Get the NPC money out of empire. Level 3 and 4 missions all move to low and null, only veldspar available in .5+ systems, etc...

Will solve *most* problems.

The game would die a horrible death, Not all players want to live in null

Get the NPC money out of empire. Level 3 and 4 missions all move to low and null, only veldspar available in .5+ systems, etc...

Will solve *most* problems.

That is one of the core problems of the game & things will only get worse if more people aren't encouraged out of highsec.

Get the NPC money out of empire. Level 3 and 4 missions all move to low and null, only veldspar available in .5+ systems, etc...

Will solve *most* problems.

That is one of the core problems of the game & things will only get worse if more people aren't encouraged out of highsec.

That is one of the core problems of the game & things will only get worse if more people aren't encouraged out of highsec.

CCP will not, under any circumstances do anything that makes highsec more dangerous for carebears. It just won't happen regardless of how many well-meaning threads people make.

CCP will not, under any circumstances do anything that makes highsec more dangerous for carebears. It just won't happen regardless of how many well-meaning threads people make.

Because carebares ship more actual money into CCP or becase they're all carebares in heart?

Because there's only ONE right way to play a sandbox game .....................

edit
I figured I'd better explain that the above is not a validation of your statement, just incase you somehow manage to completely misinterpet it as such. It's more scathing disdain.

The ironic thing is that you lamers that cower in empire are the ones always crying about anything that mildly perturbs in any way your closed-in repetitive game play. I'm trying to open it up. You want everything to stay exactly the same.

You aren't as important as you think, empire tools. Nobody would even notice if you weren't there. In many ways it's already as if you aren't.

I have about had it w/ empire people.

For the same reason low sec will not be turned into high sec, and null sec will stay null sec, W will stay W. Each area appeals to a segment of the player base. Having as many different areas, allowing different play styles, as possible attracts more customers.

CCP will not, under any circumstances do anything that makes highsec more dangerous for carebears. It just won't happen regardless of how many well-meaning threads people make.

It's hilarious because they get what they want, so clearly CCP thinks they're pretty important.

Something needs to be done. I blame myself. When the new wardec mechanic hit I was going to go after a bunch of soft empire corps just to ruin them, but ended up going after a hard target which turned out to be fruitless. Then work.. then a market project... always some excuse. When my market stuff wraps about winter-expansion time I'm going into the empire sand-castle kicking business. To the NPC corps with you all.

or whatever other label they put on their no-longer favored features.

You mean PVP, right?

If you're going to complain about nullsec being stagnant and you live in hisec, you're a hypocrite.

I think I'm going to be sick.

To be fair, that's where we get most of our kills. I mean, if you give me the choice between 80-jump roams and maybe encountering a 30-man gang with a potential hot-drop, or starting a war, killing a bunch of ****-fit CNRs, and then getting a ransom, you can hardly blame me for picking the latter.

That is one of the core problems of the game & things will only get worse if more people aren't encouraged out of highsec.

Naturally, they close down.

Why not make null more interesting and enjoyable?

... Now miners stand a chance where they had little before...

The sad fact of the matter is if all of EVE were created for the PVP player by the PVP player...EVE would die. The vast majority of players are not PVP minded and a lot of those don't want anything to do with PVP at all. Without those players, CCP would lose revenue. Without those players there would be far less availability of ships, ammo, guns and everything else that makes our precious PVP in nullsec run.

CCP is doing the right thing. The carebears need a haven of their own to do their thing and stay out of PVP. PVP players still have their own space to do their own thing regardless of what the carebears want to do. This comes down to a very simple statement. Let each player play how they want. Quit trying to force everybody into playing your way.

As for the GSC's...yes...fix that crap. As for ganking ability on miners. Look...miners don't have any way to shoot back. It's only natural that they would have stronger defenses to take an onslaught. Before the buffs they were able to be taken out easily by a lone ganker. That was stupid...idiotic...completely moronic. Now miners stand a chance where they had little before. Even a fully tanked Hulk could be killed easily and quickly by a properly fitted gank ship. Those days are no more. Back when the miners cried for help from CCP the gankers told them to adapt or die. Now it is the gankers turn to adapt or die.

The wrong miners were given that chance. Hulk pilots should have gotten that extra tank Mackinaws got so they can better weather smartbombs and stealth bombers.

The sad fact of the matter is if all of EVE were created for the PVP player by the PVP player...EVE would die.

The vast majority of players are not PVP minded and a lot of those don't want anything to do with PVP at all. Without those players, CCP would lose revenue. Without those players there would be far less availability of ships, ammo, guns and everything else that makes our precious PVP in nullsec run.

