You are just about 100% safe in highsec. So someone may come along once in a while and gank you. Move to a different system then and ignore local chat while you watch everything on Netflix. The system is already set up just fine for both parties
4 Likes
Isn’t it true that if you keep following someone wherever they go to ■■■■ with them, they can then claim they are being harassed and are trying to avoid you, that you can be banned if you persist in your actions?
Regardless, as long as gankers only ever have to fly disposable ships to inflict devastating losses on other players, they can never really be punished by their victims or be forced to take a significant risk for their potentially tremendous rewards. That fact can really leave a bad taste in ones mouth and make EVE seem really unappealing and shitty for pvpers and non-pvpers alike.
While suicide ganking is very much an important mechanic in eve, I do admit he has a point that it’s really damn cheap to do it. It used to cost a lot more to do pre-dessy dps mega-buff, and pre-attack battlecruisers. CCP did a little to help counter this with tanking buffs on the weak freightors, and by removing insurance scams on concord suicides, but it’s still really cheap to do, with almost guaranteed profit.
Honestly though, the only thing that really ticks me off is that you can fix a completely borked security status by throwing isk at it now. Back when you had to grind that crap back up for each suicide alt (Or get banned by biomassing.) it was a lot more work. Bring that back, and the low isk cost to replace suicide ships becomes fairly mute.
Don’t give us that bs that ganking is always cheap and theres no risk. I waste several fleets a month worth 1.5-3bil when I don’t get a full scan or math is off cos they have slaves. 90% of the time they’re a jf or dst so I can’t just bump them and retry either. Even barges, people most of the time aren’t making money since even a ret can take 2-3 t2 cats to kill costing not much less than the target. Skiffs, procs and orcas are way too tanky at the moment and people still complain.
Of course ganking is going to be cheap when someone decides to fly on autopilot triple expanded with 20bil inside. You want us to have to spend 20bil to gank it? 10? 5? How much is too cheap?
If ganking was so easy, cheap and there was no risk, why is there only 2 or 3 groups doing it?
3 Likes
Dude. Your tears are showing. Why does there have to be equal risk/reward? It’s not like that in life.
2 Likes
Destroying a gank catalyst is far easier than you realize. First off many are -10 meaning you can shoot them without fear of CONCORD. You can also activate kill rights if they are available, again shooting them without fear of CONCORD.
Your problem is you do not want to take the effort to catch them. See those who gank understand the game mechanics and seek to minimize their risk. As it should be. It is up to you, if you want to go after them, to increase their risk.
First off, no you aren’t glad it is possible. Second, of course there is low risk for suicide ganking, there is low risk because they mitigate their risk…they reduce their risk by taking actions to reduce said risk. And spare me that “risk vs. reward” nonsense by the way. If you respond with that you’ll just signal that you are clueless when it comes to risk taking and rewards.
And yes, there are tremendous rewards to suicide ganking freighters. But why is that? Because the player using the freighter took on high levels of risk for very low reward. He was foolish and imprudent. When you put billions into your freigher, anti-tank it, and do not use a scout…you are turning your ship into a loot pinata. That is on the freighter pilot.
Sure you can.
You are not denied anything save by the actions of those you upon whom you want feel your vengeance. It is up to you to take your revenge, or consider others to do it for you–i.e. hire someone.
Gankers already often use ships that are “expensive” such as stealth bombers and battlecruisers. This is pretty clearly an attempt by you to resolve your inability to accomplish your goal by having CCP make it easier for you. Further, forcing players to take risks is ridiculous. It is not CCPs place to balance or impose risks on groups of players. That is the job of players. If I am foolish and take on too much risk CCP should not come along and periodically blow up my ship when I do that…that should be done by players.
And here it is the abuse. Yes, somebody shooting you in a shuttle must mean they are bad at the game…says the guy asking CCP to make his game easier. The irony of it…
Maybe if you didn’t suck at this game you would not make such posts.
The cost of suicide ganking is dependent on what the freighter pilot does. If you load up your freighter with 6 billion in cargo value, anti-tank it, and do not use a scout, you make ganking very, very affordable even in ships as pricey as stealth bombers. About 3 billion is the expected loot drop. That buys alot of 50 million ISK ships. In fact, it will buy 60 of them. More than enough to go out and gank several more freighters.
