Player Features and Ideas Discussion

make it similar to a hacking mod and you go suspect as soon as you turn it on then the instant you succeed concord comes after you and you lose sec stats like a normal attack,meaning you have a limited time to sort through what you want. this would be added on with the mod that destroys your cargo but no one knows you have it fit so they might still try to destroy you thinking they will get a portion of your cargo.

also to the guy who said something about care bares not being able to take a loss... this would still be a big loss but the one who killed you wouldn't get anything either except a kill mail.

Boarding actions is what Dust 514 should've been about, and whatever EVE FPS that CCP decides to develop should be about as well.

And it shouldn't just be a matter of stealing loot, but also planting explosives on vital ship components (like guns, power core, sensor controls, mainframe etc.) AND assassnating the capsuleer controlling the ship in question.

Of course, all vessels should include serious defense systems against boarding, and even be possiple for the capsuleer to exit his pod, pick up a gun and fight the boarders himself (finally! Some actual use for the Incarna update!)

Thank you for proving my point about gankers and raging over anything that adversely affects the profits from their game play. Also want to thank you for proving that you are all for added game play option when they benefit YOU, and against any game play options that may adversely affect you.

You still do not get it do you. It is not your pirate / ganking ways that many of us are against it is your entitled attitude that you deserve to profit from these activities simply because you choose to do them. Piracy in all it's forms throughout all of human history has carried an element of risk that you will gain nothing financially from the activity. That is until we come to EvE where profit from piracy is not only expected it is in fact demanded.

I find it very telling of your attitude that you consider piracy / ganking to be a conflict driver.
Webster definition of conflict
If you choose the wrong ship and in the wrong circumstances then piracy can and often does deliver conflict. On the other hand ganking is not a conflict driver it is simply going to a range and shooting at a target that cannot shoot back. Shooting well at a range is extremely difficult and so is ganking someone, but that difficulty does not make it a conflict.

In an odd twist I agree with you 100% this game needs more things that drive conflict between players or groups of players. By conflict I mean going out and shooting at players that want to shoot back at you, not going to a range and shooting things that cannot shoot back. Looking at the conflict driver from that angle making high sec significantly safer and dare I say it maybe even 100% safe in some limit ways or areas could be the biggest and easiest conflict driver CCP could make. If all of you elite PvP players that roam high sec as gankers had to actually go to low, nul or a worm hole to shoot at other players who would actually shoot back image the conflict that would create. I challenge you simpy try to imagine the glorious battles of all sizes that could occur all over the EvE universe if this was to happen. Now that would be a conflict driver, but no you do not want that type of conflict, what you want is the virtually risk free roam around high sec and shoot at those who cannot or will not shoot back thing that you champion as "conflict".

Oh and the answer is yes I am aware that by definition conflict can be a war of words, and if a war of words is what you want when you say we need more conflict then you and this game are indeed doomed to the scrap heap of gaming history.

:) You have a very strange definition of "raging". I have been calmly explaining how this game has been designed, and why such a proposal as the OP is incompatible with that design. Why would I "rage" over something I am 100% convinced will never be implemented? You act like I am upset over some new change CCP is planning to remove piracy when nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, CCP has buffed direct piracy just this year with the wreck changes and there is no hint that CCP is considering any change to the basic design of the game.

You are the one whining for changes to the game to directly benefit you. I am just explaining why such a change (like the OP) will never be implemented. Interpret that how you will, but I think you are drifting well into hypocrite territory if you are accusing me of self-interest for just pointing out why a proposed change will not be implemented while you are actively lobbying to have your in-game activities made safer and easier for your direct profit.


Suicide ganking is how you pirate in highsec. Wars give enough warning they are effectively consensual (and you can opt-out), as are duels so the only way you can non-consensually take people's stuff is to sacrifice a ship to CONCORD.

