Learn2play.
2 Likes
How are you losing a pod in HS? Were you auto-piloting?
No.
Nobody should be able to bling-tank their stuff. If you are foolish enough to put very expensive modules or stuff in your ship, then you are fair game…for being a fool. So…no.
3 Likes
Protection by spending more isk does not make sense.
Players set price, not the game.
I can’t sell myself a frigate for 1billion isk and be very hard to gank. That’s just ridiculous.
A leopard is very expensive (because the players selling them make it so) but it’s not in any way designed to be tough. Are you demanding they lower the price? Or that ccp should change the stats of ships depending on the price players sell them for?
You see the lack of thought in your idea?
Hi-sec is a pvp area like any other. Perhaps the reason you keep losing pods is because you keep taking risks, like using auto-pilot.
1 Like
Hi-sec is called “high sec”… as in high security. If it was intended to be safe they’d call it perfect security.
Posthumous isk fines? Easily circumvented. Gank alts don’t need a positive wallet and the isk at risk is only what they have in space. If you had some kind of weird extra fee (which how would you ever implement that without completely murdering the game?) they’d just trade themselves ships from non-gank alts.
1 Like
ITT, players that play a sandbox mmo where players can effect each other and complaining about it.
I believe that the idea of ISK at Risk idea is dead. I had not considered how hard that would be to implement by players, and the retaliative costs already! I have seen a lot of fellow pilots complain of how hard the game is to achieve any retaliative position in the game and then leave. All games that currently exist online need a fairly large cash income. Those of you that have learned to cover your costs from in game activities may have forgotten what that was like, and New blood is needed on an ongoing basis to feed CCP the $$$ needed to keep the investors happy, the employees happy, => devs doing good work to keep us from being board, and finally how to hook the new players on the game so the pay for the Omega time and ISK that they have not learned to make.
-j
And then you see people on these forums whining about risk and reward and trying to get income in hisec nerfed…, when it is not the issue at all.
Take Black Pedro’s comments above:
He talks about insurance and he focussed on the mining barge, but as insurance only works on the basic minerals and not T2 he ignores the impact on Exhumers because he is trying to push a narrative. As he knows the insurance does not cover the difference for T2 ships.
The ganker has a cost to gain that kill, the only difference between that ganker and the person in other space doing this is that the ship loss is guaranteed. You are playing to have fun, and the fun is to blow up something. it is not always supposed to be profit all the time on what you do, it is supposed to be hard and have meaning.
Black Pedro is not a whiner, he is very good at stating his narrative in a very intelligent way, but sometimes he leaves glaring holes in it like the one I just pointed out.
Let us agree it’s not much . suicide gankers have a pretty cheap fit/ship
come play the game and stop being a usless forum alt
1 Like
Quite right, the gankers are always trying to make it look as if it is a major issue and that ganking will stop if they cannot fund it with this activity, it is a load of pap, they want content well they should pay for it, like everyone else and not have it given to them.
1 Like
Tweak
Structure must be within one constellation of target structures and must be same or higher.
This will compact the war zone and make it easier to defend and force deccers to defend and get closer to the targets, deccers lose structures war ends.
No, it’ll just reduce the number of wars by making them harder to declare. Conflict is good. Anything that reduces conflict is bad for the health of the game.
2 Likes
Good if you are too chicken ■■■■ put it out there instead of hiding a structure in a far off corner then go to lowsec for content.
Why would you require a wardeccer to anchor a structure near their targets just to declare war on them? It’s already published information, and it’s not like it’s abnormally dangerous taking a fleet through highsec to engage your opponents.
You’re just adding pointless busywork to make it more annoying for people to wardec other people. Which is definitely not what we should ever be going for. It should be easy to create the opportunities to kill each other.
1 Like
It’s like capturing the flag both offense and defense it was one of my favorite game playing paintball.
I enjoyed the early years of paintball when everyone had the same equipment, and then I went and played it where people were allowed to bring their own guns, so while I was equipped with a single shot gun my opponents had veritable machine guns and I was there only to be shot easily. I did not go again…
But the first ten times I did paintball was great fun and I really enjoyed capture the flag fights. One fight sticks in my mind because I set up an ambush with people hidden under leaves and we took them completely by surprise.
I don’t think that CCP needs to provide enough structure to wars where it artificially limits or holds players back to be on an even playing field. In the end you will still have a winner and loser, and it’s rare these days that losers enjoy losing.
I see the merit in an argument or position you take where you have some elite commando soldier beating up on some helpless PVE player, but is that PVE player really that helpless? Sure it’s an uneven match if he were to use conventional methods to try and fight… but what about war or combat needs to be fair? The ecosystem in which we all exist keeps the door open for PVP players to fight in the financial interest of a PVE business venture, in which he would find his opponent being some smaller, weaker group that isn’t interested in war.
I am skeptical that the Wardec changes are going to change much of anything except enabling the large Nullsec groups to stop or prevent a war by destroying the War HQ. You and I agree that’s CCP should allow players that share a war against a mutual enemy to rep each other legally, but I think the attitude and psychology of the average player you think this will enable is still a lost cause.
I want to ask though… when you went paintballing and were obviously against those that took it more seriously, did it not inspire or intrigue you to get more involved in it beyond basic equipment where you’re outmatched?
That was an observation of my attitude doing something as a sort of corporate fun day with some people I knew ten times, and that the last two times I went the place we went to had decided to allow people to bring their own equipment, which turned it into a turkey shoot. I stopped going, that is all there is to say.
I should point out that these people were not part of our group, everyone in my group ended up being target practice for these other people, my wife to be was especially badly bruised and at that point my entire group gave up on it, previously we had really enjoyed it.
1 Like
Fair enough. I would have preferred you go back in true Rambo fashion and turn the hunter into the hunted!
Edit: an eye for an eye! Yeah I see your point though. See the neat thing about this example is… imagine being able to meta game where you steal or take their paintball gun from them and light them up like Christmas in order to avenge your wife!
Why limit the size of the field? It’s not like either flag is somehow inaccessible, both are in HS.