These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Making High Sec Safer

First post
Author
Marcos Boirelle
Absolute Order
Absolute Honor
#1 - 2013-09-30 13:39:44 UTC
We all know that there are three different types of space for players;

  • You have Null Sec where almost all and most PVP take place. This is a enter at your own risk space.


  • You have Low Sec which is something between PVE and PVP, basically don't fly with one eye closed.


  • You hace High Sec for all players that rather not PVP and focus on content that is out of scope for conflict.


There has always been a direction with Eve Online and the introduction of Eve Online promotes a clear picture. If you do not want to PVP you should not be forced into PVP space. You can be a miner, a planet harvester, an explorer, a high sec mission runner, a courier, a distributor, a business man, well almost anything if you do not wish to PVP.
Ganking occurs in High Sec, you are never safe in High Sec. You have Concord to protect you but Concord is not always faster or stronger at the time of the attack. We call it High Sec because it is High Security and High Security needs to improve. If you wish to risk your ship and your pod by entering High Sec with a mission to attack ships then the risk needs to be higher.

You can enter High Sec Space today in a Destroyer, armed with sharp teeth and take our mining vessels with minimum loss.

The good thing about Eve is that there are no space restrictions, if you wish to challange the High Sec standard you will more than likely be penalized in one way or the other, however, the victim is not compensated enough as it is today. In other MMORPGs there are zone restrictions where PVP is controlled by player flagging. Eve is unique in its way to make space as democratic as possible but without restrictions.

Ideas for Improvement;

  1. Concord to install surveillance equipment at each Stargate that connects from Null/Low Sec to High Sec and all High Sec Stargates. The purpose of the surveillance is to alert Concord when a pilot enters who is not wanted in High Sec Space. Concord will initiate a boarding procedure and escort the pilot out of High Sec space which includes confiscating the Ship. If the Pilot flees, Concord will initiate a Chase with the authority to destroy the ship and kill the pilot.


  • The technology available allows blocking certain ship types from accessing acceleration gates. This technology could be used to secure High Sec from allowing ships belonging to Pilots with a history of High Sec violance, thus, the pilot cannot use a High Sec stargate.


  • When a pilot violates High Sec law, not only should the pilot's ship be destroyed but the pilot should be killed or arrested and fined. If arrested the pilot's ship should be confiscated.


  • The higher security status the victim has the more focus is given towards the penalty received for attacikng this pilot in High Sec space.


  • Concord reaction time is to slow, the loss for an unarmed miner for instance will always be greater than the loss for an attacker. Concord to hire more pilots and be more active in High Sec Space.

Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#2 - 2013-09-30 13:50:46 UTC
TL;DR, you lost a miner to a gank catalyst, so you want to lock tens of thousands of players out of highsec for no apparent reason. You also want CONCORD to pod them, confiscate rather than just explode ships, put measures on every single gate in highsec to stop them from DARING to play the game in a way that you don't, and a whole host of other draconian measures.

How DARE people like something you don't? or try to play in a sandbox?

HTFU.
Quintessen
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#3 - 2013-09-30 14:05:17 UTC
EVE is a single shard environment and CCP has constantly and regularly said that their intention is for PvP to be possible everywhere at any moment. CONCORD is there to punish, but not prevent ganking.

Please search the forums next time -- you will find many, many instances of people asking for various ways to make hi sec safer. Virtually none of the suggestions have been implemented and basically come down to specific ships being too easy to pop rather than blanket changes to security.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#4 - 2013-09-30 14:06:39 UTC
2/10

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Marcos Boirelle
Absolute Order
Absolute Honor
#5 - 2013-09-30 14:13:01 UTC
Danika Princip wrote:
TL;DR, you lost a miner to a gank catalyst, so you want to lock tens of thousands of players out of highsec for no apparent reason. You also want CONCORD to pod them, confiscate rather than just explode ships, put measures on every single gate in highsec to stop them from DARING to play the game in a way that you don't, and a whole host of other draconian measures.

How DARE people like something you don't? or try to play in a sandbox?

HTFU.


Appreciate your feedback but you are misunderstanding the idea and feature. The tens of thousands you refer to have tens of thousands that think opposite as well. Please refrain from posting if you only want to criticise.
Marcos Boirelle
Absolute Order
Absolute Honor
#6 - 2013-09-30 14:18:24 UTC
Quintessen wrote:
EVE is a single shard environment and CCP has constantly and regularly said that their intention is for PvP to be possible everywhere at any moment. CONCORD is there to punish, but not prevent ganking.

Please search the forums next time -- you will find many, many instances of people asking for various ways to make hi sec safer. Virtually none of the suggestions have been implemented and basically come down to specific ships being too easy to pop rather than blanket changes to security.


