When you hit the "dock" button, the game is supposed to warp you into docking range of the station and dock you, without any chance for you to be caught.

But there is a bug: Sometimes the game warps you too far away from the station to dock immediately, and you are vulnerable for several seconds.

Except CCP has reimbursed ships lost this way. I'll not say who or where, as I cannot discuss petitions. But it has happened, and my research indicates it has happened within the last month.

Wild @ss idea CCP should of stuck with, to stop the whining so the forum hamster's don't have to be running 24/7 with only a short break.

I know this is not this case... but come on... freighter ganking is too much easy this days

Except that bringing guns or an escort does not work. Here is what happens: Your ship exits warp and explodes in less than a second.

When in that sequence was I supposed to identify the attacker, lock the attacker and destroy the attacker first, especially as shooting first gets me CONCORDed?

If CONCORD was such a "deterrent" , ganking wouldn't exist. It's called "suicide ganking" for a reason.

What happens when the ganker doesn't care about isk lost vs isk destroyed?

Not only that but the added expense is factored in when goods are produced. So two things happen;

1. If the indy players are just in it for the isk and the loss of their ships becomes too much of an expense, they'll do something else like run missions. Less producers means inflated prices. This is compounded if the other thing these players do causes them to lose ships as this will now increase the demand also.

2. Those that do stick it out will factor the expense into their selling price and the price of all goods will increase. Again, inflation.

So while the act of ganking in itself is not bad and can be good for the economy, the gankers' favorite choice of target is bad for the games economy in both the short and long term.

Too bad that gankers have enough numbers and gank often enough to effect the market to do just that.

Skiffs have gone up and are at the highest price they've ever been.

Competitive market = good.
Monopoly = bad.

Being at the keyboard is a fallacy. Doesn't make a difference.

DScan is pointless in Hi-sec. You know, that placer where the majority of ganking occurs. As Tippia already pointed out, without CONCORD it would be called ganking.

It's a fallacy WRT that it doesn't help stop a gank. I've already listed the reasons why.

Were talking about the miner using it as protection against gankers. Try to keep up.

Keep your ships aligned so that the moment someone tries to lock you, you insta warp. Unfortunately you will eventually move out of range of the rocks so this isn't viable.

You can warp off the moment a potential ganker (just because someone warps in doesn't mean they are a ganker) warps in and hope to warp off before they finish falling out of warp. However, now the gankers don't even have to gank to stop you from mining. They just have to camp belts.

Moving for mining barges and exhumers is pointless. You will still have an alignment time before warping and you won't be able to speed tank their guns.

Your best option is to simply go with a tanky setup and hope that they won't bother to gank you if they have to lose more isk than what they will destroy. This falls apart if the ganker doesn't care about isk loss vs isk destroyed.

You can hire protection. Either hire someone to sit in belt with a pvp fit ship or hire mercs to war dec the gankers. Either one will probably cost you more than simply replacing a lost ship. At least if you get ganked you get insurance payout, salvage all the wrecks (yours and the gankers), and loot all the wrecks. If they pod you, you get a kill right and you can now gank them at any time without CONCORD involvement. Also, if the ganker is in an NPC corp, hiring a merc corp won't work.

Except that to insta warp you need to be aligned and up to 3/4 speed. You'll be out of range of the rocks in 5 minutes tops.

Oh wow, I was going to reply to each one until this statement. The sheer level of stupidity that your statement has is incomprehensible.

The point is you don't know a gank is coming until they are landing on grid and by then it's too late.

Miners are already doing the best option available.

What you propose would require too many things

Also, why isn't it that you see mining fleets doing this?

Look at what? All the neutrals within 14 au in hi-sec?

It's called they are doing the best option available but even the best option doesn't stop ganking completely.

What the hell did I just read?

Pretty sure I'm going to have to donate a few hundred mil on his behalf to CODE when I get home from work tomorrow morning.

I'm all for telling people that they need to harden up in EVE, and I'm not going to overlook the fact OP accepted the scam contract, but he does make a valid point about hisec not being the environment it was supposed to be.

CONCORD as a complex mechanic is broken, allowing aggressors to toodle about doing as they please while the targets can't really defend themselves from the gankboats that sport so much alpha damage or DPS that they instapop just about anything not fit for combat.

