Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Suicide ganking, and hulkageddon is a player driven activity and with Eve being a player driven game. OP's proposal would totally destroy the premise of the sandbox and the reason why I play.

Also I can see CCP specifically doing this so that economists can study the effects of supply deprivation on an active populace.

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2010/06/21/real-economist-takes-lessons-from-virtual-world/

I also think that CCP have gotten sick of the low prices on everything and the huge amount of inflation that was rampant in the economy. In short, this is good for Eve and it single handedly has made mining a viable profession.

Also, I've been mining almost a month straight, and haven't been ganked once, but I also live in 0.0. Just saying that there are alternate solutions to your problems, you don't need to change the game mechanics to mine all day.

Gerrick

You can always do it old school... no one said you need to mine in a Hulk, back when I first joined Eve, the Apoc was the mining ship of choice for most people because you could fit 8 miner II's to it and 5 mining drones.

You can be greedy and use a hulk or you can be safe and use an Apoc... the choice is yours.

On a side note, if you're moving super expensive stuff through hi-sec, have a scout/webber ship for instawarps. Freighters take so long to reach a gate, a webber has plenty of time to warp to the gate, wait out his aggro, jump and check it's clear of nasties.

You could Alternatively take longer routes that don't take you through the popular gank spots. (usually 0.5/0.6 systems) near trade hubs, again, this is not as efficient, but you can either be greedy or you can be safe... again, your choice.

I missed seeing this post before so ill answer it now,

I am not for removing ganking, I am in favor of making it harder. but not so hard that it is not a viable thing to do, how that actually balances I dont know. I would like a Hulk buff (and by extension the mackinaw and skiff too) but how much i am not sure, nor exactly in which way.
I was responding to Corina Jarr who said

Some ganking is griefing. not all.

As to -10 in hisec, I was my understanding, which i admit i amy be wrong about, was that -10 players were not to be able to operate with relative impunity and that the way that i described above was not an intended use of the mechanics that were implemented. namely the use of orcas to avoid Faction police and station aggression, for the purposes of ganking in hisec every 15 minutes.

Of course there is reason to punish the gankers further, Their actions go against the idea of hisec, (note, it is not the ideas of the game, but of Faction security space) The more someone is wanted the faster and heavier the response should be, however, there is no differentiation between someone that has ganked once and someone who has ganked every 15 minutes for the past three hours. Their operational impunity comes from being able to enlist the help of nonflagged entities. in getting ships out of an orca or warping to an alt. because of the characteristics of pods they are nearly impossible to catch in hisec and because they are allowed to dock, they can wait the 15 minutes of GCC in safety.
(another note, I dont believe that changing the characteristics of pods for negative security status will do anything good for the game)

Its very strange that ~20 ganks by the same person in the same location doesn't afford any different response then one gank. from the NPC police or Concord responses. the lack of variation for actions taken are a weird choice to me. While it is true that there is a concord response and the gankers ship gets destroyed. That is already his cost of doing his business, much like ammo costs are for mission runners or crystals are for miners.

were these pirates, the -10 hisec operators, disallowed to do anything in hisec, it would force those that go against the "intended" order of hisec into the fringes, much as the wanted men in the world do not open stands in times square.

Mostly what i find weird, is that people with negative security are afforded the same services by good standing NPC's while the faction "government" they are under wish to kill them.

Because enough morons cant seem to comprehend this, it needs to be said again. Concord is different from the irl police in one major way, concord is NOT there to protect you, it is there to avenge you, to punish the person that fired on you. Concord is not in the game to prevent non-war pvp in highsec, it is there to make sure that there are consequences for it.

If eve were a more immersive game, given the premise of the high-tech world we are supposed to be playing in, anyone with a sec status of say -5 or whatever would have his financial assets (ISK) instantly raided by concord and anything he had left over in high sec taken as well. Basically the pvper would have to learn to operate without money and barter only for the things he needs.

If the game were more immersive that is. In reality he'd use his alts to get around that and to ferry thing thing he needs to him.


As it stands, concord is mostly there to operate as a minor penalty: you know you are going to lose the ship you are in and that's it.





Correct, insurance removal isn't a deterrent by itself and if you have billions in the bank or you can get it from the gank a few hundred million here or there isn't going to be the problem. The problem is most tangible penalties could be avoided.

You could have concord inject a skill loss virus into your pod before they blow your ship up, but I think CCP would find that to be too extreme.

Sandbox
/thread

I'm not saying that concord would do it, but it'd be... practical... to simply deny someone with low security access to the normal financial system and anything in a public station. If it's all electronic, just move a few digits from the offender's bank account to concord's and a few passcodes at a station changed. Still, I was talking about hypothetical response and not one CCP would implement.

Losing security status for trading with an outlaw would be interesting, but also avoidable by jettisoning small amounts of items into space at a safe point and then switching to your PvP char.

And that has what to do with anything?


It's not supposed to by design. It's intended function is to cushion the loss of T1 ships... not reimburse them.

As for Faction, T2, and T3 insurance... yeah... you want that extra 15 to 20% edge and/or specialty? You pay for it. In more than one way. And this is what keeps T1 ships more or less viable after 9 years.


With the exception of missions (requesting them and turning them in)... even the PvE stuff is competition-based. So yeah... it's all PvP.

…CONCORD wouldn't exist and the police would be player-run.
That's not a problem. That's players using the tools at their disposal to shape the world around them, as intended.

It's a PvP game through and through. It has never been advertised as anything else. Their stuff is plenty sorted in that regard.

Even the PvE targets can shoot back. Why can't we?