Crime & Punishment

You still do not acknowledge that standard gank fleets haven't been profitable for weeks.

what is 'harder' or more 'complex' is totally subjective. running 6 dps, bumping and being my own warpin is probably the most difficult activity in the game imo. I'm trying to point out the hypocrisy of calculated pve that never changes with freighter pvp where anything could happen.

Maybe all you high-sec miners / haulers would live longer if:

1) You'd start mining in a quiet system. I'm happily mining away in a quiet high-sec system, free of those annoying CODE. twats.
2) Avoid Uedama. That's a CODE. -policed system and a Freighter chokepoint.
3) Double wrap your sh*t. Nobody will want to gank you if they have no idea what you have.

PS: If a capsuleer initiates combat with your ship, you have the CONCORD-given right to retaliate with appropriate force.

You'd be the first one to get rich by mass-ganking random low-value or empty freighters. Did you really expect anything else with that kind of target selection?

I was under the impression miniluv was entirely self-funded and proud of that fact.

You're half right. I don't hate ganking at all, I simply think it needs balance. I do however understand the mechanics of it, I just don't feel the need to pretend it's far more difficult than it is like you do. I can't tell if you do that for fear of CCP making it harder or because you want people to give you some sort of respect for your carbearing.

I never said it was hard or complex, nothing in eve is hard or complex. If you unironically call mining, running incursions, or F1-ing in a nullsec fleet 'hard', you need to honestly rethink eve. Being a ganker is no harder, nor easier than F1-ing in a fleet fight, and bumping is no different in difficulty than running as a logistics player in a fleet. Being an FC is exactly the same, you have to know what you can and can't do, and what could possibly happen. The difference between incursions and pvp fleets is that while running incursions there are no variables, once you have a system that works it works forever. A PvP/freighter fleet is different, as soon as you start running against other players, you open yourself up to counters, counter-counters, and so on, infinitely.




This is a problem with eve online itself, not of ganking. Since when has N+1 not been a factor in fleet fights or ganking or anything in eve? If you can't do it safely, or you can't do it at all, just bring more dudes. This is not a ganking problem, this is an eve online problem. The current counters and counter-counters exist already and don't need to be artificially injected. The reason they aren't used as much is because people haven't felt the need to adapt to them, obviously because they either correctly or incorrectly believe that ganking isn't enough of a threat to them to warrant even the easiest of deterrence.



Let me add something:

A week ago we tried to gank a hard knocks freighter. We failed and gave up because they actually know how to play the game and quickly countered us trying to gank them with less than a third of our numbers. People who know what they're doing easily side step gankers like they're nothing, consistently. Ganking is extremely underpowered in the sense that an even number vs even number fight with equal competency on both sides is going to result in the defender's victory every single time.

Your last sentence assumes that there were no "pure, blind incompetent" freighter pilots, as you call them. We both know that the opposite is true, in fact you yourself prove it on a daily basis. You even go as far a bragging about it in the MD subforum; let me quote you:
Or is this yet another of your (as in CODE.) social experiments in order to find the biggest idiot in the game? FWIW: I assume both.


As for the second question: Yes, I think they should be able to do it and I doubt you'll find any reasonable person from my camp who wants to actually remove highsec ganking from the game. It would make highsec super boring.

The first question is much more difficult to answer and I cannot give you a general answer as the topic is much too diverse, especially when taking dedicated gank-alts into account. The tl;dr answer is: yes, I consider it broken in many but not all settings. A detailled answer would probably cover several pages and would most likely be a waste of time anyway. That's also not the reason why I have started posting in this thread.

1. I'm not looking for a balance to hyperdunking, I'd be looking for a balance to ganking in general. Hyperdunking as a method of ganking is dumb as it allows you to leverage infinite damage without adding more dudes.

2. Id be looking for it at a minimum to range from half of what if currently is to twice what it currently is with mid level implants from point 3.

3. It's not that it would affect their behaviour so much as it would affect your ability to be detected by them (lore wise). The idea would be to give gankers, like other types of players, choice over how much they want to spend to alter how good they are at their chosen role. Let's give quick examples of how this would work with point 2 Let's say for arguments sake that concord response time now is 30s:
With no implants: between 5s and 50s
With middle set of implants: between 15s and 60s
With top set of implants: between 25s and 70s

4. But basically nothing is risked by gankers. They risk cheap disposable ships that are written off before they even undock. Even a newbie ganker simply shrugs and goes again if they fail a gank. I was under the impression that part of EVE was about actually losing something significant if you fail. Otherwise we may as well just respawn with our ships.

5. You say that, but I've seen time and again AGs simply being ignored as we plough on through a target. It's a joke to consider them a significant counter. If they even manage to get to the right target (as they have no way of knowing which bumped target is the one) they only have a slim chance of actually disrupting the gank.

but i guess you also claim srp for losses in pvp so you will just shrug off a loss also, where is the risk in that?

I don't claim to be taking a risk, but then I'm nor raking in an income. From the point of view of the guy giving out the ship and receiving the income from sov, there's very real risks. Putting hundreds of billions of isk on the line for a fleet fight to save a station or a system is pretty significant. OTOH, risking 20-30 catalysts is nothing. It's a low amount of nothing that most single players would put that on the line and some. Most non-blinged L4 mission runners put more than that on the line for a single ship. That catalysts for gankers are comparable with ammo is a serious display of how insignificant the assets on the line are.

No, I don't consider time spent on a game to be a risk. Careful, you're bordering on a Gevlonish "but opportunity costs!" viewpoint here.