EVE Information Portal

Still reading through all the Comments, but I saw this and had to respond. While I agree that the T3 Pilot that losses their ship should get penalized... Can't you script it so that if they Eject and the Ship blows up, they'd still lose skill? Kinda like what you guys did with still giving Kill reports for people that Self-destructed their ships to prevent a loss recorded?

Seems Highly unfair, that just because you have this Tech 3 penalty, that all ships must suffer the denial of Ejecting. As I agree, Having the Option to Eject early is critical to most pilots. Denying an "Eject Button" is like saying a Jet Fighter Pilot who's going down can't use his ejection seat until after his plane crashed and becomes a fireball. Does that make any sense? Of course not... Players should always have the option to eject.

I also disagree that a player can't hop into another unoccupied ship in space, they should be able to. I'm totally for the Denial of the Orca ship hanger swap... but there is more of a risk in doing an out in the open ship swap and can be prevented by alert pilots.

Also, the Criminal flagged player basically can't do diddly... "Just Because..." So, no Concord engaging you... you just can do anything... Seems kinda lame really. Why not just give Concord Very Fast Interceptors with fast tackle? There shouldn't ever be an "Unknown Source" warp jamming you. There should be a very slim chance to get away... just not.. automatic shut down from your own ship.

OH, Why do Highsec Wormholes care about flagging? They're not Concord controlled. Enough said...

I do Love all the changes in Majority... You guys did an Awesome job... I just think some things need tweeks to give fairness and more reality to it. I do especially love that you guys added the Suspect flag allowing players to police on a certain Level.

Question though for clarity: If a Neutral Logi Reps a War target, does that make the Logi Suspect or just LE to the opposing Corp? The answer is probably there in the cracks of all the info... I'm just not putting it together at the moment.

Thank you for all this! And I can't wait to see how you guys "Solve" the Bounty system. Hopefully it's being handled with as much thought and effort as this was. Great Job!

Sorry for the WOT,

Cordo

You'll have to ask CCP that, but it seems rather clear that they think that if you engage in combat in a ship, you should commit to the battle with that ship.

What has escaped you is that “how” is irrelevant. They're removing the ability to reship by putting a block on the actions required to do so, and then the exact hows — past, present, and future — no longer matter. Instead of waiting for people to find new ways, and then removing them, and people finding newer ways still, and then removing those as well, they short-circuit the whole arms race by going after the source of the problem.

…and this clears up all such problems without stupidly and needlessly chasing specific instances of it.

…except that the problem mainly resides in lowsec, so your guess makes no sense.

OK the NPC flag thing.
I see why you may want to do it, Would be great to help disrupt botting activity. HOWEVER
a) Will bots just not be reprogrammed to carry cloaks and wait out 15mins NPC aggression?

Meantime

For all those that do not have the luxury of operating outside a pos or station in 0,0 you are now making the game unplayable for a great batch of people. This will kill of those that take part in NPC killing in otherwise empty system. WHY?

Well not everyone plays eve and has the luxury of 15 minutes notice when they have to disconnect. Many rl reasons can pull you away. Technical reasons beyond a persons ability to control can cause disconnections. Only a few weeks ago you guys at CCP reported a net loss of 10,000 connections due to an ISP issue/

Many will say that if your not in local no-one will know to scan for you?

How untrue this would be. See wrecks one gate, in a belt or on d-scan and pop a probe. 15 minutes to find them.
This will make risk reward completely out of balance.

I have no issue with being in danger. You rat or plex in lowsec or o.o you should have higher risks. Yes you risk destruction with undock. However this NPC 15 minute timer before removing you from game will have severe negative impacts on nullsec. You will further reduce activity in non occupied systems further.

Again in short this point is an attack on the games actual playability.

First. Freighters can't drop cans.
Second. Even if they could, all the victim would have to do is package everything in lots bigger than jetcan size (Like, say, in a GFC) and your thought wouldn't work anyway.


A Freighter with a Suspect flag is, generally speaking, a dead freighter. The way to launder the loot is to loot it from your friends dead freighter after they looted the gank victim. Add a Freighter and the fact that looting twice results in a roughly 25% survival rate of loot, and you get around 10b. And that's before taking into account that the wreck of the suspect freighter is lootable by anyone.

I would also like to add that a freighter pilot can not loot a can. BUT if you try you will get a suspect flag. You will get a suspect flag right now! "The RUB" with that flag is that you can ATTEMPT to look a can while in a freighter, get the flag for it but never actually get the loot. THAT needs to be addressed in the new system.

Not really. Mission runner baiting isn't affected in the slightest by the ship-swapping rule because there's no reason to get the W-flag that prohibits it.

…except that you're back to treating the symptom, not the problem — viz. ship swapping in the middle of combat. This change takes care of that in all its forms. Trying to limit it to certain expressions will only lead to new ones popping up, which will then have to be patched away as well, and the only reason to be against it is the vain hope that the exploit du jour will be left open for a while.

Seeing as how the cure is actually very good — largely because it attacks the generic issue rather than hopelessly chase individual expressions of it — and seeing as how the disease — ships not being lost when they ought to be, and people not committing to the fight they chose to engage in — is very bad, no. If anything, it's a case of “please only patch this one thing rather than fix the problem so I can keep abusing it in new ways”.

Put another way: why should they try to predict and specifically code out every last variation of this tactic when they can just ensure that all of them (including ones that don't even exist yet) are gone at the same time?

This made me giggle ^^

You still haven't said a word about how it will affect the profit of a gank. I suggest going back to page 39, where your quote is from, and reading the responses from Tippia and the dialogue she and I had on the subject. It is going to be a bit more challenging to get profit from a gank, but only if you don't know how to align before looting a can. Hell, even a freighter looting a freighter wreck can pull it off, with some corpmates to web your thief freighter. This is the same tactic used to escape crimewatch 1.0 can flippers. If a miner can figure it out, I'm sure you can too.

If you do not want to suffer the risks don't fly the ship.