# CONCORD insurance for High Sec ganks **URL:** \ **Category:** Player Features & Ideas\ **Created:** [September 27, 2017, 1:22am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/concord-insurance-for-high-sec-ganks/27715 "2017-09-27T01:22:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Black\_Pedro](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/black_pedro/32/257285_2.png) [@Black\_Pedro](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Black_Pedro)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2017, 3:26pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/concord-insurance-for-high-sec-ganks/27715/21 "2017-09-27T15:26:47Z")
> [@March\_rabbit](#): > > So yeah, i don’t see “viability” as requirement. None of those activities have a mandatory, net-negative cost to participate. No one is going to form a fleet to burn up 100M-1B ISK in gank ships for 20s of entertainment shooting a freighter in highsec for no profit. There are much more entertaining things to do with that kind of ISK. Make suicide ganking non-viable, the organized ganking of freighters and the like will completely stop. Like I mean never again. They don’t happen because they are especially fun or interesting content or for the pretty explosions. They happen because people make ISK from it and like to indulge their piratical nature in taking ISK from other players. Sure, people might still pop pods or miners for lols as a solo activity, but any risk to serious haulers or mission runners would go completely away. Well, I guess it really doesn’t matter what you think as CCP clearly wants suicide ganking to serve as risk in highsec given it is the only player-driven risk left there now and there has to be some incentive to do so. They spent much effort designing Crimewatch to give space for criminals and pirates to operate there when it would be much simpler just to turn off non-consensual player aggression completely. I am sure that won’t change this far into the life of the game what with the dwindling developer resources available and pirates will be taking the stuff of the greedy, complacent and stupid in highsec until the server gets shutdown. ---
**Author:** ![March\_rabbit](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/march_rabbit/32/453160_2.png) [@March\_rabbit](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/March_rabbit)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2017, 4:10pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/concord-insurance-for-high-sec-ganks/27715/22 "2017-09-27T16:10:43Z")
> [@Black\_Pedro](#): > > None of those activities have a mandatory, net-negative cost to participate. Really? I guess you have missed suiciding of pods… And there is lots of similar examples when people spend ISK and effort to kill someones stuff without expectation of material reward. > [@Black\_Pedro](#): > > No one is going to form a fleet to burn up 100M-1B ISK in gank ships for 20s of entertainment shooting a freighter in highsec for no profit. There are much more entertaining things to do with that kind of ISK. Just another example: recently my corp set up citadel. And some guys tried to prevent our citadel from getting up. They spend effort and time to visit us. As result we got some action, kills and fun. They haven’t expected any material reward, do they? I might be wrong but citadel cannot have anything in it before it finishes installing. But they did it. Having all this in mind I can guess you see high-sec ganking like time consuming, no fun and boring activity. Like low-paid RL jobs. In this case i can agree: to make people do this it should provide some rewards. Can we get someones from CODE. to confirm this? Is it really as boring and “no fun” as Pedro tries to dress? Do you really only do it because you get ISK as result? ---
**Author:** ![Keno\_Skir](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/keno_skir/32/460582_2.png) [@Keno\_Skir](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Keno_Skir)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2017, 4:16pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/concord-insurance-for-high-sec-ganks/27715/23 "2017-09-27T16:16:24Z")
> [@March\_rabbit](#): > > So yeah, i don’t see “viability” as requirement. None the less, it is a requirement. > [@March\_rabbit](#): > > When you are one of many in big fight you almost never get any loot. You lucky when you do not end in cloning facility. > > But yeah, people do it! Potential for killmails, shoal defence and SRP make it viable. > [@March\_rabbit](#): > > When you catch and kill venture harvesting gas in WH the loot you can get does not worth looting. > > Will you let it mine peacefully? No, it might be officer fit or the bait for an interesting and fun pwning. Also potential green killboard if that’s your bag. Viable. > [@March\_rabbit](#): > > I remember me being killed first time in WH, i was n00b and all my stuff was worth couple millions. It didn’t safe me tho. No, again because you’re an easy target with the possibility of shinies inside. Also killmails. Thread is bait anyway, but still i’m surprised to see you on this side of it. Charging the nasty hisec ganker for the gank…honestly. ---
**Author:** ![Lugh\_Crow-Slave](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/lugh_crow-slave/32/441552_2.png) [@Lugh\_Crow-Slave](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Lugh_Crow-Slave)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2017, 4:41pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/concord-insurance-for-high-sec-ganks/27715/24 "2017-09-27T16:41:59Z")
> [@March\_rabbit](#): > > I might be wrong but citadel cannot have anything in it before it finishes installing. you’re wrong they come with a good deal of salvage + anything your corp m8s were dumb enough to dock during the final anchor timer ---
