Player Features and Ideas Discussion

No, your intent, defined by your statements and responses, was to try to force a change to allow you to haul any value cargo AFK in any tech I hauler risk free in high sec.



And your stubborn refusal to comprehend the imbalance of your demands clearly astounded everyone else. As I've previously stated, you're quite clearly intelligent but that coupled with your repetitive demands and refusal to utilise any of the solutions provided to you by the community leads to the innevitable conclusion that you have no care whatsoever for the game as a whole and just want to play the game in complete safety.



I take it back. You're not intelligent. Using such an obvious device in an attempt to redirect the fact that you're gutted about getting flamed so heavily belies any previously held view of intellect. It just makes you sound like a dikc. If you can't, in the face of overwhelmingly logical explanations, admit that you're wrong you completely deserve the flameage.

Stop trying to use logic, it is not about cargo versus tank with these people. It is about how can CCP make EVE better for them and what they do. CCP's big problem now is that because they ,wether on purpose or perceived, bending to the b*tching of a few, now they have opened the flood gates to the "they got theirs where is mine!" mentality.

2 cents

They've recently removed insurance from people who gank. That makes it more expensive than ever to perform high sec ganks which is in direct opposition to your claim.

What you want isn't in line with what CCP state their direction is. You want to be able to play AFK. Well, sorry to break it to you but that isn't how CCP want people to play their game. Whining about not being able to play AFK will get you nowhere.

You certainly do not respond well to constructive criticism. You merely refuse to accept it and repeat your demands to be able to play AFK in high sec risk free. That is not responding to constructive criticism. That is ignoring constructive criticism. If people then went on to flame you because of frustration at your refusal to discuss the situation rationally you're the one at fault, not them. Perhaps if you had accepted some of the suggestions as valid instead of just repeating "I want to haul high value items risk free and AFK in high sec" over and over again in different ways you might have got a decent discussion out of it.

As for descending into the realm of Troll, yeah, good one. That shows you really did want a decent discussion out of this, not just to demand your selfish, idiotic wishes which run contra to CCP's advertised standpoint and would unbalance the game not to mention render the Tech II varients pretty much obsolete. Oh, in case you didn't get it, that last sentence was sarcastic.

As for responding to rubbish likewise, what do you think everyone else has been doing? You started this by demanding something completely dumb, namely to be able to move high value items, risk free, in tech I haulers in high sec. People responded likewise, as you did.

People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Precisely, the Mack is a tech 2 ship and requires more training and costs more, so does an Occator, which can use the MWD + Cloak trick quite well, especially with some nanos in the lows. If you're hauling expensive stuff in a cheap hauler or AFK then you've made yourself a prime target for gankers.

If you want to move the expensive cargoes then you need to take adequate steps to protect it, like I and others do, don't expect CCP to hold your hand. The mining barges needed some work on them since their were numerous problems with them, haulers work as they are.

I stated reasonable value and made an attempt to define it. That definition is based on what is costs to gank a hauler, which I estimate to be a minimum 75-80mil at build costs. So anyhting above that value makes you a potential target.

My argument was never that high sec ganking should be completely removed (please see my inital post), but that this 75mil baseline cost to gank was too low. I have been arguing for a figure of around 150-200mil, equating to maybe 2-3 Tornado's. That in my opinion would make a sensible comprimise. It would stop random ganking, unless you had a cargo of over 200mil, in which case you should use the safer methods available AND would allow those with a legitimate cause, or just the will to want to do it, to continue ganking. How would you raise this cost, by increase the effective EHP of certain types of haulers. And I wish to re-iterate the point that you should not need to invest in T2, Orca's or Freighters to achieve this. A remodelling of the T1 variants should be sufficient as has been done with mining vessels.

I'm happy to see this thread getting constructive.

You can tank your T1 variant to withstand more than 1 tornado, easily. You're stomping around like a spoiled kid saying I DON'T WANNA, DADDY MAKE IT BETTER.

You can use the T2 variant which is specifically made to be tankier than the T1 variant, and you can make it into a seriously tanky bit of kit. Yet you keep stoming around like a spoiled kid saying I DON'T WANNA, DADDY MAKE IT BETTER.


Wrong.

This. What makes you think that you should not need to invest in T2 haulers to haul around expensive cargo?

Well, for one thing, as has been explained you can tank T1 haulers to need at least two Tornados to gank it successfully. According to you that's at least 150mill right there. So considering not all the stuff drops from a blown up ship you're looking at at least 200mill in order for people to gank you in a well fitted T1 hauler.

So, considering the cost of a T2 hauler, if you're hauling around cargo that valuably with any regularity I'd say that you should indeed buy a T2 hauler. It's the logical, sensible thing to do.

If you'd like to avoid logic and common sense more power to your elbow but quit whining and accept you're going to get toasted at times.

All this whine is making me want some cheese.

No, what you're arguing for is a higher value which can be safely hauled without you taking any precautions whatsoever. Nothing in the form of fitting compromises, nothing in the form of baseline hull, nada.

Yes this is exactly what I am asking for. You many not agree with it but that what I am asking for.

I am effectively asking for a safe haul value increase from 75-80 mil at present to a minimum of 200mil, before you have to start worrying about tanks and other precuations.

I'm sorry but I fail tosee where the WHAAA is? I'm making valid arguments, putting together some figures (rightly or wrongly) and trying to justify my arguments in a sensible manner. You are the one being a r3t@rd with provocative posts such as this. Seriously dude, grow up!

These changes would benefit the many, many haulers that keep the eve economy ticking over. The only people it would dis-advantage is sucicide gankers. Just becuase such posts are a threat to your fun you are aggressively against anyone rasising such views. Zim I can see used to be in Goon, I am sure others here attacking this are Goon or Goon alts or other sucicide gankers. Goons are well know for their actions in this area and I can understnad your hostility. If you don't like this then tough luck, but I refuse to be strong armed off this course by the usual Goon blob everyone even in the forums mentality.