These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page123Next page
 

CCP's inconsistent handling of hi-sec.
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Gabriel Kaile
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#21 - 2012-06-01 23:31:58 UTC
Ituhata Saken wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Talon SilverHawk wrote:
James 315 wrote:
Fiddler Hays wrote:
In my opinion as someone that has been playing this game for years, the only way to stop all the angst with the industrialist gamer is to truly have CONCORD do its job. If a person has committed enough crimes to have excluded themselves from piloting a ship in hi-sec, they should not be allowed to fly around tanking CONCORD until they strike again. These people have a means of raising their security status. Let them do the time and suffer the consequences of hi-sec crime. Otherwise, the "realism" of criminal status is pointless.

They already nerfed suicide ganking by making it more difficult to reclaim security status. So...you're asking for "one more nerf"? Roll


Crap you can just recycle new characters, your mains will never get touched.

Tal



You will get banned for that, report anyone doing it.


How would you know if they were?


If you suspect it, petition it.

Gabriel Kaile, Order of Merlin, Third Class, Honorary Member of the Dark Force Defense League, five time winner of Goonwaffe Weekly's Most-Charming Smile award
Kimmi Chan
Tastes Like Purple
#22 - 2012-06-01 23:33:40 UTC
Fiddler Hays wrote:
Since most of the miners/industrialist like to whine or want to make hi-sec a haven, this is an attempt to point out CCP’s inconsistent handling of hi-sec which I believe is causing all of the angst.

First. Eve Online is a sandbox game, PvP centric and difficult to play (See: State Obvious). For their own reasons, CCP has setup a NPC controlled area called hi-sec where they say the environment is safer. Not safe. Safer. You are subject to PvP anywhere within this environment and they have placed a NPC controlled entity called CONCORD to exact consequences on whomever commits a criminal act. Specifically the elimination of your ship and the possibility of being attacked by other players. No podding of course.

This criminal act will affect your security status. CCP has setup CONCORD to attack an Outlaws/Criminals ship once they reach a certain negative security status and enter a certain level of hi-sec.

Gamers that PvP in hi-sec say this system is perfect and well balanced. They commit a criminal act, CONCORD takes their ship and they get a a security hit. The victim normally loses their ship and possibly podded with loss of all implants. (Balanced??)

I disagree and feel CCP is being inconsistent with hi-sec in the following ways:

1. Criminal/Outlaw status in hi-sec is a farce. CCP has implemented a criminal system that has CONCORD shoot on site a criminals ship if they have a certain negative status and try to enter a certain level of hi-sec. I think most (Industrialists) would presume that would be to remove said criminal from his ship so that he cannot do harm. Yet it has been explained to me by experience PvPers, that that level of CONCORD can be easily tanked and is just for “realism”. It is only when you commit a crime does the Uber CONCORD step in to take your ship.

2. This farce is further confirmed by CCP’s statements that ganking is fine even at -10.0 in hi-sec. Ganking in hi-sec I have no issues with. Ganking in hi-sec at -10.0, I do take umbrage. This is CCP saying to me that criminals may commit acts of crime in hi-sec with impunity. And reinforced again by GoonSwarm making Hulkageddon a permanent Event. I have to no issues with Player Run Events. I do have issue with CCP allowing mechanics that make a single type of game play (industrialists) a profit center for an Alliance.

In my opinion as someone that has been playing this game for years, the only way to stop all the angst with the industrialist gamer is to truly have CONCORD do its job. If a person has committed enough crimes to have excluded themselves from piloting a ship in hi-sec, they should not be allowed to fly around tanking CONCORD until they strike again. These people have a means of raising their security status. Let them do the time and suffer the consequences of hi-sec crime. Otherwise, the "realism" of criminal status is pointless.

If you are an industrialist and agree with this post please comment.


Stop making demands to change the game mechanics. They have been changed enough.

"Grr Kimmi  Nerf Chans!" ~Jenn aSide

www.eve-radio.com  Join Eve Radio channel in game!
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#23 - 2012-06-01 23:35:43 UTC
Ituhata Saken wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Talon SilverHawk wrote:
Crap you can just recycle new characters, your mains will never get touched.
You will get banned for that, report anyone doing it.
How would you know if they were?
The same way Talon determines that it's what's happening.
Talon SilverHawk
Patria o Muerte
#24 - 2012-06-01 23:36:07 UTC
Gabriel Kaile wrote:
Talon SilverHawk wrote:
James 315 wrote:
Fiddler Hays wrote:
In my opinion as someone that has been playing this game for years, the only way to stop all the angst with the industrialist gamer is to truly have CONCORD do its job. If a person has committed enough crimes to have excluded themselves from piloting a ship in hi-sec, they should not be allowed to fly around tanking CONCORD until they strike again. These people have a means of raising their security status. Let them do the time and suffer the consequences of hi-sec crime. Otherwise, the "realism" of criminal status is pointless.