Hisec is hisec for a reason and it should exist as such, not as a place for people to exploit game mechanics for their benefit.

I'd love for you to tell freighter pilots who fit for full tank yet get ganked when empty that they can defend themselves.

And Tippia never will.

Point is, AFK or not, Warping after you jump in a system is still the same and gankers don't discriminate.

They don't gank to loot. Some gank if the isk destroyed is less than isk lost.

People will gank miners for various reasons and none of which have anything to do with looting the wreck to turn a profit.

Well, that wasn't surprising.

Thanks for confirming Eve Online has turned into Grief Online.

Funny thing is it's the criminal careers that are constantly spouting that bullcrap.

If it was, this topic wouldn't be an issue and Eve would have no problem gaining and retaining players.

at least I can say 'I Was There' when the final Coffin Nail was pounded into Eve.

They said they don't have jurisdiction over spreadsheets in space ... so they're out too.

There, we fixed it for you :)

http://puu.sh/bcMBU/c419690387.jpg

They donGÇÖt need more help they need more options.

A hauler should not need 1-3 more people or alts to solo haul.

guns are pretty useless in high sec.

Make kill rights so they only get used up once that killright has been used to kill the pirate with the equivalent value of the ship they killed to earn it (so if you kill a billion isk of ship, it can be repeatedly used until it's cost you a billion isk), and guns will be back in play.

EVE is moving to a place where there are no more consequences.

Oh yes, you're never 100% safe unless you're a scammer sitting in dock all day. Funny how that one always slips past the radar.

I am saying there are some but not enough options to fit tank. It is so easy and cost to little to gank freighters atm that people are doing it on empty freighters for the lulz.

Ganking should always be possible but it should come at a greater price and with greater consequences

not with the trivial shat we have now where alts are trained and disposed of like a revolving door.

Ganking is so easy these days thanks to the buffs

Hello cata thrasher buffs? The introduction of BS guns on BC platforms?

Ganks are a daily event in highsec.

What massive nerfs?

Ganking is more common then ever.

Uedama (sp) aufay etc are sites of daily ganking.

So you're allowed to claim whatever but when I point out reality you want citations going back to the creation of the game.

You first.

Just look at the KBs for those systems and you will see what you ask for.

There's more ganking corps now then ever before.

Price increases are deceptive as inflation is not being taken into account.
It's far cheaper to use a couple catalysts then to use the BS of old.

What vastly improved defense?

With the addition of freighters I can just contract a gank fleet to any system I plan to hit. I just have to log in fly to the spot and start ganking. No real effort required.

Gank destroyers have like 3900 EHP.

Kill right right now are completely uselss.

None of those are even remotely consequences.

a bear cant transport 30m in a hauler without running the risk of being ganked.

And standard haulers generally can't survived 10-15 T1 catalysts, no matter how much you tank them.

Where is your proof?

the scale of ganking to profit and ease of ganking has done nothing but gone up and gotten easier.

Give haulers a chance to fit better tank because shooting back wont effect the gank.

In that case I think I'll create a gank alt and pop newbs running the tutorial missions.

I liked your comments until here. That is not risk. It's a loss, but it's not risk.

It's about as 'risky' as blowing someone up when you haven't scanned their cargo.

The point was that ganking ships are so cheap, losing a dozen of them makes zero difference. Your response does not address that in the slightest.

Depends on if they are going for loot or a green killboard and tears. And no, a standard hauler, as in not a freighter, is not going to be surviving that many catalysts. It would be a push to survive 5, which would even be green on the loot side too.

Where are you buying your T1 catalysts for 10m a pop? 2.5m tops, and that's if you can't be bothered to wait of buy orders

Would you spend all your play time escorting someone day after day so you can ECM boost him when he needs it, maybe once in six months?

What does not make sense, and is clearly an exploit, and is wholly inconsistent with CONCORD being a police force, is the way gankers, and specifically CODE, use bumping ships to prevent gank targets from warping, and therefore allow the EXACT SAME gankers to target the EXACT SAME ship every 15 minutes, without CONCORD dealing with the bumpers.

