Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

Well said String

p.s. o7

Oh, and seeing someone in the Incursion alliance crying about hurting new players is delightful.

You bloated farmers have done more to hurt newbies in this game than every ganker, awoxer and wardeccer in EVE combined(especially since we actually help new players, compared to your bigoted elitism). Your sickening suckling on the most broken mechanic in EVE Online has inflated the game's income generation to such a degree that the income sources available to new players are utterly inadequate to sustain actually playing the game. Driving people into more banal, pointless farming instead of actually being able to play the game, and continuing the toxic cycle.

You and yours should have been deleted years ago. You richly deserve it.

You are splitting hairs. All that sort of low-risk (low reward) drudgery is NECESSARY to move goods and keep EVE a vibrant economy.

It should never be eliminated just balanced like CCP is saying. Care Bears, newbs, Hi-sec people who just like to play a "simple" version of EVE and not venture into low or null...All this is necessary as first steps and long term to the game.

No, I'm not. By the definition you're using, I'm a "carebear". I'm predominantly an industrial player. I do trade, research and manufacturing.

That's not what is meant by the term. All of that "drudgery" is necessary, sure. But the risks can be managed, and quite easily, by the people participating in the "drudgery".

"Carebear" is referring to people who believe they should automatically be made safer through wand-waving and mechanical changes.

I've been managing my own risk, while doing "carebear" activities, for years. Changes that just make life safer devalue those efforts.

And yet the game's economy was in a much better place, with the relative earning and purchasing power of new players several times higher...

When the game was vastly more dangerous than it is right now.

Safety kills newbie subs.

The argument between the gankers and the anti-gankers is something that I'm indifferent towards, but people need to be careful playing number games like above and then making blanket statements afterwards. Doing a little math, with concord pre pulled in a .5 system, I was able to determine that in rough numbers, for a fully tanked max skill obelisk the number of reasonably well skilled catalysts is going to go from 22 to 30. That is a fairly substantial increase, but conversely, if we look at a bulkhead fit obelisk, the number will increase from about 10 to 12. It just depends on the context of the situation you desire to analyze.

I'm far more interested in how this change is going to affect PVP between non industrial ships and I recognize that people might have different concerns about the evolution in gameplay a change like this will cause. Despite that, I'm a little upset that people on both sides of the industrial discussion make unqualified statements that detract from the rest of the discussion.

There's only one higher dps fit we are not already using, and that's because it's a 300M battleship fit (and being a battleship already means it hasn't really got the required agility for -10 pilots) that requires the relevant battleship V and will cost a lot more than 300M if we actually start using them because it's a polarized fit.

It affects...

A: Whether or not a camp of sufficient size will exist at all.
B: Whether any given target is actually viable.

The bumbling fuckwit may still be on the bottom of the food chain, but the expected cost to him for being incompetent is reduced.

Yeah, I thought someone might say that. However, as was mentioned before though. As mineral moving and hisec mining becomes a tad safer, this will directly effect the prices you are referring to as those mineral prices drop. So it is a neutral sum and the point you made will probably be invalidated.

Let me state for the record though, I am not saying you should have a smaller profit margin than what is traditionally been given on freighter/cap ship building. Plus, again, cap ships will probably be dying more with the Cap ship changes so there is room to make profit there.

Just that prices on cap ships like freighters and cap ships will drop probably a tad with these changes may be a valid point.

No, it's not...

They're in highsec for the same reason miners and haulers are, to reduce how much effort they have to put into playing. James may have started it out as his tantrum against mining barge changes in highsec but most code members are there because it's easy. This is evident from the fact that it's safer and more rewarding to mine in nullsec, yet code don't generally operate there.

I can almost guarantee that most of that value was not created through hauling. I'd not haul because it would cost me more to lose a single pilot to slowboating a freighter than I can simply pay someone else to haul, let alone guarding the damn thing. Honestly, I don't know why they do it.

To be fair, income streams have nothing to do with hauling. I made a couple of years worth of PLEX on Saturday alone (yes, actual profit) without undocking and without hauling or having anything hauled. If anything needs to have more risk or reduced reward it's trading. Newbies probably wouldn't have such a problem with the economy though if they didn't lose their ships when they got to a certain size purely through not quite understanding the aggression mechanics. I'll never lose a (non-gank) ship in highsec - that's right, I'm saying it - so I'll never need to worry about such things, newbies will. How's that balanced?