These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

complaints/discussion about low sec security
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Spawne32
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#21 - 2011-11-24 15:37:04 UTC
both of the last two suggestions were excellent, my only hope is that CCP actually listens to this **** and does something about it.
Vizvayu Koga
#22 - 2011-11-24 16:35:22 UTC
Spawne32 wrote:
both of the last two suggestions were excellent, my only hope is that CCP actually listens to this **** and does something about it.


Both were way too complicated. IMO a most likely solution would be fixing current mechanics and not implementing new, overly complex, mechanics.
Ho'Taru
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#23 - 2011-11-24 17:00:12 UTC
Well, fixing the current mechanics would be all good and well if the problem wasn't inherent to the design of the current mechanics. If you have a system whereby the Concord mechanism suddenly goes from all powerful to non-existent, you will have the current problems with highsec vs lowsec.

My solution is only too complicated it the calculations needed would add up to too much for the server to handle. Remember, it's not as if the player needs to be able to work out at a glance exactly what the response time of Concord will be - the whole point of having computers is that they can work out relatively complex calculations on the fly.

All the player needs to know is an approximate response time, and a few key bullet points about what will make the response slower or faster. In that respect, I think my proposal is actually relatively simple compared to half the game mechanics out there. Really, if that's too much for a player to cope with, I'd be surprised that they haven't already ragequit the game over everything else being too complicated for them...
Vizvayu Koga
#24 - 2011-11-24 17:21:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Vizvayu Koga
Ho'Taru wrote:
Well, fixing the current mechanics would be all good and well if the problem wasn't inherent to the design of the current mechanics. If you have a system whereby the Concord mechanism suddenly goes from all powerful to non-existent, you will have the current problems with highsec vs lowsec.

My solution is only too complicated it the calculations needed would add up to too much for the server to handle. Remember, it's not as if the player needs to be able to work out at a glance exactly what the response time of Concord will be - the whole point of having computers is that they can work out relatively complex calculations on the fly.

All the player needs to know is an approximate response time, and a few key bullet points about what will make the response slower or faster. In that respect, I think my proposal is actually relatively simple compared to half the game mechanics out there. Really, if that's too much for a player to cope with, I'd be surprised that they haven't already ragequit the game over everything else being too complicated for them...


The problem with a solution which is too complicated is not about the players understanding it, but about the fact that the most complicated the solution the most likely you'll find exploits and workarounds. Better find a simple, elegant solution which is short, clear, easy to understand and to implement and also it'll be much more difficult to exploit, just because it's simple and straightforward.
Now getting back to the main topic, I believe the mechanics are quite OK they way the are right now, but there are bugs/exploits/workarounds that must be fixed in order to have a more balanced game. I believe the big jump in security from .5 to .4 is not necessarily related to not having Concord presence in lowsec, but more related to the absence of decent gate/station guns and also some flaws in loot ownership and punishment mechanics. If all loot thieves get immediately killed on sight by station and gate guns (in both low and high sec) they'll have no profit on killing and looting you, so lowsec would get more secure as a consequence. Lowsec is still empire space and everyone should remember that.
Ho'Taru
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#25 - 2011-11-24 19:22:57 UTC
So basically, your "solution" is to make a change that would go against the spirit of the game, and would probably annoy more people than not.

It would still leave empire space in a state of being too uniform, with the 0.4/0.5 boundary still being the only major change. If anything, you'll be making lowsec more like highsec, making the whole thing even more uniform, and pissing off a good chunk of the userbase whilst you're at it.

Please remember that keeping something simple at the expense of gameplay is not "elegant". Likewise, a solution that improves gameplay shouldn't automatically be thrown out just because it takes more than one sentence to put across.
Vizvayu Koga
#26 - 2011-11-24 19:56:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Vizvayu Koga
Ho'Taru wrote:
So basically, your "solution" is to make a change that would go against the spirit of the game, and would probably annoy more people than not.

It would still leave empire space in a state of being too uniform, with the 0.4/0.5 boundary still being the only major change. If anything, you'll be making lowsec more like highsec, making the whole thing even more uniform, and pissing off a good chunk of the userbase whilst you're at it.

