These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Intergalactic Summit

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Heated Conflict Brewing In The Uedama System!

Author
Marcus Binchiette
Federal Vanguard
#41 - 2016-12-12 18:52:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Marcus Binchiette
Arrendis wrote:
Marcus Binchiette wrote:
But, if you were to ask me personally. Why would I fight against CODE? Well. I'm a strategist, and I love a challenge that would put my mind to the test. Your assertions that such a thing cannot be done is all the reason I need to fight CODE. I'm curious to see whether it could be done. Futhermore, if I can milk CODE for profit, then I'm not just seeing a war, but, a business opportunity.


Then you fail to understand why it cannot work in the long-term. There's no mental exercise here, no grand strategy to turn the tide against them. There is only persistence and stubbornness to the exclusion of all else.

Are you prepared to spend the next eight years dedicating yourself to fighting CODE? Because they're prepared to spend the next eight years like they've spent the last eight years: killing freighters and getting shot at by anti-gankers. This is not a matter of strategy. It's a matter of endurance, and to be blunt, utterly masochistic levels of deranged single-mindedness. You see this as a challenge. They see this as just another day, just another group of anti-pirates. If you are not prepared to dedicate yourself to this—and only this, lest you give them a reprieve—for what amounts to the rest of the foreseeable future, you cannot win.


You seem very sure of yourself, am persist in making a lot of assertions without anything to back it up. I think you're suffering from a lack of imagination - along with the absurd presumption to know what I am thinking, when you evidently do not.

Though, while we are on the subject. You say that CODE derives a lot of funding from player donations and from ganking. Would you care to be specific? I think you're exaggerating their financial position.

Also, Arrendis, I might go further in adding that you seem rather taken by CODE's cause. What exactly is it that you are afraid of? Why is it so important that you express the futility of fighting against CODE? Can you not see that in promulgating the security of CODE, that you are not undermining their very purpose - to underline the fact that no-one in EVE is safe.
Arrendis
TK Corp
#42 - 2016-12-12 19:32:39 UTC
Marcus Binchiette wrote:
You seem very sure of yourself, am persist in making a lot of assertions without anything to back it up. I think you're suffering from a lack of imagination - along with the absurd presumption to know what I am thinking, when you evidently do not.

Though, while we are on the subject. You say that CODE derives a lot of funding from player donations and from ganking. Would you care to be specific? I think you're exaggerating their financial position.

Also, Arrendis, I might go further in adding that you seem rather taken by CODE's cause. What exactly is it that you are afraid of? Why is it so important that you express the futility of fighting against CODE? Can you not see that in promulgating the security of CODE, that you are not undermining their very purpose - to underline the fact that no-one in EVE is safe.


I'm extremely sure of myself. As for what I have to back it up, I have people like Warr Akini and Boneytooth, who run MiniLuv. If you don't know who the Ministry of Love is, you're not prepared to deal with gankers. More, I don't presume to know what you're thinking. I asked, and you responded. I'm basing my responses on your actual statements.

In this, you might notice some difference between what I'm doing, and what you're doing. After all, I never said CODE derives funding from donations. I said what they do is highly profitable. And I have been more specific, citing the example of MiniLuv's ability to recoup over a quarter-trillion in three months a year ago, entirely from high-sec ganking.

That's the organization's cut, not the individual pilots' cut. That's the kind of profitability behind the war chest you're going to be dealing with.

As for being afraid? I'm not afraid. There is absolutely nothing you and your efforts can or will do to me. I'm not a ganker. I make my money in industry in Delve. What you fail to understand is something many of the other people around you are well aware of: I delight in pedantry. (Feel free to look that up.) You're demonstrably wrong. Years upon years of people trying to do exactly what you're trying to do, in exactly the way you're trying to do it, have already provided exactly that demonstration.

No, no-one in New Eden is safe. However, in order to effectively deter capsuleers from engaging in a particular behavior, you have to understand the behavior, and understand just what it is they get from it, and what they want to avoid. Being shot at is not something they care about avoiding, and it's not something that's going to offset their profits. Individual pilots will blow up. Individual ship crews will die. The organization will absorb these losses as part of the cost of doing business, just as they've always done before.

Aria Jenneth
Societas Imperialis Sceptri Coronaeque
Khimi Harar
#43 - 2016-12-12 19:40:20 UTC
Arrendis wrote:
What you fail to understand is something many of the other people around you are well aware of: I delight in pedantry. (Feel free to look that up.)

