These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Discussion Thread: How to Fix HiSec Warfare, Post Ideas Here

First post
Author
Lyrrashae
Hellstar Towing and Recovery
#21 - 2012-01-11 23:22:07 UTC
met worst wrote:
Lyrrashae wrote:

Allow the use of covert cynos and bridging-to in hisec. Because carebears need to discover the fun of cloaked torpedo-murder appearing out of nowhere, and think how much more lol-worthy Hulkageddon, and suicide-ganking in general would be if this were an option?

Why not just go and kill **** in 0.0?

Ahhh. Wait. You want to shoot things that don't shoot back. Silly me. Roll


Post with your main.

Ni.

Lyrrashae
Hellstar Towing and Recovery
#22 - 2012-01-11 23:28:06 UTC
Morganta wrote:
so you cant get enough people in fleet to spank your poorly chosen WTs so you want the ability to use blops to make up for the fact that you are the loser in the war?

welp, the way it usually works is somebody wins, and somebody loses
you lost, deal with it.

and nice attempt to bait the goons with your idea that if they can get more ganks then mittins will use his uber leet stranglehold on CCP to make it a reality.

again nice try, but waaaaay too transparent, and misguided


No, we haven't lost. We rarely do. You know nothing of my/our combat record, but this is easily remedied, so why don't you just shut the **** up until you've done so? Stupid, childish, little internet-cliche.

And I want the ability to use BLOPs to move my forces faster to my target, and engage them faster, before they can re-act--by the usual station/neutral RR asshattery. This is basic tactics, I'm sure even a thoughtlessly forum-sperging idiot like you can figure this out.

And I don't give a flying **** about Goons or "mittins," whoever that is.

Ni.

Lyrrashae
Hellstar Towing and Recovery
#23 - 2012-01-11 23:30:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Lyrrashae
Petrus Blackshell wrote:

Solution to station camps is all I can think of. 20 seconds is plenty of time to cyno in a bunch of bombers and alpha the hell out of a dumb ship playing station games.



^^This.^^

EDIT: Might also give a whole new set of "tools in the box" for bounty-hunters to choose from, if that atrociously broken waste of database space ever gets fixed, too.

Ni.

Lyrrashae
Hellstar Towing and Recovery
#24 - 2012-01-11 23:37:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Lyrrashae
mkint wrote:

It's actually not a bad idea if you think about it... In how many different sci-fi lores does the protagonist get stuck in battle because "warp engine is dead sir!" I'd mix it up a little though.


Rephrase that:

"In how many different sci-fi lores...[...]...is this used as a generic, predictable-as-death-and-taxes plot device by authors when they can't be arsed to come up with something creative?"

EVE is already a pastiche of a great many generic sci-fi tropes--a pretty damned good one, I might add, but still hardly original. We don't need more.

mkint wrote:
[...] Yeah, it would be a messy change (rookies not being able to warp out of missions, incursions gone bad going really really bad), but I kinda like the idea of encouraging more commitment.


We already have that:

It's called having to fight in warp disruptor/scrambler range if you want to try and get a kill.

Ni.

Lyrrashae
Hellstar Towing and Recovery
#25 - 2012-01-11 23:40:38 UTC
Zagam wrote:


Bounty system needs a revamp, so its not all about the podkill, but rather the ship kill too.

War deccing needs to have a defined goal, rather than "we'll stop when we feel like it".

Concordoken shouldn't be near-instantaneous. The further you are from a major object in hisec (such as a station or gate), the longer the response time. Just like in RL, if you live a block from the police station, they are there insanely quick. If you live out in the boonies, 30km from the nearest town... its going to take a bit. So... ganking on the Jita undock = instant concordoken. Ganking 80 AU from the nearest gate/station = you will get 3-4 Thrasher volleys in without a problem, maybe even 5.

And finally... if you single-shot a ship (somehow), or are already aligned, you should have a *slight* chance of getting away before Concord shows up and says hello.


This is eminently reasonable, I like this.

I think that last would be considered exploiting, though, as evading CONCORD is something CCP takes a dim view of.

