER overcome the gankers means to destroy them.
The missing element, is 3rd party player intervention.
Enter AG.
Do you understand what I mean?
I refuse to believe there isnt opportunity/space for a 3rd player party to intervene.
I refuse to believe that NPCs matter more than players in the resolution of these ganks.
I do now understand what you’re driving at Salvos and, sincerely, I wish you and those like you every success in broadening opportunities for PvP in Highsec. That’s genuine; no cant.
If you decide that what you would like to see in the game isn’t presently possible, then I hope you won’t give up on the attempt to see it come to fruition.
Help me find a way.
There must be a way.
Had a temporary… uh… forum malfunction? There.
Dd I miss anything good?
Its slow going, but I think we are finally ironing out more of the misunderstandings and approaching the consensus that AG has a place in EVE, that its emergence is frought with peril/obstacles, and that we can start talking about how to make it happen regardless of those.
Yeah I can see that.
There is one thing that would allow exactly what you want… but I dont know how you would feel about it.
Remove CONCORD.
Not gonna happen.
Lets focus on what could be/is currently possible without expecting CCP to change the game.
As I said above, I want to believe it should be possible, as is.
If we here come to the conclusion its not, after exhausting all options, then perhaps change of some sort may be necessary.
But we are nowhere near that yet.
Sad is that the AGs gain nothing by keeping the target alive. There is no incentive for that gameplay… which I find sad. I miss the old dock/undock games.
The vast majority of the freighter fleets that I was in (back in the loyalanon days) has so much overkill, that we (gankers) were more worried about getting on the kill mail at all.
And really, after all this time ganking, I don’t perceive CONCORD as a weakness, just another game mechanic to deal with. Faction Police are much more annoying / problematic.
Ok fair enough.
So without getting into detail, can you illustrate what you think the ideal you are wanting might look like?
Then we can think about what can be done to achieve it.
AG could:
-Charge for hire of an escort, as inverse of CODE charging for a spurious license.
-Send an invoice of costs + profits to incidental saved gank targets.
-Operate as a donation org for the apparently substantial amount of ganked “leaving” victims to drop their “stuff”, for one last spit in the eye of their gankers.
-Try to recover loot dropped in a gank, before the gankers do.
I may come up with other potential models to make this lucrative, or at least cover costs.
LOL have you tried that?
LOL. Maybe I should start sending targets an invoice for the failed ganks.
Not exactly a spit in the eye. I don’t care what people that quit the game do with their stuff.
And I would love to see stats on ganked victims leaving the game that qualifies as “substantial” - at least as significant and validated rival to CCPs own stats…
until the wreck hp buff I used to shoot the wreck of my gank victim. The money for my ships comes from trading. I don’t need the loot.
Honestly Ive seen a lot of “theories”, also your overly long command destroyer theory posts, even though command destroyers are not so great in high sec. I think it would be a great help for the Antigankers out there, if you could put your theories to the test and provide practical examples of how best to proceed.
Up until now I haven’t really seen anything that would drive AG to be more successful than they already are.
My ideal, and hypothesis, focuses on keeping the target alive long enough for CONCORD to wreck them, for as cheap as possible and involving as few escort ships as possible.
AG shouldnt need to fight gankers tit-for-tat, ship to ship, cost for cost.
Its not AGs job to kill all criminal gankers.
That is CONCORDs job, and though they are very good at it, they take time to arrive.
This is the primary reversal of how people think of AG, that I most want to explore and find a means to.
Secondary, but commensurate, is how AG can provide support to bumped targets, before the actual gank fleet arrives, at as little cost/ships as possible.
Third, as you pointed out, AG should run education campaigns so there are less vulnerable targets based off ignorance, rather than laziness/greed.
Fourth, all AG should work towards co-operation with each other, to hopefully congeal as some sort of loose but interconnected community.
LOL
With the current game mechanics that is not really going to happen. They’d be better troll fitting DSTs and letting us blow ourselves up on them!
Blah blah.
… is exactly what you are engaging in.
No offense, but seeing ag’s service record when it comes to saving freighters, I wouldn’t even ask them to save my ship if it was about to get ganked
No offense taken.
The same could be said of CODEs track record for not destroying a licensed capsuleer.
That nobody trusts CODE, doesnt mean AG couldnt be trustworthy and effective.