EVE General Discussion

Oh No You Don't (Part 1 of 3):
Our "spais" have recieved word that miners in "Cobalt Edge" from the enemy "Intrepid Crossing" alliance are working towards building a Ragnarok-class supercapital.

Go and destroy at least 5 Hulks and bring me their kill mails.


FOLLOW UP MISSION:

Oh No You Don't (Part 2 of 3):
Unfortunately, our interdiction has been unsuccessful. The ship is being produced in (CSAA POS System here). Go and destroy the POS before the ship completes it's build timer.

WARNING: Requires shooting a Large POS. Bring "a few" friends.


FOLLOW UP MISSION:

Oh No You Don't (Part 3 of 3):
"IRC" are working towards smaller goals, now, such as a Nyx-class supercarrier. Find a mining system (industry 3+) and stay online in it for at least 72 hours (not at one sitting, of course).

HINT: Fitting a "cloaking" device to your ship will make this much easier.


Note: We don't use the trolololo and many other pubby memes. Please report any goon you see doing so to the local Commissariate.

I am curious about what I bolded. Pulling that off would be a major game changer, to a degree in my opinion. CCP said, I promise they did but I can't find the blue post, that they like NPC corp chat channels due to how helpful they are for new players. Yes, I know some have said in this very thread they detest the NPC corp chat because of all the noob like questions and stuff, but why should all those new players be punished because some bitter vet spent a couple days in one recently?

War decing individuals (I am assuming you are referring to players even if they are in NPC corps) sounds very interesting. If removing NPC corps turns out to be completely impossible, what if there was some sort of hybrid war dec available? Like sanctions. Someone said earlier to make it where NPC corps can not board capital ships, which I found interesting.

There is indeed several spaceship command skill books that can not be trained on trial accounts. Now assuming (saying this a lot, but I give zero fucks) the other parts of null are addressed properly; what if you could levy a sanction on a specific player. First level would be capital ships. The cheapest sanction to do and if the player is caught in that class ship or larger, Concord turns a blind eye and they are fair game to be blown up by those who issued the sanction. Next level would be battleships and larger, etc, etc... you get the idea. Each level becoming more and more expensive to sanction. Now I don't want to get into pricing and balance or any of that, but the idea is there. I do however think there should be a limit on how far you can go, like you can't put sanctions against anything smaller than a battlecruiser. That way you don't make it impossible for the player to actually play the game if they choose to remain in high sec and lead to simply quitting the game.

It is kind of hard to run those level four missions solo in a cruiser or move freighter loads of goods with a lone hauler.



Meh, just another shoot from the hip idea from a high sec pubbie who actually doesn't live in high sec who will most likely have their post torn apart by trolls who can't read past the author of the post without their head exploding with unfocused rage. Nicolo, I think your heart is in the right place, even if I disagree with what method to use to reach the 'goal', which is a much more exciting and vibrant internet spaceships game.

We still waiting for your ideas
But i think they never come you nothing but a troll and what you write isn t even your own opinion i don t think you even have one or have any idea what a opinion is , you just here trolling insulting and disrupting any discussion , you just a puppy and a troll a good one tho

Even if it does not require capital components, toss in the Orca and yeah, that is pretty much it. That would shut down all kinds of hauling with impunity outside of suicide ganking. And if they decide to just pack a Badger Mark II full of tech... well I smell a suicide gank.

Again was just a thought. Maybe you (or anyone) have an idea to alter/improve it a bit if you think it is worth of discussion.

Okay, I'll agree that that the NPC corp chat rooms should stay to help newbies (as I have in the past), but the bulletproof CONCORD protection needs to go. Some posters have suggested that NPC corps should be at war with one another in order to add an increase of risk to being in an NPC corp, but I'm of the opinion that playing solo is a legitimate choice, they just shouldn't receive a competitive advantage for doing so because a) it defeats the purpose of socializing in an MMO and b) it is endlessly abused by everyone. I'm in favor of replacing NPC corps with a default 'freelancer' pilot system which is effectively a one-man corp that can be wardecced. I mean, we can worry about the hypothetical one-week old newbie who gets griefdecced , but let's get real here - the current system of NPC corps lets me suicide gank newbies 1 jump from rookie systems with a 1M thrasher while the weekly technetium shipment autopilots into Jita undefended without a care in the world. It's more accurate to say they protect ships with lots of EHP, which aren't piloted by newbies at all. As we speak, James 315 is in an NPC corp extorting highsec ice miners by bumping them out of range of their ice.

