# Niarja Referendum **URL:** \ **Category:** General Discussion\ **Created:** [November 13, 2025, 4:11pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/niarja-referendum/500791 "2025-11-13T16:11:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![QuakeGod](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/quakegod/32/480339_2.png) [@QuakeGod](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/QuakeGod)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2025, 8:03pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/niarja-referendum/500791/123 "2025-11-17T20:03:26Z")
> [@Meridan\_Night](#): > > That’s how it was for a long time …..until it went free-to-play. Now we can roll an infinite number of accounts, gank to our heart’s content, delete the toons, and keep right on ganking. With absolutely zero consequences. Again, you have CCP to thank for that… ---
**Author:** ![Gerard\_Amatin](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/gerard_amatin/32/481361_2.png) [@Gerard\_Amatin](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Gerard_Amatin)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2025, 8:07pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/niarja-referendum/500791/124 "2025-11-17T20:07:52Z")
> [@Syzygium](#): > > It should be a “way of life” for a fully developed character instead of an efficiency-trimmed minimal-alt. Maybe if CONCORD would take longer to arrive people people wouldn’t have to train so many alts for ganks. And maybe if ganking had less harsh repercussions people would be inclined to use fully developed character to gank instead of their alts. I can see how CCP could grant your wish, but I don’t know if this is the direction you would like ganking to go. ---
**Author:** ![QuakeGod](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/quakegod/32/480339_2.png) [@QuakeGod](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/QuakeGod)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2025, 8:10pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/niarja-referendum/500791/125 "2025-11-17T20:10:59Z")
> [@Gerard\_Amatin](#): > > Maybe if CONCORD would take longer to arrive people people wouldn’t have to train so many alts for ganks. If CONCORD response time was increased, players would still use multiple alts for ganking, just with a much higher chance of success due to the increase in response time… ---
**Author:** ![Gerard\_Amatin](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/gerard_amatin/32/481361_2.png) [@Gerard\_Amatin](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Gerard_Amatin)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2025, 8:11pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/niarja-referendum/500791/126 "2025-11-17T20:11:52Z")
Nah, people would use fewer alts. Why sacrifice more ships than necessary? ---
**Author:** ![QuakeGod](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/quakegod/32/480339_2.png) [@QuakeGod](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/QuakeGod)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2025, 8:12pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/niarja-referendum/500791/127 "2025-11-17T20:12:53Z")
Depends on how bad the other player pissed you off. I’d go for the guaranteed kill every time… ---
**Author:** ![QuakeGod](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/quakegod/32/480339_2.png) [@QuakeGod](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/QuakeGod)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2025, 8:14pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/niarja-referendum/500791/128 "2025-11-17T20:14:14Z")
If CONCORD response times were increased, 0.5 systems would be a guaranteed death sentence… ---
**Author:** ![Gerard\_Amatin](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/gerard_amatin/32/481361_2.png) [@Gerard\_Amatin](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Gerard_Amatin)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2025, 8:16pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/niarja-referendum/500791/129 "2025-11-17T20:16:28Z")
Are 0.4 systems a guaranteed death sentence? I think you’re exaggerating. ---
**Author:** ![QuakeGod](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/quakegod/32/480339_2.png) [@QuakeGod](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/QuakeGod)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2025, 8:17pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/niarja-referendum/500791/130 "2025-11-17T20:17:40Z")
> [@Gerard\_Amatin](#): > > Are 0.4 systems a guaranteed death sentence? If you are in a mining ship, hauler, or outnumbered, 99% of the time, yes… ---
**Author:** ![Gerard\_Amatin](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/gerard_amatin/32/481361_2.png) [@Gerard\_Amatin](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Gerard_Amatin)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2025, 8:23pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/niarja-referendum/500791/131 "2025-11-17T20:23:17Z")
Still, many people who do know how to stay alive can survive in 0.4 systems. Luckily a 0.5 is significantly safer, even if CONCORD were to arrive later than now. People illegally attacking you would still face the same consequences of a loss of security status, a guaranteed loss of ship and loss of safety in HS for a month due to the existence of kill rights. The only things that delaying CONCORD changes is that that the target a group can take can have more EHP than before, or that the gankers can use fewer accounts to accomplish the same gank as before. I don’t see that as a ‘guaranteed death sentence’ if it happened. ---
**Author:** ![James\_Fuchs](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/james_fuchs/32/504955_2.png) [@James\_Fuchs](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/James_Fuchs)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2025, 8:25pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/niarja-referendum/500791/132 "2025-11-17T20:25:11Z")
Guys, where do you get the idea that there aren’t consequences for ganking? Of course there are. Aside from your ship getting blown up, there are lots of things that you will incur once you open fire on non-valid targets in high security space. _Can_ you mitigate them for the most part? Yeah. It does cost a bit of money though, half a billion roughly to repair your security record back from -5 to 0. If you’re on multiple accounts, let’s just say ten, then you are racking up a pretty nice sum very quickly (and regularly). And that’s just your security record. Not factored in is every ship plus it’s equipment that gets lost on every attack. If you’re like me, and you don’t want to pay that money, you’re stuck with a permanent -10 security record. You have a lot of restrictions, like for example, I can’t dock back up with a ship, I can’t stand still in space because faction police will kill me, every player can open up fire on me freely, and so forth. If you’re a career ganker, you can work around all of this, of course. Eventually, you get so accustomed to the restrictions, that you make it look easy (ELITE PVP!!!), but you do give up a lot of things to be able to do so. If you’re anything else, like a mission runner or a freighterpilot, and you gank with the same character on the side, you’re out of your mind. But kudos to you regardless. With explosive regards -James Fuchs ---