Ni.

Lyrrashae
Hellstar Towing and Recovery
#26 - 2012-01-12 00:15:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Lyrrashae
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
What's wrong with hi sec warfare?


It's been borken'ed.

ref.: DecShield Alliance, plus recent E-UNI shenanigans, and how what was once considered an exploit, is now legal.

Ni.

Vyl Vit
#27 - 2012-01-12 00:58:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Vyl Vit
Retribution doesn't make things safer. It makes things more dangerous. If you mine with a security detail, it's unlikely you'll be attacked. You might be, but that'd be kinda funny, and profitable for you and your mining fleet. Yes, a mining fleet has more than just mining ships and barges. The fact people try to solo mine without taking this into consideration is like driving without your seatbelt. Something might not happen, then again, something might.

The dynamics of EVE should make it a priority to get organized as groups and do things methodically. I don't want to see game mechanics altered just because some miner solos without regard to the greater picture. And, yes, it would take time and organization. Script miners certainly wouldn't be in on this. It takes coordination, cooperation and sharing...all supposedly "carebear" qualities.

It seems miners only focus on their training to mine, purchase of the stuff they need, go out blindly and start beaming that laser and the security end is not even an afterthought. Their response is "leave me alone, I'm minding my own business here." In actuality, in EVE, if you haven't provided for your security, you aren't minding your business.

That being said, I am appalled that faction sovereignty means so little to the Minmatar, Amarrian, etc., that they'd let pirates flourish within their bounderies and not respond with the kind of force needed to assert that sovereignty as an absolute. No civilization could possibly reach any kind of advancement, let alone survival, without this being the number one priority of the state, period. No ifs, ands or buts.

When a pirate violates the law, anyone or anything offering them shelter or aid becomes criminal as well, aiding and abetting a criminal. Therefore, NO station should admit any criminal, period. There should be no recourse for the pirate. All gates are closed to the criminal - no free passage, as that is aiding in the offender's escape. And, no time limit. Maybe the possibility to pay a hefty fine to take the criminal flag off, but so hefty that piracy is unprofitable in faction sovereign systems. I'm sure player sovereignty would work the same if the corps and alliances can establish that kind of martial supremacy over their holdings.

But...come on...these mighty stellar states leave law enforcement to the half-assed Concord response...a contractor? Balderdash. Take care of this glaring inconsistency, and you'll see a balancing of all the activity. Hi/lo/null will acquire their true natures, and lazy gankers will have to get a real job, or go back to WoW.

Paradise is like where you are right now, only much, much better.

Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#28 - 2012-01-12 01:00:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha
Lyrrashae wrote:
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
What's wrong with hi sec warfare?


It's been borken'ed.

ref.: DecShield Alliance, plus recent E-UNI shenanigans, and how what was once considered an exploit, is now legal.


That's not "warfare", that's "farming indy noobs".

Those who want warfare don't jump away and fight back.

I don't see how it's different than bringing warfare to a 0.0 corp which will fight back vs go in a ratters 0.0 system and they all cloak / dock.


Vyl Vit wrote:

It seems miners only focus on their training to mine, purchase of the stuff they need, go out blindly and start beaming that laser and the security end is not even an afterthought. Their response is "leave me alone, I'm minding my own business here." In actuality, in EVE, if you haven't provided for your security, you aren't minding your business.


In RL not everyone study martial arts and buy some personal artillery "just in case". Most are peaceful guys who only want to be left alone. Also, miners HAVE to focus their training to mine, because they have to spec stats that are exactly the opposite than those needed to fly combat ships / mission ships etc. Only after a remap they can re-focus on something more pew pew.
Cyzlaki
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#29 - 2012-01-12 01:03:05 UTC
dont fix what's not broken
Conrad Makbure
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#30 - 2012-01-12 01:18:59 UTC
Zagam wrote:
rodyas wrote:
I should be totally safe in hi sec, using officer items should cause a glow around my ships as well as an invulnerbility shield too.

That would be a fixed and perfect hi -sec.

Thank you


And then you would be a perfect target for a few Thrashers.



