EVE General Discussion

So I take it you hold the view that gankers don't just target ships that can't shoot back, but also target pvp fit ships, including ships that are polarised weapon fit?

That's a good difference from the bulk of people who view ganking as nothing but easy targets.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Having to pay for tags (i.e.: utility) does not make a "moot point" since you can simply buy your sec status back instead of having to spend weeks shooting NPCs. Having an easier time probing down juicy loot piñatas is a buff to hisec PVP. It's not like the mission runner is expecting you, after all. The faster you get there the more likely you are to catch them: take too long and they've finished their mission.

So many buffs to hisec PVP, but because they don't suit your argument that the sky is falling, you dismiss them as "moot point."



Quick! To the Bat-Mobile!

Actually, wait a sec. How does wardec immunity actually change the game for hisec PVPers?

Currently if you wardec a corp one of the following happens:

1. They fight and bring more friends than you're willing to engage
2. They fight good clean honourable fights
3. They fold and reform elsewhere to dodge the wardec
4. They log out for the duration of the wardec

How does wardec immunity change the outcome from options 2 or 3?

Here are the arguments to be taking to CCP: NPC corps currently get awox protection and wardec immunity for the paltry cost of 11% taxes on bounties and the inability to anchor structures or claim sovereignty. Player corporations should face the same costs.

Now what if you're wrong, and "societies" are simply formalised in-game communities with better chat channels, malling lists and moderator privileges?

So I take it you hold the view that a mission-spamming care bear wouldn't use polarised weapons when they have a clear DPS advantage (and thus mission completion time bonus, thus higher ISK/hr)? The same mission-spamming care bears who fit no buffer to their marauders because buffer reduces DPS?

What kind of fit would be required to use polarised weapons in missions? Remembering that mission-spammers rely on mission completion times which they usually achieve through DPS (i.e.: minimal tank, maximum gank). Some people will do the math and figure that increasing the income from 80M ISK/hr to 120M ISK/hr is worth a few billion ISK a month. So even if they lose a ship a month, it's worth spending two billion on fittings.

Being risk averse, what would a hisec PVPer like more than soft targets that are forced to use shiny modules due to the game mechanics? Easy to kill, full of valuable modules — does it get better than that?

Trammel

The heavier security status penalties don't matter to you either. You can't get more negative than -10.

If Feyd is going to put sec status penalties on his list of woes, he needs to acknowledge the utility of tags-for-sec. Just because someone else is prepared to pay more for them than he is, doesn't make them broken. Feyd being a cheapskate doesn't mean the sky is falling.

Feyd's chart isn't only about highsec pvp.

It's clearly labelled HTFU to Theme-Park.

As a lowsec pvper, tags are no buff. I spend about 300 million a month keeping my sec status above -5 (because I fly logistics in fleets).

I would much rather spend that ISK on ships to go fight with. A Tristan is about 6 million ISK fit. That 300 million represents about 50 Tristans a month that could go to pvp instead.

Ratting for sec status is so boring that the increase in sec status penalty requires much more ratting to maintain my status so I can pvp in a role that I like for fleets. So boring, I'd rather spend the ISK instead. The result being less pvp ships.

Security tags are no buff. Sec status hit increase was a nerf.

Where does hyperdunking fit in on this chart?

It's been around for longer than people think, apparently, and it hasn't been touched.

Letting an already existing mechanical interaction continue existing is not a buff to ganking.

Hyperdunking was neither a nerf, nor a buff.

I was a ruling by CCP on the use of existing mechanics.

If anything, the argument would be that the Bowhead must be a buff to HTFU, since that's the change that occurred.

But that doesn't pass the common sense test.

The grinding is boring to begin with.

Increasing the size of the sec status hit means much more grinding is needed to recover from the previous amount of pvp.

More grind is needed now than ever if grind is the choice.

That is no buff.

That 300 million means less pvp ships. The increase is sec status hit also means that more ISK is required than would have been under the old system if tags were available then. That means less pvp ships either way. Tags are not a buff, nor a nerf. They are alternative with both positive and negative aspects. On the whole, they are at best, neutral with respect to HTFU.

It could just as easily be argued that tags are a buff to carebearing. The devblog for the tags describes them as an option for the 'reformed' outlaw to get back to highsec. Meaning, providing a way for lowsec outlaws to return to highsec without the risk of pvp or faction police. That's not a buff to HTFU either.