CCP is doing the right thing. The carebears need a haven of their own to do their thing and stay out of PVP. PVP players still have their own space to do their own thing regardless of what the carebears want to do. This comes down to a very simple statement. Let each player play how they want. Quit trying to force everybody into playing your way.

EVE only came close to dying when CCP decided that they would continually add supersafe carebear PVE content at the exclusion of PVP iteration - the trilogy of Tyrannis, Incursion and Incarna carebear expansions that brought Hilmar begging on hands and knees to not let his game die. Contrariwise, PVP/gameplay expansions like Apocrypha, Dominion and to a lesser extent Crucible had the biggest subscription boosts ever.

In short, not only is this claim wrong, but the exact opposite is true.

Every study CCP has done states that involving new players into player-run corps, incorporating them into player-generated content is the only real way to ensure subscription retention. Those advertisements CCP puts up for new players to leave NPC corps and join player run orgs RvB and Eve-Uni aren't philanthropy - they're solid business sense. It's why CCP marketing takes its research and asks for trailers like "I was there" and big sov battles and not a scene where an ice miner sits there and some guy pokes him with a railgun and then CONCORD nukes him. Because that's what draws in and retains players, not the crap you're talking about. Grinding ISK solo doesn't involve partaking in EVE culture or forming connections in EVE 'society', such as it is, and it results in NPC corp members being disproportionately more likely to unsub from boredom. Making PVP and social interaction less necessary, which is what Grayscale is trying to do out of fear or something, is ultimately bad business sense.

As for ship/ammo/mod availability, that is entirely because of the inferiority of nullsec industry, which is directly accountable to hard caps set by game mechanics that enforce nullsec inferiority to highsec manufacturing and industry in quality, quantity and capacity of output. If this was corrected, if nullsec had the capacity of meeting its own manufacturing requirements, highsec manufacturing/logistics alts would be quite unnecessary for the game economy. Manufacturing subcaps in 0.0 would be little different then manufacturing supercaps.

All of EVE is based on player-against-player competition, either directly or through market. Since ISK and commodities are also tools of market PVP, it follows that carebears desiring exemption from PVP should be rewarded in ore that can't be used to build things and tokens that can't be used to buy anything on market. Only then would carebears be truly exempt from PVP.

So in short...destroy the sandbox and force everyone into your style of play, yes?

So in short...destroy the sandbox and force everyone into your style of play, yes?

Only if "short" is shorthand for "strawman fallacies."

I don't think you know what sandbox means.

That is one of the core problems of the game & things will only get worse if more people aren't encouraged out of highsec.

The sandbox is the actual setting and mechanics that we are supposed to be able to play with in any way we want. While the OP has some points, several people, including the one I quoted, seem to think that there should be rules that force everyone to do certain things, rather than let people play in groups or alone if they wish.

The sandbox is the actual setting and mechanics that we are supposed to be able to play with in any way we want. While the OP has some points, several people, including the one I quoted, seem to think that there should be rules that force everyone to do certain things, rather than let people play in groups or alone if they wish.

Have npc pirates booby trap roids the same way the ones in missions are trapped. Blows up big and hard. Find them with Survey Scanner. Set them off with long range guns from a distance to disarm... or some jerk will blow it up in your face for you.

Have ice hollow out, but not disappear. Continuing to mine the same ice chunk will have diminishing returns on yield. The diminishing returns will fade slowly only when all ice harvesters stop mining that chunk. Also use Survey Scanner to determine the ice that are on DR.

Make Concord tankable again. Make it so Concord could be "busy dealing with larger threat to safety" busy fighting some player pirate battleships. Maybe give them that increasing damage mechanic that was thrown around with gate guns. Maybe even drop a celestial beacon for other players to warp to so they can interfere with either side.

The sandbox is the actual setting and mechanics that we are supposed to be able to play with in any way we want. While the OP has some points, several people, including the one I quoted, seem to think that there should be rules that force everyone to do certain things, rather than let people play in groups or alone if they wish.

Hear that guys? Sandbox means that I should be able to mine and mission run in peace without any unwanted interference.

Hear that guys? Sandbox means that I should be able to mine and mission run in peace without any unwanted interference.

Well, talk about straw men. Very nice. While certain parts of the sandbox do have rules that CCP determines, they seem to do a great deal to make sure that such rules are mostly dictated by setting, not just arbitrary decisions.