Bounty system needs a revamp, so its not all about the podkill, but rather the ship kill too.

War deccing needs to have a defined goal, rather than "we'll stop when we feel like it".

Concordoken shouldn't be near-instantaneous. The further you are from a major object in hisec (such as a station or gate), the longer the response time. Just like in RL, if you live a block from the police station, they are there insanely quick. If you live out in the boonies, 30km from the nearest town... its going to take a bit. So... ganking on the Jita undock = instant concordoken. Ganking 80 AU from the nearest gate/station = you will get 3-4 Thrasher volleys in without a problem, maybe even 5.

And finally... if you single-shot a ship (somehow), or are already aligned, you should have a *slight* chance of getting away before Concord shows up and says hello.



On the bounty system: I totally agree, it's reasonable.

On the War Decs: I like the idea of having a defined goal that's not aimless like it is now.

On Concord: Hell no, leave it alone. Concord ships have a "ludicrous speed". They can go to plad anytime they want to; that's just how it is, man. Why? because lightspeed is too slow.

No slight chances of escape...what's the matter, chicken?
mkint
#31 - 2012-01-12 02:15:13 UTC
Lyrrashae wrote:
mkint wrote:
assho1e noob corp griefers take advantage of screwed up wardec mechanics WAY more than their targets. Any changes to wardec mechanics need to make it dangerous to declare war. Perhaps make it so if your corp has a non-cosentual wardec on anyone, all the individuals who are in the corp at any time the wardec is active (regardless if they drop corp, or drop an alliance to shed wardecs they start etc) is flashy red to everyone in EVE until the wardec drops. Implement that change, and I'd support whatever bullshit one-sided griefing mechanics incompetent griefers need make up for how much they suck at EVE (suck too much for real PVP anyway so have to farm rookie kills.)


EVE is not about consensual duelling, it never was, and the very idea is anathaema to the entire core ethos of the game.

Next.

And it's not just newbie-griefers who make use of war-decs, either. Far from it, actually.

How about we be able to not only wardec, but "webifier dec" and "ECM dec" and "vamp dec" because wardec griefers suck ass so bad they can't compete in real PVP, so let's just go ahead and make wardecs the i-win button those fail corps/alliances who've got nothing better to do than shoot at corps with nothing but month-old characters. If you're going to f*ck up wardecs even worse, let's f*ck it all the way up.

Maxim 6. If violence wasn’t your last resort, you failed to resort to enough of it.

MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#32 - 2012-01-12 02:31:29 UTC
Lyrrashae wrote:
avoid the use of juvenile, grating console-kiddy memes that make you look like an imbecile.


Console-kiddy memes like calling people carebears and requesting mechanics that will make giggle like first grade school girls?

Lyrrashae wrote:
Because carebears need to discover the fun of cloaked torpedo-murder appearing out of nowhere, and think how much more lol-worthy Hulkageddon, and suicide-ganking in general would be if this were an option?


Because it seems that as long as it's the usual carebear-hating mantra and meme you're OK with it.

Successfully doinitwrong™ since 2006.

Lyrrashae
Hellstar Towing and Recovery
#33 - 2012-01-12 03:19:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Lyrrashae
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:
Lyrrashae wrote:
avoid the use of juvenile, grating console-kiddy memes that make you look like an imbecile.


Console-kiddy memes like calling people carebears and requesting mechanics that will make giggle like first grade school girls?

Lyrrashae wrote:
Because carebears need to discover the fun of cloaked torpedo-murder appearing out of nowhere, and think how much more lol-worthy Hulkageddon, and suicide-ganking in general would be if this were an option?


Because it seems that as long as it's the usual carebear-hating mantra and meme you're OK with it.


Re-read what I wrote somewhere up there:

It's not just "nooby-indi kill farmers" who make use of wardecs. On what do you suppose the whole mercenary corp-profession is based?

And I never said I hate carebears, just that CCP is making hisec too safe for them, which runs counter to the whole core concept of EVE.

Oh, and what's stopping even the cariest of bears from getting in warships and, you know, fighting back? Ultimately, no-one makes of you a victim but you. So stop choosing to be a victim.

