This coming from the tinfoil hatter who has accused dozens and dozens of people of perma ban offenses without any proof at all... is beyond hilarious.

I mean really, how you have the gall to say this with some of the heinous **** in your post record, I cannot imagine.

only if the victim let's that happen

Not only will faction police spawn to kill them but they are also open to attack to anyone.

If you are looting a freighter you need to use a freighter, the very ship you cant seem to protect.

No irony here, you really are a spineless risk adverse carebear with zero understanding of the game.

Not at all.

Replace them with something of equal risk and I'm sure a lot of people would be open to suggestions.

But proposals made here are always about increasing safety for haulers, when it's already immensely safe and the greatest risk is for those that fail to take precautions themselves.

A lot of us don't want Eve to be a game that wraps us in cotton wool and protects us, so when the tools are already available to avoid being bumped and ganked (and a lot of us use those mechanics daily), then there is little sympathy for calls to make the game safer when people don't use the tools that are already available.

You lie. I've noticed you do that a lot.

The only thing stopping the white knigits from going on their own ganker gankfest is their own fear.

I did.

You claimed the only way to get out of that situation is ganking the bumper.

That statement is wildly, flagrantly false. I really don't know what you hope to accomplish by trying to lie like that, but it probably doesn't matter anyway.

"Ganking doesn't have enough consequences!"

"I refuse to gank the bumper because I don't want the consequences of ganking!"

And that is a lie.

Hell, they were posted on the same page as you posted your lie. Why do you need me to do your reading for you? How about you actually read the thread in the first place?

Essentially, what you are saying is that if the gankers "team" put more effort in it than the gankee's team, then they have better odds of winning. I'm pretty sure that's EVE working as intended.

I never really liked how bumping works but every single "solution" the the "problem" ever proposed usually involve a **** load of problems down the line so I just decided to accept how it is.

rabble rabble

... self professed "white knight"... defending ... Mining, and hauling.

AFK, autopiloting overloaded freighter going through a heavily traversed choke point system...talk about easy mode. Roll

Now I am pontificating, but I think it is this palpable anger that gives many in the ganking community an off-putting stench which repels most players from sticking with them long term. When your game play is solely motivated by spite and the desire to hurt players you don't like for some reason, it is hard to find much fun in playing this game. Don't get me wrong, I think one of the great things about Eve is the ability to induce these emotions, but everyone should remember this is still just a video game you are suppose to be playing for fun.

Note several things in this sentence.

First and most obvious, the projection. The sheer hubris of a self professed anti ganker trying to claim that anyone else's gameplay is based on hating someone else is simply staggering.

Secondly, the barely hidden snide insinuation that their intent is in fact to nerf the other side out of existence. The carebear here very much does want us to have no "purpose", such are the depths of their hatred of real players.

And last but not least, trying to claim that such a simple thing as bumping and the existence of non consensual PvP itself equate to "tools for your hate". This is a very common carebear tactic, trying to denigrate and degrade opposition to make nerfs seem more palatable. They do this because they know that if they actually expressed what they want, the removal of non consensual PvP and complete safety in highsec so they can mindlessly farm without end, then they would be rejected by all reasonable people. Thus they take a roundabout route, attacking anything that stands against their unjust desires.

It is, which is why I've been wondering why your posts are still here.

Speak for yourself Rha.

Its people speaking against the mechanic of bumping that are most guilty of lying to get their own way, hyperbole and using terms like 'bully'. You more than most are only concerned with spiting gankers than presenting a case against bumping.

You are one of the few people I seem to dislike on a personal level largely since you have publicly taken the radical position that I deserve the death threats me and my family have received for playing this video game as a villain.

This is all I get aimed at me every time. Even in this very thread I have listed a number of ways of countering these gankers only to have the anti gank brigade ignore them and continue to rant and spout very easy to expose lies all while tossing insults towards anyone who points out they are wrong.