Eve seems to resemble (somewhat, not exactly) the early US - the further you get from "town", the more lawless things get. How would all rule of law disappearing from Empire space make the slightest bit of sense? Stronger belt rats, sure; easier to "steal" from the mines than the factories. Finite ice supplies would only drive more people to the belts as prices rise, but sure. I even agree that the "can defense" against smartbombs should be gotten rid of, as it makes NO sense at all. However, randomly plunging all of Eve into null sec rules makes no sense at all, unless something in the story destroys all four "empires". If that happens, and all of Eve becomes free-for-all PvP, expect the subscriber base to drop into the low tens of thousands.

Nobody wants highsec to be like nullsec, they just want the people in highsec to be exposed to some level of actual risk when doing hugely profitable activities and to face in-game consequences for social activity that other players want to beat their faces in for.

And that kind of thing is the exact opposite of the increasingly safe, consequence-free environment that CCP is creating in highsec. Conflict between players is increasingly discouraged via penalties, costs, increasing difficulty and badly designed mechanics and nothing is being done to balance it back out.

Whoever said anything about getting rid of CONCORD is mistaken, I agree.

That's not really in the proposal, though, and I'm not finding that in anything to which you reply.

Thank you for your kind words. I very much appreciate that you agree that the majority of these changes are reasonable.

However, strawman arguments are not conducive to logical discussions.

High-sec space should continue to fall under the jurisdiction of CONCORD.

You think EVE would die if the rock-humping mouthbreather derpers suddenly disappeared?

That isn't what several people in this thread have indicated. The reason people are fighting the introduction of that "risk" is that the normal means people suggest are either making highsec pointless by moving everything into low or null (read: more helpless targets for pirates) or a return to the days when a single person in a destroyer can gank anything in a belt (as dumb as the "GSC shields" from a setting perspective, and another "I want helpless targets"). It may not seem that way to those making the suggestions, but that's the way it comes across.

Okay, when I read the details on the new Crimewatch, it looked like they were priming highsec for more player enforced law not NPC laws. Maybe I read it wrong?

Well, talk about straw men. Very nice. While certain parts of the sandbox do have rules that CCP determines, they seem to do a great deal to make sure that such rules are mostly dictated by setting, not just arbitrary decisions.

Eve seems to resemble (somewhat, not exactly) the early US - the further you get from "town", the more lawless things get. How would all rule of law disappearing from Empire space make the slightest bit of sense? Stronger belt rats, sure; easier to "steal" from the mines than the factories. Finite ice supplies would only drive more people to the belts as prices rise, but sure. I even agree that the "can defense" against smartbombs should be gotten rid of, as it makes NO sense at all. However, randomly plunging all of Eve into null sec rules makes no sense at all, unless something in the story destroys all four "empires". If that happens, and all of Eve becomes free-for-all PvP, expect the subscriber base to drop into the low tens of thousands.

You know ice comes in one block at a time, right?

How do you diminish "one" without depleting the ice?

I'm unaware of integers between one and zero.

Any why should they? If a given player does not like high, they can fly elsewhere. No one is forcing you to live in high sec and deal with the players there. You may say "But low sec is undesirable due to reasons xxx and yyy". Well if high sec was turned into low sec, it would gain those exact same problems!

Get the NPC money out of empire. Level 3 and 4 missions all move to low and null, only veldspar available in .5+ systems, etc...

Will solve *most* problems.

Yes, will solve the perceived problem by destroying the game, no game, no problem. If you don't like hi-sec, move to low or null and leave hi-sec alone.

Haha, using this defense in an interconnected EVE.

No.

The sad fact of the matter is if all of EVE were created for the PVP player by the PVP player...EVE would die.

There is such a thing as a non-PVP character in EVE? Must have missed the button in the character creation screen. If only I could go back and select it, I too would enjoy the advantages of risk-free income and complete immunity. My buddies would love me as I would provide them with accurate intel on the enemy without risking my ship. I too would enjoy not playing the 0.01 isk game in trade hubs. I too would be able to haul 200 plexes in an ibis on autopilot from Jita to Amarr. I too would be perfectly immune to bumping. I too would not see scams in Jita local. I too would be able to fly a fully Estamel-Fit Tengu and leave it 23/7 AFK for all to see. I too could enjoy playing a game that could as well be playable offline.

Conversely, I also do think that CCP is pandering a bit to the risk-adverse, simply to broaden the subscriber base. Some people may not be thrilled by that, but CCP does need to turn a profit, and I seriously doubt they could do it by hardcore PvP'ers alone without pay-to-win microtransactions. I may be wrong, but I am entitled to my opinion. Besides, all the richest probe sites, complexes, and belt-rats are in low and null, as well as the pirate corps that one can run missions for. It often seems to some of us that people who want high sec nerfed are sitting on the more lucrative areas themselves.

