Moving freighters around will require a lot more attention than autopiloting brainlessly and with game window minimized. It will add excitement to frieghter pilots, extra adrenalin and more eye cleansing tears. Which all have beneficial health effects.

From PvP point of view - freighter pilots will now have use for 'eyes', scouts and hired bodygaurds.

When enough frieghters get killed, the transportation business will become more competitive, thus more motivating, the profits and margins will return to active players.

If you have made it to flying a Freighter without making friends. Then you should not be playing MMO's

An average of about 6 a day out of tens of thousands of trips.

Training up a Catalyst pilot, depending on whether you wish to fly T1 or T2 fittings, does not potentially take that long to do if you have available skill time training. So you can see where a capsuleer may consider deleting an alt and starting a new one up from scratch.

read what bethan's quoting.

I am a little confused.
Of what benefit is deleting the character with the low status (but with PvP skills) when you have to make a completely new character to replace him?
Wouldn't the loss of a skilled character be a hindrance?

I have done something like that with my mining characters. I gave a brand new character the isk and other assets owned by an established character (this is the established one), then retired the established character to the forum.
I have given new characters the assets of more established characters before biomassing the older characters, tho. I have even stated multiple times in the forum I had done this and no one raised any alarms about 'recycling'.

Wouldn't the loss of skills be considered a problem for PvP?
My confusion is basically because I avoid PvP, I admit.

Jita 4-4 undock would be a graveyard as countless ships ram into eachother. And we WILL build a wall of freighters on that undock.

Your suggestion of banning NPC corps from GD is different from his suggestion for more freighter slots how?

No really.

Take for instance miner bumping. Two objects collide and the net result is....nothing? Here would be a simple solution that is both logical and support both sides. Bumping causes damage based upon the force of the collision. Wow, what a concept.

A second minor change would benefit miners, miner bumpers, gankers and gankees. There are no criminal effects until shields are depleted. In other words until you can show the officer damage he will not show up to write a ticket (or blow you up).

This would allow people to bump, within reason. It would also allow people to shoot anyone anywhere as long as they didn't go past shields.

But the second you cross the easily recognizable, well defined line the consequences should be sudden and without escape in hi sec. This concept is easy to understand and dos not require a whole lot of "if this then" thinking.

Ganking has resulted in a good many changes from the introduction of invicible concord to gate/station gun buffs, the barge changes and to the freighter nerf the other month. It is the single most punished activity in EVE and the riskiest after years of nerfs.

Most gankers are not protected due to being under -5 sec status. The fact that concord will blow up your ship every time does not remove the fact that it is a hefty punishment.

But hey, if you think the punishments and risks for ganking are too low to not matter than I guess you would be fine have the exact same mechanics put onto say, mission running.

So if you arn't willing to take the same punishments and risks then they arnt light.

Doesn't matter about the lore, what matters is you wouldn't do mission with those punishments and risks. Therefore you cant say there are no risks or punishments for ganking or that they are too low.

80 mil for a gank nado is not exactly light on the pocket and you are not garenteed to either get the kill or the drop. So no, its not light, you lose your ship as a punishment. If you faced that with a mission you simply wouldn't do missions, as you said.

Hell, I bet you wouldn't do missions if it was just the sec loss.

Let me repeat. If there is no risk and the cost is so minor why aren't more players doing suicide ganking? The only people who are doing concerted suicide ganking are being paid to do so with an SRP. If your ship is being replaced then of course the cost is trivial. But if it isn't then the cost is prohibitive for the vast majority of players. Hence they don't gank. And apparently the statistics bear this out or did until recently. Ganking was/is at an all time low. We are hearing a lot about ganking not because there is a lot going on but because the ones doing it advertise it on their website.

Except for the part where CCP recently affirmed that they are absolutely, 100% okay with the current state of suicide ganking.

If there was something to worry about, I would not imagine they would have been so encouraging of us.

That also applies to the people hauling their stuff around, their ships are just as disposable. Its their choice to fit an anti-tank, its their choice to go unescorted and its their choice to overstuff it.


Again, forget about how missions work and the lore. This is simply a demonstrasion that you would not do missions if you faced the same punishments and risk as gankers do. Thus showing that the punishments and risk are infact, not light and easily brushed aside.

[Ganking is nowhere near out of control. Suicide ganking affects very few players, and the ones it does affect are generally the ones who think Concord is there to protect them and thus fail to take steps to minimise their risks, simple steps... like being at the keyboard.