Really? Do they not have kill rights you can activate? Are not most of them -10? Can you not war dec them…oh wait, then they could shoot you. I just looked up a number of known gankers, all -10 meaning you can shoot them on sight.
Yes, it happens, but it is the exception not the norm. And do not include double wrapped containers, LS, NS kills nor kills during a war dec. You can’t easily remove those who died due to kill rights or say going suspect, but if you spend a bit of time you can.
Nothing says people have to take risks. Nothing. This is some bizarre belief you want to impose on everyone else.
Nobody is forcing you to take on various levels of risk. If you do that is your choice and your problem.
You are ignorant of the dynamic here. The reward is not because of gankers actions but a result of the actions of the freighter pilot.
Freighter Pilot Frank: He fits reinforced bulkheads, he limits his cargo value, he has a scout, and his scout has webs. Frank is reducing his risk.
Freighter Pilot Fool: He fits cargo expanders, he stuffed 6.7 billion ISK in cargo value into his cargo hold, he has no scout. Fool is taking on a large amount of risk.
Be like Frank, don’t be like Fool. That simple.
4 Likes
Have you ever heard about the harassment clause used against someone for ruining someone else’s game by evicting them from a wormhole? Continuously hotdropping their ratting carriers? Hellcamping their home system around the clock? I haven’t - probably because those living away from the safety net of CONCORD realize they’re never supposed to be safe. But I know for certain that harassment is mentioned a lot by those who would rather play the victim card than try to improve their playstyle.
What devastating losses? T1 hulls are cheap and are nicely compensated when insured. By the time you get an Exhumer or a freighter, however, shouldn’t you at least think about the measures you can take to protect your investment and evaluate the risk you are potentially taking by making this upgrade?
Besides, EVE has never been a “bigger is better” game. A frigate, under certain conditions, can destroy a battleship. A swarm of interceptors can bring down a dreadnought. It’s up to the player to figure out how to use the environment to his benefit. If you want to learn, the doors of the “minerbumping” channel are always open to you.
I have nothing against “CCP tanking”. The recent years have shown that metagaming, including that involving EVE’s developers and GMs, is an integral part of the game. However, if you’re only keen on taking the “nerf this, nerf that” approach without offering any specifics or ways to compromise, I doubt that the two of us have anything to discuss, really.
4 Likes
Indeed.
Below is something I wrote on the old forums.
Most of us have seen them, those threads that come along every now and then and complain about the lack of risk those who gank freighters face. And on top of that there is all that ISK they make. Goons appear to have a cutoff of 6 billion in cargo: then gank.
Yes, at first glance it looks like there is an imbalance here. People understand the game mechanics are using them to make substantial amounts of ISK with little actual risk.
I believe the proper response is to point out that freighter ganking is where people are taking advantage of arbitrage opportunities on risk. We know what it means to do this on the market with prices, you see something for a low price in one market and a high price in another, you buy low and move the item to sell high. Or you might put up a buy order at a low price with the intent to sell at a higher price and thereby take advantage of people’s impatience when buying and selling items. Nobody seems to have a problem with this.
But when we switch over to risk, for some reason most people just can’t think through the process the same way. What is almost always ignored is the freighter pilot’s actions to take on very large amounts of risk. In fact, the opponents of freighter ganking not only appear to ignore this aspect of the freighter pilot’s choice, they argue as if they want to protect such behavior.
My argument has been, that when somebody takes on large amounts of risk, it is fine that somebody else comes along and takes advantage of it. That this is perfectly in line with the nature of the game. In fact, it is the very idea that underlies one of the primary rules of the game: do not fly anything you cannot afford to lose….do not take on excessive risk.
Why suddenly this does not apply to freighters with 7.8 billion ISK worth of cargo is never explained by those opposed to freighter ganking. In every other instance where this applies there is no similar opposition. If you put modules on your mission BS that put its ISK value over 5 billion and you get ganked…nobody defends the imprudent mission pilot for foolishly put such valuable modules on his BS. When an imprudent player puts 10x PLEX into the cargo hold of his shuttle and is blown up, nobody defends this imprudent player who foolishly put such massive value into a squishy target. But put those same 10x PLEX in an ungainly freighter and the opponents of ganking come out of the woodwork and make the argument that there should be more risk for the gankers.