Confirming that Ms. Arrendis's apple hasn't fallen far from the pedant-tree. (Like I'm one to talk.)

She's not wrong, though.
Arrendis
TK Corp
#44 - 2016-12-12 19:44:57 UTC
Aria Jenneth wrote:
Confirming that Ms. Arrendis's apple hasn't fallen far from the pedant-tree.


It really is kind of shameful how much this made me laugh. Thank you, Aria.
Saya Ishikari
Ishukone-Raata Technological Research Institute
Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
#45 - 2016-12-12 20:32:42 UTC
Arrendis wrote:
Saya Ishikari wrote:
A cause called foolhardy is better than no cause at all.

Besides, I see a lot of people acting incensed when someone complains about a problem, or even brings it up, typically with some variation of "Well, go DO something about it".

This is something. I fail to see why the reply is now "Why are you doing something?"

His ISK, his risk. If he feels it's time well spent, what's the issue?


Futilitiy is inefficient, ineffective, and counterproductive. His statements indicate a clear misunderstanding of the difficulties and challenges he is planning to engage, so I am providing him more accurate information. This is no great strategic challenge: bring more people and shoot them, and they'll blow up. So the thing he claims to be seeking is not what he'll find. More, the question of 'why?' is directly addressing the fact that the declared actions will, in fact, be counterproductive to the stated goals. If you see someone choking, and someone else comes along and says 'I can help him, just let me cut off his head', are you really going to not question that?

As to the 'well, go DO something about it', the situation here is analagous to someone complaining that they're cold, and when told to 'go do something about it', they announce quite loudly and repeatedly that by God, they're going to have someone go paint their Raven yellow and name it 'Canary', and THAT will make them warm. It's not that the action is an issue—go paint the ship whatever color you want—it's that as a solution, it's nonsense. You don't stop ganking by engaging the gankers. If that worked, ever, it would have worked long ago, since groups have been doing precisely that for as long as people have been ganking freighters and miners. The solution presented is not only demonstrably not a solution, it's not even a step in that direction. So it's not 'doing something about it', it's 'doing something else, and dramatically misrepresenting your actions as a solution'.

If you want to stop ganking in high-sec, the solution is simple, but impossible to achieve: just get CONCORD to remove the ability to disable those firing safeties they mandated all ships be upgraded to include, while in highsec. When you're in highsec, safeties green. Can't shoot, can't gank. Problem solved.

Good luck getting it done.

An understandable position, and actually one I agree with. My stance is rooted, quite simply, in the appearance of the pattern I've previously described on numerous topics across these boards. A stance that often invites more froth then thought, in many cases.

Admittedly, I was curious as to the form your reply would take, and am pleased to know the reasoning behind your position. Thank you.

"At the end of it all, we have only what we've left in our wake to be remembered by." -Kyoko Ishikari, YC 95 - YC 117

Marcus Binchiette
Federal Vanguard
#46 - 2016-12-18 11:45:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Marcus Binchiette
Arrendis wrote:


I'm extremely sure of myself. As for what I have to back it up, I have people like Warr Akini and Boneytooth, who run MiniLuv. If you don't know who the Ministry of Love is, you're not prepared to deal with gankers. More, I don't presume to know what you're thinking. I asked, and you responded. I'm basing my responses on your actual statements.

In this, you might notice some difference between what I'm doing, and what you're doing. After all, I never said CODE derives funding from donations. I said what they do is highly profitable. And I have been more specific, citing the example of MiniLuv's ability to recoup over a quarter-trillion in three months a year ago, entirely from high-sec ganking.

That's the organization's cut, not the individual pilots' cut. That's the kind of profitability behind the war chest you're going to be dealing with.

As for being afraid? I'm not afraid. There is absolutely nothing you and your efforts can or will do to me. I'm not a ganker. I make my money in industry in Delve. What you fail to understand is something many of the other people around you are well aware of: I delight in pedantry. (Feel free to look that up.) You're demonstrably wrong. Years upon years of people trying to do exactly what you're trying to do, in exactly the way you're trying to do it, have already provided exactly that demonstration.

