Proposal for Rebalancing of the Suicide Gank

Yes, but it should be 150. Otherwise how are players supposed to transport 20 billion ISK in a freighter?

1 Like

That isn’t enough even for them. Until ganking is impossible, calls for the gameplay to be nerfed further will always continue.

There’ll be some other new aspect of it that is out of balance and needs nerfing. Then, when that is done, it’ll be something else.

CCP may as well just extend Asset Safety to include highsec-highsec goods movements by NPCs. There’ll be no challenge left for it to be worth doing for any player.


But I’m tired of playing EVE Echoes on my phone so I want them to change this game to be like that so I can use my nice big monitor.

I concider myself clueless even while playing the game so I am confused about that…

Just going to drop myself here again.

Im still not seeing how 4 significant nerfs can be viewed as “balance”.

1 Like

So I hear, Shipwreck is preparing a video of some kind and I wanted to put it in his ear that there is a more general view one can take about the situation. Still, I would not think it wise for a person to wait until just before the coup de grace before stepping in to protect something important to them.

Also, I don’t think judging the process of ganking by a few isolated parts that are convenient or easy is a fair assessment of the entire process and its challenges. My opinion is that the occupation is challenging enough that I would not want to make it any more difficult, but I would not object to changes that made the conflict more interesting without making it harder. I’ve not seen anyone who focuses their ganking proposals on making the conflict interesting, though, so I have no idea what kind of changes would be practical, balanced, and fun.


I am focussing on balance changes that develop the conflict side of things, because it is needed.

Let’s take tethering as an example, previously it was possible to catch them on stations as they undocked or by having sniffed out their instra undocks, people with kill rights would be in space aligned to the gate and we would probe them down and kill them. Tethering removed that counter play and fun.

That is one example.

Tags made it easier for people to gank, so we ended up with more and more Tornado, Rrupture and Thrasher gankers which to me is fine, however previously people with low security status had a restriction on their ganking and had to go into more dangerous space to rat it back. Content removed…

The RR nerf killed AG fleets effectively, because the logistics wing could not support the DPS wing. Previously we could rep people who were attacked by criminals, but now, nope.

My focus on the churning is mainly on how this impacts decent red lists and how to improve that so we can create usable lists that are not destroyed by said churning. (@Etch_Masuka this is clearly referring to the Alpha accounts churning.)

Of course to the gankers I am ending ganking, I was told that when I wanted bumping restricted, they screamed about this ending ganking and yet it did not. The thing is that they complained about bumping being changed and said it would end ganking because they wanted that advantage protected, and they do this all the time.

Yeah, you still can. You’re just too much of a lily-livered yellow belly to do it the hard way.

Are you the original poster? Is it your alt? Because not every thread about ganking is solely about Dracvlads opinions.

Discussion in this thread is about the 4 very significant nerfs proposed to ganking by the original poster, which you waded in after and said “great post, speak to truth to power blah blah blah”. Couldn’t that be interpreted as support for the 4 nerfs?

Your posts now are talking about tethering, tags and number of contacts for setting red like you are being reasonable. After Praising a post suggesting alphas cant aggress, concord response times should be reduced, kill rights should last a year while beaconing the pilot…….and docking access is removed in high sec.

So for clarity, since you have both agreed with and disagreed with the original posts recommendations depending on who you are replying to in the thread, can you confirm what you position is on those recommendations. Since you constantly claim your views are being misrepresented maybe it would be a good idea to clearly state them :slight_smile:


Destiny being Destiny. And lying again, I have been in many AG fleets in the past, but I do not now.

And Etch being Etch, I don’t bother reading or replying to your stuff. What I posted is my view on the state of counter play and red lists in terms of balance based on the points raised by the OP, it is easy to understand.

NB. Moderators have asked to limit the number of replies, they also suggest with automated messages that perhaps private discussion should be the case. Due to this I add relevant information to existing posts as a matter of course. It is amusing to see that following moderators instructions causes you angst. I also found that it broke the floor of certain troll posters, and they obviously hated it, but the reason I do it, is not clutter up the thread with pointless back and forths.

