These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Specific Examples of Where Risk Should Be Inserted Successfully Into High-sec

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Alaekessa
Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc.
#381 - 2012-10-10 23:33:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Alaekessa
Darth Gustav wrote:


  • Allow smartbombs to be activated in the vicinity of anchored containers, both secure and unsecure. These containers' purpose was to hold additional ores and ices, allowing miners to increase their efficiency by remaining in the belts for a considerably longer time, given the size of cargo holds on the old barges and exhumers. Their volume is no longer conducive to anything approaching efficiency, and their ancillary presence is clearly laid out in the form of a giant smartbomb shield around high-security ice fields. That is broken.

I don't really see a problem with this, it could also be solved by one of your below points; specifically, making ice depletable.

Darth Gustav wrote:

  • Increase the yield of the Hulk by adding additional grid and cpu and an extra hardpoint to make it a more attractive option for "ninja miners." This may encourage miners to try ninja mining in a way that makes sense, thus presenting themselves as potential targets, something needed drastically to combat botting and deflation.

    • I think a better solution is to give us ORE Strategic Cruisers. I think it only makes sense that with the release of ORE Frigates and ORE Cruisers, we would also get ORE Strategic Cruisers. I am not suggesting that they would be combat-worthy ships. In fact, I feel that they should share some Subsystems with existing T3 Cruisers, though the combat focused Subsystems should be replaced with more Industrial applications. Perhaps there could be a subsystem that gave increased ability to fit Strip Miners, another could give the DSTs bonus to Warp Stability, these are just two ideas.

    Darth Gustav wrote:

  • Introduce the chance for much more difficult NPC spawns to appear anywhere materials can be harvested, and with greater frequency. The current "threats" to mining successfully are grossly inadequate to the task, given the EHP of the new exhumers and barges.

    • Are you suggesting something akin to Officer spawns only in high-sec with a greatly reduced loot drop? Cause that is what I imagined when I read that. It could also be something similar to Incursions only limited to a single system, no interference with services and no sites to run (just dozens of higher quality rats in every belt in the system); no LP either, just the bounties associated with the higher quality rats. It ends when all of the rats are dead, they don't respawn endlessly so no Vanguard farming.

    Darth Gustav wrote:

  • Make ice depletable in the same way that ores are. This will force adaptation where none has ever occurred, potentially even driving conflicts and increasing demand.

    • Yes, this would be a good thing, though if this is done, CCP should also include Ice in gravs (IDK, it may already be there, if it is, I haven't found any of them)

    Darth Gustav wrote:

  • Develop a system that legitimizes miner vs. miner conflicts over resources, such as the Ally system.


    • Right now the only competition between miners seems to be in jockeying for the best position to be immune from smartbombs and the waiting game of trying to decide when, precisely to unload your ore. In order for high-sec activities to have value, there needs to be high demand for them with moderate supply. Runaway supply will always break the basic equation of economic theory.

    I would ask that discussion in this thread be kept to informed and intelligent posts of fact or question, rather than character attacks and mudslinging based on personal playstyle.

    As always, thank you for your thoughtful participation.


    Your final recommendation makes me think of Unions, or some form of organization like them. I would imagine it would be something akin to Faction Warfare (an umbrella alliance that can be joined by corps or alliances).

    Thank you in advance for reading my post and not trolling it
    Touval Lysander
    Zero Wine
    #382 - 2012-10-10 23:42:36 UTC
    Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
    lol the 'pvp is for bullies' argument
    it's like a time machine back to EVE-GD 2003

    Nope. PvP is not the domain of bullies. Never been argued from my POV.

    The BS justification of ganking miners is what's being called out.

    Gankers gank miners because it's EASY, not because it's NECCESSARY. If it was NECCESSARY to "save Eve" it can be done with a few lines of code. CCP saw a problem. They addressed it - with - a few lines of code.

    Only gankers think they are such an important part of Eve that Eve will die without them.

    Stop justifying ganking miners. It's NOT neccessary.

    Gank for fun. It can be done.
    Gank for profit. It can be done.

    Or not. Whatever.

    "I've always been mad, I know I've been mad, like the most of us...very hard to explain why you're mad, even if you're not mad..."
    Touval Lysander
    Zero Wine
    #383 - 2012-10-10 23:46:17 UTC
    Surfin's PlunderBunny wrote:
    Bodega Cat wrote:
    Consider this thought experiment.


    A miner, mines all day, takes his minerals to market, sells them for a profit.

