Titan Nerf Mk. N

[OrangeAfroMan]

Its no predation at all, since the predator do not live off the kills.

I do.

[depili]

In the past I have been part of several ninja-ops that have lived off the kills like camping D7- in tribute when the NC was still kicking around. And TBH a small dedicated group can still hurt a large coalition quite much by just cloaky fagging it up in their faces. True, it doesn't hurt the big leadership members but see how soon grunts get annoyed when they can't travel or rat in peace.

In recent events our alliance (Confederation of xXPIZZAXx) probably had something to do about TEST pets elite space guild failcascading by camping their stations for about a month, and they had around 3 times our members at the start and the support from TEST and rest of the CFC.

[Joshua Foiritain]

Its no predation at all, since the predator do not live off the kills.

I do.

Same. Fuck Missions, mining and incursions

[Aloe]

Its no predation at all, since the predator do not live off the kills.

I do.

Same. Fuck Missions, mining and incursions

Cleaning up after bloodbaths (with an alt) easily keeps me subbed and in ships v0v

[Sponk]

Confirming that the high slots on Falcons are for salvagers and tractor beams.

No Injury Without Insult is my motto.

[indeterminacy]

In the past I have been part of several ninja-ops that have lived off the kills like camping D7- in tribute when the NC was still kicking around. And TBH a small dedicated group can still hurt a large coalition quite much by just cloaky fagging it up in their faces. True, it doesn't hurt the big leadership members but see how soon grunts get annoyed when they can't travel or rat in peace.

In recent events our alliance (Confederation of xXPIZZAXx) probably had something to do about TEST pets elite space guild failcascading by camping their stations for about a month, and they had around 3 times our members at the start and the support from TEST and rest of the CFC.

We just did this to SMA over the last couple of weeks by camping, rfing, and killing them really only in the USTZ. 2 of our corps with a strong USTZ - sure we got roflstomped a coupla times when they whined enough to bring CFC as a whole on the field - but in the course of about 2 weeks our 2 x 100 man corps griefed an entire alliance out of its home constellation.

[Mfume]

We just did this to SMA over the last couple of weeks by camping, rfing, and killing them really only in the USTZ. 2 of our corps with a strong USTZ - sure we got roflstomped a coupla times when they whined enough to bring CFC as a whole on the field - but in the course of about 2 weeks our 2 x 100 man corps griefed an entire alliance out of its home constellation.

You ofc realize that SMA has recently deployed to BKG, right?

[indeterminacy]

We just did this to SMA over the last couple of weeks by camping, rfing, and killing them really only in the USTZ. 2 of our corps with a strong USTZ - sure we got roflstomped a coupla times when they whined enough to bring CFC as a whole on the field - but in the course of about 2 weeks our 2 x 100 man corps griefed an entire alliance out of its home constellation.

You ofc realize that SMA has recently deployed to BKG, right?

I didn't know where they deployed to but I'm sure our denying them use of 6 systems and as many stations and SBUing/RFing it all, twice, in the last 2 weeks has absolutely nothing to do with it.

[Mfume]

I didn't know where they deployed to but I'm sure our denying them use of 6 systems and as many stations and SBUing/RFing it all, twice, in the last 2 weeks has absolutely nothing to do with it.

It didn't. And seeing how you recently pulled your towers down, I suspect those who actually run shit for Init. know this.

edit: arguably it was even counterproductive, given that their fleet numbers saw an increase relative to the rest of the CFC. gj, bro, certainly doing your part to fight the blob, etc.

[Antilogic]

1. Nerf High-Sec, but only via an Empire Taxation System: 20% seems fair to me. You still get all the isk you get now, but 20% of it goes back to the Empires for their CONCORD Contribution to your 99.9% protected isk-making.

I like this. What if you mixed it up though.

If your in a noob/npc corp, you pay the tax (maybe new players get a 2 week free concord protection or something), no choice. However, form a player corp and you have a choice. You can pay the 20% tax (on every payment in high sec regardless of what it is, or flat tax based on income or whatever) and get your nice mostly secure high security paradise, or your corp opts to not pay the tax and Concord doesn't bother protecting you (would still gank outlaws ofc). Maybe you could also bribe Concord to see if a corp is paying the tax or not. Gives players a choice: Run the risk and get more money, or stay "safe" and effectively hire the baddest mercs in existance to keep your pretty arse alive.

