Player Features and Ideas Discussion

No, that just means the null war is taken to high-sec, as the Goons are the epitome of PvE.

Then put a fork in it, because when high-sec becomes null, EvE is over (bye bye to new players; nullbears and their IsBox mining fleets die and doesn't justify the cost to keep them active; and industry grinds to a halt).

Stay in null and leave your PvP paddy cake games down there.

Hello. I primarily operate in high-security, especially for mining and production, but I 'm going to have to disagree with this suggestion to remove PVP from there. As an industrialist player, I could certainly benefit personally in the short term from never needing to worry about PVP in High, but I do not see how it would be at all good for the longevity of this game as a whole.

Events such as Hulkageddon and Burn Jita 1 & 2 could and most likely have drawn in bursts of new subscriptions by acting as irrefutable proof of the cut-throat player-defined game-play unique to EVE. These help reinforce the point that this kind of game-play can happen anywhere, not just LowSec (Battle of Asakai) or Null (S2NC's disbanding, the big Goon/Test war, etcetera). On a smaller scale but longer duration, we currently have that Goon freighter thing and the New Order coalition running amok with its Knights. These activities rely on the presence of non-consensual PVP, even with CONCORD breathing down their necks as soon as they go weapons hot. While they do cause massive amounts of destruction via ganking, this damage serves two very important purposes:

1. It teaches the new and the complacent that you can die anywhere, and that insufficiently tanked ships will die very quickly. Also, anything will explode once shot at enough times.

By the newer players being vulnerable, they can learn about the dangers of space and the necessity of defensive measures on their ship before they start flying anything big and expensive. The sooner they learn, while their ships and clones are cheap or even free, the better. For the older ones, the loss counts as a reminder of these things.

2. It creates demand. Every ship destroyed needs to be replaced, and it is up to the industrialists to provide them. This applies not only to the industrial, transport, and mining ships, but also the ships used to gank them, because of the omnipotent space police who guarantee cost for the attacker.

Granted, we would still have some demand for these things because of new members and the combat in Low, Null, and J-space, but I recall reading somewhere on these boards where people pointed out High-sec is a significant amount of the player base. If that's true, they're also a significant amount of our market. Without them needing replacements, the builders end up with excess stockpile they cannot move, and prices drop like stones. If miners can never be destroyed, the ore and minerals would flood the market, resulting in collapse. Without the ability to make a profit, because of a glut in supply and sharp decrease in demand, High-sec industry will grind to nearly a halt, if not completely. Some suppliers may try getting into Low/Null/WH corps to market their skills and sell products, but plenty others will simply quit.


CCP updated their tutorials I-don't-know-how-long-ago to incorporate ship loss, with not one but two suicide run missions in the advanced military career tutorial. If you have no ship when you dock in a station, they give you a rookie ship so you can get back on your feet. With these two simple features, the developers make it clear that ships going boom is expected, even in High.

High-sec's safety is quite sufficient where it is, and making it perfectly safe will have unforeseen consequences, regardless of whether CCP does anything else to High to account for the invulnerability. If you can never die in High-sec, many of the people will go there. Few if any targets = the PVPers will get bored and leave, and no action or customers = the builders and miners will get bored and leave. Perfectly safe High-sec = death of New Eden, and I can see that as a 2-month-player.

TL;DR

Do I personally want more severe penalties for gankers?

No, because I don't think the current mechanics are mature enough to start applying weird penalties to. Pretty sure if the game had very solid mechanics to do with Pirates VS Carebears - (im making a pun on WoW Horde VS Alliance) where a "pirate" was a very definite class of player mechanic, and NOT just a Jekyll-and-Hyde normal players become for a laugh - then more strict and mechanics WOULD make sense.

---


These days, I tend to keep a lot of comments to myself as I already know that by pointing out massive issues in the EVE mechanics, people with blinkers will start shouting about it not being "in the spirit of EVE" or something.

Here goes anyway:

If anyone - and I mean _anyone_ takes an illegal commodity (drugs, slaves, etc), in a ship, into high sec, Concord will fine them instantly at stations, and take away standing and isk AND the goods.

So, all good so far?

You gank a ship in hisec, kill the pilot in the pod, and you just get a standing loss, which for the record means absolutely nothing to the guy doing it, cause it's probably an alt that got dragged out of station just for the purpose of that _particular_ gank, then parked again until that person gets bored again, and the alt is on a perma neg-ten standing anyway.

Why no massive fine? Why not disallow that person from docking at ANY hisec stations for an entire day, week even, hell, make it a month, as we don't like killers drinking with us at our local bar.

Why not?

Cause all the "gankers" will cry foul, ad that "EVE is a cruel universe". All bull; they just want the ability to go out ganking if they feel like without being hassled too much by the mechanics. I don't totally disagree with them, actually, as by the same token, the next time I go rescue "The Damsel" I should be expecting 10 times the NPC ships, cause you know, they got fed up with me taking that cheap hussy away for the 320th time. This month.

EVE is patches on top of patches on top of patches. Good in many ways, but it creates these weird gaps that suddenly become "gameplay", like ganking and can flipping etc etc.

It's my right to say stuff in forums when I don't like something, but I should have ZERO expectation of having it implemented.

Yes, I'd like Hisec/Lowsec/Nullsec to be different in many ways. Bugger if I know what to do that will not create even MORE problems though.

If we can get a sponsor for the fee my booties will gladly show test what we think about the idea.

Please show on this doll or better KM where those gankers touched you.

Originality level -10000, awesomeness level Zero, post value none.

A few more people saying this and the value will drop to minus numbers, which means you'll have to pay me in game, for the privilege of using unoriginal re-posts.

I fully support this. As long as high sec is limited to starter systems only.

No don't like this idea:

reason is that i've always liked how this game is so realistic. Its a sand box and anything is allowed, even scamming. Just like RL, you're not allowed attacking anyone, but hey you hear it in the news everyday, it happens, and you will pay the consequence.

I would hate to see a pop up window saying: "You are in a region that does not permit attacking other players"

What i would like to see is an improved bounty systems so gankers would be targeted everywhere.

I suggest that we implement the OP's courageous idea to eliminate highsec ganking by removing highsec.

Could always extend the crime portion of ganking.

Squad/fleet mates in system are flagged red flashy too (I can see some griefing here) as accessories.
The chaps that loot/salvage the goods are considered receiving stolen goods and flagged.

This red flashy won't bring Concord, but will allow everyone else to pew pew you.

People always say they like the risk, but there's no risk in being the collector during a suicide gank, so if we add some it would make things a little more interesting.