These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Crime & Punishment

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

HighSec Ganking and Appropriate Punishment

Author
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#181 - 2015-07-21 05:59:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Dracvlad
Salah ad-Din al-Jawahiri wrote:
Today I talked to a miner who complained to me that CODE. ganks "the little guy" in Covetors, Retrievers, and Hulks, but barely bothers rich Skiff-piloting multiboxers, who invade Caldari ice belts in locust swarms.

Ganking is too easy, but we don't seem to be ganking miners well enough.


Well that is what you do in Osmon, you have one very active guy with two gank toons, and he knows very well what he can take out and what he cannot. So most of the time he kills Coverters, Retrievers, Hulks and badly tanked Mackinaws with the odd industrial, Venture and mission runner thrown in. The thing is that Procurers and Skiffs when tanked need more DPS and therefore more of you to do it, and as you lot are concentrating on Freighter ganks then its only the easier mining ships that are getting dunked. I hope you told him to get in a Procurer and train for a Skiff, because that is what I would have told him and I hope you said that you do not have the manpower to step it up...

I also noticed that you tend to go after Charons first then Fenrirs and that is due to their lessor tanks, again this is because they are easier to kill and need less numbers, people are now putting resistance plates on the Obelisk and Providence which make them easier to save and more cost;ly.

In terms of the concept too easy, its true that you guys have been very organised and very good at it, however more and more people are ganking which is creating an inbalance in the game. Many people on our side feel that the penalties applied to the gankers are no deterrence at all, this is not so much a question of easy, but more to do with a balance that makes people think about whether to do this or not, this is why many of us suggest a slight adjustment to the penalties in hisec. Like many I am not against ganking as such, but I feel that the deterrence provided by the Empires and CONCORD are not enough to create the right balance in game.

Kaarous and people like him will now scream in rage and post banal rubbish in response, but the question is always about game balance. CCP are bad with this aspect, as I pointed out previously in many threads before the mining ships were buffed the best tank mining ship was the Hulk and that could be taken out by a single Catalyst and the pilot podded in a 0.8 system. Now people have the choice of using mining ships that can tank instead of all of them having the tank of a wet paper bag, I actually mine every so often because it enables me to be in a ship that is harder to kill.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp

Capt Starfox
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#182 - 2015-07-21 06:17:53 UTC


Grats on the 25b JF Pirate I hate you and I'm going to kill you (in-game of course) Twisted


Abandon all hope ye who x up in fleet

Noragen Neirfallas
Emotional Net Loss
#183 - 2015-07-21 06:23:35 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
Salah ad-Din al-Jawahiri wrote:
Today I talked to a miner who complained to me that CODE. ganks "the little guy" in Covetors, Retrievers, and Hulks, but barely bothers rich Skiff-piloting multiboxers, who invade Caldari ice belts in locust swarms.

Ganking is too easy, but we don't seem to be ganking miners well enough.


Well that is what you do in Osmon, you have one very active guy with two gank toons, and he knoews very well what he can take out and what he cannot. So most of the time he kills Coverters, Retrievers, Hulks and badly tanked Mackinaws with the odd industrial, Venture and mission runner thrown in. The thing is that Procurers and Skiffs when tanked need more DPS and therefore more of you to do it, and as you lot are concentrating on Freighter ganks then its only the easier mining ships that are getting dunked. I hope you told him to get in a Procurer and train for a Skiff, because that is what I would have told him and I hope you said that you do not have the manpower to step it up...

I also noticed that you tend to go after Charons first then Fenrirs and that is due to their lessor tanks, again this is because they are easier to kill and need less numbers, people are now putting resistance plates on the Obelisk and Providence which make them easier to save and more cost;ly.

