Assembly Hall

A) Name one. You claim combat ships have a larger cargohold than exumers, so go ahead and name a combat ship that has a larger cargohold than 8k. Go ahead, I'll wait. (titans don't count)

B) Agreed. Insurance payouts for exumers is ridiculously terrible.

C) First of all, Hulks can't use mining turrets. Exumers don't have turret slots. Second, destroyers have only recently received CCP loving. They've barely changed since the day they were introduced into the game. Third, a destroyers intended purpose is high dps / low durability. They're not meant to tank, only to dish out dps.

D) Um what? There should NEVER be wardec immunity. Never any PvP immunity. Do you even play the same game as the rest of us? Seems like you don't.

E) You really should pay attention. This is partially what CCP is doing.

F) lol no, just no. Again, there should NEVER be PvP immunity. And you can't go off hiding asteroid belts in highsec. They're publicly available for a reason: to be available to the public.

G) GMs don't deal with scams. Again, what game are you playing because it sure isn't EvE Online. Absolutely terrible idea.

H) This ties in with the previous terrible idea. Terrible is terrible is terrible. Compounding on a terrible idea doesn't make it any better.

I) lol what? Players don't look like NPCs. Never have, never will, and currently don't. Once again, what game are you playing?

J) Seriously, I want to know what game you're playing. You're obviously not playing EvE Online. Learn this next sentence and learn it well because you obviously don't have a clue. Concord does not protect people nor is intended to protect people. Concord only punishes.

I will concede that the ganking in highsec has gotten out of hand. Last night my alt got ganked in a tanked industrial ship for two million isk worth of PI goods. I'm not mad about it, but it does illustrate a growing problem in EvE and that's the lack of consequences for ganking in highsec.

You asked for it:

Shield tanked maelstrom has more cargo capacity than a tanked procurer. 1,000 capacity for a mining ship... really? You want to say that's good design from CCP?

Strip miners are Mining Lasers, go look on the market under "Turrets & Bays" if you don't believe me.

Basic issue is that there ARE people who are genuinely immune to pvp in this game. Go talk to Barbie in Amarr: one of the richest most wanted scumbags ever, who apparently makes a billion or so a day without ever undocking. Go watch the freighters ambling past in their day newbie corps, 9 years on from launch. Good luck taking one of those out, with warp to 0 mechanics and gazillion armour points.

Frigates could not kill miners nearly as easily as destroyers; they were quickly celebrated as a griefer ship when introduced. Oddly enough, I cannot recall ever seeing a T1 destroyer in null-sec low-sec or wormhole space. They are too squishy for real pvp, and if you want mass DPS, get the latest BC, the one with the battleship guns. Yes, that's nicely balanced ... friggin candy to distract from more fundamental issues.

You seem to wonder what game I am playing ... maybe the real issue is you don't want to look more closely at what is going on around you. Go play other games and you will see just how different NPC/players look in most of the games out there.
Although your last comment does show that you are at least not blind to the issues.

Bottom line: in this area of the fourms, we can talk about CCP and EVE, the business. My suggestions are not because I personally want to see EVE totally turned into something else ... if I wanted something else, there is plenty to choose from. That's the real issue: in the game market games rise, fall, and die. Don't kno about you, but I want this one to stick around another 9 years and beyond. But to achieve that, it needs to keep healthy revenue streams to justify its postion as CCP's #1 game: and guess what, if you greif newbies, you really do run the risk that EVE will become #2, with all the long term resource implications that carries.

Appears in your belt?

What you're telling me here is that you're too lazy to watch local or use dscan in order to ensure your own safety. I hope you aren't looking for sympathy in this thread, because you don't deserve any.



http://eve-kill.net/?a=system_detail&sys_id=143&m=4&y=2012&view=kills&scl_id=20

This is how poorly informed you are.

So far the OP has managed to soundly refute every argument posed against their idea. While I don't completely agree 100% with the idea I can say that most of it is sound. There IS a problem with a 300m mining ship and how weak it's defenses are. Insurance does suck but that's how it goes with Tech 2 ships. If that is going to change for the Hulk, it will need to change for all Tech 2 ships. I don't see that happening.

I can fly a Hulk on several of my accounts and I have mined before but honestly have never experienced being ganked in high sec. It was always in Null and I was running D-Scan constantly...a major pain in the ass that needs to be corrected. The game stops being fun when you have to spam click a single button to perform one mind numbing process just to stay safe. Sorry...that's a mechanic that needs correction. Period.

Overall I agree with the OP. I am not going to nitpick the parts I don't agree with in the OP as they are minor in the grand scheme.

Yes..agree with a 19 day old toon like a fool and ignore the obvious...great job...typical of your mind set.

Yes...continue to be an ignorant fool, typical of your mindset. What does the age of his toon have to do with the idea itself? Oh...right...it doesn't. You are just looking for an excuse to disagree because you are incapable of using your own brain to think about new ideas.

I am just going to block you again. You never have anything of value to contribute at all.

Some specific points:

Which combat ships? I've never seen one that could carry 8k m3.


Yes, let's remove one of the few remaining drivers for conflict in nullsec.


It's a cloaking device, but without the downside of cloaking devices! Now you can cloak AND do all those other things you wanted to do!


Let's just stop there on this premise. Prove you were scammed. Come on, show me definitive proof that someone scammed you. Now do so in a way that the system could automatically adjust security standings based on that proof. Otherwise GMs will be consumed with playing detective and marking scammers, driving players to use alts for scams.

