No that is not true. When you undock you risk to get involved in combat and lose your ship. And while a large or more advanced hull will have less trouble to handling the NPC in the site, they become a juicer target for gankers.
The only case where we can say there is no risk at all is for someone running the site with a corvette, civilian guns and no tank. But those will be slow and inefficient, and will not get as much rewards as anyone else IOW working as intended.
Isnât that line a little played out, and in this case, misplaced? There is no risk imposed by the content.
Instances of gank squads laying in wait in refuges, burrows and hideaways is non-existent (or nigh so). And I would think even more unlikely in an upper tier combat site where the would-be gankers would need to defend themselves, and in the process, clear the site.
Correct me if Iâm wrong, but didnât CCP tweek the AI to attack the last man in, which would include gankers who enter a site once someone has already engaged the enemy NPCs?
If one brings a ship tanky enough to resist the rats yet not blingy enough to attract gankers it means he is managing the risk correctly, not that the risk is not there.
Why would them even bother to try âdefend themselvesâ when concord ensures destruction of their ships? They need to resist long enough to kill their target and then an alt need to resist long enough to get the loot and warp out.
How exactly does your reply address the subject matter at hand, which is PvE in nature?
I repeat, there is no risk imposed from the NPC content for a larger class hull doing content designed for a smaller hull class. I understand you canât refute this point and so youâre using the red herring of hypothetical (read: nigh non-existent) PvP interactions to obscure the matter, but itâs not going to work. The risk of a PvP gank does not even factor into the equation of HiSec anomalies. Sorry.
Itâs equivalent to a person making contingencies for the hypothetical chance a meteorite hits their car. When you pull out of your garage the possibility exists, but itâs so unlikely as to not even be worthy of consideration as a credible risk or resource expenditure.
I was referring to the idea of them lying in wait ahead of time. Eluding to the fact that this just does not occur and is quite simply a non-issue. This is a PvE discussion and Iâm not referring to player interactions so this was a moot point I should never have entertained in the first place. No one is getting ganked in refuges, burrows, hideaways or HiSec dens. If you leave HiSec, enter a site and stay in said site with unknowns in the system thatâs completely consensual and doesnât constitute ganking. Ganking is a specifically HiSec practice. And youâre infinitely more likely to be ganked at a gate than at a combat anomaly.
Repetition donât makes your statement correct.
If we need to penalize people that bring a bigger ship why not a penalty for better equipment or high skill levels? It just donât makes sense.
Also, yes the risk is trivial to manage. What else you expect from pve content that is trivial to run?
Heh, most of your statements like this is nothing more than a Red Herring fallacy. The OPâs proposal doesnât penalize players, it actually ensures the content is being run as originally intended. Especially since there wasnât a large selection of ships, modules and skills available back when the content was first implemented like there is now.
The only reason I can see that you constantly keep berating this topic is either you just wanna keep collecting rewards with little to no risk or youâre a lousy player who needs to use a Battleship to run Frigate level content.
Right. Being correct makes it correct. You have yet to refute anything Iâve put forth. Your dislike of change is not an argument against change.
I suggested improving AI and having content give escalations appropriate for the designated hull type. So if I go into a site designed for T1 frigates I get an escalation for T1 frigates. If an NPC enemy is taking damage and unable to return fire they get out of dodge like any rational person would. How exactly does that not make sense? Whatâs so difficult to understand? It doesnât penalize anyone anymore than a venture not being able to take on battleship rats in lowsec asteroid belts is a penalty. You donât like the idea of having to put forth any effort in the game. Okay, but Iâm not sure where we go from here. I reiterate, you not liking something isnât an argument against it. Outside of red herrings that have nothing to do with the subject matter, all youâve really done is convey that you donât like change. Alright. Opinion noted. Have nice day.
And there it. The theme of the OPâs idea is that content should not be trivial. âThis is how itâs always beenâ isnât a counter-argument to change.
All PvE content in EVE is trivial. Exploration, mining, hauling, missions, killing NPCs⌠itâs all done before and completely worked out to trivial solutions.
The non-trivial part all those things have in common is that it happens in a PvP environment where other players can possibly interfere at any moment youâre undocked.