Ni.

Lyrrashae
Hellstar Towing and Recovery
#34 - 2012-01-12 03:25:05 UTC
Vyl Vit wrote:
Retribution doesn't make things safer. It makes things more dangerous. If you mine with a security detail, it's unlikely you'll be attacked. You might be, but that'd be kinda funny, and profitable for you and your mining fleet. Yes, a mining fleet has more than just mining ships and barges. The fact people try to solo mine without taking this into consideration is like driving without your seatbelt. Something might not happen, then again, something might.

The dynamics of EVE should make it a priority to get organized as groups and do things methodically. I don't want to see game mechanics altered just because some miner solos without regard to the greater picture. And, yes, it would take time and organization. Script miners certainly wouldn't be in on this. It takes coordination, cooperation and sharing...all supposedly "carebear" qualities.

It seems miners only focus on their training to mine, purchase of the stuff they need, go out blindly and start beaming that laser and the security end is not even an afterthought. Their response is "leave me alone, I'm minding my own business here." In actuality, in EVE, if you haven't provided for your security, you aren't minding your business.

That being said, I am appalled that faction sovereignty means so little to the Minmatar, Amarrian, etc., that they'd let pirates flourish within their bounderies and not respond with the kind of force needed to assert that sovereignty as an absolute. No civilization could possibly reach any kind of advancement, let alone survival, without this being the number one priority of the state, period. No ifs, ands or buts.

When a pirate violates the law, anyone or anything offering them shelter or aid becomes criminal as well, aiding and abetting a criminal. Therefore, NO station should admit any criminal, period. There should be no recourse for the pirate. All gates are closed to the criminal - no free passage, as that is aiding in the offender's escape. And, no time limit. Maybe the possibility to pay a hefty fine to take the criminal flag off, but so hefty that piracy is unprofitable in faction sovereign systems. I'm sure player sovereignty would work the same if the corps and alliances can establish that kind of martial supremacy over their holdings.

But...come on...these mighty stellar states leave law enforcement to the half-assed Concord response...a contractor? Balderdash. Take care of this glaring inconsistency, and you'll see a balancing of all the activity. Hi/lo/null will acquire their true natures, and lazy gankers will have to get a real job, or go back to WoW.


Mechanics of a PvP-centric video-game designed to increase PvP =/= real-world laws, nor should they.

Next.

Ni.

Lyrrashae
Hellstar Towing and Recovery
#35 - 2012-01-12 03:26:22 UTC
mkint wrote:
Lyrrashae wrote:
mkint wrote:
assho1e noob corp griefers take advantage of screwed up wardec mechanics WAY more than their targets. Any changes to wardec mechanics need to make it dangerous to declare war. Perhaps make it so if your corp has a non-cosentual wardec on anyone, all the individuals who are in the corp at any time the wardec is active (regardless if they drop corp, or drop an alliance to shed wardecs they start etc) is flashy red to everyone in EVE until the wardec drops. Implement that change, and I'd support whatever bullshit one-sided griefing mechanics incompetent griefers need make up for how much they suck at EVE (suck too much for real PVP anyway so have to farm rookie kills.)


EVE is not about consensual duelling, it never was, and the very idea is anathaema to the entire core ethos of the game.

Next.

And it's not just newbie-griefers who make use of war-decs, either. Far from it, actually.

How about we be able to not only wardec, but "webifier dec" and "ECM dec" and "vamp dec" because wardec griefers suck ass so bad they can't compete in real PVP, so let's just go ahead and make wardecs the i-win button those fail corps/alliances who've got nothing better to do than shoot at corps with nothing but month-old characters. If you're going to f*ck up wardecs even worse, let's f*ck it all the way up.


Um....lolwut?

Ni.

Morganta
The Greater Goon
#36 - 2012-01-12 03:31:38 UTC
Lyrrashae wrote:
Morganta wrote:
so you cant get enough people in fleet to spank your poorly chosen WTs so you want the ability to use blops to make up for the fact that you are the loser in the war?

welp, the way it usually works is somebody wins, and somebody loses
you lost, deal with it.

and nice attempt to bait the goons with your idea that if they can get more ganks then mittins will use his uber leet stranglehold on CCP to make it a reality.

again nice try, but waaaaay too transparent, and misguided


bunch o poop...

