EVE General Discussion

The Bowhead already uses propulsion mods in the middle slots it already haves. But Large MJD are class restricted so can't be mounted on anything else than Battleships.

A solo escape to a solo mean of ganking is not wrong. It's called balance. It's something different than "If you do PvP, you're good to go; If you dare to PvE, you're ****** and pay for it".

Yes and no. It maintainsthe current status quo as in it's not introducing a change, but most gankers either weren't aware or weren't willing to risk doing this. Now that it's officially allowed it's going to become a popular way of ganking, especially for the groups who often struggle to get enough pilots to pull off a freighter gank. It's publicly changed the entry fleet size for a freighter gank down to 3.

It's incredibly cheap compared to what you can get out of it. A Solo miner ganker can happily gank at a profit from a very young character. Killing a freighter is always killboard green, which used to be constrained by fleet size requirements but now will not.

The repercussions for ganking are shockingly underwhelming. Bounties are irrelevant as the ships they fly are so cheap. Shooting a ganker is pointelss because both his ship and his pod are usually expendable (even more so now that there's no clone grades). Kill rights are insanely pointelss as gankers can usually be shot anyway, and as previously stated shooting them is pointelss. Sec status and is also irrelevant as you can happily fly everywhere in a pod almost unstoppable as there's no bubbles in highsec and insta-docks/insta-undocks exist. Even if you do want your sec status back it costs less than 400m to go from -10 to 0, not that you'll ever need to as a ganker is more often than not an alt and so isn;t needed for anythign other than ganking.

I'd be more inclined to support ganking if it wasn't for things like hauling being so incredibly boring. A freighter pilot to maintain safety needs to fly actively, tanked (irrelevant now) with at least a couple of other pilots, a scout and a webber. The trip is incredibly slow and painful, which is why jump freighters were introduced to reduce the need freighter esorts (of which I have taken part in many) from killing people slowly.

So we're not counting all the Cats blasted by Concord into the cost of the gank? Just the one that gets the kill? Constraining them to one character and distributing the lost Catalysts over a span of 10 minutes doesn't make them any cheaper.

Also: Kick SMA.

This thread gon' be long, ain't it?

Never. Circadian Sleepers on the other hand though.....

I keep being squeamish about this option because I can never manage to quite convince myself that Concord is not going to paint a really nice, big bulls-eye on my posterior and drop the hammer on me.

But, I'll keep it in mind :-).

/Always supportive of everything that forces people to pay attention.

I'm sure it's possible, that doesn't mean it happens. I've not yet seen many gankers unable to profitably gank with a very young character. You can turn the blame to the victims, but it doesn't change that it's very easy to gank for profit.

I mean exactly what it says, killboard. Many gankers kill to boss their killboards as well as just gaining profit. All freighters are worth more than the ships it takes to gank them, even empty, so on the killboard they will result in more in kills than in losses (killboard green). What used to be the argument for this, and rightly so, is that getting the number of players together was difficult to do this, so you either had a massive fleet of lots of people in catalysts, or a handful of people in things considerably more expensive but with a higher damage output, like the Talos. What this announcement means is that it's now officially fine to use this method, which means that even using catalysts you only need 1 pilot. More pilots will get the job done faster, but you no longer need to move up to a Talos. 1 pilot running all of the catalysts, 4 pilots running a quarter of them each, it doesn't really matter.

But what repercussions can they realistically provide? It's a disposable character in disposable ships that will generally get to a gank target before you can get to them. Insta-docks/undocks and travelling in a pod make it near impossible to catch them. There's a reason most CODE players troll anti-gankers about wasting their time, it's because they are in fact wasting their time. Even if you manage to catch and kill one, the loss is irrelevant because the ship was disposable.

He seems to be forgetting the part where you need someone actively bumping the (freighter) to keep it from warping or making it back to the gate, all while dodging concord, reshipping, reapplying dps, etc etc

Edit: unless the freighter pilot is completely afk, in which case, theyded

It's only profitable if the victim makes it so, they choose to fly untanked or failfit ships. They make the choice, it's only right that they should have to live with the consequences of that choice.

If gankers take advantage of people who choose to fit their ships inappropriately or fail to take precautions to protect their stuff in a game that's known for allowing people to take advantage of things like that, who is to blame?

If killboards didn't exist nothing would change, gankers would still gank, and victims would still choose to be victims.

Ask Bronson Hughes, he's done quite well out of popping gankers, as for disposable alts, that doesn't happen mainly because it's a bannable offence.
Ever heard of propaganda? CODE.'s "they're wasting their time" is exactly that, it's to discourage people.

This, or the myriad of other ways to avoid the very fragile method of hyperdunking. EVE rewards ingenuity and preparation, and often punishes laziness. ECM the ganker, or logi your freighter until he runs out of catalysts, or don't autopilot, or web your freighter, or don't fly through lower highsec, or warp away to a celestial, or...

Those victims of this skillfully prepared method of death-dealing can brainstorm ways to not die, just as the ganker brainstormed a way kill.