Get the NPC money out of empire. Level 3 and 4 missions all move to low and null, only veldspar available in .5+ systems, etc...

Will solve *most* problems.

Get the NPC money out of empire. Level 3 and 4 missions all move to low and null, only veldspar available in .5+ systems, etc...

Will solve *most* problems.

Who exactly plays EVE for its terrible PvE content when they have better options, like nearly every MMO out there?

EVE's appeal is the presentation of legitimate challenge generated by other players, whether it's something big like a nullsec region or something small like a packed veldspar belt, or something subtle like EVE's complex player-generated market. Not some sort of foam-padded theme park - CCP loses so many new players because it gives them the 'safe' option of pointlessly grinding as much as they like for as long as they like until their eyes drip out of their head with boredom and they unsub, never experiencing the true thrill of the game that is stepping outside one's comfort zone. Despite this, it pushes for clunky websites rather then simply removing things like NPC corps.

CCP's game design of giving gross advantages to doing one's PvE and industry in highsec over 0.0/low, and their low estimation of highsec players' willingness to handle the addition of any adversity, has warped and deformed EVE in a number of unpleasant ways for both highsec and nullsec players alike that, in the interest of a more enjoyable experience for everyone, should be fixed.

nerfing highsec income won't do anything but make people take less risks, when little noobies is in highsec struggling to get 200mil there is no way he is going to risk a 50mil drake in lowsec for some pew, but if he can get 2bil in a reasonable time then maybe he will.

There is such a thing as a non-PVP character in EVE? Must have missed the button in the character creation screen. If only I could go back and select it, I too would enjoy the advantages of risk-free income and complete immunity. My buddies would love me as I would provide them with accurate intel on the enemy without risking my ship. I too would enjoy not playing the 0.01 isk game in trade hubs. I too would be able to haul 200 plexes in an ibis on autopilot from Jita to Amarr. I too would be perfectly immune to bumping. I too would not see scams in Jita local. I too would be able to fly a fully Estamel-Fit Tengu and leave it 23/7 AFK for all to see. I too could enjoy playing a game that could as well be playable offline.

Highsec mining definatly needs some sort of risk injected into it. As it stands right now there is no real threat to them.

Many play for the PVE and most of your arguement, if not all, is unsubstantiated and purely subjective.

Wardecs.

Wardecs.

You aint using them.

Jihadding with bigger ships that push out more DPS (but you'd make a loss dying to concord)... you aint using that either.

Infact, I see plenty of risk..... but I see more nullsec whiners avoiding risk and the costs involved and crying about it...

yes, lets kill all lowsec pvp and what little highsec pvp remains.

nerfing highsec income won't do anything but make people take less risks, when little noobies is in highsec struggling to get 200mil there is no way he is going to risk a 50mil drake in lowsec for some pew, but if he can get 2bil in a reasonable time then maybe he will.

a few things can happen in and around highsec that will be good.

first put some nullsec islands linking to highsec in some places.
we have some small lowsec pockets that have some pew and some highsec players try to go there sometimes, put some npc null pockets in small areas too. the ratting and mining will be better and might attract players like the lowsec areas.

people with low sec status should be fair game in highsec and lowsec, pod and all. depending on sec status. Possibly at the same time, delayed concord response for these people? needs work but yea.

remove implant drops from story line missions, all learning implants should be from LP stores.

let players build outpost in highsec and lowsec, but with no ability to lock out others they can however set tax rates. highsec NPC stations are still invincible though, and a player outpost cannot be built if a station is in system already: this will give some people a reason to wardec/be wardecced, have something stupid to spend money on, and some people might want to run a station in a system without one nearby.

Any why should they? If a given player does not like high, they can fly elsewhere. No one is forcing you to live in high sec and deal with the players there. You may say "But low sec is undesirable due to reasons xxx and yyy". Well if high sec was turned into low sec, it would gain those exact same problems!

Wardecs.

You aint using them.

Jihadding with bigger ships that push out more DPS (but you'd make a loss dying to concord)... you aint using that either.

Infact, I see plenty of risk..... but I see more nullsec whiners avoiding risk and the costs involved and crying about it...

Wardecs.

You aint using them.

Jihadding with bigger ships that push out more DPS (but you'd make a loss dying to concord)... you aint using that either.

