These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next page
 

Invulnerable mining ops (Pirate tear collection thread)

Author
Mary Mercer
Doomheim
#1 - 2011-10-30 19:14:51 UTC
Please don't post on this topic until you see:

**************End*************

I'm sure this is going to take me some room to post and I want to make sure I get to fully explain it before you all rip it to shreds. SO give me a chance to get by the anti-spam posting crap.

Ok. First of all get ready to hear a lot of flaming and yummy pirate tears as a result of this idea. Second, I realize that I have been unable to fully develop this idea and I am interested in feedback. Not the kind of feedback that’s going to come from the pirates, or trolls, but the kind that offers alternatives, or suggestions to enhance or balance this idea.

Primary goal of the Idea

The primary goal of this idea is to offer safety from ganks in high sec (<=0.7) as well as to encourage more low sec use by industrial players while creating an environment for more competition even in high-sec.

The primary Idea

A new item by ORE that would protect moderate to large mining ops from instant attack. The item names I have come up with so far are “ORE Signal Distortion Field” and “ORE MOP” (ORE being the same corp that produces some of our industrial ships already, and MOP Meaning Mining Op Protection).

The item would be an anchor-able unit just like warp bubbles except this bubble would be password protect-able like a POS, and it would alter ship sensors (yeah a little story line for all you story line nuts) so that ships inside the bubble could only target ships and objects inside the bubble. The ships inside could not target ships or objects outside the bubble and ships on the outside would not be able to target ships inside.

And the freak out begins. I can hear the pirates crying already... Can you hear that? :) Ok so I hear you, “What ever, that would make mining ops impossible to kill! And give them an unfair advantage!” Yeah, perhaps. But you know what? So what, you been killing us defenseless miners for years.

On a serious note though this creates a game balancing issue that needs to be examined and I like the use of isk, and time to balance this. I have two ideas for the unit and I'll get to those in just a second but first I'd like to point out that the units both would be bubbles of course and the bubbles would ideally be about 30-40k in radius. They would envelope ore in the fields and only rocks INSIDE the bubble would be target-able by ships inside the bubble. And ships outside the bubble could not target rocks inside the bubble. And we get contested fields and areas in fields! Another reason for high-sec wardecs!

I have some more idea's that would be in place for both style units I have in mind, but I will get to those in a bit, first let me explain the two different unit ideas I have in mind.

First Unit

The first unit I thought of would be a stand alone unit exactly like the warp bubbles with one exception. They would require a lot of fuel to operate. The expense of the item, and the expense of the fuel should be such that it deters corporations with less than 5-10 miners from even putting them up. When discussing this with other people the fuel suggested for this has been Heavy Water. Heavy Water is always so cheep because there is just way too much of it in the eve universe. Using this for fuel would make an additional use for heavy water. In addition heavy water is big enough that it is a pain in the butt to haul around and fuel things up with if the quantity needed is high enough. The fuel bay should be big enough to hold 7 days of fuel, but the rate of burn on the unit should be around 1000 M3 of heavy water per hour of up time.

This unit would be destructible and have a bay for stront and a reinforced mode of 15 minutes. The unit should have many hit points so that it takes a while to put it into reinforced mode with few ships. My original and quite frankly off the cuff thought was that it should take 2000, dps roughly 5 minutes to put it into reinforced. OR It should be low hitpoints and HIGH regen. I'm more interested in high regen of shields than lots of hit points. If you have the numbers and dps the unit should go down quickly. This will stop the random solo griefer from killing these just to hear miners cry while at the same time make them very killable for people who would like to replace the unit with their own.

I am opting more toward higher fuel cost to operate and cheaper building of the item in order to help deter from the random killing of units just for the padding of killboards. I realize that pirates will cry about this, but those of you that hunt helpless industrial ships aren't really that good anyways so we should stop making your kill boards look that good. In addition the higher fuel cost could make management of such an item more time consuming. And a larger commitment to it will help to deter from just plopping these things up all over the place.

Second Item (And the one I like better)

This item is a two piece item. It would require that you mount an “ORE MOP Control Unit” in a POS that is in the same system that your unit is in. With the bigger commitment of the POS would come the reduced need to micro manage the unit by allowing the unit fuel to be stored in the control unit inside the POS. There would be a limit of ONE control unit PER pos and one control unit could control up to 7 ORE MOPs at max. However the fuel bay would only hold enough fuel to fuel one unit for 7 days so each unit you add would drop the time your fuel lasted and would require more management.