In other words, when it comes to freighter ganking “it takes two to tango”. On the one side we have to have a player taking on excessive amounts of risk and on the other side we have the players who understand how to take advantage of that risk. Yes, gankers face low risk…but they only exist because another player took on high risk. Or to put it differently: freighter ganking is very much an example of the sandbox game in action. One player is taking on too much risk and there are those who take advantage of it. This is totally fine everywhere else in the game…but apparently not HS and not if you are in a freighter. Blind jump your super to a cyno beacon and get dropped…sucks to be you. But undock with 6 billion ISK in your freighter and blind jump into Uedama (a well known gank system) and suddenly it is killing the game. No! That IS the game.
8 Likes
How did you guys advert this to freighter ganking? 
1 Like
The OP was clearly talking about ganking ships of, in his words, “potential for tremendous rewards”. That means it is not miner ganking which is uneconomical.
2 Likes
how is it uneconomical if people do this whenever they got the chance? 
CODE. subsidizes ganking mining ships. But go look the loot drops do not pay for the ship losses during the suicide gank.
1 Like
How does one do so? People, and I mean giant nullsec-sized fleets, have ganked things in rookie Corvettes. This is almost never done and when it is done, it is just for laughs, but when the number of ships allow in a highsec criminal PvP engagement isn’t capped, one side can just bring more cheaper ships. It already takes a massive fleet of destroyers to shoot a freighter and if you give them 20% more EHP, the suicide gankers are just going to bring 20% more destroyers if they can find the people, or stop entirely if they can’t and the economics make the attack nonviable. They are not going to swtich to gank Battleships or something.
Suicide ganking is already balanced so it is not profitable to attack most things in highsec that are fit normally with some tank and T2 modules. Mission ships, mining ships, and empty haulers all cost more in gank ships to attack then the pirate can expect to recover in loot. In some cases, it costs a hilariously amount to gank something if fit full tank. This is why almost everyone moving about highsec is left alone. That is clear from the MER numbers. Like in October, only 2.5B in ships were destroyed in The Forge while 957B worth of stuff moved in or out of that region. That is a loss rate of 0.26%. And those losses were to all sources, so only a fraction of that was because of suicide gankers.
I get that you want to increase the interaction between gankers and vigilantes and I am on board with that, but just raising the cost to gank, yet again, isn’t going to do that. We are already past the stage where suicide ganking could be considered accessible with the penalties and costs locking all but the most dedicated out of the activity, and the current professionals that do it will not be any more at risk if you just arbitrarily raise the EHP of ships and will just get more bodies. It will only lock out small and newer players who just won’t become criminals in the first place.
As has been explained, it isn’t cheap to knock over a freighter, and there is no guarantee of success. There is no guarantee of even finding a lucrative target that you stand a chance to make a profit on.
As for security status, most gankers don’t grind up their security status. They operate as criminals permanently at -10 which means anyone is free to shoot them. It also means they never undock in anything non-disposable because of the large amount of risk associated with having the Faction Police following you and being free-to-shoot to everyone in the game.
Ganking is fine. It is easy with some minor effort and minimal knowledge to dance around highsec with no fear of ever being exploded. The mechanics are so overwhelmingly in your favour, only though significant planning, cost and combined effort can someone have a chance of exploding you at a profit, or if you make a mistake and fail completely to defend yourself. I mean, the bar to saving your ship is so low it is usually just paying attention to the game client and pressing a single button to warp away. Even then you also have to get unlucky as most of the time if you AFK for hours off a gate in a loaded hauler anywhere outside the major trade pipes you will never be scanned let alone ganked.
I too would like to see more options for revenge and player interactions around crime, but in a game where you are 100% safe in station and can always choose what you want to risk by undocking or not, it is tough thing to engineer. I don’t see how making gankers use more expensive ships can be done without just reducing both the number of targets and thus the number of criminals as has apparently happened every time CCP has nerfed ganking in the past. Besides, you are not without tools now though to mess with criminal gankers, many of whom regularly fly “expensive” ships bigger than destroyers, who are made as vulnerable to being messed with as the game mechanics will allow and you can explode by just landing a point on them.