No, no-one in New Eden is safe. However, in order to effectively deter capsuleers from engaging in a particular behavior, you have to understand the behavior, and understand just what it is they get from it, and what they want to avoid. Being shot at is not something they care about avoiding, and it's not something that's going to offset their profits. Individual pilots will blow up. Individual ship crews will die. The organization will absorb these losses as part of the cost of doing business, just as they've always done before.



It is very often the case that what a person writes and what a person is thinking can be two very different things.
Arrendis
TK Corp
#47 - 2016-12-18 11:52:44 UTC
Marcus Binchiette wrote:
It is very often the case that what a person writes and what a person is thinking can be two very different things.


And when that happens, as the reader is not, in fact, a mind-reader, it is a failure on the part of the writer. The purpose of language is communication: the ability to take a thought from your head, quantify it clearly, and put it into someone else's head, intact and unchanged, if only for a moment.

So yes, that is often the case. And you should strive to make that not the case when you write.
Marcus Binchiette
Federal Vanguard
#48 - 2016-12-19 07:40:38 UTC
Arrendis wrote:
Marcus Binchiette wrote:
It is very often the case that what a person writes and what a person is thinking can be two very different things.


And when that happens, as the reader is not, in fact, a mind-reader, it is a failure on the part of the writer. The purpose of language is communication: the ability to take a thought from your head, quantify it clearly, and put it into someone else's head, intact and unchanged, if only for a moment.

So yes, that is often the case. And you should strive to make that not the case when you write.


That would be the case only if I was intending to communicate what I am thinking. I'm sorry for having to spell this out for you, but, you are presuming to know things which I have not communicated, nor had any intention of doing so. As we can appreciate, we are talking about tactical matters and there is often a lot which people engaged in such do not which to communicate... Your presumption to know that which is not likely to be disseminated is very telling.
Aria Jenneth
Societas Imperialis Sceptri Coronaeque
Khimi Harar
#49 - 2016-12-19 09:02:18 UTC
Marcus Binchiette wrote:
Arrendis wrote:
Marcus Binchiette wrote:
It is very often the case that what a person writes and what a person is thinking can be two very different things.


And when that happens, as the reader is not, in fact, a mind-reader, it is a failure on the part of the writer. The purpose of language is communication: the ability to take a thought from your head, quantify it clearly, and put it into someone else's head, intact and unchanged, if only for a moment.

So yes, that is often the case. And you should strive to make that not the case when you write.


That would be the case only if I was intending to communicate what I am thinking. I'm sorry for having to spell this out for you, but, you are presuming to know things which I have not communicated, nor had any intention of doing so. As we can appreciate, we are talking about tactical matters and there is often a lot which people engaged in such do not which to communicate... Your presumption to know that which is not likely to be disseminated is very telling.

Uh-- pilot?

This kind of looks dangerously close to declaring that you're going to do an "inward" off the high dive, actually executing a belly flop that makes everyone in earshot wince in sympathy, and then, after hauling yourself out with your front a brilliant shade of lobster red (probably not just from smacking the water), announcing, "I meant to do that."
Marcus Binchiette
Federal Vanguard
#50 - 2016-12-19 18:22:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Marcus Binchiette
Aria Jenneth wrote:


This kind of looks dangerously close to declaring that you're going to do an "inward" off the high dive, actually executing a belly flop that makes everyone in earshot wince in sympathy, and then, after hauling yourself out with your front a brilliant shade of lobster red (probably not just from smacking the water), announcing, "I meant to do that."


No. The problem is that you don't understand, and I'm not all that interested in explaining myself either. What you haven't yet realised is that I'm not communicating to convey information; but rather to obtain it.
Aria Jenneth
Societas Imperialis Sceptri Coronaeque
Khimi Harar
#51 - 2016-12-19 18:42:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Aria Jenneth
Marcus Binchiette wrote:
Aria Jenneth wrote:


This kind of looks dangerously close to declaring that you're going to do an "inward" off the high dive, actually executing a belly flop that makes everyone in earshot wince in sympathy, and then, after hauling yourself out with your front a brilliant shade of lobster red (probably not just from smacking the water), announcing, "I meant to do that."


No. The problem is that you don't understand, and I'm not all that interested in explaining myself either. What you haven't yet realised is that I'm not communicating to convey information; but rather to obtain it.


O-kay.