    The person who bought those minerals, refined them, and manufactured ammo with the minerals.

    The ammo, gets bought by a hauler, and taken to a hub, and sold for profit.

    The ganker, bought the ammo, loaded them into his guns, and by pure chance suicide ganks the original Miner in question.

    If the miner, knew his own goods had a hand in his demise, what responsibility should he take in this particular scenario considering his role?


    It's clearly the miner's fault

    Nice argument.

    But if the ganker loses his ship (when WILL they learn) then the miner HAS to mine minerals so he can buy another one.

    "I've always been mad, I know I've been mad, like the most of us...very hard to explain why you're mad, even if you're not mad..."
    Vertisce Soritenshi
    The Scope
    Gallente Federation
    #384 - 2012-10-11 00:07:30 UTC
    In all seriousness...what if a mining barge COULD fight back? I don't mean crappy drones that do **** for DPS...but perhaps actual gun emplacements that could be added at the sacrifice of efficiency. A Hulk could have an extra 5 high slots for guns/missiles and for every slot used there would be an increase of 2% in cycle time of the mining lasers for a maximum of 10%. After which balance the tank ability a bit so they aren't so massively tanked anymore...

    Yeah...you know what? Nothing like that would work at all...system is fine the way it is now where a ship with no offense ability has great defense to protect it for obvious reasons.

    Bounties for all! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2279821#post2279821
    Alavaria Fera
    GoonWaffe
    #385 - 2012-10-11 00:08:32 UTC
    Vertisce Soritenshi wrote:
    In all seriousness...what if a mining barge COULD fight back? I don't mean crappy drones that do **** for DPS...but perhaps actual gun emplacements that could be added at the sacrifice of efficiency. A Hulk could have an extra 5 high slots for guns/missiles and for every slot used there would be an increase of 2% in cycle time of the mining lasers for a maximum of 10%. After which balance the tank ability a bit so they aren't so massively tanked anymore...

    Yeah...you know what? Nothing like that would work at all...system is fine the way it is now where a ship with no offense ability has great defense to protect it for obvious reasons.

    Ha ha ha ....that wouldn't work, if by "balance the tank abiliy" you mean reduce.

    What you really would observe is free guns on the exhumer and more tank.

    Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
    Touval Lysander
    Zero Wine
    #386 - 2012-10-11 00:25:59 UTC
    Darth Gustav wrote:

    So thank you for finally giving me a good reason to block you. Your insipid, weak arguments and homiletics will not be missed, nor will the strawmen you so favor to argue against.

    Dear Darth

    We only have emus in Australia. Wasn't aware of ostriches in yours.

    Regards
    Strawman.

    Oh wait. I'm blocked.... So "my insipid, weak arguments and homiletics will be missed".

    PS: GankerMan is now not only poor and singled out. He's also angry, and yet it would be sooooo easy to make the change to correct it.

    Hang on.

    WHERE have I heard THAT before?????





    "I've always been mad, I know I've been mad, like the most of us...very hard to explain why you're mad, even if you're not mad..."
    Nicolo da'Vicenza
    Viziam
    Amarr Empire
    #387 - 2012-10-11 01:28:29 UTC
    Touval Lysander wrote:
    Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
    lol the 'pvp is for bullies' argument
    it's like a time machine back to EVE-GD 2003

    Nope. PvP is not the domain of bullies. Never been argued from my POV.

    The BS justification of ganking miners is what's being called out.

    Gankers gank miners because it's EASY, not because it's NECCESSARY. If it was NECCESSARY to "save Eve" it can be done with a few lines of code. CCP saw a problem. They addressed it - with - a few lines of code.

    Only gankers think they are such an important part of Eve that Eve will die without them.
    Gankers and ship losses are necessary because EVE is a game which is centered around competition over resource acquisition and exploitation in a player-run economy. Said resources only have value however with their regular consumption (aka: loss). Otherwise everyone everywhere would have time consuming but effortless stacks of loot and have no more motivation to play the game. Loss is necessary, and since all other forms of PVP have been nerfed and left with deliberately unpatched wardec evasion exploits, ganking has become the major source of PVP-driven loss in highsec. Ideally, while highsec should always have some degree of protection greater then that enjoyed by low or null, there should be avenues of conflict more appealing then the one that guarantees the loss of ones' ship. Yet CCP seems to think piling on disincentives to inflict losses in highsec will make that ideal happen, a belief no less misguided or self-defeating then their decision to invest the majority of their R&D into creating spacepants.

