Player Features and Ideas Discussion

No.

Eve does not need to be safer, Eve does not need more cooldowns.

I wasnt' asking your permission. Unless you have a proper argument against you'll simply be ignored. Next



Exactly which is why we need something like this. Its way too safe undock a very cheap high dps ship and suicide gank with it. We need less easy mode, we need more consequences for such carebearish behaviour and risk avoidance. Making the gankers go red longer makes it much more dangerous for them and more danger in highsec is awesome. Good to see we're in agreement.

The problem where you have a fleet of disposable frigate sized ships worth 200 mill sitting in highsec killing empty capital ships worth 6 billion isk, not for loot but just for lols.

Its a problem because 1) its not possible to avoid (a) 2) its not good for the game (b) 3) the consequences are too small (c) 4)

a) While many would say -use a scout -use a webber -use inertial stabs, the reality is using scouts simply means they'll reship into stealth bombers which have the same cost per gank as destroyers or they'll simply have a scout of their own on the ingate or they'll log on ski. Using a webber or inertial stabs means they'll do what they currently do and use a sacrificial scrambler.

The fact is if someone wants do destroy your 1.3 billion to 6 billion isk ship they will do so and there's literally nothing you can do to stop them apart from keeping it docked, nor is there any way to preemptively attack them since they're protected by concord and their ships are worthless.

b) While many gankers will try to use CCP's "survey" of why people left the game, the survey actually only applied to characters less than 15 days old. No 15 day old character at that point in time could ever have flown a freighter and therefore the survey is irrelevant to the issue. Ganking freighters very likely makes people think about quitting EvE. That's bad for CCP but its also bad for us, since their subs = more development, more targets and more fun.

c) The consequences for ganking are so insignificant that around 50% of the ganks's I've looked at have been empty freighters. They're killed just for fun. Since freighters are so expensive, so skill intensive and are essentially large shuttles this is a very bad trade off. Sacrificing 7 bombers for around 300 million and 5 million sp, or 30 catalysts for around 300 million and 5 million sp to kill ships that are worth 1.3 to 6 billion and 15 million sp is a major problem.

EvE is a game of risk vs reward, non-consensual pvp and danger. It should be that for everyone involved in PvP, not just one side. Being able to spend individually 10 million, to kill a ship worth 6 billion is bs.

Again because EvE is a game of risk vs reward and the risk involved in ganking is so small its an embarrassment to the spirit of the game to allow it to continue without increasing the risk to at least that of mining or missioning. Those miners and missioners undock 40 to 200 million isk ships, more if they're flying faction or T2. Gankers undock in frigate hulls worth max 10 million. High sec is supposed to be dangerous after all.

You need to establish b that there is infact a problem, you haven't done this.

Going to have to stop you right there.

if you lose a jump freighter in highsec, it is 100% your problem, and you did not bother to take even one simple precaution to save yourself. There is no arguing with this point. If you don't have an exit cyno, you don't deserve a jump freighter.

Now, please explain why cost should be a balancing factor.

Now explain the disconnect between your accepting that non-consensual PVP is a part of EVE, and this thread where you suggest yet another nerf to non-consensual PVP.

Well, as long as we're all shiptoasting, let's bring back the boomerang nado. That was some quality ship theory. It's too bad CCP didn't accept it with open arms.

Yawn