Please remember that keeping something simple at the expense of gameplay is not "elegant". Likewise, a solution that improves gameplay shouldn't automatically be thrown out just because it takes more than one sentence to put across.


Well that's exactly where we disagree. IMO the change I propose wouldn't alter the "spirit of the game", quite the contrary it would just make even more clear the objective of the mechanics already in place. Those mechanics looks pretty clear to me: We have empire space and null space. Empire space has laws and rules, which are already well stablished and very clear. My idea is to make some of that rules a bit more strict, therefore increasing security in highsec and also, to some extent, in lowsec systems too. I'm not talking about people feelings here, people will allways adapt and I believe a change that improves game balance is always good, regardless of the classic initial discomfort of some individuals. In short, I don't think my solution will hurt gameplay, but it will improve it. As always we're talking personal opinions here, there are no absolute trues.
And about looking for an elegant solution... IMO that is a must. No resources should be wasted on a twisted, confusing or too complex solution because most likely they'll have to expend even more resources on that at a later time. Please don't take this as a personal attack, I don't mean any disrespect to your idea, just my opinion.
Mocam
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#27 - 2011-11-24 22:22:56 UTC
I've posted it before but it's accurate. The biggest problem is that PvP is designed around trapping and camping.

There's no risk once someone gets into warp so you have to catch them before they warp. As such, the only way to nail them is at places they aren't warping or potentially up to speed to warp - that is mostly at gates; stations less so but still; these are the places you know you'll find others so it's trapping/camping at these spots.

You can't remove the camping without replacing it with some other way to bring about PvP - such as hunting. Yet the tools to hunt are thin while the actual ability to nail someone by hunting, are even weaker. "Warp to zero" - either you catch them at the entry gate or you'll never see that traveler as they move around. Exit camps are almost non-existent due to this mechanic but it's boring as hell slow boating it to a gate from whatever range you land at.

The only way I can see to do this is to revamp some of the basic mechanics to enable hunting by disabling immunity from interception/interference while someone is in warp. Perhaps there is another method but I just don't see how you can keep PvP going strong while making entry to dangerous places easier.

This, I believe, is what is needed: Make entry to dangerous places very easy - they should be dangerous once you are there. Not the way it currently is: Dangerous to get into but fairly easy to operate in once you are there. This tends to keep a lot of folks out who would "risk it".
Ho'Taru
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#28 - 2011-11-25 00:32:09 UTC
Vizvayu Koga wrote:
Well that's exactly where we disagree. IMO the change I propose wouldn't alter the "spirit of the game", quite the contrary it would just make even more clear the objective of the mechanics already in place. Those mechanics looks pretty clear to me: We have empire space and null space. Empire space has laws and rules, which are already well stablished and very clear. My idea is to make some of that rules a bit more strict, therefore increasing security in highsec and also, to some extent, in lowsec systems too. I'm not talking about people feelings here, people will allways adapt and I believe a change that improves game balance is always good, regardless of the classic initial discomfort of some individuals. In short, I don't think my solution will hurt gameplay, but it will improve it. As always we're talking personal opinions here, there are no absolute trues.
And about looking for an elegant solution... IMO that is a must. No resources should be wasted on a twisted, confusing or too complex solution because most likely they'll have to expend even more resources on that at a later time. Please don't take this as a personal attack, I don't mean any disrespect to your idea, just my opinion.

Well, given that CCP have specifically stated that highsec is not safe, just safer, and the crime ingame is allowed, I think making someone kill on sight just for having sticky fingers is definitely against the spirit of the game. Hell, why don't you just make it impossible to take from a can that isn't yours in empire space. Much more "elegant" than having to worry about silly little things like "yes you can but you will lose your ship afterwards".

As I say, just because it's simple doesn't make it a must. By all means, the simplicity of competing ideas should be taken into account, but just saying that a fairly simple idea should be rejected purely because there's a simpler idea on the table regardless of any other pros and cons is narrowminded thinking. I would rather "waste" slightly more resources on a mechanism that adds more to the game than waste resources on a mechanism that doesn't.


