These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Crime & Punishment

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

My Views On Hisec - CSM Platform

First post
Author
Black Pedro
Mine.
#281 - 2015-09-07 07:47:56 UTC
BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie wrote:
Avvy wrote:
admiral root wrote:
If suicide ganking is so easy why is it so rare?


Is it that rare?

Maybe because some players are paying for protection?

Although, I take it from your comment you would welcome changes that made suicide ganking easier.



Its pretty rare. I for one and constantly dissapointed that I have never been suicide ganked considering that I've lived in high sec for the vast majority of my time in eve.

CCP showed us how rare it is at fanfest: https://puu.sh/gGUZJ.jpg

This is the predictable outcome when you remove all profit from suicide ganking - only overloaded haulers and overfitted ships are viable targets.

Honestly, that is how it should be - profit should only come from catching players taking risks (like overloading a hauler, or AFKing an expensive ship/pod), not those just fitting ships and behaving normally.

But keep these numbers in mind when you see players coming to the forums and whining about how suicide ganking is out of control and ruining the game. Suicide ganking was much more profitable and prolific in the Eve's past, at times when the game was growing the fastest. Only a handful of players still do it, and those mostly on principle or for the love of the hunter-style gameplay as gankers typically make less than highsec mission runners.

Criminal gameplay in highsec could use a buff though. Some new mechanisms to drive conflict and better allow criminals and "law enforcement" players to interact with each other. Game mechanisms that encourage more players to take up a life of crime and the ability to give the "good guys" a real fight.
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat
#282 - 2015-09-07 08:30:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Lan Wang
make incursions corp/alliance activities only ;) (meaning you need to be in a player corp, or in a temp corp for the incursions). i still love the idea of having sansha loyalists being able to contest incursion runners by forming a defence (why can people help concord but people cant help sanshas, thats racist), but im nullsec so my opinion is pretty irrelevant. but your ideas sound pretty good. good luck

Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel

Calm down miner. As you pointed out, people think they can get away with stuff they would not in rl... Like for example illegal mining... - Ima Wreckyou*

Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#283 - 2015-09-07 11:39:43 UTC
Zihao wrote:
I'm still curious to know why a certain safe haven for, especially non-new, players is desirable in the context of trying to fix a system that they fully bypass.

When I made the "safe haven" comment, I was referring to how NPC corps currently work, specifically how you can't be wardecced. I wasn't talking about somehow changing them to make them safer than they are now.

If EvE is truly to be a sandbox it must accomodate all styles of play, even those who want to play less aggressively and with less risk than your average C&P denizen. My goal isn't to increase their risk, because ultimately there is a large segment of players who, if they had more risk forced upon them, would simply leave the game. My goal is to reduce their reward relative to being in a player corp. If you want to stay in an NPC corp and run missions or mine rocks in a 1.0 system all day, you can still do that, but you won't be as profitable as someone in a mature player corp who's doing the same thing in a 0.5 system. The rocks would be worse, the missions would pay less, and player corps would get benefits that you don't.

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs

Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#284 - 2015-09-07 11:47:14 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie wrote:
Avvy wrote:
admiral root wrote:
If suicide ganking is so easy why is it so rare?


Is it that rare?

Maybe because some players are paying for protection?

Although, I take it from your comment you would welcome changes that made suicide ganking easier.



Its pretty rare. I for one and constantly dissapointed that I have never been suicide ganked considering that I've lived in high sec for the vast majority of my time in eve.

CCP showed us how rare it is at fanfest: https://puu.sh/gGUZJ.jpg

This is the predictable outcome when you remove all profit from suicide ganking - only overloaded haulers and overfitted ships are viable targets.

Honestly, that is how it should be - profit should only come from catching players taking risks (like overloading a hauler, or AFKing an expensive ship/pod), not those just fitting ships and behaving normally.

But keep these numbers in mind when you see players coming to the forums and whining about how suicide ganking is out of control and ruining the game. Suicide ganking was much more profitable and prolific in the Eve's past, at times when the game was growing the fastest. Only a handful of players still do it, and those mostly on principle or for the love of the hunter-style gameplay as gankers typically make less than highsec mission runners.

So much this. If people think suicide ganking is bad now...imagine what it was like before getting CONCORDED invalidated your insurance. With a cheap fit, virtually anything you ganked made a profit. (Of course, we didn't have ABCs back then, but still.)

