EVE General Discussion

I'm not suggesting to get rid of NPC stations out of all systems in hi sec.

I'm suggesting to move them out of high economic value systems such as ones that have ice belts.

You shouldn't make hand over fist profits without a little risk.

Now I've modified my ideas over and over again in this thread to see if I can get my ideas to stick to both sides of the issue.

Now I've gone from the care bear side to PVP apparently.

Look, ice mining is an end game income source. Unless a newb buys an ice miner it takes some time to become one.

You shouldn't be able to mine ice without risk (goddamn I just agreed with Jenna again).

Fist, there still will be NPC station outside of ice belt systems. No one is forcing you to keep your ships in citadels.

Second, you could always haul your ice out of the system if you were that antisocial.

I mean really. Those 20 skiff fleets are notorious for blocking communication with other players.

Boo hoo. We are making them interact with other players. Maybe they should get out of that NPC Corp if they don't like other players citadels and place their own.

And we have a bonus that gankers don't have sanctuary in NPC stations because they are moved out of ice belt systems.
Maybe you should find a Merc Corp to deal with them now.

Well, it's annoying enough to not know when an ice belt will spawn, so I think if you made the where random it would just make ice mining and ganking ice miners too annoying for both parties.

What? What does that mean? How does a 20 man/alt skiff fleet block communication? Do you mean that they don't communicate with other players? Why would we expect them to start communicating under your system?

Actually, Citadel fees are much lower than NPCs and since citadels compete with each other they usually they have prices even lower.

Only people that **** off all the Citadel owners and refuse to set up their own will be affected.

Could you point me toward any of these advertisements?

I hear that a lot "Highsec is advertised as safe" but never have I ever seen an advertisement for EVE to the effect of "Come try EVE, we have a totally safe area of the game where no one will ever bother you!"

Seriously, can you cite any examples of this deceptive advertisement?

So, now the "more content" hypothesis is looking less tenable.



Not defending them, but they are not botters.



That sounds even less likely. The benefits of having a 20 man skiff fleet are concentrated right? That is why some people do it. The costs are not so concentrated. And the costs of citadel owner letting such players do business are even more diffuse, and blowing up that citadel might mean blowing up a citadel you were using, or was competing with the citadel you were using.... And, if you are a player who uses ice products but also doesn't mine.

Nahh...just not seeing it.

POCOs are a revenue generating asset that people can destroy and replace with their own. If you destroy a 20 man skiff fleet what do you get? Not much. If you induce him to even stop logging in his 20 man skiff fleet, suppose he logs in 1 or 2 guys or stops altogether what do you get? Well....nothing.

And now your argument has shifted in terms of its base entirely, IMO.

Based on that I would say my points mattered.

You should use Thomas Sowell's method. Ask, "And then what?" So we remove the stations in systems with Ice Belts, and then what? Players may put up citadels. And then what? They'll likely cater to miners and maybe even gankers depending on the owners. And then what? People will mine and gank and maybe the occasional citadel will be blown up. And then what? We'll get something like we have today, but with citadels instead of NPC stations.

I can appreciate you posting on a different character and even on IZ, I have always tried to respond to you as I would anyone else n the forum (sometimes I fail, because I'm a bit stupid at times).

So, just as I would with anyone, what's the basis for concluding that most aren't outlaw?

Looking at the purely highsec based gankers like CODE. for example, Eve Who shows the average sec status to very much be outlaw:

https://evewho.com/alli/CODE.

That's 466 members of the most active ganking corp in the game with an average sec status of -5.9

Where are you drawing the conclusion that most gankers are repairing their sec status with tags from?

Well, regarding the Dev Post quite safe is not the same as completely safe.

And if you read the post he is responding too it is quite clear CCP has made mechanics changes to make the game safe.

Let's break this down, shall we?

High: rising or extending upward a great distance

Security: the state of being protected or safe from harm

So, "High Secuity" translates to "safe", no matter how stupid you are.

I guess CCP could ban the term HS and start calling it Empire or something cheesy.

Example A: Brand new player signs in for the first time. After a day or two decides to jump out of the starter system, as that is part of the tutorial. But he knows that if he jumps to a "low seurity" system he's likely to lose his recently acquired shuttle. So, being prudent and not wanting get shot...he stays in 0.7 and higher (just to be safe). Then, just 1 jump from WalMart®, BAM!

Now, we all know that losing a shuttle is nothing, really. But when this new player says something like, "what just happened?", he gets berated and lambasted in local by some new order zealot. That's NOT good. I know what the trolls will say here, "if they can't handle it we don't need 'em...Aaaarrrrgggghhhh!"

And that my friends, is wrong thinking. More New Player Retention = Increased Revenues = Better Gaming Development. And whoever says that getting ganked right out of the gate is more likely to retain a new player is full of $hit.

I want this game to survive, so stop being lobsters!