These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
123Next page
 

In high-sec space, you are never safe. Unless you have a -2.0 to 0 sec. standing.
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Singulis Pacifica
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#1 - 2012-05-06 17:12:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Singulis Pacifica
TLDR: at bottom.

With all the Hulkageddon kills going around, you will end up with compaints regarding unfair ganking and whatnot. And truth be told, ganking is never "fair". It's a dirty fight where the outcome is more or less pre-determined. Both the ganker and victim will lose their ship. The victim as a result of the ganker, and the ganker gets his/her ship turned into a floating scrapheap by Concord.

If a hauler is the victim, then he/she will lose ISK: the value of the of ship (full insurance only partially covers it) and the value of the cargo, where as the ganker can still generate a profit from said encounter: value of the cargo gained exceeds the loss incurred by the destroyed ship.

Now, this is all standard and we all have learned to live with it. But the biggest complaint of the victims is that high-sec, the area that is introduced as the safest space in the game, is not really that safe at all. Not for them at least.

These players are "at the mercy" of the gankers. Because it's that simple. A player, be it a miner, a hauler or anyone else always has to watch out for gankers operating in high-sec. The gankers themselves have to watch out for... nothing. Well, juicy rich targets that can be plucked. That's what they need to look out for. But even if they do have a bounty on their heads, most players will simply ignore the "yellows" hoping that they will not be targeted.

No one is interested in hunting down these players with a sec. status between -2.0 and 0, because if they would attack them, then Concord will see it as an unwarranted assault and attack the player that opened fire on the "yellow". So the "yellows" are the ones living in safety in high-sec, If they lose their rating due to a succesful kill, they just go ratting for a week and continue back to the role of the ganker.

And that's not a problem. It's how a sandbox should be. A ganker is a valid way to play the game. But... It lacks balance. As said before, there is no one stopping a ganker. He or she is playing pre-determined encounters. And that is what could change.

But not by CCP. Well, not directly.

What if players that have a sec. standing of 3.5 or higher acquire a "sherrif's badge". This allows them to attack players with a a negative security rating in high-sec systems without Concord seeing it as an unwarranted attack. This will lead to one thing: sherrifs vs. gankers. Whereby both sides are players with minimal interference from the game itself (Concord).

That is what a sandbox is all about. Make sure gankers can exist, but also make sure that they can be hunted by some players. Perhaps "sherrif players" that receive this ability are henceforth limited to only high-sec systems to make sure gankers can still operate in low-sec if they wish. Or perhaps "sherrif players" can only receive this badge if they are not part of a red vs. blue or factional warfare. So that only the "true neutrals" can acquire this rank and thus become the hunters of the ones that can now hunt freely in high-sec systems.

TLDR: Players that achieve a sec. status of 3.5 or higher can, under certain circumstances, become "sherrifs", which allows them to attack players with a negative security rating in High-Sec systems (without Concord interference) to balance the odds of ganker vs. victim.
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#2 - 2012-05-06 17:14:06 UTC
If faction police are chasing somebody, you can shoot their ships.

If they're -5 or below, you can shoot their pods.

The 0.0 to -2 thing gives some leeway for the occasional accidental podding.

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Singulis Pacifica
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#3 - 2012-05-06 17:20:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Singulis Pacifica
Andski wrote:
If faction police are chasing somebody, you can shoot their ships.

If they're -5 or below, you can shoot their pods.


That's not really what I meant Andski. Faction police can hunt down certain players, but proper gankers make sure that their faction standings are never below -5.0 to increase their operational area. Players with a sec rating below -5 know they can be hunted by players, and thus avoid high-sec most of the time.

Andski wrote:
The 0.0 to -2 thing gives some leeway for the occasional accidental podding.