Black Pedro wrote:
Criminal gameplay in highsec could use a buff though. Some new mechanisms to drive conflict and better allow criminals and "law enforcement" players to interact with each other. Game mechanisms that encourage more players to take up a life of crime and the ability to give the "good guys" a real fight.

I agree with you in principle, it would be great to allow anti-gankers and gankers more ways to interact beyond just the former sitting around waiting on the latter waiting to hop on CONCORD killmails, or for the former to become the latter just to beat them at their own game. These are both valid options and should remain, but something else in addition to those two options would be good. But the problem is coming up with some way to enable that interaction that doesn't invalidate the protection of CONCORD. Everything that I've seen proposed in this area would turn hisec into losec and I think that's way too far.

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs

admiral root
Red Galaxy
#285 - 2015-09-07 12:15:26 UTC
Bronson Hughes wrote:
I agree with you in principle, it would be great to allow anti-gankers and gankers more ways to interact beyond just the former sitting around waiting on the latter waiting to hop on CONCORD killmails, or for the former to become the latter just to beat them at their own game.


One of the many nerfs to ganking over the years was the utterly ******** decision to make Concord invincible. This leaves us with no option to stay docked between ganks and greatly reduces the opporunities for interaction. If undocking didn't mean certain death (I'd be fine with reasonably certain) we'd spend a lot more time undocked.

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff

Leto Thule
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#286 - 2015-09-07 12:20:29 UTC
admiral root wrote:
Bronson Hughes wrote:
I agree with you in principle, it would be great to allow anti-gankers and gankers more ways to interact beyond just the former sitting around waiting on the latter waiting to hop on CONCORD killmails, or for the former to become the latter just to beat them at their own game.


One of the many nerfs to ganking over the years was the utterly ******** decision to make Concord invincible. This leaves us with no option to stay docked between ganks and greatly reduces the opporunities for interaction. If undocking didn't mean certain death (I'd be fine with reasonably certain) we'd spend a lot more time undocked.


Im ok with CONCORD being invincible and untankable, but I think that the FACPO needs to go. They dont really DO anything but prevent interaction, and are very easily avoidable with the simplest of bookmarks. All they mean is that a gank boat isnt stopping anywhere to hang out... they definitely dont prevent any ganks from taking place.

Thunderdome ringmaster, Community Leader and Lord Inquisitor to the Court of Crime and Punishment

Leto Thule
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#287 - 2015-09-07 12:25:43 UTC
Morgan Agrivar wrote:
I think it has to do with playing within your comfort zone. Loved wormholes but won't solo live in one and lowsec just wasn't for me. As in wormholes, it would not be easy to live in null trying to dodge the landlords.

So I live in highsec.


Thats your problem. Why are you trying to live solo anyhow? Do you not like people?

The game really wont let you go very far as a solo player. Can you? Yeah sure. Will you get much out of it? Likely not.

Thunderdome ringmaster, Community Leader and Lord Inquisitor to the Court of Crime and Punishment

admiral root
Red Galaxy
#288 - 2015-09-07 12:27:20 UTC
Don't the faction police serve a purpose with regard to faction warfare? If so, I presume CCP could code (no pun intended!) them to leave everyone else alone, which would certainly be an improvement over the current situation.

Soundwave was on the right track when he said he wanted to get rid of Concord entirely and replace them with player tools. Invincible NPCs are the dumbest idea since solar powered torches (for our American-speaking brethren, those would be "flashlights" that are seldom used to flash :P ). Given that this is supposed to be a player-driven universe they make even less sense here than in other games.

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff

Zihao
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#289 - 2015-09-07 14:48:29 UTC
Bronson Hughes wrote:
When I made the "safe haven" comment, I was referring to how NPC corps currently work, specifically how you can't be wardecced. I wasn't talking about somehow changing them to make them safer than they are now.


I was under no other impression.

Bronson Hughes wrote:
If EvE is truly to be a sandbox it must accomodate all styles of play, even those who want to play less aggressively and with less risk than your average C&P denizen. My goal isn't to increase their risk, because ultimately there is a large segment of players who, if they had more risk forced upon them, would simply leave the game.


This seems to run contrary to the desires of your electorate.

