These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page123
 

Players voting to adjust security status weekly (with careful restrictions)
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Solutio Letum
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#41 - 2012-11-28 16:00:46 UTC
The only awesome i saw in it is not voting the mobile map :) fact is that seeing the map move a little bit would make it much more realistic, because everything in eve moves

maybe voting is not exactly the way but id see some potential in this anyways
Crimeo Khamsi
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#42 - 2012-11-28 16:10:26 UTC
Solutio Letum wrote:
The only awesome i saw in it is not voting the mobile map :) fact is that seeing the map move a little bit would make it much more realistic, because everything in eve moves

maybe voting is not exactly the way but id see some potential in this anyways

Perhaps, but none of the people who were actually coherently arguing against this idea were REALLY complaining about the particular voting mechanic itself, though, per se. They were complaining about the abusability and the benefits of being organized in general, and how that organization is too concentrated in null sec for such a mechanic to work.

And if that is indeed the main problem with it, then nothing else anybody comes up with instead of voting is going to satisfy people, either. If you base it on ganks (more ganks = lower sec, fewer ganks = higher sec), then null sec coalitions will simply fly alts in shuttles en masse into a system they desire to lower, and gank themselves hundreds of times for free basically. If you base it on payments, then they'll pay more and more strategically. If you base it on voting, but only in space you fly through, then they will use their superior covops skills to fly everywhere and win votes anyway. No matter WHAT you do, if null sec is that powerful, then null sec will employ the new game design change to their advantage more than will other people.

In other words, if you're of the opinion that null sec coalitions have already won the game, then you're going to view pretty much any game design change that puts any power or choices in players' hands without SPECIFICALLY excluding null sec somehow as "too abusable by nullsec coalitions." So what's the point?
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#43 - 2012-11-28 17:32:31 UTC
Crimeo Khamsi wrote:
Solutio Letum wrote:
The only awesome i saw in it is not voting the mobile map :) fact is that seeing the map move a little bit would make it much more realistic, because everything in eve moves

maybe voting is not exactly the way but id see some potential in this anyways

Perhaps, but none of the people who were actually coherently arguing against this idea were REALLY complaining about the particular voting mechanic itself, though, per se. They were complaining about the abusability and the benefits of being organized in general, and how that organization is too concentrated in null sec for such a mechanic to work.

And if that is indeed the main problem with it, then nothing else anybody comes up with instead of voting is going to satisfy people, either. If you base it on ganks (more ganks = lower sec, fewer ganks = higher sec), then null sec coalitions will simply fly alts in shuttles en masse into a system they desire to lower, and gank themselves hundreds of times for free basically. If you base it on payments, then they'll pay more and more strategically. If you base it on voting, but only in space you fly through, then they will use their superior covops skills to fly everywhere and win votes anyway. No matter WHAT you do, if null sec is that powerful, then null sec will employ the new game design change to their advantage more than will other people.

In other words, if you're of the opinion that null sec coalitions have already won the game, then you're going to view pretty much any game design change that puts any power or choices in players' hands without SPECIFICALLY excluding null sec somehow as "too abusable by nullsec coalitions." So what's the point?


In the current setup, nullsec residents battle each other.... they do limited stuff in highsec (like burn jita or ice interdictions), but generally don't burn all of highsec because they currently can't. If you give them a mechanic to do so, they will. And my response to that: sweeeet. The truth is, I'm 100% ok with the creative use of game mechanics. I think a balanced mechanism to change sec status would be interesting and pretty neat. In contrast, I'm 100% opposed to your voting mechanics. Perhaps you don't include me in the "coherent" dialog *ouch*, but I'll elaborate so you understand why:

I firmly believe:
1.) You should not be able to adversely alter a region of space unless you fly there. Your original voting scheme allows me to change the security status of some far off system I have never been to, and that's just wrong. You don't want to limit voting in such a manner because highsec is universally accessible in a riskless manner, while areas of nullsec are riskier to access. Frankly, the general population doesn't care enough about nullsec (in general) to take the trip there. This results in a serious imbalance between highsec voters and nullsec voters, which results in a serious imbalance in your voting scheme. This imbalance means your mechanic is BROKEN.

