EVE General Discussion

Hehe now i know why you have so many likes.
For a week i was telling people that i don't see any thing wrong in this suicide ganking , as all rules are preserved.
Bowhead didn't introduce this possibility either , as you can do the same using orca.

There is no simple "fix" for this issue , if it will be considered by CCP as issue.

# More EHP on freighters - nothing will change, just more stupid people will put all that they own in 1 ship.
# Suspect after you are bumping someone? I will be fist that kill all those people bumping my BS on jita undock or any gate! Damn pirates

Want your cargo secure?
1. Never put to much into 1 ship !
2. If this is slow freighter or orca , ESCORT IT. Something that will provide webs , and kill gankers.
3. Never fly AFK.

CCP made bad decision when they introduced freighters.
Yes they help a lot moving tons of goods, but they move it slow, so people will go afk.

I think you can install this anti bumping rigs to your freighter - but i guess then you never can go afk.

In the real word the Police Wouldn't, Pop a cap in ya Ass will your naked Would they ?

There is a cost but very little risk involved for the aggressor. CCP only stated that hyperdunking does not break any current rules. It reminds me of the station game where a pirate would store his ship into his carrier to avoid aggression timer and dock. You can't hand me something that looks like poop, smells like poop, feels like poop and tell me it's not poop.

And you're full of it, while ever you are being that disingenuous about the subject.

Think you need to go back and re-read that one. They said that they won't announce the change, not that they won't implement it. Hell, it even says "if you're reading this now, consider yourself lucky". They're intentionally keeping us in the dark on this one.

Yes? And I stated otherwise? There's still no reason for them to do it, especially not when applied to CONCORD — podding criminals is something that goes so far beyond the cost imposition purpose of CONCORD that it borders on the silly, and is therefore relegated to being a player activity…

…if they choose to, which they don't for some reason (and then, nonsensically, complain about the lack of costs)

Relevant part emphasized.

Response to emphasized text: No, you're wrong.

Current system

Currently, we have a situation where suicide ganking of freighters is mostly done in only a handful of systems. Niarja, Uedama, the stretch from Bei to Aufay and major trade hubs take a massive percentage of overall suicide ganks performed in EVE. Apart from the trade hubs, the other active systems are highsec choke points which can not be avoided during an inter-regional or inter-state hauling runs.

The victims can expect most of the ganks to be performed in these systems and can be prepared for it. I have flown a freighter extensively in the last couple of months to better understand the problem. What I gathered from that experience is that you can effectively (but not completely, of course) avoid most of the gank setups with a Hyena / Rapier alt. My freighter, for example, had an instant warp with the help of a Hyena - I'm talking about from freighter decloak to warp in less than 2 seconds. And I only felt a need to use it in the systems listed above.

On the gankers side of things the situation resembles shooting fish in a barrel with little or disproportionate financial loss if the wrong tactics is applied or wrong hauler targeted. The gankers currently have very little motivation or need to move from the choke point and trade hub systems because traffic simply has to go through there.


It could be useful to consider diversifying trade routes by adding more inter-regional connections and expanding the list of choke points. The haulers would have an actual choice of what route they want to take based on scouting or corp/alliance intel reports (yes, good highsec corps and alliances do have intel channels from my personal experience) thus actually having an expanded gameplay. The gankers would have that choice as well along with the possibility for expanding the number of interested players in this type of gameplay. This is because of the CONCORD mechanics - when one group operates in a choke point system at any given time, other groups are simply forced out of the area because of the heavy CONCORD presence and because of the intel reports of activity in the system. Adding more inter-regional highsec connections would benefit both types of players and introduce an actual choice in a true manner of a sandbox.

The second issue is the cost of failure, being positioned in the wrong system at the wrong time and/or applying the wrong tactics. The cost of failure is disproportionally higher for the haulers which is something that should be considered for a review. Suicide ganking is currently a random act of picking random targets with only a handful of tactical options depending on how big your ganking fleet is. Applying wrong tactics, being at the wrong place at the wrong time or picking the wrong target does not produce as much loss as it should - and this is a very definition of a method of filtering gankers who are really good at what they do from the gankers who don't have a clue. It's maybe better to say that it produces the same amount of loss as the successful gank does which is out of the vision of EVE that wrong decisions should have more consequences than the right ones.