Mocam:
The problem with the gate/stationcamps is several factors I would say.
- The boundary between highsec and lowsec is too well defined. This creates a limited boundary for pirates and griefers to focus on.
- Along this boundary, there is only a limited number of points to cross over (inherent due to the nature of the jumpgate system).
- The areas which should be the most secure in a system (stations and gates) are pretty much abandoned immediately in lowsec.

If the opportunity for ganking changed more gradually between different ratings of system, you would help counter the first point. Why would you focus on ganking in 0.4 when you could do so a little more easily in 0.3, or a little harder in 0.5?
The second point would become null and void, as the imaginary boundary is gone.
The third point would be addressed by having security (Concord or Navy) at least maning the gates and space stations in lower security systems even though they may have stopped responding to aggression away from such safe pockets. Gate camps wouldn't last long if the gate security started attacking them as soon as they started on their first victim.

I agree though that if too much is done to disrupt PvP/pirating opportunies, there must be other opportunities given to replace them. This is one thing I was attempting to do with my idea: even though the lower ratings of midsec would become safer, the higher rating of midsec would likewise become more dangerous. Pirates wanting a relatively riskfree life would be forced to do their thing in lower rated space, whilst those willing to be more gutsy could organise attacks into higher rated space.

I guess that with the above proposals you could start allowing interdiction spheres and the like into empire space. The trick would be in that whilst you can place spheres they are still illegal. The higher the rating of a system, the more frequent security patrols would be. If a security patrol ship is interdicted by your sphere, it will call in reinforcements and you will most likely need to abandon your camp (and may well lose your ships). Basically, the hope of pirates would be to set up camp and catch their prey before security wander along.
Vizvayu Koga
#29 - 2011-11-25 01:12:51 UTC
Mocam wrote:
I've posted it before but it's accurate. The biggest problem is that PvP is designed around trapping and camping.

There's no risk once someone gets into warp so you have to catch them before they warp. As such, the only way to nail them is at places they aren't warping or potentially up to speed to warp - that is mostly at gates; stations less so but still; these are the places you know you'll find others so it's trapping/camping at these spots.

You can't remove the camping without replacing it with some other way to bring about PvP - such as hunting. Yet the tools to hunt are thin while the actual ability to nail someone by hunting, are even weaker. "Warp to zero" - either you catch them at the entry gate or you'll never see that traveler as they move around. Exit camps are almost non-existent due to this mechanic but it's boring as hell slow boating it to a gate from whatever range you land at.

The only way I can see to do this is to revamp some of the basic mechanics to enable hunting by disabling immunity from interception/interference while someone is in warp. Perhaps there is another method but I just don't see how you can keep PvP going strong while making entry to dangerous places easier.

This, I believe, is what is needed: Make entry to dangerous places very easy - they should be dangerous once you are there. Not the way it currently is: Dangerous to get into but fairly easy to operate in once you are there. This tends to keep a lot of folks out who would "risk it".


I don't think PvP is designed around trapping and camping. That may be one way to PvP but there are many others.
If the person you're hunting is fast enough to get to warp before you scramble him IMO he should be able to warp out, that sounds fair enough to me, you had your chance but he was faster. On the other hand, being completely unable to escape from a gate camp (unless you use the cloak+mwd exploit which should be fixed as well) doesn't sound right to me, you should always have a chance to fight back or get out, and it should depend on your ability at some extent. Nothing should be 100% sure.
Having better ways to hunt should be OK, don't see anything wrong with that as long as the prey always have a chance to save herself, even if it's more difficult.

I do agree with you in that gates should be safer and "open space" should still be dangerous. This is actually the idea behind lowsec as it is right now, we still have guns at gates and stations for a reason, but those guns should really do some damage, pirates should be afraid of those guns.
Vizvayu Koga
#30 - 2011-11-25 01:26:10 UTC
Ho'Taru wrote:

Well, given that CCP have specifically stated that highsec is not safe, just safer, and the crime ingame is allowed, I think making someone kill on sight just for having sticky fingers is definitely against the spirit of the game. Hell, why don't you just make it impossible to take from a can that isn't yours in empire space. Much more "elegant" than having to worry about silly little things like "yes you can but you will lose your ship afterwards".