Bronson Hughes wrote:

My goal is to reduce their reward relative to being in a player corp. If you want to stay in an NPC corp and run missions or mine rocks in a 1.0 system all day, you can still do that, but you won't be as profitable as someone in a mature player corp who's doing the same thing in a 0.5 system. The rocks would be worse, the missions would pay less, and player corps would get benefits that you don't.


Is "they will quit," the only reason you support NPC war immunity as a desirable mechanic? If not, could you discuss other reasons why you feel it is desirable?
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#290 - 2015-09-07 15:01:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Bronson Hughes
Zihao wrote:
This seems to run contrary to the desires of your electorate.

I beg to differ. The impression that I get is that players living in NPC corps shouldn't be able to earn the kind of living that they are while players in player corps risk more without necessarily earning much more in return. One way to fix that would be, as you suggest, allow NPC corps to be vulnerable to wardec, thus increasing their risk. But this would reduce the viability of playing in an NPC corp too far I believe. I want to make NPC corps less profitable, not less appealing. Living out your life in an NPC corp, safe from wardec and other such player entanglements, should absolutely be an option if EvE truly is a sandbox. If you eliminate that, then you make EvE less of a sandbox.

The number of options for playstyle isn't broken, the relative rewards for perusing some of them is.


Zihao wrote:
Is "they will quit," the only reason you support NPC war immunity as a desirable mechanic? If not, could you discuss other reasons why you feel it is desirable?

See above. Being a sandbox means keeping as many options open as possible. I feel that allowing wardecs against NPC corps reduces options, which I see as bad for the sandbox. Driving players away is more a consequence of human psychology and thus harder to quantify, but reducing options is pretty much black and white.

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs

Zihao
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#291 - 2015-09-07 15:30:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Zihao
Bronson Hughes wrote:
Being a sandbox means keeping as many options open as possible. I feel that allowing wardecs against NPC corps reduces options, which I see as bad for the sandbox.


Would you explain what repercussions, besides everyone quitting, you imagine as a result of negated NPC war immunity? I strongly disagree with the notion you can fix a sandbox if the basic rules and mechanics don't apply universally.

Put it another way: On the same principle, would you support NPC corp members being immune to warp disruption bubbles in nullsec or NPC corp members being protected by CONCORD in lowsec?
trufax
Doomheim
#292 - 2015-09-07 18:02:51 UTC
I think allowing new players to be in an NPC corp for a limited time only may be a solution to this. There are a few options for this. Automatic player corp creation after a certain time limit (this would necessitate the removal of basic corp creation skill requirements). This could be a fixed period after character creation, or alternatively based upon time played.

Alternatively the player's tax rate could be raised to a high level after a certain time period. This would therefore allow alts that aren't engaged in missioning or trading to continue to exist in NPC corps.
Leto Thule
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#293 - 2015-09-07 20:04:45 UTC
admiral root wrote:
Don't the faction police serve a purpose with regard to faction warfare? If so, I presume CCP could code (no pun intended!) them to leave everyone else alone, which would certainly be an improvement over the current situation.

Soundwave was on the right track when he said he wanted to get rid of Concord entirely and replace them with player tools. Invincible NPCs are the dumbest idea since solar powered torches (for our American-speaking brethren, those would be "flashlights" that are seldom used to flash :P ). Given that this is supposed to be a player-driven universe they make even less sense here than in other games.


Naw. FACPO and the Navy arent the same, although sometimes both show up.

Feyd had a good CONCORD replacement idea in his blog. It involved players flying CONCORD ships to respond to ganks, you could accrue LP and obtain different level CONCORD ships and whatnot. Seemed like a good idea to me.

Thunderdome ringmaster, Community Leader and Lord Inquisitor to the Court of Crime and Punishment

admiral root
Red Galaxy
#294 - 2015-09-07 20:09:50 UTC
Some kind of beacon going up whenever a player goes GCC would be cool. I generally don't read blogs; are we talking about invincible Concord ships, or just a new line of ships that require Concord LP to source?

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff

Morgan Agrivar
Doomheim
#295 - 2015-09-07 21:50:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Morgan Agrivar
Leto Thule wrote:
Morgan Agrivar wrote:
I think it has to do with playing within your comfort zone. Loved wormholes but won't solo live in one and lowsec just wasn't for me. As in wormholes, it would not be easy to live in null trying to dodge the landlords.

So I live in highsec.


Thats your problem. Why are you trying to live solo anyhow? Do you not like people?

