EVE General Discussion

Nowhere have I said I dont like CODE.

Just because I made a parody of the IRL handing of a printed and laminated "license" to a CCP employee, which she then twit'ed as as an "official" license to mine, does not make it so.

Tbh, you should be far more concerned that very few found my parody amusing, rather than concluding from that I have some axe to bury. I dont. But humor and presentation of content seems to be dead, except if its politivally motivated according to an apparently increasingly narrow, subjective and self-interested perspective.

I get CODE.

But I also get the ambiguous mechanics and community parameters within which they operate, their modus operandi, and the nature of its community at its core (peripheral superficial sycophants aside).

My proposal is not targetted at CODE, but at rational game systems.

You avoided my actual question of what harm would my proposal cause, and projected ypur response as if it had applied to CODE, which I had never mentioned nor referred to till now (at your own prompting).

For reasons and justifications I have explained at length, in my view, increasing the negative modifier of sec standing as a result of illegal ship destruction in HS would result in commensurately more player based content. Both in HS and in those sectors where the illegal activity meta players then recop their standing.

I hope you are not so naive, as to see the loophole currently being exploited in HS aggression, which compromises the entire continuity of PvP continuity throughout EVE, as expressed in HS, as based on CHARACTER standings of alts operating there as the problem.

The fiscal cost risk/reward of HS ganking (of which the term is, frankly, used wrongly in this context) is measured.
The CONCORD intervention is predictable, and considered. Its si ply a matter of weighing cost of gank ships vs profit from target.
Though the illegal action is PvP, as against another player, the PvE environment is the actual consideration against whichthe risk/reward is measured.

This is wrong, and antithetical to EVE.

The missing element, in this contrived but existing HS ruleset, is applying a more significant negative security standing modifier, that perpetuates itself beyond the mere act of ship destruction.

Im fine with illegal action meta in HS.
Im fine with ganking.
Im fine with ship balance, especially as weighed against the particularly difficult (and lucrative) bling targets.

Ehat I am not fine with, is the repetetion of this simple mathematical risk/reward quotient, purely against a PvE background of CONCORD, without lasting repercussions.

Security standings are MEANT to deal with exactly this, by means of forcing repeat illegal offenders to recoup their own loss in standings, in PvE, in sectors where they are vulnerable to other aggressors in return.

It doesnt make sense that it is possible to repeatedly ILLEGALLY aggress targets, without wardec, in HS, without commsensurate penalty, so as to drive these illegal aggrrssors to have to recoup at their own time and expense, that standing required to do so again.

Losing a ship to CONCORD DOES NOT CONSTITUTE RISK.
It is merely a direct cost/reward quotient, against a PvE element.
This meta is not PvP, it is PvE.

Think about what I am proposing.
My proposal is not anti-, nor pro- anyone. I am completely ambivalent towards CODE and HS carebears.
Just rationalising of the games systems for better and more content.

The punitive measure for ILLEGAL activity in HS is misaligned, in terms of persistant malus, by means of security standing drop.
Ship/asset destruction is arbitrary in this regard.
If gankers succeed, they destroy their target, and are themselves destroyed.
If ganker fails, they are destroyed.
The onus of risk here is falsely attributed to CONCORD intervention.
YOUR SHIP WILL EXPLODE ANYWAYS. There is no risk there, only certainty.

The missing element, heuristically, is a persistant security standing drop (in my proposal, greater), which persist beyond the arbitrary NPC based ship destruction, and carriesnON THE CHARACTER as a reduced capacity to operate in HS, as a security standing drop as close to -5.0 as possible, so as to enable and enact PLAYER intervention, rather than NPC, therafter.

I think it would be interesting if security status changed based on player activity. If there are a lot of kills in a system, concord moves more ships in and it increases its sec status. If there is no activity in a system, the status decreases.

You will never convince them, it just will not happen, Griefers want easy targets with no risk or risk that can be overcome easily, such is the griefer way. High Sec is simply a cess pool and this thread of which i agree on every point you have said. Is nothing more than pure QQ by griefers who now have to watch the sec status and spend money keeping it down i.e it willnot be profitable to gank anymore unless its billions in one go.

I have news for you: true gankers have -10.0 sec status. And guess what? They keep ganking non-stop.

Everything in the current punishment policy for ganking has been gamed into irrelevance. Just making faster the point where they become -10.0 and must start using the different means to negate any backlash from that would make no difference.

By the gods you say a lot of words with no content. How, in any way, does highsec criminal activity favor the criminal? I mean, really? A criminal can't warp once timer'd, citizens can warp as long as they don't timer. Criminals lose their ship 100% of the time, citizens don't. Criminals run the risk of bystanders taking shots as well, citizens do not.

Where again is this favored balance toward the highsec aggressor?

Sorry.

I stopped reading right there.

So I played with those numbers a bit more, had fun doing so, and without a single doubt, I'm pretty sold on the idea that high sec is very much so more dangerous than null, at least in the year 2013.

High Sec Systems
Median ISK killed: 38.8b
Mean ISK killed: 119.1b

Low Sec Systems
Median: 63.8b
Mean ISK killed 153.1b

Null Sec Systems
Median ISK killed: 15.6b
Mean ISK killed 38.1b

Here is a density graph:
http://i.imgur.com/strxrtx.png

Basically, as soon as you pass the 25b mark, HS (red line) beats NS(blue line).

I really wish i had the numbers for 2014 and 2015.

Even if you won't accept hard data, again, I invite you to empirically test it for yourself. High sec allows you to really keep up the pace of destruction due to target density and target value, as opposed to the nothingness that is most of null. Give yourself an equal number of hours ganking in High Sec as you do hunting in null - I would be shocked and amazed if you consistently killed more ISK in null than you do in High, and would really like some tips, tbh.

Wrong. If there is more damage done in HS doesn't mean it is more dangerous. I would support the idea that HS residents are more careless ( because I don't want to call them stupid ) than LS or HS and therefore ther are more losses in HS.

We could play this both ways.

Careless people have a greater chance of being discovered in High Sec than they do in Null Sec, which therefore makes it more dangerous. Again I already said that in both cases, high and null, the only kills people get are ones given freely by negligence or carelessness. It's much easier to find negligent or careless people in a much more densely populated area.


Very occasionally, if you roam null enough, you will eventually find a humongous kill that was totally gifted to you by someone's extreme derpyness or negligence. It doesn't happen often. If you just stay docked in Uedama or Niarja, this will happen to you almost every hour. That's the difference. Derpyness is punished far less often when you are 40 jumps away from anything.

Maybe?


You assert that HS is more dangerous because HS residents are more careless than LS or NS residents. I am offering the alternative hypothesis here, where HS is more dangerous not because its residents are more careless than NS or LS residents, rather that people are more often going to be punished for being careless in HS due to the population density. The average player in null is equally or more careless than the average high sec player, just escape detection more often due to distances and population density.

CODE. has like 3-4 chokes to monitor for big kills, the chances of a careless freighter escaping their gaze is small.

How many nullsec systems are there? What is the likelyhood that someone doing something incredibly careless will get away with it, without an embarrassing lossmail and a hole in their wallet? Pretty reasonable I'd say.