EVE General Discussion

It's totally rational that players can gather intel without being declared a criminal and having to forfeit CONCORD protection. Declaring it irrational because you (mistakenly) think such a game change would increase player interaction shows how muddled your thinking really is.

Make up your mind. Are you arguing scanning should be suspect-level offense because anything else would be "irrational" or are you arguing because you think it would make the game better?

The status quo is clearly not "irrational". You can draw the line on what is legal or not on either side. Saying that gathering information to prepare for a crime is criminal is rational, as is saying that no, that gathering intel is fine and only when you act on it by shooting another player a crime is committed in the eyes of CONCORD. You are just making up reasons why your pet idea should be implemented that have nothing to do with facts. Declaring the other option "irrational" as the basis of your reason why your idea should be implemented is flawed and the sign of a weak argument. As is claiming scanning is "valuable" so should cause a suspect flag. So what? Almost everything players do in ships is valuable in some way and doesn't merit a suspect timer.

The real question you keep dancing around is whether such a change would make for a better game. There is no reason to think such a hurdle would increase player interactions in any meaningful way. Just because you put more suspect timers into the game does not make automatically for better game play. Do you have something better?

If you are going to successfully argue to change the status quo, you will need better arguments than "it's not rational" or "the more suspect timers the better".

Oh yea, I forgot you can just buy your way back to good sec status with cash. LOL! Not that you would ever really need to.

What a trashy joke of a game EVE really is. A risk-averse griefers paradise.

How have you absurd and thoughtless EVE apologist twits not realized this yet?



quoted for hilarity

Now quote the rest.

This isn't sig sites, for every profitable kill there are hundreds that are not. Your plan means we go from spending a lot of time scanning and finding nothing of worth to one scan every 4-5 min. In practice this means simply by shear numbers the likelihood of scanning the profitable target is very very low. Ganking for profit cannot exist as a profession based upon pure luck you find something.




You get 6 seconds to lock the target, scan it and unlock. There is no point in hiding just the locking because that is done near instantly.

Its perfectly rational, you just want this nerf because you want to kill ganking. Just like all of your other anti-ganking nerfs you have come up with.

This too, is false and unrepresentative.

Im one of the most hawkish and pro-pvp posters on this board.

I have zero issue with suicide ganking. I have posted consistently, for years, at great length, so as to involve more PvP, conflict and competition in HS and elsewhere.

You are concerned with the profits of suicide ganking.
I am concerned with PvP, and equity/balance of game systems.

There is no rational reason why invasively gaining data on a ships fit/cargo should not involve risk/cost.
Listen and consider your own arguments.
You think a scanning ship should be able to scan hundreds of ships, with no risk/cost, so as to pass that info on to suicide gankers, for them to maximize their profit/effort, agaiinst the interests of the target.

A target that has its fit/cargo data violated in this way, for purposes of potential aggressors to suicide gank it, should have equivalent recourse to engage that data thief.

My proposal does not impede suicide ganking, or scanning.
It introduces more pvp, and cost/risk to acquiring such valuable data on a target.

No they are not. Saying one of two options is "not rational" as evidence why a game change should be made when both sides are clearly and objectively coherent and rational, isn't a valid reason. You can't argue with a straight face that drawing a line at "looking but not touching" is irrational. It is perfectly rational. It may not be the best option for a vibrant PvP game (although I, and apparently CCP, think it is the better of the two options), but it is a completely logical and rational position to take - gather all the intel you want, but if you make an active, aggressive action CONCORD will stomp you. It's what we have and is internally consistent and with logic. Dismissing it out of hand as an insane position distracts from any possible bit of value your idea might have, undermines whatever credibility you might have left for honest discourse, and does not make for a productive discussion as evidenced by the last several pages of this thread.

As for the "more timers is better for activity" argument, it is simplistic and without evidence. You can cite no example where adding timers made the game better or more active, and in fact, there are counter examples where addition of suspect flags has diminished activity, or has been intentionally used to discourage players from doing stuff (neutral logi?) in the sandbox. Why do you think adding timers for scanners would have any other effect?

You argue as "we". This is telling and significant.
It implicates you as biased and arguing for a specific "we", and its interests.

If you want important fit/data on a potential target, that should incur reciprocal cost/risk.
You dont need fit/cargo data to suicide gank
You are again conflating unrelated mechanics.

I repeat again, that the purpose and function of a passive targeter, is to obtain a target lock without detection.
Nothing more, nothing less.

I understand the resistance to this proposal, as it strikes at a currently unimpeded function of the group effort of suicide ganks, which underlies the entire operation. That of scanning ships.

That of ascertaining, without risk/cost, the value of targets as selected from dozens if not hundreds of passing ships, via extremely valuable data to ascertain both the defense capabilities of the ship, and its cargo, so as to organize a suicide gank fleet efficiently towards purposes of destroying it and looting enough value.

But this acquisition of such valuable date currently occurs at NO COST/RISK.
A single rookie ship with scan modules can scan an indefinite amount of passing ships.

This is not rational, or conducive to the ethos of EVE.

All value, should be met with cost/risk.
This data, is valuable, we have all agreed.

Thus it should be met with commensurate cost/risk.
Ideally, so that you go suspect for acquiring the data to aggress them, thus allowing the target to aggress you as well..

It hurts and violates the target, and makes them susceptible to attack.

That is the whole purpose of fit/cargo scanning.
To acquire valuable data so as to ascertain the means necessary, and the profits possible, from suicide ganking the target.

They should be able to defend themselves at the point of such an intrusion intended to inform a suicide gank on them, not only when/if the suicide gank occurs.

The scanning ship itself is implicit in the effort, and provides crucial data to the gank effort, and should share risk/cost for doing so.