But it is also the area most gankers can operate in. Free without anyone to actually stop them, unless a player wardecs just about everyone that is a ganker, but some gankers prevent this by being in an npc-corp. Or they simply disband said corp of gankers and start a new one.
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#4 - 2012-05-06 18:19:48 UTC
Aqruie wrote:
To prove a point, you will never ******* see a ganker use a battleship anymore since there would be an amazing sense of loss without insurance. See, everytime someone even ******* mentions it they bitchwhine how the ganker gets to be the Godthumb and deliver a bitchslap of justice at minimal risk to themselves. See, that is called...get this you will ******* laugh out loud...risk adversion. You will never see a faction battleship take out a hulk with CONCORD retalliation, because like the guy they are shooting in the hulk but the ganker won't admit it...THEY ARE BOTH ******* HUMAN! Both the idiot in the hulk and the ganker in the destroyer, are spending time in highsec where hulk is getting minimal isk per hour (cause no where makes more and is total safe) while the ganker is spending mimimal risk of losing something. But they both pay the exact same amount to CCP, therefore....both should be ******* losers. Buff the hulk to survive DPS of tier 3 battleships and hulks have zero insurance payout...both parties are loosing several hundred million...which is equally fair. Or the hulk could get a make over, but we all know what the loud whiney Thai wh*re noise level parties do not want to happen. ( CCP should of just killed the mining profession all together.)

Everytime some idiot says that highsec is to safe, please show us exactly where the **** at all safe option is. What exactly prevents you from firing on a hulk, this option that makes them totally safe. What is it? Is it that....no wait this is not WoW where there is PVP only areas. See, when you fire on a hulk....without a wardec...in highsec....YOU FACE ******* REPERCUSIONS OF YOUR ACTIONS...BUT WHINEY LITTLE NEED THEIR ASS WIPED BY MOMMY RISK ADVERSE PILOTS DON'T LIKE LOSING TO CONCORD....No different then every other guy who you ******* blew away in lowsec and null....NO ******* HUMAN LIKES LOSING....but highsec is the only option that makes the least amount of isk (Where you you make more, with less risk then highsec? You can't nerf the bare minimum). Therefore, when one guy makes less isk YOU the other guy should face far more repercusions for your actions to blow them away. When they move elsewere for more isk with more risk...then its balanced.

Nothing prevents you from actually blowing the hulk away, but you don't like that POW! WHAM! KA-BOOM! sensation like when your father backhanded you for doing stupid as a kid...but as an adult you feel the need to do what ever you want with minimal repercussions. Sorry, but if you avoid risk just as much as the hulk pilot spending time in highsec...guess what you are no better if you pull the ******* trigger or not you are avoiding repercussions to your actions. That is something CCP needs to figure out, because they ****** up 9 years ago when they relized "OH, we didn't know that when you let someone do what ever you want...who is it that is actually right when both parties are our customers." Who faces the most risk? How do you make the most isk and what is acceptable minimum isk? How do you balance it...since its so grindly to replace something like a hulk that just ******* explodes because it only has two ******* fitting options that are barely adequate while nearly all other T2 ships have at least three: Max gank, Max Tank, Balanced Gank/Tank that doesn't ******* pop so easily unless OVERHWHELMING alpha hits it. The bare mimimum CCP needs to do is make it just as ******* grindy to replace sec status as it is to replace a hulk plus locking out even a ******* pod from highsec unless a bare minimum of -2.0 is reach and forget their ******* stupid idea to allow criminal tags to raise sec status. Sorry, but if you have to ******* grind to replace a hulk then the other guy has to ******* grind sec status...with one tick every 15 minutes and not every session change...then both parties are spending equal time grinding.

Oh, and for every ******* idiot that spouts "Fit a tank" to a hulk let me ask you...why didn't your subcap shitfleet adapt and not fly a subcap shitfleet anymore when your ass got splattered by titan guns? Bitchwhine got CCP to step in and fix this obvious "problem" when like a hulk pilot "fits a tank" when perhaps the ******* problem between the chair and the keyboard should of not bitched but insteaded of adapted their tank from a subcap fleet to a capital ship fleet of their own. Logic my friends, you are welcome for me pointing out that the last round of Titan nerfs where unecessary because you could not adapt just as much as you tell a hulk pilot to adapt a tank. To bad you never want to take a loss and certainly don't want CCP to fix such a stupid ship such as the hulk. You know what, knock every destroy down to 5 guns there by allowing it to have more then a frig and now it can get a hitpoint boost...then we can call it balanced without touching the hulk.

