First of all, you’re not a princess, and certainly not a pirate.
First of all I’m a princess if I want to and there’s nothing you can do about it. 
Second of all I’m a pirate ne vous en déplaise 
Speaking of retention and numbers. I have shocking news.
Between 2003 this game was release and today, 90% of gankers quit EVE.
This proves that ganking is extremely unhealthy gameplay - not only victims of the ganks are quitting EVE en masses, the gankers themselves are eventually quitting as well!
2 Likes
life isn’t about who you want to be, it’s about who you are, but I understand they don’t teach that in video games.
Yes yes… go get me a sandwich.
Halloween is over til next year. 
1 Like
In relation to the first sentence, no of course not. Anyone can say what they like, however we as a community and CCP should ultimately place more weight on the voices of people with experience in the topics they are talking about.
For example, take the second sentence. If you were writing about anti-ganking, then your knowledge of the issues around it are likely valuable.
If you were writing in a general sense about what you think is good, or bad, or needs more of, etc. then you have every right, as we all do, to have those types of opinions and to post them.
However, if you talk about ganking being easy, from a position of never having ganked or only having ganked ventures a couple of times, then that statement shouldn’t have much weight, because for anyone that has ganked across it’s many styles, like many forms of play, there is a range of types of ganking and they aren’t all equally “easy” or “hard”.
Ideally all of us would realise that and refrain from making rubbish posts based on no or limited knowledge. However it’s very common, especially in sock puppet characters on the forum to make claims that are clearly not from any position of experience and to then claim to be attacked when that’s called out.
10 Likes
My killboard doesn’t contain just one record 5 years ago. I can’t imagine that being my experience of Eve.
What I said was that profitable ganking is still possible even against max tank haulers and that in my opinion CCP has a good intention when they want to decrease ganking of new players. I don’t think that requires any particular killboard to say.
@Altara_Zemara Now my killboard is active again, happy?
1 Like
It requires killboard to say that ONE noob in a Venture got ganked today…out of a total of 350 Ventures destroyed. And it requires killboard to say that of the 8 Ventures destroyed in highsec today, 5 were destroyed by NPCs and not gankers.
You keep on and on and on and on and on ignoring the actual data. And that is why arguing with forum trolls is a complete waste of time. You have zero real interest in any of the ‘discussion’ you claim to want to have. Discussions are based around facts…and you keep ignoring those facts.
I’ve not disputed the data, even though I’ve not seen any particularly well-researched data. You’ve presented one day of data, one time. But I don’t know why you think telling me how many ventures you think were ganked on a given day will mean that my opinion that it’s better for gankers to be hunting freighters than it is to be hunting ventures will change.
There could have been zero ventures ganked today and I’d still think it’s better to encourage the ganking of freighters over the ganking of ventures.
I think the problem you’re having is that you think you have an obligation to provide me with proof that changes my opinion. You don’t, we can just have different opinions. To change my opinion you’d need a lot more than just killboard stats though.
1 Like
Not quite what you wrote, but close enough:
This I already looked at, based on the view that:
- since the recent nerfs
- triple bulkhead freighters have been ganked
- those ganks have been profitable
Like everything ganking related, profit comes down to how much value is being carried. Ganking a triple bulkhead freighter (or any freighter in any configuration) that is empty, is always ISK negative.
On the whole though, since the changes, the value of the loot from triple bulkhead has been more than the total in game cost to gank them:
| zkillboard link | ganking group | # gankers | ~cost to gank | value of dropped loot | profit/loss |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Obelisk | Moisei Zaltsman | Killmail | zKillboard | R.E.M.N.A.N.T.S | 16 | 200,000,000 | 1,718,156,341 | Profit |
| Charon | Tata Viliana | Killmail | zKillboard | Safety. | 39 | 915,000,000 | 170,392,046 | Loss |
| Obelisk | Aishu | Killmail | zKillboard | Safety. | 39 | 915,000,000 | 713,815,315 | Loss |
| Obelisk | Reohin Lemmont | Killmail | zKillboard | Safety. | 39 | 460,000,000 | 376,818,845 | Loss |
| Charon | Black Sq | Killmail | zKillboard | Safety. | 41 | 480,000,000 | 452,384,576 | Loss |
| Obelisk | Brin Takahashi | Killmail | zKillboard | Safety. | 41 | 480,000,000 | 1,190,144,674 | Profit |
| Charon | Nuadi | Killmail | zKillboard | Safety. | 43 | 500,000,000 | 309,850,237 | Loss |
For the most part, triple bulkhead freighters that have been ganked since the changes, individually have been ISK negative. Overall ISK positive, because the occasional whales come along and make up for all the losses in terms of in game cost.
