Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Did you fail to understand my post? Or are you intentionally being obtuse?

m^3/EHP is not important to gankers. Because most freighters are relatively empty. (unless they are hauling ice or trit)

The only thing that matters is ISK in cargo/EHP.
And potential EHP has doubled - or in the case of the Anshar, more than doubled.

Sure, some freighters will failfit.
But there is a big difference between a miner fitting for yield (and neglecting tank), and a freighter pilot fitting cargohold expanders.

The miner benefits from fitting for yield.

On the other hand, fitting a freighter for m^3 is pointless when your freighter is 2/3 empty. And ganking is a very remote risk when you are hauling the kind of low-value/bulk items that could take up 1 Million or more M^3.

Why is this? Because the vast majority of items on the market (mods/rigs/mid-high end mins) are far too expensive to fill a 900K+ m^3 freighter before your ISK value goes well into gank-bait territory.


No, i have no doubt that CODE. and Miniluv will continue to do good work, but I see no reason for CCP to, with a single poorly thought out patch - double their ganking costs, and severely curtail the number of profitable targets out there.

And for people that insist on using Catalyst costs as a reasonable example of 'ganker costs' - you must think getting 65 Catalyst pilots together is a trivial thing. Because that is what it would take to kill a new Anshar in 0.5. Costs scale considerably in higher sec from there. And that new Ark-fit goes over 1 Million EHP? That would take about 85-90 Catalysts.

Sounds reasonable.

I can't tell if the carebears whining about their freighters are simply metagaming or just incredibly stupid. Get handed a massive buff and they keep screaming for more. Absolutely ridiculous.

L2Read.

under Ships and Modules i designed a relatively expensive Providence fit that can get over half a million EHP ( yep 500,000 ), look for my post. it has the max amount of cargo possible without sacrificing tank. ( no expanders on it )

However the pod to fly it is expensive. I think it will be worth it for some pilots who carry alot of cargo or cargo of "Elevated Price"

Buyer be warned

I understood your post completely. What I'm saying is that if the bulkheads penalties aren't a real penalty, ie I can't hit max m3 with them fitted before I hit the gank threshold, then gankers shouldn't have petitioned for this change to the penalty.

Think of it this way: The change allowed afkers to have more EHP without speed loss and if they aren't hitting max m3 then that was a win for them and a loss for you since they can now carry more value afk. If the penalty was kept the same, they still aren't hitting max m3 before the gank threshold, but now they move through space slower.

On the flip side, if the target isn't afk and they are willing to risk higher thresholds the new penalty limits them since they could have carried more cargo and thus had a better or higher potential value/ehp ratio.

As far as the jf's HP, given the fact that the cost to reach those HP values is pretty steep (at least 330mil for the high end ANP mods and another potential couple bil in implants) and the cost of the initial ship itself your argument doesn't seem to meet the balance threshold. Aka if a player is going to spend 10+bil on a ship to get its hp values high then requiring you to get more cats make sense (even though that's already not an efficient way to do things since the best way would be a mix of destroyers and bc's, but thats besides the point). Personally I think you are skewing the numbers a bit in your favor. I'm willing to bet if done correctly it would take less than 40 actual players.

And when he talks about the new patch being a boost, we compare it to the old. So no, you are losing capacity in this instance.

Please stop posting, you're not very good at it. One can see just how bad, in the tooltip thread.

no no, you assuming that gankers only need to fly t1 very cheap ships is ridiculous.

I'm NOT.

I'm calling out the idiots that are saying "It takes only X million ISK to blow up a fully tanked Anshar if you use Catalysts."
Because they are trying to show how 'cheap' ganking is, and why a massive ganking nerf is justified.

I'm pointing out that using that many Catalysts is unwieldy and has costs of its own. As in, creating a massive fleet that simply does not happen.

It much more likely that Taloses or Tornados would be used - which makes the cost of ganking much greater (if fleet size a bit more managable).

Doesn't change the fact that the number of ships (and thus the cost) required to gank a freighter doubled in a single patch - meaning a very large number of potential targets are now 'safe' from ganking if profit is the motive.

Considering that, A) Jump Freighters were already 100% safe. and B) Even freighter ganks are rare, relative to the number of freighters out there - I'm trying to understand why such a massive nerf to the profession was warranted.

Well if cost of ships is not a balancing factor then neither is number of players to kill a ship. Especially since the numbers you quote would mean that that group is bad at it.

I though you were good enough to find this in my "always win" part. But let me break it down a bit further:

If you take a regular CC for gate-gate travel with a JF and you are forced to jump to a cyno, and even more so after Crius, you pay a lot more ISK than you get reward. Ganker win. Once the gank has started, you cannot even escape because you are warp disrupted. Gank either succeeds and you lose your ship, CC, collateral and maybe even your pod, or gank fails, your ship survives, but you have immense repair cost. Ganker win. If you bring valuable good to a hub and you are being ganked, you lose either your/your alliance members' months of ratting and collecting or in case of a jump back to a cyno, reduce their profits considerably. Ganker win. Or take valuable minerals to transport to your production plant, something that, thanks to CCP's wisdom, is going to happen very often in the future: if you need to jump out, your margins are reduced in the best or gone in the worse case. Ganker win.



3rd parties are effectively shut out from interference because ganked wrecks are yellow and you, if you gank a freighter, usually need a freighter to pull the stuff out (unless you do loot picking with a can), which makes you go suspect and free-to-shoot for everyone. Your cargo in the wreck is in most cases perfectly safe for you to grab with provided protection from your own group. Blowing up the wreck is a possibility, but you still have the killmail. And that is what the majority of gankers are after.

If you are inexperienced, you simply don't try to gank JF. Inexperience or not, you must be outright ignorant to the reality if you attack a target in the full knowledge that you cannot successfully gank it. You take on targets that you can gank and build up experience, before try to make a fool of yourself on bigger fish.

Moreover, we seem to have a very starkly differing view on economic efficiency. If you really think that ganking a ship costing ten+ times more than the all the gank ships together and still call it uneconomical, I am afraid we will never reach a common denominator. And yes, I always bring back numbers and ISK as factor because you are not talking about anything else. Every post you write contains the always same litany about how ganking is unprofitable, how you rely on the loot and how a couple of hundred millions more make your gank uneconomical. IF ISK was not a balancing factor, you would not constantly come back to the ISK factor of gankers.



It is not getting any safer with these changes. A tiny little bit more convenient for haulers, but by far not safer. However, I refuse to accept that activities, which are supposed take place in Low sec and 00 sec, should be even easier to do in High sec than it already is the case. If you want to annoy people, do it where everyone is supposed to live and have this kind of pleasure.

I'm not the one claiming anything is 100% safe anywhere.