Everytime i see a thread of "old, faithful" player rage quitting over some noob mistake my gut feeling tells me: ebay char.

How is autoing an undefended Jump Frieghter in High Sec without a jump--out and carrying a high value cargo not a noob mistake?

Is this better?


"How is autoing an undefended Jump Frieghter in High Sec without a jump--out not a noob mistake?"

The OP stated his cargo was valuable to him, but whatever



Still doesn't change the fact that risking a multi-billion Isk ship without the barest of precautions is a noob mistake

EDIT: Now, I may be putting words into your mouth but... are you suggesting that only ships WITH high value cargos should be allowed to be attacked?

Oh I seeee


It should be easy for one group of players and not another


Got it

That ship is a niche, non combat ship. It cannot defend itself. What you are asking for is immunity from the actions of others because you have chosen to vastly increase risks to yourself through stupidity. That will never, ever happen.



So... we should remove the pricetag from wardecs?

Its much harder to set up a freighter gank than to make a freighter safe and requires at least 17 more people for the gank.

You mean players shouldn't be allowed to make it easy for others to gank them?

So if I jump a completely untanked carrier into a fight with no exit cyno, no smartbomb, no neut, it shouldn't be any easier to kill than a carrier with faction tank, 2 exits, etc.?

darn you make it sound so easy

perhaps you should try it yourself if it's so simple and profitable

Why doesn't it work? What is it obfuscating?

well. it's pvp, actually. it's so simple and profitable you don't want to do it? please explain

But, the way You wrote it, Player B did it on purpose, so maybe there was a biggler plan behind his suicide run, which You can never hope to understand.

And Player A got ganked simply because someone was smarter than him...

And now that I've said that, I think we need to reevaluate who's the idiot in Your post...

Player A got ganked because there was a profit to be had. We dont gank these thing just for giggles.

Yeah but do LVL 4s drop tears?

Swipe from a can and everyone can shoot you for 15 min.

And why is that a problem?

The mechanic works, it's a player behavior vs environment/rules = player content, no problem here, working as intended.

Its funny to think that back when this was announced many anti-gank campaigners got all excited and bounced around celebrating the end of hauler ganking and something about ganker tears.

We adapted before crimewatch even hit.

I know. Reality can be funny some times. Too bad so many choose to ignore it and spend their lives in some kind of miserable bubble of unreal and imagined powerlessness.

Yes? And the analogy doesn't workGǪ why, exactly? What's being obfuscated (aside from the parts you left out)?

The topic is that a particular ship that happens to cost a lot dies easily when faced with the onslaught of a fleet of smaller and cheaper ships.

The analogy shows that this happens all over the place and that no, just because the attackers' fleet cost 5% of the defender's hull doesn't mean there is any kind of balance issue. Trying to foist freighter ganks off as something special and unique that somehow stands out from the overall balance of the game and thus needs to be GǣfixedGǥ is far more annoying and dishonest than showing that nothing about this premise is actually trueGǪ

What's the risk of flying a JF in high sec?


What's the risk of attacking a JF in high sec?



BALANCE

LMAO no. If it were, they'd be dying all over the place. They aren't.
So we'll put that down as very low to no risk as well.

BALANCE!

Whereas the value of a hull should have an idea of how well it can perform... the value of the ships don't really have anything to do with its' roles (in other fields-edit-).

A sentinel can ewar a helluva lot better than an Abaddon for instance.

My pilgrim I use as a fun hostile territory blockade runner can never freight my pi better than a freighter, but it can transverse my movements better and safer, at the cost of more trips.

Point being... cost doesn't have anything to do with this scenario.

Your definition of risk is so ****** ******* subjective that it physically pains me to read your idiotic posts.

risk [risk]
noun
1.
exposure to the chance of injury or loss; a hazard or dangerous chance


Just because you plan to suicide you ship when you gank, doesn't mean there is no risk. Allow me to count the ways:

1. You lose your ship. Is it intended? yea. Does it expose you the the chance of injury of loss? No ****, of course it does

2. You lose standing. "B-b-but Max", you whine, "can't you avoid letting your standing drop to a level that will harm you?" Why of course I can, but to do so I must invoke the ancient art of 'Planning' to mitigate my risk. More on that later.

3. Someone gains killrights on you that can be activated at any time. This risk follows you around even after the gank. Can't alts mitigate some of this risk? yes, but you would have to once again invoke the ancient art of 'planning'. Plus, the train to get a new character into a freighter ganking ship(brutix, nado, etc) will cost you in plex

4. And finally, there is the very real risk that the target will escape and you will have lost ships for nothing. This, too, can be mitigated via proper planning.

Now, I know many people say that carebears have lost their ability to invoke the ritual of planning, but I say NAY! I believe in you, carebears! I believe that you can find a friend or an alt to create an escape cyno! I believe that you can scout ahead for gank gangs! I BELIEVE that you can web your freighters to get them off of the gate quicker. I believe. I know that gangers have it easy. After all, all they have to do is put together a fleet of bumpers and gankers, and coordinate them such that they run through the entirety of your hp in the span of about 20 seconds. Easy right? Compared to them, yours is a monumental task. Yet I believe in your ingenuity. YOU CAN DO IT CAREBEARS! I BELIEVE IN YOU!
/sarcasm

citation needed on developer intention of need of battleships to gank freighters due to cost of freighter at release, intention of number and type of ships to gank freighter at release, intention of cargo containers to be unscannable (especially since they were either always or have been changed to be scannable)

Expenses are still risks.