******* hypocrites, always beliving you get to apply max risk and punishment while avoiding it yourself. Wish CCP would HTFU like their little theme song and just cause SP loss to occur everytime your ship was destroyed for any reason (not T3 anymore.) Oh yes, even you will feel a soul tearing, nut crushing sense of loss in this version of EVE. ****, even permanent character death at ship explosion would balance out


just saving this because goddamn son you are upset

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Dapud
#5 - 2012-05-06 18:32:22 UTC
calm down
AureoBroker
Perkone
Caldari State
#6 - 2012-05-06 18:33:34 UTC
Actions have consequences.
Upon attacking anything a single time in hisec, you should be declared a public criminal, and unable to get back without going GREAT extents, not as a byproduct of ratting.
That means:
- On police hunting system.
- Unable to use market or contracts with non-criminal players.
- Unable to travel in CONCORD owned space.
- Shootable.

That would also means CONCORD shooting can be rolled back: No need for instantaneous, unrealistic retaliation.
Upon giving a realistic tank to hauling and mining barges (since there's no need for alpha-ing), a further rollback to having CONCORD only in CONCORD system, which would be labeled as "newbie" systems - with (very) limited quantities of resources.

For the shooting - galaxy-wide consequences are coming!
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#7 - 2012-05-06 18:33:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Poetic Stanziel
Singulis Pacifica wrote:
TLDR: Players that achieve a sec. status of 3.5 or higher can, under certain circumstances, become "sherrifs", which allows them to attack players with a negative security rating in High-Sec systems (without Concord interference) to balance the odds of ganker vs. victim.
This doesn't sound terrible, though I'd make that secstatus be 5.0 (not something easy like 3.5). I'd need to hear of the possible exploitative behaviour involved in the idea, before I could get behind it. I'm sure someone will come along soon enough to explain how this could exploited and abused to hell.
Thomas Kreshant
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#8 - 2012-05-06 18:42:22 UTC
Doesn't seem that mad to me, just a little wordy.
Nil'kandra
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#9 - 2012-05-06 19:10:10 UTC
AureoBroker wrote:
Actions have consequences.
Upon attacking anything a single time in hisec, you should be declared a public criminal, and unable to get back without going GREAT extents, not as a byproduct of ratting.
That means:
- On police hunting system.
- Unable to use market or contracts with non-criminal players.
- Unable to travel in CONCORD owned space.
- Shootable.

That would also means CONCORD shooting can be rolled back: No need for instantaneous, unrealistic retaliation.
Upon giving a realistic tank to hauling and mining barges (since there's no need for alpha-ing), a further rollback to having CONCORD only in CONCORD system, which would be labeled as "newbie" systems - with (very) limited quantities of resources.

For the shooting - galaxy-wide consequences are coming!


I am so very down for this. I can't wait to get more newbies without a solid understanding of game mechanics to "test my shields".
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#10 - 2012-05-06 19:20:14 UTC
Nil'kandra wrote:
AureoBroker wrote:
Actions have consequences.
Upon attacking anything a single time in hisec, you should be declared a public criminal, and unable to get back without going GREAT extents, not as a byproduct of ratting.
That means:
- On police hunting system.
- Unable to use market or contracts with non-criminal players.
- Unable to travel in CONCORD owned space.
- Shootable.

That would also means CONCORD shooting can be rolled back: No need for instantaneous, unrealistic retaliation.
Upon giving a realistic tank to hauling and mining barges (since there's no need for alpha-ing), a further rollback to having CONCORD only in CONCORD system, which would be labeled as "newbie" systems - with (very) limited quantities of resources.

For the shooting - galaxy-wide consequences are coming!


I am so very down for this. I can't wait to get more newbies without a solid understanding of game mechanics to "test my shields".

