This thread about freighter ganking has nothing to do with affording losses and at no point has anyone complained about not being able to.
Might apply to the players who haul and lose 10 billion or even 30 billion in one freighter gank. Never seem to see any posts from them though.
If you know you’re having to fly through ganker systems you fly with scouts, and fit your freighter to tank.
A good freighter tank should be able to get close 500k EHP mark.
You fit and plan you haul run before you run it, never fly blind.
The specific argument throughout this thread has been about costs from the start.
Gank Costs vs. Freighter Value
The OP wants it to be less cost effective for ganking to occur, while at the same time mitigating risks associated with the transport of materials.
Ultimately if you are engaging in hauling you have to be prepared to lose your ship and its cargo, and take the time necessary to plan a strategy accordingly.
Congratulations on being such an utter {censored} that people hate you enough to throw away piles of ISK just to make you die. For people who aren’t {censored}s like you the risk of this happening is negligible.
The whole premise of the thread would like to disagree with you. If you have to run to the forums to whine about your loss then you couldn’t afford it. And here we are, in a whine thread about how bad it is that freighters can be ganked “too easily”.
Nope. The thread is about cost of ganking freighters in hi-sec being too low. Has nothing to do with the premise of “don’t fly what you can’t afford to lose”.
Of course has to do with that premise. If you don’t care about the loss then you don’t come to the forums to whine about how it was too easy to kill you, it doesn’t matter what the cost was because you’ve already moved on.
Ganking is so ez, I love dunking empty triple bulked freighters with under 70mil of ships
From that perspective the cost of ganking my afk or autopiloted pod is too low as well.
A squad of free corvettes shouldn’t be able to blow me up.
Same argument, different ships. No change in how ridiculous it sounds from a PvP perspective.
While you can take the cup half empty approach and attribute everything to 1 player with alts CCP has to take the cup half full approach and balance the game as if those are a small gang of customers.
One customer versus many customers, the one customer loses, as it should be.
It’s not one customer vs many. The same groups of gankers have killed hundreds of freighter pilots. The ganked players are the many.
What is not known is how many of these ganked high value freighter pilots quit the game as a result.
Triple bulkhead obelisk dead. You can even see he had a faction web alt so clearly wasn’t afk.
Didn’t stop them killing him with only 9 talos in 0.6 system. He carried a large isk value cargo sure. But wasn’t it claimed that being attentive, max tanked and especially with a good web alt apparently meant to keep you safe? It’s not my argument, just one that some use here to oppose a freighter buff.
Also, didn’t some people claim it takes like 15 talos to kill a triple bulkhead max tank freighter? They killed a triple bulkhead obelisk, with 9, and it’s not even 0.5. Proven wrong again.
Not sure what you’re getting at here, a PvP team with a plan attacks a freighter and the freighter is destroyed. Sounds like things went exactly as the gameplay is designed to facilitate.
Are you suggesting then that a single ship should be buffed so it is capable of surviving against a coordinated attack from 9 other dedicated and organized pilots?
You really need to look up the definition of “balance” because what you’re asking for here is anything but.
So…none?
No, that’s not the point. If we have a 10v1 fight then of course the 1 should lose to the 10. It doesn’t matter if the 10 go kill 20 other players one at a time in the future, the fight happening right now is 10v1.
What is not known is how many of these ganked high value freighter pilots quit the game as a result.
Hopefully all of the ones who are helpless perma-victims like you.
But wasn’t it claimed that being attentive, max tanked and especially with a good web alt apparently meant to keep you safe?
Safe =/= 100% immune to PvP. It is indisputable fact that following the rules for safe hauling will greatly reduce your risk of death. But 100% immunity is not promised, nor is it reasonable to expect it.
Nope. Theres more to that kill, actually.
This is a triple tanked obelisk, with ALL ZERO skills.
Take a look at the HP of the freighter. This isnt even EHP. Just the base amount of HP for a character that has ZERO skills and therefore it is impossible for him to even fly an obelisk.
Structure alone has 215K HP.
Now, take a look at the killmail.
Total Damage dealt, was 98,465.
Even Obelisks with full Inertial Stabs require more damage:
188,919 Damage total.
Only if youre an idiot who looks at things without actually investigating.
When you actually look into things, and not just at a surface level, the story becomes completely different.
Some basic math and an understanding of how much HP an obelisk has, would instantly make you realize that this wasnt just a gank.
Except, if youre stupid, of course.
Each match is an individual encounter, try to at least sound honest.
Dishonesty is the only way for her to spin her narrative.
It wasn’t because of bad skills or offline mods that the damage is so low. From what’s on the killmail, they would have either fail ganked it or didn’t have the dps to bring it down in one run, so they bumped it and ran it again when they were off timer.
He’s definitely a complete idiot tho
They should have a module that uses a lot of capacitor (like 33%) that breaks all current disrupts and a second one for scrams. The people who had point, their respective modules go on a 12 second cool down. Make it a low slot option. Each module should have its own 30 second cool down and you can fit more than one of the same type. It doesn’t provide immunity and just a break with a cool down to those who had point. This way, if someone applies point after they activate the module, the ship stays on grid.
No.
5 characters.
