Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Greetings All,
As a victim of 'Hi Sec' pirates, and a low sec PvPer, I find myself looking to move to hi sec. However, I thought about the intent of the hi/low sec system and the thought process the CCP must have put behind it. Therefore I submit the following suggestion to you CCP:

- All pods/ships destroyed not as a result of War should not yield loot.
- Pirates who destroy a ship (Suicide Gank) should have the losses subtracted from their wallet as well.
- In the case of War Dec s and Militia Hi Sec PvP, they should be treated the same as low sec.

I know the Hi Sec pirates will whine ... call names... blah blah... but using the system designed to protect pilots against them is a perversion of the intent the developers put into the game. Lets have a system the carebears can rely on to adequately punish the griefers and force the PvPers to actually shoot something that shoots back. Let this game's PvP be a measure of skill, piloting prowess, or tactical intellect. Lets not make it "who can bend the rules in their direction" , "who's afraid to go to low sec and challenge themselves" , or "who can troll the most carebears".

I'm a carebear myself and I think this is a bad idea. High sec is fine, maybe a little too safe even.

Bumping freighters for prolonged times (>30 mins) without them being able to do much against it, even if they field an escort, may need some looking at. But that's about it.

if you're losing anything to T1 exploration frigates, you're doing something very (hilariously) wrong.

But an exploration frigate doesn't have the damage output to pop even a completely untanked hauler in highsec...


And if they're using concord to kill you, does that not imply you shot first?

Sure... if you consider exploitation of mechanics that shouldnt be in the game in the first place (im looking at you, Smartbomb safety requirement) HOWEVER, if you are in Hi Sec where its supposed to be relatively safe, what would be the point in tanking a hauler when good old CONCORD and the risk vs reward system should have your back? FURTHERMORE, this doesn't even get into the ganks on frieghters who have no way to defend themselves.. I mean, yes you would have to have a larger ship to kill it but the point remains the same. In addition, the POINT ( which by concentrating on the frigate in the example you hope to draw attention from) is to balance the risk vs reward system, not claim there is one and half-ass the enforcement of it.

Okay, balance risk VS reward.


Remove incursions and level 3-4 missions from highsec, increase nullsec rewards. That suut you?




I can't be bothered to have the suicide gank argument here when it's already ongoing in two or three other active threads RIGHT NOW. Let's cut it short and have you explain exactly why one person should be immune to the actions of ten or more simply because the one spent more on their ship and doesn't want to make an effort.

My guess is effort and a massive misunderstanding of Eve.

"Back" to Highsec?

Have you played EVE before?

Setting safety red: You choice. Activating Smartbomb: Your choice. Running Missions in an expensive ship: Your choice. Transporting 3 bil in a T1 Hauler: Your choice. Why should CCP protect you from your own choices? Debating here for more safety instead of thinking what you did wrong, shows an utter lack of common sense.

*gets popcorn* I just love watching pirates reply to a dead thread to stroke their own epeen! Besides, whats the fun in forum posting if you cant tell someone they're wrong? I mean that makes you a PvP God right? *grabs glass full of pirate tears* Go pirates! Show that apparent nub that EvE is a pirate's playground and her carebear type doesnt belong!