Kill all Cyno!

Good job trying to dodge my question. I’m still waiting for any evidence to support all of your claims. Given that you’re active in your own thread, the only reason I can think of to explain your lack of a response is that you don’t actually have any evidence to support your claims. Is this true?

1 Like

An actual response, thank you.

I want to change one aspect, which does date back to that time period, however to construe that as wanting to roll the entirety of the game back to that state and then use that leap of logic to dismiss the idea wholesale is disingenuous.

Yes, that is what will happen. I am aware of how disruptive this would be.
Morphite would still be required for manufacture. It will be expensive, the increase in price would provide incentive to move it to market. Currently, you can get things to market with no risk.
Changing how logistics is done will open up opportunities for conflict centred around trade, namely attacking these traders hauling from null to market, defending them, etc. If prices are high enough for some resource, players will risk more to get it, why is there a cloaky mining frigate if not to do just that?

A good point, covert cynos do have a number of guerrilla warfare tactics, leaving those in would be acceptable, they could also be reworked to stabilize wormholes to allow more ships to come through. Getting small gangs constantly hotdropped by capitals from across the map discourages people from taking those small gangs out in the first place, leading to a drop in the activity taking place at all.

Yes, the idea is to limit how much area can be effectively controlled.

You’ve made good points about covert cynoes and I concede that those should remain. I still feel that traditional cynos and Titan bridges should be eliminated.

What things? You’ve said there are many yet listed none. Yes, there will be many changes, I think EVE players would be able to adapt.

Yes, CCP would likely only do tweaks, and not really address the issue for fear of offending the more risk adverse players.

The burden is on you the acknowledge the problems and propose solutions or justify why they are worth having. The burden is not on us to adapt without benefit.


Your wording was astoundingly vague:

I don’t think my interpretation was faulty based on your statement.

And what driving factor motivates you to want to disrupt the hisec markets so much? You claim that there is no risk in moving goods to market from nullsec to hisec, but if that were the case, freighters and jump freighters would never be destroyed while moving goods, whereas the reality of the situation is that they are destroyed quite regularly. Wanting to add more risk is a valid motivation, but when you’re starting from the incorrect assumption that there is no risk to begin with, I have to question your logic.

Wow, someone got roflstomped bad from the looks of OPs thread :rofl:

This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.