Meanwhile, I'll just keep webbing my Freighter pilot into warp and not worry about bumping at all.

I pass through Uedama, Niarja and Madirmilire daily and even when there are Mach's on gate, it's never a problem. The webs are too quick.

I copied what you called yourself. If you didn't want that to happen you shouldn't have brought the attitude.

when you're clearly wrong and proven so one post later

You're missing the greater picture in several places.

You are willfully ignoring that it is very VERY easy to avoid a gank. You are ignoring that ganking is very VERY low frequency relative to the amount of freighter journeys. You are ignoring that a freighter being bumped is far from the only mechanic that is impossible to escape once its too late. You are ignoring that the gankers put far more effort into their playstyle than haulers do their defense.

THAT is the bigger picture.
It is you that is trying to tunnel this discussion into bumping alone. Like someone who doesnt like afk cloaking trying to make the discussion about cloaks alone.

You've already asked us what the problems were and ive given them to you, but it is instead you that is the brick wall.

Aside from the fact that they have a limited window to act before both the faction police and concord kill them, they are open to attack by everyone, the looting ship used can be attacked, the gank ships themselves are profitable to gank, the freighter can be webbed into warp near instantly, the freighter can escape via warping to a ship 150km in front of where its getting bumped, logisics can save the freighter, wartargets, ecm, blap escorts, counter bumping, pre spawning concord, shooting the target wreck.

Not so easy all of a sudden is it?

Your arguments fall apart like this every time yet you continue with rubbish such as ganking has no risk/consequences despite the fact anyone with an IQ over 60 can clearly see its the single most punished and risky activity in highsec. You have been given plenty of ways to beat the gankers, as well as statistics that show you are more likely to be involved in a traffic accident than be ganked in EVE. Your own laziness, greed and stupidity is no excuse to further remove content from an already content starved area of space.

Dunno where you get the idea that I want content removed from hisec, I'm trying to focus on bumping and safe looting here. Ganking is fine. Try and stay focused too.

What safe looting?

How do they do this? As per the OP's explanation?

Maybe you can post different figures to what I posted on the previous page then that shows that this is an issue?

In addition, why is the looting in a gank, any safer or otherwise from any other looter in highsec?

Not to mention the fact that this supposedly easier than AFK flying a freighter activity suddenly just gained yet another step (a step that wont work as no matter how hard you try 165k-1.2 million m3 will not fit into a ship with 40k easily or quickly, especially if its a package or of its lumbering around with freight containers) to being successful and require yet another person. So now we have upwards of 31 working on the gankers side vs 1 semi AFK hauler.

Gank the bumping mach. If there's no risk or penalty for gankers taking out a freighter, then there's equally no risk or penalty for you to gank the bumping ship. Doesn't matter how many catalysts they undock when the freighter isn't being bumped anymore and warps away before they arrive.

Whats to discuss? You refuse to listen to anyone and continually contradict yourself. We have the tools to deal with your issues already, many of them, if you refuse to use them its nobodies fault but your own.

Why do freighters deserve special protection that no other ship has?

If someone is going to invest from 1.2B (Freighter) to 7B (Jump Freighter) into just the ship, shouldn't they be prepared to be responsible for its safety?

Why should they have their risk reduced freely, when it can already be reduced easily, but at the same time the risk of bumpers (and gankers) should be increased?

If risk is going to be required for one side, then surely in a balanced system it should be required for the other side also; and all of us should be responsible to manage our own risks?

So if it will have no effect, why bother to remove it?

The reason is because you know it will have an effect and that is what this really wants. To think I don't grasp this is pretty insulting and not needed in this conversation.

The act of bumping a Freighter >150km off gate is used by gankers because sentry guns @167DPS each will immediately engage, so the freighter is bumped away from the gate in order to eliminate the sentry guns from the equation.

That seems a perfectly reasonable action on the side of the gankers. It's the same thing any of us would do in that situation; and it is a consideration in lowsec pvp all the time; so gankers aren't unique in that regard.