**Author:** ![yellow\_parasol](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/yellow_parasol/32/10455_2.png) [@yellow\_parasol](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/yellow_parasol)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2017, 5:08pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/concord-insurance-for-high-sec-ganks/27715/25 "2017-09-27T17:08:46Z")
the best part about threads like these, is how hypocrites, haters and self righteous people crawl out of their holes to spread their poison, as if it mattered what they think, when they can’t even get the fundamentals right. great read so far! the idea, though, is just typical hate material. ---
**Author:** ![Keno\_Skir](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/keno_skir/32/460582_2.png) [@Keno\_Skir](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Keno_Skir)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2017, 5:40pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/concord-insurance-for-high-sec-ganks/27715/26 "2017-09-27T17:40:29Z")
> [@March\_rabbit](#): > > Just another example: recently my corp set up citadel. And some guys tried to prevent our citadel from getting up. They spend effort and time to visit us. As result we got some action, kills and fun. > > They haven’t expected any material reward, do they? I might be wrong but citadel cannot have anything in it before it finishes installing. > > But they did it. They get a potential Citadel killmail. They get whatever is inside your citadel. They get the possibility of ISK extracted from you as ransom for your Citadel. They get fights with defenders and the possibility of merc involvement, all with the same rewards separately. Yes ganking is time consuming and for the most part boring. ---
**Author:** ![March\_rabbit](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/march_rabbit/32/453160_2.png) [@March\_rabbit](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/March_rabbit)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2017, 6:05am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/concord-insurance-for-high-sec-ganks/27715/27 "2017-09-28T06:05:09Z")
> [@Keno\_Skir](#): > > None the less, it is a requirement. Trying to find it out. Until now arguments were not very convincing tho… 😉 > [@Keno\_Skir](#): > > Potential for killmails, shoal defence and SRP make it viable. Agree, but afaik most high-sec freighters kills done by famous so-called “goons” and “goon alts” who has full SRP by big goon empire. So again: killmails and SRP is in there. > [@Keno\_Skir](#): > > No, it might be officer fit or the bait for an interesting and fun pwning. Oh, please! How many such occurences have you had in your history? 🤣 > [@Keno\_Skir](#): > > Also potential green killboard if that’s your bag. Viable. Yes, killmail and potential reward. Isn’t it enough? > [@Keno\_Skir](#): > > No, again because you’re an easy target with the possibility of shinies inside. Also killmails. Exactly. Killmail and fun. Totally worth time and effort. > [@Keno\_Skir](#): > > Thread is bait anyway, but still i’m surprised to see you on this side of it. Charging the nasty hisec ganker for the gank…honestly. Charging the ganker is stupid. Fullstop. That’s not the question. The question is: why people sure that high-sec ganking should be “viable activity” using ISK as measurement. While at the same time there is lots of activities people do without expectation of guarantied ISK reward. ---
**Author:** ![Nevyn\_Auscent](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/nevyn_auscent/32/255124_2.png) [@Nevyn\_Auscent](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Nevyn_Auscent)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2017, 9:49am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/concord-insurance-for-high-sec-ganks/27715/28 "2017-09-28T09:49:42Z")
> [@March\_rabbit](#): > > The question is: why people sure that high-sec ganking should be “viable activity” using ISK as measurement. While at the same time there is lots of activities people do without expectation of guarantied ISK reward. Because CCP have actively said so in the past? Finding the references is something other people who save them more often can do, but even as someone who often speaks out against the current state of ganking I’m not going to try and pretend that CCP don’t want ganking to exist and for it to be possible for gankers to make a profit. Those other activities people mentioned can also be done in such a way to make a profit as well. Taking ‘roaming’ as an example is like taking capsule ganking as your ganking example. The overall activity is ‘Legal PvP’ or maybe as narrow as ‘Null/WH/Low PvP’. But roaming is a tiny subset of the total activity, and it is possible to fully fund via PvP. ---
**Author:** ![Keno\_Skir](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/keno_skir/32/460582_2.png) [@Keno\_Skir](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Keno_Skir)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2017, 8:04pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/concord-insurance-for-high-sec-ganks/27715/29 "2017-09-28T20:04:54Z")
> [@March\_rabbit](#): > > Charging the ganker is stupid. Fullstop. That’s not the question. Yes it is. That is literally the question. The thread is about charging the pilot who gets final blow in a gank, and is almost certainly a troll anyway. Also viable is too open ended a word for this conversation. ---