Eh, might not be the best idea in the universe but it fits in with the "EvE gameplay style" of some risk/some reward.

[Durzel]

1. Nerf High-Sec, but only via an Empire Taxation System: 20% seems fair to me. You still get all the isk you get now, but 20% of it goes back to the Empires for their CONCORD Contribution to your 99.9% protected isk-making.

I like this. What if you mixed it up though.

If your in a noob/npc corp, you pay the tax (maybe new players get a 2 week free concord protection or something), no choice. However, form a player corp and you have a choice. You can pay the 20% tax (on every payment in high sec regardless of what it is, or flat tax based on income or whatever) and get your nice mostly secure high security paradise, or your corp opts to not pay the tax and Concord doesn't bother protecting you (would still gank outlaws ofc). Maybe you could also bribe Concord to see if a corp is paying the tax or not. Gives players a choice: Run the risk and get more money, or stay "safe" and effectively hire the baddest mercs in existance to keep your pretty arse alive.

Eh, might not be the best idea in the universe but it fits in with the "EvE gameplay style" of some risk/some reward.

It is flat out dumb, sorry.

What you (and Alistair) are talking about is as dumb an idea as "moving L4 missions to lowsec". Heavily taxing people who run missions and live in highsec does not suddenly turn them into risk-embracing players. What you're asking for basically is just more sheep to shoot, which is hardly any solution is it.

Risk-aversion is endemic across the whole game, and it is a feeling fostered by actual loss when you lose a ship, killmails documenting for everyone when you failed, etc. That's not to say this is "wrong", or should be changed, but it is the nature of the game. People blob, people bait with silly-size traps to catch one guy, groups blueball eachother on a regular basis. Holding one group of players up against another as if by living in lowsec or 0.0 they are an enlightened risk-embracing species is a load of crap. With a few exceptions - people who do just fight to fight, and have to find ways of dealing with blobs who won't engage, etc - most of the people playing just don't want to fight unless they already know they will win.

I really detest most of these "nerf high sec" ideas, they always seem to come from a place that is either manifestly disingenuous (e.g. pirates just wanting those juicy piņata to jump into lowsec so they can gang-bang them, they could care less about giving those bears a legitimate reason to be there) or short-sighted. Massively disincentivising people who live in highsec from being there will not make them suddenly jump into low/null, they will just grind up the next highest income source, or quit entirely.

You will never force someone who does not want to fight into fighting with such arbitrary "punishment" changes, and nor should you. Forcing someone who has no experience of PvP into lowsec is just asking to shoot fish in a barrel. If they can't be encouraged to fight then you'd be better off assuming that they are just there in highsec and ignoring them accordingly.

[Shin_getter]

It is flat out dumb, sorry.

What you (and Alistair) are talking about is as dumb an idea as "moving L4 missions to lowsec". Heavily taxing people who run missions and live in highsec does not suddenly turn them into risk-embracing players. What you're asking for basically is just more sheep to shoot, which is hardly any solution is it.

There is a difference between people that would not accept risk at any cost, and people simply find living in risky places pointless because it is indeed pointless.

[Malcanis]

It is flat out dumb, sorry.

What you (and Alistair) are talking about is as dumb an idea as "moving L4 missions to lowsec". Heavily taxing people who run missions and live in highsec does not suddenly turn them into risk-embracing players. What you're asking for basically is just more sheep to shoot, which is hardly any solution is it.

There is a difference between people that would not accept risk at any cost, and people simply find living in risky places pointless because it is indeed pointless.

Exactly my thesis: https://forums.eveonline.com/default...=posts&t=26049

[Skyly]

Makes sense.

I hate you for making me read your 6 page down post though.

[jonesbones]

Exactly my thesis: https://forums.eveonline.com/default...=posts&t=26049

Your ideas would take CCP about 3 years to code. Good luck bro.

[Malcanis]

Exactly my thesis: https://forums.eveonline.com/default...=posts&t=26049

Your ideas would take CCP about 3 years to code. Good luck bro.

It's not about the specific ideas - those are just more or less off-the-cuff illustrations of the basic principle of changing the way we look at high sec.

[Malcanis]

Makes sense.

I hate you for making me read your 6 page down post though.

Your suffering fuels my powers