EVE General Discussion

subsidies to buyers (i.e. insurance) always both increase price and demand

Hehehehehehe. Oh wait, he's serious.

The fact that your asking, speaks volumes for your position on this topic. But as you've already been enlightened in this regard, so I'll move on.

All I asked for, was the list of skills you consider needed for these new ships and the time it would take to train them.
I take it from that reply, that you think only BC level 3 would be required. OK moving on.

You specifically stated that the use of the alt recycling exploit would get worse, with the introduction of these tier 3 BC. I thought you had information and facts to back up this claim. Sure there may be some people doing this now, I've never said otherwise. I just wanted you to provide me with facts, to back up your assertion that it's a problem and going to get worse.

"If no one was doing it, why would it be deemed as an exploit?" Sorry but I'm not sure why you even asked me this. Plus exploits by nature, are deemed so after people abuse a mechanic. Still, I find your question odd.

If you couldn't suspect anyone and wouldn't know, then how do you arrive at your conclusion that it's a problem and going to get worse with the Tier 3 BC?

how long you can mine when your speed is like 100m/sec and your laser has range like 20km? something like 3-4 minutes? And then?
Let's say you are smart guy and positioned you hulk on -20km point so you have 40km of distance for mining. Smart decision!
And now we speak about 6-7 minutes of mining before you get our from mining range? Nice operation. What's next?


EDIT: oh. i think i got your idea! After you get outside of mining range you will realign to other object and move to other direction?
1. What if you have objects only from 1 side of a belt?
2. Do you always have your guns and modules in "tick mode" so you restart them every cycle?

In the entire history of EVE there has never been a t1 subcap ship that requires more than the basic piloting skill in order to pilot it. Apart from that CCP has not given any indication to suggest otherwise. Of course, guns would need to be trained. I thought that much was obvious enough to not require any further clarification.



All right, allow me to ammend my statement. How about "could make it worse"? By logical deduction it is very likely to get worse. Because it's faster to train for, and because it can do "similar damage to a battlehip" (CCP devblog) it is the perfect tool for excactly that.

In other words, it is happning you just said so yourself.



See above.


Now, putting this exploit aside, the training time for this ship is likely to be less than a typical battleship. This gives gankers an advantage. Gankers already have an advantage. If you disargee, then I'll point out that every method used to avoid suicide ganks requires time, and SP. Tanks require time to train for as well as SP which could have been used for training trade skills, mining skills or even training up for a freighter instead.

The gankers only need to train up for the desired ship and guns to suit, and he's ready to go. No need for a scout, no need for any tanking skills. Concord will evaporate your ship regardless, and nobody is interested in blowing up a cheaply fit ship.

By looking at the SP needed for each playstyle, I'd say there is a clear difference, which would suggest, to me anyways, that the game currently favors the ganker.



I saved the best for last:



I'm sorry, but no has told me how a player is supposed to know that there are suicide gankers waiting on the other side of a gate, or that there are suicide gankers on their way to the belt they're mining in. Not counting intel channels for Hulkageddon, because that is in my opinion not regular circumstances. Anybody stupid enough to sit in a belt during Hulkageddon deserves no less.

For the gate you could use a scout, sure. But in the belt, I don't really see how you're suposed to forsee that the person warping in is intending to suicide your ship.

You say I'm cemented in my opnion on this topic. I've not heard one good arguement as to why suicide ganking should have the status quo, or even less so, be given a boost.

As for a good argeument as to why it should get a nerf, player retension. Removing insurance from Concord related kills would put a deterrent on "random" ganks. I've already stated that new players are a vital part of the virtual economy. New player are more likely to be the victim of random ganks.

When I say random ganks, I mean when you gank the first and best ship that happens to fly by just for the laughs and tears. I know a good many new players have left as result of such actions. You may say that EVE was not for them. Then I'll say, maybe EVE needs to change to accomodate them.

New players are not only vital to the economy, but they are also vital in order for both EVE and CCP's survival.

How about this:


Those on the side of the law, business as usual.

Pirates insured though their own brokers at a higher rate as they're just a likely to rip each other off.

Suicide jockeys no insurance because no insurance broker in their right mind would insure something that was about to be destroyed and make a lose on the deal.












p.s. What's this crap with the 'We've been ganked' message?

Hey! Where the hell did my post go?
Your hulk will need to travel at 67m/s to be aligned unless you've bolted extra cargo space onto it. Without boosting, you have a 30km window to cover, which takes 7½ minutes — more than enough to fill up your cargo hold. At that point, you turn around (or, perhaps even better, warp off to your aligned spot and dump the cargo in the holding thingamajig youv'e parked there) and then turn around and align to a new spot you've set up.

If you have more cargo hold than you might not be full after 7½ minutes, but on the other hand, you will also be slower and can therefore stay aligned just about until you're full anyway, so the tactic remains the same.

You had no wars or scouts passing through your space in 0.0 daily. Don't know what time frame you are refering to, but your 0.0 sounds no fun at all. Just glad it was not like that when I was there.

Well they will require large guns to fullfill it's role, but as you don't want to list the skills, we'll move on.

No, I said there may be some people doing this now, but I really don't know and it seems neither do you.

So what could be a problem, might become what could be, a bit worse of a problem. Glad we got that sorted.

So to clarify your points, the ganker will only need to train skills like an exploiter, doesn't need a scout and doesn't have to waste time.
Whereas the gankee has to waste time on tanking skills and on avoiding ganks. (needs a scout? you didn't say)

Also you need to put the exploit aside, it really has no bearing on insurance and needs to be addressed separately. If it is indeed a problem, let's hope CCP are looking into it.

Let's hope so.

None of which negates the fact that a gankee can mitigate the risk. You even listed some of them in your reply.
But the fact that you think training tanking skills is wasted time, again speaks volumes about your stance on this topic.

Also when people suggest change, the onus is upon them to give valid reasons why it is needed.

you are funny. Have you ever heard about Goons (with their bounty on killed industrials) and hulkageddon (with billions on prises for the most succesfull killers)? You speaks like you never heard about "carebear tears".
Well. I can imagine that somewhere in dark corners of Eve university we can find real pirate who attacks his victims to get ISKies.... But i'm pretty sure (and what i see only proves it) that 99% of miners didn't killed because of deadspace/faction stuff but for lulz. So your ideas about defence wont simply work.


you are wrong here i'm not an industrialist but i prefer smart game play and not stupid "i win" button. That's why i'm against suicide gankers here. They simply play "IDKFA mode" (if you know what it means). That's why i support nerf of supers. But this is offtopic here.