CONCORD insurance for High Sec ganks

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.

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.

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?

None the less, it is a requirement.

Potential for killmails, shoal defence and SRP make it viable.

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.

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.

1 Like

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

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.

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.

Trying to find it out. Until now arguments were not very convincing tho… :wink:

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.

Oh, please! How many such occurences have you had in your history? :rofl:

Yes, killmail and potential reward. Isn’t it enough?

Exactly. Killmail and fun. Totally worth time and effort.

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.

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.

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.

It’s kind of the main point of the idea in the OP:

…how about full payment of the killmail courtesy-
… 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.

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.

1 Like

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.

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.

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

1 Like

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’.


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.


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:

Ganking in highsec is as supported by CCP as any other activity in order for their to be a balanced predator/prey environment.

I mean they gave destroyers insane new DPS for a reason :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

Well even if you put ganking aside, the DPS is their selling point against frigates…