Baby steps.
It’s marginally better than a civilian shield booster.
2 Likes
Truth
Anti ‘CODE’ warp core stabilizer I along with Anti’CODE’ damage control unit in low and anti-any ganker invulnerable shield booster in med + panic in high
Non-Issue… says the hundreds of posts and thousands of complaints about this in the past.
To be honest, I think that PvP should be disabled completely in 1.0 and .09 systems.
In a game designed around PvP…okay… 
Here we to again…
I agree with you! In fact, I think that highsec could be trimmed quite a bit and made, like, 2 times smaller than it is today, and all PvP barring duels could be disabled on the machanical level everywhere (that is, 0.5-1.0 systems), making you unable to activate any offensive modules at all.
Of course, to even out risk and reward, certain adjustments would have to be made:
- Level 1 missions only in highsec.
- Veldspar only in highsec, and the asteroids are scattered sparsely across asteroid belts. After all, it’s imperial space, all minerals must’ve been mined out by now.
- No highsec incursions.
See, now we have a perfect playground for new players to learn the game at their own pace without any associated risks they have today.
5 Likes
It’s refeshing to have someone be honest and directly state what they are trying to accomplish instead of claiming they like non-consensual PVP in the game, but it just needs one more nerf to be balanced. The discussion can then move to the consequences on the game and the economy rather than getting mired down in wrangling over CrimeWatch mechanics. Locking all safeties to green in 0.9 and 1.0 would be trivial to implement.
As to those consequences, I think they would be grave. Yield-fit Hulks multiboxed by veterans would race for every last asteroid, and they would be nothing left for new players. I think this safe income could be balanced by removing all static resources and missions from these systems, replacing them with some tailored anomalies that spawn but don’t support multiboxing very well and pay like 5M ISK/h, but I don’t see the point. I am not convinced any but a handful of Eve players would trade that much income for safety.
The people that are asking for perfect safety are the same ones that play so that their wallet balance creeps ever upward. They want to “win” by having more than everyone but not really in competition with other players which is why the ask CCP to rewrite the rules to let the win with no chance of losing to other players. They are not going to accept a fraction of the income they have now. The game already specifically allows you to trade off some of your yield for the safety of a Skiff, yet the greed (or to be fair, sometimes inexperience) of these players has them undocking in 900M ISK yield-fit Hulks like in the OP. Just to eek out a few percent more yield by flying a ship basically anyone can explode for a few million ISK.
Players that want safety already have the tools to be safe, which is often as simple as choosing the tanked hauler or miner over the one with the highest yield. I think it would be very bad for the game to release players from having to make choices and trade offs by making a space where they don’t have to worry about consequences and can fly whatever bling boat they want with no chance of attack. I won’t claim the criminal mechanics are perfect, but I think the core idea of the game that nowhere is safe is an important one and one that should not, and honestly probably never will, be violated.
5 Likes
whiners make a lot of noise, so far in this thread well looks like no one but OP is complaining.
Rod doesnt know its cheaper to not lose a 30m Procurer than to lose any ganking ship.
what you think? think again so, you’re way off the mark.
I do wonder, Pedro, that you and others don’t get utterly bored with pointing out the same things over and over to people who are never going to take the slightest bit of notice. I know that I do. It’s an act of philanthropy, isn’t it?
It does seem that (again) James 315 is right. The only thing they understand is the Light Neutron Blaster II with Void S, and the only thing that stands any chance of forcing them to change their ways is the repeated application of said treatment.
That, or it forces them out of the game. Either does it for me, to be perfectly frank. Which aligns closely with:
Sincerely,
Bored,
London UK (West)
2 Likes
Don’t AFK any Hulk.
Hulks are fine, as long as you are paying attention. You gain yield at the expense of tank.
If you want to AFK mine, tank a procurer.
1 Like
I think the major issue I have is, and if we’re being honest here. Is that if gankers want a freighter dead, that freighter is dead. It doesn’t have any means of self defense outside of more hull hp which I think is intentional by CCP as they know when freighters die in high sec it means more profit for them. People in turn buy more plex and buy more isk and buy more items to replace. Sure it’s not just freighters it’s also miners, but freighters are the biggest target. You would think that 100,000 years from now that these races of advanced civilization would of adapted some combat mechanics to their hauling vessels, Yet time and time again we see this is not being done. Why can’t freighters have 4 mid slots? Why can’t they have 1.5m EHP ? If they are caught in low sec or null sec they are dead anyway. No more super carriers instant popping JF’s that cost 12b+ No more easy 25 catalysts to gank a charon, now that number goes up to 50+ Why not? Why can’t their be some damn balance in this game.