As a Freighter and Jump Freighter pilot, I don't deserve special treatment to not be bumped. If I can't take care of my own safety, then I deserve to die and if gankers are able to manage their risks, just as anyone does, then good luck to them.

Remember when you got all butthurt when I pointed you that you frequently accuse lots of people of perma ban offenses without proof?
So now you're not only doubly a liar, you're also a hypocrite.

Yeah, if you people told me the sun would come up tomorrow, I would wake up at five thirty just to double check. I don't believe a thing you angsty, hateful carebears say.

Oh, and hiding my posts just makes it look like I hit the mark.

Bullseye.

Ah yes, because linking a random guy in Doomheim is proof of anything. (well, besides that anti ganking has admitted to mass reporting to try and get people banned)

Blow this more off topic, please. Oh, and please project some more accusations at me while you do it. In particular, the one about being prejudiced against anything you don't agree with gave me a good laugh.

If you people told me the sun would come up tomorrow, I would wake up at five thirty just to double check. I don't believe a thing you angsty, hateful carebears say

Do you routinely block those who disagree with you? If so that speaks volumes to your intellectual honesty...which IMO, is so low right now anybody considers you even remotely believable...well except maybe the incompetent and foolish.

And I'll say it again.

The anti ganking community are the most hateful, angsty, miserable bunch of miscreants I have ever laid eyes on. I have known at least a dozen of you to make repeated death threats against people I personally know, I have seen you spew the most hateful **** I've ever heard in local at people who aren't even gankers because they have negative sec status (it was a PL blops pilot going for a skillbook), I have seen you encourage people to use exploits that don't even work to get out of being ganked, and I have seen you encourage people to abuse the petition system to get losses reimbursed that don't qualify.

In short, you are all slime, and I don't believe a word that any of you say. If you people told me the sun was coming up tomorrow, I would wake up at five thirty to double check.

And as for bumping, there are a number of reasons why you will never get your way. Any one of them would work to stifle your thinly veiled attempt to kill more emergent gameplay, but all of them stand against you nonetheless.

Kinda what I thought, but it's late and I thought I'd ask.

I don't care about all that tbh, I just wondered what that post was meant to prove.

Seeing as my freighter pilot has been in far less risk than Mag's ever has, I tend to agree. Many trips, never a loss.

So going by the risk table used by the AG crowd, shouldn't webbing and hauling get nerfed?

You know, I'm fine with somebody who wants to be a "white knight" and is willing to put together a gang to gank a bumping ship. In fact, I'd say, "Awesome look at the beauty of emergence and players who are willing to do things that people wouldn't normally expect." Instead we get these whiny puss buckets who think they should be lauded for their behavior instead of deriving satisfaction from simply having fun and making the game more competitive.

Want to be a white knight? All you have to do is get a gang together that can gank the bumping ship. HS carebears should have the sec status and the skills to get into a T2 gank catalyst and make this totally viable...but HS carebears are, in the end, sh**lers who cannot abide the notion of doing something where CONCORD might destroy their ships.

It is not unreasonable for some players to regard these HS players as contemptible as they are not willing to do what their opponents are wiling to do, even in a limited sense.

Hell even if you are not willing to gank other players at least have the balls and the willingness to get into repping fleets...but no, you are too damn greedy to give up your own personal ISK harvesting to help a fellow HS player.

What exactly has Kaarous made up?

Seriously....you are asking for the removal of webbing freighters?

Wut? LInks por favor?

That nerf was requested by your side and it was in fact the gankers that warned pilots that it would result in a nerf. Hardly something that can be laid at our feet now is it? What they wanted was fittings to be safer, plus the same ship. What they got was a ship that didn't perform as well as before.

Since nothing should be 100%, I don't see your point. But webbing does remove the chance of being bumped to almost as near to that, as not worth arguing over.

