These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

In high-sec space, you are never safe. Unless you have a -2.0 to 0 sec. standing.
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Gerald Taric
NEO DYNAMICS
#21 - 2012-05-07 09:07:09 UTC
Funny. Very funny.

So we have here the one side "Carebears" complaining about the "Gankers" having no great risk, and somehow an easy live,
where on the other side --> https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=103090
gankers are whining about a hard life and want CONCORD to be less harsh.

Combining these two point of views this seems perfectly balancedCool

Folks ... please stop whining on any side, and learn to deal with it, as it is!
Stirko Hek
New Home Industries
#22 - 2012-05-07 10:58:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Stirko Hek
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!


So, you pretty much just want to put a shotgun to the whole concept of a sandbox game and have hardcoded mechanisms to prevent interaction between players? This idea is as horrible as the whining from sperg lord guy above.

EDIT: Current system works pretty much better than the sheer majority of half baked droolings of heavy pain killer induced concepts. Align to a celestial, watch D-scan, don't go AFK, fit something that isn't paper thin. If you want to be greedy and fit your MLU's and crap, go ahead, but improved output comes with a price.
Singulis Pacifica
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#23 - 2012-05-07 14:44:46 UTC
Gerald Taric wrote:
Funny. Very funny.

So we have here the one side "Carebears" complaining about the "Gankers" having no great risk, and somehow an easy live,
where on the other side --> https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=103090
gankers are whining about a hard life and want CONCORD to be less harsh.

Combining these two point of views this seems perfectly balancedCool

Folks ... please stop whining on any side, and learn to deal with it, as it is!



That would indicate that for every argument one makes, a counter-argument would need to be created and thus balance would be achieved. I'm not entirely sure that this would justify everything as being "perfectly balanced".

If I would threaten to kill you in real life, but complain to the authorities that I would have limited means to do so and you in turn would complain to the authorities that I am able to make such threats to you does not create a "perfectly balanced situation".

Your argument would stand, because the authorities in real life would in fact, protect you from me. I would be punished, not you.

EvE is by no means a mirror to real life, but what it does mean is that if a game creates a certain "authority" (Concord), then its creators (CCP) implemented a designated area in which Concord operates and upholds this authority. As it stands, it is actually failing on this promise of "safety" or at least, it is granting it to the wrong people.

EvE is just a game and an awesome one at that. In light of this and expanding on the sandbox design, I would favor an approach whereby players can intervene (under strict circumstances) and take matters into their own hands.

Xavier Bandar
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#24 - 2012-05-07 14:55:14 UTC
Singulis Pacifica wrote:
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?


You give them a badge and a cowboy hat. Kinda obvious.
OldSamurai
AI Autobots
#25 - 2012-05-07 15:13:04 UTC  |  Edited by: OldSamurai
Singulis Pacifica is a genius.
I really like the idea with a couple notes:

- Sheriffs (or Public Defenders) should be those with higher security standing (perhaps > 4.8 or even if you make it 5.0 I would be alright with it).

- These public defenders could act only in high security area (0.5 or higher).

- The resulting fight between the criminal and the sheriff would not transfer to their respective corporations. In other words, if the sheriff attacks, the criminal can fight back, but none of the corporation members can interfere (unless they also have the sheriff status). The criminal's corp mates should not be able to intervene either.

- I think the existing status quo for CONCORD should be kept as is. Instant punishment is needed for the gankers.

- I've seen people worrying about the color. It can be the dark blue that is used now for high sec status people, which at the moment has no use. So light blue for everyone with "good" security and dark blue for the sheriffs.

- Also, one could think of making it harder to become a sheriff, like being able to operate only in the space belonging to a faction for which they have a standing of 8+ ?

I really think this would bring some needed balance to the high sec area and perhaps more 1 vs 1 action.
Think about the low sec guys that would come to high sec w the hope to get a good fight.
And miners may be left a bit safer.
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#26 - 2012-05-07 15:16:44 UTC
dogspotting is a game you can play any time in any place, the rules are simple and it can be played alone or with others

you just gotta spot dogs, anywhere you see dogs, thats where the game is

single dog = 1pt

double dog = 4pt (must be one person walking two dogs, two people together each walking one dog is two single dogs)

triple dog = 6pt and so forth

particularly funny looking or ugly dogs are worth an additional point, very large dogs are also worth an additional point, though there is no bonus or lesser value placed on small dogs. Dogs in clothes falls under the heading of funny/ugly dogs.