In terms of the concept too easy, its true that you guys have been very organised and very good at it, however more and more people are ganking which is creating an inbalance in the game. Many people on our side feel that the penalties applied to the gankers are no deterrence at all, this is not so much a question of easy, but more to do with a balance that makes people think about whether to do this or not, this is why many of us suggest a slight adjustment to the penalties in hisec. Like many I am not against ganking as such, but I feel that the deterrence provided by the Empires and CONCORD are not enough to create the right balance in game.

Kaarous and people like him will now scream in rage and post banal rubbish in response, but the question is always about game balance. CCP are bad with this aspect, as I pointed out previously in many threads before the mining ships were buffed the best tank mining ship was the Hulk and that could be taken out by a single Catalyst and the pilot podded in a 0.8 system. Now people have the choice of using mining ships that can tank instead of all of them having the tank of a wet paper bag, I actually mine every so often because it enables me to be in a ship that is harder to kill.

Which side am I considered to be on since it appears there are only 2?

Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment

Noragens basically the Chribba of C&P - Zimmy Zeta

Confirming that we all play in Noragen's eve. - BeBopAReBop

ISD Buldath favorite ISD

'"****station games" - Sun Tzu' - Ralph King Griffin

Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
Safety.
#184 - 2015-07-21 06:42:19 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:

In terms of the concept too easy, its true that you guys have been very organised and very good at it, however more and more people are ganking which is creating an inbalance in the game. Many people on our side feel that the penalties applied to the gankers are no deterrence at all, this is not so much a question of easy, but more to do with a balance that makes people think about whether to do this or not, this is why many of us suggest a slight adjustment to the penalties in hisec. Like many I am not against ganking as such, but I feel that the deterrence provided by the Empires and CONCORD are not enough to create the right balance in game.

This is not NPC content where you can balance it by adjusting the loot table. This is player content that gets balanced by the game mechanics and this is what CCP is doing for over 12 years. They continuously nerfed ganking and the result is a more secure Highsec which in turn leads to fatter Freighters because people feel safe.

So if you think it is too rewarding to gank Freighters, wait until Highsec gets even safer. Go two years back and tell someone that carebears autopilot Freighters with 12B ISK on a daily basis and no one will believe you.

There will always be someone who steps up the game if you nerf ganking even more because at some point the Freighters will get so fat it will pay for the losses. But the more you nerf the more people will be required and you will have whole alliances centred around this fountain of wealth which is the careless carebear (this is already happening as you may have noticed).

The "balance" is where do you want to have that fat freighter ISK wise. Is 12bil ok or should it be more? Maybe you are happy if we kill only 100bil ISK Freighters? Or should we go back to 2bil ISK Freighters again and enable the whole Freighter ganking profession for smaller groups in the process.
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
Safety.
#185 - 2015-07-21 06:50:01 UTC
Serendipity Lost wrote:

Here, I'll just out w/ it. I think it would be super eve funny if CCP fooked with CODE. where CODE. had zero recourse. They would have to feel like the poor miner saps they wonk on day in and day. It would be even more super eve funny if CCP contrived some 'saviour of (fill in blank in creative roleplaying way)' and used that to justify taking a dump on CODE. operations.

It would just be funny. It would also be interesting to see if CODE. would then HTFU and keep going or just dissolve into the history books. I know where I would place my bets.

So what you say is we are so super eve elite that all powerful CCP which is not an in-game entity but the creator of the game itself, has to step in to stop us, because you carebears are to bad at the game to do something about it with the game tools available?

I would say that probably the MMO equivalent of winning the game (for us obviously), since you are completely dominated and can only hope for divine intervention at that point.
Noragen Neirfallas
Emotional Net Loss
#186 - 2015-07-21 07:21:52 UTC
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
Serendipity Lost wrote:

Here, I'll just out w/ it. I think it would be super eve funny if CCP fooked with CODE. where CODE. had zero recourse. They would have to feel like the poor miner saps they wonk on day in and day. It would be even more super eve funny if CCP contrived some 'saviour of (fill in blank in creative roleplaying way)' and used that to justify taking a dump on CODE. operations.

