EVE General Discussion

All ship losses are your responsibility, you're complaining about the game functioning as intended.

Suicide ganking and gatecamping are not a problem whatsoever.

The real problem lies in the unlimited use of alts to sidestep all consequences.

However, that is hilariously difficult to even think about fixing and most people are so ensorceled by the alt meta (which has existed since 2003) that they will defend it to the death, despite the massive problems alts bring to the systems currently in place - Let alone that the game has been quasi designed around the use of alts over the years.

You can bet that if gatecampers and suicide gankers couldn't use alts anymore, they'd be hypocritically crying havoc over how unfair the game is to them once they actually have to deal with the consequences of being at -10.

Sadly, this will likely not happen for a long time, given how critical alts are for nullsec - Even if just to keep the game from being too boring (unless there are people who want to play a fulltime cyno character for example).

Yeah, going to second this. Removing alts from the game is just a generally bad idea.

Also clearly Reiisha has never heard of exchanging tags for sec status. This would actually impact gankers *less* than almost any other profession since sec status is actually pretty easy to buy back or grind back if you know what you're doing. It's even less costly if you don't bother popping pods, since that's a way larger sec status hit than just blowing up a ship.

Yet in another thread you said making some activities more alt reliant (such as gathering intel in non-Local ID Player Sov), is generally a bad idea.

There is a degree of contradiction there.

Removing alts would be devastating for CCPs bottomline.
Its obviously out of the question.

It thus makes sense to instead encourage use of alts.

I dont disagree with the rest of your post, some parts are not quite the way I see them, but they are only a matter of few degrees from which we perceive the issues.

I however want to draw attention the specific part above.
Suicide Ganking has a very unique and peculiar equity of risk/reward.
As you say, suicide gankers benefit from the same CONCORD protection as their targets.
Yet when they make their attack, they suddenly are hit with a 100% fatal risk from CONCORD.
As to their reward vs that risk, they can fairly accurately estimate their costs/effort vs potential profits.
They can fairly accurately estimate their dps/alpha vs usual standards of EHP.
Sure, the loot drop is random, but it balances out in the long run as a predictable average.

Im sure its been suggested before, but how about making cargo scanning in HS trigger a suspect timer?
Suicide Ganking would still be possible, but it would introduce more risk as they cant be as certain of their potential profits.

The suicide ship is basically ammunition. In accounting terms an expense not an asset. If there was more variability, random rather than definitive delay on Concord thatd be a risk, a gamble, but otherwise no.

It would take 10s and another whine post about throw away scan alts would pop up on the forums.

The problem like always is not that one side can't be touched, but that one side is actually interested how the game mechanics work and work out ways to to use them in their favour. In most traditional games that would be called 'game strategy' or simply 'playing the game', carebears in EVE call it 'exploitiation of game mechanics'.

The other side has no interest in doing so and rather comes to the forums to whine for nerfs to the enemy and more isolation. It has always been this way and IZ is one of the biggest whiners since forever. Don't expect a rational discussion.

They are already warned if they are at the keyboard. If you are targeted by a scanner you get an animation and a sound.

The only thing that would change is that instead of scanning with the scout ship they would bring in an alt in a noobship with a scanner to do the job.

Also most AG will not shoot a suspect in anything with weapons since they have no NPC support

But hey, I don't say don't implement it. I just say it wont change much

That's correct the price of a pirate faction BS will be relative to the demand and the supply.

If the demand is lower than the price of producing them then the supply ceases to exist until the price rises again.

The supply is limited by the number of BPC that drop from sites and the number of people willing and able to run pirate faction missions to get them.

(In terms of minerals)
That isn't quite correct because the Pirate faction ships can be bought from the LP store without having to provide a T1 battleship in exchange at the bargain price of 80 mil and 800 k LP.

Still I can't see that ever getting to the state where it is cheaper than a T1 battleship though potentially a Mackerel could become cheaper than a Typhoon Fleet issue and probably has at times.