EVE General Discussion

...he blatantly lied, right before diving into all of the ways the game should be completely changed to 'fix" this.

Be less full of ****.

Uh, yes it is. You may not be aware of this, but words mean things. They're called "definitions". Deterrent, in this case, means something that discourages or provides cause for restraint.

It does not mean, "Something that universally prevents something 100% of the time." For instance, since I generally like to pass through all sectors of space in a wide variety of ships, security status effectively deters me from going blinky red. Now, I could work around the consequence (or just buy my way out of the hole), but I find it easy enough to satisfy my pewpew urges without needing to. Thus, in my case, the deterrent works.

In the case of these fine gentlemen doing their part to stimulate the freighter production sector of the economy, they're simply willing to push past the deterrent, rendering it ineffective in their case. This is, frankly, fine.

As you point out small timers can take advantage of compression now, but even assuming we don't go with an expanded freighter were still tanking 400m^3 volume and 40 trips to move a load that would have filled the freighter. Even a small timer can take advantage of that. On the occasions I do mine I can see 10k m^3 being restrictive unless the new compression offers something like a 3:1 ratio, which from what I understand it doesn't, correctme if I'm wrong, else even an expanded T1 hauler starts to look more attractive for everyday mineral loads.

That also assumes I put up a POS.

Edit: Derp, I'm thinking Blockade Runner anyways and forgot the fleet hangar.

It's that the gankers can dock in station and have a virtual endless supply of ships.

There is zero fear for the gankers. They want to lose the ship.

Its a bizarre system and pretty one sided. It's been like that for years though.

While I lol'd, there is a significant difference between the squishy factor (real science term... actually, no it's not :p) of a freighter compared to the human body. On the other hand, with enough free rookie ships fitted with 1MN MWDs pelting the thing, I'm sure the results would be tremendous.

You segmented my comment specifically to the haulers group which is not what I am talking about. Haulers have many abilities and so do the gankers. So that is not the problem here that I was talking about.

If you look in the thread of my specific comments I am not asking for any nerfs. I am saying that people should have more abilities around the cause and effects of your decisions. People that do criminal actions regularly should be see as that no matter where they are... not have the ability to see in safety until they decide to blow themselves up. Just like people that decide to fly billions around without protection shouldn't get home safe.

The problem is that the mechanics around hostile actions need to be revamped more. Like I said a person we all knew was a FBI most wanted would never survive sitting in a star bucks. He would be taken out long before he could kill someone. He already decided how he wanted to act in society and that decision has a price. In comparison... Just like the rich person that pulls a million dollars out of the bank and has it sitting in a bag open for the world to see in a convertible goes into star bucks to get a latte. He comes back and his bag and the million is gone. Cause and effect.

We need to adjust the model more than the specifics...

Here are my thoughts on the subject copied from another thread.

Note for ISD:
It originally belonged to a thread about CCP layoffs and was part of the ongoing discussion there about player retention. Since the post itself without accompanying discussion belongs to this thread, I will copy the post here so that the discussion can move on this subject specifically and to avoid linking the original post in the original thread because the original thread would be derailed if the discussion on this subject alone continued there.

---

EVE has a history as an open PvP universe throughout 11 years of its existence and makes headlines because of the huge battles. Trillions of ISK make the headlines in player run scams and battle losses. If someone who never played EVE before came into the game with that reputation, what's the first thing they are going to do? Well, it's pretty obvious - try to accumulate enough wealth and skills in order to even think about competing in the game. And with a game that has characters from 2003 and 2004. active, even those who are interested to stay are basically thinking that a year in the game is absolute minimum for becoming competitive. I'm not saying that,... in fact I have been guiding newbies to see exactly the opposite of that, but the fact is that this mentality of new players is predominant and the best part is - it's natural given the global industry standards.

So we really need to look at "leveling up the Raven" not as a comfort zone, but completely the opposite - it's a heavy discomfort zone. It's the zone where a new player is absolutely convinced that he needs more time, skills and ISK in order to compete with other players. Stomping on those players while they are in that state certainly doesn't help. And forcing them to move away from that state by game mechanics or other player actions can and does only yield leaving the game altogether.

Hell, after 8 years and all that I have experienced in the game, I still have less than 10 bil in the wallet and sometimes feel that I'd need more financial security in order to PvP actively (although my experience always kicks in and tells me that I don't). Imagine having that thought as a new player without 130 mil SPs on their character and without prior experience of PvP as the primary focus of the game. And then force the interaction on them with a clear message "you are already competing even though you don't like it and don't think you are ready".

Add to that a dozen of cheap Catalysts ganking his ISK making machine (or his stuff in industrial ships) that was beasically a tool that kept him in the game and you just sent exactly what message to that player? That "no matter how much effort he puts in, there will be always older and more experienced players that will stomp on you whenever they feel like it for no apparent reason". Please note that these are not my words or words of bad forum posters.

Don't get me wrong, suicide ganking is an element of this game like any other and the game is richer because it exists. On the other hand it is damaging for the community if it gets out of control and it's pretty clear that it will be getting out of control very soon if the trends continue. And this time I'm not doing CCP's job of detecting the scope of the problem like I did a couple of years ago for bots. Players underestimated the scope of the problem back then and would usually send an obligatory HTFU if you even tried to touch a subject of bots, especially of those in nullsec. It's the same now with suicide ganking, but I now simply don't have time or will to gather all the information about the scope of suicide ganking in order to present it to CCP. That's a job for a game designer... or even better CSM.

And the simple solution is already there - tax the ganks dynamically depending on frequency of ganks in certain areas like they are going to do with industry. Connect he tax with the percentage of the value of the target even if it means that your wallet will go into negative. That would still make juicy targets attractive, it would still keep suicide ganking as a viable profession but it would also involve at least some form of planning and dedication if you want to focus your core gameplay around it and would finally introduce risk of failure if you don't do it right and without planning. But it would still generously reward those that plan and know what they are doing. And targeted assassinations would still cause more damage to target than to the attackers, so you even won the ISK game there.

Finally, suicide gank alts do not bring money to this game as they can be trained in about 2 weeks (Tornado with large guns... for catalysts it's much shorter) on the existing accounts and don't require further maintenance whatsoever. I actually have one ready on this account, but haven't had time to use it due to RL. On the other hand, ganked players do quit after just 2 or 3 loses and they do take their money with them. CCP should keep that in mind along with everything else I've said in this post if they really want to keep subscribers in the game long enough for those players to progress into player interaction naturally or with positive focused help of other players.

Me? I don't care about suicide ganking as an element of my game. When I have enough time to play actively, I will re-join one great group of players in W-Space that I had a privilege to meet. Or get back to nullsec if the doors to W-Space get closed to me. I'll continue to move my valuable stuff with collateralized freight services and farm ISK in W-Space, nullsec or Factional warfare. As an old player with a long and diverse experience I have these options - those 80% mentioned simply don't.

In real life we would be pirates and the FBI would have nothing to do with us, we would have the Royal Navy hunting us down. You have all the tools you need to combat gankers, use them.

If you have 2 escorts and they have 2 bumpers, you can warp, unless your escorts are useless.

This whole line of debate is just another variation of "I deserve to win 1v12 whilst afk".

Why do you think you should be able to beat 20-30 pilots when solo. Is it really to much to ask for you to have 2 guys escorting you?