It would just be funny. It would also be interesting to see if CODE. would then HTFU and keep going or just dissolve into the history books. I know where I would place my bets.

So what you say is we are so super eve elite that all powerful CCP which is not an in-game entity but the creator of the game itself, has to step in to stop us, because you carebears are to bad at the game to do something about it with the game tools available?

I would say that probably the MMO equivalent of winning the game (for us obviously), since you are completely dominated and can only hope for divine intervention at that point.

Haven't I seen you post on more then one occasion how easy it is to counter you though and how to do it??? Surely nobody can be that bad they don't know how to counter you if they set their minds to it.

Noragen Neirfallas, Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment and recent Freighter Gank Victim (of my own stupidity)

Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment

Noragens basically the Chribba of C&P - Zimmy Zeta

Confirming that we all play in Noragen's eve. - BeBopAReBop

ISD Buldath favorite ISD

'"****station games" - Sun Tzu' - Ralph King Griffin

Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#187 - 2015-07-21 10:30:18 UTC
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:

In terms of the concept too easy, its true that you guys have been very organised and very good at it, however more and more people are ganking which is creating an inbalance in the game. Many people on our side feel that the penalties applied to the gankers are no deterrence at all, this is not so much a question of easy, but more to do with a balance that makes people think about whether to do this or not, this is why many of us suggest a slight adjustment to the penalties in hisec. Like many I am not against ganking as such, but I feel that the deterrence provided by the Empires and CONCORD are not enough to create the right balance in game.

This is not NPC content where you can balance it by adjusting the loot table. This is player content that gets balanced by the game mechanics and this is what CCP is doing for over 12 years. They continuously nerfed ganking and the result is a more secure Highsec which in turn leads to fatter Freighters because people feel safe.

So if you think it is too rewarding to gank Freighters, wait until Highsec gets even safer. Go two years back and tell someone that carebears autopilot Freighters with 12B ISK on a daily basis and no one will believe you.

There will always be someone who steps up the game if you nerf ganking even more because at some point the Freighters will get so fat it will pay for the losses. But the more you nerf the more people will be required and you will have whole alliances centred around this fountain of wealth which is the careless carebear (this is already happening as you may have noticed).

The "balance" is where do you want to have that fat freighter ISK wise. Is 12bil ok or should it be more? Maybe you are happy if we kill only 100bil ISK Freighters? Or should we go back to 2bil ISK Freighters again and enable the whole Freighter ganking profession for smaller groups in the process.


My comments are aimed more at the penalties which are applied as part of the CONCORD reaction to ganking, I think they need to be adjusted so add back a bit more deterrence but without making it too difficult, the issue is that CCP tend to over compensate..

In truth I think that freighters are a bit too easy, you quite often kill those which are carrying nothing, but then again you guys have got very organised to kill them which of course makes it look easy, credit to you chaps there for your gameplay, in effect I am not so focussed on the value of the freighter, 2bn as a cross over point seems reasonable to me, but stil the tank on a Charon is rather naff.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp

Lan Wang
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#188 - 2015-07-21 10:34:52 UTC
can we have penalties for people who only do pve, more i think about the pve fatigue thread the more i think its actually a good idea, nerf all the things that people make stacks of isk doing

Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel

Calm down miner. As you pointed out, people think they can get away with stuff they would not in rl... Like for example illegal mining... - Ima Wreckyou*

Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#189 - 2015-07-21 11:09:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Dracvlad
Lan Wang wrote:
can we have penalties for people who only do pve, more i think about the pve fatigue thread the more i think its actually a good idea, nerf all the things that people make stacks of isk doing


You say that, but recently I noticed that they seem to have adjusted the missions to give more faction missions, and this means that I cannot grind as much as I would like. So your request seems to have already been implemented, thankfully there is in my mission hub a prolific CODE agent so I can go hunt him instead of doing the PvE which is what you wanted.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp

Bastion Arzi
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#190 - 2015-07-21 11:33:31 UTC
tl:dr

but the op wont illicit a nice repsonse from this. and i hope he/she did not post with their main.

i will read the rest of the thread now but i bet my prediction holds true
Bastion Arzi
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#191 - 2015-07-21 11:43:32 UTC
read some,

op would u like to hire some protection?
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#192 - 2015-07-21 13:57:56 UTC
Lan Wang wrote:
can we have penalties for people who only do pve, more i think about the pve fatigue thread the more i think its actually a good idea, nerf all the things that people make stacks of isk doing


Sounds good to me. They're all for suggesting adding mechanical penalties to other people's professions(not to mention the only profession that has any to begin with anymore), so surely they'd be okay with having that argument pointed at them, right?

I mean, unless they're all colossal hypocrites, anyway.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Lan Wang
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#193 - 2015-07-21 14:07:38 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Lan Wang wrote:
can we have penalties for people who only do pve, more i think about the pve fatigue thread the more i think its actually a good idea, nerf all the things that people make stacks of isk doing


Sounds good to me. They're all for suggesting adding mechanical penalties to other people's professions(not to mention the only profession that has any to begin with anymore), so surely they'd be okay with having that argument pointed at them, right?

I mean, unless they're all colossal hypocrites, anyway.


well i use to support the carebears and defend them because i use to think shooting defenceless ships was bad but i have totally changed my opinion, mostly down to the numerous threads daily about how baddies keep shooting them and this, that and the next thing should be nerfed so they can play afk more, and solo carebears are really rude.

on the other hand i never really see a post from pirates posting threads about the mechanics which hinder there own profession. so i think nerfing pve would only be fair


Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel

Calm down miner. As you pointed out, people think they can get away with stuff they would not in rl... Like for example illegal mining... - Ima Wreckyou*

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#194 - 2015-07-21 14:48:47 UTC
Lan Wang wrote:
on the other hand i never really see a post from pirates posting threads about the mechanics which hinder there own profession. so i think nerfing pve would only be fair
So you missed the threads asking for concord to be removed or NPC corp players to be punished or booted after X months?

Even if this were the case, perhaps that's because a lot of the PvE mechanics are dull and have been for years, while piracy is pretty easy and there's far less to complain about. I rarely see people complaining about incursion income being terrible, that doesn't mean that other, worse income sources should be nerfed, does it?

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Lan Wang
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#195 - 2015-07-21 15:10:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Lan Wang
Lucas Kell wrote:
Lan Wang wrote:
on the other hand i never really see a post from pirates posting threads about the mechanics which hinder there own profession. so i think nerfing pve would only be fair
So you missed the threads asking for concord to be removed or NPC corp players to be punished or booted after X months?

Even if this were the case, perhaps that's because a lot of the PvE mechanics are dull and have been for years, while piracy is pretty easy and there's far less to complain about. I rarely see people complaining about incursion income being terrible, that doesn't mean that other, worse income sources should be nerfed, does it?


incursions should create conflict by allowing sansha loyalists to engage incursion runner within incursion systems, simple really, i fixed incursions. thx, too much money and zero risk with incursions

but what actually gets implemented which benefit conflict within highsec or lowsec? everything is for more safety to the carebear, i dont think the activity itself should be nerfed more like the player...imagine players being nerfed so people had to switch from doing different things if they wanted to do pve because they exhausted missions, so they have to do mining or incursions, diversity instead of doing the same thing all day everyday and being greedy by gobbling up all the resources so other people cant get any.

its not really a fix and blah blah blah yes people will log off or have alts etc etc but they do that anyway.

and yes i missed the thread asking for concord to be removed as im busy replying to all these anti-gank threads Cool

Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel

Calm down miner. As you pointed out, people think they can get away with stuff they would not in rl... Like for example illegal mining... - Ima Wreckyou*

Anne Dieu-le-veut
Natl Assn for the Advancement of Criminal People
#196 - 2015-07-21 15:25:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Anne Dieu-le-veut
Dracvlad wrote:


My comments are aimed more at the penalties which are applied as part of the CONCORD reaction to ganking, I think they need to be adjusted so add back a bit more deterrence but without making it too difficult, the issue is that CCP tend to over compensate..