Please take action so that bumpers cant not unlawfully entrap (a crime in every jurisdiction!) gank targets between gank attempts (an action that is 100% equivalent to warp scrambling, and hence a criminal act).

Because as CCP Falcon said "CONCORD offer a level of deterrent just the same as any law enforcement agency, but as with any police for they're reactive and punitive rather than proactive."

Bumping to prevent a ship between ganks, and make it functionally impossible to warp, is unlawful entrapment

CONCORD should mimic a law enforcement agency and respond to unlawful imprisonment.

Confining a person to a certain location without their consent is false imprisonment

[it] is a crime in virtually every country in the world.

CONCORD, which per CCP Falcon acts as a police enforcement a reactive deterrent, should respond to this crime and punish the perpetrators.

Which is completely irrelevent to whether CONCORD should respond on not. If you fly into Uedama, without any support, or 2 characters, and the bad guys shoot you, does CONCORD say tough luck? Of course not

Well, this will be my last round with you, and I will await response from CCP Falcon.

When the bumping is 100% functionally equivalent to warp scrambling it is a crime.

And from the other thread, my question to CCP Falcon - assuming optimal bumping from 3 optimally fitted Machariels, and optimal response from a freighter fitted with tank rigs, will the freighter be able to escape within 15 minutes?

response to criminal activity in highsec should not depend on using a scout or a webber.

Those may be helpful for avoiding death between the crime and the CONCORD response, but should not be required to trigger CONCORD acting as a "law enforcement agency."

That thread never addressed using bumping falsely imprison gank victims between successive ganks from the exact same gankers. That response was to AFK miners crying that Code bumped them off their asteroid, and required the to come press F1 more often than once an hour.

Yes, because in real life the criminals routinely blow away the police forces....*eyeroll*

It's not nice to know that where you live law enforcement officers quickly responding to harm to their colleagues, and achieving a monopoly of force is unheard of. That is true pretty much everywhere.

Because it did not address this specific, and unusual, circumstance, which is currently being used by CODE and its allies.

And is, as I have pointed out, inconsistent with CONCORD's function "as a law enforcement agency," and with the design of highsec.

Luckily I haven't lost a ship at all! I simply present again the absurd situation caused by the current game mechanics.

I would just like the game to work as intended.

I decided not to pick nits earlier, but it bothers me now that I see it again. It's *situational* awareness that's lacking.

And again

i just hope code realizes they're harassing the industrial backbone of the game, stealing isk from the people that mass produce it.

so you want me to pre-spawn concord in every system along a whole corridor where i'm going to be travelling with a freighter? that's your answer? you expect us to possibly break the EULA and get banned for littering the servers to mitigate your activities?

do it where the machs are, they move. do it where they move, they move again.

if they moved it isn't because they've stopped planning to do what they're planning to do.

yes, and if after DT every day entire corridors of concord were spawned we'd have free reign to peacefully transport things for the whole day.

because not every player of eve is a member of a 20,000 member alliance that can pull support out of it's rectum at a moments notice?

having people willing to join is.

when eve has 30,000 people online? yes. yes it does.

so give us a choice of not changing that. because it could start happening.

it's not bad.

supply will start to dry up, prices will skyrocket and eventually even the gankers will start to cry.

my point is is that really the eve we want to have?

you don't understand how supply and demand works, obviously.

when it takes more effort for people to start transporting stuff, less people will. when less people do, less stuff is available. when less stuff is available, the price goes up

if you want to force people to bring support fleets

using junk 10 mil isk ships to take down a freighter is never unprofitable.

you're costing someone else 700million at a cost to yourself of 10million. are you really not that bright or simply a troll?

PLEX are the yardstick of the eve economy.

show me the point you missed.

in eve pvp costing the other guy more IS profit.

because you're the one building replacement freighters.

your english comprehension skills are too poor for me to continue discussion with you. have a nice day.

connect the dots and get back to me. kkthxbai.

i could never be as nonsensical as you, troll.

you're so cute when you wish you knew what you were talking about and were right.

i don't need to demonstrate anything. the numbers speak for me.

i argued the point.

what needed to be said was said.

fixing some freshly beaten dead horse for dinner, huh? enjoy that.

and the other side of that argument turning a blind eye to everything that is said and repeating the same drivel very simple truth over and over.

i don't repeat myself for idiots and i don't feed trolls. you should give up hope, it will save time.

you mistake me for someone that thinks humility is a bad thing.

why don't you scroll back, reread everything i've already typed, accept the fact that i might actually know what i'm talking about

lies. you're a funny troll. i like you.

everyone told einstein he was wrong.

i'd be happy to defend it and spell out my reasoning

You can troll about a lot of things but to those like myself with an actual degree in economic, your attempts at the subject just come off as sad and pathetic.