MORE....
Mary Mercer
Doomheim
#2 - 2011-10-30 19:15:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Mary Mercer
Overall perks, drawbacks realized imbalances, and information

Making a mining fleet invulnerable basically from instant attacks does arguably create a problem. I wouldn't go so far as to call it an imbalance as much as the current system imbalances the game away from industrialists. However this type of unit would mean that hulkageddon would be over with, and the cost of hulks would likely plummet because there wouldn't be many blowing up anymore. That in and of itself requires some, not only game balancing thought but also economic balancing thought.

Fuel needs to be high and the item would need to be high maintenance. The isk not leaving the game because hulks are exploding should undoubtedly need to leave the game through way of fuel and expense to units.

Units should be destroyable in high sec under wardec. This is one of the biggest parts of this idea is that it would make high sec corps either spread out, join up in alliances and work together, or fight against each other for resources.

The item would encourage players into using low sec. Setting up in low sec would be a commitment as a POS is exposed to capital ship attacks but at the same time more industrialists would likely be willing to risk some time in a 0.3 or 0.2 knowing they can get some good ore to help build items while limiting their risk. Gankers and greifers have been limiting their losses for years with the perfect setup and insurance. Still today if you self build the items and the battleship, insure it, and salvage the wrecks you can make a profit griefing people in high sec even with a -10 sec status. It's some work, but it can be done.

NO SHIPS ALLOWED IN BUBBLES FROM NPC CORPS! This is imperative. If a pilot is in an NPC corp he should not be aloud to enter the bubbles with his ships under any conditions. This would keep bot miners from putting up a unit with their main or an alt with the skills, and then bot mining all day safely in the bubble. It's crucial that this exploit be avoided.

With a system like this in place, really I think bots are going to stick out because they will be in high sec, not using these units and there will be a lot of pirates looking to gank with a lot fewer targets and the grief will land in the PERFECT spot.

In low sec the units would encourage more players to mine. This means more chances for kills in low sec. I know they likely will not be mining ships, but they will come in the form of Orcas and Freighters that are trying to transport their newly acquired riches out of the area. This could push demand up on Orca's and freighters as much as lowering the hulk demand from an isk-leaving-the-game perspective. In addition we would likely see more Rorquals starting to get used in low sec as they can be set up in the bubble and as long as the player is AT THE KEYS when the bubble goes into reinforced the Rorqual can get out. AFK at the wrong time, and you could loose a Rorqual if the bubble drops.

AOE Damage and items can travel through the shields. Remember the shield is not actually a shield it's a sensor disruption field that prevents targeting on apposing sides of the field. This means that smart bombers will hurt if people do not stay in the middle of the bubble, but whats better is that mining ops that think they are “safe” would be subject to stealth bomber attack both in worm space and null sec.

This idea is a pretty drastic change to the current eve system and does require more thought and balancing. Perhaps the community will refuse to move this way at all, but if CCP is seriously interested in more wardecs in high sec and more players in low sec, this will help with those changes. This would help spread people out of the over populated high sec systems into some of the almost vacant low sec systems.

Ok, let the crying and ideas fly!

************************** END *************************
Drunein
Lockheed Nighthawk
#3 - 2011-10-30 19:49:39 UTC


Well, as a fellow miner I must say this seems like an awesome idea. I think this is something that Dev's should definitely look into, however when they do I think they might alter your idea before they utilize it.

I think if this idea is used, the market on certain things will change greatly. This would almost be like having sov in highsec. Especially if a corp can afford to keep bubbles over their fields non stop. However this doesnt seem to be too large of a problem considering the fields would deplete so bad after a few weeks they would be shooting themselves in the foot.

The bubble makes miners virtually immune to suicide gankers. The 10 hour hero loses his purpose the minute this goes hot. However - that is one of the main reasons I support these ideas. If you can't do it with your main, then don't do it. (In the realm of ganking I mean.) This would encourage more wardecs, and more highsec combat. Thus would make people more likely to expand into low sec, and hop the boat to null.

I must say that I find the second item more reasonable. I think it should be mandatory that you either A) Have a POS in the system or, B) have sovereignty of that system. In other words for highsec use you would need a pos, however Im not so sure that that should make maintenance of the bubble unit any easier. You just claimed a piece of hisec space as your own, I feel that that should not be easy at all.