The game really wont let you go very far as a solo player. Can you? Yeah sure. Will you get much out of it? Likely not.


I think it has to do with trust. In Eve, you don't trust anyone. I did find a good group to run with but they live in lowsec, play Skill Queue Online and League of Legends. I have opened myself to a new player who I have been mentoring but he seems to have the knack for PvP and will be going off to join a PvP corp here in a few days.

As for me, I have invested a lot of time and isk into my implants which in turn opens up more opprotunities. I would love for them to remove implants so I can jump in a frigate and go get blown up in explosive goodness without risking the training plan I have been meticulously following for a while. For example, I am currently training my last gunnery support skill to V, which is Trajectory Analysis. By January, I should have perfect sub-cap gunnery skills. I am proud of that and have been sticking to this plan to achieve that goal. Getting blapped and podded would mess that up and make my isk profit suffer. That is why I don't fly in lowsec or nullsec.


I don't have an issue with CODE or the anti-gankers. I believe that highsec really, really, really needs an upgrade. Do I get bored of running level 3/4 missions? Oh hell yeah. My specialization (if I can call it that) is scanning. But in highsec, scanning is basically pointless. There is NO profit or initative in scanning in highsec. I would like to be able to plex this account each month.

If I can find a group of people I could TRUST, then I am all in for going and doing something else.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#296 - 2015-09-07 23:54:57 UTC
If you want to incentivize criminal AND law enforcement behavior, it's really quite simple.

The reason both of those things are so binary is because the NPCs do a better job of law enforcement than players ever could. Facpo shows up faster than any player ever could, with more precision too. So long as they exist at all, criminal style players will never expose themselves, because to do so would be folly. WIthout Facpo, crime and punishment content would be more prevalent, as in it would actually exist.

Secondly, Concord being both invincible and untankable devolves the mechanic into being something extremely binary on every level. It turns highsec aggression into a simple dps race. This has the effect of making numbers the only force multiplier involved in the mechanic. Either I bring enough dudes to get the kill, or I don't and I fail. Meaning gankers are 100% incentivized to go for overkill or creative means of holding a target in place, and to use ships that are nothing but the best isk/dps ratios. Things like bumping and hyperdunking/globbing exist solely because of Concord. Therefore, Concord should be made to be tankable, with increasing damage scaled over time. Basically like gate guns, but everywhere. Further, like real life police, they should only come when called. Say that they're busy with the Drifters and can't afford to watch our asses like hawks anymore.

If that were done, then ganking someone in a larger ship becomes more than a laughable concept. If my battleship can tank Concord for longer AND I'm not getting jumped eight seconds after I undock, then I would have more possibilty than zero of actually undocking in one.

Bingo, instant content, and buttloads of it as well, for both sides. Does this suck for miners and haulers? You betcha, but their lives are too easy as it is. Something has to give if you want meaningful criminal content in highsec.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Demerius Xenocratus
Rapid Withdrawal
Pen Is Out
#297 - 2015-09-08 03:14:36 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
If you want to incentivize criminal AND law enforcement behavior, it's really quite simple.

The reason both of those things are so binary is because the NPCs do a better job of law enforcement than players ever could. Facpo shows up faster than any player ever could, with more precision too. So long as they exist at all, criminal style players will never expose themselves, because to do so would be folly. WIthout Facpo, crime and punishment content would be more prevalent, as in it would actually exist.

Secondly, Concord being both invincible and untankable devolves the mechanic into being something extremely binary on every level. It turns highsec aggression into a simple dps race. This has the effect of making numbers the only force multiplier involved in the mechanic. Either I bring enough dudes to get the kill, or I don't and I fail. Meaning gankers are 100% incentivized to go for overkill or creative means of holding a target in place, and to use ships that are nothing but the best isk/dps ratios. Things like bumping and hyperdunking/globbing exist solely because of Concord. Therefore, Concord should be made to be tankable, with increasing damage scaled over time. Basically like gate guns, but everywhere. Further, like real life police, they should only come when called. Say that they're busy with the Drifters and can't afford to watch our asses like hawks anymore.

If that were done, then ganking someone in a larger ship becomes more than a laughable concept. If my battleship can tank Concord for longer AND I'm not getting jumped eight seconds after I undock, then I would have more possibilty than zero of actually undocking in one.