As I say, just because it's simple doesn't make it a must. By all means, the simplicity of competing ideas should be taken into account, but just saying that a fairly simple idea should be rejected purely because there's a simpler idea on the table regardless of any other pros and cons is narrowminded thinking. I would rather "waste" slightly more resources on a mechanism that adds more to the game than waste resources on a mechanism that doesn't.


Don't misunderstand me, I never said crime should be impossible in empire state, only that it must have clear and unavoidable consequences; you shouldn't be able to avoid it by using a fast ship, or having a corp mate do the looting nor any other "trick" like that. Punishment in EVE is death, so it seems pretty logical to me that if you loot somebody else's wreck then you're breaking the law, and if you break the law you should get killed, as simple as that (and that is elegant btw). Besides looting, this is what happens when you shoot an innocent, sentry guns start shooting at you. If you are considered an enemy of the state because of low standings this happens too.

And I never said that my solution is the best or the only one. I said that IMO for a solution to be even considered it must be simple/short/clear/elegant. Also, again IMO the solution I'm proposing would definitely add more to the game :)
Ho'Taru
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#31 - 2011-11-25 03:43:43 UTC
Vizvayu Koga wrote:
Punishment in EVE is death

I think this is the key part you're falling over on. You're taking the punishment for the "worst" crime, and trying to apply it as a blanket for any little misdemeanor that comes along. That would be like taking the death penalty being the punishment for murder, then claiming that it's the punishment of America and yes we're now going to put that child to death for shoplifting some sweets. I doubt anyone would last long if they suggested killing everyone off was an elegant solution...

We already have a clear consequence for theft. You open yourself up to being attacked. It's not the most effective of consequences, but I think that's a hell of a lot better than being attacked and having your ship destroyed for any minor theft. I also disagree that any punishment should be entirely unavoidable. Eve is not about there being an all knowing, all powerful police force who flawlessly uphold the laws of the empire. Seeing as in game scams and violence are very much permitted, I'd say that it's more fitting to take a realistic view: if you commit a crime and manage to escape retribution, fair play to you.

And if you're happy for any simple/elegant solution to be put forward, you shouldn't have a problem with my suggestion. It's a pretty simple and elegant mechanism compared to what it would add to the game. A lot more than just "let's increase the punishment for crime and also apply it to lowsec" at least.
Vizvayu Koga
#32 - 2011-11-25 04:11:39 UTC
Ho'Taru wrote:
Vizvayu Koga wrote:
Punishment in EVE is death

I think this is the key part you're falling over on. You're taking the punishment for the "worst" crime, and trying to apply it as a blanket for any little misdemeanor that comes along. That would be like taking the death penalty being the punishment for murder, then claiming that it's the punishment of America and yes we're now going to put that child to death for shoplifting some sweets. I doubt anyone would last long if they suggested killing everyone off was an elegant solution...

We already have a clear consequence for theft. You open yourself up to being attacked. It's not the most effective of consequences, but I think that's a hell of a lot better than being attacked and having your ship destroyed for any minor theft. I also disagree that any punishment should be entirely unavoidable. Eve is not about there being an all knowing, all powerful police force who flawlessly uphold the laws of the empire. Seeing as in game scams and violence are very much permitted, I'd say that it's more fitting to take a realistic view: if you commit a crime and manage to escape retribution, fair play to you.

And if you're happy for any simple/elegant solution to be put forward, you shouldn't have a problem with my suggestion. It's a pretty simple and elegant mechanism compared to what it would add to the game. A lot more than just "let's increase the punishment for crime and also apply it to lowsec" at least.


Really? That's your idea of punishment for suicide ganking? Or even for gate campers? That the freighters they attack can shoot them back??? And stealing billions in cargo is equal to shoplifting sweets to you??? If you're serious about this then you may just skip your reply because there's no point on continuing this discussion.

