Crime & Punishment

This is possible. Of course it's not entirely unreasonable to be AFK when flying an empty ship with a lot of EHP (which is what some of the victims told me they were doing) - it's not exactly a prime target. And for AFK ships bumping is not much of a factor anyway, since as stated by Loyalanon, and confirmed by me, those ships can just be scrammed 15km off the outgate. The controversy over bumping relates almost entirely to the non-AFK ships.

I will only briefly respond to the first two points because I don't want to derail the thread. The fact that people are allowed to blow your ship up does not mean that they will do so. People who carry Plex around or put 5 bil in a T1 Hauler tend to get instablapped. People who autopilot an empty freighter have traditionally gone unharmed, since there is no real benefit to taking them off the grid. That has been changing as between dedicated -10 sec status gankers and gank ship reimbursements, certain groups have decided to start blowing up empty ships. The risk is still relatively low, so it probably is still +EV utility to autopilot empty ships.

As far as bumping, yes CCP has stated its current position. Obviously given the exploits of CODE, the facts on the ground have been changing, and this thread is an opportunity for members of the Eve community to post their opinions.

The problem is they don't have a lot of EHP...

Expanded Cargohold is -20% EHP... Fit 3 of those to a ship that has most of it's HP in hull and well...

Now look at Reinforced Bulkheads.. +25% EHP...


Guess what one is most popular on freighter gank victims?....

...

Well - good luck with that. You should know that I support suicide ganking as a game mechanic, and am definitely supportive of ganking freighters that are carrying too much valuable cargo relative to their tank. My concerns are specifically with pinning the down through bumping (especially in between gank waves with CONCORD on the scene) and with the lack of consequences for ganking with dedicated -10 sec status gankers.

To the extent that your ganks will be with non -10 gankers, and to the exent that you will be ganking to make a profit, and hopefully are competent enough to not need to bump people, I would be fully in support of your gank plan (though I do kind of question your plan - go rouse up a bunch of nullsec players to go on a freighter gank spree in highsec because you don't like my comments on the Eve forums. Now, while I am certainly a VIP, not many nullsec folks know who I am, and those who do know that I don't haul and am unlikely to exhibit much reaction to a couple more freighters blowing up, especially after CODE has already taken down so many. But good luck with your master plan bro. Maybe I can stick a 5 mil CSPA charge on and we can split the profits?).

People like expensive killmails and are willing to pay for them. You've yet to show why people spending ISK to entertain themselves and others is a problem.

And we don't see much of them. 13 freighters and Jump Freighters died yesterday (which is a weekend, so high traffic). Of those, 3 were in high-sec. Of those *one* was a suicide gank (which had already been tackled by a war target, and wasn't going to live anyway). To claim that we see "a lot" of ganking, you need to present evidence of a high rate of ganks per trip taken.

To further claim that that is a problem, you would have to show that, in a PvP sandbox game, where the whole point of the game is that everyone gets to make up their own reasons to blow up (or not) ships, it is a problem that other people's reasons for blowing ships up don't match yours.

Why haven't you, after 30 pages of being asked, been able to show either of these?

Might be because CCP Torfifrans says you're wrong about number two:

http://www.pcgamer.com/2012/06/12/eve-online-interview-betrayal-at-fanfest-burn-jita-virtual-reality-and-the-president-of-iceland/

Posting about bumping in a thread about bumping would not normally constitute trying to get a thread locked. As to other topics (including apparently blowing up freighters in my name), I am not the one who brought them up. My comments have focused on, and will continue to focus on, the use of bumping, mainly by your organization (though admittedly by others as well), to trap freighters and allow for multiple waves of ganks by the same gankers every 15 minutes. Hardly "nonsense." And for the record, there was precisely one thread I involved in that got locked - and it was locked because at 180-odd pages it had devolved into the same stale arguments without resolution, not because I was "trying to get a thread locked." Thanks.

It is an exquisite whine. I wonder if it would pair well with some cheese from Goblin.

Concord isn't there to protect you, that is your job & there are plenty of way to avoid this happening at all. Of course, all of them rely on the person not being lazy.

Also lol, it doesn't take 20 gankers to kill a T1 hauler, it takes 1.

The point was that CONCORD still comes if you engage in wildly reckless and stupid actions. And call it what you will, but to me killing the bad guys, which makes them unable to shoot/scram me seems like "protection." It's not like having a bodyguard or the Secret Service, which attempt to be prophylactic in nature, but it is like a functional police force which arrives on the scene and clears out the baddies, freeing the victim in the process. To the extent that the same can be done with bumping, I'm not sure that your objections carry weight. Even lazy people get and deserve full CONCORD protection.

The way I would put it is that CONCORD is REACTIVE not PROACTIVE (much like a real life police force, but unlike, say, the Secret Service or a bodyguard). But yes, your point is valid, CONCORD does not "protect" in the sense of stopping suicide ganks from occurring, rather it "protects" in the sense of coming in mid-gank, killing the gankers, and saving the victim. If you want to call that something other than "protection" that is fine with me - the substance matters more than the verbiage.