And I want the ability to use BLOPs to move my forces faster to my target, and engage them faster, before they can re-act--by the usual station/neutral RR asshattery. This is basic tactics, I'm sure even a thoughtlessly forum-sperging idiot like you can figure this out.

...more poop...


simple solution is man up and fight people who want to fight you, or do targets shooting back at you give you the fear?
really, if you cant cope with empire tactics (such as they are) don't fight in empire.

it don't get much simpler than that, and it doesn't require coding
Lyrrashae
Hellstar Towing and Recovery
#37 - 2012-01-12 03:39:40 UTC
Morganta wrote:
Lyrrashae wrote:
Morganta wrote:
so you cant get enough people in fleet to spank your poorly chosen WTs so you want the ability to use blops to make up for the fact that you are the loser in the war?

welp, the way it usually works is somebody wins, and somebody loses
you lost, deal with it.

and nice attempt to bait the goons with your idea that if they can get more ganks then mittins will use his uber leet stranglehold on CCP to make it a reality.

again nice try, but waaaaay too transparent, and misguided


bunch o poop...

And I want the ability to use BLOPs to move my forces faster to my target, and engage them faster, before they can re-act--by the usual station/neutral RR asshattery. This is basic tactics, I'm sure even a thoughtlessly forum-sperging idiot like you can figure this out.

...more poop...


simple solution is man up and fight people who want to fight you, or do targets shooting back at you give you the fear?
really, if you cant cope with empire tactics (such as they are) don't fight in empire.

it don't get much simpler than that, and it doesn't require coding


We look for targets who say they like to fight, unless it's a merc-job--in which case, we go after whom we're paid to go after, regardless of the prospect of "gudfytes," as a contract is a contract.

Often, these former out-number us at least 2 : 1, and yet, by the time we get there, that's when the station-games start. (We have to go to them, they've never come to us...Maybe we should move out of losec, I guess?Twisted)

Once again, you know nothing of me/us, and my/our combat record, so until you show that you do, you can just shut the **** up.

On second thought, don't: You're textbook proof of what happens when you assume: You make an ass out ofu, but not me.


Ni.

Morganta
The Greater Goon
#38 - 2012-01-12 03:43:52 UTC
Lyrrashae wrote:
Morganta wrote:
Lyrrashae wrote:
Morganta wrote:
so you cant get enough people in fleet to spank your poorly chosen WTs so you want the ability to use blops to make up for the fact that you are the loser in the war?

welp, the way it usually works is somebody wins, and somebody loses
you lost, deal with it.

and nice attempt to bait the goons with your idea that if they can get more ganks then mittins will use his uber leet stranglehold on CCP to make it a reality.

again nice try, but waaaaay too transparent, and misguided


bunch o poop...

And I want the ability to use BLOPs to move my forces faster to my target, and engage them faster, before they can re-act--by the usual station/neutral RR asshattery. This is basic tactics, I'm sure even a thoughtlessly forum-sperging idiot like you can figure this out.

...more poop...


simple solution is man up and fight people who want to fight you, or do targets shooting back at you give you the fear?
really, if you cant cope with empire tactics (such as they are) don't fight in empire.

it don't get much simpler than that, and it doesn't require coding


We look for targets who say they like to fight, unless it's a merc-job--in which case, we go after whom we're paid to go after, regardless of the prospect of "gudfytes," as a contract is a contract.

Often, these former out-number us at least 2 : 1, and yet, by the time we get there, that's when the station-games start. (We have to go to them, they've never come to us...Maybe we should move out of losec, I guess?Twisted)

Once again, you know nothing of me/us, and my/our combat record, so until you show that you do, you can just shut the **** up.

