Why do you flood every thread about ganking while knowing almost nothing about it?

This nerf does not exist in a vacuum, it is the last in a incredibly long list. No activity in eve is ~rebalanced~ as often as ganking. This is weird because we don't even kill 20 people a day doing it.

Increasing EHP is dumb, not needed and has a high chance of shifting the meta into bulkhead freighters only.

This change nerfs expanded freighters compared to bulkheaded ones but increases the ehp of both. We're not talking about bringing a couple more people. We're talking about freighter ganking being not worth your time anymore.

Barge pilots don't adapt to anything, they just go for max yield on a procurer and left it mine away in safety.

Gankers don't post threads demanding their lives to be made easier

In a matter of weeks after this change goes through we will see the same carebear faces demanding even more safety in highsec yet again demand "just one more nerf".

It's the equivalent of decreasing incursion income and reducing the spawn rate to once every 14 days.

Sure it's still profitable but why bother?

Anti ganking is already viable as a mechanic. People just don't because a) effort and b) freighters wont pay for it because it's already trivial to avoid being ganked.

The very fact ganking is so rare and sufficiently behind walls to limit easy access is the reason you don't get white knights as paid mercs.

If you want anti-ganking to become a thing, then ganking needs to be more prevalent. If it actually became hard to move big stuff around without being blapped as opposed to the situation today where you are required to be a) wholly and completely incompetent and b) unlucky to boot in order to lose anything of value.

33% structure resist on all ships.
This is fantastic, CCP is removing need to put damage control on so many ships.
Free lowslot.

This is basically all the AG mob have contributed to this thread.

Not a nerf. It is to balance the Wreck HP buff.

Didn't want the unstacking penalised resists to shield/armor eh?

Which still amounts to more than what they've done in game.

The shield and armor resists are most of the reason to fit a damage control on several of my fits.

Not a nerf. It is to balance the Wreck HP buff.

The shield and armor resists are most of the reason to fit a damage control on several of my fits.

Ah yes, because a slightly increased chance of getting loot from the freighter's wreck totally equates to a fifty percent increase in hull effective hitpoints.

If you think that's balance, you need to lay off the drugs.

Hi friend. You should know I'm MiniLuv, and we're not really the in the business of ganking empty freighters (unless they're red). You're right that the change does increase the operational cost of ganking, but, as I said in a previous post, it's not the monetary cost which hurts. We don't make money off of killing freighters worth 1b-5b isk. we make money off killing the 7b-20b freighters. Because that's the thing: the required DPS doesn't scale with the value of a freighter. A triple expanded freighter worth 3b falls just as easily as a triple expanded freighter worth 30b. The profit margin difference of 500m (now) to 1b (then) gank on that 3b is big, but it's insignificant in the case of the 30b freighter. So judicious choice of targets means that we don't really feel the economic effects of this change.

As I've said before, the significant impact is requiring 5 to 10 more pilots, 10 to 20 more catalyst pilots. The effort required in making that happen far outweighs the loss of income we face because of increased bottom line on ganking.



This was a consequence of a confluence of several factors, including, but not limited to, the end of summer / school getting back in session, increased anti-ganker presence, increased wreck shooting, hyperdunking proliferation, overfishing and more. It's really outside the scope of this discussion, but, again, MiniLuv doesn't really gank empty freighters. It only really occurs when we get thirsty / miss a gank and need to cure our blue balls. We also don't have any Code we follow or a 'your space' thing or 'our laws' thing. We gank freighters because they're fat or they're red to The Imperium. That's it. I figured after being our adversary for nearly a year, you would have learned this by now.

This is a step. Fozzie mentioned that " these changes won't kill ganking and our future changes won't kill ganking either". I look forward to hear what those future changes are as well. Prolong bumping fix? Fixing the looting so the FY follows the loot, not just the initial throw away ship to drop the loot in the freighter. Making -9, -10 worse? Something else all together?

Either way, I agree with Fozzie, gankers will have to adapt to the new normal. Just like AG has to adapt to not being able to shoot a wreck (and its amazing how much that gets thrown around in local thanking CCP for this feature).

However, the fact that this started to be addressed by CCP is a validation of the problem . I look forward to seeing the progression of this!

Ways I know this thread is going places:

• Lucas is posting his opinions. Is there a single thread on the Internet that he has ever considered not posting in?
• Awful pubbies posting varients of 'u mad bro'

Didn't want the unstacking penalised resists to shield/armor eh?

If i use armor tanked ship, then shield is not important.
15% armor resist is nice, but compared to fitting requirements of damage control 30 CPU, to 0 CPU of 'Refuge' Adaptive Nano Plating I there are totally new fits possible.

Yes resists will be bit lower, EHP can also be bit lower, but extra 30 cpu on armor ship is a lot.

Its been a long time coming, CCP now has to take the last step, and implement a PVP flag system for empire space. No more suicide ganking in empire space. If a corp doesn't war dec you, you should be able to be fired upon by another player in empire space.

Its been a long time coming, CCP now has to take the last step, and implement a PVP flag system for empire space. No more suicide ganking in empire space. If a corp doesn't war dec you, you should be able to be fired upon by another player in empire space.

For example, years ago (I mean like when I started playing and for years after) hi-sec ganking was just NEVER as big as it became the past few years.

I'm worried about the future of the Ares. Most other inty have the CPU to just fit a t2 scram, but the Ares is stuck in a spot where it would have to make sacrifices, and there's the minor annoyance of the fact that t2 disruptor capacitor cost is going up with Ares being the only tackle inty that isn't cap stable with everything running due to railguns requiring capacitor.

[Ares, Fast Ares.]
Damage Control II
Overdrive Injector System II
Overdrive Injector System II
Type-D Attenuation Signal Augmentation

5MN Quad LiF Restrained Microwarpdrive
Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I
Warp Disruptor II

125mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Iridium Charge S
125mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Iridium Charge S
125mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Iridium Charge S

Small Polycarbon Engine Housing II
Small Polycarbon Engine Housing II


That's the fit I currently use, and it has 4 CPU left over. With sig amp changes, I can get up to 6.25 extra CPU before I start messing with the functionality of the ship. Downgrading weapons to 75mm gatling or Ion Blasters, either of which have lackluster projection. You can't touch the DC or you lose any pretense of tank.

Ares isn't a dominant inty, yet it's being hurt the most by these changes. Surely there must be something that can be done about this! Yeah, Ares isn't my favorite inty, but I feel the God of War shouldn't also be the worst tackle inty in game. I am totally fine with lowering the strength of competitors, namely the fact that, under MWD thrust, Malediction and Ares have nearly identical agility.

Personally, I would say the easiest fix is to simply hand the Ares a stronger capacitor and smaller base sig. If it doesn't get to be more agile than its Amarrian counterpart, the Ares should at least be able to choose between compact MWD and other variants, which currently not competitive because it's inferior in the capacitor side of things so only a perfectly skilled pilot can afford the cap instability that such an option brings. However, with something as low as +1 GJ/s after skills (preferably via raw capacitor size than recharge time), Ares could choose to go for something similar to what it has now but with compact MWD for overall slightly higher sig, or try different weapons with an active tank, which is currently difficult for the Malediction due to capacitor size.

Anyways, I'm just trying to take a current problem that exists with the Ares (capacitor) and propose a solution that allows meaningful choices rather than nerfing all the competition or asking for extra fitting to keep things "the way they were".