Gankers and freighters, a request for discussion. Not a BJ RANT

Silly question, what does this “ag” stand for?

Edit: NM, the below P SP it out for M. -->

anti-ganking is a group of self entitled and extremely toxic white knights who think they play the shining heroes in the game.

All they do however is fail all day constantly without break and then cry on the forums for nerfs in their favour like @Dracvlad here.

If you want a source of never ending fun you should join their ingame channel. Their stupidity, toxic infights and uber paranoia are legendary.

1 Like

I get the impression that I hit a raw nerve, in my suggestion on bumping and calling you Salvos, thank you for that, made my Sunday afternoon…

They are a group of players that fight against ganking in hisec. As you can see Ima has a thing about them, the mere mention of them gets her into an incredibley epic rage of spite and vitriol. So if you see Ima post in any thread just say AG rocks and watch the foaming rage begin…

EDIT: Actually you don’t even have to mention them, any post by anyone with any association will get a full on salt attack by Ima.

1 Like

So any hauler can say “ag, ag, ag” in local and they auto-spawn?

Well you will get about 100 posts in local such as “AG fails!” to mentioning AG in any way shape or form, try it in Uedama and enjoy.

And certain CODE will often set up a character, make him appear to be AG and then sprout utter bullshite and try to apply that to any other AG player, they do it in six months cycles, this Dyson is very likely to be a CODE player… To call him one of their leaders is completely false, he is not one of the leaders period.

1 Like

You can cry for help in their channel and then they will insult you for having a bad fit and come watch while CODE dunks the freighter on top of their faces.

There, this is one of their leaders:

I think Ima is bringing up the issue with determining intent. So the bumped ship might go suspect then get burnt down. Especially if one is bumping with a DST which is immune to this effect.

Intent is an issue with this and yes a DST could be fitted to be a bumper, the question is how good it would be as compared to a Macherial and if you would use that to bump mission runners for example or ships other than the ones I made immune to going suspect. Don’t forget that a DST bumping a Freighter would not cause either to go suspect as both are immune to going suspect.

I was aiming for about 10 minutes worth of bumping and that each bump after that time would have a 5% chance to go suspect.

I am suggesting this in good faith to try to work out a better mechanism to make bumping still a viable approach, but not leave it as a infinity point so to speak. That Ima went all emo on me is not surprising, but thrashing out issues like this is what a discussion and debate is all about.

I do however recognize that the chance of it being picked up by CCP is very remote because of the rage / bait posting by people like Salvos and Ima and the reaction of myself and others. Anyway head butting brick wall and all that, but worth a try.

1 Like

Best way to stop bumping is get rid of concord.

I was thinking a threshold probability that increased after the time limit…the more you bumped past that time limit the riskier it gets.

Of course, my preferred solution is just: status quo.

I know.

As is so often the case, could be an interesting discussion…but our forum culture here makes it hard to have such discussions. And admittedly I’ve engaged in that culture myself. :stuck_out_tongue:

That would work, but likely have other implications…

Well going suspect is effectively doing that…

I am sorry but as much I hate ag attacking my alts on gate or bumping them from citadel you are spreading false informations.

So first, what CODE calls “ag” are from 99% killboard/killmail collectors. They have 0 interest in stopping the gank, they just want to tag any ship involved in gank and get a cheesy killmail and possibly bounty. Some of them also tries to grab the loot either the loot from ships involved in ganking or even the loot from ganker’s victim.

There are exceptions but those can be count on fingers of a hand.

And no. The one being toxic is CODE, I never seen ag to mock CODE or post the killmails unless CODE provoked them first and as we all know they are doing this all the time.

PS. I used to do that too, now too busy with ganking.

It should work this way. If a ship A that bumped ship B is suspect/criminal/thu blue one can’t remember the status name or it is excluded from the bump-suspect rule (though I don’t see why) then the bumped ship cannot get suspect if that ship then bumps into ship C, D etc.

So. If a Machariel bumps Skiff, then machariel gets suspect for this and thus that skiff won’t get suspect even if he bumps other ships on the way.

That should basically fix the possible abuse.

How do you determine if collision was intentional? I still am not convinced that perceived issues with bumping can’t be solved with player interaction within the sandbox.

Part of why I’m not convinced is that while bumping allows ample opportunity for the gankers to form, it provides the same amount of time for defenders or help to respond and form. Let the sandbox work itself out here and allow the better and more prepared players emerge victorious instead of trying to force CCPs hand to create a system where emergent gameplay is balanced to another players inability to counter or adequately prepare himself.

Edit: As much as the term “perma-bumping” or “bumping indefinitely” get used it’s just a lie to claim that there are freighters being bumped for hours on a regular basis. I can say this because I’m one of maybe 6-12 people bumping freighters.


