Or else what?
This is you:
1 Like
ha no because theyâd take your isk and kill you too for the killmail
I see how Quoting can help to stop confusion.
Simply put, my response to topic, was to make an option of an instance where in, players could do their PvE âwhere no one would shoot you downâ
Of course this still allows for the NPC pirates.
I would also like to move into a new forum posting with those who can debate, instead of making your comments.
So, yes I agree that NPC rats are always expected, and in fact, I hear more people complaining about other people than anything actually game related. People like you for example.
In fact, when I was last caught by someone, I forgot to hit the cloak icon, and so I told the guy - Well, you did it. You caught me asleep at the keyboard.
Do you want PVE Instanced? Go to WoW. EvE Online is not your game.
Want Space for you? Go to a WH and close all the Holes wich open, now you have your âsafeâ space to do whatever you want.
If you do not accept criticism and reality, do not post here. Thanks.
Edit: Also:
1 Like
Thatâs quite a bold claim for someone who has only been on the forums for a month and a half.
[SPOILER ALERT]
Instancing mission space and sites has been raised (and shot down) many times in the past.
would you still want to mine (afk , as you admit) in your âsafe space , for peace-loving peopleâ if none of the minerals could ever leave that safe space ? nothing built with them could ever leave that safe space ?
no , theyâd be worth nothing .
eve is pvp , including the market on minerals . your suggestion is unfair competition .
1 Like
You donât agree. OK. But type of response expectedâŚ
- Hey AJ how about only allowing people to do your idea in sites they scan down, and only in high sec? OR Hey AJ, how about only having that option IF your Alliance holds Sov?
You could realize that adding Any Variant I mentioned, might retain at least some of the people that came from that game. I have never bothered with WoW or any other low poly games with crap graphics.
I loved making maps for people to play on CRYSIS so I hope this helps.
You can stop Anyone from accessing your stations in Sov space.
And of course - donât forget - You can use cyno jammers, even though that is a form of stopping others from reaching you!!! Not 1 person this whole time that of this part? I really was thinking that in a few days someone - Anyone - would have at least made this point.
You can still hunt the Player when he leaves the site.
Because that kind of content would be bad for the economy. For example, if it had good mission agents it would be the best place to run missions. If it has asteroid belts theyâd be constantly mined out in short order. And so forth.
Further, your payment scheme could be open to abuse. For example, I create an alt, put him in squishy ship with say an expensive cargo or something like that then have an alt or buddy gank me. We trade off doing this getting easy ISK.
It does not stop them completely. Hostiles could still come in via gates, an wormhole or possibly even a covert ops cyno. And one of the problems is that you also canât cyno in support, so it can be a double edged sword.
Yes, but he gets to inject ISK, LP and other resources into the game without any chance of stopping him.
The suggestion is antithetical to the core philosophy of the game and unbalanced.
I said WoW because is the most popular. But out there are other games like it with very good graphics.
The point is the next phrase I wrote before that. EvE Online is not your game. Neither theirs if they want that.
Curiously enough you make a point not knowing what it means, trying to establish a similar situation as your idea in the actual mechanics of the game and maybe a counterpoint of what I mention which is the closest one for your idea of âSafe spaceâ you are going to have with the actual mechanics of the game.
Just for the record, not allowing someone in your Stations, those not mean you are safe. There is the possibility of being the opposite.
Gated spaces are deadspace already. How is a cyno inhibitor even relevant?
Would be funny as hell to have 1.0 systems as 100% safe areas. Set the trade hubs to 1.0 too and avoid trade hub hugging. Fights on gates between 1.0<>x.x systems⌠The tears will be awesome!
1 Like
Safe Space systems⌠a cage, where everyone can get in, but getting out alive is a completely different matter. 
As much as that thought amuses me, there arenât enough people tokeep all the safe spacers in their zoo, for real players to look at and throw peanuts at them.
1 Like
This safe space already exists. Log onto Sisi and donât /moveme to a PvP system.
Suggesting this be brought to TQ should be a bannable offense.
2 Likes
I agree with the author that you need to adjust the mechanics of suicide. But its idea of ââimplementation is not correct.I will create my own topic on this matter.
Not in the slightest. Not sure why thatâs relevant anyway.
You canât grind meaningful amounts of ISK inside a station, with the exception of trade.
Because inaccessible grinding instances in Hisec are a terrible idea, still.
Because holding SOV shouldnât mean you donât have to defend your space anymore. In fact the whole idea behind SOV is that you have to actually use people to defend it, not silly new mechanics that prevent people from coming into your safe space.
1 Like
How about a different concept?
Log on at a different time when it is quiet and go to an empty system - voilĂ , you are save!
2 Likes
I donât have a problem with the basis of this idea. While PVP and risk is an essential element of Eve, Eve needs players and CCP needs revenue. Itâs worth a test. Create a utopian constellation somewhere in Eve. All it needs is a super Concord - attackers are destroyed before they are successful and there is no need for triple damages. Revenue potential is down and there will still be risk as Iâm sure access to the area will be heavily ganked. I donât see how existing space can be changed, so perhaps new space via one of the new gates if they are ever implemented.
Iâm actually convinced that NewSpace will provide an opportunity for carebears to play in a segregated space without the option of messing up the market⌠which i would be totally okay withâŚ
No it isnât. CCP has been looking into the myth that things like ganking and players killing each other is bad for retentionâŚtheir analysis shows just the opposite. It is isolating players or letting them isolate themselves that is bad for retention.
Utopias are useless in that they donât exist. You might as well spend your time working on a perpetual motion machine. Pretty sure it was this thread where somebody linked a âmouse utopia experimentâ and the result wasâŚextinction of every mouse. The supposed utopia was anything but.
Seriously stop mucking about with this top down weâll make everyone super happy nonsense and just let us play the game and bump into each other an interact. Keep in mind it is a game and that the sometimes things are going to go against youâŚand sometimes theyâll work out in your favor.
Part of me is tempted to do it and watch that space become an no-mans land. A segment of space where nobody goes there because it is boring and stultifying to such an extent that those who do go there quite out of the sheer boredom.
You can get close to this, BTW. Living in a 1.0 system means CONCORD responds very fast. Such space also tends to suck. Most of the belts are pathetic, there are few decent mission agents and even the markets often suck. And then youâll get the players who love the OPâs idea whining and bitching and complainingâŚâWe need to make this space betterâŚâ Gee, it is super safe and the rewards suckâŚseems quite reasonable to me. To make it even safer it would have to suck even more.
1 Like