**Author:** ![Scipio\_Artelius](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/scipio_artelius/32/408264_2.png) [@Scipio\_Artelius](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Scipio_Artelius)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2017, 8:53pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/concord-insurance-for-high-sec-ganks/27715/30 "2017-09-28T20:53:38Z")
> [@March\_rabbit](#): > > Charging the ganker is stupid. Fullstop. That’s not the question. It’s kind of the main point of the idea in the OP: > …how about full payment of the killmail courtesy- > “BUT THAT WOULD MEAN RUNAWAY INFLATION.” > … let me finish, COURTESY of the final blow of your gank. CONCORD, after wiping the floor of everyone involved, deducts that full amount of the killmail from the ganker to the ganked. ---
**Author:** ![Cade\_Windstalker](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/cade_windstalker/32/221037_2.png) [@Cade\_Windstalker](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Cade_Windstalker)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2017, 9:18pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/concord-insurance-for-high-sec-ganks/27715/31 "2017-09-28T21:18:24Z")
> [@Nevyn\_Auscent](#): > > Except piracy/ganking is meant to be viable as a way to make a living. Strictly speaking this isn’t accurate. Ganking being profitable requires that other players haul in a way that makes it profitable. The system is actually setup such that a smart player can completely deny this option to those ganking them so long as they have the patience to make more trips or haul slightly differently. That said, you’re not supposed to get compensated for your own stupidity either, and OP’s idea is pretty terrible and trolly. In fact it’s pretty much because of the above that OP’s idea is terrible. It’s pretty easy to make ganking difficult and unprofitable for gankers, no ‘super CONCORD hauling insurance’ required, just smarter and more patient play. ---
**Author:** ![Lukett\_MyDabb](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/lukett_mydabb/32/14034_2.png) [@Lukett\_MyDabb](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Lukett_MyDabb)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2017, 12:47am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/concord-insurance-for-high-sec-ganks/27715/32 "2017-09-29T00:47:32Z")
I think he knows the other benefits besides isk, what he’s saying is Just what I said, if my idea were to be implemented, people would still gain benefit outside of isk. So people would still do it. I’d also say Au Contraire to Black Pedro’s statement (unless he can provide some _recent_ links) that HS ganking is supported by CCP. otherwise, why have concord in the first place? It’s supposed to make HS relatively risk free, otherwise, how could someone build “traction” without the relative safety. ---
**Author:** ![Cade\_Windstalker](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/cade_windstalker/32/221037_2.png) [@Cade\_Windstalker](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Cade_Windstalker)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2017, 1:40am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/concord-insurance-for-high-sec-ganks/27715/33 "2017-09-29T01:40:03Z")
> [@Lukett\_MyDabb](#): > > I think he knows the other benefits besides isk, what he’s saying is Just what I said, if my idea were to be implemented, people would still gain benefit outside of isk. So people would still do it. I’d also say Au Contraire to Black Pedro’s statement (unless he can provide some recent links) that HS ganking is supported by CCP. otherwise, why have concord in the first place? It’s supposed to make HS relatively risk free, otherwise, how could someone build “traction” without the relative safety. I’m going to paraphrase CCP on this one, mostly because I can’t find the exact quote. CONCORD does not make anyone safe, CONCORD just punishes people who break their rules. High Sec is not safe, it’s simply safer. No where in Eve is supposed to be “risk free”. @CCP_Falcon can pop in and provide his original quote if he’s available. Point this out to CCP Quant, I think he could use a bad-econ laugh. ---
**Author:** ![Lukett\_MyDabb](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/lukett_mydabb/32/14034_2.png) [@Lukett\_MyDabb](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Lukett_MyDabb)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2017, 1:59am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/concord-insurance-for-high-sec-ganks/27715/34 "2017-09-29T01:59:58Z")
sounds like I’m still looking for some original sources. To reiterate, Pedro’s link to CSM minutes is 5 years old. a forum post not even a day old from Falcon? long shot, but it’ll do. ---
**Author:** ![Nevyn\_Auscent](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/nevyn_auscent/32/255124_2.png) [@Nevyn\_Auscent](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Nevyn_Auscent)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2017, 2:01am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/concord-insurance-for-high-sec-ganks/27715/35 "2017-09-29T02:01:18Z")
Why should it matter that the link is 5 years old. If you want to assert that CCP have changed their policy in the last 5 years, the onus is on you to provide evidence they have. Not on us to provide evidence they haven’t ---