2 Likes
I usually run these sights while traveling to and from missions located in other systems when the server population is lower. I call them âtargets of opportunityâ that I may or may not run while using my Marauder. Usually these sites are taken down quickly by alphas or bots running Gilas; normal days they donât seem to last long. If I was solely looking and running these sites, rest assured that a slow locking Marauder would not be my first choice to use. Perhaps a better solution would be for CCP to tweak the number appearing per region slightly upward.
thereâs never been a hull restriction for sites the OP refered to , so âoriginal intentâ was any ship a player wanted to use . DMC you seem to contradict yourself , noting thereâs new modules and the ships originally used to run them do not exist anymore ⌠unless youâve got a 2-2-4 rifter , 2-3-4 split-weapon merlin , or a 3 launcher inquisitor stashed somewhere .. 
you went way further than that , m8
so a player doing the site in a âcorrect sizeâ frigate and player battleship warps in , the npc despawn .. most frigs could easily win the site over a slower locking battlship ; your suggestion means the frig pilot gets nothing . then npc battleships warp in ; the frig pilot canât kill them faster and the battleship pilot gets bounty and loot from an npc battlship fleet ..
this should have been the end of this whine post which became filled with horrible solutions to a non-problem :
*edit except for double-seboâd , rapid-light orthrus .. those have got to go ..
Further how? Elaborate.
No. Because the NPCs are still capable of engaging the ships intended for the content. They would continue attacking the âcorrect sizedâ hull. Nowhere did I say they automatically despawn if a larger hull enters the site. Please read what I posted more carefully. Note the part you INTENTIONALLY cut out.
Now I have to question your integrity because it seems you are intentionally arguing against a strawman. You fully understood what I posted and removed the relevant text to misrepresent what I posted.
I said the AI would know when itâs in an untenable situation and flee. If the battleship in your example starting blapping them, that battleship became their primary and thereafter the AI concludes the situation is futile then, yes, they would flee. Itâs mere presence would not rigger a retreat. Technically, a battleship could warp in at zero and use small guns and not immediately be interpreted as an unassailable threat. It depends on how far we take the AI. Also, the battleship could ignore the NPC ships and go directly for the structures, triggering its own response force; separate hull appropriate content that will only engage the offender. And chase him off grid (for 1 jump) if he leaves. I just thought of that last part.
Here lies your second strawman. The OP is arguing for the enforcement of combat site tiers. His ability to hold his own against a drake is irrelevant. It was never about someone in a bigger ship stealing sites from him (or her?). Therefore, youâre portrayal of it as a âwhine postâ is disingenuous. If that was the case the OP would not have allowed T2 frigates to remain (which made no sense logically). It was about a perceived lack of risk vs. reward, which was compared to a level 100 character being able to still benefit from killing starter zone bunny rabbits. The OPâs solution was very clunky and illogical in some respects, but the basic reasoning behind it is still valid.
Other than, âI donât like changeâ, do you have any actual non-strawman critiques?
More red herring drivel. HiSec combat anomalies are as much a PvP environment as your backyard is a meteor hailstorm site. Sure, a meteor shower could strike your yard, but the likelihood is nigh zero. And you know this. You wouldnât be bothering with such an obvious red herring if you honestly had any legitimate critiques beyond, âChange BAAAAD!!!â.
So trivial that the idea of actually having to do content designed for the hull class youâre flying has you scared shyteless. Otherwise, why are you even here complaining so vociferously about someone elseâs thoughts on the game if itâs a trivial matter? This isnât even being discussed by a CCP representative. Itâs just some players in a forum brainstorming ideas. Even if CCP went through with my take on the OPâs idea, wouldnât a skilled, experienced, rich, attentive player easily adapt and prosper? Only a lazy, incompetent, buffoon would be daunted by this, right?
And the strawmanning continues. The fact that you have to intentionally misrepresent peoples positions tells me youâre not a serious person and not worth any further time. The OP clearly views people who do super easy content as pathetic unskilled losers that canât hack it with hull appropriate content. People he feels sorry for. I disagree with him on that point. I feel itâs just targets of opportunity as another poster said. Not everyone is playing EVE to test their limits.
You get to have the last say, Pan. I will not be replying to anymore of your unproductive whining, purposeful strawmen and ad hominems any longer. Take care.
Which part of my reply do you not understand? When CCP first created the content, the game didnât have all the various types of ships and modules that are now currently available.
I still donât get the goal of the OP.
If they are complaining that people are running sites legally using "too big " ships making it too easy, then it smacks of âyouâre not playing the way I think you shouldâ.
If they are complaining that too big ships compete unfairly in a head to head match up ( 2 players in a site at the same time), then thatâs EVE.
If they are complaining that larger ships reduce their opportunities for themselves to run the sites, then they should request an adjustment on those sites spawn rate or total number that exist at one time.
Complaining that someone elects to use a chainsaw to fell trees while you use a manual handsaw to do so is strange. Unless you can somehow link larger ship size creating overall market issues, the proposal doesnât make sense. Why complain on how someone legally accomplishes the same goal as you do more efficiently? Entertainment value and enjoyment should be an individualâs choice.