Infact, I see plenty of risk..... but I see more nullsec whiners avoiding risk and the costs involved and crying about it...

Gankers are neither stupid nor randomly vindictive. Without the possibility (not guarantee, a tanked Hulk wasn't profitable pre-buff) of a profitable gank, industrialized ganking is impossible. Without industrialized ganking, suicide ganking is not a significant risk to miners.

Hear that guys? Sandbox means that I should be able to mine and mission run in peace without any unwanted interference.

No.
It means you should be able to mine and mission run.
It means someone else should be able to interfere.

You can do both with current mechanics
You can do both with proposed Winter Changes
The OP is proposing that the sandbox to be changed into a themepark.
The OP is stipulating that if you aren't playing the game his way, your doing it wrong.




ps
To the clueless moron that automatically assumed I'm an Empire Carebear
Locator Agent

Highsec mining definatly needs some sort of risk injected into it. As it stands right now there is no real threat to them.

No.
It means you should be able to mine and mission run.
It means someone else should be able to interfere.

You can do both with current mechanics
You can do both with proposed Winter Changes
The OP is proposing that the sandbox to be changed into a themepark.
The OP is stipulating that if you aren't playing the game his way, your doing it wrong.




ps
To the clueless moron that automatically assumed I'm an Empire Carebear
Locator Agent

Lol.

Highsec mining definatly needs some sort of risk injected into it. As it stands right now there is no real threat to them.

You might want to make the goons and their Hulkageddon project aware of this.

So you're saying risk is bad for successful players in high-sec?

Because Value = Demand / Supply, it seems that inherent risk is healthy for the game's economy.

It's elementary mathematics.

This post is neither informed nor factual. It asks no valid question and begs a rather cruel one.

Thanks for posting, but please support your arguments with facts or, barring facts, ask an intelligent question.

No.

I'm saying that the PvE playstyle is no less valid than a PvP playstyle
A sandbox game should allow for both.

Let me make this totally, absolutely clear. I am NOT advocating 100% safe PvE, because that is themepark gaming, and some people just seem to be incapable of differentiating between the 2 statements.
I will argue against requests for 100% safe PvE as much as I do against ideas such as this one
Each idea tries to push the game away from the sandbox ideal towards a more generic locked in themepark style.


Aren't the really succesful highsec players, the traders ??? with market-pvp risking thier billions of ISK on market trends and speculations. So, no, risk is actually good for them, it seems to spur them on.

You might want to make the goons and their Hulkageddon project aware of this.

Sandbox =/= missioning or mining in hisec at zero risk.

Sandbox =/= gankers getting easy kills on missioners or miners in hisec

Sandbox =/= missioning or mining in hisec at zero risk.

Sandbox =/= gankers getting easy kills on missioners or miners in hisec

IMO, More risk in high-sec is fine as long as it can be mitigated in a simple and careful way. Like using the Survey Scanner and Cargo scanner to check if asteroids and cans are rigged with booby traps or not. Then perhaps gankers could take advantage of the foolish pilots who let a simple trap blow their shields off.

I mean, last time I checked, there were booby-trapped roids in level 4 missions.

What types of risk would you be in favor of? Do any suggestions from the OP stand out to you as acceptable or desirable?

Since Suicide Ganking is only as easy as the victim makes it, what's your point?

What risk do Miners and Mission runners face in HS? Crimewatch 2.0 removes the last incentive that Missionrunners and Miners have for forming substantive corps, as the Suspect flag removes the last vestiges of the need for corp membership for mutual protection.

Like using the D-Scan to look for flocks of Destroyers incoming?

Honestly up until now been a lowbie 'carebare' myself... more because I've been wanting to get a handle on the game before plunging into any sort of PvP myself. But last couple of days been giving serious thought to exploring or even outright moving into lowsec as a pirate or bounty hunter.

Something needs to be done. I blame myself. When the new wardec mechanic hit I was going to go after a bunch of soft empire corps just to ruin them, but ended up going after a hard target which turned out to be fruitless. Then work.. then a market project... always some excuse. When my market stuff wraps about winter-expansion time I'm going into the empire sand-castle kicking business. To the NPC corps with you all.

No matter what the bleeding-heart carebear apologists tell you, that is objectively the wrong way to play. You fall into this mental trap where every day it's "well, I better get some more money first" or "well, I better train up some more skills first." It will never end. I've killed bears who played for 5-7 years who still had that attitude. And I don't think I've ever met a person who actually went through with the transition after such a long period of time. I'm sure they're out there, but I'd still rather bet on winning the lotto.

