Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Loot spew for mining.

Because that could definitely stand to be harder.

A. Clearly I knew exactly who you meant, as I explained it properly: I just didn't know for sure *that* you meant what you did, as you said something entirely different. I'm not being anal retentive so much as clarifying your obviously flawed implication that null alliances are a single large group working against high-security pilots. Now that you've changed your tune it's clear that you do in fact understand the situation, but you can't really blame me for inferring what I did.

B. I don't really see a problem with having next-to-nothing rewards for kills worth next-to-nothing. Kill more valuable ships and get larger rewards. It is not a fault of the LP rewards mechanic that meta in FW space tends towards small ships. If anything, that's the fault of the outpost mechanic.

C. At current Amarr prices it costs 30 million to raise security status from -10 to -5. Not 300. That's practically nothing, well worth the convenience. It's only a factor of ten though, maybe I'm nitpicking.

D. As I thought I had stated pretty clearly before, I don't see any reason that LP should payout on an kill CONCORD is involved in. To put it in nice simple terms: you wouldn't get any LP from attacking your buds during a gank. The mechanic would simply offer LP rewards for someone who successfully killed a player with negative security status without the assistance of CONCORD (and ideally, while not suspect/GCC/etc themselves). This is NOT the exact same as the OP's idea as I see no reason to make ganking more difficult, I just think it would be a fun mechanic in day-to-day empire interactions. Since it was not added in Retribution it's not likely to ever be, but that doesn't negate it's merit.

Making it harder to suicide gank is simple. Make Concord respond much faster.

That said, I don't see a need. I think suicide ganking is lame personally, but others enjoy it. And in the end it makes moving stuff around High Sec a little more interesting.

Smart one arent you? Theres so many ways around this its unreal, needless to mention that if you are prepared for a life of crime you should fully prepare yourself, unless ofc you expect the game mechanics and CCP to mollycoddle your criminal activity....

Now I've run suicide ganks myself, its not something i'm personally 'averse' to (eve players like that word for some reason) and i've made some nice money doing it, I do however feel that all MMO's would be better suited with a more dynamic crime and punishment system, now militia units of the opposing factions cant dock in certain systems in lowsec, but are fine in highsec (which makes no sense) so why would a persistent criminal be allowed to use a system station as a base of operations for crime?

Pathetic? I hardly find it pathetic that someone wants to post a thread on improving the criminal system of New Eden, even if I disliked the original idea I still wouldnt call it pathetic. Strange how people use these forums to flame other peoples ideas and feed their ego's.

No, I do feel a Good, in depth criminal system would indeed make any MMO a much more entertaining source of gameplay.

See, the problem is it is only your opinion it is an improvement. Simply posting cr*p here does not mean that said cr*p is an improvement.

And you are missing, entirely, the point of the previous posters comment:

Part of making high sec safer falls on individual players. Fit 3 billion in modules to your mission boat because you can just barely get into a marauder, but don't have the support skills completed to use it effectively without the 3 billion in modules is going to put you at risk. You are basically flying a loot pinata. "Come, take a whack, see what falls out!" shoudl be the ship's name (if they could be that long).

Hence my earlier comment you had a snide reply too. If you train the support skills (including gunnery support skills like AWU 5) you can fit that marauder in such a way as to render it ungankable from a profit motive viewpoint (i.e. somebody could always gank you for ***** and giggles, not much you can do about that).

Not only that, but better skills will also likely have a salutary effects on one's tank too...also making whatever ship in question harder to kill (even a freighter). For example, in the last thread the previous poster mentioned we looked, in detail, at the effects of overheating and how training to do that could really save your posterior.

Also, another thing that came up in that thread: fit a ****ing DCU to your ship. That can increase your tank tremendously and make you harder to gank. The response: oh no, my mission efficiency will go down, I'll lose some DPS. Boo-hoo.

I suggested that for some ships a ranged fit with a MJD might be a viable option to foil a suicide gank squad. When they land in the mission they'll be about several dozen KM from you and if you hit the MJD you'll add another 100km when its cycle finishes. Uses that distance and time to warp to safety. And you can use it to get range on the mission rats so you wont need as much tank and can kill them from a distance. Basically think outside the box in terms of fittings.

So there are ways to make high security space safer without having CCP come in here and pat people's poo-poo who are either too lazy or too stupid to do these things.

I fail to understand why TC thinks highsec needs to be made even more safe when CCP themselves have stated that ganking is at an all time low

It is stupidity, laziness and greed that cause you to get ganked in hisec, and as I like to say...

CCP cannot patch stupid

CCP have stated that highsec's inherent lack of safety (specifically suicide ganking) is part of what keeps it balanced.

Increase the safety and you'll have to lose some ISK. Do you really want that?

Its in the old ice belt change thread. Tippia might have a link.

I don't often dabble in these here forums but the claim piqued my interest for reasons I shall not divulge. I haven't found anything from CCP thus far so if anyone does have a link, I'd be most grateful.