3 Likes
Because OP hates competition and is a sore loser who wants favors to deal with the situation instead of adapting himself. 
-
this is a whine thread ; OP doesnât ask for fairness , or to balance risk vs. reward . he wants CCP to punish players who donât play the way he thinks they should . itâs in the title âŚ
-
@DMC pointing out you contradict yourself , saying they should be run as originally intended , then you mention modules that didnât exist when this content was first introduced . would you ban T2 modules ? destroyers ? no misunderstanding .
-
@OP and his obvious alt poster ⌠i wanât being misleading , just left out some of the fluff and brought your suggestion to itâs logical conclusion .
you fail to mention the critical part of my reply ; your suggestion means the original player in a âcorrectâ size ship gets nothing .
and the battlship pilot gets to farm an âappropriateâ sized response fleet ⌠and as if your idea couldnât get worse , you added :
great ! after dealing with the response fleet , the battlship shoots the structure and gets a second fleet , which will ignore his logi âŚ
you could make your proposal even worse : no bounties on the response fleet , no loot , salvage gives metal scraps . 
then nobody gets anything . you seem a bit spiteful ; none of your suggestions enhance anyoneâs play , balance anything , nor accomplish your original goal of keeping âoverkillâ ships out of these small sites âŚ
as iâve stated , the smaller fast-locking ships already have an advantage and no change is needed . the sites are ungated , and CCPâs intention seems to have been leave it to playerâs choice .
CCP could easily add hull-restricted gates ; you could suggest that in features and ideas if you like .
fly safe all
1 Like
You either completely misunderstand what I said or youâre deliberately trying to misrepresent what I said. I believe itâs the latter.
Of course I must be an alt because I have reading comprehension skills and can actually point out the intent of the OP without being duplicitous. Or is it because I use phrases I saw him use? Thatâs on purpose because he was correct. Nobody had voiced any valid critiques besides Ratwerke mentioning the range of certain sniper ships. But apparently you can comprehend too. You clearly comprehend my CONSTRUCTIVE criticism and SOLUTION. You would not have removed the actual mechanics that contradict your made up issue if it was just fluff. Since when is the actual mechanics âfluffâ? You response makes zero sense if you left the removed text in. You reworded it to say something I did not write. And you know this.
Quote me where I said this. Explain how you came to that conclusion. Because any rational person would see it as a win/win where both parties have a chance to get an escalation from their appropriate content. But please quote my words and take me through the line of reasoning that lead you to that conclusion. Break it down. I wonât hold my breath.
Or not. Where are you getting this from? You certainly did not ask me. Youâre adding your own ideas to the mix. Ideas that are strawmen for you to then tear down. If the response fleet is dealt with then the content would be effectively cleared at that level. Attacking structures would serve no further purpose. And how hard is it to fathom that logi (or any additional attackers) would be flagged as combatants? How many people do you figure are going to fleet up an invest their time and effort into something with little chance of reward when their player fleet could do appropriate sites with better results?
With a very low chance of gaining an escalation it wouldnât be worth it. People would adapt to the new order of things. If you feel that wouldnât be the case and it would accomplish nothing then what are you even crying about? In that case the whole thing amounts to hot air anyway, right? A total nothing burger not even worthy of getting bent out of shape over.
But youâre right about one thing. The response fleets should only provide crap loot, scrap salvage and low bounties. Thanks for the suggestion. And of course the only âlogical conclusionâ of what you said is that these fleets put a PVP combat timer on you making you unable to jump thru gates or dock in stations. (Yes, thatâs how it feels)
Who cares about what ships lock faster or if small ships have an advantage or larger ships? What does that have to do with anything? If weâre setting up content based on certain ship types the only thing that matters is what ship types the content is designed for. At this point youâre either extremely dense or feigning ignorance. My guess is the latter. Whatâs the point in even discussing anything with a person being willfully dishonest?
sounds like a penalty to me . the OP uses the word penalty in his proposal .
@DeMichael_Crimson what does âas originally intendedâ mean to you , and how does the larger selection of ship / modules / skills etc. affect it ? ungated content , with frig rats , some elite .. iâd have to include cruiser in âappropriateâ ships ⌠yourself ?
too easy . done playing âhe said , she saidâ with you . youâre a spiteful person suggesting penalties instead of actually trying to improve the game , and you probably wonât even give someone your stuff when you quit . ⌠fly safe . or ride your horse or pig or w/ever they do in wow âŚ