And you want to be a politician? LOL…good start…
I have ganked.
That is on my zkillboard, I cannot hide it. I also mentioned it briefly in this thread.
I also posted about it in my CSM X thread. There was some discussion about it.
I have not ganked very much at all. I did it to show the gankers in that thread that ganking, as it stood then, was not hard. That even someone like me could do it.
Just like everything else in EVE, if you know how to do it, it is not that hard.
I also reimbursed my victims for their losses.
1 Like
CSM is not politician.
CSM is more like a player elected focus group.
1 Like
Well at least you sound and act like one some times…
Didn’t necessarily miss it. But it was fun.
Firstly I was scared. That helped.
There were also in-game incentives to stay attentive… that had nothing to do with other players.
For example… belt rats. In high sec, my retriever with T1 drones is in no danger. In null sec I got dropped by an NPC dreadnaught.
Yes.
I was never involved in a fleet, and was never helped by a fleet. I guess that sometimes the presence of a fleet or the possibility of fleets helped keep some opportunist hunters away… but actually I got the impression that the few people that regularly hunted around knew what they were doing and were relatively adept and keeping ahead of anyone that might be interested in pursuing them.
Randomly not. Different play styles.
You could not really equate it to high sec. Everyone there in NRDS space had made the conscious choice to be there. Maybe new players should start outside of high sec?
Did I mention I got dropped once by an NPC dreadnaught?
Even in a system devoid of any other players there is a motivation there to not be AFK.
1 Like
Ah yep ok. So you’ve ganked 2 Ventures and a Retriever.
So if you are limiting your proposal to only barges and mining ships, I am ok with that.
As long as you aren’t trying to change freigher ganking (which benefits me as someone who hauls in freighters daily, not making it easier to escape gives prepared haulers an advantage over the lazy), I’m all ok.
On a side note, as someone who also has ganked in order to understand the mechanics (every successful attempt is on here: Elaniera | Character | zKillboard), among both the barges/exhumers back in Jan 2017 and then during Burn Jita last year, not every target chosen died, even where I got to the point of being on grid, shooting. It’s still, in my experience, not 100% chance of death, especially following the damage control rebalance.
Yeah… like I said. It was not hard.
I am not trying to specifically target Freighter ganking.
But it is very hard to think about changes to game mechanics that would affect other ganking and not just one type of ganking.
That’s why some of my ideas are targetting other game mechanics, trying to motivate miners to be a little bit more active and so on… trying to motivate them to keep eyes on the game… which would improve their chances of survival.
If I had to honestly ballpark it it would be in the 10-15% lived and that was purely due to low DPS relative to the time before CONCORD.
But this is only for when the aggression timers starts and the ship is webbed. Way more got away if they were paying attention (and I always tipped my hat to them and it was great to see them embrace James’s wisdom).
1 Like
And how many had you scouted out and were planning to get, but never started an attack on, because they either did not go where expected or did something else to avoid it?
A ton…and the reasons that I saw were:
- Avoided all Skiffs and Procs outright as they needed more DPS than I could bring to bare
- Avoided any that were hugging roids as they would trip my scout’s cloak (who also acted as warp-in)
- Missed those that did not warp back to the same spot after unloading
- Missed those that did not mine the same belt over each time after unloading
- Skipped any that were slow boating
- Called off an attack run if they started aligning well before I arrived (watched via scout)
- Generally left the system if it was announced in local that CODE was present at any point in time
There are some core reasons why a gank was called-off or avoided altogether.
Thank you for responding. It is nice once in a while to get some content in the thread instead of the usual rhetoric (I think this thread would be reduced to about 40 posts then… and I would have trouble keeping it up there…) 
Do you always get your scout very close to the target? Some people use the “warp fleet at 20” or even “100” option to hit the people on the roids.
Filling up a retriever takes a while. Often a miner will be AFK whilst waiting to fill, only to come back to his computer when he hears that the mining has stopped. So these “unloading” cases must be those where coincidentally the unloading occurs at a time when you are preparing to gank?
Because they might be aligned and not AFK? Or because they move out of “optimal” range whilst you are warping in? How slow is slow boating?
At what point do you decide to call it off? Do you ever try to get a lock with an activated scram in case you get lucky, or are you more the type that prefers more safety?
In case the AFK miners were watching local?
So of the 8 reasons listed for not ganking someone, the following were ones that might be affected by player action once you had chosen a target:
(Skiffs and Procs are not considered for targetting, Roid-Huggers were not considered for targetting, Slow boaters were not considered for targetting)
Does orbitting asteroids help people survive? I hear conflicting information ranging from “nice when it is a bit of a challenge” to “look for an easier target”. Orbitting makes for easier afk-ing, because with slow boating you can sometimes come out of range of the roid you are trying to mine.
Of course we have to be careful not to orbit the roid they are mining, or else we will fly off into space once their roid is gone.