Questions:

1. Is there a time limit as to how long it can stay in a certain field? Or is it like a POS in the sense that it will stay there as long as it has fuel in it?

2. Can you disassemble the bubble (take it down) and re locate it? Or once its out of fuel / torn down that's it. You need to purchase another?

3. How will one go about placing limits? I.E. What stops it from being placed over a stargate to limit its use?
(Suggestion: Cannot be placed unless there is at least one asteroid inside?)

4. Will there be ship limits as to what ships are allowed inside the bubble, or just as long as you know the password you can get in?

5. What is the sec status limit on the item? 0.7 and lower? Anything higher and I feel it could interfere with the newbies coming into the game.

Alright that's all for now. If I think of more I will definitely ask.

Hoping this get's noticed.

Drunein




Mary Mercer
Doomheim
#4 - 2011-10-30 20:12:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Mary Mercer
Quote:
Questions:

1. Is there a time limit as to how long it can stay in a certain field? Or is it like a POS in the sense that it will stay there as long as it has fuel in it?


Stays as long as it's fueled


Quote:
2. Can you disassemble the bubble (take it down) and re locate it? Or once its out of fuel / torn down that's it. You need to purchase another?


They are offlinable and movable. Also I left out of my original post that in my original thinking/idea if the unit was to go offline it would be unachorable by ANYONE. In other words if you let this unit run out of fuel and it's worth 150 mil you just gave 150 mil away to the first person who un-anchors it.

Quote:
3. How will one go about placing limits? I.E. What stops it from being placed over a stargate to limit its use?
(Suggestion: Cannot be placed unless there is at least one asteroid inside?)


Again I forgot that in my original post. Yours works, but would be harder to code for I think. My idea was it couldn't be anchored more than 100k from an ore field warp-in point.

Quote:
4. Will there be ship limits as to what ships are allowed inside the bubble, or just as long as you know the password you can get in?


No limits. in either case PVP players could also use this for pvp tactics. Like if your password is compromised and your war targets fly in on top of you and clean house of your indi's even in your own illusionary bubble of protection. :)

Quote:
5. What is the sec status limit on the item? 0.7 and lower? Anything higher and I feel it could interfere with the newbies coming into the game.


I thought I put that in the original post. My idea was to match current anchoring criteria which is typically 0.7 and lower.
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#5 - 2011-10-30 21:26:43 UTC
So, if I place one of these things in nullsec, park twenty bot miners in it and keep it fuelled, I don't even need to worry about anything happening to them, right? I can happily destroy the entire economy, right?

Why do you want trit to cost lest than 1 isk/unit? If it's impossible to stop bot miners, no matter what you do, then the arse is going to fall out of the market pretty quickly.

Can these only be anchored at belts, or can I drop one onto an SBU to protect that? Or on a customs office to protect my PI guys? or on a station undock to make sure none of my guys are ever killed again?



Your idea encourages botting. That's without even getting into the fact that there is no such thign as safe space in EVE.

Also, if it's just a targeting disruptor, why can't I just park a smartbomb BS in the middle and bomb the mackinaws? And if you can target the rocks from inside the bubble, why can't I target you from inside the bubble?


Please explain:

1) How many mackinaws you've lost in the last month
2) Why EVE needs to have safe space
3) Why this would ever be considered a good idea
Mary Mercer
Doomheim
#6 - 2011-10-30 21:33:12 UTC
Danika Princip wrote:
So, if I place one of these things in nullsec, park twenty bot miners in it and keep it fuelled, I don't even need to worry about anything happening to them, right? I can happily destroy the entire economy, right?

Why do you want trit to cost lest than 1 isk/unit? If it's impossible to stop bot miners, no matter what you do, then the arse is going to fall out of the market pretty quickly.

Can these only be anchored at belts, or can I drop one onto an SBU to protect that? Or on a customs office to protect my PI guys? or on a station undock to make sure none of my guys are ever killed again?



Your idea encourages botting. That's without even getting into the fact that there is no such thign as safe space in EVE.

Also, if it's just a targeting disruptor, why can't I just park a smartbomb BS in the middle and bomb the mackinaws? And if you can target the rocks from inside the bubble, why can't I target you from inside the bubble?


