Kill them all.
1 Like
No, but at least I assumed the moderators cleaned up all the BJ related ranting. Sloppy of me… 
That aside there is a way to guard yourself from ganking with the following fitting :
3 Likes
Bumping supers out of a pos was deemed an exploit. Bumping freighters for 20 minutes should be as well. If you want to gank a freighter then gank it. Enough with the bumping exploits.
5 Likes
you’re right! thats exactly the same!
2 Likes
Please point out where I said they were “exactly” the same.
Good luck with that.
1 Like
Well you say bumping a freighter sould be considered an exploit, much like bumping a cap out of a pos. Which is just laughable.
Also sorry but forum warrioring on an alt you created a month ago is just poor form. At least show us who you really are so I can confirm you get ganked a lot and are just salty as hell.
I don’t get ganked in high sec.
I intentionally became criminal a few times.
Bumping for a long time is just warp scrambling without a module and fits the definition of an exploit. Gank them if you want. Just don’t act like bumping isn’t an exploit.
2 Likes
Common Misconceptions about Exploits
This passage contains common tactics and other player conduct that is often mistakenly reported as exploits but are in fact not.
- Ship Bumping
- Ram the ship of another player with your own in order to prevent them from warping.
It’s not. Unsavory, maybe, but not an exploit.
–Gadget bumps this thread
5 Likes
I never claimed it was against the rules to bump. Did you look up the definition of exploit? Are you a bit slow?
The word “exploit” existed long before CCP. Be a big boy and look it up.
1 Like
Are you addressing me or CCP?
Bumping to prevent warping would need to fit their definition of an exploit.
Might want to make a ticket and ask exactly what that is.
–Helpful Gadget
2 Likes
Yeah I got bumped before in my freighter and it wasnt very fun. Thankfully I wasn’t ganked. They should really do something about those gankers. Maybe we can hire pirates to beat bumpers over the head in game so they can’t pilot their ships anymore.
1 Like
It’s quite clear that you’re intentionally ignoring the context in which CCP is using the word for the sake of using it in a way that makes it sound like a bad thing. Context determines the definition, and in this case, you’re using it wrong. Regardless of your rhetorical word games, CCP has deemed it not an exploit in the sense that it is accepted gameplay. You don’t have to like it, you can even spend all your days frothing at the mouth railing against it, but you will still have to accept it. Bumping isn’t an exploit.
2 Likes
It’s an exploit to bump a ship of any kind that is on the other side of a POS shield from you. This is not exclusive to capitals, but literally any ship at all. It is not an exploit to bump a ship, any ship at all, that is not opposite a POS shield. Don’t pretend this is a nul vs high thing, don’t pretend it’s a freighters vs capitals thing. POS shields aren’t exclusive to nul sec, and their protection isn’t exclusively for capitals. Bad arguments are bad, stop being so disingenuous.
1 Like
Part of me remembers how punishing hauling was for a new player. Frankly I never learned to haul safely and am happy to make hauling contracts for my industry needs. At the same time I really wish the game could support more viable trade hubs than Jita.
In a perfect world, I would do away with cynos in high sec to end jump freighter service, and make it so pilots need to cross low sec to go from empire to empire to force more regional markets to form. It would make hauling between empires more risky, but also more lucrative.
I know it takes a lot of skill and coordination to make a ganking look easy. I’m happy if both haulers and gankers both can execute perfectly and still fail. To me that is balance.
1 Like
Exactly what they should have done when they decentralised Yulai. That ship has sailed, though.
1 Like
Use word properly
Word games
I exploit fast tracking guns to kill small ships. = Word game
No, different context. Different context = different meaning. The context you used to call bumping an exploit was an attempt to compare it with something that’s against the rules of the game as a justification. It failed fundamentally, and I explained why. But because you’re so intellectually dishonest, not to mention so far up yourself that you don’t think people will see what you’re trying to do, it won’t be long before you fail to actually address the criticisms coming your way, and instead resort to insulting the people who post them.
1 Like
This is how you originally posted it. This is the original context. Here, you’re asserting, based on a fundamentally poor justification, that bumping freighters is an exploit in the same way that bumping ships out of POS shields is, ie a rule-breaking one. You did not in any way declare it an exploit in the same way as using smaller guns allows you to exploit higher tracking speeds, increasing your chances to hit a target. Context is everything. The word itself means absolutely nothing without it. So I’ll say again, stop playing stupid word games. CCP have declared bumping as not an exploit. That is all there is to it.
2 Likes
Mistakenly reported as exploit abuse to EVE support: “Reported Gadget”. 
5 Likes
What is a perfect solution? You (generic you, BTW) manage your risk. That is your job in game. Not my job. Not CCP’s job. Nobody else’s job but yours. If you don’t like the risk attendant with hauling in a freighter using all the precautions you use, then adapt and move on. I will note you (referring to the OP now) have completed 30 contracts without a problem. What is the problem?
My view is that the gank starts as soon as the player puts way too much cargo value in his freighter. If you take and put 7.8 billion ISK worth of cargo into your anti-tanked charon you have practially put a “Gank Me” sign on your back. In fact, it would not be out of line for CCP to have it so every ship with over say 2 or 3 billion in cargo value has the name of the ship changed to “Gank Me Please”. When a player puts that much cargo value into their hold they are taking on enormous amounts of risk. Huge amounts of risk. If they do not use a scout, webber, and even use auto-pilot it is even worse.
No, that risk does not have to be “balanced” because it is due to player choice. That is like saying the LS pirate has to have the combat capability of his ship reduced because I jumped iteron V into the system he is in. If a player takes on substantial risk and gets his pooped pushed in…that is on him.
In fact, that is often how players learn. They suffer a loss. Take that away and they just keep on playing dumb…because the game has been dumbed down. It has taken one more step away from being EVE and towards being another shitty MMO that is boring and people master and then forget about.
This is actually excellent advice.
In other words, look at what has to happen for a gank to occur. You need to have an FC, a bumper, a loot scooper, guys out scouting for targets. Voice comms. Logistics to get ships in place since many gankers are -10. And of course enough pilots to gank the ship. This is quite a bit more than:
Have a dude in a freighter.
Have a scout/webber.
Be on voice comms if you scout/webber is not an alt.
Yes, some people do the ganking with nothing but a bunch of alts, but that is not the norm typically. Miniluv, the GSF ganking SIG actually has multiple players.
In short, yeah, you are always going to see a power imbalance when a fleet of 169 dudes warps in on you and shoots you. You are almost always going to lose in HS.
1 Like