It's been a bit since we've introduced our intentions to sanction unsporting play. The staff team has been purposefully avoidant of disclosing what we consider to be the minimal definition of sanctionable gank because it would only result in people deliberately straddling the line of what is acceptable. That stance has not changed, and we still want everyone to err on the side of sporting than not - but there have been a lot of questions regarding the acceptability of common scenarios, and some time for the team to think about where gank could be tolerated.
The Point
First and foremost, our most simple definition of 'gank' is as follows:
Code:
A scenario in which an overwhelmingly larger and/or advantaged group of players forces interaction with a smaller and/or disadvantaged group of players in such a way that results in no other option for the smaller, disadvantaged group of players except to die.
If you are a snubswarm of 10 and you gang up on a lone gunboat or a transport, everyone involved knows that the overwhelmingly most likely scenario is that the snubswarm just kills the gunboat or transport and there is absolutely nothing they can do about it - that's gank.
If you are a cruiser pack, of 10 and you gang up on a lone battleship, it's the same story.
Obviously, it's a question of degree here - I've seen a certain Mako enjoyer smoke several battleships in one go without losing more than half their hull, and there's snubbers that can wipe the floor with even a 4v1, so there is a lot of room for context that makes strict definitions to be tricky business - but the main idea still serves as a good guideline, and the staff will have to make a judgement call on whatever we come across.
Common cases
1. First and foremost, most of the reports we have recieved has been resulting from 'clean up' after a fight that started off as balanced and mutually enjoyable. It's come up often enough that we have reconsidered our policy on the matter. What we used to do was to sanction the 'ganking' party when the ships of a side that has won absolutely pulverizes a few surviving ships from the losing side - and it's been a mess. People get tunnel vision, and it's been demonstrated that expecting people to periodically take inventory of the sides is a losing proposition. While we would like players to exercise restraint, we will no longer expect this to happen by default. If you join a balanced fight and your side loses, anyone that's been part of the fight is free to pile on any survivors without expecting the fight to drag out in a series of duels. This is a privilege of winning for those that were around for the battle - and is not afforded to new reinforcements showing up to pile on.
2. We have seen incidents where a smaller group deliberately forces an interaction with a larger group as the aggressor - while knowing that they are outnumbered and disadvantaged. Those doing so are choosing to engage despite knowing the risks, and expecting that players in the larger group will sit around and watch and break off into 'fair duels' while their allies are being attacked is both unrealistic and unfun. In cases where the aggressor knows they're disadvantaged (IE: sees a larger fleet of ships that they know will have cause to aggro if attacked) and decides to attack anyway, then they deserve what is coming and getting understandably flattened will not be considered gank. In the case where the disadvantage is not obvious - for example, if reinforcements arrive - that's a different story, and will have to be judged on a case by case basis.
3. In cases such as piracy, where a reasonable (per rules) demand is issued, any disadvantaged (in this case, the recipient of pirate attention) party is given the option of paying the pirate to go free or to die. Deciding not to pay the pirate is considered the same as case 2 (see above) wherein the disadvantaged party is voluntarily electing to aggro the larger party. Conversely, a pirate that comes upon a much larger convoy may issue a demand at their own risk - issuing a demand to one person in the convoy (within the vicinity) invites a potential reaction from EVERYONE in that convoy. TLDNR: Refuse to pay the pirate, and you are inviting the full violence that is threatened. Making a demand from a convoy invites getting shot by EVERYONE in that convoy.(Edited in 2025/03/10)
Where to go from here
Given that our policy has been changed (hopefully more refined than before), we will be going back and reassessing already processed gank sanctions and overturning what needs to be.
All we want is to provide a healthy balance between the ruthless fun of total war and preventing doom stacks from steamrollering over people in a frustrating way. Feedback is always welcome (discussions with members of the community was one of the initiating causes for our reassessment of this policy to begin with).
Go forth, have fun, and kill each other - but treat the people behind the characters you are murdering in a way that you would also like to be treated.