I do apologize, I followed the forum section hints and tips for features and ideas and could not really find any matches and I think it is worth to raise the discussion again. The miners in High Sec are no real threat to anything, they are business pilots and when mining they are sitting ducks. I appreciate when CFC performs Interdictions and give fair warnings where you mine at your own risk in High Sec but the sporadic ganking demanding "protection" money is something that happened during the mafia age of early 20th century.

Also, I am not saying my ideas are the best ideas but there must be something that can be done to increase the security of High Security Space. I clocked the reaction time of Concord and there was time enough for a sandwich.
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#7 - 2013-09-30 14:19:57 UTC
Marcos Boirelle wrote:
Danika Princip wrote:
TL;DR, you lost a miner to a gank catalyst, so you want to lock tens of thousands of players out of highsec for no apparent reason. You also want CONCORD to pod them, confiscate rather than just explode ships, put measures on every single gate in highsec to stop them from DARING to play the game in a way that you don't, and a whole host of other draconian measures.

How DARE people like something you don't? or try to play in a sandbox?

HTFU.


Appreciate your feedback but you are misunderstanding the idea and feature. The tens of thousands you refer to have tens of thousands that think opposite as well. Please refrain from posting if you only want to criticise.



I am a nullsec player. Explain to me exactly why I should be locked out of highsec. Explain why multiple playstyles need to be removed from the game. Explain why everyone who does not play the way you want them to needs to be punished.

Please refrain from posting ideas if you cannot defend them.
Pakhwal Agnon
Small Nondescript Bookstore
#8 - 2013-09-30 14:38:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Pakhwal Agnon
Ok, then lets move all Concord activities with the exception of the Customs Police to Lo-Sec.

Put a EULA mandated ban on all accounts including associated accounts (alts) for players who commit any aggressive acts in Hi-Sec including players involved in bumping incidents, bumper and bumpee, taking place outside of station perimeters (be careful driving now).

Leave null as it is.

PA
Marcos Boirelle
Absolute Order
Absolute Honor
#9 - 2013-09-30 14:39:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Marcos Boirelle
Danika Princip wrote:
Marcos Boirelle wrote:
Danika Princip wrote:
TL;DR, you lost a miner to a gank catalyst, so you want to lock tens of thousands of players out of highsec for no apparent reason. You also want CONCORD to pod them, confiscate rather than just explode ships, put measures on every single gate in highsec to stop them from DARING to play the game in a way that you don't, and a whole host of other draconian measures.

How DARE people like something you don't? or try to play in a sandbox?

HTFU.


Appreciate your feedback but you are misunderstanding the idea and feature. The tens of thousands you refer to have tens of thousands that think opposite as well. Please refrain from posting if you only want to criticise.



I am a nullsec player. Explain to me exactly why I should be locked out of highsec. Explain why multiple playstyles need to be removed from the game. Explain why everyone who does not play the way you want them to needs to be punished.

Please refrain from posting ideas if you cannot defend them.



You are not being locked out of highsec. You have not followed the law of highsec, that is the point. There is a law that applies to all for high sec and laws need to be followed. Sandbox Mode does not equal PVP anywhere and everywhere you want. It is player driven and each player has a freedom to express improvements. You state that you are a Nullsec player and you enjoy PVP, but you still wish to visit High Sec. As a Null Sec player you can still visit High Sec, nobody is saying you cannot visit High sec. There is a difference between visiting and attacking unarmed ships with pilots that cannot defend themselves. By applying yourself to PVP does not automatically tag you for not being able to visit High Sec. I am trying to make a point, if you wreck havoc in high sec then you should be punished more serverly than you are punished today.
Elizabeth Aideron
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#10 - 2013-09-30 14:43:46 UTC
every part of eve is pvp in some form, hth
Marcos Boirelle
Absolute Order
Absolute Honor
#11 - 2013-09-30 14:44:21 UTC
Pakhwal Agnon wrote:
Ok, then lets move all Concord activities with the exception of the Customs Police to Lo-Sec.

Put a EULA mandated ban on all accounts including associated accounts (alts) for players who commit any aggressive acts in Hi-Sec including players involved in bumping incidents, bumper and bumpee, taking place outside of station perimeters (be careful driving now).

Leave null as it is.