In truth I think that freighters are a bit too easy, you quite often kill those which are carrying nothing, but then again you guys have got very organised to kill them which of course makes it look easy, credit to you chaps there for your gameplay, in effect I am not so focussed on the value of the freighter, 2bn as a cross over point seems reasonable to me, but stil the tank on a Charon is rather naff.



Most gankers are -10s or close to it, so bigger standings hits are meaningless. CONCORD blows everyone up...seems like sufficient penalty. Increased response times will make carebears even more reckless, running more triple cargo expanded freighters with even billions more worth of cargo, while gankers will just bring a couple more ships, and carebears will cry for "just one more nerf".

Freighters are as easy as idiots that autopilot them full of loot make them. Fleet members get bored already waiting out the 15 min timer, and from what I've seen, empty freighters are only killed if they're bored, and because of a lack of better targets because smarter freighter pilots scouted ahead and saw a bunch of gankers in system, and took a different route. How much tank should a giant cargo container with engines have, especially when so many idiots intentionally lower their tank?

Dracvlad wrote:
You say that, but recently I noticed that they seem to have adjusted the missions to give more faction missions, and this means that I cannot grind as much as I would like. So your request seems to have already been implemented, thankfully there is in my mission hub a prolific CODE agent so I can go hunt him instead of doing the PvE which is what you wanted.


You must have some really bad luck. I get burner missions all the time, but it's rare that I get a faction mission more than once every 4 hours (and I usually do various empire navy missions), and when I do, it's not hard to go to a different agent.
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#197 - 2015-07-21 15:30:29 UTC
Lan Wang wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Lan Wang wrote:
on the other hand i never really see a post from pirates posting threads about the mechanics which hinder there own profession. so i think nerfing pve would only be fair
So you missed the threads asking for concord to be removed or NPC corp players to be punished or booted after X months?

Even if this were the case, perhaps that's because a lot of the PvE mechanics are dull and have been for years, while piracy is pretty easy and there's far less to complain about. I rarely see people complaining about incursion income being terrible, that doesn't mean that other, worse income sources should be nerfed, does it?


incursions should create conflict by allowing sansha loyalists to engage incursion runner within incursion systems, simple really, i fixed incursions. thx, too much money and zero risk with incursions

but what actually gets implemented which benefit conflict within highsec or lowsec? everything is for more safety to the carebear, i dont think the activity itself should be nerfed more like the player...imagine players being nerfed so people had to switch from doing different things if they wanted to do pve because they exhausted missions, so they have to do mining or incursions, diversity instead of doing the same thing all day everyday and being greedy by gobbling up all the resources so other people cant get any.

its not really a fix and blah blah blah yes people will log off or have alts etc etc but they do that anyway.

and yes i missed the thread asking for concord to be removed as im busy replying to all these anti-gank threads Cool


Excuse me, but I ended up with another mission against the Amarr faction and I had that on my other toon and this is fairly recent behaviour, before I used to get one decline it and would not get one for a while, but bang on both toons another Amarr mission, thats been adjusted from what it used to be like, just make Eve more of a pain for people, oh well. So I had four hours to kill so I went and got some kills against a very competent ganker, of course CONCORD is on 66% of them, but I did do most of the damage on them, honest...

Now lets list them out, removal of anoms that needed to be scanned out, so even a loser can warp straight in on you, differential warp speeds so that ships could now get on top of you and hold you down, D-scan immunity means D-scan is useless for a solo player, you need combat probes, oh what joy, its been made easier and easier to catch people, why the hell do you think someone like me who was in NPC null ratting in PvP ships has given up and gone to hisec. Its not because they give candy in hisec...