On second thought, don't: You're textbook proof of what happens when you assume: You make an ass out ofu, but not me.




oh, so because you do merc contracts CCP has an obligation to spoon feed your targets to you?
get a grip, the reason the contract exists is probably because they do the same thing to the corp who hates them.

so in effect making it easier to kill people in empire will cut down on available merc contracts
but judging from your post you guys are simply wanna be mercs who apparently cant do the job you've been hired to do.

again, not CCPs problem
Lyrrashae
Hellstar Towing and Recovery
#39 - 2012-01-12 03:54:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Lyrrashae
Morganta wrote:
Lyrrashae wrote:
Morganta wrote:
Lyrrashae wrote:
Morganta wrote:
so you cant get enough people in fleet to spank your poorly chosen WTs so you want the ability to use blops to make up for the fact that you are the loser in the war?

welp, the way it usually works is somebody wins, and somebody loses
you lost, deal with it.

and nice attempt to bait the goons with your idea that if they can get more ganks then mittins will use his uber leet stranglehold on CCP to make it a reality.

again nice try, but waaaaay too transparent, and misguided


bunch o poop...

And I want the ability to use BLOPs to move my forces faster to my target, and engage them faster, before they can re-act--by the usual station/neutral RR asshattery. This is basic tactics, I'm sure even a thoughtlessly forum-sperging idiot like you can figure this out.

...more poop...


simple solution is man up and fight people who want to fight you, or do targets shooting back at you give you the fear?
really, if you cant cope with empire tactics (such as they are) don't fight in empire.

it don't get much simpler than that, and it doesn't require coding


We look for targets who say they like to fight, unless it's a merc-job--in which case, we go after whom we're paid to go after, regardless of the prospect of "gudfytes," as a contract is a contract.

Often, these former out-number us at least 2 : 1, and yet, by the time we get there, that's when the station-games start. (We have to go to them, they've never come to us...Maybe we should move out of losec, I guess?Twisted)

Once again, you know nothing of me/us, and my/our combat record, so until you show that you do, you can just shut the **** up.

On second thought, don't: You're textbook proof of what happens when you assume: You make an ass out ofu, but not me.



[useless garbage]


I'm finished with you, you predictable, generic ****-spewing 1337-****.

Go **** yourself, and goodbye.

Ni.

mkint
#40 - 2012-01-12 05:24:43 UTC
quote=Lyrrashae]
Morganta wrote:
Lyrrashae wrote:
Morganta wrote:
Lyrrashae wrote:
Morganta wrote:
so you cant get enough people in fleet to spank your poorly chosen WTs so you want the ability to use blops to make up for the fact that you are the loser in the war?

welp, the way it usually works is somebody wins, and somebody loses
you lost, deal with it.

and nice attempt to bait the goons with your idea that if they can get more ganks then mittins will use his uber leet stranglehold on CCP to make it a reality.

again nice try, but waaaaay too transparent, and misguided


bunch o poop...

And I want the ability to use BLOPs to move my forces faster to my target, and engage them faster, before they can re-act--by the usual station/neutral RR asshattery. This is basic tactics, I'm sure even a thoughtlessly forum-sperging idiot like you can figure this out.

...more poop...


simple solution is man up and fight people who want to fight you, or do targets shooting back at you give you the fear?
really, if you cant cope with empire tactics (such as they are) don't fight in empire.

it don't get much simpler than that, and it doesn't require coding


We look for targets who say they like to fight, unless it's a merc-job--in which case, we go after whom we're paid to go after, regardless of the prospect of "gudfytes," as a contract is a contract.

Often, these former out-number us at least 2 : 1, and yet, by the time we get there, that's when the station-games start. (We have to go to them, they've never come to us...Maybe we should move out of losec, I guess?Twisted)

Once again, you know nothing of me/us, and my/our combat record, so until you show that you do, you can just shut the **** up.

On second thought, don't: You're textbook proof of what happens when you assume: You make an ass out ofu, but not me.



[useless garbage]


I'm finished with you, you predictable, generic ****-spewing 1337-****.

Go **** yourself, and goodbye.

posts like this make me giggle.

Maxim 6. If violence wasn’t your last resort, you failed to resort to enough of it.