These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Dev Blog: WantToTrade: Tags for Security Status

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
rei natuski
Perkone
Caldari State
#81 - 2013-05-02 16:38:00 UTC
Why add new tags, when the current tags are not used ?

for example dread guristas tag or officer tags are useless...
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#82 - 2013-05-02 16:38:31 UTC
Karig'Ano Keikira wrote:
I can see reasoning behind this - more incentive for going into low-sec, more possible conflict in low sec, (slight) ISK sink from turning in tags.
However, I am (slightly) sceptical about it turning into: want sec status? Ok, just pay a bit of ISK and *poof* you are no longer 'pirate' - at least now you have to work for it; removing consequence from low-sec actions further blurs the line between 'good pirates' and 'bad pirates' - if anything we need to widen that - EVE really needs more cause & consequence and risk & reward, not less of it.
Ofc, I guess result depends on costs of turning in tags and spawn rates of new rats, so reserving judgement
Note: I am not talking about high-sec gankers here, they are subject to totally different meta anyway


EvilWeaselSA wrote:
you know the bigger problem is a guy who can't enter highsec is gonna have a hell of a time awoxing anyone in highsec


Both of these posts speak to why I believe so strongly in a system for rapid security status gain. CCP (Masterplan in particular) spent an entire year giving us a knockout system for Crime and Punishment, and yet it goes underutilized because criminals aren't committing frequent enough crime in high sec to begin with. Why? Because we can't operate there! What difference does it make if there's suspect flagging, criminal flagging, etc, if no one who is prone to committing those crimes ventures frequently into highsec space. I'd much prefer a system where more crime is committed in highsec, and thus more opportunity for player-driven enforcement (now possible through crimewatch) than one where the criminals stay in criminal land, and the carebears stay in carebear land, and never the twain shall meet.

Next stop on the train to awesome - separating Factional Navy enforcement of security status and moving them to standings-based enforcement, and allowing a combination of players and CONCORD to work together as the strong arm of the law. I hope this is something that CSM8 will pick up and run with, its the last piece of the puzzle in setting up a robust, easy-to-understand justice system for all of New Eden.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary
EvilweaselSA
GoonCorp
Goonswarm Federation
#83 - 2013-05-02 16:40:20 UTC
rei natuski wrote:
Why add new tags, when the current tags are not used ?

for example dread guristas tag or officer tags are useless...

because of my stack of literally thousands of them is fairly small compared to the stacks some other people have

sec status would cost pennies
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#84 - 2013-05-02 16:44:47 UTC
EvilweaselSA wrote:
rei natuski wrote:
Why add new tags, when the current tags are not used ?

for example dread guristas tag or officer tags are useless...

because of my stack of literally thousands of them is fairly small compared to the stacks some other people have

sec status would cost pennies

True. CCP would have to do an auto-buyback of the old tags. May just be easier to add new ones.

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction
CCP Masterplan
C C P
C C P Alliance
#85 - 2013-05-02 16:47:41 UTC
Vincent Athena wrote:
EvilweaselSA wrote:
rei natuski wrote:
Why add new tags, when the current tags are not used ?

for example dread guristas tag or officer tags are useless...

because of my stack of literally thousands of them is fairly small compared to the stacks some other people have

sec status would cost pennies

True. CCP would have to do an auto-buyback of the old tags. May just be easier to add new ones.

Yes, pretty much this. Trying to balance anything with the enormous numbers of existing tags out there (and the unbalanced droprates across the various types) would have been impossible

"This one time, on patch day..."

@ccp_masterplan  |  Team Five-0: Rewriting the law
Orbius Prime
Ascendance
Goonswarm Federation
#86 - 2013-05-02 16:54:48 UTC
all i got from this is: if you lose sec status you'll have to open your wallet... as ratting/anoms will take you x times longer...

but +1 for adding an isk sink, well played
Kithran
#87 - 2013-05-02 17:01:59 UTC
Currently as sec status is also standings it has other effects - namely refine taxes and broker fees.