    To put it short, if ganking is the only really viable way of inflicting true losses to the majority of the EVE population, then the gankers are absolutely correct that ganking AFK miners and other deliberately untanked vessels is very necessary.

    Quote:
    Stop justifying ganking miners. It's NOT neccessary.

    You're right, the justifying of ganking miners isn't necessary - inflicting losses is a fundamental aspect of EVE and needs no justification.
    Herr Hammer Draken
    #388 - 2012-10-11 01:44:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Herr Hammer Draken
    Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
    Touval Lysander wrote:
    Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
    lol the 'pvp is for bullies' argument
    it's like a time machine back to EVE-GD 2003

    Nope. PvP is not the domain of bullies. Never been argued from my POV.

    The BS justification of ganking miners is what's being called out.

    Gankers gank miners because it's EASY, not because it's NECCESSARY. If it was NECCESSARY to "save Eve" it can be done with a few lines of code. CCP saw a problem. They addressed it - with - a few lines of code.

    Only gankers think they are such an important part of Eve that Eve will die without them.
    Gankers and ship losses are necessary because EVE is a game which is centered around competition over resource acquisition and exploitation in a player-run economy. Said resources only have value however with their regular consumption (aka: loss). Otherwise everyone everywhere would have time consuming but effortless stacks of loot and have no more motivation to play the game. Loss is necessary, and since all other forms of PVP have been nerfed and left with deliberately unpatched wardec evasion exploits, ganking has become the major source of PVP-driven loss in highsec. Ideally, while highsec should always have some degree of protection greater then that enjoyed by low or null, there should be avenues of conflict more appealing then the one that guarantees the loss of ones' ship. Yet CCP seems to think piling on disincentives to inflict losses in highsec will make that ideal happen, a belief no less misguided or self-defeating then their decision to invest the majority of their R&D into creating spacepants.

    To put it short, if ganking is the only really viable way of inflicting true losses to the majority of the EVE population, then the gankers are absolutely correct that ganking AFK miners and other deliberately untanked vessels is very necessary.

    Quote:
    Stop justifying ganking miners. It's NOT neccessary.

    You're right, the justifying of ganking miners isn't necessary - inflicting losses is a fundamental aspect of EVE and needs no justification.


    And it needs to be said no ship in high sec is ungankable. Some have become unprofitable to gank. It does not mean that emergent game play can not find a way to make that ganking profitable again. Red Frog Freight came about because of emergent game play. Gankers can and should form some type of organization with a fee for service. Nothing is stopping that from happening. In fact the circumstances right now rather encourages it. With all the competition for those mining resources.
    Yet at the same time in my opninion we still have a shortage of high sec ores on the market. We also have too many ice miners. Those that mine ice for a living would be inclined I think to hiring ganks on those ice bots.

    Herr Hammer Draken "The Amarr Prophet"
    Pipa Porto
    #389 - 2012-10-11 05:09:58 UTC
    Touval Lysander wrote:
    Gank for profit. It can be done.


    Except that no, it can't. Not against untanked AFK miners in Mackinaws.

    You're arguing that someone who is taking literally no precautions to ensure their own safety should be safe in HS.

    Pre-Buff,
    Miners who took precautions were either unprofitable to gank (and thus not ganked) or virtually impossible to gank (and thus not ganked). They enjoyed high mineral prices.
    Miners who did not take precautions (afk mining in an untanked Cargo Hulk, for instance) sometimes died. They enjoyed high mineral prices tempered by the loss of their ship.

    Post-Buff:
    Miners who take precautions don't get ganked.
    Minder who don't take precautions don't get ganked.
    Everyone suffers from low mineral prices.

    See where the problem is? Smart, Industrious players gain no advantage from their intelligence and industry over the dumb and lazy.

    Crimewatch 2.0 spreads this to the rest of HS.

    EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

    -RubyPorto
    Pipa Porto
    #390 - 2012-10-11 05:17:31 UTC
    Herr Hammer Draken wrote:
    And it needs to be said no ship in high sec is ungankable. Some have become unprofitable to gank. It does not mean that emergent game play can not find a way to make that ganking profitable again. Red Frog Freight came about because of emergent game play. Gankers can and should form some type of organization with a fee for service. Nothing is stopping that from happening. In fact the circumstances right now rather encourages it. With all the competition for those mining resources.
    Yet at the same time in my opninion we still have a shortage of high sec ores on the market. We also have too many ice miners. Those that mine ice for a living would be inclined I think to hiring ganks on those ice bots.


