EDIT: and here is why they do it for real
1 Like
Do you suppose not enough people are running the T4/5 sites? Will this encourage hisec peeps to do them?
The removal is temporary, and is for testing purposes, according to the article. It does not elaborate on what is being tested, or why the removal of the suspect flag was necessary for testing, but makes it clear they intend to restore the mechanic when testing is complete.
Clickbait.
4 Likes
Doesnāt matter. Players still arenāt going to do themā¦
4 Likes
Exactly my thoughts. The real danger is being scanned & ganked on exit. The fact that during the test it wonāt be free to be ganked wonāt change the main risk in the equation.
Nullsec is and will keep being the safest place to run T4/T5 sites.
1 Like
Abyssal sites were fine as an event to possibly introduce a faction. But there simply isnāt enough there to make them worth doing for the risks involved in higher tier sites.
If they had released more ships, more weapons, more modules then maybe (not just rng mutaplasmids). But even this wouldnāt have been enough without putting in heavy restrictions on what could spawn in a given site to prevent RNG from literally causing you to die no matter what you do to prepare yourself. Such as EHP caps, number of neuts/scrams, checks against large environmental overlap, checks for NPCs going past boundaries, etc.
Edit- lots of spelling errors, and Iām sure more remain.
4 Likes
Do you really believe, the flag comes back after months of testing? Can you imagine the outcry of all the carebears?
What can that testing be, what is not possible in nullsec or wormholes?
2 Likes
Carebears win again.
BE THE VILLIAN - CCP
lol jk guys donāt be a meanie to our whale care bear subscription
3 Likes
I really have no idea what they could be testing, and yes, I can imagine the outcry from people who didnāt read. I can only have faith that this is necessary as part of a process that I do not and can not know the details of. In the mean time, I will just alert people to the suspect flagās eventual return so that they donāt get too comfortable and see what happens.
Probably they are testing how big of a deterrent it is compared to the organic risk of ganking. And probably they will find out that ganking is a greater deterrent than the ad-hoc mechanic they put in place so highsec was more dangerous than nullsec.
I can tell you what they want to test ā¦ whether the suspect flag in highsec is a reason why people donāt run the sites in highsec. Hell, yes, it is, of course.
3 Likes
Be glad they donāt temporarily remove CONCORD to gather test data.
3 Likes
āTesting purposesā. On TQ. Eheh.
The thing to do is make sure that removing the flag is not considered an improvement.
There needs to be more ganks during this period 
āCONCORD Gone!!ā
That headline would push the server population over 100k IMHO 
2 Likes
Sisi is never going to be good for testing in certain scenarios. Particularly ones requiring a heavy load or dependant on player behavior. Sisi does well for targeted testing or for weeding out obvious bugs detectable by small groups, but checking things under āreal worldā conditions where consequences matter, or seeing how much strain people will put on a system after live deployment canāt be done on a test server like Sisi.
2 Likes
I agree on their motivation for the ātestā. I donāt think the suspect flag is the only reason for highsects not running them though. The chance to lose a ship against NPCs is probably equally important to the ones who want the game to be free from danger.
p.s. also pretty sure they wonāt take it back later on.
1 Like
You know, Iām in an odd place about this. On the one hand, I really didnāt like the suspect flag in the first place, because the sort of fit that is necessary to complete the high-end sites already was a gank magnet. The flag was completely unnecessary and jarringly out of place. Imagine if CCP decided not enough freighters were getting blown up, so any of them with over 6 billion in cargo was automatically suspect flagged? Furthermore, it placed a penalty and an opening through PvE mechanics* where only PvP mechanics used to tread: creating a vulnerability for someone to be legally attacked in highsec. It was a bizarre and completely unprecedented (as much as I am aware) step to take.
Yet, I know the reasons they put it in there. I read the various players debate the topic hotly on the forums. In the end I shrugged and accepted it.
Now Iām reading thisā¦and I find myself hoping that itās a joke on their part. I donāt want them to do this. I would rather keep the suspect flag. In fact I can save them a step and summarize the last extended statement I had about Abyss space: the problem is that the mutation mechanics are stupid, mutated modules have no place in the current game build and you HAVE to hammer out a place for them because it is not something that will just occur naturally or through RNG (in other words, give them fixed stats and variants), and the number of plasmids dropped is too low.
Fix that and people will run them all day everywhere because itās content that is actually a part of the game. Until then CCP is asking players to put billions of isk on the line for what amounts to fetching a handful of Fedos. Thereās a reason they arenāt.
*Not talking about cargo theft of anything of that sort. Thatās still PvP mechanics.
5 Likes
Risk is too high reward too low
6 Likes