If eve had to be remade, what what you change?

[Ramona_McCandless]

I guess we just have different sizes of goal.

[Ramona_McCandless]

Then just make them unsellable? So your corp builds em?

[Merin_Ryskin]

@Naari_Naarian

You could limit the smaller stations to high sec, and make them require battleship spam as a point of control there.

So I take it you’re abandoning your proposal to remove suicide ganking in highsec and make any corp that deploys a station immune to war? Otherwise how exactly is anyone going to attack a highsec station even if it could theoretically be destroyed by a battleship fleet?

[Naari_Naarian]

@Merin_Ryskin

So I take it you’re abandoning your proposal to remove suicide ganking in highsec and make any corp that deploys a station immune to war?

Nope, I absolutely am fully committed to removal of suicide ganking in high sec, at any cost to eve’s political bodies. They can die for all i care. this mechanic needs to go.

[Naari_Naarian]

@Merin_Ryskin

“WAAAA REMOVE HIGHSEC PVP THEY KILLED MY POOR STATION ALL WE WANTED TO DO IS MINE WITH OUR WHALE NAMES” post?

[Naari_Naarian]

@Ramona_McCandless

Then just make them unsellable? So your corp builds em?

I’d actually be interested in some sort of limbo state between life and death of corporations, and like to see if corporations hq were destroyed, the corp enter this state and it have x period of time to rebuild an hq to stay alive, other wise dissolve the corp into the abyss.

I believe that corps should have something tangible people can go after to end them, however this would have to come with a good wardec eligibility change that is not station based.

[Ramona_McCandless]

You want to be able to destroy people’s corps?

Intense.

[Merin_Ryskin]

Congratulations, you built a new one (which, as I said, is a meaningless participation trophy). That doesn’t change the fact that you lost one and then came to the forums to whine about how highsec PvP needs to be removed because it’s so unfair that people attacked you.

Also, nice job focusing on the suicide ganking and dodging the issue of wanting to make highsec stations literally immune to destruction:

@Naari_Naarian

I think the suicide ganking needs to go asap, and war eligibility changes need to be made to remove a corp from being war eligible if they drop a station, as stations make up the heart and soul of a corp in corporate identity, and coming together for a greater purpose.

[Naari_Naarian]

@Merin_Ryskin

therwise how exactly is anyone going to attack a highsec station even if it could theoretically be destroyed by a battleship fleet?

it may be interesting to allow stations to have some sort of non-war dec based kill mechanic. For example if we overhauled the corp system and put a limit on the amount of stations a corp could have to say, 10. Then we apply a softcap at 5. and do something like

if stationCount is <= 5, war dec is required
if stationCount is > 5, war dec is not required for those stations.

[Naari_Naarian]

@Merin_Ryskin

you built a new one (which, as I said, is a meaningless participation trophy).

Nope, sorry. No new station was built my friend. Same station, been sitting here inactive for months.

wanna know whats funny? i’v offered to like 7-8 people and no one will take it.

[Ramona_McCandless]

Ill have it if you want rid

[Merin_Ryskin]

So which one is the lie? Your claim that your station was destroyed, or your claim that it wasn’t?

[Naari_Naarian]

Convo me in game, ill swap it over to you.

[Merin_Ryskin]

No, me first! I want the station! It will even make my corp war-eligible so all you Merin-haters can come kill me.

[Naari_Naarian]

@Merin_Ryskin

So which one is the lie? Your claim that your station was destroyed, or your claim that it wasn’t?

Evidence that i said it was “destroyed”. I said, people are trying to destroy it. Do you even english, hellmar?

[Ramona_McCandless]

Will do when I get home
Received. Thank you very much
Merry Xmas !

[Naari_Naarian]

@Ramona_McCandless

Received. Thank you very much

Your most welcome, enjoy

[Merin_Ryskin]

@Naari_Naarian

Evidence that i said it was “destroyed”. I said, people are trying to destroy it. Do you even english, hellmar?

You are correct, you only said that it was under attack by a threat that was going to destroy it and had you hopelessly outgunned. Its destruction was implicit, but your post did not in fact include an actual station kill.

However, looking back at that hilarious trainwreck did pull up this example of how utterly delusional you are, begging your imaginary friend in the sky to destroy CCP for you:

Change it, or may the creator curse this project, and bring about its destruction swiftly, and with it, your company. I evoke his might, and power, for this judgement upon you all.

Oh yes, and the most unfortunate lie you have ever told:

My posts will conclude here on these forums as of this point

If only you had been honest about leaving the forums forever…

[Herzog_Wolfhammer]

What would I change…

Pods would be indestructible, but slow to warp, only show gates and stations on overview, and all ship loss would result in random implant damage. This would make “death” cost a little more for everybody but remove the all or nothing game play of players with throwaway clones versus those who don’t.
It would also remove the “Clone vat express”, meaning no use of the clone vat as a respawn point like this was Modern Warfare or something. If you fight 50 jumps out and lose your ship you are not coming back for a while.

I would remove the fatal funnels. Every space fiction genre has ships warping from system to system on their own. Gate camps and raep cages are crap gameplay that looks stupid to new players and veterans alike. Let ships dial in system to system warps by whatever mechanic and mods. Make space actually big, and let’s go back to actually hunting using probes instead of “sit at a gate while watching netflix” play.

The size of a ship and the size of ships target-locking onto it would become factors to determine the quality of the lock/tracking and total number of ships that can lock onto it. That is, the more ships you have trying to get a lock on a ship, the lower quality the lock will have and a certain limit is reached. Eventually the target is so full of electronic noise bouncing off it that ships will lose lock.
This would limit how many ships could lock on, plus it would remove bait-ball F1 monkey fleet tactics. We can actually fight wing-to-wing, squadron-to-squadron. It would also be the end of “50 ships blasting one frigate” to get in on a killmail.

Remove all zones. Make every system highsec, lowsec, and nullsec based on the distance from the star or central hub. So when you are around the stations, you have space police. Going further out, it takes longer for them to respond. Beyond that, they don’t, but they know who was naughty. And even beyond that, nobody cares. And all nullspace would be just like nullsec now. This would be the end of the Great Wall of Krab.

That’s what I would change. Now I await the lamentations of those who put too much credit into their play “style”. The “Muh leet gameplay” guys. Hurf and blurf and all that.

[Merin_Ryskin]

@Herzog_Wolfhammer

I would remove the fatal funnels. Every space fiction genre has ships warping from system to system on their own. Gate camps and raep cages are crap gameplay that looks stupid to new players and veterans alike. Let ships dial in system to system warps by whatever mechanic and mods. Make space actually big, and let’s go back to actually hunting using probes instead of “sit at a gate while watching netflix” play.

IOW, remove the ability to obstruct travel and give guaranteed safety even in “dangerous” space. No.

@Herzog_Wolfhammer

The size of a ship and the size of ships target-locking onto it would become factors to determine the quality of the lock/tracking and total number of ships that can lock onto it. That is, the more ships you have trying to get a lock on a ship, the lower quality the lock will have and a certain limit is reached. Eventually the target is so full of electronic noise bouncing off it that ships will lose lock.

Oh, you mean I can lock my own ships with a bunch of alpha alts and make my fleet immune to damage? Great idea. /s

@Herzog_Wolfhammer

Remove all zones. Make every system highsec, lowsec, and nullsec based on the distance from the star or central hub.

Interesting. So PvE missions/mining/etc (which happen away from stations) become suicidally dangerous at all times, but travel/industry (which happen at stations) become 100% safe. I mean, I’m all in favor of making farmers cry, but is this really the outcome you want?