Player Features and Ideas Discussion

So your view is yet more nerfs, while those who benefit from said nerfs suffer even less repercussions for their incompetent game play.

How about, no.

Hunting carriers/dreads/supers/titans.

Feel free to tell me how you get a capital away from the edge of a POS without bumping it.

It's pretty simple. Remove the POS. (No POS = No shield)

It's actually easier to target than a bumping mach



EDIT: POS removal is a valid counter to shield hugging capitals - most people are just too lazy to put in the effort. (this logic should seem familiar to several of you)

Why Not Mike? If I were to find a way to learn about what you were doing in the privacy of your own home you'd be pissed. You'd consider it even an unprovoked invasion--i.e. aggression. So using the plain English meaning of the word, cargo scanners are an aggressive module.

And tackling is not bumping. See my previous links.

Oh, and you complaining about arguing semantics is totally hilarious.

So Teckos is being pedantic yet that last post of yours argues that there are no tackle modules, except those with the module label of "tackle." This is just being literal. The wiki clearly states which modules are tackle mods, but to save time for people not wanting to check external links:

" Tackling

As listed in the Glossary - Pinning down an enemy with Warp Jammers and Stasis Webifiers until reinforcements arrive. Several types of ships are well suited for this role. "


What people who are not the programmers and game designers think is irrelevant. You are arguing for a definition that is commonly referred to by players figuratively. It is a terrible thing that using the word literally now includes the definition of figuratively due to people misusing the term due to lack of understanding, now they consider their expanded definition to be the "literal" definition.

Yes now I'm being pedantic, semantic and taking your words literally, literally. Bumping and tackling are two separate strategies, both of which are not only described in no uncertain terms, but include instructions on how to do both. The people on the receiving end of these strategies have strategies to counter them, it is up to them to utilize and master them.

Perhaps a page needs to be added to the wiki and linked describing the counters, maybe then some of the uninformed can save themselves. I would even include links in my bio.

Pedro says he enjoys his playstyle of destroying the weak and vulnerable. I enjoy my playstyle of not being one of them, and the way i do this is multitasking my freight and hauling runs. It certainly can be exciting, I do make forays into lowsec as a dropoff point for my JF, because it saves time. Uncertainty, even with scouts makes it a bit of a rush every time. It seems we're the close to winning eve because we enjoy our roles and know it would be a hell of a lot more boring without each others style of play.

Easy=/= fun.

ed* damn, i gotta stop poking at my phone writing this stuff, editing is a pita.

I've said it before, I'll say it again: Drop a pilot's sec status <-5.0. Undock in a ship and attempt to perform a task while undocked in HiSec that isn't suicide ganking. Tell me what you learn.

The ease at which this is mitigated through any of several means makes this response dubious. A technicality at best, I've never heard a ganker complain he wasn't able to mission or mine in HS after blowing up his competition, showing how marginal this really is in practice. I ganked on my main in Hi Sec extensively - never ever had a problem. Again, I have probably ganked more in Hi Sec than the majority of people posting here - I have a pretty good grasp of the mechanics.

The philosophical objection is that such a trivial mechanics change fails to challenge operating at -10 in Hi Sec; it is so easy. Again, I realize why the bar has to be low, and the consequences have to be light, otherwise you'd risk the gankers ganking themselves into extinction, painting themselves into a corner where they can gank no more, which would be seriously bad.

There are no relevant or applicable functional consequences for being -10 in Hi Sec. That is why people see it as unfair.

It's perfectly relevant. Gankers have to abandon pretty much every other aspect of gameplay.

The fact that people are willing to make that choice hardly reflects against the actual consequences. Carebears just can't see past their own noses and their own selfishness. If anything, since it's functionally impossible to do anything except gank once your sec status his a certain level, the reality is that it's unfair against gankers.

But it damn sure isn't unfair that their playstyle still exists, which is what the carebears are really crying about. They want "consequences" that make ganking completely untenable and delete it as a playstyle. That's why they dishonestly claim that the current consequences from ganking are insufficient.

These numbers may be out of date, but what they mean has not changed:

High Sec: 1212 systems
Low Sec: 695 systems
Null Sec: 3294 systems
W-Space: 2498 systems

So by cutting out conditional access to 15.7% of systems, you are cutting off every other aspect of gameplay?

Such a magnanimous sacrifice! What devotion! Dude...no. You have unfettered access to dunk everything in hisec while -10, which I agree is how it should be under the present rule set, but it's hardly a difficult trade off. You get exactly what you want.



If you are going to pontificate about risk/reward and trade offs, you can't claim special treatment here and run for a security blanket. Accept the trade off, even though as far as I'm concerned its academic and pointless. The Scourge of the Forge, the Horror of Uedama, the Bane of Miners....and to think all it cost them was bearing in total safety, which is what they were all uppity about in the first place. Either you are making billions from ganking, or you are being handed all the catalysts you will ever need; you really aren't giving up that much of your own play style, this is just not believable. Given how easy it is to circumvent what -10 does to you, it just seems frivolous to list it as an actual consequence.



No problem here, you are correct.

Oh, and as for risk vs reward.

Risk vs reward does not apply to ANY PvP interaction. At all. CCP has it's own built in measure for that, the loot fairy. That's why what other players drop is not taken into account with risk vs reward, because in both the risk and the potential reward in any PvP interaction, the buck stops with the players involved. There is no aspect of game balance involved in someone carrying PLEX in a shuttle. That's a people problem, not a game balance problem.

Risk vs reward is exclusively oriented around activities that generate assets into the game world.