Crime & Punishment

Do you know why this is? It's because ganking has already been made harder by CCP several times due to people whining about it. When the people who complain about being ganked stop being complacent, and put half as much effort into their gameplay choice as the gankers do, then you might find gankers are more open to discussion about changes to their playstyle; until then their preys suggestions and ideas, which for the most part are ill conceived anyway, will always be met with a staunch resistance.

CCP have already looked into bumping, and their decision is reflected in the sticky at the top of C&P, you can rail about it all you like, it's unlikely to change. There are counters to it, the least of which is actually being at the keyboard.

The elephant being what? People thinking that they should be able to merrily wend their way through hisec while afk or completely oblivious to their surroundings?

Anybody with even half a brain can counter the tactics used by gankers, I fly through a couple of the ganking hotspots regularly without being ganked.

You are; and no, it's not a 100% success or failure rate, not by any stretch of the imagination.

Gankers are my content, I gain great satisfaction from avoiding them and their tactics as well as watching those people who don't avoid them, by dint of their complacency, explode, and then attempting to steal the loot before the gankers get to it.

I know that they're out to kill people for fun, just as they know that there are some of us that find avoiding them to be just as much fun.

Exhibit fuckknowswhatletterwe'vegottobynow in the case file of 'people who whine about ganking rather than using the well documented methods of defending themselves'.

And to answer your question theres a player on each side therefore its pvp, everything else is just argueing defenitions.

'no counter to bumping' - Actually theres a pretty decent one even if everything people have said so far didnt also apply - its called not being there to be bumped in the first place. If you are willing to check your routes, keep an eye on known ganker alts and are prepared to delay or reroute a journey if things dont look right the risk of hitting a gank squad is greatly reduced. Im not saying its foolproof because this whole arguement is mainly people like you proving theres always a higher grade of fool but it works.

'Industry isnt pvp' - Actually I do consider that pvp, because whoever built that ship has to find the blueprint, either on the open market or from a rat drop then compete with other miners to mine the necessary minerals or outbid other players to purchase them. Then to sell that ship they have to compete with every other manufacturer also selling that ship, so its actually multiple examples of pvp not just one. Ill even list them individually just in case you have trouble following.

1. Obtain blueprint
- from the market - you outbid other players for it - PVP
- from a rat drop - you got it before anyone else did - competition for resources - PVP

2. Obtain materials
- from the market - see entry in point 1. - PVP
- mine the minerals yourself - see rat drop in point 1. - PVP

3. Sell completed ship
- on the market - not only beating out other manufacturers but also anyone else selling that particular hull for whatever reason. - PVP

Not being there in the first place is a legitimate defensive tactic. Scouting a route and using map resources can give ship saving intel about the dangers that lie ahead. Reroute around the bad stuff and you may have just saved your ship. It may cost some time and effort, but getting your ship and cargo to it's destination is worth that IMO.

Eve is about conflict - "Everyone vs. Everyone". Almost everything is in opposition of everyone else as we struggle for limited resources and space. Sure, you can group up with other players and work together to carve out your part of New Eden as a group, but pretty much everything else is in direct competition with other players.

If a group of players want to claim highsec and "terrorize" the other players by exploding them and demanding a permit or whatever, that is exactly in keeping with how the game was designed. This generates content, conflict and actual gameplay so how is that a bad thing?


It is the very definition of PvP. You are a player trying to move your goods somewhere for your interest (profit), while I, the ganker, want to destroy you and take your goods for my interest (also profit). This is a classic PvP scenario and one of the great things about Eve.

If you want "balanced PvP" you are playing the wrong game as only a fraction of a percent of Eve PvP engagements are evenly matched. The real game is play Eve so you are not on the "short side "of the engagement unless you stand to gain more than you risk to other players.


Bumping is a legit mechanic in the game. It has been explicitly declared as such by CCP and follows from the physics mechanics that make larger ships slower to align and at risk to smaller ships. Freighters are capital ships, and that designation implies that they are to be escorted by smaller ships to prevent them from exactly the sort of attack that bumping is. All capital ships are subject to bumping as has been the case for years.

The real problem is that highsec haulers have become "hooked" on the ease of AFK freighter hauling because of the incredibly low risk to them. There are plenty of non-capital transport ships that are essentially immune to bumping (T2 transports) and to ganking if flown properly but players are so used to the load-up-my-max-cargo-fit-freighter-and-press-autopilot, they don't even consider using them. This perpetual whining we hear from players demanding increased safety for less/no work on their part is fallout from years of caving-in to players on the issue of highsec safety.

Highsec is not suppose to be safe although it really is very, very safe and near perfectly safe for someone who spends just a small effort. This has bred or trained a whole class of players who now expect 100% safety because that is more-or-less their experience. That is not how highsec is, or how it was designed (even though it is really, really safe, safer than it has ever been in the history of the game).

Is bumping a perfect mechanic? Of course not. But your chance of being ganked or bumped is near zero in this game. You can make it indistinguishable from zero by spending some effort. So why should the entire game, with the intrinsic physics engine that penalizes capital ships, be changed so you have a 100% effective counter to a rarely-used mechanic that can be avoided by several means, just to make highsec hauling even safer?