... well ... I guess, good luck?
Arrendis
TK Corp
#52 - 2016-12-19 20:31:44 UTC
Marcus Binchiette wrote:
That would be the case only if I was intending to communicate what I am thinking. I'm sorry for having to spell this out for you, but, you are presuming to know things which I have not communicated, nor had any intention of doing so. As we can appreciate, we are talking about tactical matters and there is often a lot which people engaged in such do not which to communicate... Your presumption to know that which is not likely to be disseminated is very telling.


No, I'm simply presuming that you're communicating in good faith. Again: communicating what you're thinking is rather the entire point of language existing in the first place.

So, if you're going to sit here and say what amounts to 'you responded to what I said! HAH! I was lying! So you're wrong about what I was thinking because I LIED!' well, congratulations, you lied. But I'm not presuming to know anything about you that you haven't communicated. I've simply responded, again, to the things you have communicated. If you'd care to cite an example of where I've presumed something, instead of simply making the accusation without any support, then I'd be happy to address that.

But no, we're not talking about tactical matters. We're talking about strategic matters. Tactical matters would be the disposition of forces and maneuvering during a single engagement, not the viability of long-term plans.

Marcus Binchiette wrote:

What you haven't yet realised is that I'm not communicating to convey information; but rather to obtain it.


And yet, when you have obtained the information, you've insisted that the people giving it to you are making presumptions.

Pray, what information are you seeking to obtain?
Luna Hanaya
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#53 - 2016-12-20 12:29:00 UTC
Can we maybe discuss not the language of the pilots and their means of communication, but their ideas and what they were bringing? Especially in the cases about CODE, because... Oh Lord, I will so burn in hell from this!... but I think that the best means of communication with CODE is killing.

((

If you are a roleplayer, please join official CCP channels ingame for roleplayers and support roleplaying community:

Intergalactic Summit - IC router

Out of Character - channel for discussion of roleplay, live events and lore

))

Cxell Alcassa
Alcassa Family Shop
#54 - 2016-12-20 12:58:59 UTC
You can make preventive strike available. Gankers kill miners. Every killed miner has a kill right on the killer person, but they often doesn't know that this kill right can be sold. So...

Inform the victims that they can sell kill rights (and let him be warned that they should not sell it for 0 ISK - in this case, ganker immediately takes it and kills itself on a rookie ship... thus, kill right disappears). Propose victim to sell kill right for the price of lost Venture. That can make ganker's destroyer easy target for bounty hunters and everyone else who desired to add one more ship to killboard (or simply paint it in yellow for fun).

Other way - to collect kill rights on exact target from some victims for yourself. Miners can give kill rights to defenders instead of selling it to everyone.
Arrendis
TK Corp
#55 - 2016-12-20 13:39:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Arrendis
Luna Hanaya wrote:
Can we maybe discuss not the language of the pilots and their means of communication, but their ideas and what they were bringing? Especially in the cases about CODE, because... Oh Lord, I will so burn in hell from this!... but I think that the best means of communication with CODE is killing.


The discussion about language and communication is a direct result of one pilot not being able to accept the crux of the earlier part of the discussion, which was about their ideas and what they were bringing. Specifically: it doesn't matter if you shoot CODE. Much like the Angel Cartel in another thread, you don't disrupt enough of their operations to really hurt them. Worse, because of the particular mindset of these specific capsuleers, you will only energize them by giving them what they want: violence and chaos. They enjoy it. They thrive on it, no matter which end of it they're on, because you won't be there in sufficient numbers to be effective all of the time, and whenever you're not, they'll be making enough money to make up for the inconveniences you cause when you are.

He doesn't like hearing that. He also doesn't like hearing that people have tried it his way, time and time again, over the years, and his way failed. But he can't argue against it, because it's true, and it's pretty self-evident, and even if it weren't, I can (and have) cite numbers to support it. So because he can't actually argue the message, he's engaging in a really transparent little game of trying to weasel around and claim that I'm making presumptions about him by actually taking his words at face value. He's even tossing in an odd little bit about 'hahahaha you are making presumptions because I haven't said what I really mean!' And he does this even though, you know, that would directly undercut his claims about me making presumptions. Then he follows that up with 'I'm not here ot give information, I'm here to get it!' as though anyone here thinks he has any information to give, rather than just bluster and denial about the information he's getting.

