Please direct your favorite web browser to minerbumping.com. James 315 and his bunch of merry men have now raised more than 350 billion ISK in contributions from other players. The ISK is used to refund the losses of suicide gankers, who systematically attack miners and haulers in HiSec. That is how and why they don't run out of ISK despite the systematic losses.

Earlier in the thread I listed KillIDs off 6 empty freighters suicide ganked by CODEdot et al. and piloted by players in NPC corporations. This was for May alone within the system of Isanamo.

About a month ago your own alliance, Goonswarm Federation, ran a little 3 day event called Burn Jita 3. Around 150 freighters or JFs, empty or otherwise, were ganked over the weekend. I Was There(TM). They did not discriminate. You will have to ask your alliance leadership how this event was funded on your end, but apparently the idea behind the event was - in part - to show that the CFC/nullsec alliances has so much ISK that burning some of it on an event like Burn Jita 3 is pocket change.

I would call both events organized and sustained. Burn Jita ran for the third time this year, while the ganks in Lonetrek is an ongoing event.

We were talking about freighters, not exhumers. The exhumer rebalance thread is a different one.

My mackinaw was popped by 2 dessies, they didnt even bother to loot either my ship or their own, i came back and looted and salvaged all the wrecks myself. Even in highsec space you rarely see hulks being operated because the killmail giggles are so easy to get that flying a hulk anywhere is stupid. It isnt just goons that are involved in hulkageddon anymore it is practically anyone with a trigger finger and while im using only one type of ship here as an example the same ratios exist for most hauling vessels it is just that getting 10 friends together to take out a freighter is harder to do than you getting into your catalyst and blasting hulks to space debris.

I know taking someones words out of context makes refuting them much easier but it is an invalid form of argumentation so Ive included my full statement for others that may not have read it in its entirety.

Further I state that the only real reason you dont see more giggle-ganking of freighters is that getting together 10 friends that want to giggle-gank just because you are in the mood to do so is much harder than just pulling out your catalyst and giggle-ganking exhumers.

The cost of giggle-ganking is in essence coming at the expense of not freighter pilots that will get ganked either way but at the expense of for profit ganking. I assert that if more emphasis in the game were placed on balancing the losses on both sides of a gank, financially speaking, then giggle-ganking would decrease and the net extra income floating about would go to for profit gankers without increasing the losses suffered overall by freighters.

In saying that however Freighters 'should' get real fittings (As in same kind of slot layout as other capital ships), there should be real mechanics for a fleet to support a ship in high sec that actually work against suicide ganks (I.E. Remote shield extenders instead of reps which only work after the fact)

, and then when people fail fit their freighters, we have real reason to point and laugh at them. 'You put a full load of minerals in your hold' should not be an automatic 'LOL, GANK NOWZ' level of items in a freighter, yet the value is such that it is in the current meta.

The gankers are unhappy and the industrialists/freighter pilots are unhappy. Must mean that it's pretty well balanced.

] Rigs preferred because of their effect on the 'salvage industry'.

Both groups are generally pretty happy, so I don't know what you're looking at.

The rig "solution" also basicly double the price of a max cargo charon for example. It also offer no versatility unless you call versatility scrapping miliions worth of ISK every time you wish to change the utilisation of your freighter/JF.

A) You don't NEED to use T2 Rigs. Ideally they would make most sense on JF's - not regular old insurable T1 Freighters.

B) Lesser rig flexibility would be balanced with higher overall stats. (ie, 10-15% greater cargo/EHP/agility) over lowslot version.

C) Captial Rigs positively affect salvage prices, making salvage 'matter' again, for both ninja looters and mission runners.

D) Gankers would have a more difficult time killing EHP rigged freighters - but the lossmail would look sexier with cap rigs, even if break-even profitability took a small hit.

A) In the original post, with the rig implementation, T2 rigs were needed to get to the same level of cargo as your charon can get prior to change. If you went for the charon because it had the max cargo, I assume you still want at least that capacity.

B) The change is slated to be to provide flexibility, why should we go with the implementation that grant less fo it?

C) That does not justify doubling the effective cost of some ship.

D) Lossmails would only look sexyer for a small time until everybody got used to freighter lossmail starting around 3 bill instead of 1,5 because of the added rig cost always being there.

The gankers are unhappy and the industrialists/freighter pilots are unhappy. Must mean that it's pretty well balanced.

D) Are you saying gankers would prefer smaller lossmails?

Well, consider this:
The carebears are complaining about not getting > 1 Million EHP via (passive) DCII's because they want to be invincible.

Experienced gankers understand its a problem when 720K EHP JFs move 6-8 Billion in cargo in highsec with negligible risk.

As I said, the highsec 'Break-Even Cargohold ISK value' number is going to easily triple, from 2-3 Billion up to 6-8 Billion, and this is not good for the game.

I'm pretty sure carrying 6-8 billion ISK in a jump freighter doesn't have negligible risk, even at 720k EHP.

Either way that's a discussion for another thread since these ships cannot fit Damage Controls.

I'd be interested to know why not (not in terms of "they don't have enough CPU"), why the decision was made to restrict the fitting to prevent the fitting of Damage Controls.
Doing so on a combat ship would be impossible (without applying strip miner or cov ops cloaking device fitting restrictions, due to the requirements of all of the other modules they require, not least their guns...) but I can't imagine it even being considered.
Similarly, when Rigs were the method of choice, the nerfs which "allowed" rigs to be fitted were out of place; when rigs were first introduced there were no such global changes to balance the potential for rig fitting.
When I first became aware of the sort of threads which (probably) led to this change I envisaged a minimalist approach - a counter to packaged capital ships (the current increase in packaged size being sufficient, a ban on packaged ships in freighter holds and the allowance of ships in freight containers would also have worked) and a single lowslot: The clear choice would have been Tank (DCII), Capacity (Expanded Cargohold), Align time/speed (Nano), or re-Jump time (Cap Flux Coil)... Would the impact have been significant? particularly compared to the current changes.

I'd be interested to know why not (not in terms of "they don't have enough CPU"), why the decision was made to restrict the fitting to prevent the fitting of Damage Controls.
Doing so on a combat ship would be impossible (without applying strip miner or cov ops cloaking device fitting restrictions, due to the requirements of all of the other modules they require, not least their guns...) but I can't imagine it even being considered.
Similarly, when Rigs were the method of choice, the nerfs which "allowed" rigs to be fitted were out of place; when rigs were first introduced there were no such global changes to balance the potential for rig fitting.
When I first became aware of the sort of threads which (probably) led to this change I envisaged a minimalist approach - a counter to packaged capital ships (the current increase in packaged size being sufficient, a ban on packaged ships in freighter holds and the allowance of ships in freight containers would also have worked) and a single lowslot: The clear choice would have been Tank (DCII), Capacity (Expanded Cargohold), Align time/speed (Nano), or re-Jump time (Cap Flux Coil)... Would the impact have been significant? particularly compared to the current changes.

They're dumb and don't matter.


I'm pretty sure carrying 6-8 billion ISK in a jump freighter doesn't have negligible risk, even at 720k EHP.