They can quit their 50+ rorqual alts. That’s what your “suggestion” wants to achieve, too, but won’t completely because it is still easy to serialize active fighter-like mining. If it were not, you would punish actual users more because they would have to put up with more tedium.
The “arbitrary” limit of 1 Rorq per belt, in contrast, still allows lots of alts and actual users in barges and exhumers to function just fine and allows other people to interfere with them more easily.
And that is exactly why you have so much unused space around you. It is there to keep people away from your little sandcastle. If you had several 500-people alliances right next door to each other, you could not do anything because everyone would camp everyone all the time. Or they would just come to an agreement to not do that and then you are back at step one. Coincidentally, exactly this has happened in EVE over and over again and led to this stage that we are in now.
If you want that, though, move to Querious. As far as I remember, they have some sort of fight club like thing going on there with no standings to each other and regular fights… Just look how active it is in terms of PVE. Must be the dream land for you.
And no risk? Look at your own killboard.
Weak. I like the look of this toon more then the other. This also keeps the kids off the other. Ty for trying to disprove my argument with such a weak argument.
1b/week for 3h/daily in hsec, 
that’s peanuts bro, nothing to brag about.
Exactly. Now how much could you make if you tried? How much could you make if you tried and had 5 alts? 10 alts? 15?
Risk vs reward is scewed and out of balance.
About time my worthless phone quoted
Never used dotland. No idea what im looking at
How is nothing going to keep my orthrus or ashimmu from poping something?
Well this here is an alt (as you probably figured), on a good day and off my mandatory nulsec fleet, in hsec I’d make couple bils/daily. And I fly very shiny stuffs, with top notch implants and all, so the risk of being ganked is always very high.
Ty you seem to be the 1st to understand this thread. Or Atleast your evidence of my point. Would you fly that stuff in null?
Well in null, I got citadel and all, so yeah I’m even more at risk there. On another note, I had a question for your #3 Null section (read above), and I’d be happy if you’d address those questions? tnx.
So my idea is to require allience A to get a kill quota to keep there land. This way they could control 1000 null systems for a reason other then look at my epeen.
Now to prevent allience A from farming alts say poping 1 noob ships you could assign a value to each ship. Noob boat worthless or next to worthless while something like a battleship could have a high value. If allience A wants to murder idk 100 battleships on a alt then fine. As long as they can afford it. Now the kill quota could be based on system count. If allience A has 1 system then say points based on 100 battleship kills. If they have 10 then 100 battleship kills x 10.
Now someone would need to figure out a do able system so pvp doesn’t become a chore. (I said 100 battleship kills as an example)
Frig low value, cruiser mid value, battleship higher value.
So to make someone lose sov, just don’t undock… Sounds excellent!
You really don’t understand Sov warfare apparently.
Why would you give up your land just to make them loose theres? If allience B hides then they have no business being in null. Also go kill allience C or D or E or G
You don’t understand pvp
People mine because they like it. People rat because they like it. People explore because they like it.
People pvp because THEY LIKE IT
Here you are sir.
#1. I actually support a shifting of ores, but not quite like you proposed. Hisec doesn’t need more ore, it needs less (or at least less diversity). Also, the idea of having security status vary within the confines of a single solar system seems fraught with issues so that gets a big “no” from me.
#2. Again, I partially agree with you. I’m all in favor of moving some of the mining income potential out of hisec into losec, but gate guns are fine as-is; losec doesn’t need to be any safer than it already is.
#3. If you’re worried about major space-holding alliances not pew-pewing enough, I think that worry is seriously misplaced. They fight plenty.
#4. How precisely do you define which characters are alts of whom without violating the privacy of user accounts? For that matter, how do you define who is an alt of whom if a player has multiple accounts and characters on each with roughly the same number of skillpoints?
#5. EvE isn’t a solo game, and mission running isn’t a purely PvE activity. (There are no pure PvE activities in EvE, but I digress.) As it is now, mission runners can be probed down and have their loot stolen, shot at by said thieves if they retaliate, or ganked outright. It doesn’t need to be any easier for mission runners to be relieved of their ships.
Don’t call people a pussy unless you’re complimenting them. Pussies are far tougher than balls will ever be. 
Completely agree with this statement. It’s the way it used to be years ago and null sec worked just fine. I am really starting to get on board with your idea of limiting the Rorq and Orca. They were once support ships and that should be their primary role. Give them the ability to do some mining to throw them a bone, but they are far too easy to afk/multi box and is ruining EvE with their mining output.
Its different so its scary i get it.
there needs to be a reason to go into low sec all of low sec not just a select few systems
low sec is only safe because folks dont go there. i spent hrs flying around low sec last night before they got me. i died to a gate camp that was probable bots. i want there to be more pvp not bots.
Members: 33,813 Destroyed 4,715 Lost 3,619
little under 34k players killed a little under 5k
in a week thats the weekly kda.
that worry is seriously not misplaced. to few death for 33,813 players that tells me a few like to pvp
you would “define” it. log in account A - Z pick what account is your alt its not hard. eve already tracks em and knows what character is on ur IP
You get the mission from a PvE character, you kill a bunch of PvE ships, get reward from PvE character, loot PvE ships, salvage PvE ships. lot of PvP in that. Missions is a pure PvE thing and a pure PvE activity.
Unless the game has changed during 1 of my breaks you cant steal loot. you can salvage the wrecks but not steal the loot. Also the bulk of a mission runners isk comes from LP not loot or salvage. thats just gravy on top.
Shoot a non criminal in Hi and concord nukes you. nobody is going to loose a ship over a crummy T1 anything.
It can happen. Every player in hi sec CAN team up and go attack a null corp. but it wont happen. every player in eve can join 1 big alliance and stand around jita singing the barny song. Just because it CAN happen doesnt mean it will. 100 mission runs run a mission and 100 return.
yes it does. mission runners dont loose ships. only thing they loose is the ammo they use and every blue moon a drone.
This is a real post? I thought it was so absurd he was just trolling?
I think it’s a real post, but it should be in “My Eve” section. OP stars evety point he has with an description of eve as he personaly sees it, then he suggests an modification to his eve experience, it’s not like it hasn’t hapened before.
Commenting on the suggestions themself is a bit hard, as their premises are so far off of real eve. The only one I thinks has even distant touch with eve is the one about alts, there are indeed a lot of them. But the supposed fix is still prety lacking and silly:
All in all I feel like instead of making this post, OP should have told to his gamer friend how his favourite spaceship game is going to the gutter, while sitting on a comftorable barbench enjoying an tasty pint. Its not wrong to post it here, but I feel that a pub would be a better place for this kind of ranting.
This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.