So sure, we can go back to discussing the ideas:

If you're going to try to stop CODE by killing them, you need to be prepared to be patrolling that space every hour of the day, every day, for years to come. If you don't, they will outlast you. They have outlasted others. They will hit targets of opportunity. They will shift operations to other viable systems for a short time. They're the aggressors, you're defending their potential targets. They have, and will retain, the initiative until such time as you pay to wardec them. When you do, they'll simply keep hopping from one affiliated corporation to the next, maintaining their ability to dictate the time and place when you can engage them.

Kill rights? Kill rights are useless. What will you cost them? One ship? One disposable ship they planned to lose anyway? Let's say you double their cost of doing business. Now you've taken them from 'obscenely profitable' to only 'wildly profitable'. Good job. Overall, they will retain the strategic initiative. They will dictate when and where they strike, not you. You will continue to need to defend all of their potential hunting grounds, all the time.

Who do you think will tire of it first? CODE will literally be doing exactly what they have done for the better part of a decade. Meanwhile, your protective forces will be spending most of their time waiting, unable to do anything else because going off-post means giving CODE an opportunity. Which side gets bored and goes to do something else first? Which side will be willing to keep that pattern of behavior up for another five or ten years?

Sure. Try killing them. Plenty of other people have tried. Hasn't worked yet. But I'm sure when you repeat the exact same pattern of behavior, you'll get a totally different result.
Praevus
#56 - 2016-12-20 13:51:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Praevus
CODE. will exist until CONCORD changes their regulations.

And then, there'll be much wailing and gnashing of teeth. And a monument or two shot to pieces.

If anything, any success achieved by the vigilante forces delays the moment the actions of CODE and similar groups influence the cluster's economy enough for the muppets in Yulai to make a decision.

...As it was said before over and over, CODE exists only because CONCORD exists. Remove this mockery of law and justice called "highsec" and a proper order will shortly establish itself.

And it will be, most assuredly, not the "New Order of Halaima".
Luna Hanaya
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#57 - 2016-12-20 15:16:33 UTC
Arrendis wrote:
Luna Hanaya wrote:
Can we maybe discuss not the language of the pilots and their means of communication, but their ideas and what they were bringing? Especially in the cases about CODE, because... Oh Lord, I will so burn in hell from this!... but I think that the best means of communication with CODE is killing.


The discussion about language and communication is a direct result of one pilot not being able to accept the crux of the earlier part of the discussion, which was about their ideas and what they were bringing. Specifically: it doesn't matter if you shoot CODE. Much like the Angel Cartel in another thread, you don't disrupt enough of their operations to really hurt them. Worse, because of the particular mindset of these specific capsuleers, you will only energize them by giving them what they want: violence and chaos. They enjoy it. They thrive on it, no matter which end of it they're on, because you won't be there in sufficient numbers to be effective all of the time, and whenever you're not, they'll be making enough money to make up for the inconveniences you cause when you are.

He doesn't like hearing that. He also doesn't like hearing that people have tried it his way, time and time again, over the years, and his way failed. But he can't argue against it, because it's true, and it's pretty self-evident, and even if it weren't, I can (and have) cite numbers to support it. So because he can't actually argue the message, he's engaging in a really transparent little game of trying to weasel around and claim that I'm making presumptions about him by actually taking his words at face value. He's even tossing in an odd little bit about 'hahahaha you are making presumptions because I haven't said what I really mean!' And he does this even though, you know, that would directly undercut his claims about me making presumptions. Then he follows that up with 'I'm not here ot give information, I'm here to get it!' as though anyone here thinks he has any information to give, rather than just bluster and denial about the information he's getting.

So sure, we can go back to discussing the ideas:

If you're going to try to stop CODE by killing them, you need to be prepared to be patrolling that space every hour of the day, every day, for years to come. If you don't, they will outlast you. They have outlasted others. They will hit targets of opportunity. They will shift operations to other viable systems for a short time. They're the aggressors, you're defending their potential targets. They have, and will retain, the initiative until such time as you pay to wardec them. When you do, they'll simply keep hopping from one affiliated corporation to the next, maintaining their ability to dictate the time and place when you can engage them.

Kill rights? Kill rights are useless. What will you cost them? One ship? One disposable ship they planned to lose anyway? Let's say you double their cost of doing business. Now you've taken them from 'obscenely profitable' to only 'wildly profitable'. Good job. Overall, they will retain the strategic initiative. They will dictate when and where they strike, not you. You will continue to need to defend all of their potential hunting grounds, all the time.