2.) To elaborate on why you shouldn't be able to change space remotely: Democracy fails when people can vote themselves a free lunch. If I can vote to make my area of space perfect, there is a BIG problem. Improving your space should involve investment (both time and isk), it should involve flying-in-space activity, and it should involve risks. When you improve space, you are rewarded with better rats, better roids, better plexes, better anomalies, etc, etc, etc... The cornerstone of EvE's payscale is risk vs reward, and the primary risk you take in EvE is flying your ship in space.

As for your, "nothing anybody else comes up with will satisfy them either" line:

A.) Any changes to a system need to be centered around activity in that area. This can include investment of isk, but should primarily involve an investment in time and a component of flying-in-space.

B.) If you want to create a mechanic that is balanced, it needs to have push and pull. If it is solely based on suicide ganking, then you only have half of the equation. If it is solely based on NPC kills, then you only have half of the equation. You need a system where one party can pull and the other party can push.

C.) It should be centered on negative feedback loops, NOT positive feedback loops. If sec status was improved by killing NPC's, mission runners have a positive feedback loop. They kill more NPC's, making the system safer, attracting more mission runners, which kill more NPCs, etc... If it's based on ganking, we have a positive feedback: Gank a ship, lower the sec status, which makes ganking easier, so more ganks happen, which lowers sec status, etc... There needs to be a negative feedback in there: Examples of Negative Feedbacks: Mining roids increases sec status, which results in crappier roids, which results in less miners mining, which results in a lower sec status... Or: Shooting NPCs lowers sec status, which increases the risks of operating in that space, which results in less NPC's being shot, which increases sec status ...
Crimeo Khamsi
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#44 - 2012-11-28 17:49:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Crimeo Khamsi
Quote:
Perhaps you don't include me in the "coherent" dialog *ouch*,

Lol, no, I definitely DO include you. I was referring to the 3 or 4 people who posted earlier that wrote less than a paragraph with no punctuation or spelling and literally sounded like they were drunk.

Quote:

You need a system where one party can pull and the other party can push.

Yes, obviously. That was the entire point behind the voting idea (this thread) in the first place. I understand that if null sec people are organized enough to overcome a 9:1 margin of votes (which very well might be the case), then it's a bad idea. But it was still motivated by that push and pull. I'm quite aware that that is what is needed.

And although this voting idea may be a bad one, I still think it would be a very useful thing to add to the game, to be able to change sec status, via some sort of push and pull mechanism like you point out. But so far, I've never seen any other suggestions that do involve sec status and both push and pull even being put on the table.

Quote:
Examples of Negative Feedbacks: Mining roids increases sec status, which results in crappier roids, which results in less miners mining, which results in a lower sec status... Or: Shooting NPCs lowers sec status, which increases the risks of operating in that space, which results in less NPC's being shot, which increases sec status ...

...Until this quote, where you just now did come up with two examples.

However, they both beg the same question: why would either of these be fun, per se? Yes, they would occasionally change sec status, but it would be as a side effect, not as an intentional activity by anybody, which seems to sort of defeat the purpose.

Instead, I think that what we REALLY need is TWO negative feedback loops, fueled by people with opposing interests, that directly contradict one another, competitively. For example, if you implemented BOTH of your above ideas at once, then you would sort of create a competitive atmosphere between miners and mission ratters. Except that isn't that great of an example, because both groups would sort of want the sec status to be around 0.5.

But something like that. Ideally where the two parties both want different outcomes, though. Thus they can compete meaningfully, but neither can go to the point of it being out of control in their favored direction, without getting diminishing returns.
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#45 - 2012-11-28 18:29:50 UTC
Crimeo Khamsi wrote:

Quote:
Examples of Negative Feedbacks: Mining roids increases sec status, which results in crappier roids, which results in less miners mining, which results in a lower sec status... Or: Shooting NPCs lowers sec status, which increases the risks of operating in that space, which results in less NPC's being shot, which increases sec status ...

