These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

HiSec security is CCP's responsibility.
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#101 - 2012-06-01 20:19:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Malcorian Vandsteidt wrote:
But the numbers say 70% of characters, whether or not these are players your still assuming only 40% are actual players, Since the numbers say 70% the numbers say 70%. Not 40, not 80, not 20.
As luck would have it, I'm not saying they are 70%. You'll notice that I'm saying that they are not 70%, contrary to what people want to claim.

We have no idea how many players live in highsec and any kind of argument that quotes that figure (or any other percentage from previous years for that matter) is simply proving that they have no clue. Any claim that highsec players are any kind of majority is completely unfounded.

For my part, I'm estimating that it could be as low as 40%. Notice the two caveats I throw in there? It's the kind of thing you won't find among those who falsely claim that there is a huge percentage of highsec players and then go off to rant about how CCP isn't catering to this imaginary majority.

Malcorian Vandsteidt wrote:
Were not saying that there should NOT be loss, Were simply saying that the Consequences to Gankers should be as severe in "Highsec" as they are to those being ganked.
Why should they be anything of the sort?
Malcorian Vandsteidt
Alpha Trades
Solyaris Chtonium
#102 - 2012-06-01 20:27:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Malcorian Vandsteidt
Well EvE is highly RP for one, and CCP embellishes this. Another reason is it would give Highsec goers some form of protection. I garuntee you those people ganking the hulks will think twice before doing it if they know its going to cost them whatever the value of the ship they are ganking is before they do it, therefore nullifying their ability to make stupid ammounts of profit with "Minimal to no risk" to their own wallets.

I mean you CSM's talk about balance, THAT is balance, RP legit, and Fair. And it solves all the current gank issues as now gankers will have to seriously consider a gank before they do it or pay dearly for it.

Plus in reality if you break the law you are given a fine anyway... Why not in EvE? And maybe the whiners as you call them on here will be sated with a policy that shows CCP is interested in their welfare as much as they are the PvPers.
MetaMorpheus Jones
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#103 - 2012-06-01 20:29:00 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Malcorian Vandsteidt wrote:
Alright well 70% then whatever, I was pointing out that you were wrong when you said 70% did not live in highsec when you clearly just proved yourself wrong by stating they do.
Except that you're still missing what the statistics are measuring.

They're not measuring players. The stats say that 70% of the characters live in highsec. This tells us absolutely nothing about how many players live there, except that it cannot be more than 70%.

Rather, it suggests that the percentage of player base that lives in highsec could be somewhere in the region of 40%, since everyone living outside of highsec will have a highsec alt. 70% highsec characters → 30% low/null characters → another 30% alts to low/null players → only 40% of the characters belong to actual highsec players. So no, 70% of the player base doesn't live in highsec, no matter how much people would like to misquote the stats as saying they do.



Your logic is sound. I stand corrected on this particular point. The fact remains that CCP set up the NPC Corps to provide security for hisec (so much so that a player can and is punished if he takes security into his own hands), made hisec unconquerable and unclaimable, thereby neutering a hisec corp from wielding any real power in the game.

You all talk of security as a reaction to violence. Security is the prevention of violence, which requires a pro-active, kill-them-before-they-kill-you military presence, something that the npc corps will not allow. Security is had by creating an atmosphere of deterrence - where the price of ganking is too high, or the possibility of success is too low. This cannot be had by hisec players without also becoming bad guys themselves in the very systems they are trying to defend.

Many of you, Goonies in particular, talk of better tanking, better tactics, etc on behalf of the miners, and while this is a reasonable expectation, It is no defense against systematic, corporate sponsored ganking. A systematic, corporate or alliance run response is the answer. And it is impossibe to achieve in hisec.

That monocle looks ridiculous. 
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#104 - 2012-06-01 20:32:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Malcorian Vandsteidt wrote:
Another reason is it would give Highsec goers some form of protection.
Why would they need more than they already have (if they choose to)?

Quote:
I garuntee you those people ganking the hulks will think twice before doing it if they know its going to cost them whatever the value of the ship they are ganking is before they do it, therefore nullifying their ability to make stupid ammounts of profit with "Minimal to no risk" to their own wallets.
…and again, why on earth should that happen? What's wrong with people making a profit?

Quote:
I mean you CSM's talk about balance, THAT is balance, RP legit, and Fair.
No, it seems hideously unbalanced since it kills an entire profession. It's not particularly RP legit since the players are not earning that level of protection. And EVE isn't fair, so why on earth should this particular activity be constrained by that principle? What you're describing isn't balance — it's providing massive benefits to one group of players for no adequately explained reason.