PA


I already stated that Low Sec is fly with two eyes open not one. Low Sec is low security space and take advisement when flying there, keep your scanner active and enjoy the ride. I got no problems with low sec. I don't agree with bans cause then you move into the old MMORPG world where every baby that cried "I lost my passifier". I enjoy the sandbox mode and I thought it would be interesting to expand the idea that banning and suspending is old school. Utilize the ingame content to increase control and security. There is a reason it is called High Sec, Low Sec and Null Sec. There is a clear distinction between the three but comparing Low Sec to High Sec, at current time, you will get ganked, the only difference is that the ganker is fried in High Sec but the isk loss is always higher for the victim.
suid0
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#12 - 2013-09-30 14:53:42 UTC  |  Edited by: suid0
Marcos Boirelle wrote:
We all know that there are three different types of space for players;

  • You have Null Sec where almost all and most PVP take place. This is a enter at your own risk space.


  • You have Low Sec which is something between PVE and PVP, basically don't fly with one eye closed.


  • You hace High Sec for all players that rather not PVP and focus on content that is out of scope for conflict.



Unfortunately I think you misunderstand the security ratings and what they actually mean.

high security space != safe space
It means if you perform a criminal act you will be caught and punished for it.

the entire enemy support fleet is dead except for one interdictor a titan could easily finish off with drones  - Commander Ted

Takari
Promised Victorious Entropy
#13 - 2013-09-30 14:55:13 UTC
There is a belief amongst some players, and has been since shortly after Eve began that people should get to decide both what they do *AND* what is done to them.

These are the people who say things like "I want to play Eve... but without the ganking"

I believe that there is a misunderstanding of the game. Eve *is* the ganking, Eve *is* scamming.. Sure there's the mining and missions but any space game could give you that. I played text based BBS games (Tradewars, Yankee Trader, etc) that gave a similar game play to that.

The primary purpose of Eve is that yes, you do get to decide what you do, but you never ever get to decide what someone else can do, even if that someone means you harm.

To say you want any part of Eve without ganking is to say you don't actually like Eve.

Any ship you undock in Eve is lost to the winds, otherwise what's the point?

"Roll the dice, don't think twice. This is the way of things. Welcome to EVE." ~ CCP Falcon

"Good luck, shoot straight and don't back down." - Serendipity Lost

Marcos Boirelle
Absolute Order
Absolute Honor
#14 - 2013-09-30 14:57:02 UTC
Takari wrote:
There is a belief amongst some players, and has been since shortly after Eve began that people should get to decide both what they do *AND* what is done to them.

These are the people who say things like "I want to play Eve... but without the ganking"

I believe that there is a misunderstanding of the game. Eve *is* the ganking, Eve *is* scamming.. Sure there's the mining and missions but any space game could give you that. I played text based BBS games (Tradewars, Yankee Trader, etc) that gave a similar game play to that.

The primary purpose of Eve is that yes, you do get to decide what you do, but you never ever get to decide what someone else can do, even if that someone means you harm.

To say you want any part of Eve without ganking is to say you don't actually like Eve.

Any ship you undock in Eve is lost to the winds, otherwise what's the point?


Ok, I can buy that but what is the point of having High Sec, Low Sec and Null Sec, then it should just be space, no concord and fly at your own risk?
Marcos Boirelle
Absolute Order
Absolute Honor
#15 - 2013-09-30 14:57:19 UTC
suid0 wrote:
Marcos Boirelle wrote:
We all know that there are three different types of space for players;

  • You have Null Sec where almost all and most PVP take place. This is a enter at your own risk space.


  • You have Low Sec which is something between PVE and PVP, basically don't fly with one eye closed.


  • You hace High Sec for all players that rather not PVP and focus on content that is out of scope for conflict.



Unfortunately I think you misunderstand the security ratings and what they actually mean.

high security space != safe space
It means if you perform a criminal act you will be caught and punished for it.


Do explain please.
Pobunjenik
Resbroko Liberation Fleet
#16 - 2013-09-30 15:07:27 UTC
This idea is worse then the whole AFK cloakers deal.
Lilliana Stelles
#17 - 2013-09-30 15:07:37 UTC
This entire thread is based on a few misconceptions.

Just for the record:
Highsec is a PVP area. The entirety of EVE is. If you don't like to PVP, find another game.
Concord is there to punish players who engage in crime. They are not there to protect Hi-sec residents from PVP.

Quote:
>Concord to install surveillance equipment at each Stargate that connects from Null/Low Sec to High Sec and all High Sec Stargates. The purpose of the surveillance is to alert Concord when a pilot enters who is not wanted in High Sec Space. Concord will initiate a boarding procedure and escort the pilot out of High Sec space which includes confiscating the Ship. If the Pilot flees, Concord will initiate a Chase with the authority to destroy the ship and kill the pilot.