He was semi right, just over simplified it. If the logistics involved become too excessive

It's called the supply/demand equilibrium and an increase to costs will cause a shift to the supply curve. The result is a new equilibrium at a higher price level and smaller moving quantity. With many of those previous suppliers moving toward running missions which generate new isk into the game. This will have a multiplier effect on the economies inflation rate as a whole and the player base as a whole is worse off.

i don't think i oversimplified enough, they still didn't get it.

because there is no link to my proof.

my proof is more than a decade of marketeering in online games, with an eye focused on markets in the real world to learn how it all works. i know how it works because market laws apply everywhere markets exist. it doesn't matter how you slice it, supply and demand works the same way everywhere and all the time.

ahh, here we go. let the obfuscation begin.

i told people to reread my posts so they would get the point i was making, notice that quote of mine doesn't say anything about proof.

i have no link to it means there is no link, not that there is none.

got any numbers for that?

then why do it at all?

remind me to throw food at you sometime. after adding rat poison.

i have 13 accounts, and no.

sure it fits. you're welcome to waste time and iskies trying whatever it is you think you can do.

sounds like more "ganking is good because ganking is good" to me.

sorry, did you say something?

didn't catch that. try all caps or something.

there won't be a surprise. i've read the eula and tos.

i understand that the goal of trolls is to agitate others into doing what they want, which is often accompanied by turning around and misinterpreting them for their own purposes.

atleast 7 pages of it is "ganking is good because ganking is good". someone is incapable of thinking of anything else it seems.

There are some tools he could be using that other players don't have access to. But that goes back into the realm of EULA problems.

I'm still wondering, if Eve isn't supposed to be safe, why are the consequences for ganking so predictable?

The current problem (if there is a problem, I'm still not entirely sure about that, but with all the whining I may as well propose a solution), is that the RISK involved is not proportional to the crime. Basically the risk is negligible, loot drops aside, because entities like CODE gank regardless of profit (as they have the right to), so the RNG involved in potential loot drops is IRRELEVANT when you're not aiming to get any loot.

you have and use isboxer too, then? :]

Gankers could almost be randomly spawning NPCs. They're ccp workers, in a sense (not literally, to my knowledge at least ).

shoo, troll. grown ups are talking.

i'll take this to mean that you don't have or use it. so "not everyone has the tools i do" is perfectly accurate.

that's nice.

so you understand you are a troll?

Is there? I'd like to know what percentage of ganks actually fail. I assume it's somewhat similar to the percentage of players who die to mission rats... probably pretty low. But I could be completely wrong on that, and it definitely warrants some more research.

Overall, it just seems to be a really static part of the game for the last few years that seems to frustrate quite a few players, so I think it needs some sort of attention.

so you do understand you're a troll then? excellent. we're making progress.

my answer is this:

you're a troll and a ganker. an all around useless festering boil on the rump of eve.

i sure am glad i can pay my isk bills without having to randomly kill people who did nothing to me in fights designed to completely lack any challenge and require zero pvp ability.

trollin trollin trollin, keep these fools a'trollin.

i'm not. he is. or she, or wtf ever it is.

*pats on the head as he's walking out the door*

you're absolutely right. i need another beer.

Wrong. CONCORD, as with any police force

But having the ignore unlawful restraint taking place 5 feet away from them, while the 2nd wave of the gank is obviously incoming, is completely absurd.

I would actually prefer to intelligently discuss the reasons why I dislike the current mechanics, and suggest improvements to make the mechanics consistent with the principle of highsec.