Claiming that Ima and I are the same person, or that we have the same agenda, is a new level of ridiculous.

Ima is vehemently against ANY change to bumping.
I’m the guy that has posted 30% of this thread trying to find/discuss ways to rationalize bumping, against repeated, staunch resistance and endless trolling/derailment/ad hominem.

Ima and I have disagreed on almost everything for years.
You know that. Every GD regular knows that.
I post a lot, but do you really think I have time ontop of that to post for Ima too, let alone on any other supposed alt?
Rest assured, this is the only character I post on.

I asked you a list of reasonable questions for clarification/specifics of your suggestion.
You promptly threw a hissy fit and refused to answer them from me, and started claiming I’m Ima.

You then ended up having to answer the same questions anyways.

You posted a proposal of yours at long last.
You now have to take the heat to defend it and fill in the gaps.
Not as easy as you thought, is it.
Welcome to my world.

  1. I see no reason to make any ship class immune. Making bump mechanics ship class specific is a really bad idea.

  2. Game mechanics cant discern a player’s intent. EVE doesnt care why you do something. It only cares if you do/dont.

  3. 10 mins is reasonable, but a 5% chance is very small. Translates to 5 bumps out of every 100 bumps leading to suspect. In practice, it would almost never happen in any individual bumping scenario, because no bump scenario involves anywhere near that many bumps. Imagine if you roll a 20sided dice every time you bump past the timer, and only go suspect if you roll a 1, to give you some perspective.

  4. All my suggestions/posts has also been in “good faith”. You didnt believe that of me, why should I believe that of you.

  5. If you think you are getting rage/bait posting in response to your suggestion, you have no idea. You are getting treated with kiddy gloves compared to what Ive had to deal with, including from you.

At the moment perhaps you are not doing it, but I came across multiple people who had been bumped for over an hour and one person who might have been exaggerating who claimed to have been bumped for three hours. I came across a couple of people who had actually been bumped long enough for their courir contract to have expired, those were people who were actively hunted and who had tried to get it done one or two hours before the deadline.

The counter is what defines whether it is intentional or not, as I said above the intention is to count the number of bumps which would correspond to 10 minutes of bumping by a Macherial on a freighter as the base amount. That would definately count as being intentional.

Defenders form, do you mean AG well yes, that is why I went for ten minutes worth of bumps? The thing is that if people were protecting their assets they would be formed around the freighter. The simple fact is that bumping as it is now is too strong as a strategic and tactical advantage, it allows the gankers to control the battlespace. And I will point out again that the only realistic end option is to gank the bumper and I will add that this is totally not viable for hisec entities for obvious reasons. That is the end game defence and you need two to three Talos, so how many accounts to I need to counter gankers? Five basically, I run two and that means no counter…

So if I need five accounts merely to counter the gankers in hisec then hisec is not a casual player area is it? And the gankers are in fact Miniluv part of the Goons, a major nullsec coalition, now if CCP balanced nullsec to give more chances to smaller entities why are they ignoring the place which is supposed to be for small and casual players. And that is to explain why suggesting that it should be based on ability to counter or adequately defend themselves is not enough.

@Salvos_Rhoska I have given up on you. That you resorted to insults on another thread when we had opposing views was your error, so I then decided to point out that you did not know what you were talking about and detailed why I think you have not operated in 0.0. In this thread you ignored what I posted and kept asking something which I had already detailed in my initial proposal in a troll like way, this means that I no longer trust your intent. I have you marked down as a troll, same as I have marked Ima and Jonah, which is why I made the joke that you was Ima. In any case I do not believe you are posting in good faith and no longer want to engage with you in anyway.

1 Like
  1. So is it a flat 10mins from first bump, or a counter system, that defines when the chance of going suspect per bump begins?

  2. Are the counters applied to the bumped ship, or the bumping ships individually?

  3. Why would the counter system correspond to how many bumps a Macharial (with what fit?) can perform on a freighter (what freighter and with what fit)?

  4. What would that count be specifically?

  5. Is the 10min timer applied to the bumped ship, or each individual bumping ship?

  6. Why would the timer be removed by packaging a ship? Would counters also be removed?

  7. Why is the “intent” important? Surely a bump, is always a bump, regardless of intent?

  8. Why should certain ship classes be exempt from this bump mechanic you propose?

  9. I dont believe you are posting in good faith. You have insulted me, claimed I am someone else and refused to address direct/simple questions directed at YOUR proposal for clarification.

  10. You made the proposal. You are the one that has to explain it.

If you would spend the time you come up with shitty ideas for problems which do not exist to play EVE instead, you would probably have learned the game by now.


"Dont talk about what I don’t like you to!!1 :((("

Nobody is forcing you to participate in discussion on bumping.