I don’t really have a view either way whether, since CCP have essentially locked ganking to Omega status, the cost for the accounts should be factored into overall cost or not. That’s more an individual opinion.
What’s true through, is that the profitability of ganking remains something that gank targets can control more than the gankers can. The gankers always have their cost, but the value of the loot is controllable to a degree by haulers.
Lastly, as always, the true griefers are the NPCs:
13 Billion ISK highsec kill by Trigs on a triple bulkhead Fenrir. NPCs are scumbags.
6 Likes
The changes haven’t made them any less profitable. You can still kill them for ~400m, with a 50% drop rate meaning any billion+ loot carrying hauler can be ganked in profit, loot fairy permitting.
You’ve got a couple of errors in your data.
The 376,818,845 drop, that’s supposed to be 367,818,845
The 1,190,144,674 drop, that’s supposed to be 1,910,144,674
If you’re using the related kills for the losses that can also be off. The second and third kill on your list share related kills I believe. It’s tricky because Clipped Wingz aren’t linked to killboards either so far as I can see.
If they choose ships carrying only 600m in cargo and throw 500m of ships at them or ones carrying 945m and throw 915m of ships at them, that gives a high potential for loss, but profitable ganking is still viable, and targets carrying a billion or more in a freighter are not hard to find.
1 Like
[Hospodar Liminal Leshak] is an Aiko alt.
2 Likes
And then add cost of clone soldier tags (lets say that each 5 positive toons used in gank = 20m tag + 5mil CONCORD bribe) and then add cost of the 500 PLEX per each alt which needs to be acquired each month. And then you have the real state of the ganking right now.
1 Like
No one has said anything about using related kills. It’s purely a look at triple bulkhead freighter ganks since the change. Related kills are irrelevant.
Yep thanks. Typos on my part.
It isn’t really a requirement. -10 characters can gank just fine. Tags are not necessary, just good organisation is.
Since the changes I resubbed my own gank alts to see how the loss of tether has impacted things (unsubbed again now, as I just wanted to see the impact). It’s still possible to use the pre-tether tactics to get on target and kill them once undocked. Tether was a great convenience, but not a necessity and non-outlaw sec status isn’t a necessity either.
I can totally appreciate that this might be factored in by some. I’m undecided at the moment.
2 Likes
Sorry, I mean for the losses on the gankers side. The numbers looked like they were the ones from the related kills.
My issue with this is twofold. One part is that it would need to be applied to every mechanic when talking about profitability.
The other part is that it’s really more a question of how much time you spend doing it. It definitely can be profitable, but whether or not you dedicate enough playtime for that profit to cover omega costs is a different question. Consider highsec mining. I can’t see that covering omega costs without mining all day every day.
1 Like
No, your opinion won’t change, as you are not interested in the actual facts. I’ve presented data you can replicate on any day…nothing special about today. In fact I had noted months ago ( and said so on the forums ) that around 60% of all Ventures destroyed in highsec are by NPCs, and today was no different. Likewise I have several times before pointed out the tiny number of noob Ventures destroyed out of the large number of Ventures destroyed every day.
But of course none of that will change the opinion of a biased person with a foregone conclusion mentality.
That goes without saying.
Nope. Its pretty obvious nothing will change your alleged opinion. It is not based on facts, logic, or reason…so why would any such things alter it ?
3 Likes
So I guess what you’re saying here is, high sec PVE needs to pay well enough to account for the cost of any ships or consumables expended doing it, plus the cost of any licenses, taxes or bribes paid, plus the cost of any ships/cargo lost to gankers, plus the cost of Plexing the account and all alts used.
And it needs to pay that out in roughly the same time it takes to gank 5 billion worth of targets, to be comparable to what gankers can get.
Hmm, looks like we need some hefty upgrades to high-sec PVE payouts then!
2 Likes
I know that, but many gankers switched to positive status ganking due to the nerfs. Hawk for example, even Aiko, in fact most of the Safety. players. I wrote “for each 5 positive ganker used in gank” not implying it is the case of all the ganks.
1 Like