Interesting position on honesty - "I agree with 95% of what one side is saying but I will now argue only for the opposite side of what I believe because some people aren't honest".

I can see debating for debating's sake if you enjoy that, but really if you are mostly on board with ganking being ok, then why would you always take the anti-ganking side? Just consider each issue as they come like a rational individual.

I am more than willing to admit that bumping isn't a perfect mechanic. If I was designing a new game solely around hauler ganking, I would suggest it be changed/altered to some more easily countered or use a more interesting mechanic all-together for locking down targets. But the reality is that this is a complex sandbox where CCP is trying to balance multiple aspects of ship interactions in different spaces, and doing that with a limited game engine. They have looked at the issue, and said that bumping ships is emergent gameplay resulting from how the game physics was implemented, and using it to hold down a capital ship in nullsec, bump a miner away from a asteroid, or trap a freighter until a gank fleet arrives are all legitimate uses of the mechanic.

Now, the real issue for me that was alluded to above by Concord Guy's Cousin is that ganking, especially of freighters is incredibly rare in this game. Nerf after nerf has made highsec safer than ever before. Therefore, while I am open to changes that make gameplay more interesting, nerfing bumping for the sake of making freighters even safer seems like a terrible idea. If CCP came out with a devblog saying that ganking had spiked 5000% and freighter pilots were no longer able to protect their ships with some reasonable effort, then I would be all on board with a balanced nerf to bumping, but just arguing to nerf bumping because it makes you safer is not a very convincing argument for me.

To me it is simple. Freighters should need support ships - they are a capital-class hauler that should be at risk in this game, especially unescorted. Further, there are alternatives that are immune to bumping - jump freighters and T2 transports being the obvious ones. And finally, and most importantly, CCP says bumping is ok. All reasons that bumping is what it is and fair part of the game.

Haulers need to play this hand that they have been dealt. Use a T2 transport when you can, bring scouts/webbers/defense fleet if needed or just go around/wait a day until the gankers have packed it in. But constantly whining for more safety, when you have plenty of ways to get your goods from A-to-B safely with only a little effort, especially after CCP has ruled bumping is ok, gets tiresome really fast.

Being part of, or supporting the Anti-Gankers and fighting ganking in the game is noble and to be commended. You are engaging in the content that the ganker/AG conflict produces and making New Eden a more interesting place.

Coming to the forums and arguing for changes to the game, including changes to bumping, solely to benefit you and make your game play safer is not commendable. The changes put forth typically are completely self-serving and will reduce conflict/content in the game. That is the shameful side of the AG movement.

This thread is suppose to be about the first type, the "good" type, a proposed in-game resistance to gankers. I am still hopeful the OP will come up with something although it has been a while since we have heard from him. So OP, how's the resistance going?

When I was a day old newbee, I signed up for EVE Uni thinking I would bravely help them in the fight against the evil UMAD. But at that time they were more interested in telling everyone that non-consensual war decs and deccing newbie organisations was bad rather than actually fighting.

That made me sign up for minerbumping immediately after I left.

Are you aware that a perfect Ark with slaves and links can have 733,000 EHP in it's armor? It requires 61 perfect T2 Tornadoes to break that armor and leak structure. You've also forgotten that a Jump Freighter can jump to an emergency cyno at anytime.


Yes it does, if the spotter isn't an idiot.


I shall guess you are referring to warp disrupting the freighter in an instalock ship which affords the gankers enough time to bump it. Whatever the strategy it's safe to assume you need to be on the grid to pull it off. Which means you've made a startling contradiction...

In this example there is no one on grid except for a cloaked Machariel. How did you plan to disrupt the web sling then? It is clear there must be another ship on grid to do what you have described. This is where the carebears of highsec make a crucial error in judgment - they don't treat highsec the same way they treat lowsec. You wouldn't jump a freighter through a lowsec gate with even 1 person on the other side. If you abide by this mentally in highsec, scouting does work.


Elephants in the room like faction police, battleship EHP on mining barges, a million EHP Deep Space Transports / Jump Freighters and instant intel from watchlists & local. Those are the elephants. What you're pointing at are ants.

I dont get it.

First off, you might as well be saying that we should travel through null/lowsec safely, without repercussions, because otherwise we would be "Denying part of the game".

The fact that a central concept of the game is necessarily dangerous, where the effort you put in directly mirrors the safety and success of your endeavors, isnt a bad thing. This is a counter. Putting more effort into protecting your assets, is a counter, to people who want to blow up/steal your assets. Using a scout alt or scout friend, using a friend to rep/support you, is a counter to bumping and the Ganking that follows.

Secondly, no one is denying you of anything. Its your choice. If you want to move around safely, you have to put the effort.

Why would you ever consider it a "Denial" of a part of the game, just because you are unable to do it with 100% safety? The fact of the matter is, its your choice. You want to fly while mitigating the risks of ganks/bumps to its lowest? Put in the effort. otherwise, its your choice, and you are choosing to "Deny" yourself of an aspect of the game.