You can tally your points on a daily, weekly, or monthly basis, I prefer to do daily.

Today I saw 3 single dogs, none particularly funny or large, and one double dog, so I had 7pts today.

I made this game up and its fun to play so if you wanna play along with me lets keep score together!

Naturally, some amendments and clarifications were made, which I will do my best to summarize here:


  • Small dogs are worth +1. Small dogs with extremely fat owners are worth +2.
  • +1 if you trick a dog into yawning by yawning yourself.
  • +1 if they have a stick in their mouth.
  • +1 for action dogs (swimming, chasing ducks, catching an object, fetching an object). Note: you cannot initiate the action.
  • +1 for a dog in a car
  • +2 for a dog in a car with its head out the window
  • +10 for a dog in a helicopter
  • Rescue dogs are worth +10 points. A rescue dog that rescues you from some rubble is worth +20 points. Note: you may not get yourself trapped in rubble intentionally for points.
  • Drug dogs are worth +5
  • Bomb sniffing dogs are worth +10


I wish you all the best of luck and high scores! This should make those boring summer days pass much faster!

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Carnes
The Bronies
#27 - 2012-05-07 15:19:48 UTC
I don't think this idea is good and i have a reason. The original argument only talks about highsec and doesn't think about repercussions for citizens in lowsec. I have almost always had a negative sec status because i already "sheriff" lowsec systems. It is always a game of cat and mouse unless the pirate is confident s/he can win. This usually means i have to take the opening shot, pulling station/gate aggro. The same goes if i catch a target ratting when i'm in my recon. I have to take the opening shot (or tackle, in this case) to commit them to the fight.

It might seem cut & dry in highsec but it is not so simple in lowsec. The only mechanism highsec citizens have to kill "bad guys" is to wait for them to gcc or use their killrights. In lowsec you can kill them anytime you want. Though you quickly become negative sec status yourself, it was not from doing anything "bad".
Lharanai
Fools of the Blue Oyster
#28 - 2012-05-07 15:23:07 UTC
but somehow he has one point in his rant, bitching about how unfair the titans are until they get nerfed but at the same time telling miners to tank or shut up seems just a little...........idiotic

Seriously, don't take me serious, I MEAN IT...seriously
Jon Taggart
State War Academy
Caldari State
#29 - 2012-05-07 15:26:41 UTC
Managed to get blown up in a disco camp in Perimeter. I was so surprised to see one there I didn't care about the ~350 mil in Armor Plates I dropped!

Was a swift kick in the butt for me and a good learning experience. Now I fly my salvage in something a little sturdier. Like an ibis! Smile
OldSamurai
AI Autobots
#30 - 2012-05-07 15:27:25 UTC
Carnes wrote:
I don't think this idea is good and i have a reason. The original argument only talks about highsec and doesn't think about repercussions for citizens in lowsec. I have almost always had a negative sec status because i already "sheriff" lowsec systems. It is always a game of cat and mouse unless the pirate is confident s/he can win. This usually means i have to take the opening shot, pulling station/gate aggro. The same goes if i catch a target ratting when i'm in my recon. I have to take the opening shot (or tackle, in this case) to commit them to the fight.

It might seem cut & dry in highsec but it is not so simple in lowsec. The only mechanism highsec citizens have to kill "bad guys" is to wait for them to gcc or use their killrights. In lowsec you can kill them anytime you want. Though you quickly become negative sec status yourself, it was not from doing anything "bad".


Why don't you fight in null sec then?
Your sec status would not be affected.
When you attack one, you know the consequences.