Just be careful. You might have hulks mine out all the stuff in the newbie systems. (I've seen hulks in system when I started the game) and there's be nothing for the newbies.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
XIRUSPHERE
In Bacon We Trust
#11 - 2012-05-06 19:21:44 UTC
Newsflash : People that neither pay attention or expect AFK profit in null, high, and low security space all die horrible deaths. Now here's tom with the weather.

The advantage of a bad memory is that one can enjoy the same good things for the first time several times.

One will rarely err if extreme actions be ascribed to vanity, ordinary actions to habit, and mean actions to fear.
Singulis Pacifica
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#12 - 2012-05-06 23:54:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Singulis Pacifica
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
This doesn't sound terrible, though I'd make that secstatus be 5.0 (not something easy like 3.5). I'd need to hear of the possible exploitative behaviour involved in the idea, before I could get behind it. I'm sure someone will come along soon enough to explain how this could exploited and abused to hell.


A 5.0 sec rating before one would be granted the "sherrif" opportunity would be acceptable as well. And yes, one would need to make sure that exploits are minimal. Perhaps a Sheriff badge means, one leaves a player run-corp and joins Concord's latest Border control unit. To qualify, one would need that 5.0 sec status, and perhaps an 8.0 factional standing with the empire state to be able to carry out the duty of a "sherrif"?

There are various possibilities CCP could use to implement a system like this. I merely created the post to point out the weakness in its current design: High-Sec is only safe for small-time criminals, and not the honorable civilians (i.e. players with a positive sec. status) it should provide relative safety for. Make sure gankers can excist in high-sec, but give them a fair challenge. Not this easy pre-determined outcome we have today.

Oh and

Alavaria Fera wrote:

Just be careful. You might have hulks mine out all the stuff in the newbie systems. (I've seen hulks in system when I started the game) and there's be nothing for the newbies.


I fully agree on this. It would only lead a slippery slope as to what can come into a system and what not. And since when is that part of a true sandbox game?
Wolf Kruol
Suicide Squad Gamma
#13 - 2012-05-07 03:07:57 UTC
People still complaining about this stuff? Roll

“If you're very very stupid? How can you possibly realize you're very very stupid?

You have to be relatively intelligent to realize how stupid you really are!”
Simetraz
State War Academy
Caldari State
#14 - 2012-05-07 03:23:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Simetraz
I would rather have CCP create a licence or something a true bounty hunter.
You would have a monthly bill for the license.

You get so much ISK based on Persons standing to concord for blowing up there ship
-0.01 to -10
But if you engage a 0.0 or higher well concord-ed and immediate revoke of license.

Basically you can engage them anywhere and well sense Concord is looking the other way well they can attack you too.

Simple, except that it would require new mechanics so pipe dream :)

EVERYBODY KNOWS
Morganta
The Greater Goon
#15 - 2012-05-07 03:36:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Morganta
so then people would be able to preemptively attack anyone who is yellow?

what if you or your corp engages in low sec skirmish warfare and you don't actually gank anyone at all in empire
you pretty much make it possible for empire dwellers to gank anyone who engages in combat outside of null
with NO REPERCUSSIONS


terrible idea is terrible

in mutual combat situations, where 2 fleets go at it on a low sec gate, someone has to shoot first.
why should those people be penalized for playing the game?
Simetraz
State War Academy
Caldari State
#16 - 2012-05-07 03:41:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Simetraz
Morganta wrote:
so then people would be able to preemptively attack anyone who is yellow?

what if you or your corp engages in low sec skirmish warfare and you don't actually gank anyone at all in empire
you pretty much make it possible for empire dwellers to gank anyone who engages in combat outside of null
with NO REPERCUSSIONS


terrible idea is terrible



But I thought that was the idea, people want more PVP outside of null sec.
Well there you go.
If you run into a bounty hunter you will have to deal with him/her.
I did say it worked both ways with no loss of standings.

Look at it this way it might open up a bunch of free kills, maybe.
Of course they would be able to shoot back.