I think making the convoys more open to wardecs is the best solution to the nullsec supply convoy problem because it offers the option of players defending the convoy, or forcing the freighter alts into the 0.0 alliance proper in hope of discouraging wardecs/'sanctions' by making the pirates pay the fee, which would actually help legitimize the high cost of the wardec fees for large alliance if they were full of juicy targets.


Well to be honest, I feel strongly on the issue and think that anything less then their removal is a half-measure. Still, that sounds like a good idea that will solve most of the problems NPC corps pose in the game by giving players the option of how much PVP they want to expose their PVE alts to, and I'd definitely support it over doing nothing.

If the desired outcome is preventing players from using NPC corps as a means to escape a war dec - this change will not have the desired effect. Players in High Sec, despite often being ignorant of many things, are extremely smart. If their corporation gets war dec'd into a fight they are not interested in fighting they already have holding corps set up to avoid the war dec. If they are so inclined to not fight a war - they will not undock and will just play Skill Queue Online until the war is over.

If the desired outcome is to disrupt traffic from null sec that is being shipped by NPC Corp Alts - make them travel through more of low sec to get goods to market. This would have an added effect of making low sec more vibrant. This along with some of the other changes that have been suggested (e.g. High Sec Inventory Tax. stop ****ing Null Sec Industry) could have a positive effect on everyone.

What I mean is, IF CCP needed to cool down the economy some, they could easily setup an NPC guy with PLEXes which they'd spawned, put them up on the market, and to everybody involved it'd look just like any other PLEX seller. I.e. the player would get his PLEX, CCP would get ~500m or thereabouts taken out of the economy, and nobody would be bitching about "THE GUBMINT BE TAKIN MAH MUNNEH" because of taxes/tax increases.

I'm not saying it's something CCP is doing now, I'm just saying it'd be the perfect way to do it if they were desperate to extract ISK from the economy as soon as possible.

No, not outside the market. They could just give a whole lot of PLEX to a CCP alt and have him sell it, or have a virtual CCP alt as the face of an internal program that fulfills/creates market orders by some logic. An increase in supply, ceteris paribus, gives you a reduced isk price, so CCP can suppress prices by secretly introducing PLEX. They could also raise prices by secretly buying PLEX on the market and then just destroying it.

If it's true that there are people who buy N number of PLEX in order to buy a single Aeon or something, then CCP can actually bring in more money by manipulating the price down. But if (as I suspect) the main suppliers of PLEX are people who just buy one of the bundles and then live off of the isk for a while rather than PvE for it, then the supply manipulation that Lord Zim suggests could hurt CCP's income by making PLEX less attractive to these people. It just means less value for their money. They'll remember getting 500mil for what now only promises them 300mil.

(Also, extremely likely outcome of plan like this: people involved in the PLEX market figure it out all the way to the fine details; shitstorm.)

I don't really like arbitrary limitations like this. I'm fine with making it less efficient to build larger ships in hi-sec, but simply saying "No you can't", not so much. Not sandboxy.

Come to that I don't see why ship sizes should be stratified in this way. There's nothing inherently hi-seccy about frigate size ships, or 0.0y about battleships.

I'd rather see general manufacturing (and invention and research) efficiency stratified as Sov 0.0 = W-space > NPC 0.0 > Lo-sec > 0.5 > 0.6 > 0.7 > 0.8 > 0.9 > 1.0

If someone wants to build battleships in a 1.0 then they should be able to. But if someone wants to build battleships in deep W-space or in a player built outpost, then they should get substantial advantages over the guy in 1.0

EDIT: And as said above, and repeatedly in this thread, there needs to be a truly gigantic improvement in the capacity of outpost/POS facilities before any other major changes are considered.

How do you avoid a sanction when it is directly at the player themselves? Also like I mentioned, it would be good to have a cap where they are not in a complete lockout of doing things if they are willing to fly small ships that do not break the sanction against them. So you could levy sanctions against a single player, no matter if they are in a player corp or NPC corp and there could be an option to levy sanctions against entire player corps or alliances.