    Gankers organized dessie fleets, the Ice interdictions, and HAG as an adaptation to their profession being nerfed in Crucible (insurance nerf more than outweighed Dessies and t3 BCs). And have been nerfed for it.
    With the Tornado, Gankers re-introduced a years old emergent mechanic that allowed them to reduce their newly exploded costs. And they were nerfed for it.
    Before that, Gankers discovered the joys of cheaply fit, insured ships in response to CONCORD becoming untankable. And were nerfed for it.
    Between those times, Gankers adapted to numerous nerfs in the form of reductions to CONCORD. After each adaptation, BAM, another nerf.

    Recently, Gankers figured out how to bring the cost of Ganking a freighter down to about what it was pre-Crucible. Guess what the victims are clamoring for on the forums. They want CCP to nerf that to.

    In most of these instances, prolific gankers were active on the forums explaining exactly how to counter their tactics.

    When's it the victim's turn to adapt instead of running under CCP's skirts for a new nerf?

    EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

    -RubyPorto
    Seleia O'Sinnor
    Drop of Honey
    #391 - 2012-10-11 06:49:52 UTC
    Just lock the hisec gates permanently for all those with a long criminal record. Let them all rot in low/nullsec.

    Odyssey: Repacking in POS hangars for modules +1,  but please for other stuff too, especially containers. Make containers openable in POS hangars.
    Touval Lysander
    Zero Wine
    #392 - 2012-10-11 07:08:36 UTC
    Pipa Porto wrote:
    Touval Lysander wrote:
    Gank for profit. It can be done.


    Except that no, it can't. Not against untanked AFK miners in Mackinaws.

    You're arguing that someone who is taking literally no precautions to ensure their own safety should be safe in HS.

    Pre-Buff,
    Miners who took precautions were either unprofitable to gank (and thus not ganked) or virtually impossible to gank (and thus not ganked). They enjoyed high mineral prices.
    Miners who did not take precautions (afk mining in an untanked Cargo Hulk, for instance) sometimes died. They enjoyed high mineral prices tempered by the loss of their ship.

    Post-Buff:
    Miners who take precautions don't get ganked.
    Minder who don't take precautions don't get ganked.
    Everyone suffers from low mineral prices.

    See where the problem is? Smart, Industrious players gain no advantage from their intelligence and industry over the dumb and lazy.

    Crimewatch 2.0 spreads this to the rest of HS.

    Untanked Mackinaws CAN be profitably ganked. It can't be done the easy way anymore. I've put up several suggestions in other threads. Read up.

    There is not such thing as assured safety in Eve. Miners - regardless of tank - can be ganked. The whining is whether it can be done profitably and I've stated yes, it can be.

    And BS on PRE-buff mineral prices. Mineral prices were pathetic. Again, repeatedly stated, graph up over a 12 month period. Take a squiz at the diagonal - going UP.

    POST- buff called for BS again. Mineral prices are currently awesome. Albeit probably due to drone nerf. Time will tell IF it's a problem in the future. And also, repeatedly stated, either CCP has to do a backflip on exhumer buff or they can - God forbid - make minerals a much more finite resource. Problem solved with neither buff nor nerf needed.

    Until and ONLY until mineral prices plummet to pre-12 months ago, the sky is falling drama queens in this thread are just pissing in the wind.

    But really, if gankers REALLY want to go ganking - profitably - go mining. And BUILD your fn gankmobiles for free. Insurance alone will make it "profitable".

    ofc, then gankers might wish to add their "time mining" to the equation as a "cost". By all means do. Then I'll tell you how to utilise your TIME online a damn sight smarter than ganking.

    MinerMan MUST abide by a set of rules dreamed up by GankerMan but GankerMan can just go whiney whiney and he MUST be right because, well he's just RIGHT!!

    It's all BS.

    "I've always been mad, I know I've been mad, like the most of us...very hard to explain why you're mad, even if you're not mad..."
    Touval Lysander
    Zero Wine
    #393 - 2012-10-11 07:12:30 UTC
    Pipa Porto wrote:

    When's it the victim's turn to adapt instead of running under CCP's skirts for a new nerf?

    Judging by the butthurt displayed lately, the victim is the ganker so yeah, good point.