**Author:** ![QuakeGod](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/quakegod/32/480339_2.png) [@QuakeGod](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/QuakeGod)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2025, 8:27pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/niarja-referendum/500791/133 "2025-11-17T20:27:04Z")
> [@James\_Fuchs](#): > > I can’t stand still in space because faction police will kill me That’s what covops and a cloak is for… ---
**Author:** ![James\_Fuchs](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/james_fuchs/32/504955_2.png) [@James\_Fuchs](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/James_Fuchs)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2025, 8:29pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/niarja-referendum/500791/134 "2025-11-17T20:29:26Z")
> [@QuakeGod](#): > > That’s what covops and a cloak is for… ![grafik](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/original/4X/6/c/0/6c0b15746409805074c91b7472c1048280d563d0.png) Fun idea though. With stealthy regards -James Fuchs ---
**Author:** ![Gerard\_Amatin](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/gerard_amatin/32/481361_2.png) [@Gerard\_Amatin](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Gerard_Amatin)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2025, 8:30pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/niarja-referendum/500791/135 "2025-11-17T20:30:41Z")
![image](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/original/4X/6/5/b/65b834a7a368cf06e619280db0c396c8c5d86c86.png) Once upon a time that might’ve worked. > **[Changes to Security Status & Abyssal Filaments | EVE Online](https://www.eveonline.com/news/view/changes-to-security-status-and-abyssal-filaments)** > > New changes to outlaw behavior in high security space & activation of Abyssal filaments ---
**Author:** ![QuakeGod](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/quakegod/32/480339_2.png) [@QuakeGod](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/QuakeGod)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2025, 8:31pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/niarja-referendum/500791/136 "2025-11-17T20:31:08Z")
Hmm, learn something new every day… ---
**Author:** ![QuakeGod](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/quakegod/32/480339_2.png) [@QuakeGod](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/QuakeGod)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2025, 8:33pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/niarja-referendum/500791/137 "2025-11-17T20:33:42Z")
I’ve got an 18 km/s Vagabond I’ll have to try it in. They can’t hit what’s already 500km out when they land on grid, unless they cheat and have infinite targeting range or something. ---
**Author:** ![Hatch\_Nasty](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/hatch_nasty/32/512820_2.png) [@Hatch\_Nasty](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Hatch_Nasty)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2025, 8:52pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/niarja-referendum/500791/138 "2025-11-17T20:52:10Z")
> [@QuakeGod](#): > > If CONCORD response times were increased, 0.5 systems would be a guaranteed death sentence… > [@Gerard\_Amatin](#): > > Are 0.4 systems a guaranteed death sentence? Key difference being, in 0.4, the victim may have the opportunity to shoot first when they see danger coming. In 0.5, the victim can do nothing (other than run away) until the ganker pulls the trigger. And by then, it’s too late. This is the only problem I have with HS ganking: asymmetric rules of engagement. HS ganking would be fine with me if enabling red safety in HS had a spin-up/down timer and incurred a suspect flag while active. If you fly around civilized space with guns hot, people can assume you’re dangerous and shoot first. ---
**Author:** ![Gerard\_Amatin](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/gerard_amatin/32/481361_2.png) [@Gerard\_Amatin](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Gerard_Amatin)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2025, 9:04pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/niarja-referendum/500791/139 "2025-11-17T21:04:14Z")
> [@Hatch\_Nasty](#): > > Key difference being, in 0.4, the victim may have the opportunity to shoot first when they see danger coming. In 0.5, the victim can do nothing (other than run away) until the ganker pulls the trigger. And by then, it’s too late. > > This is the only problem I have with HS ganking: asymmetric rules of engagement. HS ganking would be fine with me if enabling red safety in HS had a spin-up/down timer and incurred a suspect flag while active. If you fly around civilized space with guns hot, people can assume you’re dangerous and shoot first. Technically when I’m in systems below 0.0 I also have ‘the opportunity to shoot first when I see danger coming’. But why would I? If I’m not in a combat ship and a scout is flying ahead of a roaming hostile fleet it would be suicide to try engage him in my Exhumer. Engagements aren’t asymmetric just in HS. Asymmetric engagements is what happens everywhere in this game, it’s one of the main characteristics of a free for all PvP game. You won’t tell me a miner in HS would stay and shoot first against Catalysts that run up to them when they see 10 more Catalysts coming in local or on dscan. But please tell me, as I’m not a HS miner and rarely see the Catalyst gankers that kill them, but don’t those Catalysts fly with negative security status? You could already shoot them first if you wanted! ---
**Author:** ![QuakeGod](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/quakegod/32/480339_2.png) [@QuakeGod](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/QuakeGod)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2025, 9:13pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/niarja-referendum/500791/140 "2025-11-17T21:13:18Z")
> [@Gerard\_Amatin](#): > > Asymmetric engagements is what happens everywhere in this game This ^. N+1 always wins, no matter what security space you are in… ---
**Author:** ![Malak\_Starfire](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/malak_starfire/32/501915_2.png) [@Malak\_Starfire](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Malak_Starfire)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2025, 9:34pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/niarja-referendum/500791/141 "2025-11-17T21:34:35Z")
> [@QuakeGod](#): > > N+1 always wins Eh, not always. There are many storied examples of a smaller group outfighting a larger one. ---
**Author:** ![Tiger\_space\_Thedark](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/tiger_space_thedark/32/373728_2.png) [@Tiger\_space\_Thedark](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Tiger_space_Thedark)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2025, 10:40pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/niarja-referendum/500791/142 "2025-11-17T22:40:54Z")
you guys got the trade link back anyway by screaming to ccp that it was unfair and whotnot, making the fall of niarja utter useless [Previous page](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/niarja-referendum/500791.md?page=6) [Next page](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/niarja-referendum/500791.md?page=8)