It is simple, you should not be able to force people that only have time to play a couple hours a week, and therefore will play PvE only, into PvP unless you pay the price. I know people that have specifically chose this game because it offers the "safety" of high security (that and they like space ships too)
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#31 - 2012-05-07 15:38:30 UTC
Lharanai wrote:
but somehow he has one point in his rant, bitching about how unfair the titans are until they get nerfed but at the same time telling miners to tank or shut up seems just a little...........idiotic


hulks getting suicide ganked is much like titans blapping subcaps because

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#32 - 2012-05-07 15:39:45 UTC
not that I expect you to answer that question because you're a hulk miner but w/e

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Whitehound
#33 - 2012-05-07 15:47:25 UTC
Singulis Pacifica wrote:
... 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. ...

Another empty rant by an empty head and his empty view of the world.

Did you think about why you post before you posted your rant, or why you believe your moral should be important to us? No, you did not, but I tell you why, because you want to be told to shut up.

Did you then watch any of the Fanfest videos on what is coming? No, you did not. I suggest you start there.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#34 - 2012-05-07 15:50:05 UTC
OldSamurai wrote:
Why don't you fight in null sec then?
Your sec status would not be affected.
When you attack one, you know the consequences.

It is simple, you should not be able to force people that only have time to play a couple hours a week, and therefore will play PvE only, into PvP unless you pay the price. I know people that have specifically chose this game because it offers the "safety" of high security (that and they like space ships too)


EVE is a game where you can PvP anywhere. Hisec is not intended as a "PvP-free" zone.

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#35 - 2012-05-07 15:54:21 UTC
Singulis Pacifica wrote:
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.


The main issue with thi idea is that the ones making the most noise are already the ones who refuse to use the existing rights they already have to attack law-breakers. What makes you think your proposal will make them any more willing to engage in PvP?

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
RAP ACTION HERO
#36 - 2012-05-07 16:00:06 UTC
do you know lotsa goons have +5 from gurista all day?

vitoc erryday
MrZany
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#37 - 2012-05-07 16:01:17 UTC
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

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?



I see your point. Why should low-sec guys be punished for engaging one another? Maybe a way around it is the war-dec system. At the end of the day PvP in low-sec is still "illegal" even if both fleets are primed for a smack down. (sincere comment, no snarkiness)

Consider this though:

Null-sec guys camp any system they consider their turf.

Low-sec guys same thing.

WH camp their entry points.

Why not make it so anyone with a low sec status is engageable in hi-sec? Make a sweet spot where "bandits" are not chased by faction police but hi-sec players are free to try their hand at taking them down. I don't think the average low or null sec pvper has much to worry about unless they are AFK or not paying attention. Which is exactly what we tell the miners after they pop; should have been more aware of your surroundings.

You never know, it might make Eve an even more dynamic place. Low-security banditos roam through hi-sec looking for a brawl, hi-sec guys can engage if they want. Neither party loses sec status if the hi-sec guys engage first.

Just a thought.
Riggs Droput
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#38 - 2012-05-07 16:05:03 UTC
Carnes wrote:
I don't think this idea is good and i have a reason. The original argument only talks about highsec and doesn't think about repercussions for citizens in lowsec. I have almost always had a negative sec status because i already "sheriff" lowsec systems. It is always a game of cat and mouse unless the pirate is confident s/he can win. This usually means i have to take the opening shot, pulling station/gate aggro. The same goes if i catch a target ratting when i'm in my recon. I have to take the opening shot (or tackle, in this case) to commit them to the fight.

It might seem cut & dry in highsec but it is not so simple in lowsec. The only mechanism highsec citizens have to kill "bad guys" is to wait for them to gcc or use their killrights. In lowsec you can kill them anytime you want. Though you quickly become negative sec status yourself, it was not from doing anything "bad".



My views on this combined with the +5.0 allowed to hunt criminals is that if your +5.0 and your shooting a criminal in low sec your sec status should not be affected as long as all other conditions are met for you to be a sheriff in that space. This way the criminals have less place to hide.

I would rather die on my feet, than live on my knees
Spurty
#39 - 2012-05-07 16:08:49 UTC
*nods* sagely and walks over to the next thread

There are good ships,

And wood ships,

And ships that sail the sea

But the best ships are Spaceships

Built by CCP
Jessie42
Eighty Joule Brewery
Goonswarm Federation
#40 - 2012-05-07 16:14:13 UTC
lol ncdot
Previous page123Next page