Are there going to be any methods introduced with Odyssey that will allow people to raise these now reset to 0 standings?
Berluth Luthian
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#88 - 2013-05-02 17:04:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Berluth Luthian
Wow. There is alot they could do with this mechanic in the future. I'm thinking that possibly tags could be turned in to enemy factions for an alternative standings boost. Standings boosts could be relative to the degree to which standings are set negative to that faction. IOW turning in Serpentis tags to the Minmatar wouldn't be possible, while Angel Cartel tags would give you the highest boost.

I'm really wishing too that there was a way to use NPC faction shares, too. Like, if you got your Security standing up to +10.0 (or above in future scenarios) you could get the ability to slowly accumulate shares, or turn in LP for shares. Then those shares could be redeemed at Empire Ihubs to let you lease that Empire's property temporarily.

After that then that property could be valid targets during war. A corp could lease the offices deck in a Gallente station and the manufacturing decks in 5 different Caldari stations charging their own rates. However all of these places could be reinforced and if not defended, could then be turned back over the the Empire faction.
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#89 - 2013-05-02 17:05:27 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
I'd much prefer a system where more crime is committed in highsec, and thus more opportunity for player-driven enforcement (now possible through crimewatch) than one where the criminals stay in criminal land, and the carebears stay in carebear land, and never the twain shall meet.

Next stop on the train to awesome - separating Factional Navy enforcement of security status and moving them to standings-based enforcement, and allowing a combination of players and CONCORD to work together as the strong arm of the law. I hope this is something that CSM8 will pick up and run with, its the last piece of the puzzle in setting up a robust, easy-to-understand justice system for all of New Eden.


If more crime is happening in hisec, what happens to lowsec? Wouldn't you want to add more ways to PvE in lowsec to encourage people to leave the safety of highsec, so more crime happens in lowsec?

Why do you want to draw people out of lowsec?

I appreciate the idea of having faction navies respond based on standings, but how do people gain low standings with faction navies? Is CCP planning to add faction standings losses to crimes committed in faction space? Or is this just another ganking buff meaning that faction police will only attack mission runners?

Day 0 Advice for New Players
Warde Guildencrantz
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#90 - 2013-05-02 17:05:50 UTC
CCP Masterplan wrote:
Vincent Athena wrote:
EvilweaselSA wrote:
rei natuski wrote:
Why add new tags, when the current tags are not used ?

for example dread guristas tag or officer tags are useless...

because of my stack of literally thousands of them is fairly small compared to the stacks some other people have

sec status would cost pennies

True. CCP would have to do an auto-buyback of the old tags. May just be easier to add new ones.

Yes, pretty much this. Trying to balance anything with the enormous numbers of existing tags out there (and the unbalanced droprates across the various types) would have been impossible



So i've been stockpiling them for nothing...

fffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff

TunDraGon ~ Low sec piracy since 2003 ~ Youtube ~ Join Us
EvilweaselSA
GoonCorp
Goonswarm Federation
#91 - 2013-05-02 17:06:42 UTC
Mara Rinn wrote:
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
I'd much prefer a system where more crime is committed in highsec, and thus more opportunity for player-driven enforcement (now possible through crimewatch) than one where the criminals stay in criminal land, and the carebears stay in carebear land, and never the twain shall meet.

Next stop on the train to awesome - separating Factional Navy enforcement of security status and moving them to standings-based enforcement, and allowing a combination of players and CONCORD to work together as the strong arm of the law. I hope this is something that CSM8 will pick up and run with, its the last piece of the puzzle in setting up a robust, easy-to-understand justice system for all of New Eden.


If more crime is happening in hisec, what happens to lowsec? Wouldn't you want to add more ways to PvE in lowsec to encourage people to leave the safety of highsec, so more crime happens in lowsec?

Why do you want to draw people out of lowsec?

I appreciate the idea of having faction navies respond based on standings, but how do people gain low standings with faction navies? Is CCP planning to add faction standings losses to crimes committed in faction space? Or is this just another ganking buff meaning that faction police will only attack mission runners?

crime in lowsec suffers from a lack of victims, not from opportunity to commit crimes elsewhere

this adds some potential victims
Zircon Dasher
#92 - 2013-05-02 17:07:30 UTC
CCP Masterplan wrote:

When I ran those numbers, I was only looking at people with a negative sec status, for exactly that reason


While it does not really solve the interpretative problem, it is probably not within your ability to get the high quality data that would be necessary for a strong justification so I will not harp on you for this.