Seriously, if you don't get over the fear of losing a frigate now, it will be much worse later on when someone doesn't give you a choice about losing a faction-fit navy mission-running BS. Seriously, I've given old players their first losses like that, and they ended up quitting the game despite having so much cash and assets in reserve.

Go ahead and list them.

Wow, you sound scary good at PvP.
I am sure that all of empire will shut down because of your declaration of war against high sec corps.

Combining a relatively low-action activity such as mining with a relatively high-attention counter-measure such as spamming D-scan? That's what leads people into questioning why they're mining and then they go to level 4 missions or quit. That sort of mining sucks to do, no matter how high mineral prices are.

Ahhh, perhaps you misinterpreted =/= as something other than "Does not equal".

You're right, they don't face any meaningful risks, and that IMO, is a problem.

Ahh, was talking more about learning the basics of the game. Not afraid of losing stuff I can easily replace... just not wanting to die is pure ignorance about the game... but have learned enough to start seriously considering it now.

Right, and all the freighters being lost in Uedama to your corp (a goon corp), they are a figment of the API's imagination.
And Hulkageddon, another goon treat, that never happened.
Nor the ice interdictions, nor the weekend attack in Jita.

And of course, the new AI that will totally wipe out drones as PVE platform, that will have no effect on high sec.

A good laywer, or in this case, null sec propagandist, should never ask a question he does not already know the answer to.
You are clearly bad at both.

You'd be surprised at how effective people like ourselves are at what we do. There's a whole science behind it that when properly utilized, results in such a level of demoralization that people end up beating their wives and children in frustration. Our corporation alone has over the years disbanded a few dozen corporations/alliances, and has resulted in hundreds of people dropping their subscriptions. I have a few huge notepad files in which I save the best rage, with people calling us "internet Al Qaeda" and such and hoping that CCP would crash and burn as their last act of defiance before logging out for the final time. And we're not even the biggest fish on the block, not by a long shot.

Well, all 9 of you must be truly deadly to wipe out so many high sec corps.
It is going to be such a shame when you won't be able to use out of corp alt logistics anymore.
Perhaps you will be able to drive people from the game with harsh language on the forums.

BTW, just looked up your war history.
Indeed, you do love your wars.
But given that 4 of the 5 wars you are currently in are mutual, it doesn't appear that you have many people terrified.

But you keep on your crusade to wipe out high sec.
I am sure that if you are all the other null sec zealots are successful (outside and inside of CCP), the investors in CCP will be thrilled with the "balancing" of the subscription base.

Right, and all the freighters being lost in Uedama to your corp (a goon corp), they are a figment of the API's imagination.
And Hulkageddon, another goon treat, that never happened.
Nor the ice interdictions, nor the weekend attack in Jita.

And of course, the new AI that will totally wipe out drones as PVE platform, that will have no effect on high sec.

A good laywer, or in this case, null sec propagandist, should never ask a question he does not already know the answer to.
You are clearly bad at both.

There's a whole science behind it that when properly utilized, results in such a level of demoralization that people end up beating their wives and children in frustration.

This is definitely what CCP should be encouraging.

I'm surprised marketing hasn't latched on to it.

This is definitely what CCP should be encouraging.

I'm surprised marketing hasn't latched on to it.

They did. One of the trailers was a nub getting his revenge by joining an alliance that ganked him and stealing everything they own and shutting dow their pos network.

Don't worry, it happens in other games too. .

If you want to complain about "they'll bring more ships" find me the killmail a brick tanked Hulk that was Suicide Ganked.

How do you suggest that we go about that?

That's been done in many threads.

You asked for a simple (pressing a button), careful (guaranteed safety) method of keeping safe.

If that doesn't suit you, then Fit a Tank. Tanking a Hulk made it unprofitable to gank you, but cost you one or both of your low slots (depending on paranoia level). If you want to complain about "they'll bring more ships" find me the killmail a brick tanked Hulk that was Suicide Ganked.

I see a distinct lack of child and spousal abuse in that bit.

It's not even that to be honest. A small loss, even a moderate loss, is alright. But now it either takes like a minimum of half a dozen Tornados (assuming optimal conditions) to kill the average barge, or two dozen people in destroyers. We could live with ganking not actually resulting in any profit, but dropping over half a billion or needing that many people is ridiculous.

The bears claim that it's still possible to gank, literally. Yes, it is. But the barriers to entry are so high that no one would bother aside from some special edge cases. CCP could buff barges to capital health levels tomorrow, and these people would still continue to say that it's possible to gank. They won't ever let go of that argument since they're so used to thinking in absolutes.