Quote:
And it solves all the current gank issues
What issues?
Jukaari Ivey
Desolation Angels
#105 - 2012-06-01 20:39:55 UTC
So you expect CCP to protect you in game ? LOL.... If you want customer service to refund your "losses" go back to WoW.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#106 - 2012-06-01 20:40:47 UTC
MetaMorpheus Jones wrote:
The fact remains that CCP set up the NPC Corps to provide security for hisec (so much so that a player can and is punished if he takes security into his own hands), made hisec unconquerable and unclaimable, thereby neutering a hisec corp from wielding any real power in the game.
That's their choice and the price they pay for wanting to stay in a part of space where those NPC corps provide a baseline cost for all aggression — a foundation upon which you can build further layers of security.

Quote:
You all talk of security as a reaction to violence. Security is the prevention of violence, which requires a pro-active, kill-them-before-they-kill-you military presence, something that the npc corps will not allow.
Prevention of violence can also include running low-key; staying away from known dangers; putting up passive defences that dissuade aggressors, and so on. Oh, and you can be proactive by asking those NPC corps for permission to be so…

Quote:
Many of you, Goonies in particular, talk of better tanking, better tactics, etc on behalf of the miners, and while this is a reasonable expectation, It is no defense against systematic, corporate sponsored ganking. A systematic, corporate or alliance run response is the answer. And it is impossibe to achieve in hisec.
No, it's not.
Again, if they're systematic, you can just kill them. If they're a bit more careful, you can wardec them. And in the case of HG∞, you can just go and attack the root of the problem.
Pisov viet
Perkone
Caldari State
#107 - 2012-06-01 20:44:22 UTC
Let the free market fix it.
Malcorian Vandsteidt
Alpha Trades
Solyaris Chtonium
#108 - 2012-06-01 20:46:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Malcorian Vandsteidt
Tippia wrote:
Malcorian Vandsteidt wrote:
Another reason is it would give Highsec goers some form of protection.
Why would they need more than they already have (if they choose to)?


You and I both know that literally speaking no one in highsec is protected from jack, You can kill anyone with little to no consequence with suicide ganking. If you couldn't, or there was a consequence like I propositioned, this would not be such a large issue.

Quote:
I garuntee you those people ganking the hulks will think twice before doing it if they know its going to cost them whatever the value of the ship they are ganking is before they do it, therefore nullifying their ability to make stupid ammounts of profit with "Minimal to no risk" to their own wallets.…and again, why on earth should that happen? What's wrong with people making a profit?


In lowsec and 0.0 It "shouldn't", but highsec is supposed to be "Lawful Space" otherwise concord wouldn't care if you ganked someone or stole from their jet can, there would be NO criminal penalties if such actions were "Ok" in this region of space.

However obviously there are, so obviously such actions are NOT ok in this region of space. However the consequences are obviously not severe enough to deter it, this needs to change. I am not saying it should not be allowed I am simply saying if the people being ganked must suffer REAL loss and Consequences FAR outweighing those of the law breaking miscreants, then something should be implemented to force such miscreants to suffer smiler looses when breaking said laws.


Quote:
I mean you CSM's talk about balance, THAT is balance, RP legit, and Fair. No, it seems hideously unbalanced since it kills an entire profession. It's not particularly RP legit since the players are not earning that level of protection. And EVE isn't fair, so why on earth should this particular activity be constrained by that principle? What you're describing isn't balance — it's providing massive benefits to one group of players for no adequately explained reason.

[quote]And it solves all the current gank issues,::: What issues?



* The issues between Little or no consequences for breaking the law.
* The imbalance of Loss vs Loss for Law abiding citizens vs Law breaking Vandels. You should not be punished for being a law abiding citizen, you "should" however be punished for breaking the law.
* it should not be so easy for individuals to spend 500k on a destroyer and then be able to turn around with 0 risk to themselves and their wallet kill 300 mil worth of ship. (They SHOULD be able to kill the ship), but they should also suffer losses similar to the loss the victem feels for "Breaking the Law". IN HIGHSEC
Haulie Berry
#109 - 2012-06-01 20:49:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Haulie Berry
Malcorian Vandsteidt wrote:

* The issues between Little or no consequences for breaking the law.
* The imbalance of Loss vs Loss for Law abiding citizens vs Law breaking Vandels. You should not be punished for being a law abiding citizen, you "should" however be punished for breaking the law.
* it should not be so easy for individuals to spend 500k on a destroyer and then be able to turn around with 0 risk to themselves and their wallet kill 300 mil worth of ship. (They SHOULD be able to kill the ship), but they should also suffer losses similar to the loss the victem feels for "Breaking the Law". IN HIGHSEC



Holy ******* ****, for the umpteenth time please stop citing the prices of the ships. It makes you look like an imbecile.