Plus I'm not the one wanting change here. I'm merely pointing out the irony, of using the risk argument. Just as it's use regarding bumping. If it's so risk free, then create risk or use that so called risk free mechanic yourself.

And if there were no options to avoid and counter it, I would agree. But seeing as it's been shown in this thread and in game options do exist, I don't see your point.

"the rest stands"?

What rest?

The part where you claimed that alts were being recycled for ganking, then abjectly failed to prove anything of the sort?

Or the part where you claim that I'm some kind of xenophobe, when in fact I've already repeatedly told you that I specifically have a problem with you and your little group?

So please, tell me. What "rest" are you referring to? Or are you too tired to think that one through either?

I would also say balanced. Whether you like it or not, to change something that's easily avoidable and also escapable after, (even if that escape takes some effort and isn't guaranteed) isn't justifiable. Especially when those changes may impact the game, in so many other negative ways.

Contrast this little rant to the "It would not nerf ganking" emphatic that he's been peddling in the thread for page after page.

You have done none of these things. How can I tell?

... you have never tried to get a frigate out in front of a bumped ship, you likely never even knew of this tactic until it was pointed out to you in this thread...

You simply won't notice a ship pulling this move on a very busy gate such as Uedama before its done.

Really?

Would ganking be easier, harder or no effect afterwards?

Sooo...you link a post by you quoting Black Pedro, who is usually a careful and temperate poster....and that is your evidence.

How about you STFU, STFD and failing that GTFO?

I know you'll come back with something snarky because that is just the type of POS poster you are. Whatever. Block whomever you want, I wont block you as I like seeing how the completely intellectually bankrupt post.

BTW, WTF is the death threat there? I mean a death threat! That is some serious ****, and you point to a post by you quoting Black Pedro...were you making a death threat? Should we report you and petition you? Or what?

Please clarify? Were you drunk when you posted that?

The death threat discussion I was referring to was in this thread where our friend said that if I was "seriously complaining" about receiving death threats there was "something really wrong" with me.

Bat country strike again, Endie is a swell guy.

So this change will still make it possible to pop wrecks, but with a bit more effort depending on the type of ship originally destroyed.

So it will increase risk on grid and that's a good thing.

The freighter wreck aspect of it is noted as well, but not his main reason for requesting the change. It makes logical sense as well.

Oh, and let's not forget the part where you think activism should only go one way. That's "irony" too, although it's actually naked hypocrisy, but I disgress.

If you can show me the weekly whine threads about wrecks and their HP, I'll gladly agree that ganker are hypocrites and the irony would indeed be hilarious.

Oh and to use your stance. This won't stop people shooting wrecks.

I didn't say that, liar.

If you actually bother to read it, the change was made for very different reasons.

Despite that, however, you immediately begin pouring out tears when you even think your own tactics are being used by the other side.

And it's delicious.

The change had to do with capital ships, in fleet combat in particular. Freighter wrecks followed suit because they too are capital ships, for the sake of verisimilitude.

That said, if CCP had thought your points in this thread had any merit, they would have exempted freighters. They did not, ergo they discounted your claims.

So back to my question, why screw my game over with no ability to demonstrate a problem, because of your feelings about how someone else plays?

If anything, it would give inexperienced freighter pilots a belief they can escape and make them even less likely to use the already available tools that actually work, but that's just a bit of speculation. It certainly wouldn't make them more likely to use what is already known to work.

The trick is to not put yourself in a situation where the webs are ineffective, do it right and you can be in warp quicker than a would-be bumper can react and land a hit.

So the white knight in the kronos on the Niarja gate that was pretty much THE factor in saving our orca (we had a bumping ship coming, but was pretty far out) said he's saved over 50 freighters. If you're looking to white knight I think a marauder to perform mach bumping is ideal. Fit it for max speed and max tank and go for it. I would imagine if you really dislike freighter ganking that every single mach bump would feel pretty good.