They already nerfed suicide ganking by making it more difficult to reclaim security status. So...you're asking for "one more nerf"? Roll


Crap you can just recycle new characters, your mains will never get touched.

Tal



This is an exploit, deemed so by CCP.



I think I've read of ways to circumvent this, I could be wrong though.

Tal

Talon SilverHawk
Patria o Muerte
#25 - 2012-06-01 23:36:53 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Ituhata Saken wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Talon SilverHawk wrote:
Crap you can just recycle new characters, your mains will never get touched.
You will get banned for that, report anyone doing it.
How would you know if they were?
The same way Talon determines that it's what's happening.



Same way Tippia knows everything.

Tal


Roisin Saoirse
Doomheim
#26 - 2012-06-01 23:38:46 UTC
Ituhata Saken wrote:
How would you know if they were?

It's BS tbh. The idea that it's an exploit is nonsense. If you just delete the alt and create a new one with a different name there's not a thing CCP can do about it, nor can anyone prove you did it to shed the negative sec.

Anyone who petitions it is just wasting slots that could be used for legitimate and important petitions.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#27 - 2012-06-01 23:41:22 UTC
Roisin Saoirse wrote:
Ituhata Saken wrote:
How would you know if they were?

It's BS tbh. The idea that it's an exploit is nonsense. If you just delete the alt and create a new one with a different name there's not a thing CCP can do about it, nor can anyone prove you did it to shed the negative sec.

Anyone who petitions it is just wasting slots that could be used for legitimate and important petitions.


Several people have been banned for this very thing. This is why every member of BAT Country was told not to do this. CCP can very easily find out if people are doing this.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#28 - 2012-06-01 23:47:17 UTC
Roisin Saoirse wrote:
The idea that it's an exploit is nonsense.
…aside from CCP saying that it's an exploit.
Quote:
If you just delete the alt and create a new one with a different name there's not a thing CCP can do about it, nor can anyone prove you did it to shed the negative sec.
…aside from the GMs, which can check the account history and ban you.
Talon SilverHawk
Patria o Muerte
#29 - 2012-06-01 23:52:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Talon SilverHawk
Gabriel Kaile wrote:
Talon SilverHawk wrote:
Karadion Kohlar wrote:
I read a bloo bloo bloo.



I read repetitive unoriginal quote.

Tal



Thank God you signed your post.
I wouldn't have known it was you if you didn't.

Gabriel Kaile, Order of Merlin, Third Class, Honorary Member of the Dark Force Defense League, five time winner of Goonwaffe Weekly's Most-Charming Smile award



I actually believe you wouldn't.

I wouldn't believe you where the "five time winner of Goonwaffe Weekly's Most-Charming Smile award" if you didn't post it every time either along with your name hmmmm dumb ass. Roll

Oh forgot

Tal Lol
Myrkala
Royal Robot Ponies
#30 - 2012-06-01 23:52:56 UTC
I've tried highsec ganking once or twice, really wasn't that entertaining to me...

Miners should learn a thing or two about piloting a ship and being smart, like staying aligned in belts, using instaundock bookmarks ect...

I really don't understand all the tears, and I don't really understand the hate either... I liked being able to buy cheap ships because I actually hate to grind for them.


Do Goons secretly love mining so much that they want to make it more profitable? :S

Probably more likely is they have stocked up on Hulks and blueprints before trying to increase the demand by blowing stuff up.

But anyways its pretty cool that a large determined group can have such an impact, manipulate and gain from it. Kudos.
Talon SilverHawk
Patria o Muerte
#31 - 2012-06-01 23:54:49 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Roisin Saoirse wrote:
The idea that it's an exploit is nonsense.
…aside from CCP saying that it's an exploit.
Quote:
If you just delete the alt and create a new one with a different name there's not a thing CCP can do about it, nor can anyone prove you did it to shed the negative sec.
…aside from the GMs, which can check the account history and ban you.


and while I hate to agree, they could prob check your IP as well.

Anyway you could just train up a character on any account to the right lvl then just use that character rather than your main as well.



Tal
Arcticblue2
Nordic Freelancers inc
#32 - 2012-06-02 00:01:12 UTC
Talon SilverHawk wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Roisin Saoirse wrote:
The idea that it's an exploit is nonsense.
…aside from CCP saying that it's an exploit.
Quote:
If you just delete the alt and create a new one with a different name there's not a thing CCP can do about it, nor can anyone prove you did it to shed the negative sec.
…aside from the GMs, which can check the account history and ban you.


and while I hate to agree, they could prob check your IP as well.

Anyway you could just train up a character on any account to the right lvl then just use that character rather than your main as well.