And it seems you forgot that the way I see it, overall the game mechanics of empire space laws are fine, they just need a few tweaks and fixes. So in my opinion an elegant solution would be fixing those bugs and not making a big unnecesary change to the mechanics :)
You do understand that we're all just expressing personal opinions, right? I can't really "fail" at expressing my opinion...
Gerrick Palivorn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#33 - 2011-11-25 07:29:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Gerrick Palivorn
Vizvayu Koga wrote:
Really? That's your idea of punishment for suicide ganking? Or even for gate campers? That the freighters they attack can shoot them back??? And stealing billions in cargo is equal to shoplifting sweets to you??? If you're serious about this then you may just skip your reply because there's no point on continuing this discussion.

And it seems you forgot that the way I see it, overall the game mechanics of empire space laws are fine, they just need a few tweaks and fixes. So in my opinion an elegant solution would be fixing those bugs and not making a big unnecesary change to the mechanics :)
You do understand that we're all just expressing personal opinions, right? I can't really "fail" at expressing my opinion...


Ok I miss a few hours and see what happens. These are my personal opinions!!

1-Suicide ganking is called suicide ganking for a reason, you lose your ship...does not need to be changed.

2-Frieghters jumping into lowsec should really have a scout and an escort if they are carrying billions in materials. If they are suicide ganked in highsec, I give kudo's to the group that pulled it off.

3-Stealing mechanics are fine the way they are. Can flipper steals ore in jet can, tanked Hulk agresses and tackles while a corpmate in a Rapier decloaks and kills the flipper. Victory lap in the station for 15 minutes. Elegant solution already in play, it just takes a little intellegence and planning. (this does not include strategy for suicide gankers, for that I suggest tanking your hulk and watching d-scan for ganking ships, warp out when necessary)

I agree that there should be a clear progression from 1.0 to 0.1, in fact many new players think that it is that way already and consider 0.6 systems lowsec.

I would say remove concord from .5 & .6 and have navy patrols take over for aggression mechanics, and include 0.4 in this arc. Call this area midsec, where it would be easier to travel and more difficult to pirate. And yes that includes bigger gate guns.

MMOs come and go, but Eve remains.  -Garresh-
Vizvayu Koga
#34 - 2011-11-25 15:30:45 UTC
Gerrick Palivorn wrote:

Ok I miss a few hours and see what happens. These are my personal opinions!!

1-Suicide ganking is called suicide ganking for a reason, you lose your ship...does not need to be changed.

2-Frieghters jumping into lowsec should really have a scout and an escort if they are carrying billions in materials. If they are suicide ganked in highsec, I give kudo's to the group that pulled it off.

3-Stealing mechanics are fine the way they are. Can flipper steals ore in jet can, tanked Hulk agresses and tackles while a corpmate in a Rapier decloaks and kills the flipper. Victory lap in the station for 15 minutes. Elegant solution already in play, it just takes a little intellegence and planning. (this does not include strategy for suicide gankers, for that I suggest tanking your hulk and watching d-scan for ganking ships, warp out when necessary)


Most of this would be OK if all of EVE was a sandbox, but it's not. We have an empire space with already well stablished laws an NPC ships enforcing (or trying to) those laws, so there's no sanbox there. Unfortunately the mechanics have a few bugs and are exploitable in several ways. Suicide ganking should have consequences in empire space, and not rewards like it has now (ie keeping the loot). All freighters and transport ships should be safe when jumping thru gates in empire space, and I mean ALL empire space, both high and lowsec as gates are supposed to be protected with NPC guns to enforce state laws.
Can flipping is a very clear example of how kids abuse game mechanics. If you really think it, the idea of can flipping is idiotic to say the least.
Gerrick Palivorn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#35 - 2011-11-25 16:35:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Gerrick Palivorn
Vizvayu Koga wrote:
All freighters and transport ships should be safe when jumping thru gates in empire space, and I mean ALL empire space, both high and lowsec as gates are supposed to be protected with NPC guns to enforce state laws.


9/10 you derailed the threads original subject very well and even got me. Too bad you messed up and gave it away.

