Re-educated, or forced to cope or leave/die.

(SNIP)

There's nothing in this for the "carebears" (consensual PvP only and high reward PvE types), but I think you agree they have no rightful place in a Sandbox MMORPG in the first place.

I would disagree with the piece that penalizes industrialists in hisec by lowering their margins unless they move to lower sec systems, but overall it's a good starting point for discussion.

Why?

You can't have a competitive Sandbox MMO then place remotely good resources in safe PvP free areas without throwing the whole game out of balance

We both know that the docking game is a tactc mainly used by people who either use an alt when they are bored on their main in null sec or professional griefers in high sec who look for the easy noobie targets to pad their killboards.

I say however if you commit to combat then you should commit to it and not dock up every 30 seconds because the noobies brought enough people to bring you down in about 2 minutes.

By just setting to -10 you just avoid the issue at hand, and that is a flawed game mechanic which hasn't been overhauled with ship improvements and durability of ships outside in a somewhat hostile situation.

By just carrying on with business you still remain stuck with a system which needs revision. Specially if you have a small newbee corp and keep getting followed by a socalled "pro" who then wants to continue his station game at the next system you are at.

Once again I say, if you commit to PvP ou should commit for it longer than 30 seconds.

They adjusted the game so logofski isn't a very viabe tactic anymore to avoid being popped, so why can't something as simple as this also be adjusted.

Make miningbelts none static. When a belt depletes it depletes. A new belt will appear at a random location after DT. They have to be scanned down.
Next to that you see the asteroids show up as asteroid, not with prewritten on them what they yield. They need to be scanned to see what each roid yields.
People with normal mininglasers don't suffer any penalties as what they mine and overal they make ISK for mining.

Those using miningcrystals better scan the asteroids becayse yiield and crystal surviverability are dependant on them knowing what they are mining.

Planetary rings should be real physical, navigatable places, rings that are hundreds of thousands of kilometers in length, dotted with asteroids, icesteroids, anchorable microPOS for individual players, NPC rat hideouts, exploration sites, etc. Fully exploring a single one should be the work of days, even weeks for an individual player. The asteroids and icesteroids and sites in a ring should disappear when exhausted, and respawn in a new location to stop things becoming predictable.

How about If I modify that idea as follows:

(1) Change it to a 1% refining, PE and ME bonus for every decrease in sec from 1.0 to 0.0, to reward the move to higher risk space

(2) Add 10% to the raw component costs of every BPO, in order to boost mineral demand

Now I think it's the right direction...

We both know that the docking game is a tactc mainly used by people who either use an alt when they are bored on their main in null sec or professional griefers in high sec who look for the easy noobie targets to pad their killboards.

I say however if you commit to combat then you should commit to it and not dock up every 30 seconds because the noobies brought enough people to bring you down in about 2 minutes.

By just setting to -10 you just avoid the issue at hand, and that is a flawed game mechanic which hasn't been overhauled with ship improvements and durability of ships outside in a somewhat hostile situation.

By just carrying on with business you still remain stuck with a system which needs revision. Specially if you have a small newbee corp and keep getting followed by a socalled "pro" who then wants to continue his station game at the next system you are at.

Once again I say, if you commit to PvP ou should commit for it longer than 30 seconds.

They adjusted the game so logofski isn't a very viabe tactic anymore to avoid being popped, so why can't something as simple as this also be adjusted.

Might I trouble you two gentlemen to continue the "bears vs gankers" discussion in one of the ~30,000 or so threads already dedicated to the subject?

Heh. It's exactly the same proposal, except that it's worded differently.

No, not unless you think "giving more to people who do X" and "taking away from people who don't do X" are the same thing. I am just going to operate under the assumption that you're smarter than that. Reward for desired action =/= penalty for not performing desired action.

In the former case, people who don't change are in the same boat tomorrow that they are in today while people who do change are in a shinier boat. One approach is guaranteed to **** off people who choose the status quo while the other will only **** off some of them.

Bounty hunting should be contract based, giving bounty hunters killrights on a bounty target until the target has no bounty (Ie. has been podded)... ?

Well given the topic of this thread it's going to come up, although for me it's not about "Bears vs Gankers", it's about pushing EVE into a more Sandbox and immersive game built around conflict.

But I think the last poster to attempt to flame me may just have real reading difficulties which were then combined with a temper tantrum. When he's talking about something relatively simple like station camping and depleting asteroids he actually makes sense.

I would like to clarify that whilst I have no problem whatsoever with players creating areas of the map where things are run to their liking, I am strongly opposed to safety zones being created by CCP fiat.

Incidentally, proposals along the lines of "no one I don't like should be allowed to warp into my missions" are fairly frequent, but they're generally quickly and thoroughly shot down for the obvious reasons.

Well, being shot down and washed out faster than they gain any serious traction is as good as non-existent, in the end. The bottom line is still that paranoia about "Eve is turning into WoW" is still unfounded.

I say "safety zone" not to mean arbitrary lines drawn on the map and protected by NPC mechanics, I mean safety zones in that when travelling through a region, one can expect a certain level of *explosion* risk. How safe or dangerous a system is should be determined by the players, if we're going to create the ultimate sandbox here. You and I agree on that.

I would think things like being behind a planet should and could help hide ships from scans, which gives advantages to both hunters and hunted!

I don't think there needs to be bonuses for production in lower security space, rather that most of the resources used in production come from lower or no security space.