I half meant it as a joke…
You’re sort of treating this like someone held a gun to the freighter pilot’s head and forced them into this situation, when actually they themselves made a decision to carry a big bag full of money into a seedy bookstore to gamble with thieves and cut-throats.
With the high associated cost of freighters, you almost have to cary a big bag full of money around to return some semblance of profit. So it’s not exactly a fair analogy…
Instead of a core make it require PLEX. Imagine all the PLEX tanked ganker lossmails. 
2 Likes
So like one PLEX in the cargo hold? 
Yup. 
That’s a bit strong.
…is not an armament.
You seem frustrated by EVE’s current mechanics, Eloken.
My costs have rocketed since the sub increase, and before that, the increases to the EHP of certain mining vessels. Do you hear me moaning about it? No. I soldier on until soldiering on is no longer viable.
I can never understand why you people get so angry about something you cannot change.
O, wait…
1 Like
There was a long string of easily avoidable mistakes by you that made this freighter loss happen.
Why wasn’t your Webber sitting on that gate waiting for you to jump in? If it had been where it was supposed to be, you could have warped the freighter off the other side of the gate and avoided the loss.
You knew you’d been cargo scanned. Yet you continued on regardless?
Ganks don’t only happen in Uedama. They can happen a few systems either side.
Gankers know they will lose their ship, so why would they spend any more than necessary to get the job done?
This loss is 100% on you. You made yourself an easy target. You didn’t need the warning signs. You didn’t properly scout your expensive freighter.
There’s lessons here if you care to heed them.
1 Like
I really appreciate you reading my post and succinctly commenting on what was said. Most people on these forums scan a post and then vomit up some word pasta based half on what they wanted to have read and half on what they want to say. You did not do that, thank you.
I don’t know if ganking should be more or less expensive or if indies need more EHP or not. I actually trust CCP to keep an eye on those figures and balance them if needed.
If gankers are always successful then, to my way of thinking, their costs should not go up. And there’s a strong argument for actually lowering the fixed costs if the buy-in is higher.
But in the instance where a gank trap triggers and fails. Either because the freighter pilot knows their ■■■■, or they are just lucky. The pirates should face a loss more than just the time to reset and the critique in local about their math skills.
This ante should end up with the pilot who wins the encounter.
It would be easy to make a failed gank too expensive though. Forcing the pirates to move to more expensive, but less likely to fail, doctrines. And that’s less fun for everyone involved I think.
1 Like
A Deep Space Transport can have a truly spectacular tank if you fit for it.
When properly fit, they require multiple tornadoes to gank.
2 Likes
I’ve had my fair share of f***-ups, I can tell you. There can’t be many gankers who haven’t.
It’s a very precisely calculated activity - or it should be. Even then, things can go wrong. A bit like some road traffic accidents, in which you can be the best driver in the world but some other driver does something unexpected, and it’s out of your hands.
The thing about further punishing a failed gank is that it is unlikely to have any lasting effect on the ganker. The objectives of punishment are often said to be deterrence (‘revenge’ is also popular) and rehabilitation. Raising the stakes for gankers in the way that you suggest would be unlikely to affect the activity, unless the penalty were so severe that the poor ganker simply waltzed off out of the game. I don’t think there could be a happy mean - but I’m willing to hear it if you have it to hand.
Let me be clear; I’m only speaking about my own experiences here. I have enough ISK and characters to be able to enjoy playing EVE for as long as I continue to draw breath (not something one can rely upon with certainty at my age). If I’m fined, I’ll pay. If I’m sin-binned or sidelined, I’ll log in a different character or characters. What could CCP possibly do (bar punish the player rather than the character) that would effectively slap my gnarled wrist?
I think they’ve already considered it. Perhaps there are plans in the pipeline. I’ve regularly exhorted them completely to overhaul the Crimewatch system, but it would be such a vast undertaking that I doubt we’ll see it this side of Armageddon.
1 Like
Agreed. It’s quite funny watching gankers take sole pot shots at one not realizing they can have over 200k EHP…
They can’t.
Active fit DST can be neuted before getting shot. Depends on the system.
relying on active fit DST is a bad move.
Impel, bustard can have 140k passive though.
This is objectively wrong. The base lock time of a freighter by a Hugin or Rapier webbing alt is in the 3s range which is not an instalocking time. Which is why this detail is brought up in the third post.
Anyway, OP has already said this hypothetical does not matter, so I don’t know why you’d go a Kellian miles out of your way with your feelings to be factually wrong.
It should not, for a very simple reason: they are playing different objectives.
Just like how in nullsec and lowsec people play objectives — don’t hold grid / can’t get loot in the process — that’s what a freighter is doing, in exchange for a massive m3 benefit no other ship hull has.
Walking away from the fight is sufficient, given the asymmetries involved. 15-minute time-out timer for example.
If we had more data (like I asked above) we could actually understand some facts about where the balance of overall risk vs reward is: how many freighters complete their trip vs get ganked in a given day. I suspect the facts will show that they are incredibly safe as-is but I am open to have data shown to me that says otherwise.
Without this data we’re just going off feelings of „what should be“.
Separately: If you give a freighter a meaningful combat ability — something that has to be countered more than „bring 1 more catalyst“ by a ganker — you seriously risk balance in other areas of PvP gameplay such as wardecs, structure bashing, insurgencies, dueling, and more. Especially when it comes to neutral alts feeding cap sticks for infinite ASB tank; now these neutral alts themselves are even less tolerable. None of these ideas are thought through well.
I have 200k+ passive EHP on my Impel. So yes, it can be done (I agree about active fits, though).
#doubt
201k EHP with Amulet implants. #truth
ok, with amulet implants.
with halcyon G.
and a 20B fit.
I see.
Then you can also do better, like
how much for this ?
[Mastodon, *Simulated Mastodon Fitting]
Unit W-634's Modified Damage Control
Cormack's Modified Power Diagnostic System
Cormack's Modified Power Diagnostic System
Cormack's Modified Power Diagnostic System
Republic Fleet Large Shield Extender
Republic Fleet Large Shield Extender
Estamel's Modified Kinetic Shield Amplifier
Estamel's Modified Explosive Shield Amplifier
Estamel's Modified Thermal Shield Amplifier
Medium Core Defense Field Extender II
Medium Core Defense Field Extender II
with AIR Nirvana Booster II and Halcyon G V .
No boosters, just implants. And the fit is just over 140m ISK. If I drop the T2 Hyperspacial rig for a T2 Trimark I can actually break 221k EHP. With boosters I suspect I could get it close to 250k EHP (or reduce a few Faction modules to T2 and keep it around 200k EHP).
But honestly, I don’t really travel around with much in it - so it’s not really cost effective to gank (I’ve already earned a half dozen kill rights from anxious Tornado pilots taking pot shots at it).
yeah, even in a 140k one I also got shot at by nades - not even passing the shield on an armor tank fit.
(base is 140k, but with the abyssal modules it is increased a very little bit)
I was like … hmm, interesting.
1 Like