Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Well, that sounds nice, but we both know the PvE pilots will dock, and either reship or stay docked.

With the current system, how would a hostile actually threaten a PvE pilot, IN the PvE ship itself?
And by threaten, I mean catch and shoot full of holes, not inconvenience by sitting in the system so noone undocks.
How does Joe Ganks-A-Lot catch someone?

Is he relying on pilot error, or is there a tactic or skill by which he can catch null PvE pilots?

If you can sell this point, we can make the rest happen with a groundswell of support, so please consider this carefully.

1. An honest opinion can still be insulting.
2. You aren't factoring losses now are you. You are assuming perfect mining environment which is the WRONG environment as you can lose your ship, you may have to dock up due to a roaming gang, have an extended down period due to an AFK cloaker. In your case you make zero isk in that latter scenario. Nikk would make positive isk.

If you don't have a near perfect environment, you should be in high sec. I don't think you get how little the gain is in null from high sec mining. And like I said, I never would get a 0 yield, as I'd simply fly or jump to one of my alternate systems.

Then you should move to high security space. No offense, but null is going to have things that often make doing specific activities problematic. It was designed that way...e.g. no Concord, no gate guns, no sec status hits for shooting stuff, it is lawless space...aside from what law you can enforce. Somedays you'll get awesome mining....other days you wont.

Frankly your comment reminds me alot of the guys who'd complain about getting ganked in high sec. Then you look at their fits and you see they are maxed out for mining yeild or maybe cargo capacity and that they have zero tank, or maybe a lone DCU in one of the lows. It is like, "I"m in high security space I should never have to fit a tank!" Well...okay, but if you do that you are much, much easier to gank and people have been known to do it just for the lulz, but your choice.

Me...I fit a tank. Sure I mine less, but you know what, I don't die nearly as much.*

And yeah I know mining in null doesn't pay as well as other activites. I think that is one thing CCP needs to change.

*If some group of players is dead set on ganking you, they will eventually succeed.

Mining of low ends is primarily done in high sec...been that way for a very long time. It is unlikely to change with current mechanics.

As for risk and benefit, it is like you aren't reading what I wrote or certain words mean different things to you. I have not endorsed making it all risk no benefits. I've specifically noted the expected benefit to risk ratio should not decrease, and if risk goes up, then benefits need to go up to counter act that. You do understand this...right? Not trying to be a jerk here, but damn....I write something very specific and you respond as if I had written something entirely different.



So in other words, the claims about the safety of null by guys like Nikk, The Gunslinger, et. al. are totally correct. It is already quite safe, even with AFK cloakers.

Thanks for thise confirmation.

Thread locked temporarily.


I am not even sure what to do with this thread.


I was attempting to bring you guys back from the brink.

I really do not want to get out my razor and start slicing and dicing this thread.


Really. Drop the convo about who insulted who and how.

Let's just discuss the issue at hand......and remember that you may not agree with what others say, but insulting other will _NOT_ help your position.


Saying someone is either a liar or inexperienced is not a good way to continue a convo, and quoting a line from a movie that insults another grasp of English is not good either.


C'mon, fellas I really do not want to cut out large swathes of this thread.

Lucas, you are representing the non-pve-ganking-fixated group quite well. The problem with many of these people in this thread is that they are so fixated on the high value pve targets, that they will afk cloak a system which they believe has such targets in them for extremely long periods of time with the belief that they are entitled to their kills. Little do they realize that most of the pve players are either doing research on them or moving on to another system or staying in station doing the odds and ends that they put off for such times.

And when I put forth the idea to prevent the cloak and the cyno from being fit at the same time, there was a hush each time, because the separation of the two modules actually resolves everything. Without the cyno, their solo stealth bomber cannot clear out an entire system by itself. As the solo stealth bomber decloaks and points its first victim, a group of pve ships quickly appear pop it in a second as the insignificant threat that it is. They whine about it being too hard to solo gank a battleship or group of them with their frigate, and laughter fills the room as people realize that there was a hope of a single solo frigate taking down a group of battleships. It is the CYNO which messes up the cloaky issue, because SOLO non-cloaky FRIGATES can be scanned down and dispatched relatively easily. But the pve-ganking-fixated group knows this and tries their best to ignore how integral the cyno is to this issue.

I'll say this one more time so please pay attention to the following summation:

The AFK cloaky is NO ISSUE IF it can NOT FIT A CYNO at the same time as its cloak. In wormhole space, the fitting of a cyno on any ship is pointless because cynos are not allowed and thus there is no issue with the AFK cloaky. In fact, there is an expectation in the wormhole that there are probably several hostile cloakies and the residents would behave just the same if those cloakies appeared in local (they can actually appear by chatting).

And you don't need a cyno in K-space to pull of a successful gank. I don't get it either.

Andy, maybe you should start a thread on cynos and cloaks and how together they are overpowered.

By the way, I wasn't trying to be snide above. It seems a very serious issue to you Andy and it strikes me, at least, as smaller subset to the whole AFK cloaking issue. So perhaps it would be better having its own topic.

Edit: Cleared up to be more friendly.

Lucas, that is not what I am claiming at all. I have never claimed you "should have to die", I have literally stated the opposite multiple times: you should have the ability to escape, definitely. But the other party must have the ability to succeed sometimes too, otherwise it's imbalanced.

It helps no one when you construct an argument I didn't make and then refute that argument. You're essentially only arguing against yourself, and not against what I, or others, are actually saying.

So how come L4s done right have 0 risk, and a massive reward, and that's fine, yet if I do everything right to reduce my risk to a minimal level, you think I should be punished by reducing my reward further or heavily increasing my risk? It's double standards.