Bingo, instant content, and buttloads of it as well, for both sides. Does this suck for miners and haulers? You betcha, but their lives are too easy as it is. Something has to give if you want meaningful criminal content in highsec.


Didn't they make CONCORD invincible and untankable in the first place because players of your ilk effectively took over highsec systems and killed everything that moved?

I just don't see the highsec industrial/miner/PvE crowd ever being able to muster sufficient numbers of capable pilots to counter the forces of dedicated player killers/griefers. Players for whom PvP is a secondary concern will logically always be at a disadvantage. Why that is so or who is at fault is irrelevant, all that matters is the effect it has on the game.

If you return CONCORD to a state where it can be defeated, the players for whom PvP, specifically non-consensual PvP against easy targets, is a primary concern, will locate the threshold at which CONCORD can be neutralized, figure out what it takes to consistently surpass that threshold, and turn high-sec into a free fire zone for everyone that's not blue to them. And then you will start bleeding subs.
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#298 - 2015-09-08 04:15:44 UTC
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:
And then you will start bleeding subs.


The various massive buffs to CONCORD behavior all happened as kneejerk responses to specific events that happened. They weren't measured, well thought out changes intended to deal with widespread dis-satisfaction with previous iterations of CONCORD. They were all just plugs applied to stem the flood of carebear whining when some enterprising person found a new thing to do in highsec PVP.

It's a massive jump in logic to assume that a weaker version of CONCORD would leader to a loss of subscriptions when all previous versions of CONCORD have been weaker than the current version and that the cumulative changes that lead to CONCORD being this way weren't developed holistically.

Also FACPO and faction navies are ******* terrible and need to have been removed years ago. They do literally nothing but serve to be a barriers to gameplay. FACPO prevent low sec status characters being able to do anything in a ship worth shooting at, totally eliminating any possibility for player enforcement against low sec status characters and faction navies reduce faction warfare from potentially being highly accessible, high visibility PVP content that's pervasive throughout empire space to some crap people do in lowsec in t1 frigates.
Demerius Xenocratus
Rapid Withdrawal
Pen Is Out
#299 - 2015-09-08 04:27:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Demerius Xenocratus
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:
And then you will start bleeding subs.


The various massive buffs to CONCORD behavior all happened as kneejerk responses to specific events that happened. They weren't measured, well thought out changes intended to deal with widespread dis-satisfaction with previous iterations of CONCORD. They were all just plugs applied to stem the flood of carebear whining when some enterprising person found a new thing to do in highsec PVP.

It's a massive jump in logic to assume that a weaker version of CONCORD would leader to a loss of subscriptions when all previous versions of CONCORD have been weaker than the current version and that the cumulative changes that lead to CONCORD being this way weren't developed holistically.

Also FACPO and faction navies are ******* terrible and need to have been removed years ago. They do literally nothing but serve to be a barriers to gameplay. FACPO prevent low sec status characters being able to do anything in a ship worth shooting at, totally eliminating any possibility for player enforcement against low sec status characters and faction navies reduce faction warfare from potentially being highly accessible, high visibility PVP content that's pervasive throughout empire space to some crap people do in lowsec in t1 frigates.



Faction Navy is irrelevant to dedicated highsec PvP'ers anyway as it can be pulled offgrid indefinitely via a well known exploit. So you DO have people who use FW as a means to farm kills in highsec in expensive ships. The thing is, most FW corps have many low sec status characters and beyond that aren't interested in playing station games with people who will just hide until we return to lowsec and then go back to blapping T1 industrials, frigates and pods with their instalock T3.

FW in lowsec is hardly a frigates only concern. My corp has been party to several fights in the past month where both sides brought battleship fleets and triage carriers were dropped, and some of the other GalMil corps are embroiled in a war with Snuff Box that sees regular use of battleships, T2/T3 cruisers and battlecruisers, and caps. The T1 frigate stuff is great regardless because it provides an entree into pvp for newer players who can't fly the shiny stuff.

As for CONCORD - it seems pretty binary to me. Either it's tankable or not. If a -10 fleet comp can stay on-grid with CONCORD, players will figure out what that requires and hilarity will ensue.

Mittens will be ruling the galaxy from Jita within a few days, I imagine.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#300 - 2015-09-08 10:15:29 UTC
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:

Mittens will be ruling the galaxy from Jita within a few days, I imagine.


Roll

And of course, there it is.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.