If by GÇ¥manyGÇ¥ you mean GÇ£noneGÇ¥, then yes.

Can you prove it's possible?

Non sequitur.

But yes, it's possible by default that none have been posted.

You missed the high-attention part. D-scan makes sense in a tense combat-rich environment where hitting that scan button can flow naturally into the rhythm. D-scan spam in mining is like attentively taking notes on watching paint dry.

And fitting and flying Hulks in that manner didn't suit me. When that crap was happening, I sold my Hulk, bought a Gila, and lived easily off my surplus.
After barge changes, I bought a Skiff, AB fit it, and now I mine for replacement drones, ammo, and whatever when I feel like it, blazing around at 700m/s kiting around my own mining drones because I can.

Can you prove it is possible to destroy tanked Hulk?

That's been done in many threads.

You ignore those killmails or you just say damage taken is lower than 30k so it's not good enough.

Strawman much?
I don't recall finding Null Sec PvP profitable. Ok, maybe if all you do is massive blob warfare where your opponent has no chance to even fight back you might make a profit in 'just' PvP.
As for the 'two dozen people in destroyers'.... LMAO.
A single rifter took half my tank off in a Tanked Retriever.
Hulks got what, maybe a 5% buff base? If that much.
Macks got about a 25% buff above hulks from what I saw.

So..... if you don't fit a tank on them but go for max yield, you need maybe 1 more destroyer for a hulk or mack than you used to.
Or are you complaining because..... they are actually fitting tanks onto hulks & macks now?

Can you prove it is possible to destroy tanked Hulk?

That's been done in many threads.

You ignore those killmails or you just say damage taken is lower than 30k so it's not good enough.

Strawman and onus probandi. So how about you prove it instead, since it's your job to do so.

I'm not a ganker like you.

Non sequitur and red herring.

So you agree then, that you just invented things as you always do since GÇö as usual GÇö you cannot offer any the slightest shred of proof for your claim.

I'm not the one who keeps repeating "tanked Hulk can't be destroyed in hisec"...

I'm not the one who keeps repeating "tanked Hulk can't be destroyed in hisec"...

GǪnor is anyone else (except you), but you are the one making claims you cannot prove.

So once again, your fallacies are piling up quite nicely and end up showing that you are pretty much incapable of posting anything that is even remotely close to something that might, with a downright enormous amount of luck, be considered to have a minute chance of being even partially correct.

Can you prove "tanked Hulk can't be destroyed in hisec" is not true?

Oh, I see that this has devolved into another miner qq thread. My apologies.

You made the claim GÇö you prove it.

Get the NPC money out of empire. Level 3 and 4 missions all move to low and null, only veldspar available in .5+ systems, etc...

Will solve *most* problems.

Eve is not a welfare state

Did I?

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1450495#post1450495

Yep, like the 'How to Get Rid of a Decent Portion of the Playerbase' problem.

In relative to nulsec ratting, hisec ratting is fine. Considering that there are places in nulsec where ratting is virtually a risk-free, isk-printing operation, I don't even understand how anyone can take the claim that hisec ratting is unbalanced seriously. If it were really that EASY and LUCRATIVE, everyone would be doing it.

Moving 3s and 4s out of hisec is not only a stupid solution, its also a transparent attempt at implementing a system of entitlement to those too lazy or cowardly to find fights on their own. Eve is not a welfare state,

This link shows Ruby demonstrating why a Hulk couldn't be ganked profitably.

I'm serious, no level of knowledge is too small to start pvping. Also, you'll learn much faster actually doing it, than just doing bear stuff and reading the forums. You'll be running out of hard drive space in your brain trying to process all the information. Even now, after eight years, I still get stuck in processing mode after each fight, even after winning, for hours thinking stuff like "okay, why did he take me to quarter shields, that should have been impossible given the scenario, time to look at combat logs."

Here's a good suggestion: why don't you,OP, and everyone else who wants to screw over people in highsec **** off.

If you read it again you probably notice that Ruby demonstrates how you gank tanked Hulk profitably.

Stop crying to CCP to do it for you, man up and do it yourself. We've been teaching you how to do so for months.

If you read it again you probably notice that Ruby demonstrates how you gank tanked Hulk profitably.

Well, 2,5M / ganker but still profit.

Mining does have the biggest problem when it comes to risk so its not all that shocking its the one to come up. Even the most militant miner will admit its a very unexciting activity.

I could say same to you too.

My Skiff is still on station ready to be ganked when you are ready.

That's been done in many threads.