Cheers

Edit: If you are being serious, you need to play a different game...I heard WoW is risk free...

MMOs come and go, but Eve remains.  -Garresh-
Spawne32
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#36 - 2011-11-26 08:25:11 UTC
You dont lose a **** ton of invested time and money when you die in wow, or at least, thats the way it was when i played it years ago. Granted, completely different game but the primary topic at hand here is the fact that low security, really just means no security.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#37 - 2011-11-26 15:38:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Mag's
The forum ate my post, so a shorter version.

Low sec is safer than null sec, but it's not safe.
High sec is safer than low sec, but it's not safe.

Stop asking for hand holding mechanics and use the tools provided by CCP.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Velicitia
XS Tech
#38 - 2011-11-26 16:52:31 UTC
OK, there's a lot of wall-o-text here that I really don't want to wade through (though honestly, the bits I've read whilst skimming the thread seem OK so I might go back)

problems can currently be summed up as
0.5 is "safe" (CONCORD, so no gatecampe)
0.4 isn't safe (no CONCORD, so gatecamps)

this isn't necessarily true of all 0.4 systems, but it's true enough. This being true creates the "great wall of carebear" as I've seen it so eloquently put...

Perhaps, because of Tornado*, we will see the wall start to crumble. It won't be overnight ... but I'd wager that we'll begin to see the cracks in the wall before the beginning of the new year.

Think about it:
1. the new BCs will eventually get to be stupid-cheap gank platforms.
2. miners will be getting ganked left and right in hisec
3. miners won't be able to get defences because, well, then the defenders would get CONCORDOKKEN in hisec
4. miners start to think ... "hm, maybe I should work with people"
5. Mining corps merge and/or get agreements with PvP corps
6. these newly protected miners venture into the vast unknown of lowsec

... or 1 and 2 happen and the miners simply quit ... meh.


*among other things, but "because of Falcon" is old and boring nowBlink

One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia
Spawne32
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#39 - 2011-11-27 00:20:50 UTC
Mag's wrote:
The forum ate my post, so a shorter version.

Low sec is safer than null sec, but it's not safe.
High sec is safer than low sec, but it's not safe.

Stop asking for hand holding mechanics and use the tools provided by CCP.


lol hand holding mechanics, thats rich. No what were really asking for is a reason to keep paying the bills over at CCP and for them to stop catering to 14 and 15 year olds who grabbed mommy's credit card out of her purse to pay for an account so they can cause other people grief. No one is asking to have pvp stopped in low sec, were asking to stop having traveling into low sec completely pointless, thats all. So that people that play the game casually to relax and enjoy the immersion have their own area of enjoyment in this game just like the teenagers do while drinking amp energy drinks and chewing ADHD pills for lunch.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#40 - 2011-11-27 08:57:50 UTC
Spawne32 wrote:
Mag's wrote:
The forum ate my post, so a shorter version.

Low sec is safer than null sec, but it's not safe.
High sec is safer than low sec, but it's not safe.

Stop asking for hand holding mechanics and use the tools provided by CCP.


lol hand holding mechanics, thats rich. No what were really asking for is a reason to keep paying the bills over at CCP and for them to stop catering to 14 and 15 year olds who grabbed mommy's credit card out of her purse to pay for an account so they can cause other people grief. No one is asking to have pvp stopped in low sec, were asking to stop having traveling into low sec completely pointless, thats all. So that people that play the game casually to relax and enjoy the immersion have their own area of enjoyment in this game just like the teenagers do while drinking amp energy drinks and chewing ADHD pills for lunch.
You're asking for easier safer travel to be built into the game, what would you call it then? Sounds like hand holding to me.

The thing is CCP already provide the tools for safer travel, you just need to use them. This of course requires effort and planning, but it's far easier now than it's ever been to move items and travel through systems.

One thing you seem to forget. Eve is an MMORPG, so your 'own area of enjoyment' is a perfectly valid area for everyone else to come and play in too. You may consider this as grief, but it's perfectly valid game play. Blink

P.S. lol at the kid reference, nice move.

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