EDIT This will be my last post for the night. I will be back tomorrow evening/night again.
Cats are designed to be point blank so you absolutely need to get as close as possible or your DPS wont be as effective. I’ve never heard of using the generic “warp to…” for a gank for the previously mentioned reason plus you can’t scram at longer ranges.
It’s not the unloading part that was the problem, it was the target’s predictability. A smart miner never returns to the same spot and has BMs in all their fields to cycle.
It was a sign that they knew what they were doing first and formost. Running at 50% throttle on a Retriever is about 40m/s so they only need another 20m/s to hit warp (the 75% mark). (ball-parking here) a Retriever needs about 15s to warp from a dead stop so that’s apx 4m/s/s acceleration. From 50% throttle that’s down to just 5 seconds (20m/s / 4mss.
The second rare reason was that it they were going really slow it might be a sign they were using a higgs which allows for insta-warp.
It’s a snap decision as you have no time to second guess or Concord will eat you alive. For me it was a gut call based on how close my lead ship was to the target in warp and how far along the target was initiating their warp. As mentioned before, they need about 15 seconds and once landed, I need a few seconds to lock (I forget what that was but call it 3 seconds). So that leaves 12 seconds from the time they start their warp for me to get on top. If I guess I’m 6-8 seconds out, that would only leave 4-6 seconds of wiggle…not a lot and that’s why the call would be made mid-warp some times.
I always pre-pulled CONCORD so that could have been 3-5 minutes before the gank. Even an AFK miners might look over at local and see somebody wrote something about CODE…it wasn’t worth it.
I’d say slightly? Ventures AB’ing at 1200m/s are comical and mostly safe (from me at least). Orbiting a bigger miner not really as you are not aligned. Sure you have speed but most of those boats lose that when aligning so…All it meant was more time to position the scout.
I would never claim to be a pro but I know the basics and I hope by sharing this (calmly) you see that it’s actually pretty easy to mitigate the ganker threat for miners. I never hit haulers so I can’t speak of that process.
You’ll never be 100% safe but that’s EVE…it’s always just a battle of risk vs reward.
I also apologies for being over aggressive earlier. You are diametrically opposed to how I view things, hence the hostility but I didn’t need to be so abrasive. You’re still not getting my votes as those are going to @Olmeca_Gold old 
o7
OK, I’ll bite. You’re still not getting it, but at least you seem to be willing now, so I’ll try again.
It doesn’t matter. What matters is that you make it clear where does it begin for you, and then stick to it, whenever it happens to be, and make sure that everything you say is consistent with that.
Gank is a term used to refer to a particular type of kill. If you want to use it in a broader sense to also include all the preparations that precede the actual kill, that’s fine, as long as you make it clear upfront what it is exactly that you’re talking about and use the term consistently.
Now, the moment you move the point where a gank starts away from the actual shooting, more and more of what you said about the chance of surviving becomes ■■■■■■■■, and your proposal becomes total nonsense, because it turns out that the chance of survival in that case is WAY higher than 50% already…
That’s because the moment you start moving the origin of the gank away from the actual shooting, you have to start considering things like why did the ganker pick that particular target in the first place, or how many other potential targets “survived” by the mere fact of flying smarter, and this is where you have not been consistent at all.
This is wrong even if you only move the point where the gank starts to when the ganking ships are on their way to the target, but if you move it further away then it becomes total ■■■■■■■■, because then you have to start considering why did you try this with a Retriever or a standing still Venture, and not with a Procurer or an orbiting Venture.
You didn’t take this into consideration at all when you arrived at the conclusion that the chance of the gank being successful is 100%. You didn’t bring into the equation all the other potential targets that had “survived” the gank already by the mere fact of flying smarter.
This is where you’re not being consistent at all. You believe you’re moving the point where the gank starts away from the actual shooting, but you’re not doing it consistently, you’re doing it for some things, but not for others.
Now, you say things like improving the understanding that players have of the game would help improve the chance of surviving a gank, in the sense that fewer of them would be viable or profitable targets. Only when you say this, you’re showing you totally don’t understand the very “test” you did to check the chance of surviving a gank.
Even if players knew way better how to pick, fit and fly their ships, there would still be some of them mining in standing still untanked Retrievers and Ventures. There would be less than there are now, but still some, and if you repeated your tests again, you’d get again the exact same results, because again you would pick those same targets and not take into consideration at all the others that had “survived” already by the mere fact of flying smarter.
And this is how we get again to the point where, no matter what you do or how you look at it, as long as you keep thinking of this in the terms you do, there is no way, absolutely none, to have a 50% (or any other) chance of surviving a gank without introducing chance based suicide ganking mechanics.