    QFT
    When's it the victim's turn to adapt (learn how to gank properly pussies) instead of running under CCP's skirts for a new nerf (take that tank away CCP, MinerMan is making money and I don't like it waaaa waaaaa)

    "I've always been mad, I know I've been mad, like the most of us...very hard to explain why you're mad, even if you're not mad..."
    Seniae 0n3
    #394 - 2012-10-11 07:19:10 UTC
    Everytime I read these Hisec vs Nullsec stories and ideas I get this image in my mind where they let a group of prisoners loose in the center of a big civilized city. Prisoners running around like barbarians with clubs and maces, whacking their way through the streets to loot and kill whatever they come across, screaming MINE MINE MINE!!!!
    Jorma Morkkis
    State War Academy
    Caldari State
    #395 - 2012-10-11 07:39:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Jorma Morkkis
    Pipa Porto wrote:
    Gankers organized dessie fleets, the Ice interdictions, and HAG as an adaptation to their profession being nerfed in Crucible (insurance nerf more than outweighed Dessies and t3 BCs). And have been nerfed for it.
    With the Tornado, Gankers re-introduced a years old emergent mechanic that allowed them to reduce their newly exploded costs. And they were nerfed for it.
    Before that, Gankers discovered the joys of cheaply fit, insured ships in response to CONCORD becoming untankable. And were nerfed for it.
    Between those times, Gankers adapted to numerous nerfs in the form of reductions to CONCORD. After each adaptation, BAM, another nerf.


    Adapt.

    138 gun deeps
    36 drone deeps

    [Velator, Velator fit]

    Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
    Magnetic Field Stabilizer II

    J5 Prototype Warp Disruptor I
    [Empty Med slot]

    Light Neutron Blaster II, Void S
    Light Neutron Blaster II, Void S


    Hobgoblin I x2

    Or this one with 86,2 gun deeps:

    [Velator, Velator fit]

    Magnetic Field Stabilizer I
    Magnetic Field Stabilizer I

    Civilian Warp Disruptor
    [Empty Med slot]

    Limited Light Ion Blaster I, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge S
    Limited Light Ion Blaster I, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge S


    Hobgoblin I x2

    Only "problem" is that you need friends. But that shouldn't be a big issue unless you guys have internal trust issues.
    Lin-Young Borovskova
    Doomheim
    #396 - 2012-10-11 11:16:44 UTC
    Alavaria Fera wrote:
    Gogela wrote:
    Kitty Bear wrote:
    Gogela wrote:
    Get the NPC money out of empire. Level 3 and 4 missions all move to low and null, only veldspar available in .5+ systems, etc...

    Will solve *most* problems.

    Because there's only ONE right way to play a sandbox game .....................

    edit
    I figured I'd better explain that the above is not a validation of your statement, just incase you somehow manage to completely misinterpet it as such. It's more scathing disdain.

    The ironic thing is that you lamers that cower in empire are the ones always crying about anything that mildly perturbs in any way your closed-in repetitive game play. I'm trying to open it up. You want everything to stay exactly the same.

    You aren't as important as you think, empire tools. Nobody would even notice if you weren't there. In many ways it's already as if you aren't.

    I have about had it w/ empire people.

    It's hilarious because they get what they want, so clearly CCP thinks they're pretty important. Shocked



    High sec population is what? -60%

    Then who is dumb enough to think null sec loud mouths will get the final word or are even closely right about witch direction this game should take to get more customers?

    If something is pretty clear when you're an entrepreneur or at least responsible, is that low/null sec populations comments would make me show them some interest so they feel they're important, but my decisions would probably be more in line with the area of the game that would bring me more money in to my pockets, your pockets are your problem, ccp ones are their problem and I'm sure they know better than every one around how to take care of those.

    Most of you are completely unable to realise is how ignorant are most of those shooting on their own foot arguing about high sec mechanics and usual rabble, using fake excuses/forum lobbing/info manipulation with absolute and certain no success on the long run for themselves.

    You want more dudes in null? -make sort that happens by yourself, stop begging CCP to hold your hand, stop being ridiculous on forums but most of all stop being and acting like arrogant.

    You want more dudes in low sec? -stop finding yourself new excuses with old ones at each new thread about it, it's up to you to make it happen intelligently or keep crying and begging at ccp to hold your hand and do the job for you.