Let me ask you - how much ISK should I have to bring to kill a 300m ship?

1 mil? 30 mil? 300 mil? More? Should there be some sort of "deposit X amount of isk here to instapop a ship worth up to Y amount of isk" machine somewhere?

What's an acceptable amount to you? Is that amount only valid for high security? What about in low or null?

It's such an immensely stupid metric. You can kill tier 3 battlecruisers with a ROOKIE SHIP if you know what you're doing. Does something need to be done about that? Christ. Find a valid argument - price isn't one.
Malcorian Vandsteidt
Alpha Trades
Solyaris Chtonium
#110 - 2012-06-01 20:55:21 UTC
Haulie Berry wrote:
Malcorian Vandsteidt wrote:

* The issues between Little or no consequences for breaking the law.
* The imbalance of Loss vs Loss for Law abiding citizens vs Law breaking Vandels. You should not be punished for being a law abiding citizen, you "should" however be punished for breaking the law.
* it should not be so easy for individuals to spend 500k on a destroyer and then be able to turn around with 0 risk to themselves and their wallet kill 300 mil worth of ship. (They SHOULD be able to kill the ship), but they should also suffer losses similar to the loss the victem feels for "Breaking the Law". IN HIGHSEC



Holy ******* ****, for the umpteenth time please stop citing the prices of the ships. It makes you look like an imbecile.

Let me ask you - how much ISK should I have to bring to kill a 300m ship?

1 mil? 30 mil? 300 mil? More? Should there be some sort of "deposit X amount of isk here to instapop a ship worth up to Y amount of isk" machine somewhere?

What's an acceptable amount to you? Is that amount only valid for high security? What about in low or null?

It's such an immensely stupid metric. You can kill tier 3 battlecruisers with a ROOKIE SHIP if you know what you're doing. Does something need to be done about that? Christ. Find a valid argument - price isn't one.


I am not saying you should have to bring any sort of isk to "kill" a ship. I am saying that if you choose to break the law (In lawful space) you should suffer consequences equal to your crime.

And if you actually read my post youd know this was for ==================== HIGHSEC ONLY!!!! ===============
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#111 - 2012-06-01 21:00:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Malcorian Vandsteidt wrote:
You and I both know that literally speaking no one in highsec is protected from jack,
No. You may believe so. I know that they are protected. They're protected by themselves. What you're suggesting is that they should be protected without doing anything. That's not a good suggestion.

Quote:
However obviously there are, so obviously such actions are NOT ok in this region of space. However the consequences are obviously not severe enough to deter it, this needs to change.
Why? Why does it have to be deterred (more than it already is)? Why should the aggressors have to suffer similar losses, thus removing the ability to make a profit from the whole deal? Why do these people need so much automated protection? Why shouldn't they have to provide their own security just like everyone else and why shouldn't attackers be able to profit from people not taking those precautions?

Quote:
The issues between Little or no consequences for breaking the law.
That's a player-created issue. It's up to players to stop creating it.

Quote:
The imbalance of Loss vs Loss for Law abiding citizens vs Law breaking Vandels. You should not be punished for being a law abiding citizen, you "should" however be punished for breaking the law.
This is already the case. The “imbalance” in loss is intentional.

Quote:
it should not be so easy for individuals to spend 500k on a destroyer and then be able to turn around with 0 risk to themselves and their wallet kill 300 mil worth of ship.
Yes it should, because cost is not a factor in balance. In fact, a 500k ISK ship being able to kill a 300M ISK ship is outstanding balance because it means the game doesn't suffer from the idiotic “bigger is better” or “buy success” philosophies that ruin so many other games, and which have never ever been able to produce anything even remotely resembling balanced gameplay ever. A free newbie frigate should have an easy time killing a billion-ISK ship if flown correctly.

Oh, and it's not zero risk.
Malcorian Vandsteidt
Alpha Trades
Solyaris Chtonium
#112 - 2012-06-01 21:02:32 UTC
On the ruining of peoples profession, well, It should not be profitable in a lawful society to break the law, And while in most societies it is more profitable to break such laws then to not, it is also much more risky.

The reward should = the risk. Currently breaking the laws of highsec imposes nothing more then a nuisance and absolutely no risk whatsoever to your real financial or person.

This "Fine" proposition of mine makes Highsec Ganking not only dangerous for the gankers but less profitable and insures personnel loss as well as a "Just" consequence for breaking such laws in "lawful space".