7 Likes
yes? 
Yes, the whole New Order/CODE/James 315 thing is a subsidized ganking/in game terrorist organization thing.
This quote right here, this is what this is really about. It’s what all complaint threads are about. The complainers don’t like the people involved with the action they are complaining about, and they want to find a way to hurt them. They (like real world protesters who constantly lash out irrationally) think that others feel like they do and all they have to do is get the ball rolling with a post and it will change.
And despite the fact that there is no evidence that anything has EVER changed in EVE Online due to a General Discussion forum complaint, these threads pop up like clock work just about every week for the last 14 years.
The problem I have with it is that (a) it’s all a lie and (b) it shows that the complainer is kind of lazy…
The (a) part is simple. People never want something “half-abolished”. They want it gone in total. So when someone who obviously hates something says “I don’t hate it, I just think it should cost the people who do it more than it does now”, they are trying to appear reasonable, because if they told the truth (ie “I want ganking GONE and anyone who even attempts is should be banned for life!”) everyone would see them for the irrational extremest they are and dismiss them immediately. I could give real life examples but that’s forbidden still.
The (b) part is less simple but to me even more annoying. If they really cared about the thing they complain about, they wouldn’t be arguing about it impotently on a forum that is only just a talking shop. They wouldn’t have time, because they would be teaching people how to use the tools available to prevent the action they hate. it’s not hard to predict where gankers will strike, and the simple act of a convo of a freighter pilot of a miner that you find in a belt to warn them that ganking happens could prevent the gank from even happening.
I don’t know why people choose the least successful thing they could do instead of working towards countering the thing they hate and actually seeing some results. It’s like that in real life, I know a bunch of ‘protestor’ types who will get all up in arms about everything and will go out of their way to attend some event where all they do is listen to music and smoke weed, but you can’t get the dumb mofos to actually vote or do any political organizing or something that might actually work.
It’s like they like being angry at the world…
4 Likes
I just wanna say that I found suicide ganking too expensive and difficult for the happy go lucky ordinary man in the street. It’s not open and shut fun, like the OP suggests.
Concorde have zero sense of humour and they will destroy multiple ships if you undock without regard to timers that were never subject to any kind of judicial review.
There is a war going on in New Eden, between Freedom and Chaos on the one side, and Caldari, Concorde and Evil on the other.
Concorde are not your friend.
3 Likes
The fact that the current installed individuals are really fearing this kind of narrative might indicate it is 
I don’t know, maybe they know more 
2 Likes
Yes some of them have used this to attack other players who were following them to prevent ganks. The strange thing is that they did it to new players mostly.
The money is in ganking freighters, Bowheads and Orcas when used to move items, DST’s, F1 Haulers and Blockade Runners as well as people transporting small expensive items in fast aligning ships and every so often people in bling fit ratting/incursion ships. Mining ships are what they use their SRP for from player donations because they lose money on every gank and they only gank poorly fit Procurers and Skiffs and the rest are no issue no matter how much tank they have, ignoring the mining Orca of course . By the way there has been some drama at times around the sharing of loot from freighter ganks which has been amusing.
The other day AG set up to kill a ganking fleet, they caught a number on gates on the way to the target, AG used T1 frigates to catch them, using the faction police to kill them and caught a couple of them twice, and then they setup a smart bombing Maller and caught the fleet, the freighter got away too. However I would think that the gankers were pretty complacent to get caught like that, it was noticeable that the ganker logged and did not log on for a day after that failure.
It is doable, and there are some pretty good committed players doing it, however there are certain mechanics that make it easy for the gankers and you those need adjustment, but I cannot see CCP doing it. I had fun doing burst repping, bumping the freighter out of optimal etc., and ganker tears are great, for example when they scream hysterically AG fails again in local I can’t help but giggle (note they would do this when there was a single AG observing and reporting the bumped freighter), so to take the P I used to move stuff through the choke points and as I got through safely I would post Gankers fail again, was hilarious to see their reaction.
2 Likes