To tackle this, a tax similar to what the industrial players are already paying should be considered to be added to suicide ganking. A tax which will raise in the system proportionally to the amount of CONCORD activity in the system at the given period of time, exactly the same as the industrial index. The gankers would then be presented with an option to continue to operate in heavily congested systems with an added cost if they see an interest or have the capability of playing like that, or pick some other less congested system either in order to lower the cost of their operation or to minimize the cost of potential failure. Those who are good and effective at what they do should be comfortable at continuing to operate in congested systems, but those who are not as good at it should find operating in heavily congested systems financially nonviable - just like the industrials do.

The intent is to spread the operations across the map instead of having just a handful of systems where pretty much everything happens. The spread of activity should also enlarge the "danger zone" for haulers and open more choices for both haulers and gankers on where and when they want to operate depending on the activity in a given area at a given time. It should encourage more players to use haulers since there would be an actual choice of avoiding choke points and ganks by investing effort in scouting routes instead of knowing that you are forced to go through choke points. It should also make room for more ganking oriented players who can operate despite another group being active in the area. Opening additional inter-regional connections and adding a ganking tax (again - the same have been applied to industrials) which would filter gankers who are good at it from those who are not - should provide more tactical options and gameplay content to both sides.

Considering that the ganker can't launch the empty ships himself, as nobody can board a ship that belongs to - i.e. was last piloted by - a pilot who currently has a criminal timer. And also keeping in mind that only the previous pilot (i.e. "owner") can board a ship that's currently being targeted by someone, there is a counter to hyperdunking.
Certainly only if there's a ship in range, that can actually lock targets. But anyway, I don't see anything broken here either.

After reading through this thread, I can honestly say Tippia is dangerously close to becoming my new hero. Each post is direct, concise, logical, and done with the greater health of the game in mind.

Can I petition someone to change her signature to "Wrecking shot!"? Because every one of her posts feels like one.


Each time ganking gets nerfed, the carebears (of which I used to be) get a larger sense of entitlement and laziness that is not healthy for them or the game. The game (which I just lost) empowers those who engage the game, not dismiss it and become complacent. Nerfing ganking is what creates this mindset and subsequent problem, not solves it.

Anyone stop to think that maybe, just maybe, if ganking hadn't been nerfed so many times, these problems might not exist? Look at how many times in this thread alone that people point to ganking nerfs as examples of why they deserve better protection and more nerfs to ganking. Ganking has become so difficult that you have to be highly disciplined and skilled to pull it off, as well as have a ton of support and intimate knowledge of the game's mechanics. No wonder it always seems so one-sided. If any Joe could do it (with a fair bit of difficulty and still understanding the game), those with less skill and dedication would try it, and those less advanced players would be easier to thwart, so we wouldn't be hearing about "oh once a gank starts it's impossible to stop!" Yes, because whining has made it so that only professionals are doing it anymore.

If ganking were a lot easier, if more people did it, people wouldn't wander into EVE with this idea in their head that they should be safe and doing nothing to protect themselves. When it becomes more commonplace people will react accordingly and start taking measures to protect themselves.

There's a point at which people have to start changing their way of thinking to move forward. I am reminded of stories I hear of Portugal. From what I hear, they de-criminalized the use of drugs and the problems/crime/addiction rates actually went down, not up.

Nerfing ganking has only created problems, not solved them. Buff ganking. To be clear - I am not advocating for the abolishment of highsec, nor am I even saying ganking should be trivial or consequence-free. But it is due for some buffs. The game needs it; and if this thread is any indication the carebears need it most of all. I think a good starting point is increasing concord response times slightly. Give gankers a little more time on field. Second, let's tackle that one argument I see from time to time about "security status doesn't matter!". Let's make it matter. Second ganking buff...your positive security status, rounded up to the nearest positive integer, gives you additional seconds where concord "looks the other way" before landing on grid. So those with good positive security standing get more time in their gank attempts than those -10 pirates.