As for the threat of being shot in-station: I can avoid that right now. Don't dock.


Players don't look like NPCs on the overview. I'm not sure you're using that right.

What is your fit? I am looking at a Procurer in EFT with a Damage Control and Reinforced Bulkhead. It still has 1000 m3 of cargo space. Without any cargo expanders a Maelstrom can only hold 550 m3 worth of stuff. And the battleship with the highest cargospace is the Megathron with 675 m3.

Also bear in mind that you are comparing a BATTLESHIP with something that is more or less cruiser sized.


While they may be under the "Turrets & Bays" market section, strip miners are not technically turrets. Otherwise they would not be able to fit on mining barges or exhumers (because neither ship has any turret slots).


Station traders may not risk themselves physically but they do open themselves up to the risk of having their wallets nuked by someone smarter and/or with more capital than they have.
Fortunately for most station traders, not many people have the patience or mind to economically outmaneuver them.

In a way, it's no different from people who have learned various combat tactics and aggro mechanics to keep their ship safe while applying maximum damage to their target. It's just a different form.


It's possible to kill such ships with the right planning.


Just because YOU haven't seen ships being used or you dislike certain aspects about them, doesn't mean they aren't being used.
We use A LOT of destroyers in FW.

Now...

A. Double the hold space on all exhumers.
See the first quote above.

B. Fix insurance payouts on Exhumers.
T2 Insurance is supposed to suck. If you were [more or less] fully reimbursed for the loss of a T2 ship, what reason would you have to fly a T1 ship ever again? You PAY for that 10 to 20% edge over other players.

C. Fix the DPS/defence impalance.
What imbalance? Four destroyers can kill my Pilgrim (a 150mil ISK cloaky recon ship) without too much of an issue. They can also kill a 180 mil ISK Zealot.
And the ships I mentioned are COMBAT ships. Really... why should a NON-COMBAT ship be able to better defend itself against certain attackers than a COMBAT ship?

D. Fix social guiild war-griefing.
Fight back and generally be more trouble than you're worth. Get your corp into 4 cheapo gank-fit destroyers and gun for the squishiest, most expensive thing on field. Most war decs end when you consistently "ruin" the aggressor corps ISK efficiency.

Alternatively, jump corp and set up a "locked" channel to stay in touch with everyone. Now your enemies have to suicide gank you if they want to kill you. Problem solved.

E. Introduce moon mining to 0.7 and lower planets,
CCP is looking into removing tech moons entirely and re-inventing "belt mining."

F. Introduce advanced drones for miners.
Cloaking module. And no... you can't have something that conceals you AND allows you to continue doing what you were doing. You have to give up something of equal value to what you are gaining.

G. Consequences. 'Killing scammers.'
"If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is."
Scamming has been with EVE since the beginning. I was scammed when I was a nubbin, my peers were scammed... it's a rite of passage and, in a twisted way, prepares you for stuff you will encounter later in the game (which is arguably worse).

H. Consequences, #2. An alt should also be allowed to be killed if DUST marines go in
Now you are trying to institute meta-penalties for allowable in-game actions. This is a bad precedent no matter how you look at it.

I. Clarity. A player locking someone in HighSec should not, on the overview, appear the same as an NPC.
As others have said... a player DOES NOT look anything remotely close to an NPC... even on the overview... or in space... or in any way, shape, or form.
NPCs are "crosses" (white or red). Players are "squares" with may other colors differentiating them.

J. Podding wanted players in High-sec should immediately pay out the reward.
If someone has a -5.0 security status or lower, you can pod them anytime you wish... provided you can catch them.

Concord is nice, but a joke. Engagement times have reduced so much with the new ships that Concord intervention times are not an effective protection for new players,
Repeat after me: "CONCORD does not protect... it punishes." It is a means to increase the cost of [illegal] engagement in high-sec. The fact that some people do it anyways means that they have simply accepted the costs.

Newbies are generally "protected" because they have nothing of value to gank.

And for the record... CONCORD has been buffed many, many times. It honestly can't get much more powerful than it is now without removing suicide ganking as a mechanic altogether. However... removing it as a mechanic means that people who "live" in NPC corps effectively become immune to almost all forms of combat.

... but an Iteron V can have 20,000 cargo without blinking, and has a ton of slots to play with. The dump truck has more mid slots and generic high slots. Varying Hulk's high/low/mid slots would be an option, as would introducing a T3 exhumer with cusomisable configs.

As for Mael fit, it has superb low slots, so fill it up with cargo expanders, tank on the mid, and high slots are mix of gas miners / cruise missles / turrets, whatever floats your boat. Speaking of which, why can exhumers not mine gas? Where is the mining ship that can?

The comment was made above that Concord do not protect, they punish. But there is no punishment when an alt scoops everything and the crystals/turrets in a hulk are often worth more than the ship used to kill it. Perhaps Concord should shoot thieves on sight, too.

But those are not really the issues here, it's about player retention in the face of a sharp upswing in bored players suicide ganking. EVE has always had an implicit arms race, between prey ships and hunter ships. THe hunter's ships have had all the love for a few years, it seems.

And yes, changing insurance for all T2 ships should happen. It likely hasn't because CCP wants people to buy PLEX to get the ISK to replace thier ships, rather than just using insurace payouts: if that is the case, then naughty naughty on CCP; them fixing T2 insurance will be a clear message that isn't what they are up to on that.