Assuming that all players you looked at were ratting up sec: was there something in the macro data (number of security status increases in the game) that led you to think you could not buff inefficient play without it being at the expense of efficient (and social) play? To be clear, I am not concerned with the tag mechanics. Thats fine. I am confused about why you felt it was necessary to put the brakes on non-tag based sec raising and why macro data is relevant to situation.

Cheers!

Nerfing High-sec is never the answer. It is the question. The answer is 'YES'.
Rhavas
Noble Sentiments
Second Empire.
#93 - 2013-05-02 17:14:34 UTC
"CCP Masterplan" wrote:
There will no longer be a way to have multiple ticks in parallel across different solar systems. The tick will now be an explicit 5-minute interval, starting with the first NPC kill that a character makes. We are also rebalancing the security status gains given by some NPCs as part of this change, so you might notice slightly different gains per tick.


So two questions based on this.

1) Will you be giving us a visual 5-minute timer? Please?
2) Are you rebalancing the gain upward (faster recovery) or downward (slower recovery)? Exact amounts are in development of course but general trend?

Author of Interstellar Privateer Shattered Planets, Wormholes and Game Commentary
Xercodo
Cruor Angelicus
#94 - 2013-05-02 17:27:54 UTC
Can we get CONCORD agents back now so that those of us that started after their removal can get some good refine standings and be capable of fixing our standing if you did anti-CONCORD missions in null?

Right now if you go -10 with CONCORD the FACTION it's impossible to fix it at all. CONCORD, being unbiased, doesn't like any other factions for derived standings to work and have no agents of their own besides the "one off" agents. I'd be locked out of Yulai forever.

The Drake is a Lie
President of Spaceships
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#95 - 2013-05-02 17:55:05 UTC
        .---.
       /o   o\
 __(=  "  =)__
     //\'-=-'/\\
        )   (_
       /      `"=-._
      /       \     ``"=.
     /  /   \  \         `=..--.
 ___/  /     \  \___      _,  , `\
`-----' `""""`'-----``"""`  \  \_/
                             `-`
~PRESIDENTIAL SEAL~

I approve of this product.
darius mclever
#96 - 2013-05-02 18:29:54 UTC
can someone fix the RSS feed (http://myeve.eve-online.com/feed/rdfdevblog.asp) for the devblogs?

it sends you to http://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&nbid=wanttotrade-tags-for-security-status

maybe just make it a redirect to the new feed?
Alx Warlord
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#97 - 2013-05-02 18:42:07 UTC
So, Tell-me. How do you expect that any miner will try to take any ore from low-sec now?

Please read these!

New POS system New SOV system
Valerie Valate
Church of The Crimson Saviour
#98 - 2013-05-02 18:45:44 UTC
I am confused.

I have -8.2 standing to the Concord Assembly NPC Faction

I have -0.3 standing to the Concord NPC corporation (which is also my current sec status)


Under the new system, my sec status would be... ???
And what would happen to my -8.2 standing to the Concord Assembly Faction? I got that from my missions for Blood Raiders, so it kind of has some sentimental value.

Doctor V. Valate, Professor of Archaeology at Kaztropolis Imperial University.
CCP Masterplan
C C P
C C P Alliance
#99 - 2013-05-02 18:50:11 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Masterplan
Valerie Valate wrote:
I am confused.

I have -8.2 standing to the Concord Assembly NPC Faction

I have -0.3 standing to the Concord NPC corporation (which is also my current sec status)


Under the new system, my sec status would be... ???
And what would happen to my -8.2 standing to the Concord Assembly Faction? I got that from my missions for Blood Raiders, so it kind of has some sentimental value.

Your new sec would be -0.3
Your Concord Assembly NPC Faction standing is unrelated, and will not be changed

EDIT TO ADD:
President of Spaceships wrote:
And her CONCORD corp standing will be 0.0 or -0.3?

CONCORD corp standing will be reset to 0.0

"This one time, on patch day..."

@ccp_masterplan  |  Team Five-0: Rewriting the law
President of Spaceships
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#100 - 2013-05-02 18:52:00 UTC
And her CONCORD corp standing will be 0.0 or -0.3?