We all damn well know that miners can’t fire at suspected gankers first trying to take them out. And we all know that once your bumped in a freighter your dead… How is that balance? I don’t think I am asking for ganking to stop completely, even though I recommended removing PvP in 1.0 and 0.9 to cover trade hubs.
Why is it that those who risk the most in high sec are always the victims of those who risk nothing? I get why ganking is important, let’s keep ganking alive. But my god… By the way I’ve never been the victim of a gank and I’m not representing anyone here. There is a reason I said Exhumers and Freighters need a invulnerability module, hell even if it comes down to costing in resources about 150m. It makes things balanced. It makes ganking harder, and just because it’s harder doesn’t mean it’s not possible.
Freighter pops his invulnerability, all the gankers die, little known to the freighter who continues on to the next jump where he no longer has the invulnerability there is yet another 30 man gang, who smokes him. It will come down to tactical advantage, not one built into the game.
There are options that keep ganking a live and make far more sense. How can 75m worth of catalysts destroy a 12b isk JF, or 1.3b isk freighter… with out consequence.
Alternatively make player killing in high sec outside of duels and war decs, far more impactful to their sec status, only allow 4 or 5 kills and you can’t safely fly in that region again. Tons of options.
Ship/cargo destruction in HS is of tantamount importance.
Buffing security or ships involved with mining/transport is not the way forward.
The way forward is for players to either sufficiently tank/take precautions on their own part, or for 3rd parties to intervene.
This is largely a player issue, not a mechanics one.
A) If people tanked hard enough and didnt transport too much value at a time, ganking would largely be eliminated overnight in HS.
B) If we can conceive of a cheap/effective way for a 3rd player party to intervene on behalf of the target, this would impact ganking significantly, as well as constitute emergent content on the part of the 3rd party interveners,
What is important, is that ships explode in HS.
Doesnt matter what ships, as long as they do.
The rest will follow from that.
1 Like
The major issue is people (you) claiming to be flying (afk) in tanked hulks (that are not actually tanked).
Was the fit posted your actual loss that caused this thread?
Because it wasnt tanked.
Freighters is it now?
Dont drive your freighter down Soho at night. Call ahead and do it when no one knows. Or use a series of smaller ships.
Or any other of countless ways not to die.
1 Like
Wrong, I do not fly any mining ships or industrial ships. That conversation had nothing to do with me, outside of proving that gankers know the game is not balanced.
This is true for every ship everywhere. In highsec though, there is a significant cost that must be paid to explode a freighter (and everyone gets this disincentive to be attacked for free), which means you can easily make yourself not a profitable target.
I will agree that freighters are at more risk than most ships. They do have a large amount of EHP that means they are only vulnerable to large fleets, but they are indeed slow, lumbering, and without weapons. What I don’t understand though when people point this out is why they automatically discount the dozen or two other hauling ships that don’t suffer from these limitations. For some reason, freighters are assumed to be the pinnacle of hauling ships that everyone must use when that is simply not the case. Yes, they excel at certain tasks like hauling bulk ore or minerals, things with low ISK/m3 density, but they are not the only ship that can move your stuff around highsec.
Again, it goes to this mentality that players don’t like making trade offs or choices and want to believe there is a “best ship” or “best fit” for all situations. Certain players actually get angry when they can’t have it all or agitated if they don’t have max efficiency, and it is the same mentality that keeps players from undocking unless they have max training in every relevant skill. Eve is purposely designed so that nothing is always “the best” and the choices you make have trafeoffs, and the developers delight in making you suffer to eek out that last percent of bonus or efficiency.
The stats show freighters are just fine in highsec. 99.9%+ of them don’t die and the few that do almost always for direct piracy because they were carrying too many valuables. You don’t have to fight the pirates to win, you just need to either avoid them or not make yourself a profitable target.
Things are not unbalanced. You as the hauler have all the power and can, with just a few simple rules and behaviours, make yourself cost more to explode than you are worth and basically make the game unwinnable for the pirates. Stray outside those rules? Well, then you might be a target but you still have plenty of tricks up your sleeves to dodge those that would want to take your stuff, one of the most effective being flying something other than a undefended, lumbering loot piñata.
That all sounds like an interesting game to me. Much more interesting that AFK freighters hauling everything around while people play PUBG or watch Netflix.
3 Likes
^This is so true.
Fair point, but if they do that, they’ll just comply with what CODE’s strategic goal is… making miners feel unhappy in Highsec so they come and join Goons. For people who are not too salty, this is good advise, but we’re talking about highsec miners here…
1 Like