EVE General Discussion

I will bite, out of curiosity. Could you please point out to me a few excerpts from my posts that you consider to be trolling?

Also, you said you don't troll me as much as (you assume) I troll others. So, you admit to trolling, then?

Just to point out... a Hulk may not be good at survivability, like the Vigilant is, but it sure beats a cruiser in mining ability and cargo.

If you don't want non consensual PvP to occur, then you are playing the wrong game.
As much as I dislike getting ganked when I mine ice, it is a key part of the game.

If you don't like CCPs sandbox, get out. It is that simple.


And gankers do have risk. They lose their ship (guaranteed, while the target may not). The insurance does not cover the cost of the ship (unless they got it below mineral value) completely, and doesn't cover modules (which can get damned expensive).
However, I don't have a problem with the decision to remove insurance from ganks... then again I personally think that after 6 months insurance should not be available at all to a given character.

Long long ago, back when you had to put a small dinosaur in the computer on a treadmill to make it work, suicide ganking was a last-resort tactic usually reserved for leverage or revenge. Indeed, there were times when anybody would consider it for such cases, as an example, someone filling up a Wreathe with say T2 modules or something really really expensive. I have met NPC corpies who were mainly miners who have done suicide ganks at least once.

And in such cases, the cost of ship and insurance was but a mere drop in an ocean.

But, like the high-sec wardec, the toy was abused.

Now, mommy, in the form of CCP, is taking the toy away.

You see, when you want to just bother people for no real reason, if it IS a sandbox, mommy don't want you taking the pale and shovel and constantly hitting the other kids over the head with it. So here's mommy, coming to take it away.

So dec-sheilding is here as a policy, and Concord-related ship loss is not going to be covered. These were two elements used by people who like to have targets but in places (high sec) where they are as safe from being targets as their own targets.


Honestly, I don't think this is going to be the end of suicide ganking. The reasons for it, regardless of what the griefers who cannot admit to who and what they are say, was never about ISK and those who do it have indy/missioner alts who finance them.

This changes nothing.


The next thing we will see is when you try to attack someone in high sec you get a dialog that says "you cannot attack that target here". When that happens, it won't change anything for me, but these forums will be very colorful.


But I would like to add - how come I could go to prison tomorrow if I sent money to a terrorist organization or even one that was never proven to be but merely suspected but in 23000 years you can send lots of ISK through a electronic means to a known criminal and nothing happens? Sending money to people with low status should be a status hit to the sender. Just saying.

More to the point, Tippia is a highsec carebear who plays Eve solo and ignores the entire multiplayer concept. And yet he's defending the PRINCIPLE of Eve while not even practising one of it's primary principles, that of an MMO. He neither PvP's nor ganks. What his vested interest is has escaped me.

Perhaps he's in the group of people who just argue because they enjoy the argument more than the outcome or intent.

Something about ones own voice.

It will change things for you. If the above happens, then a lot of "pvpers" will have no reason to maintain their subscriptions. You can call it tears or rage-quitting, if you wish. The game would be so fundamentally changed that labels become irrelevant. Mean ship-splodin' griefer bastards will leave, along with a lot of pvpers who aren't into the empire stuff, but have no interests vested in RMT networks. What will happen next is up for speculation, but I would venture to guess that the game's economy wouldn't fare too well. I can tell you for a fact that there are games out there that do riskless arena pvp much better than EVE does. If that one category will be the sum total of the MMO market, switching will be a no-brainer.

Meanwhile, if all carebears quit, the pvpers would just spend a bit more time building stuff. You see, we don't mind industry like the carebears mind pvp. Thinking otherwise shows a massive lack of judgment and foresight.

Because it's 23,000 years to the future is exactly the reason why you can't make this comparison. Who is to say what form morality and laws will take on at that point?

But that's beside the point. Tell me, how many real-life criminality punishment parallelisms can we introduce to EVE Online before it's not a videogame anymore?

I don't know what other games you play, but would you find it a good idea, for example, to implement a many-week-long boot camp course in Battlefield/CoD games, that absolutely must be completed before your first-ever online match? How about half an hour of gearing up before each respawn?

It seems to me that people forgot that EVE is, at its core, a videogame. Maybe the people who treat mining as a second job, religiously so, are indeed not getting that idea.

Your reading comprehension is lacking.

Sorry, I didn't actually bother reading past this point. I'm just curious, how excactly would a boost to pew pew pvp in highsec improve on this issue? The way I see it, we need to nerf it further, so that all the people who want to pew pew pvp will be encouraged to go to low/null.

And nobody is telling you to leave highsec, but if you don't like it as it is and want to change somehting that many players are perfectly happy with, then I think it's time you left.

So you're saying that if CCP makes high-sec as boring and unconductive to pvp as low/null, all the high-sec pvpers will head out in droves for the latter? Flawless logic, my friend.

"I serve two dishes at my restaurant; one is great, but the other is terrible! Boy, I'd sure like for the terrible one to start selling more, so my restaurant can stay afloat...Oh, I know! I'll drop the good dish's quality down to the level of the terrible one, so the terrible one can start selling better!"

*6 months later*

"Oh no, all the patrons who liked the good dish immediately stopped ordering entirely, and the ones who liked the terrible dish before the change all got bored and left for the place down the street! I never even knew how quick the patron turnover was for the terrible dish, because I was too busy attracting new patrons by pouring my heart and soul into the good one! Now my wife is sleeping with the gardener. "



Until a week ago, I was perfectly happy with high-sec. For the past eight years in fact. Then suddenly, people come in and want to change something I'm perfectly happy with. I mean, "nobody is telling you guys to leave high-sec, but if you don't like it as it is and want to change somehting that many players are perfectly happy with, then I think it's time you left."

really applies to all parties.

Maybe because every time we complain about having less PG on a mining barge/exhumers then what you have on a destroyer, the trolls come out in droves saying that we don't need all that PG? (Barges/Exhumers have 43.75MW of PG at max skills, the T1 strip miners are 10MW each and the T2 strips are 12MW each.)

On a more serious note - the barges/exhumers are badly in need of a powergrid boost. Destroyers have about 60MW, cruisers are in the 300-450MW range. So taking retrievers up to about 150MW, covetors up to 200MW and giving the T2 exhumers 300MW (Mack) and 400MW (Hulk) would not be unreasonable.

At which point the "you should have tanked it" complaint would have a lot more validity.