Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Easier, safer and quicker movement of large amounts of materials across highsec is not good for the game. The thrust of the second edition is good, it should just be toned down a bit.

The same is true for the gankers: They risk a 100M Talos, that can easily be ganked by three 2M catalysts. The difference is that ganking the Talos is profitable, ganking an empty freighter on the other hand isn't. And since most gankers want to make a profit from ganking, typically the only empty freighters ganked are those of hostile alliances in an attempt to disrupt their logistics chain.



You assume that the gankers do ganks to only inflict damage, which simply isn't true. Besides, the gankers are guaranteed to lose 2.5B ISK, while the death of the target is all but guaranteed. A gank can fail to any number of reasons, especially when the target brings friends. Just a few ECM ships will shut-off any gank attempt and let the JF jump to safety.



How many times can people that "gank for giggles" do that without running out of ISK? There simply isn't any evidence of sustained ganking of empty freighters/jump freighters to support your assumption, the killboards show that almost all ganking is done for profit.

My mackinaw was popped by 2 dessies, they didnt even bother to loot either my ship or their own, i came back and looted and salvaged all the wrecks myself. Even in highsec space you rarely see hulks being operated because the killmail giggles are so easy to get that flying a hulk anywhere is stupid. It isnt just goons that are involved in hulkageddon anymore it is practically anyone with a trigger finger and while im using only one type of ship here as an example the same ratios exist for most hauling vessels it is just that getting 10 friends together to take out a freighter is harder to do than you getting into your catalyst and blasting hulks to space debris.



And you likewise assume that the gankers are idiots and arent prepared for counter measures, I would not underestimate the planning that gankers put in to ganking larger targets. Also, the phrase "just a few ECM ships will shut-off any gank attempt" cost you just about 100% of your credibility. I saw a freighter killmail that had 80 something ships attacking i hardly think this is some kind of record and I dont see a 'few' ECM ships putting an end to this attack, if just a few ECM can stop a fleet attack on a freighter than i submit that CCP has some serious balance issues they need to address regarding ECM vessels.




It is not my supposition that a ganker can gank eternally without some form of econmic support for wasting ships giggle-ganking it is my supposition that it so favors the gankers that like my experience with the two dessies wasting my mackinaw and the hundreds of hulks that get wasted during hulkageddon there is such huge financial favoritism towards the ganker that they dont really even have to think about their lost ship value, while the hulk and any other basically defenseless ships have to take this situation into account every time they undock.

Answer to the statement that is bound to be posted by the knee-jerk crowd: yes i understand everyone has to worry about being blasted when they undock, but defenseless ships and the value differential between things like a catalyst compared to a mackinaw is so steep that the aggressor doesnt have to take into account financial losses to any significant degree.

Please direct your favorite web browser to minerbumping.com. James 315 and his bunch of merry men have now raised more than 350 billion ISK in contributions from other players. The ISK is used to refund the losses of suicide gankers, who systematically attack miners and haulers in HiSec. That is how and why they don't run out of ISK despite the systematic losses.

Earlier in the thread I listed KillIDs off 6 empty freighters suicide ganked by CODEdot et al. and piloted by players in NPC corporations. This was for May alone within the system of Isanamo. There were more empty freighter killed within Isanamo in May, but the pilots were in player corps, which means pilot error (doing freighter runs during live wardecs) cannot be ruled out. The number of attacking ships makes this unlikely, however.

As I type this, the wallet of minerbumping.com stands at 43 billion ISK and change.

About a month ago your own alliance, Goonswarm Federation, ran a little 3 day event called Burn Jita 3. Around 150 freighters or JFs, empty or otherwise, were ganked over the weekend. I Was There(TM). They did not discriminate. You will have to ask your alliance leadership how this event was funded on your end, but apparently the idea behind the event was - in part - to show that the CFC/nullsec alliances has so much ISK that burning some of it on an event like Burn Jita 3 is pocket change.

I would call both events organized and sustained. Burn Jita ran for the third time this year, while the ganks in Lonetrek is an ongoing event.

If I understand you correctly, people pay ISK to the New Order for them to kill stuff in high-sec, that basically makes them a mercenary corporation, similar to how Mermaid Collective or Noir work. That's different from random suicide gankers killing people "for the giggles".



I'm glad they seem to know their trade and they can fulfill their client's contracts. How does this relate to ganking of empty jump freighters just for fun?



It's a yearly event, paid for by the Ministry of Love, for members of the CFC to go and relax for a weekend. If that is your definition of "sustained", I really don't know what to say. Looking at the killboards during Burn Jita this year, most of the freighters were not empty, showing that even the concentrated effort of hundreds of players and the financial backup of one of the wealthiest organizations in Eve is barely enough to sustain a weekend of ganking.



As was shown above, one is a mercenary corporation fulfilling their contract, the other is a once a year event. I really wouldn't call this "sustained".

I know taking someones words out of context makes refuting them much easier but it is an invalid form of argumentation so Ive included my full statement for others that may not have read it in its entirety.

As you can see at the end of the statement i state that the differential in value between ganker and those ganked exists not only for exhumers as your out of context quote would seem to imply but also for hauling vessels, including the freighter class. Further I state that the only real reason you dont see more giggle-ganking of freighters is that getting together 10 friends that want to giggle-gank just because you are in the mood to do so is much harder than just pulling out your catalyst and giggle-ganking exhumers.

The cost of giggle-ganking is in essence coming at the expense of not freighter pilots that will get ganked either way but at the expense of for profit ganking. I assert that if more emphasis in the game were placed on balancing the losses on both sides of a gank, financially speaking, then giggle-ganking would decrease and the net extra income floating about would go to for profit gankers without increasing the losses suffered overall by freighters.

The gankers are unhappy and the industrialists/freighter pilots are unhappy. Must mean that it's pretty well balanced.

A freighter receiving remote-reps or supported by dedicated ECM boats is already capable of fending off a large group of attackers. I remember a jump freighter during jita which survived the coordinated attack of ~120 people due to receiving remote reps.



The tale of freighters worth less than 1B ISK dying makes for a nice bedtime story, but it doesn't hold much truth to it. If freighter ganking was as easy and profitable as you make it out to be there would be a lot more people doing it.

Both groups are generally pretty happy, so I don't know what you're looking at.

The rig "solution" also basicly double the price of a max cargo charon for example. It also offer no versatility unless you call versatility scrapping miliions worth of ISK every time you wish to change the utilisation of your freighter/JF.