EVE General Discussion

I am a little confused. You established the fact that freighter ganking can be prevented near 100% by a single escorting ship, yet then go on with a proposal to "fix" the situation as if there is something unbalanced.

Both your fixes are direct nerfs to ganking, which I think the statistics would agree, is not something we need right now. Removing chokes points would just reduce the number of potential targets for gankers and allow haulers to evade them easier, while taxing them is not only infeasible (you tax the loot? Or just put their balance into negative ISK?), would punish gankers needlessly for engaging in intended game play.

Perhaps instead of a stick, you should propose a carrot? Maybe an ISK bounty for successful ganks in systems that haven't have a suicide gank in a certain amount of time? For lore reasons it could be a prize sponsored by a pirate faction, and might encourage gankers to move beyond the same 0.5-0.6 systems by providing a scaling partial subsidy for gankers in higher security status space if that is your goal.

BS

The changes to the game including the addition of BCs that shoot BS sized guns, changes to Dessies and the changes to alpha damage for certain weapon types have been a huge boost to gankers.

Just because the intended purpose of a change wasn't directly related to ganking doesn't mean gankers didnt get a boost.

Yes there have been nerfs, and they are a direct result of "creative" uses of game mechanics in ways CCP never intended, or that are too OP to let stand, but that is the fault of the gankers for exploiting bad game code excessively and then dancing around a fire naked about it.

Exactly That's why I was looking for - a discussion instead of plain complains. The bolded part is an interesting idea... it may be connected with the insurace, for example. The point is to diversify the gameplay, add choices and spread the activity. I have only proposed one possible scenario, but by all means I'm not seeing it as an ultimately great solution.

Regarding the near 100% rate of success with a single escort ship, it's not exactly like that - especially not for everyone. My escape percentage is higher because I'm a veteran with about of 8 years of experience in nullsec, factional warfare (lowsec) and w-space, so naturally my flying skills are contributing to the success rate. Many players, especially in higsec, do not have that kind of experience and their escape will be considerably lower even with the escort. One example are smartbombing Mallers on gates (mostly active in Uttindar and Niarja area) which target small ships and escorts. If you don't have experience with them or don't time your jumps and move safely, your escort will die first and your freighter is usually the next in line.

Oh come on... you wanna say that insurance being denied to gankers was a nerf to ganking? Should never have been there in the first place.

So you completely discount the changes that even made Cat ganking viable, or the gankers alpha of choice the Tornado and Talos?

You don't place any blame on gankers for the changes made to warping in the same grid to avoid concord, or what will sure to be in the future a change in policy against this very topic because of almost certain overuse to come?

Please name me a nerf to ganking that actually has had an effect or slowed the proliferation of high sec ganks... I dare ya

How did you get so many likes being so selectively ignorant? Oh, that is right, the good ol boy network of "huck huck, I made a blue wreck, huck huck"

Fixes what? What's the problem?

You did not just serious say that. You didn't. Wow. Thats… beyond my words to even describe.

No. I just completely account for the environment in which they were changed, which in combination led to ganks being made far harder and far more costly to perform. This, since you aren't familiar with the term, is called a nerf.

This wasn't a ganking nerf — it was a bugfix. The removal of an exploit that allowed players to circumvent the one hard rule in highsec. It was an age-old GM ruling implemented in hard code, kind of like the exact opposite of the OP.

Removal of insurance. Three instances of reductions of CONCORD response times. Barge buffs. Indy buffs. Freighter buffs. Loot flagging changes. And I didn't even stop writing to think about it. Would you like me to take more than real-time-writing-speed to think about it? Or are you going to continue to speak from a position of absolute ignorance about the history of EVE, and the topic of ganking in general?

The fact that you agree with a troll doesn't make their posts any better.

This is fundamentally incorrect. The "entitlement" argument is no more valid for carebears than it is for gankers. Gankers are always harping on about how entitled to all of their ganking mechanics they are. Just look at this thread. There's a mechanic which is so close to an existing exploit that it's nearly indistinguishable and CODE members crawl out of the woodwork to explain why it should definitely not be changed. You could very much see that as entitlement.

At the end of the day we're all here to play a game for entertainment. You need to accept that that entertainment comes in many different forms, not just one single playstyle that people like Tippia support. People supporting their own playstyle are not automatically "entitled".

What? Don't make me laugh. Ganking is easy. Like ludicrously easy. Gevlon Goblin who has an incredibly warped understanding of mechanics was able to gank billions with new characters. If you are finding ganking difficult then you are doing it wrong.

Actually you're sort of correct. If ganking were easier people would come in and leave if they weren't able to defend themselves, leaving only players who are heavily resistant to ganking. At that point gankers would complain that ganking is too difficult and demand nerfs to highsec player. Or what, do you think gankers would just accept ganking is no longer viable if everyone was prepared and able to avoid being ganked?

Prior to this announcement IMHO ganking was at an OK level, needed a bit of variation added like Black Pedro's suggestion of varying concord response times, and perhaps a bit of an increase to what you have to put on the line (though not necessarily lose, a risk rather than a cost) to execute a gank. What this does though is effectively legalise an old exploit and bring in the ability to gank any ship regardless of tank. I understand entirely that it's beneficial to gankers and therefore they are going to argue to the end that it should be kept in, but that just makes them as bad as any highsec carebear demanding they get more safety.

Bumping has been considered not an exploit for a while now. I think there's an exception if you keep someone bumped for a considerable amount of time without actually ganking them because that's simply preventing someone from playing, but if they are doing it to gank you it's definitely OK.

As long as you aren't AFK or logged off, you can't die from this.


























lol

Learn to answer the question... and you are seriously a troll if you are trying to use "cost" as a deterrent to ganking. You were nerfed by "cost"

Hilarious. You use a bunch of 3 mil isk fit ships to gank a 1.5bil ship with untold isk of cargo... and you want to talk about the cost of Catalysts? Troll

1 pilot isn't "beating" anything simply by surviving...

You have a warped sense of "beating"