You could still gank in a fleet and have the Fine mitigated between your fleet. And still make a profit. This policy simply requires you as the ganker take more risk. to make such.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#113 - 2012-06-01 21:05:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Malcorian Vandsteidt wrote:
It should not be profitable in a lawful society to break the law
Why not? edit: Never mind. A better question is: what on earth made you think that EVE is a lawful society? It's been purposefully designed to be anything but lawful — making money through crime is one of the most publicised features, both in terms of being a selling-point and in terms of it being the main reason why EVE shows up in the media.

Quote:
Currently breaking the laws of highsec imposes nothing more then a nuisance and absolutely no risk whatsoever to your real financial or person.
…aside from the loss of the ship, the risk of not getting the kill, the risk of not getting any good loot, the risk of not getting what loot there is, and the risk of revenge, the risks inherent in being a free-for-all target. It's not “no risk”.

Quote:
You could still gank in a fleet and have the Fine mitigated between your fleet. And still make a profit.
Only if the fine was less than the value of loot minus the value of the ships lost in the attack… in other words, only if the fine was zero.

Quote:
This policy simply requires you as the ganker take more risk. to make such.
Why is that needed?
Horace Nancyball
The Whiskers of Kurvi-Tasch
#114 - 2012-06-01 21:14:51 UTC
I'm amazed that a thread can be started by an OP with one month's experience that criticises CCP's design of a game that is universally acclaimed by the MMO community as "doing exactly what it says on the tin". The arrogance that suggests they better understand the demographic needs of hi/low/null space is staggering. The players here since day one know enough to realise that it is precisely the current design which makes the game what it is. It seems to me that the OP was borne out of insufficient understanding of the game and if they are still around in a years time will probably have totally changed their stance.
Malcorian Vandsteidt
Alpha Trades
Solyaris Chtonium
#115 - 2012-06-01 21:18:10 UTC
Tippia wrote:
No. You may believe so. I know that they are protected. They're protected by themselves. What you're suggesting is that they should be protected without doing anything. That's not a good suggestion.

Quote:
Why? Why does it have to be deterred (more than it already is)? Why should the aggressors have to suffer similar losses, thus removing the ability to make a profit from the whole deal? Why do these people need so much automated protection? Why shouldn't they have to provide their own security just like everyone else and why shouldn't attackers be able to profit from people not taking those precautions?


Because highsec isn't null and you can't "Provide" that type of security, There is no protection against 1 shot alpha kills in highsec, or smartbomb loaded BS's. NONE no matter if you had 500 people in the belt.

Quote:
That's a player-created issue. It's up to players to stop creating it.


So your saying no one should mine in highsec or PvE or do anything but fly a PvP combat ship?

Well it's a nice thought but because 90% of EvE is Industry..... And without Industry you have NO ships, NO economy. Then what are you going to pew pew in? Or gank in? Your pod?

Quote:
This is already the case. The “imbalance” in loss is intentional.


This is your opinion, if the imbalance in loss was intentional CCP wouldn't try so hard to fix it, or Buff Concord, or make changes that specifically attempted to make it more unpleasing to cause such. Such as removing the insurance payout for ships killed by concord during a suicide gank. Which was CCP's attempt at making the gank loss higher. (Guess what? Smart bomb BS suicides went down after that patch).

[quote]Yes it should, because cost is not a factor in balance. In fact, a 500k ISK ship being able to kill a 300M ISK ship is outstanding balance because it means the game doesn't suffer from the idiotic “bigger is better” or “buy success” philosophies that ruin so many other games, and which have never ever been able to produce anything even remotely resembling balanced gameplay ever. A free newbie frigate should have an easy time killing a billion-ISK ship if flown correctly.

Oh, and it's not zero risk.


1. You bring out your noob ship I'll bring my cane/drake, well see who wins, 1v1 without your buddies to gank me, I guarantee it wont be you. So back it up, or shut up.

2. Isk value has nothing to do with bigger or better. And this isn't about the price of your ship. It is about the unlawful action of individuals in lawful space, and how there is little to no consequence or deterrence to individuals desiring to harass and commit criminal actions on others in space where CCP has tried very hard to prevent such.
Mara Pahrdi
The Order of Anoyia
#116 - 2012-06-01 21:18:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Mara Pahrdi
Malcorian Vandsteidt wrote:
Mara Pahrdi wrote:
Lexmana wrote:
OP should probably read The Presumption of Safety before confirming every thing stated in that article to be true. Now I need to try out a new tinfoil-hat too.

Lets add http://www.machine9.net/?m=201006.

I found it back in 2010, when I was doing my research whether EVE might be the game for me.