I would think a saved freighter would be gracious w/ a donation. I could even see if you advertised your service you could possibly be hired in advance to post up on a gate and engage (err.... bump) any machs before they could get the freighter into a bad spot.

The kronos pilot seemed to be having a good time and he was very effective. To be fair though, bring a webber and don't just totally depend on a random to save your bacon.

5-8 is a large fleet? No wonder AG sucks as bad as it does. If you field less than half your opponent's numbers, why should you expect to prevail?

I counted 3 dead bumping machs since Nov 22, 2015. So 1 dead bumping mach every 25-30 days.
Heroic efforts indeed.

We need three times more to gank it. You complaining about getting 5 together is laughable.

He's not digressing, we can't talk about bumping and looting without involving that which links them together, ganking.

[
Lets look at the latest Miniluv kill.

24 pilots on the gank, 2 in bumping ships, 1 hauler, 2 scouts.

You are complaining of getting 5 together.

You appear to want the bumping and looting mechanics balanced around the stupidity and laziness of the people who fall victim to those that use the mechanics to their full extent; the thing is that CCP can't fix stupid or lazy, nor should they try to do so. Eve is hard, it's even harder if you're dumb.

CODE. would like a word, they're essentially a bunch of randoms from hisec and they manage to field similar numbers to MiniLuv on a regular basis.

What's broken is your unwillingness to do as they have done, learn how a profession works, and then honing that into something between industrialisation and art.

Your concerns boil down to "Why do we (AG) keep getting our collective arse handed to us by people that are prepared to put in more effort than we are?"

Here I'll repeat it.
If I told you that the inclusion of one more pilot, could improve your odds to 99.9%. What would you say?
So you have 2 pilots, against a fleet and you have those odds in your favour and it's not enough? Really?

A couple of general comments on this thread.

All you guys are awesome! Some much love and hate all rolled into a thread that has pretty much been around in one form or another for several years. It's in epic accomplishment.

Tips to prevent being ganked:
...

Well it would be nice if you answered the question, from the person who actually asked it and didn't avoid it.

As far as your question is concerned. I'm fine with those odds if you are. So how about you now answer the question?

So what you are against are the odds of getting out of it, once being bumped?

Look I know you have an agenda, but in order to decide balance we need factual evidence. I'm trying to establish why this needs a change. Simply focusing on a special set of circumstances and not the whole picture, isn't how balance is achieved.
So are you fine with those odds, or not?

I'm fine with talking about bumping, but it needs to be viewed as a whole. When it's so easy to avoid and you seem fine with that, why are you not fine with the odds reversed within the bump? It quite obviously is already a level playing field, you just don't want to acknowledge the whole field.

Further, you are assuming that people who participate in ganking do not do other things in game. You have assumed this is all they do and all they know and therefore are stupid.

Where did you say the donGÇÖt do anything else in game? GÇ£There's nothing smart about it, its just the result on focusing on one activity and learning about all the ways how to use every loophole included.GÇ¥

Did you call them stupid? Not directly, but by noting it is not smart could be definitely read as implying they are stupid.

As for peopleGÇÖs motivations, there was nothing in that post about motivations.

They weren't guesses they were statements based on your statements. Things like "not being able to earn ISK in HS." You didn't want to risk that, so you weren't willing to gank. You said so yourself.

No guessing, just reading what you wrote and pointing out the implications.

More like won't than can't. Besides, you don't need anything expensive to counter bump. A t1 cruiser with a mwd can do it.

What a load of Bravo Sierra...funny how gankers manage this just fine.
With insta undocks, and reasonable precautions ganking a bumping ship is indeed quite feasible, but go ahead and grasp at straws. Roll

MWDing mach = 13 seconds align time, 8.03 seconds align time with nothing but nanofibers in the lows.

MWDing stabber = 7.67 seconds align time, 4.58 seconds align time with nothing but naofibers in the lows.