Piracy is content and is conflict. It is content as it is predator-prey game play that is happening in our shared virtual universe and where the decisions each player makes will determine the outcome of the PvP engagement. It is conflict as there are two sides with opposing goals/desires - one wants to keep their stuff and one wants to take it for their own. It is exactly the type of criminal game play CCP has deliberately coded into the game as they have confirmed many times. Criminals don't have to shoot things that can shoot back. They can shoot things that can't or won't shoot back. I am not sure why you have a problem with this concept.

This nowhere-is-safe game play is a fundamental pillar of the game design. CCP doesn't hide this (the opposite in fact if you bother to read the New Pilot FAQ) nor is Eve a new game where players can claim they haven't heard this yet. If you don't like the fact that you can be shot without your consent, or when you are not prepared, you are playing the wrong game.

Meh, CCP isn't going in your carebear-y direction. All players are targets in this game, not just those that are seeking a fight. Citadels have put carebears at decidedly more risk, not less and there is no sign of CCP changing direction. In fact, I expect we are entering a phase of less-and-less safety for carebears as the new structures are implemented, and eventually major revisions to the faction police and CONCORD in order to let capitals back into highsec. Highsec will continue to be the full-time, open PvP zone it is and was always intended to be.

If you are playing this game that you are clearly not comfortable with because you have some faint hope that CCP is going to make highsec into your 100% safe, carebear paradise in the future, I think you should re-evaluate how you are spending your leisure time. Eve is always going to allow criminals and pirates to prey on the weak without their consent, exactly like it has for the last 13 years.

Eve Online is about conflict and player-driven content and piracy and non-consensual interactions are a central part of that. You are welcome to continue to regularly grovel on these forums begging CCP to change that, but I am afraid you are always going to remain a prey item for the other players as has been the case since the servers went live so long ago.

But it was more about "No bull **** mini-game either. Just activate, steal and go suspect. "
You know there would be fight and it would take some time and skills to attack the vessel, and also , while in real you could steal whole ship, in EVE that would be impossible because it is piloted by capsuleer that effectively have power over it, and only coming inside the ship and destroying crew members would be feasible. Then after initial shock and surprise would fade away whole ship would initiate lockdown so you have time to grab only this most valuable thing to transport it to your vessel. Thing for which you are there in the first place.

Actually, its a very good idea. I will update my post.

Yeah I removed AOE. Else CONCORD would be really upset even seeing it equipped.
Yes this is for freighter exclusively at that point.

You are the one that stated that ganking was a conflict driver not me. Ganking is, was and always will be player driven content and I have never argued that point, what I did argue was your statement that ganking is a conflict driver.
If you want to restate your position that ganking is player driven content then we have no argument or debate, on the other hand if you want to continue to state that ganking is a conflict driver then we will continue this debate.

CCP has a tough decision to make, a decision that will force them to A. go against a long held principal of EvE or B, fail miserably at providing conflict drivers.
And that returns us to my thoughts from the last post.
If CCP wants to drive conflict in this game then they will have to remove or make it even harder to get kills by ganking or by shooting the lazy, careless or uniformed war dec targets and players like you are a shinning example of why. If you really wanted conflict then you would be in low, nul or worm holes where there is always conflict to be found or created and like the rest that enjoy that aspect of the game I doubt you would be here complaining about the need for more conflict drivers. Instead you roam high sec and shoot those who cannot or will not shoot back and then come here complaining about the need for more conflict drivers.

Last thought here.
I find it very interesting that those who actively seek out conflict rarely if ever post here about the need for more conflict drivers. And yet those who roam high sec looking for gank or war dec targets are always posting here about the need for more conflict drivers. Is this coincidence or something more.

This would make ganking less profitable mabey dissencorage it but do nothing for the ganked, say if I lose 5 billion and ship, the same loss would exist.

If the mod made the ship have less hp and not boast cago space that would be a sufficent penalty (explosives take up space and if hit do nothing to help the strucuture)