**Author:** ![Daichi\_Yamato](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/daichi_yamato/32/252995_2.png) [@Daichi\_Yamato](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Daichi_Yamato)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2017, 2:31am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/concord-insurance-for-high-sec-ganks/27715/36 "2017-09-29T02:31:42Z")
[https://forums-archive.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4964171#post4964171](https://forums-archive.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4964171#post4964171) [https://forums-archive.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4964217#post4964217](https://forums-archive.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4964217#post4964217) [https://forums-archive.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4964192#post4964192](https://forums-archive.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4964192#post4964192) [https://forums-archive.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4966760#post4966760](https://forums-archive.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4966760#post4966760) [https://forums-archive.eveonline.com/message/6341716/#post6341716](https://forums-archive.eveonline.com/message/6341716/#post6341716) Some links for you. The last one is fozzie giving the last known words on ganking and it’s place in eve. Note one of the lines is: ‘if we wanted to remove ganking we could with direct methods’. ---
**Author:** ![Lukett\_MyDabb](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/lukett_mydabb/32/14034_2.png) [@Lukett\_MyDabb](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Lukett_MyDabb)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2017, 2:45am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/concord-insurance-for-high-sec-ganks/27715/37 "2017-09-29T02:45:25Z")
Well, seeing as Black Pedro is gonna ask me to read those then something he dug up i guess I’ll just point out to Nevyn the whole reason I refused to research myself was maybe to see if Pedro would actually read more CSM minutes and comb them for quotes. Someone called it a troll thread (totally was… yea…) so i figured i’d ride it out and see if i’d get someone to do my light work. it’s served it’s purpose, especially if i got my intended result. bonus points if Falcon actually clicks on the notification of being tagged in Cade’s post. Now GTFO, let’s let this thread die in peace, just saw this lil gem not to long ago. > **[Making Citadel Sieging More Siege-like: Nerfing Timezone Tank and Forcing...](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/making-citadel-sieging-more-siege-like-nerfing-timezone-tank-and-forcing-interaction/27542)** > > Give citadels baseline fuel cost and a small invulnerability fuel bay that must be refilled every day or two. Nerf void bombs dramatically, buff missiles, damage bombs, and fighters. No fuel, invulnerability turns off. Allow attackers to anchor... o7 ---
**Author:** ![Scipio\_Artelius](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/scipio_artelius/32/408264_2.png) [@Scipio\_Artelius](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Scipio_Artelius)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2017, 5:46am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/concord-insurance-for-high-sec-ganks/27715/38 "2017-09-29T05:46:33Z")
> [@Lukett\_MyDabb](#): > > I’d also say Au Contraire to Black Pedro’s statement (unless he can provide some recent links) that HS ganking is supported by CCP. A relatively recent statement from CCP Fozzie: > …we like to pair buff and nerfs to suicide ganking to keep things in balance, and after the February Wreck HP change these ships can handle a bit more tank without the “predator and prey” environment being thrown out of whack. In this thread: > **[\[March\] Damage Control Tiericide - Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback...](https://forums-archive.eveonline.com/topic/468977/)** > > EVE allows you to discover, explore and dominate an amazing science fiction universe while you fight, trade, form corporations and alliances with other players. Ganking in highsec is as supported by CCP as any other activity in order for their to be a balanced predator/prey environment. ---
**Author:** ![Keno\_Skir](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/keno_skir/32/460582_2.png) [@Keno\_Skir](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Keno_Skir)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2017, 12:55pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/concord-insurance-for-high-sec-ganks/27715/39 "2017-10-04T12:55:48Z")
I mean they gave destroyers insane new DPS for a reason 😜 ---
**Author:** ![Frostys\_Virpio](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/frostys_virpio/32/12703_2.png) [@Frostys\_Virpio](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Frostys_Virpio)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2017, 2:59pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/concord-insurance-for-high-sec-ganks/27715/40 "2017-10-04T14:59:09Z")
Well even if you put ganking aside, the DPS is their selling point against frigates… [Previous page](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/concord-insurance-for-high-sec-ganks/27715.md?page=1) [Next page](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/concord-insurance-for-high-sec-ganks/27715.md?page=3)