ccp just stated they don't want you suicide ganking for profit, deal with it.

Then they should probably tank the shuttles, rookie ships, and T1 industrials that people use to move expensive items from time to time.

You can't protect people from stupid.

a ship destroying another ship who's modules are worth more than the ganker's ship in a matter of seconds is perfectly balanced?

ccp just stated they don't want you suicide ganking for profit, deal with it.

we've been through this in the thread already; cargo isn't included in this. a t2 ice harvester is worth more than a ganking destroyer. 1 module alone. see the issue now? it has NOTHING to do with popping haulers for cargo.

ccp just stated they don't want you suicide ganking for profit, deal with it.

CCP shouldnt be in the business of saying what they do and dont want us to do. Their only responsibility is to maintain a fair and balanced sandbox for us to decide what we should be doing. Profitability of ganks is entirely situational.

Now, i can see how it could be argued that the current 'status quo' is biased against the miner, and as such I am not against changes to the stats of ships miners would use. (they buffed destroyers a bit, so i dont mind a mining barge buff in equal measure)

My problem is the current proposed stats, as they currenty are, pushes the balance far to much the other way.

Also, for all our sakes, stop using the 'my ship is more expensive than yours, you shouldnt be able to kill me' argument, it doesnt wash, this isnt WoW Battlegrounds or diablo3.

I look forward to it being impossible to stick anything worth more than a tornado in your cargohold.

oh look; another person that doesn't understand it has nothing to do with cargo.

ccp just stated they don't want you suicide ganking for profit, deal with it.

it has nothing to do with cargo

So, if we don't use the ISK argument, if they buffed dreads and you could drop a single suicide dread on a SC and kill the SC in 2 volleys, would that be OK as well?

Tell that to the triple-digit billions I've made from ganking haulers and freighters carrying ungodly amounts of crap without a second though given to defense. I can safely say that I've caused many of those people to quit in anger. But go ahead, "adjust the numbers" if you need help with your mortgage payments.

The point is, we're not going to stop ganking until you remove aggression in high-sec, which I'm sure you'll do within the next couple of years (it's the only logical conclusion to the gradual progression that's been going on). Until that happens, we'll continue doing what we do, either by using more people, or using different, valid game mechanics. All your actions are reactionary, and are only responses to the need for short-term subscription increases. Face the facts: we know more about this game than a whole lot of people currently in charge of maintaining it, and you guys are really regretting the whole "non-consensual pvp" thing in this here year 2012. If you really want that sub spike, stop beating around the bush with these gradual let-downs, and change the game in one fell swoop. At least that way you'll leave with a bang, and a nice bonus in the bank.

Then they should probably tank the shuttles, rookie ships, and T1 industrials that people use to move expensive items from time to time.

You can't protect people from stupid.

So.

Which quote did you lie in?

If I wanted to remove aggression, I'd just shut it off, instead of going through all these hoops to keep it alive. The reality is that suicide ganking is an integral part of the game that I quite like, but every now and then we need to make changes because the current setup doesn't work.

neither. the profitability of suicide ganking in this context has nothing to do with cargo value, stop thinking it does.

are you really that dumb?

CCP shouldnt be in the business of saying what they do and dont want us to do. Their only responsibility is to maintain a fair and balanced sandbox for us to decide what we should be doing. Profitability of ganks is entirely situational.

Now, i can see how it could be argued that the current 'status quo' is biased against the miner, and as such I am not against changes to the stats of ships miners would use. (they buffed destroyers a bit, so i dont mind a mining barge buff in equal measure)

My problem is the current proposed stats, as they currenty are, pushes the balance far to much the other way.

Also, for all our sakes, stop using the 'my ship is more expensive than yours, you shouldnt be able to kill me' argument, it doesnt wash, this isnt WoW Battlegrounds or diablo3.

really? because ganking a 17k cargo space hulk for it's cargo means using a ship worth less than about 2-3m even a cheap destroyer would struggle to find profit in the dropped cargo. unless of course there was a source of income from that suicide gank other than the cargo....

I think you need to realise that suiciders gank people FOR MORE THAN ONE REASON AT ONCE

jeez

100% agree.


If these changes go live, something needs to counterbalance the nigh invulnerability of these mining ships. As others have said, I fear it will have unintended consequences. You devs may be trying to help out the "little guy" but all this will do is make that "little guy's" miner subscription evaporate when their profit sinks to **** as they cannot compete with the hordes of multi account /AFK/ bot miners.


IMO, everything in EVE should be about player interaction, not pushing us all into little pockets of space. Is this game a sandbox or is it a theme park? Is it an economic and space warfare simulator or is it a "farm and stat boost" role playing game?


I propose a heavy tax on all activity in Hi-Sec. Missions, mining, production, everything. I severely doubt the US gov't and all the powerful corporations in the us would allow me to go mining for gold wherever I wanted somewhere in New Jersey and that if I did find something that I wouldn't immediately be pressured/sued/incarcerated into selling the rights to the land or never going near where I found the gold again. Something needs to sustain these empires and Concord, right? If you want to AFK mine, fine, go ahead, but if you do so in Hi-Sec you should net very little if any profit after huge taxes for doing so in Empire space. It is their asteroid after all.


Or just keep segregating us. I made an account last summer, played the game for a month or 2, had almost zero interaction with anyone else, got bored, and quit. I came back last month, and while FW has been fun, and I plan on finding an actual human corp whenever I get some more free time to do so, I am telling you that as someone who cares about gameplay, rewarding those who stubbornly and ignorantly refuse to adhere to the current gameplay is a terrible idea. All you will be left with in a year's time will be mining bots.

I'm pretty sure that isn't working out well for Zynga...

This has swung too far in the other direction. Doubling-Tripple EHP was most likely going to be the sweet spot. Increasing EHP 4-10x or more is hilariously skewed too far.

i don't disagree on some points; i do think the skiff's ehp is a little overkill. in reality all the hulk needs is enough cpu/pg to fill all of its slots without HAVING to have a fitting mod to fit a tank.

Why is it okay for gankers to tell miners that we should bring 'moar tank,' but when miners tell gankers to bring 'moar dps' they're somehow out of line?

Why is it okay for gankers to tell miners that we should bring 'moar tank,' but when miners tell gankers to bring 'moar dps' they're somehow out of line?

the modules dropped from an exhumer exceeds the cost of the ship destroying it. is that the same with a freighter?