I expect though that if there is such an unhealthy reduction in ganking,

If CCP ever get to a situation where they control the narrative of the game that closely, then I can't see any positive in that.

Since 2011, Hilmar has been very clear that CCP are the custodians of the game, but the players make Eve what it is.

Along those lines, if Citadels are going to be built, then it should be up to the will of players to see that happen, not for CCP to quiet down the environment in highsec temporarily and then change it down the road.

I certainly hope that's not what this is about.

Of course I never said that. But 30 people to attack an AFK freighter is far too much.

Remember, the original proposal for citadels was for the entosis mechanic to allow one person to attack an XL citadel. Right now, a single person can contest sov in null. CCP realizes that arbitrary bars to entry stifle content and this group size issue is a problem and has been looking for ways to solve it for both claiming sovereign space and for attacking structures. It only makes sense they will try to do the same thing when they next revisit criminal mechanics.

If a single player can alpha a freighter off the field before the hauler pilot can respond, freighters would be completely useless. Freighters should be easy to defend, but you should actually have to defend them rather than just hiding behind a massive wall of EHP which allows you to use them AFK.

Just like sov or citadels, a small group of players (whatever CCP decides is best for balance 5-10 or so like as for Citadels) should be able to kill an undefended freighter. If it defended, it should take much more. Making attacking easy but defending even easier is how you get things to happen in the game, not cranking up arbitrary EHP walls that lock small groups out of being the aggressor.

Making it so that you do not require massive fleets to even be able to attack is exactly what CCP has spend the last few years trying to solve for other game systems. I have no doubt that somewhere down the line the whole thing will be rethought, and much like Citadels, players will be forced to actually defend their stuff, instead of relying on the huge bar to attack as protection and AFKing their capital ship across New Eden while they go make a sandwich or watch Netflix.

My hope in this is to make player action have an impact. Jita is burned on a daily basis because that's where the targets are. As soon as it hits 0.4, targets are going to dry up, and criminals will need to look for other targets. Consequently, the map is impacted, the economy is impacted, but because there are fewer targets, Jita is going to go back to 0.5 tomorrow. I like the idea that an individual or group can have a profound impact on the shape and nature of the game universe.

In terms of CONCORD, those ships are piloted by people; people with families. That guy flying the Polaris Battleship above the Perimeter gate has less than a month to retirement. At some point, the Space Police should just say, "Hey, we're leaving the gate guns and station guns in place, but we didn't sign up for this ****."

I understand your concerns of unintended consequences, but unintended consequences is one of the things that makes EVE awesome.

You're describing N+1 tactics that Black Pedro has mentioned before. There's nothing fun or immersive about N+1.

I have nothing against trade hubs. I do take issue with complacency. How dare anyone suggest something that might make the game more interesting than:

A. Set destination
B. Undock
C. Press the little A on your HUD.
D. Watch Netflix or walk the dog.
E. Find yourself blown up and then complain that this is hard work.

Not at all. I would just like to see player action have an impact. Gankers in high sec blapped freighters today. Tomorrow, they're going to blap some more freighters. And since there is obviously nothing that can be done about it due to the tactics of N+1 and an endless arms race, I thought it would be interesting to have those actions have an impact. But your complacency of buy everything in one place, sell everything in one place and adapting to changing circumstances and environments is too taxing on your delicate sensibilities you can just go on ignoring any suggestions and complaining about the game being too hard for you.

It adds another dynamic to hi sec and removes targets from target rich environments. You've spent the better part of this thread complaining at anyone who thinks the current status isn't bad and ridicule any who offer alternatives. Are you always this averse to both the status quo and proposed changes.

Or did you have some other option that goes along with that bitterness?

Once upon a time, hauling with dreads was common.

Then came the great cargo nerf.

You being the expert with internal experience on Goon finances and their suicide ganking institutions yes?

A carebear wants somebody else to remove or manage the risks associated with Eve for them, a non-carebear does it for themself.

If he would have used frogs to transport his stuff he would have carebeared in his playstyle.