Oh no!!! You might get a killright that you can have a friend buy off cheaply!!!!!!

Look, you can either learn how to bump effectively and bump the mach risk free, or you can accept the consequences of ganking the mach. You have the same choices the gankers do, you just refuse to realize this.

Cruisers bump battleships just fine. There is no possible way for a mach to have twice the agility of a cruiser.

Imagine you got your way, though, and CCP succumbed to the sheer weight of carebearism and made bumping a crime - where would you draw the line?

The only reason it's guaranteed is because AG are too scared to field the half a dozen thrashers to stop them.

Again, the options are there. If they fail to use them, it's entire their fault.

...
Look who is talking about motivations.

That's an hilarious lossmail.

The guy is unfortunately 1:32 on his killboard.

So probably worth qualifying the statement as, it will be easier to gank some active fit pve tengus than a wreck of a freighter.

The guy just has no pvp experience, so flaming him (see rule 36) by pointing out that he is easier to kill than a wreck, is unfortunate.

Put that same tengu in someone else's hands and the outcome would be very different. The guy deserves some help, not ridicule to make a point about how some players are worse than stationary objects.

Whereas for a wreck, it's just a flat 15K of any damage profile, since resists are 0.

You are ridiculing a guy without even the knowledge of what the total damage output was required to get through his resists to do 14K damage. Nice one.

Read the rules. You are the one that broke them to post a guys lossmail as evidence that some ships will be easier to kill than stationary wrecks.

You certainly weren't posting it in praise of his abilities and on top of that you were wrong in how you read the lossmail.

For example, the lowest shield resist of that fit for even a basically skills character is 48.3%, so with it being a shield tank, only half the incoming damage would get through his resists if everyone was firing EM damage.

And no, I'm not ridiculing him. His lossmail should not be in this thread at all, especially when it doesn't demonstrate what you claim it does.

For a low skill character, 48.3% more in shields and 50% more in armor than the 0% resist of a wreck.

A fully skilled character will not sit still. A fully skilled character would overheat during a gank to increase resists. A fully skilled character would overheat his AB to pull range and get from optimal into falloff.

A fully skilled character who did just those 3 basic things would have 29.2K EHP and would be mitigating damage the whole time:

http://puu.sh/mWb1L/a3d2524962.png

And at the end of the day, your claim that a pve tengu is easier to kill than a wreck is still wrong, even without hypotheticals about what someone would do.

So much for getting back to bumping and looting I guess.

A single cruiser ramming into a MWDing mach will knock the mach out of alignment and force it to miss its target. I have had it done to me so many times out in null when trying to bump carriers I have lost count.

Best case scenario for your argument, worst case scenario for anybody trying to kill it.

Don't go from the Side. Start point is the freighter, when the battleship starts it's run you ram it head on this will cause it to at the very worst ping to the side and miss. The more cruisers you have to get in the way the more effective it will be.

What are you talking about?

The game mechanics are exactly the same.

The ship stats are irrelevant...

Nope.
As you're so fond of informing us, the topic under discussion is the art of bumping. A T1 cruiser fitted properly is perfectly capable of bumping a Machariel regardless of whether the Machariel is fitted for bumping or shooting people in the face.

Best part of this is Goons managed to mess up my bumping runs with AB harpies.

The mechanics are the same regardless of the ship stats, ergo the ship stats aren't particularly relevant.

That's really rich coming from somebody that wanted to disconnect discussion about ganking from discussion about bumping and looting.

Put it this way, when Baltec1 says that a T1 Cruiser can bump a bumping Machariel I tend to believe him, because he has consistently proven, over many years, that he is knowledgeable about game mechanics and ship fits; you haven't.

TL;DR You're your own worst enemy if you expect others to take you seriously.

Very little difference between a Mach and my nano mega.

I will dispute your understanding of what those numbers actually mean or how they apply in practice, because they're only half the story.

Actually I'm comparing my harpy fleet mega with the mach.