Please explain:

1) How many mackinaws you've lost in the last month
2) Why EVE needs to have safe space
3) Why this would ever be considered a good idea


I'll answer your questions after you actually take the time to read. There is a good chance you'll have far less of them.
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#7 - 2011-10-30 21:37:52 UTC
Mary Mercer wrote:
Danika Princip wrote:
So, if I place one of these things in nullsec, park twenty bot miners in it and keep it fuelled, I don't even need to worry about anything happening to them, right? I can happily destroy the entire economy, right?

Why do you want trit to cost lest than 1 isk/unit? If it's impossible to stop bot miners, no matter what you do, then the arse is going to fall out of the market pretty quickly.

Can these only be anchored at belts, or can I drop one onto an SBU to protect that? Or on a customs office to protect my PI guys? or on a station undock to make sure none of my guys are ever killed again?



Your idea encourages botting. That's without even getting into the fact that there is no such thign as safe space in EVE.

Also, if it's just a targeting disruptor, why can't I just park a smartbomb BS in the middle and bomb the mackinaws? And if you can target the rocks from inside the bubble, why can't I target you from inside the bubble?


Please explain:

1) How many mackinaws you've lost in the last month
2) Why EVE needs to have safe space
3) Why this would ever be considered a good idea


I'll answer your questions after you actually take the time to read. There is a good chance you'll have far less of them.


Doesn't say anything about nulslec in your wall of text. nor does it say anything about a bot corp in highsec using them. nor does it say why they need to exist. Nor does it say how many mackinaws you lost.


Also, post with your main.
Mary Mercer
Doomheim
#8 - 2011-10-30 21:46:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Mary Mercer
Danika Princip wrote:


Doesn't say anything about nulslec in your wall of text.


Yes it does


Quote:
nor does it say anything about a bot corp in highsec using them.


Yes it does - more specifically about bots.. Bot "corps" are not a problem. As I have yet to see a corp bot anything. But individuals botting was addressed.


Quote:
nor does it say why they need to exist.


Yes it does - But need is a relative term. I didn't say "need" I said it would help the outcome of specific things.

Quote:
Nor does it say how many mackinaws you lost.


Because it's irrelevant


Quote:
Also, post with your main.


Which one?

Why don't you go troll someone else. I just looked through a few of your messages. I don't see you adding a whole lot to any discussion. Just a lot of *****ing and knocking other peoples opinions or ideas.

You should go get yourself a prescription to help you with your mood disorder, brush up your reading comprehension and then take another stab at reading it. See if you don't get more out of it.
Agent 137
Doomheim
#9 - 2011-10-30 21:58:40 UTC
I support OP's idea honestly. Friendly bump for notice.
Jack bubu
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#10 - 2011-10-30 22:00:41 UTC
This is a bad idea, a bad threat and you should feel bad
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#11 - 2011-10-30 22:08:14 UTC
I just read it again, and I see nothing about nullsec. I see some stuff about low, but nothing about null, and no answers to my questions.

Also, i see you playing the 'you don't like my idea so you're a troll' card. I also see thing in there to stop a corp containing several bots from using one, just something about NPC corps. As we all know, there's no such thing as a bot in a player corp, right? Roll

And the number of mackinaws you lost is not irrelevant, why would you be posting this rubbish if you hadn't? (Post with your main. As in, the character you use the most. This is my main.)
Drunein
Lockheed Nighthawk
#12 - 2011-10-30 22:16:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Drunein
Danika Princip wrote:
I just read it again, and I see nothing about nullsec. I see some stuff about low, but nothing about null, and no answers to my questions.

Also, i see you playing the 'you don't like my idea so you're a troll' card. I also see thing in there to stop a corp containing several bots from using one, just something about NPC corps. As we all know, there's no such thing as a bot in a player corp, right? Roll

And the number of mackinaws you lost is not irrelevant, why would you be posting this rubbish if you hadn't? (Post with your main. As in, the character you use the most. This is my main.)


I don't think it's intended use is for null. I think its intended for hisec / lowsec. Nullsec, you already own that section of space. Guess Im confused what your asking about null for.

And bots are less likely to use this as they typically mine, return to station, mine, return to station. This would be expensive so I dont think it would be worth it much to the solo macro miner.