Risk is cost +ù probability. Just because the probability happens to be 1 doesn't mean it's not a risk.

GǪoh, and the probability isn't 1.

no i'm pretty sure claims need to be backed up. i'm not only asking for an indication bs were needed but intention of bs to be needed and intention of bs requirement to gank due to respective costs of the ships.

and the fact that cargo containers were changed to be scannable indicates that the unscannability of cargo containers was considered to be unbalanced.

Nope. A risk is any cost (including negative ones) that can have a probaility value attached to it. If that probability happens to come out as 1, it just makes it a very high risk. The only way for it to be no risk is if we equate zero risk (cost = 0 or probability = 0) with GÇ£noGÇ¥ risk, but strictly speaking, that's still a risk at a value of zero.

GǪexcept that they can. So: since these ganks can fail, and since there's even the chance that you won't lose your ship in the process, the probability isn't 1 to begin with, so even with a limited definition of risk where p<1, it's still a risk.

For the third bloody time



PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW THIS IS SO

if we're balancing on the idea that everyone always does everything perfectly

let's hypothetically give the freighter pilot as many perfectly competent friends in rookie ships as the gankers do taloses and brutixes and catalysts and scouts and bumpers

and balance from there

ps the velators have webs

No. Chance is the (indeterministic) result of the application of probabilities. Even if you were the equate the two, it doesn't particularly change anything. Just because the probability|chance is 1 doesn't mean that there is no risk GÇö just that the risk is the full value of the cost.

Sure they can. Everyone rolls a 100 on their to-hit rolls, miss completely, and keep doing enough times to not do enough damage before they get shot to pieces themslves. Probability of gank success <1.

Conversely, everyone might roll 1 on their to-hit rolls, getting 3+ù damage crits and miraculously alpha the poor thing with their DPS ships, so by the time the last guy is firing, the target is gone and he has nothing to shoot at. Probability of ship loss <1.

So... CONCORD is not a certainty of death?

Huh, I've been doing this all wrong then. :P

All snark aside, you are 100% guaranteed to lose your ship to CONCORD the moment you commit that particular criminal act in highsec. This is a risk/loss you are prepared to take by suicide ganking, that's why it's called suicide.

Working the smart way to mitigate the losses, is simply good gameplay.

@Infinity

I've been reading as much as I can, but I want to know this because I haven't seen you post about it:

What exactly do you want CCP to do about this?

"When confronted with their powerlessness, many noobs will attempt an attack on your real life, frequently insinuating that are a pathetic nerd irl. A special favorite of the noob is to question your sexuality, in particular to claim that you are a virgin, and that 'no real woman' would touch you voluntarily. Another popular tactic is to claim that you are/were helpless against physical abuse, and that you take out your frustrations on the innocent in game."


I took that off of a post in the (forgive me) WoW forums. You can replace "noob" with "carebear" and it applies to EVE easily. Aside from calling them all virgins, you pretty much nailed it.

I'd argue, that the kind of person you have to be to derive solace from imagining that someone who defeated you in a video game is actually a pathetic loser irl, would be the kind of person who isn't "winning!" irl themselves.

Let me put it this way:

Ganking a freighter is -by no means- easy. Anyone who truthfully says otherwise has not done what I do. Jump freighters are even harder.

Protecting a freighter is incredibly easy. Jump freighters are even easier to protect, for reasons listed in this hilarious thread, and others.

In short, if you were to place the physical representation of the minuscule amount of effort it requires to protect your gigantic beast of a hauler on one end of a seesaw, then drop the Titanic-equivalent amount of effort it takes to actually coordinate and execute a gank on the other end, it would provide that little speck with enough velocity to escape the Earth's atmosphere.

As to ISK discussions and suggestions about what kind of people gank fools, that can fall to people who care about that kind of thing.

Ganking a freighter with 5 guys is so easy.
Even i could do it with just 1.
Suicide ganking is harder.
thou you can try getting 5 faction fitted talos(or 3 faction fitted vindicators) and just gank the first afk autopilot freighter.

But hey, if we can use mittani as 3rd party, i'm willing to bet. It just that i don't trust Chribba :roll: :badtroll:

sounds like a lot of people are mad that someone used less money and a lot more cunning to take out a larger and more expensive ship. maybe some of the energy expended here complaining was used to think of ways to outsmart the gankers then these threads wouldnt exist....

This really makes me wonder how hard this is. It's a Jumpfreighter.

Burn the isotopes to jump close to where you need to go. Then fly the few remaining jumps.

Keep an exit cyno handy.

Yes, it's "easy" to gank a JF. It does however have a very viable exit strategy.

GǪok, and what's the reason everyone else isn't doing it? After all, if it was easy and bountiful in ISK, people should be flocking to it like crazy.