...Until this quote, where you just now did come up with two examples.

However, they both beg the same question: why would either of these be fun, per se? Yes, they would occasionally change sec status, but it would be as a side effect, not as an intentional activity by anybody, which seems to sort of defeat the purpose.

Instead, I think that what we REALLY need is TWO negative feedback loops, fueled by people with opposing interests, that directly contradict one another, competitively. For example, if you implemented BOTH of your above ideas at once, then you would sort of create a competitive atmosphere between miners and mission ratters. Except that isn't that great of an example, because both groups would sort of want the sec status to be around 0.5.

But something like that. Ideally where the two parties both want different outcomes, though. Thus they can compete meaningfully, but neither can go to the point of it being out of control in their favored direction, without getting diminishing returns.


Diminishing returns (enforced by the negative feedback) coupled with diametrically opposed roles is pretty much ideal, but I don't see any obvious pairs. Especially since many flying-in-space activities vary significantly between highsec, lowsec, and nullsec.
0racle
Galactic Rangers
#46 - 2012-11-29 23:10:57 UTC
Crimeo Khamsi wrote:
0racle wrote:
Jita goes low sec over night.

You obviously did not read the OP at all...


That's because it's a dumb, easily manipulated system which would never realistically be implemented.
Crimeo Khamsi
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#47 - 2012-11-29 23:21:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Crimeo Khamsi
0racle wrote:
Crimeo Khamsi wrote:
0racle wrote:
Jita goes low sec over night.

You obviously did not read the OP at all...


That's because it's a dumb, easily manipulated system which would never realistically be implemented.

Well I'm glad you finally went back and read it, 3 days later. However, I'm afraid you have fallen behind again. I already agreed to give up on the voting idea / agreed that it wouldn't work. (look up^)

If you are still interested in this topic, I suggest you read the most recent three posts above yours, as they are currently the most constructive ones, discussing what would be needed instead to replace this idea with something more functional and successful. Specifically, what we need is a pair or set of features that:

1) Allow people to influence sec status in their favor, BUT also function as negative feedback loops, such that people get diminishing returns for pursuing them with more and more effort.
2) Pit different players with different opinions/desires about what sec statuses should be against one another, such that one group's actions can influence things in their favored direction (but with diminishing returns the more they do so), and the other group's actions influence things in their opposite, favored direction (again with diminishing returns) at the same time, creating competition.
3) Ideally, there should be some such mechanism for each of the major "active" playstyles in the game - e.g. miners could have an effect on sec status, pirates, missioners, haulers, (explorers?), etc. Industrialists and in-station traders could potentially have minor effects, but much more strongly negative feedback-ed than the others, such that the maximum effect they could have would be comparatively small.
4) Such effects should be locally based, on actions within the system to be altered.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#48 - 2012-11-30 15:12:38 UTC
Or leave it well alone, as it's worked extremely well since day one.

If it ain't broke and all that.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Crimeo Khamsi
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#49 - 2012-11-30 17:19:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Crimeo Khamsi
Mag's wrote:
Or leave it well alone, as it's worked extremely well since day one.

If it ain't broke and all that.

Dozens upon dozens of threads that include suggestions for changing sec status (either as a main idea or a supporting one) disagree with your contention that it "ain't broke."

The point of this thread was to suggest a method by which the many people out there who have opposing opinions about sec status could fight with one another to change sec status as they see fit, without game developers having to actually side with any one group's goals or opinions as being any more "correct" than another group's. Giving people an outlet to influence and pursue things they care about is a great way to generate fun in a sandbox game (observe, for example, that nearly every single CCP trailer or advertisement for the game is based on this concept of "you can influence/mold the world to your will" etc.)