    Want more pvp in high sec?
    -join faction warfare and actually do it instead of orbiting cans at max speed just to cash lp's.
    -join mercs corporations and alliances
    -join pvp alliances
    -join RvsB

    Want to gank for profits? -pick your target intelligently, if you loose or get no profits you're just an idiot
    Want to shoot stuff with no consequences? -move to null
    Want to shoot safelly without concord messing with you? -move to low

    Stop begging you beggars.Lol

    brb
    Bodega Cat
    Expedition Spartica
    #397 - 2012-10-11 14:27:10 UTC
    Touval Lysander wrote:
    Surfin's PlunderBunny wrote:
    Bodega Cat wrote:
    Consider this thought experiment.


    A miner, mines all day, takes his minerals to market, sells them for a profit.

    The person who bought those minerals, refined them, and manufactured ammo with the minerals.

    The ammo, gets bought by a hauler, and taken to a hub, and sold for profit.

    The ganker, bought the ammo, loaded them into his guns, and by pure chance suicide ganks the original Miner in question.

    If the miner, knew his own goods had a hand in his demise, what responsibility should he take in this particular scenario considering his role?


    It's clearly the miner's fault

    Nice argument.

    But if the ganker loses his ship (when WILL they learn) then the miner HAS to mine minerals so he can buy another one.


    Well it's not really an argument, just an interesting exercise to explore. I've never seen someone try to suggest in favor of the miner in any way, as no one would admit so openly to being such a shady arms dealer...

    You should elaborate a bit more on your last point. I wouldn't think any gankers actually resent miners in a broad sense for their role in the sustainability of EVE. You often see compartmentalized justification for the way they feed their "fun" by slamming bot mining and such. I wish we would see people displaying more reverence or respect for industrialists, but we can't really expect the leopards to lay down with the gazelles at the end of the day.
    Asuri Kinnes
    Perkone
    Caldari State
    #398 - 2012-10-11 15:25:53 UTC
    Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:
    High sec population is what? -60%

    /facepalm

    Because null sec alliances don't have *any* toons in Hi sec doing trading, manufacturing, mission running or logistics. *ALL* of those players are "hi sec" players...

    I really wish CCP would do a data dump and figure out where/who each *person* lives (clue: I am a Worm Hole dweller - I have two toons in HI-Sec most of the time - I am *not* a Hi-Sec'r).

    Repeating that "60%" mantra, without acknowledging that there is currently *no* way to ascertain the true break down of Players over "characters" is disingenuous at best.

    Bob is the god of Wormholes.

    That's all you need to know.
    Kitty Bear
    Deep Core Mining Inc.
    Caldari State
    #399 - 2012-10-11 16:39:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Kitty Bear
    Shizuken wrote:
    Darth Gustav wrote:
    Shizuken wrote:
    Darth Gustav wrote:
    Shizuken wrote:
    I am all for creating a natural risk/reward system. That however would go beyond these suggestions. I would like to see local chat go bye bye. I would also agree with destructible containers. I would also though favor increased penalties from suicidal behavior and criminal acts.

    Those penalties for "suicidal behavior" have been put in, are being put in, and probably will continue to be put in far into the future. Roll

    I have to wonder why players seem to want their risk in the form of canned NPC-generated risk and not player-generated risk, though. Players are more effective at providing legitimate risk than NPCs will ever be.


    Suicide is not the only source of player created risk. I have nothing against player generated risk in general, but highsec should not be just some shooting gallery wherein a whole class of players become serfs to a ruling elite of antisocials. If you want to kill people either declare war or prey on people in null. Suicide should not be so lucrative that players exploit clones to take rampaging advantage of other players. Suicide should always be an option, but it should not be widely profitable.

    So you are all for creating a risk vs. reward system where any playstyle goes except the one miners have consistently refused to adapt against.

    Fair enough. An opinion is an opinion.


    No, my position is part of a larger plan. I dont really think highsec mining should exist in the form it currently does either. I would make several changes to it such that it would no longer resemble the communist paradise it currently is. And you forgot above that I wanted to remove the crutch of local chat. That alone would add significant risk from players without aggressors being able to readily resort to suicide.


    You do realise mining of anysort (hisec, losec, nulsec, moon) is not an ISK-Faucet
    Belt mining is infact an ISK-Sink due to refining and market order costs.

    The only time a miner actually, actively, generates any ISK into the economy, is if he kills the belts rats that spawn.
    baltec1
    Bat Country
    Pandemic Horde
    #400 - 2012-10-11 16:46:26 UTC
    Touval Lysander wrote:

    We only have emus in Australia. Wasn't aware of ostriches in yours.







    We have them in the UK. Great burgers.