Sure you could try again and properly do this by precisely defining where you want to consider the gank starts and analysing it all consistently… only if you did that properly, you’d find that the chance of surviving a gank is WAY higher than 50% already, and then you talking about wanting it to be 50% at least would simply make no sense at all…
1 Like
He is on the CODE blue list, that is being prepared, ROFL, and people had the cheek to ask the OP about local intel in terms of their Provi experience…
People should go and watch Niarja and Uedama and see a number of freighters that are always AP’ing and in groups, they are on the CODE blue list, don’t take my word for it go and see it and note what happens when the gankers are active, absolutely nothing.
Being prepared means being blue to CODE. One can argue that the this is player action and you would be right, however it is done on the back of a bad mechanic called bumping. This needs to be made harder.
Damn right you did not need to be so aggressive and abrasive.
But if you are only voting for Olmeca Gold and no intention for voting for the OP why are you even in here, you should be grilling him?
No it is not. The Bumper has no real risk…, my example would be Faylee Faye who was bumping without a backup gank fleet, he made enough to buy two Titans from bumping and had a C&P thread. So much for your risk & reward statement…
Makes yet another claim with ZERO proof…
Go have intercourse with yourself
…except for being in a known location at a known time with a warping point on he nose…the problem is people like you would never take advantage and plan that because it’s easier to just whine about “it’s hard” in the forums than actually retaliate…
Go fight back Chicken Little…or is that too hard?
The proof is there in Niarja and Uedama which are multiple freighters that are auto-piloting and are not being ganked, people can go check it for themselves. I have no idea whether Scipio is in fact on that blue list, but I would think that there is a very high probability that he is based on his contacts.
Hit a nerve did I after you trolled the OP for so long.
Yeah as if it is so easy, if it is so easy why aren’t people doing it? A large number of people gank, but very few gank the ganker. There are reasons for this…
Answer me the question on Faylee Faye, he was a bumper with no backup gank fleet and he made enough to buy two titans and all their fittings and I think in all that time he lost two Machariels. Is that really the risk and reward you are talking about? Risk and reward, more like no risk and huge rewards… You cannot answer that so straight on to the insults.
So a freighter goes a system but isn’t ganked so the ONLY conclusion you can draw is that it MUST be in cahoots with the bad guys? Please…
Well at least you admit that…Oh we’re still waiting for yuor actual proof that there is a blue list as just claiming it doesn’t make it true.
Wow…because we are not the ones crying and sobbing daily about it! That would be YOU! So if YOU have a problem with it, YOU go deal with like a big boy.
Sure after you link to me info to back up your claim…again, just claiming something doesn’t make it true.
It’s straight to the insults for you because all you do is cry…nonstop. Go do something about it and stop asking the grownups to do it for you.
2 Likes
Did I say that? Nope. I was talking about Scipio and those freighters that never get ganked while AP’ing.
Well I was on that blue list at one point and people kept telling me it did not exist, ROFL.
What compete against a totally imbalanced mechanic that gives you so many advantages. Why the hell would I do that, but once this mechanic is nerfed in someway then yes I will. You lot hide behind it like the real chicken littles…
He had a thread in C&P where he was bumping freighters and doing ransoms and trick duels, it is there if you can be bothered to look for it. So much for your risk vs reward…
Crying, as if, the one crying is you because all you can do is go straight into insult mode when I am just pointing out the holes in your arguments. And you think you are grown up doing that, oh dear, just like you think you are grown up when you take what people say so out of context and then attack that. This is groan up… 
You do realize that the gankers are not watching gates 24/7 right? You do get that correct?
Sure you were. Please name the CODE member that will verify that claim. Should be easy enough right?
Becasue you will profit from it, make the bumpers nervous, protect your freighter…etc…But ya, “something something too hard for you so waa waa waa” is always easier. The fact you refuse to gank the bumper which is a bloody easy target just shows how lazy you actually are.
Your proof?..everything else is you just claiming BS…
Um…you are the one that came into this thread and just started crying about bumping…it’s pathetic.
Yet some are logged on and AFK like Racknar at the moment and he has his scanning alts on gates. But he is not active at all. As if I have not been observing the gankers and as if I have no idea who is active and when…
They deny it as it destroys their narrative.
How do I profit from that? Gank the bumper is zero profit.
Faylee Faye is well known for that, that you do not know him or pretend that you do not is worrying for someone who claims to know this game.
I have clear and precise detail on why bumping is a poor mechanic.
@Lorelei_Ierendi as this is your thread, can I do a post in here on what the changes a complete nerf to bumping (so it is not possible as compared to a warp timer) will do to the ganker / AG conflict in your thread.
Ganker fleets will not be able to stay -10, as this will impact their ability to loiter around gates for the target to decloak, this means one consequence will have more of an impact. Ganker will be more focussed on the location of the gank so the AG fleet will be looking for the target and the gank fleet. At the moment the AG players have to split their people over multiple bumped potential victims, without bumping this becomes a game of cat and mouse between active players.
And that is such a major change compared to what it is now… Just an example of where I will go with this.
I can see the crying reply from freighter gankers now, you want to end ganking… ROFL