You have replied to a thread I have created . If you did not wish to converse with me you should not have done so.
Can you please also tone down your aggressive attitude and stick to the context of the post.
thank you 
So back to topic.
I do not feel that altering the existing High sec legal PVP mechanics are required.
War decs are fine as they are. Eliminating suicide ganks would be a welcome step, it doesn’t remove PvP combat from the game or from high sec, it just will however ensure new player who wish to remain in high sec can do so without PvP being forced upon them .
1 Like
Does anyone know for a fact anyone permanently quitting this game for loss of a ship in high sec? Sure people quit playing games for all sorts of reasons, but the ones claiming to quit in these forums are just provoking a conflicting debate. I never put any stock into any rage quit post. Especially when they continue posting several days later.
Have fun!
1 Like
Pretty much no.
There are a bunch of anecdotes and a whole heap of hand-waving.
All we have proof of is folk who were ganked and then stayed, but that is clearly survivorship biased.
1 Like
Can we please stop using AI slop images to derail the conversation.
1 Like
Yes.
Several people I convinced to start playing were consistently targeted while running missions early on.
They were then invited to the “Why you got ganked” chat where they were mocked and faced misogyny and Disabled discriminatory remarks.
3 months in and I get a text “sorry dude I’m out this games toxic”.
In the region of 10-12 actual players . 3 plus myself have stuck it out.
See there’s one of them anecdotes.
1 Like
“Buy a permit and we will not gank you”
Now that’s an anecdote and a blatant lie.
It costs us new blood
Are the people who believe such statements cynical enough to enjoy EvE 
1 Like
I’d say they would certainly be susceptible to extortion.
The kind of thing that isn’t fun
That. Managing huge groups should be exponentially harder the more they grow.
But in times where all kind of tools using API/ESI access allows it to easily keep track of thousands of members activities (Contracts, locations, industry jobs etc…) and milk them via “Holding Corp” constructs which make sure all power stays in a few selected hands, the opposite is true.
Setting and maintaining diplomatic standings (blue) should costs huge sums of money (based on chars affected), both for setting and maintaining them. Corporations and Alliances should pay monthly fees to the SCC (increasing exponentially by member size) for being registered as “Recognized Capsuleer Organization” and it’s access to the financial ISK-Network of New Eden (Corpwallets, Contracts, Tax systems…).
It should be pretty much financially ruinous as a large group, to set (and keep) any other large group on “blue” for a prolonged time.
3 Likes
It seems to me more like people who call perfectly valid gameplay ‘griefing’ are the vindictive ones.
4 Likes
I think there should be a corp/alliance tax based on number of members. This would make it much more difficult to grow a large group.
4 Likes
I like this as an idea, but I think it would need some modifications to work.
Maybe you can have a handful of perma-blues, so the alt alliances, and long term allies can be blue at a reduced cost, but no more than 4-5 perma-blues per alliance, and then exponential from there.
But there are probably alliances in the game who have the ISK to ignore these costs.
2 Likes
Limiting the size of corps and alliance won’t solve the issue . Financial blocks are easily overcome by those with isk to burn.
It’s like fining a trillionaire £10 for a transgression, it’s not going to give them the incentive to not do it again.
The tax in form of their first born child? That might work. Then the real question, what do we do with all these babies? I suppose the legendary ship made from the souls of children is out of the question?
Have fun!
This is a fallacy. Nobody is rich enough to pay high enough taxes. If the large groups can afford to pay them, then put them higher. Exponential cost increases ensure that small groups can afford to pay lower taxes, but large groups eventually get hit with higher taxes.
1 Like
At the end of the day, stronger groups are always going to defeat much weaker ones. That’s not a game flaw…it is, and should be, intended design. The game has to make some attempt at reflecting power dynamics. It would be absurd if Lichtenstein defeated Germany in a war…so why would one expect such to happen in EVE ?
The real issue is not the power dynamics but that there are not enough factors breaking up large and powerful blocs. Most empires decay through internal splintering long before the barbarian hordes are at the doors. EVE needs it to be harder to maintain massive alliances…rather than trying to equalise actual battles.
2 Likes
A fundamental issue that CCP has clearly not grappled with, is that the CSM is dominated by the nullblocs, and the nullblocs naturally advocate for themselves. This is bad for the game. The nullbears don’t want to be broken up, and all their ‘advice’ is presented with this in mind. So CCP hears criticism of ideas that would cause the nullblocs to collapse (ie: blackout), and they do not hear voices which support these changes. Fragmenting the nullblocs will cause many null players to quit, but to improve the game CCP has to be willing to let them go, trusting that many other individuals will still play the game.
2 Likes