Concord also acts as a peace-keeping force for all of the major factions. That’s why they have all the cool toys that nobody else does. A lore justification fits because why else would concord even be present? It’s a game, it needs a reason. The reason doesn’t always need to be mechanical.
That said, you’ve got an interesting thought there, though it would probably be pretty messy. If I’m well-liked by a faction, and you kill me, said well-like faction should like you less for killing their friend. NPC corp station ACLs could work that way too.
Right, it would make you tether at a citadel, anchored by a player corp, that can be wardecced and destroyed by a player corp. Whether or not they succeed is moot, it encourages conflict and it provides opportunity for destruction.
With the miniscule cost of citadels, it’s not at all infeasible to make gankers use their own citadels. The circle of life is indeed a circle, and I’m 100% a fan of letting everyone have skin in the game.
That said, you’d need a way to stop said gankers from using someone else’s citadels. For example, the TTT in perimeter would be exposed, and we all know how impossible it would be for some highsec miners to band together to kill that.
It is good for people to see where I was coming from in terms of this suggestion. People in hisec need to get off their rear ends and fight for it. Who knows if they did it well enough then CONCORD could be scaled back.
Says who? If I as a single-person corp (I’m not, but bear with it) anchor a structure and say that code is allowed to dock, who is to tell me otherwise? Concord should never interfere with player citadels, because that reduces the sandbox.
Let the NPCs interfere with the NPCs all they want. Player-run drama and discourse should be free to run their course.
That’s not a problem with the KRs, but rather with the very bad use that many players make of them.
Never make a KR available to everyone for free or too cheap. Either make the KR available only to some pilot or corp you know would make a good use of it, or make it available to everyone for a price at least as high as the ganker might be willing to pay to clear it himself, which may not be easy to estimate, but you may set a relatively high price at first, then gradually lower it if nobody uses it after a few days.
Eve is a sandbox. We’re free to use our words, or we’re free to step it up a notch and start shooting each other.
If you decide that, for example, you don’t want the TTT to exist in perimeter anymore because gankers are using it to stage for ganks, then blow up the TTT.
There is literally nothing stopping you from trying. If you lack the strength to do so, then the only applicable response is “welcome to Eve, is this your first day?”
I keep seeing this risk vs reward nonsense all the time. Suicide ganking is a PvP activity, not PvE. The rewards are provided by other players, not by NPCs, so go tell the other players to stop providing those rewards to the gankers instead of pretending CCP should do something about it.
The attacker cannot pick ■■■■ if the victim doesn’t let him to. Learn to properly play the game and avoid being suicide ganked instead of pretending the game should be changed so you (or anyone else) doesn’t have to.
LOL. What do increased taxes have to do with whether high sec should be safer or not? You’ve obviously always wanted it to be safer and always will, regardless of how safe it already is, taxes or not taxes…
I personally would like players stopped wasting their and everybody else’s time whining all the time and spent that time understanding the game and learning to properly play it instead.
It’s not going to kill the titan, but clearly you’ve never seen what a dictor can do to a titan. That said, I can make a battleship that your destroyer can’t kill either.
Not to mention the simple fact that neither player is risking much in your scenario, nor gaining much. The titan’s not in any real danger of dying (to the destroyer), and the destroyer, should it die, isn’t really risking anything of value.
Where were the kills at and what security rating was the system the kill was made in?
Did you pod the sob ?
Gauging from the way you posted this I’d say no, because you take a larger sec hit when you pod someone. plus there are other factors that determine what percentage of a sec hit you take, when engaging in hi/lo sec pvp.
Sorry, but I think the way empire has set hisec is sufficent. Bad guy rolls into your safe space your may get whacked but he deffinately will. Think of hisec as losec with training wheels, there is always going to be risk in EVE, you just need to decide how much ate you willing to take!
As we have said in all those countless threads about gank nerf requests, CODE. already uses citadels to stage from because tethering is extremely convenient to setup the gank fleet. Apparently the promised content isn’t happening.
The owner can already set the ACL to disallow certain groups from docking and tethering.
There are no criminal structures though. The security status is a character thing and has nothing to do with the corp or alliance or their structures. But feel free to request changes to that, I already have some ideas should they be so stupid to mix those things together
So few risks and so massive rewards for who? Go to null, try to take advantage of those massive rewards without being blue to the residents there, and then come tell us how little risk and how safe it was for you…
You’re using some player driven safety that only applies to the players willing to take the effort it takes to provide that safety there, to try to justify changing the game mechanics to make high sec indiscriminately safer for everybody, without the players that would take advantage of that safety having to do anything to make it effective. That’s ■■■■■■■■. Moreover, you’re completely ignoring low sec here.
If you think there is something wrong with how null works, go propose some brilliant solution for that elsewhere instead of pretending high sec should be broken too to “compensate”.
LOL. You don’t really expect CCP or anyone that knows anything about the game is gonna take this seriously, do you? I love that “subsequently” at the beginning of that sentence, btw, as if this nonsense was something that followed logically from anything…
Ah, OK. So at least you’re aware. That’s better.
Except you don’t get what this risk vs reward thing is about. You conflate the risk/rewards provided by NPCs and game mechanics with the risk/rewards provided by players with their actions, and then pretend CCP should change game mechanics to compensate for stupid player decisions instead of being those players who learn to do things better.
The problem is not that high sec isn’t safe enough. There is nothing to fix there. The problem is that many players have a hard time grasping the concept of no safety anywhere, fly through high sec as if it was safe, and then think there is something wrong with the game when they get ganked as a result. That’s a problem with those players and how little they know about the game, not with the safety of high sec. Those players would be killed even more often if they flew through low sec like they do through high sec…