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#198 - 2015-07-21 15:42:15 UTC
Lan Wang wrote:
but what actually gets implemented which benefit conflict within highsec or lowsec? everything is for more safety to the carebear
You mean like how wardecs used to be limited, but now you can have hundreds of them? Or orca bays that used to drop nothing and now can be scanned and drop loot? Or new configurable destroyers? Or Mobile depots so you can refit to fit your situation? Warp changes so heavier ships take 3 billions years to arrive so you can get ahead of them after they've entered warp?

Lan Wang wrote:
i dont think the activity itself should be nerfed more like the player...imagine players being nerfed so people had to switch from doing different things if they wanted to do pve because they exhausted missions, so they have to do mining or incursions, diversity instead of doing the same thing all day everyday and being greedy by gobbling up all the resources so other people cant get any.
I could support that kind of thing, especially if it was based around groups so an individual could still choose to specialise but would need to work with others doing other activities a bit more closely. I really want to see individual PvE elements mixed up and varied though. I'd like to see missions where you have no idea what's going to happen in them, not just a step by step guide, and mining be more involved than "click rock, wait". But none of that has to involve being forced to be fodder for bored PvPers.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Noragen Neirfallas
Emotional Net Loss
#199 - 2015-07-21 15:57:24 UTC
I was watching this with my children and it describes my point of view on this topic

#UsingDisneyToSolveAllOurProblems

CoolCool

Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment

Noragens basically the Chribba of C&P - Zimmy Zeta

Confirming that we all play in Noragen's eve. - BeBopAReBop

ISD Buldath favorite ISD

'"****station games" - Sun Tzu' - Ralph King Griffin

Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
Safety.
#200 - 2015-07-21 17:13:22 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:

In terms of the concept too easy, its true that you guys have been very organised and very good at it, however more and more people are ganking which is creating an inbalance in the game. Many people on our side feel that the penalties applied to the gankers are no deterrence at all, this is not so much a question of easy, but more to do with a balance that makes people think about whether to do this or not, this is why many of us suggest a slight adjustment to the penalties in hisec. Like many I am not against ganking as such, but I feel that the deterrence provided by the Empires and CONCORD are not enough to create the right balance in game.

This is not NPC content where you can balance it by adjusting the loot table. This is player content that gets balanced by the game mechanics and this is what CCP is doing for over 12 years. They continuously nerfed ganking and the result is a more secure Highsec which in turn leads to fatter Freighters because people feel safe.

So if you think it is too rewarding to gank Freighters, wait until Highsec gets even safer. Go two years back and tell someone that carebears autopilot Freighters with 12B ISK on a daily basis and no one will believe you.

There will always be someone who steps up the game if you nerf ganking even more because at some point the Freighters will get so fat it will pay for the losses. But the more you nerf the more people will be required and you will have whole alliances centred around this fountain of wealth which is the careless carebear (this is already happening as you may have noticed).

The "balance" is where do you want to have that fat freighter ISK wise. Is 12bil ok or should it be more? Maybe you are happy if we kill only 100bil ISK Freighters? Or should we go back to 2bil ISK Freighters again and enable the whole Freighter ganking profession for smaller groups in the process.


My comments are aimed more at the penalties which are applied as part of the CONCORD reaction to ganking, I think they need to be adjusted so add back a bit more deterrence but without making it too difficult, the issue is that CCP tend to over compensate..

In truth I think that freighters are a bit too easy, you quite often kill those which are carrying nothing, but then again you guys have got very organised to kill them which of course makes it look easy, credit to you chaps there for your gameplay, in effect I am not so focussed on the value of the freighter, 2bn as a cross over point seems reasonable to me, but stil the tank on a Charon is rather naff.


I am not sure if you did not read my post or just did not understand what I wrote?

Increasing the safety will increase the amout of stuff they haul. I wrote in my previous post why I think this is the case. If you don't think my thoughts on this are valid please adress it and don't just generate another random gank nerf idea.