Who do you think will tire of it first? CODE will literally be doing exactly what they have done for the better part of a decade. Meanwhile, your protective forces will be spending most of their time waiting, unable to do anything else because going off-post means giving CODE an opportunity. Which side gets bored and goes to do something else first? Which side will be willing to keep that pattern of behavior up for another five or ten years?

Sure. Try killing them. Plenty of other people have tried. Hasn't worked yet. But I'm sure when you repeat the exact same pattern of behavior, you'll get a totally different result.

It is always better to do something than not doing anything. God helps only those, who help themselves.

((

If you are a roleplayer, please join official CCP channels ingame for roleplayers and support roleplaying community:

Intergalactic Summit - IC router

Out of Character - channel for discussion of roleplay, live events and lore

))

Arrendis
TK Corp
#58 - 2016-12-20 16:27:27 UTC
Luna Hanaya wrote:
It is always better to do something than not doing anything. God helps only those, who help themselves.


More accurately: In a crisis situation, it is better to act than not act. Action prompts others to action, and even if you're screwing up, they can see that and intervene. Either way, it's better than giving in to paralysis and inaction.

This doesn't mean 'whatever you do is better than nothing', however. For example: if you see a building on fire, and your immediate reaction is 'let me go and get a 1000 litre drum of kerosene to throw on it! It's wet, it will help!', that action is not better than nothing. The impulse to act must be balanced by a willingness to accept correction when your choice of action is useless or actively counterproductive.

This is even more true outside of an immediate crisis moment—and considering we are discussing long-term engagements, that qualifies as 'outside of an immediate crisis moment'.

Violence, in this situation, is counterproductive. It will energize them and over time, demoralize your people as they sit around waiting and waiting, and what action they do see proves to have little to no effect. Educate miners and haulers on effective ways to defend themselves or ways to minimize the effectivenes of the gankers. Lobby CONCORD to require safety green conditions in highsec. Those will be more effective ways to deal with CODE than shooting at them.
Kess Aihaken
SoE Roughriders
Electus Matari
#59 - 2016-12-20 16:33:05 UTC
Before I post, I'd just like to say that I read as many responses as I could before they started to sound repetitive.

So perhaps this has been mentioned but, just in case it hasn't I'll say it here.


If CODE is thriving by hitting obvious targets that are indefensible, the question needs to be "why can they?"

The reason is simple. The centralized market.

While I realize this would perhaps be incredibly inconvenient, one thing you could do to try to stem the tide is actually decentralize the market. Major traffic passes through the same systems over and over again so CODE knows exactly where to park themselves. If there were more marketplaces, CODE would have to spread themselves much thinner to be effective.


This of course would affect everyone negatively, but assuming you're willing to try anything...this is a possible response. As has been said, CODE is being funded with billions and they use very cheap suicide fits. To beat them straight up you'd have to outdo them in funding, and I don't know how deep their coffers are.

Better for Freighters and miners to spread out and make it much harder for CODE to gain consistent kills trophy kills. Also better for these captains and their crews to employ some dedicated EWAR escorts.

To further disrupt CODE's ability to make monetary gains, run decoy freighters. Run them the same way you would one full to the bulkheads.

Watch CODE gank only to be thwarted by nothing to be gained.

Decentralization and decoys are your best defense.

You can't stop these people entirely, but you can make them really really mad. You can make hours of sitting and waiting feel futile.

That's all I have to say.
Arrendis
TK Corp
#60 - 2016-12-20 17:42:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Arrendis
Kess Aihaken wrote:
To further disrupt CODE's ability to make monetary gains, run decoy freighters. Run them the same way you would one full to the bulkheads.

Watch CODE gank only to be thwarted by nothing to be gained.


You mean watch them cargo scan the decoys just like they cargo scan every empty freighter that comes along, 3-5 jumps out of the ambush system?

They're not idiots, you know. Freighters get scanned undocking from Jita. They get scanned by spotters along the route. They get scanned yet again by the bumpers. None of this triggers a CONCORD response, either directly or via actionable flagging.

Just a quick edit to add: you know who those spotters often are? They're the DSTs with passive targeters fitted who cruise along innocently, going the same way as the freighter, until it's time to scoop the loot.