Next time you want to start a thread, @BMX_Bandit, do it in the new citizens forum.
There is no posting allowed by the deranged status quo simps who circle like vultures just itching to jump on anyone who even slightly deviates from the company line.
You’ll get an actual conversation over there.
Mr Epeen 
^^ THAT ^^
Not wholly, but here are my critical thoughts, for what it’s worth.
I’m utterly unconvinced about the arguments for more spaceship destruction that are currently being touted by the (increasingly strident and desperate) ‘we must have more unregulated PvP’ camp and (some of) the developers at CCP.
I’m someone who’s been, primarily, a miner for the best part of ten years. While I’m obviously and somewhat naturally on the side of miners, I do recognise that Eve functions a little bit like a natural ecosystem.
Like an ecosystem, there needs to be a consistent and delicate balance between predator and prey - if the predators (gankers, if you like) are too successful or unsuccessful, then the system will fail; if the prey (miners, if you like) are too invulnerable or vulnerable, then the system will fail.
Essentially it’s this balance between the two opposing sides that makes things sustainable in the long term. I don’t particularly like ganking (because I’m a miner) but I do recognise it’s a useful function in a system and that without it, somewhat ironically, over time, my life as a miner would become harder.
Either way, however, right now, I can’t see a massive amount of evidence that the balance differentials need to be tweaked.
I tend to agree with @Mephiztopheleze here as well.
I think if you’re successful in a battle, the hardiness of your ship should go up. In a similar way to the way that in a RL navy, a hardened battleship with a proven crew means that the battleship becomes more successful.
In addition to this, as you dock into a space station, any necessary maintenance would be completed to ensure that your ship is in tip-top condition - in the same way that in RL, navy ships return to military dockyards on a regular basis for maintenance.
thanks both for your feedback 
Don’t mention it.
Lmao, ship depreciation. That is honestly the worst proposed idea I’ve heard in a long time. You want people’s toys to break if they dont die before then, nevermind the fact that not everything is a pvp ship that should be used immediately, or that some people take a ton of pride in their pvp ships lasting a long time.
Tbf that would be a large “wealth tax” but its an incredibly stupid one thatll probably just make a ton of people quit since youre forcing them to replace their ships pretty often for the sole reason of “You havent gotten it killed in a fight yet, so lets make you get rid of it via the Reprocessing Facility”
thanks Tyler, its good you’re being honest.
You’ll find dicks wherever you go. So it’s kind of unfair to malign the entire community based upon the rude comments of 2 or 3 guys, one of which is known troll.
Second, CCP does in fact listen to player feedback and ideas. Of course, they don’t just implement every random brain turd that gets dumped on the forums or reddit. It has to first survive player scrutiny and build a consensus before it starts being considered.
To OP:
Try not to let personal attacks get to you.
Dynamic security status would end up being viewed as an annoyance by most players. Most HS players would just avoid systems that dropped into lowsec, or just log off and come back later. I mean, the players that want to do things in lowsec, already do things in lowsec.
You said “autopilot,” but I think you meant route planner. Regardless, breaking the route planner wouldn’t make navigating Eve require more skill -just more time.
Because of break points, small performance decreases can result in severely gimped fits. Ships wouldn’t lose value linearly, but in huge fits and spurts. Fits that might work one day, will require players to bling, get implants, or scrap the entire ship the next day. And for what? Do you think they will find this fun or rewarding in some way? Moreover, this wouldn’t be a very good wealth tax. It would do nothing to address the money supply, a lot of players already have a lot of their wealth in forms other than ship hulls, and players would simply get around it by storing wealth in plex, isk, and other items. Sigh. I could go on… but let’s just leave it at that.
Reducing administrative work is a good goal, but this is also a problem that can be mitigated by delegation of responsibility, division of labor, and careful selection of replacements when needed. Don’t get me wrong, I think further improvements can and should be made, but I wouldn’t go so far as to say that this should be CCP’s number one priority.
like, spending money on repairs to ships when you dock up?
And here is my wish for 2021: please introduce the Triglevian Tech 3 Destroyer.
Thank you.
I don’t really need to suggest this as it seems inevitable, but here it is.
PVP will be be moved exclusively to arenas and WIS will be added back into the game as a lobby. So y’all can strut around in your finest NES fashion pieces while looking for someone to fight a perfectly balanced 1 on 1 with.
God help us all.
Mr Epeen
It’s the problem CCP always have had. Not understanding where their strengths lie and when they have been beat to a feature by another game.
Instanced 1v1’s has already been implemented better in Albion Online. Eve needs some major fundamental engine changes in order for filaments to compete with corrupted dungeons.
Instead, they should just double down on improving the open world sandbox, since this is where they still have some competitive edge. Unfortunately, CCP have always had a hard time improving upon their product. It isn’t attractive to work on implemented systems, it’s always more exciting to develop new features.
One good thing is, that alternative products within the sandbox or full-loot segment of the game market that has been creeping up the recent years, may finally force CCP to make better management decisions. If they can’t cope, well that’s just capitalism for you.
That’s really not how the item database works.
Ship ‘assembly’ may be tracked, however, assembled ships cannot be sold on market, and all unique data is lost the moment the ship is repackaged. The purpose of repacking is to sanitize all item records and move the item from a unique object instance with detailed records to a count of an item class with no affiliated details - which represents a massive data storage reduction for CCP and is a critical component of the feasibility of the entire asset system as currently built.
Applying some kind of time-based degradation to an assembled ship would be immediately invalidated by repackaging the ship - so unless CCP overhauls the entire system (at significant cost in not only development time but also increased database storage requirements) the concept becomes meaningless.
Is it interesting as a concept? Sure. Is it workable in EVE? No, due to core code that would be cost-prohibitive to change for deployment of a single feature.
A complete overhaul of the item storage and reference systems could happen someday and make this concept feasible (though I’m not sure it would ever be desirable, honestly); barring that, it’s really a moot discussion item.
So every time I get back to EVE after a short break all my fits are broken, even if the patch notes didn’t touch them?
Sounds like a terrible idea, and easily circumvented too at the cost of some rigs. What is it you are trying to accomplish with this massive inconvenience?
This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.