He doesn’t know how to do it, lol.

Yup Etch being Etch.

Asking for clarifications to try and understand something in order to have a discussion about.

Why is it so difficult to state which bits of the original post you agree or disagree with and why?

EDIT………. The post has been edited. I wish you wouldn’t do that after its already been replied to.

Ok example 1. The original poster has called for alpha clones to be nerfed so they can’t agrees in high sec. But you are talking about expanding the contacts list to allow more pilots to be set to red.

What is not clear to be is if you are suggesting that instead of alphas being nerfed or as well as. Alphas being nerfed. Can you please clarify :slight_smile:

1 Like

What if a change was made to the ECM Burst module to only effect those ships targeting (engaging) the ship using such module?
/Support fleet would have to be in same Corp etc to not go criminal)


You should probably go through the past hundred or two posts of his, then. He might’ve edited one of those to inform you of your temporarily-permanent three-week block.

And now we have a second edit. Sub standard trolling.

@Dracvlad i am asking you questions that are directly about the original posters topic and your responses to that topic. I’m sure the moderating team have no issue with advancing and clarifying points made in an ongoing discussion. If you want to ignore that and try to derail the thread by playing some immature game of editing posts after they have been replied to……. By all means continue.

He’s not trolling; he just lacks the intelligence and logic skills to keep up with a competitive debate, so his brain creates these delusions of grandeur as a coping mechanism, making him go on wild tangents and construct a vast history of accomplishments in order to convince himself (less so other people) that he’s a respected expert. See how like half of his posts are just stories about his successes and accomplishments as a PvPer? Players who are actually successful and accomplished don’t talk that way.

A side effect of this manifests itself in the form of going back and editing prior posts that make him look like an utter buffoon after other posters call him out on his incompetence.

1 Like

And another edit… To another post.

Yes this is clearly referring to Alpha churning. I read this earlier and am still non the wiser. The original poster said they wanting to stop alphas being able to agress in highsec. Your focus on churning is a little less defined than that. So perhaps you could confirm what that focus is? You know for clarity. In fact lets just make this simple…

Do you agree with the original posters recommendation that alpha players should be nerfed?

Perhaps you could just reply with a simple yes or no instead of editing past posts and tagging me in them making the thread far harder for others to follow.

I think you are playing games, you like to do that, still it is a reasonable question even if I feel that I answered it by saying that my focus was on conflict and one can’t have conflict if you can’t shoot. Perhaps your first language is not English, but your English is excellent.

It is not so much a yes/no answer as in a way it depends, you asked this which is a bit different to his point:

He suggested that they cannot set their safety red and detailed what can and cannot be done with an Alpha account should that be the case.

You question is whether they should be be nerfed but they are already nerfed, there is gameplay that they cannot partake in and they have limited skill training and ship options. They can’t do PI for example, so reducing their actions is already there.

He made me look at it again, because my viewpoint was that excluding them from ganking was not something I could support being that I see ganking as part of the game and as such even though I saw it taking away a limited part of the game based on his detail I could not support it.

In terms of the issue of Alpha accounts ganking, because if it is truly one account per player than I see no issue, the only issue I see is the churn which I detailed above and the impact on ganker red lists.

That being said I am hoping that CCP are able to police people getting around the one Alpha account restriction, but as they are not good at stopping bots should I be a bit nervous about people getting around this? If people are getting around this then the restrictions would be supported by me, but if not then no.

A single alpha account can no longer gank a properly fit barge or exhumer, so can only pick off ones with no tank, that is fine, he can also gank unfit haulers which is fine, or ventures and stuff like that. I think that is fine, I think the current balance of mining barges and exhumers is fine.

TLDR: If CCP is actively controlling people playing on Alpha to one account only then I would not remove their ability to have a red safety.

I just hope that you are not trolling.

That wasn’t so hard now was it. However a simple No would have sufficed.

Do you support the original posters suggestion that concord response times should be decreased by 30%?

Edited coz I’m a moron

I think that doesn’t mean what you think it means. :thinking: :upside_down_face:

1 Like