EVE General Discussion

You do realise that shipbuilders are the single most likely entity to profit from ganking in the entire game, right?

+1000

some people are so blinded by hatred (of people playing a video game in a fashion they find distasteful) that they can't see the benefits of having such people around. I bet they'd also like to Star Wars with no Darth Vader or Storm Troopers, Or Star Trek with no Klingons/Romulans/Dominion/Borg etc.

Their kind of thinking is foreign to me, because for almost 8 years the 'greifers' that they so fear and hate have been entertainment to me. In Soviet EVE, Jenn Griefs them (by denying them a single killmail)..

For the most part the nerfs to ganking in high sec make sense from a game and "lore" point of view. When the game first came out CCP put rules into place that were a deterrent to ganking people in high sec. As with all things in life people are determined and found loopholes and ways around these deterrents.

Some of the loopholes have been closed. And what could be seen as "lore" driven changes to security as a response to these acts of terrorism.

Concord response times, sec status penalties, buffs to industrial ships, no more insurance payouts. These all make sense from a lore standpoint. In a game filled with big NPC corporations who are all about profit wouldn't they take steps to stop acts of terrorism from hurting those profits?

Things like reshipping in space, or drone mechanics are loopholes or game mechanic issues. Things that were not working as intended and have been fixed.

As for the boosting off grid issue I agree that is something that doesn't make sense. But boosting in PvP (where everyone is meant to be on grid anyway) and boosting miners are two very different things. They would have to look at making asteroid belts larger if they changed Orca boosting or there would really be no point to mining fleets as existing belts would be cleared out too quickly.

One thing I will say after observing these sorts of complaints going on for years...gankers are just as whiney as the people they are ganking. The two groups that are perfectly suited for each other.

What is interesting is we haven't seen a lot of loopholes getting closed to increase conflict and content creation though have we?

For example, many would (rightly) argue the ability for a player to just drop corp to shed a war in progress (which was paid for a week) a 'loophole' and the war should follow that player....

Yet *mysteriously* you don't see loopholes like that being closed, do you? Funny how that happens right.

The answer is obvious. In the new mental calculus nerfs are being rationalized as 'closing loopholes', 'mechanics fixes', etc -- but must NOT be discussed as the simple nerfs to conflict and content-creation they are, because THEN CCP and CSM's asleep at the switch would have to answer for their crimes against HTFU and sandbox.

tldr;
I fully acknowledge CCP's right to roll the dice and nerf the hell out of hisec in pursuit of MOAR SUBS. What they don't get to do however, is pretend innocence any longer to the community that they aren't doing that.

F

You're conflating video game mechanics with real life, making this an invalid analogy.

What? The "real life" definition of what a Corporation is? If there is a significant difference between what the definition between the real life and eve representation for the purposes of this argument please share.

It is the wardeccers fault for targeting an entity that can simply close it's doors just like a corporation going bankrupt. If your target has no assets and nothing for you to gain from declaring war in the first place, that is poor judgement on your corp. If you declare war on an entity that stands to loose too much by just closing up shop they won't; but this is a perfectly legitimate tool for smaller, frankly insignificant entities, who gain nothing from throwing resources away defending...nothing.

Complaining about a corp being destroyed as a result of a wardec is just strange since isn't the mission accomplished anyway? The dissolution or capitulation of the corp. You win. Yay.

Now if "gud fites" are the goal there a myriad of corporations more than willing to oblige and would appreciate the targets without the hassle of sec status hits or concord; or corporations too big to fold.

But any flaw is not with the corp mechanic, it's with the person clearly using poor judgement in their target selection.

BTW in any case, if I were in charge of the universe, if anybody is wondering, I would just drop a huge hammer and do "the great breakout" of highsec.

Were it all up to me, this is what I would do to "fix" Eve (trigger warning: this is harsh and probably impossible so don't worry)

- All SOV is dead. No more SOV mechanics. Let the players handle it.
- All resources would be finite. This means an entire system can be completely cleaned out of resources. Moons can be sucked dry. Roids can all be vacuumed up. Even NPC pirates, getting killed aplenty, would figure out they are committing suicide and leave. Mission agents would just run out of missions. Just about all human conflict is over resources. The blue donut would be gone faster than Homer Simpson could eat it. Andf if people want to farm highsec to death, highsec will be farmed to death. Even the ice belts. Even Sansha would stop bothering to invade it. Only when a system is left alone will NPC pirates come back to it after a while, only when moons and belts are not being turbo-harvested for a while would these resources return. So "good systems" versus "bad" systems for moon goo and ratting would be dynamic and change over time.
- No more gate mechanics and "fatal funnels". People who want to kill everything that moves have to hunt for their food. Let every ship dial in system to system warp. Gates could still exist outside of highsec but let the players have to maintain and "feed" them if they want them (rather redundant though with existing mechanics). Yes this would be the end of gate camps. We need "HFYF" (Hunt for your food) to be right alongside HTFU. Note if a gate is taken offline in a system then there is no more local. IDENT works through gates and stations.
- change the targeting mechanics. As a radar tech for fighter jets we found that too much electronic reflection from too many sources under the same band could cause a lock break. Well... how is it that 20 ships can lock one small ship and nobody has a problem? Ship signature would translate how many ships can lock a target with the "signal focusing" skills (existing) changing that. This means that the 20 to 1 gank is going to need some serious module-fu to make all 20 ships so specialized in being able to do that they won't even have CPU left for weapons. And the size of a tracking system would matter too - meaning if big battleship locks the frigate, then the other 19 ships lose their lock. (but smaller ships by the dozens can lock up a capital ship because it's freaking huge man). In addition to a probable maximum locked limit, the more ships lock on the more unreliable the locks have, intermittently breaking off or loss in accuracy. Yes drones too.
Yes this would be the end of "Primary". So what. F1-Click is probably the biggest letdown of being in a fleet. Imagine wings and squads of the fleets under their own wing and squad commanders having to duke it out instead of "everybody follow FC broadcast F1-click".
- let all ships fire in "dummy mode" if they can't lock. Bombers can fire directionally without lock so this is not a rewrite of the game.
- end station games: no ship under fire is going to be towed in. Hey guess what, if I was Scotty will I want to tow a ship being fired upon towards me and end up with UXOs in my open docking bay? Wellllll that's an easy one.
- put an activity timer on all clients to save bandwidth. No activity after a given time you get logged off. Period. Anybody using a mouse jiggler or some other automated "stay logged in" programs gets banned for botting.


Make those changes and the game becomes a bubbling cauldron of PVP that everybody says it should be.

Don't make those changes and... well we can always complain about the differences between highsec and the other secs in these forums.
(forums that used to be more lively)

The resources thing just pretty much guarantees whoever is on top will stay on top as they'll have more resources to then go an get more resources. It may not be the big players, but rest assured eventually there will be a king of the hill and you really won't have a chance in hell. The game will just stagnate even worse.

Love the idea of removing gates and having ships just warp distances. But then you'd just run into the same problems that jump fatigue wanted to sort out I'd imagine with power projection. Unless of course we need fuel and the bigger the ship the more fuel it uses to cover the same distance as a smaller ship or something. I think you can get the same desired effect though just reworking ALL gates to be interconnected to multiple gates or maybe all gates at a given distance to remove choke points.

If we don't encompass all of the factors across the game in these "grrrr highsec" threads we'll continue to chase our tails until there's 30K players left and CCP is having to introduce space vampires and "Larping in station".

Ah yes, well if eve is dying, there's no need for a second shard.