Something like this (not voting, but a replacement mechanism to alter sec status) would be a good way to allow people sort of an illusion of being able to influence their world as they see fit, but without dramatically upturning global game balance, and keeping the effects fairly local to where they operate.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#50 - 2012-11-30 17:46:01 UTC
Crimeo Khamsi wrote:
Dozens upon dozens of threads that include suggestions for changing sec status (either as a main idea or a supporting one) disagree with your contention that it "ain't broke."
OK, I'll take a look at these dozens of threads and read what others are saying. Just point a few dozen out for me to mull over.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Crimeo Khamsi
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#51 - 2012-11-30 19:18:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Crimeo Khamsi
Mag's wrote:
Crimeo Khamsi wrote:
Dozens upon dozens of threads that include suggestions for changing sec status (either as a main idea or a supporting one) disagree with your contention that it "ain't broke."
OK, I'll take a look at these dozens of threads and read what others are saying. Just point a few dozen out for me to mull over.


My pleasure. Below I have linked you to exactly two dozens, including almost one full dozen SPECIFICALLY about dynamic security mechanisms. I stopped after this many, once I had a plural "dozenS," to meet your request. But it by no means comes close to exhausting the full list of such threads:

Having belts of low-sec dividing all the empires
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=174097&find=unread

Another thread including suggestion to add belts of low-sec dividing empires (deep link to relevant post):
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=84761#post84761

Another thread about having belts of low-sec dividing empires (and later on in, dynamic sec status)
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=8315

Change specific sec status of certain systems
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=174908&find=unread

^Also, in the above link, one of the very first posts is by a person who makes exactly the opposite request, to change those same systems to low sec, which is another example.

Dynamic sec status:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=125009

Dynamic sec status
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1650730#post1650730

Dynamic sec status
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2194027#post2194027

Dynamic sec status
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2091025#post2091025

Dynamic sec status
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=901581#post901581

Dynamic sec status
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=56480#post56480

Dynamic sec status
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1314618#post1314618

Dynamic sec status (point #5)
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=27570

Dynamic / shifting sec status:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=184367#post184367

Having sec status' effect on you change based on your personal decisions and standings:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=164340&find=unread

___________Related trend:___________

People wanting security levels to be effectively lower all around. not a request for dynamic sec status, but it is evidence that people think current sec statuses are bad/broken (note: there are MANY of these threads in various guises, as we all should know well. multiple examples follow)

(Nerf CONCORD in all but 0.9 and 1.0 and replace with killable faction navies:)
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2164528#post2164528

(Make people pay for the level of sec status they want with a CONCORD tax, which is just a roundabout economic way of lowering the effective sec status across the board:)
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2159235#post2159235

(Thread about being concerned about EVE becoming too safe overall in various ways:)
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1853106#post1853106

(As a pirate, being able to bribe your way into high sec systems:)
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1725968#post1725968

(Roaming gangs of aggressive, PODDING npcs in 0.6 high sec:)
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1388825#post1388825

___________Related trend:___________

On the flip side of the coin, people wanting security levels to be effectively higher all around (there are of course countless more of these too, which we all should know. Here are a few. I won't bother finding more, because everyone knows these pop up every day. Just one example)

(Putting beefy gate guns on everything except null sec:)
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2168189#post2168189

(Not getting insurance for suicide ganking in high sec = effective increase in CONCORD protection across the board in high sec):
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=18662

Same thing:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=58412#post58412

_________________________________

An example of both of the above trends (changes in both directions):
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1689567#post1689567

___________Related trend:___________

There are also countless threads which I am not including en masse, which suggest various changes to the distribution of high/low sec resources in different ways. These aren't exactly the same as asking for the numerical sec status values to change, but still serve as significant evidence that people believe sec status to be broken in various ways. Also MANY of these. I don't want to include too many of these since they're a little tangential, but here is just one example, about making the 0.4/0.5 cliff more gradual:

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2059335#post2059335
Mag's
Azn Empire
#52 - 2012-11-30 20:27:06 UTC
Crimeo Khamsi wrote:
Links

1 & 2 asks for new space to be added, not a change to sec.