EVERYBODY KNOWS
Qolde
Scrambled Eggs Inc.
#17 - 2012-05-07 04:37:00 UTC
I like this idea a lot. I'd probably tweak the sec status's as such, though it wouldn't mean much in the long run.
+1 allows you to attack -4 and below
+2 allows you to attack -3 and below
+3 allows you to attack -2 and below
+4 allows you to attack -1 and below
+5 allows you to attack anything below 0.

Now, someone with only a +1 is either a new carebear, or not a carebear at all. Add to this normal aggression mechanics, and WALLAH! Copious amounts of high sec (non gank) PVP at gates, belts and plexes. Maybe even missions and stations. DO EET CCP DO EET! Pirate

If someone craps in your sandbox: 1. Light it on fire 2. Grab your shovel 3. Throw it back at them.
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#18 - 2012-05-07 04:43:13 UTC
How can large numbers of people who are totally indistinguishable from everyone else in local being able to shoot a single individuals without warning who haven't actually done anything to those people be considered "non gank" PVP.
Singulis Pacifica
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#19 - 2012-05-07 07:37:48 UTC
Simetraz wrote:
I would rather have CCP create a licence or something a true bounty hunter.
You would have a monthly bill for the license.

You get so much ISK based on Persons standing to concord for blowing up there ship
-0.01 to -10
But if you engage a 0.0 or higher well concord-ed and immediate revoke of license.



This could also be an option. CCP has many abilities to add something in the game to balance the gankers vs. victim dilemma.

Morganta wrote:
so then people would be able to preemptively attack anyone who is yellow?

what if you or your corp engages in low sec skirmish warfare and you don't actually gank anyone at all in empire
you pretty much make it possible for empire dwellers to gank anyone who engages in combat outside of null
with NO REPERCUSSIONS


If you read my post in detail and not just the TLDR section, then that is something I thought about as well. In theory, if one becomes this "sherrif" status, then it only applies to 0.5-1.0 systems (high-sec). Either their ability is revoked as soon as they enter low-sec or it is no longer possible for them to enter low-sec /null-sec systems at all. Low-sec gankers need to be able to roam freely as well of course. They should not be affected by this change as you are right: it would lead to an inbalanced situation of "sherrifs" being able to roam and instigate assaults everywhere without penalty.


Morganta wrote:
where 2 fleets go at it on a low sec gate, someone has to shoot first.
why should those people be penalized for playing the game?


Obviously, members of these two fleets in low-sec would not qualify to become "sherrifs". After all, they like to roam and fight low-sec with corp-members. Low-sec is their territory. This is how they like to play the game and that is never taken away from them.

Qolde wrote:
I like this idea a lot. I'd probably tweak the sec status's as such, though it wouldn't mean much in the long run.
+1 allows you to attack -4 and below
+2 allows you to attack -3 and below
+3 allows you to attack -2 and below
+4 allows you to attack -1 and below
+5 allows you to attack anything below 0.



Also a possible method, but perhaps this would result in the fact that it could be too easy to obtain. Only a true "do-gooder" of 5.0 should be given the option of becoming a "sherrif" in high-sec systems.

Vimsy Vortis wrote:
How can large numbers of people who are totally indistinguishable from everyone else in local being able to shoot a single individuals without warning who haven't actually done anything to those people be considered "non gank" PVP.


Well, we are dealing with a black & white matter here. Provided Crimewatch works as intended, then if you do something bad (no matter what it is), your sec status goes down. If you hunt down rats, your status goes up. This, bare the small exception of some elements, is the only way your security status is changed. So if one is below 0 to -5.0, thus yellow, one has done something that was not considered lawful.

You do however raise a valid point. What to do to identify said "sherrifs". To be fair, one can distinguish a "yellow" from a "white" player. So if they can be legally hunted (SHIPS, mind you, not pods. A pod is not a threat), then one needs to make sure that the hunters receive specific colors as well. Problem is that were running out of options: red, yellow, purple, blue, green are all taken (perhaps I even forgot a color).

So... "sherrifs' become Cyan? Or Teal? Pink?




Helicity Boson
Immortalis Inc.
Shadow Cartel
#20 - 2012-05-07 08:23:04 UTC
My goodness there is so much mad in here~

I approve of this.
123Next page