Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Gotta squash that wall of text, it simply was not sticking to facts so much as twisting words.

But, to kindly address your points:
PvP pilots are defined by engaging other players in combat by intent. It doesn't matter if it is the first time or the 1,000th time.
The only exception to this are NPC mobs.

There is a golden opportunity here to lure new PvP pilots with.

As to -10 pilots needing TLC, no. Simply no.
They got there as a result of their play style, and having maxed out their potential standings they no longer face any further negative results.
Introducing a dynamic such as new PvP opportunities to them can only be welcome. Their gameplay experience would seem to be stagnating with the lack of newness they must face.

Why should I bother with standings as you suggest? There is nothing to be gained from it of value.
Your suggestion is comparable to telling someone to go play in traffic or jump off a cliff. Simply too niche and obvious to require first hand experience understanding the results.

And as to the ad hominem reference on the raven, your lack of understanding is your own confession.
Jumping into Jita with -10 sec seems something that fascinates you... are you foreshadowing your intentions here?

That this would be of benefit to new PvP players? Not necessarily a benefit but an opportunity. Benefit is possible, just never a guarantee with PvP.

If a pilot finds that some pilot who attacked them way back when is in turn attackable in certain systems, they may want to watch for opportunities. Especially if they don't normally enter low or null where PvP often is considered. If they were memorable enough to flag logging on and off, this could well motivate some.

This makes them think along PvP options, and perhaps even considering paths they previously disdained.

Sell the idea, and the rest follows.

Now, as a disclaimer, this is not the primary motivation of this idea. It is simply a possible collateral effect.
Many carebear styled players who have been ganked felt a sense of outrage and anger over past events. It is entirely probable many would seek vengeance if the path opened up like this.

There is a subtle contradiction present in your perspective.

You claim that these players would not dare risk high sec space, in the event they would be possibly attacked by other players.
At the same time, you are claiming that carebears are so combat averse that they will avoid risk rather than going to low sec space to do missions.
Here is the contradiction: They are avoiding a fight on one side, but rushing into one on the other.
This is conflicting behavior. The fight they are rushing into would be against a proven PvP pilot who had time to plan ahead. He was the only one who knew he might be fighting at that point.

I think this is very likely going to be backwards from your expectations. Think about all the PvP pilots with sec status low enough to fall into the free attack category.
Isn't it entirely likely they will combat fit a ship, and hang out at the gate inside a system just so they can see who is foolish enough to engage them?

Keep in mind, they LIKE PvP, you just gave them the ability to bait inexperienced pilots into fighting them.

With Concord ignoring fights started against them, aggression timers have no good reason to start.
(Yes, I think CCP should remove aggression timers on gates for valid fights and war decs both)

Risky behavior? Yes. But manageable.
The baited pilots have no forewarning, so little opportunity to form fleets in time to engage as such.
By firing on the bait ship, they took themselves off of Concord's watch list, so any legitimate fleet member to the bait ship can engage as well.

It works both ways.


Your many assumptions, listed above, have no basis in fact.
Living in low sec CAN result in loss of security status. I am sure it happens quite often, in fact. But this is not a given unavoidable consequence of living in low sec.

Your opinion of my claims is devoid of meaningful factual support.
This is hardly surprising, since it is not possible to have facts regarding an idea like this that has not had any opportunity to be tested.
I am sure it sounds very solid to you, but you have not provided any reasoning beyond your opinion.
While I do treat your opinion with due respect, it is hardly grounds for discarding the idea.

You even throw out some bizarre idea that I hate non-consensual PvP.
You have mistaken my interest in balance as something it is not. I simply see situations where balance favors one side, and I point that out. Ironically, I am accused of being a ganker by some others.
Who knows what I do on my other alts. They could be onto something ;)

Well, Jita is a .9 system, he should have had Concord all over him.

Something is odd there, no doubt.

If the ship has the align speed to get away from the gate guns quickly, the tank to take whatever beating it has to while aligning, and a pilot who's quick on the draw, it's possible to get to Jita as a -10 in something other than your pod. It's not easy, and it's not guaranteed, but I've seen it before.

I'm not going to +1 this suggestion, because I don't have the experience to give it a thumbs up or a thumbs down; I'll just note that if it was combined with a tweak to the way sec status loss worked in empire it would be much easier. Say you only lost sec status in empire if a) you shot first (the current rule), and b) the target ship(s) never shot back.

The main problem I can see with that is that it can't distinguish random attacks on defenseless ships from attempts to disrupt (mostly large, nullsec) alliance logistics run by NPC corp alts, but at least it's no worse at this then the current system is, and at least it doesn't punish consensual and non-consensual-but-game-anyway PVP.

You don't get concord on you for being -10.

You just get the faction police.

Also, lol@you making this thread and not knowing that.



There already is a separate scale for actions in low security space, criminal actions in low security space are nowhere near as harmful to your security status as criminal actions in high sec.

That said, there is also no real way to raise security status in any decent time frame in low security space, meaning any semi-regular "criminal" actions result in eventually attaining highly negative security status. This is usually combated by experienced players spending hours upon hours doing rather unprofitable multi-system belt ratting in null sec.

sounds good to me, if they are a-holes in low they are a-holes in high, you dont lose sec for defending yourself afaik

Wouldn't work. Concord is a law enforcement reactionary force that responds to crimes commited against a person by another.

What could happen instead is that if you wanted someone's ship popped you could employ the local Thugs NCP's for a price that would attack the assigned pilot.

Their ships power wouldn't be nearly as destructive as CONCORD allowing the victim to get away destroying a few of them in process.

You could then pay a private **** to investigate who had paid the Thugs to attack you and once the PI has uncovered the guilty party you would be free to war dec them

The only draw back is that the Thugs cost alot of ISK and evertime you employ their services you drop a 1/2 of a security status point as well as losing loyalty points with all of the local mission agents.

Could be a way for CCP to introduce Thug Corps that arose after the Jita Riots looking to continue their protests against Jita.

Thug Corps would target specific Jita related locations where the Thugs invade systems much like Sansha does causing problems for everyone.

To repell the Thugs you would have to take out small beacon locations around the system and when gone the system would return to normal. The market goes back up to a normal value as well as the Thug's ships being despawned that constantly harass even the local rats in the belt.

Would be interesting.

You know, rather than pointing out how unfairly inconvenient this would be to your play style, you could suggest simple modifications.

Use a separate security standing scale for high sec entirely, as a start.

This would isolate the scale to only be applicable to pilots who regularly engaged non war-dec pilots in high sec.

The point of this idea is that ganking should have consequences with Concord, low sec PvP activity is not relevant to this.
The consequences already suggest this, as the whole point is Concord would stop responding for pilots who caused them trouble at a certain point.

Maybe crimewatch addresses this? It would be interesting to see.

I am amending the OP to reflect this.

Two points.

One, your play style, and your current circumstances are not necessarily tied together. I am saying you referred to the low security experience as a play style, hence I described it as your play style since you clearly championed it.

Two, I have no interest in stopping suicide ganking. Have at it and enjoy.
I am saying this should have consequences, and maintain an immersive aspect for a guide.

I don't concern myself with player actions so much as player opportunities here.

Create a chance for things to explode. Someone always grabs it at some point.