Faction police already attack criminals and low-security status residents of New Eden. This may be more flavorful but is no different than what we already have. Players DO need some chance of getting through the police in order to preserve the sandbox. If anything, concord is already too powerful.

Quote:
>The technology available allows blocking certain ship types from accessing acceleration gates. This technology could be used to secure High Sec from allowing ships belonging to Pilots with a history of High Sec violance, thus, the pilot cannot use a High Sec stargate.


This isn't a terrible idea, but it's unbalanced by itself. There would need to be a special type of highsec jump bridge to bypass this, to preserve the sandbox.

Quote:
When a pilot violates High Sec law, not only should the pilot's ship be destroyed but the pilot should be killed or arrested and fined. If arrested the pilot's ship should be confiscated.


Criminals can be podded in highsec. Concord does not kill anyone. If you wish to kill your attackers, you are permitted to. I do like the idea of ships being "confiscated" instead of destroyed, but how do you determine which happens? And how do they get it back? Also, gankers ships being destroyed stimulates the economy.

Quote:
The higher security status the victim has the more focus is given towards the penalty received for attacikng this pilot in High Sec space.


This is a good idea. It's also been suggested that Hi-security players should get a faster response from concord when attacked. Though this offers an unfair advantage to players like me who have a pre-rebalance >5.0 security status.

Quote:
Concord reaction time is to slow, the loss for an unarmed miner for instance will always be greater than the loss for an attacker. Concord to hire more pilots and be more active in High Sec Space.


Concord spawns continually. The more miners ganked in an area, the more concord will spawn in that area (until they despawn). This makes rapid-ganking of numerous ships in the same area very difficult. It's already in place.

Not a forum alt. 

griezell
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#18 - 2013-09-30 15:13:55 UTC
all rule in hi sec are ment to be broken, so no you wont be safe in hi sec get use to it
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#19 - 2013-09-30 15:17:40 UTC
OP... the point of high-sec is to make unwanted combat have consequences (either you pay for a war dec or you pay with your ship and security rating)... not prevent it outright. Beyond punishing offenders, CONCORD will do nothing to help you or gain retribution. Those aspects of the game lies in player hands.

Also... everything you do in the game affects everyone else. That ore you mine could be going to my enemies or undercutting my friends' profits on the market.
Marcos Boirelle
Absolute Order
Absolute Honor
#20 - 2013-09-30 15:24:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Marcos Boirelle
Lilliana Stelles wrote:
This entire thread is based on a few misconceptions.

Just for the record:
Highsec is a PVP area. The entirety of EVE is. If you don't like to PVP, find another game.
Concord is there to punish players who engage in crime. They are not there to protect Hi-sec residents from PVP.

Faction police already attack criminals and low-security status residents of New Eden. This may be more flavorful but is no different than what we already have. Players DO need some chance of getting through the police in order to preserve the sandbox. If anything, concord is already too powerful.

This isn't a terrible idea, but it's unbalanced by itself. There would need to be a special type of highsec jump bridge to bypass this, to preserve the sandbox.

Criminals can be podded in highsec. Concord does not kill anyone. If you wish to kill your attackers, you are permitted to. I do like the idea of ships being "confiscated" instead of destroyed, but how do you determine which happens? And how do they get it back? Also, gankers ships being destroyed stimulates the economy.

This is a good idea. It's also been suggested that Hi-security players should get a faster response from concord when attacked. Though this offers an unfair advantage to players like me who have a pre-rebalance >5.0 security status.

Concord spawns continually. The more miners ganked in an area, the more concord will spawn in that area (until they despawn). This makes rapid-ganking of numerous ships in the same area very difficult. It's already in place.


I can understand your thoughts and I do agree with you but what is happening today is that Corporations who have no room in Null Sec are being forced into High Sec. Sooner or later and please quote me in the future, bigger Corporations will start ganking High Sec Asteroids Fields and Ice Belts demanding "mining fees" to be paid for safe mining. This in return will build a corrupt system where pilots that are non-aggressive are being forced to pay a Corporation to mine in a High Sec Solar which eliminates the reason of having players non-corporated. This will force players to join bigger corporations that can provide two things.


  1. Safe Mining


  1. Ship Reimbursement


Rapid ganking has occured today, even with Concord in place multiple mining ships were destroyed in gallante space.

Security Status is something that takes time to build and there should be a benefitial chart that gives you valued perks for investing time in impoving your security status.

I do experience that sometimes it would be wise to join a bigger corporation that can provide you with the calm that perhaps is deserved from the pilots that do not wish to PVP. PVP is an option and agreeable to be less in High Sec space, however, the less experienced today is not good enough. There needs to be a stability that benefits all interests.
123Next pageLast page