3 is again asking for additions, this time for gate changes as I read it.

4 is a lazy persons request for a change to 2 systems, because of their lack of support when using a freighter. With sarcasm from Danika Princip.

5 is a players talk of a PvP switch, then with that in mind the chance of changing sec status. One reason I simply said 'no' at the time.

6 is regarding null sec and resource allocation. With a change to the already in place, true sec system.

7 is asking for dynamic high sec changes. But this too, could be easily manipulated by the large null groups.

8 is asking for dynamic change with limitations and again talks about the freighter ganking system.

9 is a thread regarding Incursions. Although it mentions sec changes, it's solely based on Sansha incursions.

10 is asking for sec changes, but is overly complicated and had little response.

11 is asking for low sec to simply be changed to null. I can't take this post seriously, sorry.

12 is asking for changes to sec status over time. Although I hate the Concord in low sec idea.

13 is indeed asking for sec change over time.

14, 15 & 16 is regarding changes to Concord, not sec.

17 is regarding the off hand mention of increasing gate gun damage. Long since dead.

18 is regarding your actual sec status and being able to instantly pay yourself back to 0.

19 is regarding NPCs and giving them the ability to shoot players pods etc in .6 systems and below.

20 is asking for a nerf to camping gates and stations.

21 & 22 was asking for a nerf to insurance payouts in high sec to Concord related kills. Something which has been passed into mechanics already.

23 & 24 are posts asking for changes to other mechanics with tenuous links to your proposal.

So giving all that I count 7. I will of course wait for the other dozens and dozens, when you get around to it. No rush.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Crimeo Khamsi
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#53 - 2012-11-30 21:15:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Crimeo Khamsi
I stated that there were dozens of threads where people demonstrated a desire to change sec status. Almost all of these threads do in fact demonstrate that desire, directly or indirectly.

I never said that all (or ANY) of them were GOOD ideas

Quote:
So giving all that I count 7. I will of course wait for the other dozens and dozens, when you get around to it. No rush.

How about you find me any examples in the last week of any threads that did so much as even provide seven threads to back up the desire for their suggested changes?

The bar is nowhere near even being that high in this forum, and you know it. I played along for the lulz for a little bit, but I think I sufficiently made my point to the average reader. Now back to the actual task at hand. I await anybody's new suggestions about a better, more functional dynamic sec changing system, if anybody is interested / has any such ideas.

If not, then go ahead and let the thread die. Either way.
Minty Moon
#54 - 2012-11-30 23:54:27 UTC
So i'm just going to ask a simple question why would the Caldari let, lets just say Goons for the sake of argument turn one of their systems into a lawless place of piracy and war?
Why would the Amarr empire let an outside force vote the Amarr trade hub into a pirate haven?

It makes no sense. Oh because the players or "residents" want it.

It's just like a secession and as far as my history has taught me, empires don't just let good territory go "just because people want to" it kind of ends up as a massive war.

The only way this could possibly makes sense, using the game's story line and lore is by Faction warfare and it wouldnt be by "voting" it'd be by war.
Gallente fighters entering Jita to take out its infrastructure to create a hostile system known as lowsec, or to go in with enough force that the system is abandoned by the Caldari and its turned to Null.

I don't mind the idea of changing sec statuses. But it has to be by a way that makes sense. And voting by peasants and hostiles does not make any sense in anyway at all.

(Player Opened Direct Wormholes) (Expanding on Wormholes)
Mag's
Azn Empire
#55 - 2012-12-01 00:05:33 UTC
Actually you stated there were dozens upon dozens of threads that include sec change, that disagreed with my contention.
I personally don't class 7, as fitting that criteria.

Like I said and believe my point still stands. If it ain't broke......

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Previous page123