The group macro miner - well I guess that would just as much of an issue as it is today.
Mary Mercer
Doomheim
#13 - 2011-10-30 22:19:39 UTC
Danika Princip wrote:
I just read it again, and I see nothing about nullsec. I see some stuff about low, but nothing about null, and no answers to my questions.

Also, i see you playing the 'you don't like my idea so you're a troll' card. I also see thing in there to stop a corp containing several bots from using one, just something about NPC corps. As we all know, there's no such thing as a bot in a player corp, right? Roll

And the number of mackinaws you lost is not irrelevant, why would you be posting this rubbish if you hadn't? (Post with your main. As in, the character you use the most. This is my main.)


I haven't lost a mack or a hulk since 2009. Does that help you?

Here is the quote, “This means that smart bombers will hurt if people do not stay in the middle of the bubble, but whats better is that mining ops that think they are “safe” would be subject to stealth bomber attack both in worm space and null sec. “


Answers to your other questions are in a follow up post. If I have to hand hold you through reading it, whats the point?

Which character I play the most is not really needed for any point that I can think of. Besides, it's much more fun to see you make accusations based on a lack of information and ASSumption. (And the number of mackinaws you lost is not irrelevant, why would you be posting this rubbish if you hadn't? )

And playing the “troll card”? Naw. I don't care if you agree with me. Seriously, I posted it so people would either pick it apart, or add to it. Come up with ideas, point out real short comings. But all that has been posted so far is brain dead “This sucks” with no real feed back from one person, and your post just screamed “I didn't take the time to read this thread before I ran my mouth.” So it wasn't a "troll card" it is what it is. You have nothing positive to add at all. Which, like I said, looks fairly normal.

You don't like the idea? That is fine. Are you so simple that you will just go, "Bad Idea" and drop it at that? or do you have any thoughtful feed back other than the brainy stuff you've already posted?
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#14 - 2011-10-30 22:21:42 UTC
Drunein wrote:
Danika Princip wrote:
I just read it again, and I see nothing about nullsec. I see some stuff about low, but nothing about null, and no answers to my questions.

Also, i see you playing the 'you don't like my idea so you're a troll' card. I also see thing in there to stop a corp containing several bots from using one, just something about NPC corps. As we all know, there's no such thing as a bot in a player corp, right? Roll

And the number of mackinaws you lost is not irrelevant, why would you be posting this rubbish if you hadn't? (Post with your main. As in, the character you use the most. This is my main.)


I don't think it's intended use is for null. I think its intended for hisec / lowsec. Nullsec, you already own that section of space. Guess Im confused what your asking about null for.

And bots are less likely to use this as they typically mine, return to station, mine, return to station. This would be expensive so I dont think it would be worth it much to the solo macro miner.

The group macro miner - well I guess that would just as much of an issue as it is today.


because if you drop it in null, and hide a pile of bots in it to mine ABC ores, you're going to get a lot more isk than the highsec guys mining veld and have zero risk? that pesky roaming red won't bother you, as you're invulnerable, and in the time it takes for a roaming gang to kill the bubble thing, your bots can just log? You won't have to worry about logging them out for an AFK cloaker or a lone red five jumps out, so you'll make plenty of money you wouldn't otherwise?
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#15 - 2011-10-30 22:22:48 UTC
Mary Mercer wrote:
Danika Princip wrote:
I just read it again, and I see nothing about nullsec. I see some stuff about low, but nothing about null, and no answers to my questions.

Also, i see you playing the 'you don't like my idea so you're a troll' card. I also see thing in there to stop a corp containing several bots from using one, just something about NPC corps. As we all know, there's no such thing as a bot in a player corp, right? Roll

And the number of mackinaws you lost is not irrelevant, why would you be posting this rubbish if you hadn't? (Post with your main. As in, the character you use the most. This is my main.)


I haven't lost a mack or a hulk since 2009. Does that help you?

Here is the quote, “This means that smart bombers will hurt if people do not stay in the middle of the bubble, but whats better is that mining ops that think they are “safe” would be subject to stealth bomber attack both in worm space and null sec. “


Answers to your other questions are in a follow up post. If I have to hand hold you through reading it, whats the point?