Tal


how far can you train a trial acount ?
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#33 - 2012-06-02 00:01:36 UTC
The thing about the whole “onoz, alt recycling” issue is that it's such a complete non-issue.

There is absolutely no need for gankers to recycle their alts — doing so is just a waste of time. By design, those outlaw alts are already allowed to roam highsec pretty freely and can easily be supplied with ships if need be. So if anything, people should kind of be happy if they keep recycling their alts because that means they're wasting money (or PLEX) on game time that they don't get anything for, and they end up with far weaker gank characters than they would otherwise have.
Talon SilverHawk
Patria o Muerte
#34 - 2012-06-02 00:02:49 UTC
Arcticblue2 wrote:
Talon SilverHawk wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Roisin Saoirse wrote:
The idea that it's an exploit is nonsense.
…aside from CCP saying that it's an exploit.
Quote:
If you just delete the alt and create a new one with a different name there's not a thing CCP can do about it, nor can anyone prove you did it to shed the negative sec.
…aside from the GMs, which can check the account history and ban you.


and while I hate to agree, they could prob check your IP as well.

Anyway you could just train up a character on any account to the right lvl then just use that character rather than your main as well.



Tal


how far can you train a trial acount ?


Not talking a trial account.

Tal



Roisin Saoirse
Doomheim
#35 - 2012-06-02 00:03:17 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Roisin Saoirse wrote:
The idea that it's an exploit is nonsense.
…aside from CCP saying that it's an exploit.
Quote:
If you just delete the alt and create a new one with a different name there's not a thing CCP can do about it, nor can anyone prove you did it to shed the negative sec.
…aside from the GMs, which can check the account history and ban you.

They would only be assuming that was why you'd deleted it, there's no way to prove one way or the other. Heck I've created dozens of characters, changed my mind and deleted them and recreated another and there's no way to determine why I did it.

And let's be honest here, does anyone actually take CCP bans seriously?
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#36 - 2012-06-02 00:04:21 UTC
Arcticblue2 wrote:


how far can you train a trial acount ?


Enough to kill an untanked barge or hauler. Far easyer to just train up a alt and keep it at -10 though.
Talon SilverHawk
Patria o Muerte
#37 - 2012-06-02 00:05:02 UTC
Tippia wrote:
The thing about the whole “onoz, alt recycling” issue is that it's such a complete non-issue.

There is absolutely no need for gankers to recycle their alts — doing so is just a waste of time. By design, those outlaw alts are already allowed to roam highsec pretty freely and can easily be supplied with ships if need be. So if anything, people should kind of be happy if they keep recycling their alts because that means they're wasting money (or PLEX) on game time that they don't get anything for, and they end up with far weaker gank characters than they would otherwise have.


Yeah but if they are wasting money or plex, it doesn't really matter to me at all, its their cash at the end of the day, but your right you don't need to recycle anyway,

Forget I mentioned it.

Tal


Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#38 - 2012-06-02 00:09:53 UTC
Roisin Saoirse wrote:
They would only be assuming that was why you'd deleted it, there's no way to prove one way or the other.
There's this neat little thing called “pattern recognition”…

Quote:
And let's be honest here, does anyone actually take CCP bans seriously?
Those who get banned for it generally do.
ChYph3r
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#39 - 2012-06-02 00:11:17 UTC  |  Edited by: ChYph3r
Holy shite the tears.

You dipshites in empire think that CCP and Concord should save your asses every time a player with a negative security status wants to hunt you down and kill you.

How about this, you fuksticks put away your bots and play the game, pay attention and stop watching Netflix while your mining instead of hiding behind a sense of false security that CCP and Concord dont provide. Until then I endorse Mittens extension of Hulkageddon and hope you lose a shite ton of hulks !

P ISS OFF OP!

Want to find all the podcasts around EVE Online visit http://evepodcasts.com @chyph3r  on Twitter
Roisin Saoirse
Doomheim
#40 - 2012-06-02 00:28:31 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Roisin Saoirse wrote:
They would only be assuming that was why you'd deleted it, there's no way to prove one way or the other.
There's this neat little thing called “pattern recognition”…

Quote:
And let's be honest here, does anyone actually take CCP bans seriously?
Those who get banned for it generally do.

Pattern recognition is also inherently unreliable except in a few niche cases that have a limited set of variables. If I'd accidentally ended up with a negative sec status (maybe due to a new player not understanding the rules on aggression), then proceeded to delete my character and start a new one, this would likely be identified in the same way as if I'd intentionally gone out and attempted a gank. Of course, it would depend on the variables the system was tracking, but none of them can identify the will behind the action and are therefore guesstimates at best.

I've known a couple of people who have received bans who generally thought it was hilarious, mainly because they knew they'd continue to train and nothing really permanent would happen. Ofc both actively set out to get banned so that might not be the best example. Lol
Previous page123Next page