You ignore those killmails or you just say damage taken is lower than 30k so it's not good enough.

And like I keep saying, gankers don't do things to piss away their ISK just to be contrary.

Challenge is too tough for you?

I think you are seriously missing the point. Just out of curiosity, how do you fund your PvP? When you lose a ship, implants, etc, how do you pay to replace them? Do you never use implants and let your skills train that slowly? One assumes not...so where do you get the isk for all your PvP activities?

So you're just lying, then.

Nope.

Nope.

No wonder why gankers say Skiff is useless when they don't even want to gank it...

That's been done in many threads.

You ignore those killmails or you just say damage taken is lower than 30k so it's not good enough.

So present the proof to support your claim.

Just tell me when you want to gank it.

So you're still refusing to present any proof.
You're still just lying and you're content with making yourself a bigger liar.

Dodging the question does not alter this course you've picked.

Do you want to gank my Skiff or not?

Militant miner?

oxymoron

So present the proof to support your claim.
Until you do, you're just a liar. The more you try to dodge it, the bigger a liar you grow into (and you're astronomically large in that department already).

Tippia, perhaps you should calm down before you post.

I'm calmer than a lake on a windless day. I'm just trying to get Jorma to stop lying and for once GÇö just once, even if it's only accidentally and completely unintentionally GÇö to say something that is actually true.

I don't particularly see how it's rude to ask him to stick to reality instead of constantly injecting his feverish dreams as a (lack of) support for whatever nonsense he wish to dribble todayGǪ

The fact that I have enough knowledge about the game to know that he's lying is exactly why I'm trying to make him utter at least a syllable of truth.

High sec spawns are insulting and an embarrassment to this game almost on level with faction warfare farming which is beyond embarrassing.

People come here and post threads like these for what purpose? What is the hidden agenda? Part of the problem is most players donGÇÖt want fair competition.

This was never more so obvious by all the tears from all the school yard bullies when the exhumer buffs hit.

ItGÇÖs not about risk vs. reward itGÇÖs about CCP removing their easy kills. If these people wanted real competition they would stay in low and null space and have their fun. If these places are so much damn fun why are they so determined to drag players from hi-sec into their space? If low/null is so much damn fun then why are they killing miners in hi-sec and not having fair competition with each other in low/null? They donGÇÖt want fair competition they just want easy kills.

Part of the problem is almost everyone and their brother are alliance in null. They have nothing to do so now they feel they need to get the easy targets from hi-sec to their own fracked up space that they themselves have created. Clean up your own yard before you come to sheet in mine.

People that have established themselves in low/null want a lot from hi-sec people that are happy with what they have. You canGÇÖt force people to play the way you want, if these people want to try low/null then they will. If they donGÇÖt then they wonGÇÖt. DoesnGÇÖt get much simpler than that.

Low/null players have fracked up their own space donGÇÖt let em frack up hi-sec. You guys gate camp and kill players that try to come thru and all for what? A few easy kills. You have made your bed now sleep in it.


People want to have their cake and eat it too. They want their easy kills and they donGÇÖt others to have the ability to make money. You chose null/low no one forces you stay, no one forces you to keep that second account going in high sec to fund you losses, no one forces you to play the way you choose to play.


Bottom line is you guys have fracked up and exploited your own space till its sheet to be part of so now you feel the need to do the same to hi-sec. Good luck because if or when you get your way I wonGÇÖt have any part of it.

I'm still waiting for an actual justification for the introduction of risk for hi-sec miners from the "would love nothing more than to gank the miners for lolz" crowd in this topic.

If they AFK mine enough... they will have 0 risk with 0 profit/reward to match..... I don't see the issue here....

Well when they were getting ganked miners also enjoyed the best profits they have ever seen which is a rather nice thing. It also removed a great deal of bots which is also great for everyone.

But risk for miners doesnt have to be only from pvp.

Do you want to gank my Skiff or not?

That's been done in many threads.

You ignore those killmails or you just say damage taken is lower than 30k so it's not good enough.

I'm still waiting for an actual justification for the introduction of risk for hi-sec miners from the "would love nothing more than to gank the miners for lolz" crowd in this topic.

If they AFK mine enough... they will have 0 risk with 0 profit/reward to match..... I don't see the issue here....

I didn't see those profits, ever. Profit from T1 ship manufacturing has been same for as long as I can remember.

During HAG, the miners who tanked their ships or mined aligned (or any number of other solutions) reaped record profits.

I didn't see those profits, ever. Profit from T1 ship manufacturing has been same for as long as I can remember.