While I'm still an empire dweller and carebear Big smile after 18 months in EVE (mostly due to an ongoing lack of time to play the game), the notion of loss played the most important part in the decision to change over to EVE.

This constant threat of loss, no matter where you are, is one of the most enticing things in EVE. If you do not like this, you really should look out for another game.


Were not saying that there should NOT be loss, Were simply saying that the Consequences to Gankers should be as severe in "Highsec" as they are to those being ganked.

* A simple Fine which concord imposes on the Ganker for the value of the ship and cargo he killed would do it. (IE, you kill a 300 mil Hulk in highsec your fined 300 mil Auto debit from your wallet. Granted this could decrease depending on the sec status of the highsec system.)

* this keeps the loss factor in, but also imposes the same on the "Lawbreaker".

* This balances this function of eve.

Oh I would even be fine with that, if it's also able to take account of the blatant simplicity of some gankees.

If you look at killboards, you see hulk fits ranging from small shield boosters to overall empty midslots.

Looks like folks really care about their 300m investment.

Now don't take me wrong. I'm very well aware, that a hulk lacks somewhat in powergrid to fit a decent tank that really matches a t3 bc nowadays.

But this "simple fine" on the ganker really must match the efforts of the gankee too. Just as you said: It's all about balance. I have somewhat limited sympathy for hulk pilots dying to lonely dessies...Roll

Remove standings and insurance.
Welsige
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#117 - 2012-06-01 21:18:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Welsige
The real problem is that people chose to live in high sec where they are not in control of their environment.

Some people claim null is safer. It can actualy be, since an alliance control its environment and know whats going on its grounds.

People were ment to learn in high sec and then move on. They dont.

Nothing more fair then get blown up, to maybe buck up and engage in EVE end game, instead of hiding in the "noob area".

[b]~ 10.058 ~

Free The Mittani[/b]
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#118 - 2012-06-01 21:31:04 UTC
Malcorian Vandsteidt wrote:
Because highsec isn't null and you can't "Provide" that type of security, There is no protection against 1 shot alpha kills in highsec, or smartbomb loaded BS's.
Yes there is (especially the latter), both passive and active ones.

Quote:
So your saying no one should mine in highsec or PvE or do anything but fly a PvP combat ship?
No, I'm saying that there are plenty of consequences but that people choose not to enforce them to their fullest extent and then complain that the consequences are not enforced. They are they problem — not the lack of consequences. Moreover, I'm saying that some consequences can be made far worse by intelligent fits and flying.

Quote:
This is your opinion, if the imbalance in loss was intentional CCP wouldn't try so hard to fix it
They're not trying to fix it. vOv

Quote:
You bring out your noob ship I'll bring my cane/drake, well see who wins
Sure. Will you fit it and fly it as poorly as the average gank victim fits and flies his Hulk?

Quote:
Isk value has nothing to do with bigger or better.
Exactly. So it should come as no surprise that a 500k ISK ship can kill a 300M ISK one, nor is it anything wrong with it. So why did you bring it up? CCP most certainly hasn't worked particularly hard to prevent it — hell, they just made it a whole lot easier (not just in this case but in several others as well).

Oh, and no, 90% of EVE is not industry.
EVE Roy Mustang
Doomheim
#119 - 2012-06-01 21:38:18 UTC
Spikeflach wrote:
Was thinking, Crimewatch could possibly be a counter towards the gank. cept the gankers are gonna be carebearing it up in a station while their timers go off to make it impossible for the people to Punish the ganker.


Yes and is you suggest something like

if you have negative status CONCORD or the navies pod you

So the gankers ARENT free to scoot anywhere they want in a pod and be protected by CONCORD too, they ***** the loudest
Spikeflach
Perkone
Caldari State
#120 - 2012-06-01 21:40:23 UTC
Welsige wrote:
The real problem is that people chose to live in high sec where they are not in control of their environment.

Some people claim null is safer. It can actualy be, since an alliance control its environment and know whats going on its grounds.

People were ment to learn in high sec and then move on. They dont.

Nothing more fair then get blown up, to maybe buck up and engage in EVE end game, instead of hiding in the "noob area".


So what are the non-noobs doing screwing around in the "noob area" ?

There are different groups of people in eve, hi-sec dwellers, wormhole dwellers, 0.0 dwellers, and lowsec dwellers. The people have made these distinctions in eve, not the eve environment.

People seem to like it this way, and just as much, one group or the other shouldn't care how the other group runs.

People who get off in whatever space they live in shouldn't give a crap about what happens in other peoples aspects. What happens in their section stays in their section.

There are interactions between groups, but the problem arises when one group is trying to tell another how to correctly play how their group should be playing.