Which character I play the most is not really needed for any point that I can think of. Besides, it's much more fun to see you make accusations based on a lack of information and ASSumption. (And the number of mackinaws you lost is not irrelevant, why would you be posting this rubbish if you hadn't? )

And playing the “troll card”? Naw. I don't care if you agree with me. Seriously, I posted it so people would either pick it apart, or add to it. Come up with ideas, point out real short comings. But all that has been posted so far is brain dead “This sucks” with no real feed back from one person, and your post just screamed “I didn't take the time to read this thread before I ran my mouth.” So it wasn't a "troll card" it is what it is. You have nothing positive to add at all. Which, like I said, looks fairly normal.

You don't like the idea? That is fine. Are you so simple that you will just go, "Bad Idea" and drop it at that? or do you have any thoughtful feed back other than the brainy stuff you've already posted?


Thoughtful feedback? Okay.

There is no safe space in EVE. Stop trying to make safe space in EVE.

How's that?
Drunein
Lockheed Nighthawk
#16 - 2011-10-30 22:27:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Drunein
Danika Princip wrote:


Thoughtful feedback? Okay.

There is no safe space in EVE. Stop trying to make safe space in EVE.

How's that?


I think that is why the bubble is able to be destroyed.

Reload the thought cannon and fire again please.
Mary Mercer
Doomheim
#17 - 2011-10-30 22:27:27 UTC
Danika Princip wrote:


because if you drop it in null, and hide a pile of bots in it to mine ABC ores, you're going to get a lot more isk than the highsec guys mining veld and have zero risk? that pesky roaming red won't bother you, as you're invulnerable, and in the time it takes for a roaming gang to kill the bubble thing, your bots can just log? You won't have to worry about logging them out for an AFK cloaker or a lone red five jumps out, so you'll make plenty of money you wouldn't otherwise?


And if you read the thread you've had realized that A: it was posted admitting there was a lot of issues and ballancing that needed to be done as well as looking for feed back. B: that it would ideally to help encourage low sec use and C: That a pile of them in null sec would get evaporated quite quickly.
Mary Mercer
Doomheim
#18 - 2011-10-30 22:28:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Mary Mercer
Danika Princip wrote:


Thoughtful feedback? Okay.

There is no safe space in EVE. Stop trying to make safe space in EVE.

How's that?


When do you think we'll be removing POSs?
Barbara Nichole
Cryogenic Consultancy
#19 - 2011-10-31 00:03:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Barbara Nichole
I'm not sure this would ever be a good idea. There are things you can do to limit your vulnerability already; these things need to be explored first.. if it's a good idea to stop instant damage why not just remove all smart bombs all together?


Quote:
more competition even in high-sec.


lastly.. more competition in high sec? 80% of eve's player base lives in high sec. that's a lot of people competing for the same resourses already.

  - remove the cloaked from local; free intel is the real problem, not  "afk" cloaking -

[IMG]http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a208/DawnFrostbringer/consultsig.jpg[/IMG]

Jack Carrigan
Order of the Shadow
The Revenant Order
#20 - 2011-10-31 01:57:23 UTC
Rather than consistently suggesting such blatant faggotry and unbalancing of the game (and yes, it would be game breaking), as high security space is just that, it offers high security as there is a police presence (which immediately respond to unwarranted aggression), the following things should be accomplished:

- Pay attention to Local
- Pay attention to your Directional Scanner
- Passive Tank your Barge/Exhumer/Industrial
- Have Logistics Support (Basilisk/Scimitar/RR BS)
- Have an Orca provide mining boosts while having a Nighthawk providing shield boosts (Shield Harmonizing Link)
- Remain Aligned (and have one of your corp mates outfitted with a Stasis Webifier standing by to help you get into warp faster)
- Mine in Mission Sites (thus double the income) or Gravimetric Sites
- Know the usual people who are in your system, and be wary of new faces

High Security space is not meant to offer absolute security, nor should it ever. Mining is pretty much free ISK. But, as with any other activity in New Eden, there MUST be risk versus reward. There is no activity (except station trading) that leaves you absolute security from being ganked (but there is still the risk of being undercut or losing profits).

So with that said, what entitles miners to absolute security?

Absolutely nothing.

Because if they had absolute security, it would create a game breaking imbalance. EVE is a PvP game, and non-consensual PvP is an intended feature as the Developers have pointed out. Don't like it? Don't undock.

I am the One who exists in Shadow. I am the Devil your parents warned you about.

||CEO: Order of the Shadow||Executor: The Revenant Order||Creator: Bowhead||

123Next page