CCP are not doing anything in the forums.
Do you think they listen to you at all?
1 Like
The only time I have seen a direct line to CCP on the forums was that thread where the CEO of CCP was replying to people. I got him to listen about bumping and he directly replied to me, did that answer your question?
So no?
1 Like
Yes, that one time.
Once upon a time?
There was a princess who loved to get the last word inâŚ
1 Like
You already admitted to taking advantage of your friendâs as bait. I approve.
Jgffvuyrvj
2 Likes
Fair point, the key thing would be to try to remove enough DPS from the gank fleet so that they failed the gank and then use the bump timer to get safe. However the ganker will likely use multiple suicide points to reset the bump timer while he waits for his criminal timer to expire for round two. But this way of thinking is good and if more people did this then it would not be so certain for the gankers.
Mercs will not do this, even though they could, they want easy shoot and kill stuff. One issue is that while this could happen for the larger alliances logistics runs, the solo hisec freighter pilot doing courier contracts is not going to be able to do this.
1 Like
Cdrtuugfft
1 Like
I agree in terms of people doing logistics for their alliances, they should totally do it in a professional manner to cater for ganking, though it is not how most people play, in that most of the time someone who likes doing logistics just does it and those that donât stay well away. It does rather amaze me that so many alliances leave this costly and important role to a single player who often is a weak link. One reason is perhaps that often they do multiple smallish purchase contracts for their members, so while it is a large amount in terms of ISK it is often spread around a lot of people and is not something that would cause an issue, but that was before CCP pushed scarcity.
I donât think you could realistically expect people doing hisec hauling contracts to do them as part of a group as there is no ISK in it even for one person. And CCP would not impose such restrictions on them, but I guess that also works in terms of CCP not supporting any play style, apart from ganking that is, which gets a lot of support which you can see by the way the gankers scream any time there is a slight negative change for them.
All in all though it would be better if people did co-operate in making it tough for gankers, but it is such an unrewarding and boring play in the main and you are facing up against people who have perfect multi account setups.
Ufdhutfbjugg
Quite the contrary, less people less chance to be noticed. Also easier to discover an saboteur if that is the case.
And a fixed schedule, makes you more predictable of a target.
Yfchjutghy
Why is there no ISK in it even for one person though?
Hypothetically: what if we increase the dangers of hauling?
At first, as hauling would become more dangerous fewer people will take the risks to haul themselves. As mainly the better haulers (instead of most haulers) are able to successfully complete hauling trips, the few haulers that continue hauling will have less competition from haulers who value their cargo size (with expanded cargohold modules and rig ships) or their time (with autopiloted ships) below average.
If the dangers keep increasing there will be a point that only groups of haulers + escorts can succesfully complete high sec hauling contracts. Hauling would become much more expensive which means that while many haulers cannot continue solo, the haulers that are able to adjust and continue would earn much more ISK, perhaps even enough to pay escorts.
However, the increased payout to haulers cannot continue to go up indefinitely as the dangers to hauling go up. The competition to hauling is in the form of local production and local consumption. When hauling becomes more dangerous and thus more expensive, local production will slowly take over. And for many items local production would be more profitable than paying a hauler to import it. As a result, increased danger to haulers would mean fewer centralised markets and more small trade hubs spread across the universe.
While I mostly see positives as a result of more dangerous hauling, the main downside I see in the scenario above is that people who wish to move around in high sec in relative safety will be heavily impacted by increased hauling danger, as moving their own ships around solo would to be fair just be another form of (now dangerous) hauling.
But apart from that, I think it would be good to have more danger for high sec hauling. As it is now, hauling pays nearly nothing, escorting fleets arenât worth the effort and Jita is more and more the only trade hub that matters.
Make hauling worth it!
1 Like
Ok, but 3-4 ship could still be controlled by a single player. (you are expecting to avoid combat not get into it) Sure, more likely to mess something due to multitasking but further limit the chances of sabotage and increase the âstealthâ.
No, you didnât. But the tendency is to be more strict with more people, that were i based the comment.
.fghtfghutvju
What?! And I said enroles? Donât think so.
All I said is that with more people it will be more difficult to pick a time that is good for everyone to do the hauling. That is one reason people often do it solo(+alts) even when other people are available to help.
Not quite true in EVE, where a hauler get in its destination most of time and without some major mistakes even a failed trip is just a setback not an end of career.
Just dock up, load an alt and do something else till they are asleep and move then.
Or just wait till someone else is being ganked and go then.
Or use a WH.
Or many other hard to think of (apparently) solutions.
3 Likes