Do you want more protection from people in highsec, or less?

(Australian Excellence) #482

You literally didn’t even know any of the mechanics of JFs earlier in the thread and here you are again talking about their balance.

JF’s are the safest ship in highsec, unless you have a fleet ready to kill them they don’t have any chance of dying unless the pilot is a complete brainlet and can’t cyno in the 10+ minutes it takes to get a fleet ready and there.

And then even with a fleet ready, they have a teleport button and can have 1.1mil+ ehp. Their high cost is balanced by their absolute safety. The only people losing them are people either afk, extremely complacent, lack the knowledge they should have to be in a JF or complete idiots.

You’re the type of player this game is full of now. Risk averse carebears who complain about mechanics that are already waaaaay to safe in the first place.

(Rexxar Santaro) #483

You are welcome! Just human speech.

Do you need a binary translated document?

(Salt Foambreaker) #484

Really, since in a sandbox reward is always balanced against risk, the people of high sec could have anything they want.

The rewards would need to be adjusted to suit. Reduce ore outputs, possibly eliminate some resources from high sec, raise taxes on markets (to pay for the protection ships).

We couldn’t for example remove the ability to gank miners without dramatically reducing how much ore they can mine. Otherwise the value of ore would plummet along with the cost of ships, eventually making the activity pointless.

A 100% safe place that produces ZERO resources is not harmful to the sandbox economy.

If you remove freighter bumping you would need to remove autopilot and tax gate travel.

(Foggy Bernstein) #485

You mean something like putting NPC miners in the game to strip belts before some time zones are even out of bed?

Is only a feature because anybody that might even remotely understand the arcane code has long since left the game. Things have always been labeled a feature in this game until someone fixes it. Then it’s an exploit. Unfortunately, bumping will never get fixed.

(Salt Foambreaker) #486

No, something less lame and more well thought out :slight_smile:

(Rexxar Santaro) #487

I’m not talking about the mechanics of JF rebalance, which has its interesting aspects. In 98% of cases, while docked, they are safe and in 2% of cases, while undocked, there can happen a lot of different things like misclick, lags, DC, client crash, bumps by invisible collisions and mentioned by you cases, which will destroy a JF in 4 sec in low-sec and like in 20-30 sec in hi-sec. Personally, I think their mistakes happens just because they multiboxing them in a hurry. I saw this many times in many low-sec systems.

I’m talking about their economical application based on their hull price which is high. It’s a way too high price compared to what they can give in return. It’s my opinion, compared to other tools I tried.

I think you are not right with your “risk averse” thinking. Every of those nerds with their Freighters and JF as others with their blingy combat vessels in hi- low- and -null sec are more risk agreeably than hi-sec gankers. Why?
Because a planned hi-sec ganking is a very linear and mathematical predefined thing with proactively planed lose of a vessel (with empty cargo), which cost very little and can partially be replace by insurance and loot. With some rare exceptions of course. The only risky and rng factor in suicide ganking is a rng drop rate of a loot.

(Qia Kare) #488

If a ship is destroyed by CONCORD, as is usually the case for a gank, the pilot receives no insurance.


Perhaps you already know this and simply misspoke, but for the sake of players who read this in the future, at least, I want to correct this misinformation before it gets into an impressionable pilot’s head.

(Rexxar Santaro) #489

True. There were none suicide ganks in hi-sec, under WarDec umbrella. Usually performed by PIRAT with some casualities. You can see their casual loses on zKillboard. Usually a 2B ISK Proteus, sometime a 2B ISK pod… I shall replace “and” with a comma.

(Australian Excellence) #490

You don’t seem to understand. They can’t die unless the pilot makes a critical mistake. You don’t see anything wrong with that? If they don’t make a mistake, there isn’t a way to kill them.

Their economic impact is HUGE. Almost all nullsec hauling is done by JF’s. They are so safe I see them with 100bil+ regularly.

You don’t even know how much ganking costs or the time/investment needed. My gankers would cost 300-400bil+ to inject and each gank costs from 2.5-4bil+ in jita where I’ve been killing JF’s lately.

And this is with people trying to make me fail and the legion of thieves that follow me around when I log in. Ganks can also fail when they have slaves I didn’t account for or I make some sort of mistake.

You have NO idea about what you’re talking about.

(Foggy Bernstein) #491

You are doing it so wrong.

(Australian Excellence) #492

Oh please explain. I’m awaiting with great anticipation.

(Rexxar Santaro) #493

I agree with this. The time, logistical and ISK investments can be sufficient in hi-sec and you know much better this stuff in digits. What is wrong with the idea to reduce the industry price of a JF? You need the loot mainly. Isn’t it?

For me, it’s a nasty price to pay and invest into JF and this game play model. Looks like some players use them not because it’s interesting, but because they must.

(Australian Excellence) #494

At 10bil I feel they are fair considering how badly you have to mess up to lose one.

I don’t care about the isk as long as I can keep ganking. I like destroying blingy ships and putting it on my killboard.

They’re much more convenient than anything else and perfectly safe in the right hands. I see the same people fly and not lose them every time I log in to gank them. Some of them I don’t even try for a few months because I don’t think there is any realistic chance I can catch them.

(Solstice Projekt) #495

Everyone can make the same argument for anything. You can replace JF with “super” and it’d be valid. With “t3c” and it’d be valid. With “titans” and it’d be valid. I’m sure a poor player would use “battleship” in that same argument.

It’s not only too generic, it’s also inconsiderate of why things have value in the first place. Think of this: When they’re too cheap, too many people will use them, making hauling even safer than it already is. There isn’t really a “too expensive” considering that alliances would pay for them, because their capabilities are needed.

Most people here, who believe that something is wrong when something gets destroyed, show zero regard for the metrics that actually matter:

How many people are doing it on a regular basis?
How many people actually get affected?

That’s, btw, what CCP is looking at. That’s why CCP doesn’t give a damn anymore about the constant complaints and whining from people who have no actual base in their arguments beyond “i feel like” and “i think” and “we can’t have that, because it’s unfair”.

(Foggy Bernstein) #496


(Solstice Projekt) #497

You still owe me a link from when I asked for a link, hypocrite.

IN ANY CASE, you hypocrite, is that their modus operandi. They only patched out Boomerang when too many people started complaining. They only patched out “infinite tracking” when the public got aware of it. They’ve let MonkeySphere use his hack to catch people up until word got out. List goes on and on and on.

You hypocrite.

(Rexxar Santaro) #498

I disagree.

Hi-Sec isn’t so protected as you thought, especially if you are in a War-Eligible corporation. As I mentioned above, your protection in hi-sec is completely defined by the cost of your assets in space, which can be targeted (pod, ship, Citadel, deployable structure like MTU, whatever). More expensive assets means that you can be suddenly attacked anytime, anywhere, by anybody even by 1 month life ALTs.

The rewards are already adjusted to the ground in hi-sec, based on the current in game inflation, resource grinding level of null-sec and J-space dwellers and required time to grind something. I’d say the hi-sec rewards are based on HUGE time investments per each 100M ISK during some activities or rng case which happens very rare in other kind of activities. But lets nerf it. I want to see what can be nerfed even more btw.

You should compare the hi-sec protection with SOV BlueDonut null-sec protection. BTW, I’m living in low-sec also for long time now and I’ll surprise you maybe that the rewards there are as bad as in hi-sec time to time or I’d say often.

(Salt Foambreaker) #499

The difference is in sov players can change that, protected bears would outside player control.

(Foggy Bernstein) #500

So no link, then.


(Galaxy Pig) #501

One day you’ll learn to use human language to express human thoughts.

I believe in you.