What did not make me lolz was seeing a well fit Orca ( 300k+ ehp v. Void) survive an initial CODE gank attempt with 20% structure left, get bumped by some CODe alts for 15 minutes with CONCORD sitting there doing nothing, rendering the Orca unable to warp off despite its bets efforts

CONCORD most certainly is a police force. Per the Eve Wiki "CONCORD is branched into numerous divisions, each of which handles a certain aspect of the empire relationship. Of these divisions the CAD (Commerce Assessment Department), which oversees inter-stellar trade agreements and regulations; and DED (Directive Enforcement Department), which oversees policing in space, are by far the largest and most influential."

did you know that hummingbirds flap their wings up to two hundred times a second

false. bumblebee flight was scrutinised and objectively found to be adorable

They should allow the target to escape the bumping, as any law enforcement force would.

CONCORD is there to punish criminal activity, and being pinned down so that successive waves of gankers can shoot you is clearly criminal in this context.

CONCORD response should not depend on the activation of an offensive model

the appropriate response is to grant a gank-victim a 60 second window where they are able to warp off regardless of if they are been bumped or not.

What I "do get" is that you are not a CCP Dev and will not be determining policy on this matter (you already are on record as being opposed to letting freighters have rig slots). As pointed out already by me....already today Loyalanon (CEO of CODE) has killed two Orcas, a Charon, 3 Obelisks, and a Rhea, all today. Something is seriously broken here, and needs to be fixed.

Expecting CONCORD to respond to false imprisonment (a crime)

It is simply requesting that the game mechanics be updated so that CONCORD performs its proper role.

A nd pointing out that the combination of lack of real consequences for ganking, as well as the exploitation of bumping, is leading to a significant increase in ganks on haulers

Hardly, look at it as CONCORD escorting the gank victim to safety.

I don't see how intelligently responding to false imprisonment and escorting a victim to safety "fundamentally changes what CONCORD is for."

Yes it is.

Of course it is.

Entrapment is an aggressive action.

Check out this killboard https://zkillboard.com/character/1941616627/

Remember that on average 1.4 freighters die a day in the ENTIRE EVE UNIVERSE. And this is just one guy.

Spouting the same talking points over and over does not an argument make

your partner in crime cited it - see https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4974305#post4974305

I make claims that are reasonable and true.

You declare them false with

Let me assure you that as a licensed attorney in the United States, I know EXACTLY what those terms mean.

Yawn...just lying over and over again does not an argument make.

Since you have provided not a shred of evidence so far

And as for the 1.4 number, why don't you ask your fellow poster instead of asking me?

I've properly analogized the in game situation to false imprisonment.

The truth actually works quite well for me.

1. I gave strong supporting evidence that freighter ganking has increased...the killboard from the 1 guy I gave you nearly exceeds the 1.4 number per day FROM YOUR OWN SIDE.
2. I pointed out that if optimal bumping renders a ship unable to warp, it is functionally equivalent to warp scrambling
3. I did witness it happening, I was not the victim, I was trying to help the victim escape.
4. CONCORD fails to respond to bumping between ganks (not sure how this could possibly be a "lie.")
5. I said that it SHOULD be criminal, not that it currently is (another insane example of a "lie.")
6. I think any rational person sees CONCORD as a police force in highsec.
7. I pointed out how absurd it is to not punish bumping between ganks that is equivalent to false imprisonment (you really have to be delusional to not see this.)
8. I am quite familiar with game mechanics, thank you.
9. And not my fault if you don't how analogies work.

The fact that CCP recently buffed freighters suggest that they do see a problem. And the fact that CODE has led a massive increase in freighter ganking shows that there is an even bigger problem than before.

I'm also having difficulty sorting out "ganks" against legitmate kills (wardecs, lowsec, etc.) and finding data from anything beyond a few weeks. Also curious if that dev was referring to ganks or kills in general.

CONCORD, in it role as law enforcement (as stated by CCP Falcon

would not sit idly by and watch a gank victim pinned down and unable to escape.

what I don't like is when CONCORD does not do its job, and deal with crime in highsec

No, you would be immune from bumping.....you could still be shot/scrammed/whatever else....just not bumped......Not sure how this is any different than shooting yourself with an alt to draw CONCORD and make it hard for gankers to kill you (and for the record I oppose alts and think everyone should be restricted to a single account, which is what I have).