These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Current Flaws of the Wardec Mechanic and Highsec Space

First post
Author
Ismaus Taeus
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#41 - 2011-11-24 05:27:12 UTC
Spawne32 wrote:
Oh look, another complaint about pirates not being able to go into high sec to kill people. Its hard to believe that CCP caters to this bullshit that people complain about. The constant complaints about not being able to gank people in high sec because its "too secure" are because they cant put up a decent enough fight in null sec pvp and constantly lose ships, so they would rather camp outside a station in a trade hub like Jita, wait for someone to undock with a couple million items in cargo, suicide gank, abandon the wreck, and let a alt character pick up the loot.

The reason high sec is so secure is because there needs to be an entire section of space off limits from pvp activities just like every other MMORPG. You kids using your mom's credit card to pay for the game every month forget that people pay out of pocket monthly for this game, if they dont want to be involved in pvp, then they shouldn't have to be at risk every time they undock.

I was just talking to corp members today about putting faction items on my ships because i bought some plex and resold it, and everyone of them advised not to do it, and im a high sec player no less. Curious as to why this would be a problem they explained in detail about how people sit at gates with alt characters, or other corp members that have good standing, they suicide gank, and someone else loots the wreck with your faction loot.

This once again brings me back to the point I've been making over the past week, there is absolutely no buffer zone between null sec and high sec, you hit .5 space and that's it, that is the border before you are in your ****** zone. I tried to move a faction pulse laser today out of a station in a .4 system into a .5 system, and a guy sat there waiting for me to come out of the station, while the station gun was BLASTING HIM, he popped me before my screen even loaded, my pod all but seconds later. This **** needs to be corrected. Low sec security needs to actually resemble SECURITY.

It seems like the cost-to-risk ratio is a bit high, especially for mature players that seek productivity over recklessness and PvP.

Again, I stress the economic factors.
Myxx
The Scope
#42 - 2011-11-24 06:26:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Myxx
I like how people are keeping this going. I've enjoyed reading some stuff.

And before anyone calls me of all people a griefer for proposing this, you should probably know I've spent more time in EVE mining than anything else. I was mining before Jita was a trade hub, when it had about four people in it a day.
Ismaus Taeus
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#43 - 2011-11-24 06:34:01 UTC
Myxx wrote:
I like how people are keeping this going. I've enjoyed reading some stuff.

And before anyone calls me of all people a griefer for proposing this, you should probably know I've spent more time in EVE mining than anything else. I was mining before Jita was a trade hub, when it had about four people in it a day.

So you know how important mining is. If it's so important, why not create a system where mining is more competitive? That way, you've already got your incentive to fight, and you can do battle when it matters the most.

It's what CCP claims Dust 514 is to be. However, there isn't much competition except with who is most coordinated | less prepared for battle.
Myxx
The Scope
#44 - 2011-11-24 06:54:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Myxx
Ismaus Taeus wrote:
Myxx wrote:
I like how people are keeping this going. I've enjoyed reading some stuff.

And before anyone calls me of all people a griefer for proposing this, you should probably know I've spent more time in EVE mining than anything else. I was mining before Jita was a trade hub, when it had about four people in it a day.

So you know how important mining is. If it's so important, why not create a system where mining is more competitive? That way, you've already got your incentive to fight, and you can do battle when it matters the most.

It's what CCP claims Dust 514 is to be. However, there isn't much competition except with who is most coordinated | less prepared for battle.

I'd like to note firstly that nowhere in my OP is there any real proposal besides the notion that CONCORD needs fixing on a fundemental level that should be done as a highsec wide overhaul. I've not once proposed any sort of mechanic to do so. Understand that its all tied in together.

Now on to the actual answer you're likely looking for.

Call me old fashioned in that I don't really care about losing my ships. People who have been around a while have lost things repeatedly to a point where the notion of loss is an afterthought. There is a growing notion between many veterans that a lot of people in highsec absolutely will not put themselves at risk whatsoever for any reason period. I know many people who do T2 production with T2 BPOs and they're the very epitome of carebear: They play EVE for industrial activities and have for a very long time. And yet, they're completely unafraid of putting multi-billion isk ships on the line in order to defend what is rightfully theirs. You may say that this is because they have suitably large wallets and at first I'm inclined to agree.

And then I look at how many mission runners claim to make hundreds of millions an hour and seem to refuse to put themselves at risk for any reason. It cant possibly be a fear of wallet/economic pvp.

I should note that I've personally lost everything I've had in EVE more times than I care to remember. Therefore, my opinion comes from the fact that I really honestly can't be intimidated with the idea of loss.

You should be able to derive from that opinion why I believe the notion of demanding full on immunity from loss for industrial reasons to be inherently flawed and harmful to the sandbox of EVE as a game.

There is your answer. Mining and industry as a profession needs its own overhaul, again likely to be needed as apart of a wider highsec overhaul along with the CONCORD and wardec aspects of it. I am in no way proposing any sort of nerf to mining or industry.

I am infact proposing a nerf to security mechanics in highsec space.

Edit: Addendum: I believe the notion of immunity to any hostile action for anyone in any part of space is more harmful to the game than any nerf to security mechanics to any other profession, mining or industry included.

Edit two: Just try not to take this as a 'I-WANT-TO-MURDER-ALL-CAREBEARS-EVER-RAWR!' type of thing. Some of my closest of friends are carebears.

Edit three: I would rather forcefully break people of the habit of demanding immunity from hostility as a method of preserving the nature of the Sandbox. Call it a proposal for issuing medicine to a growing cancer in EVE. Its in your own best interest to get used to the idea of loss and think less of losing ships.
Ismaus Taeus
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#45 - 2011-11-24 07:25:03 UTC
Well, it was my own idea. I simply thought it could be correlated with yours on highsec and empire control. I guess I have a more economic sense when it comes to resource gathering/control, which is the cause for many actual and [very] real wars today.

However, I am in fact proposing such an overhaul to mining, and particularly mining since much of industry relies on it.

Its totally fine if you disagree. It's a very different approach to what most EVE players are used to, so it is expected.

Also, it isn't an immunity from loss - its loss having a more dramatic and pivotal effect, thus increasing the competitive dynamic of the EVE sandbox.

And you have my empathy for your losses. But I cannot empathize for old players who think they've "Won" the game of EVE.
Myxx
The Scope
#46 - 2011-11-24 07:29:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Myxx
Ismaus Taeus wrote:
Well, it was my own idea. I simply thought it could be correlated with yours on highsec and empire control. I guess I have a more economic sense when it comes to resource gathering/control, which is the cause for many actual and [very] real wars today.

However, I am in fact proposing such an overhaul to mining, and particularly mining since much of industry relies on it.

Its totally fine if you disagree. It's a very different approach to what most EVE players are used to, so it is expected.

Also, it isn't an immunity from loss - its loss having a more dramatic and pivotal effect, thus increasing the competitive dynamic of the EVE sandbox.

And you have my empathy for your losses. But I cannot empathize for old players who think they've "Won" the game of EVE.

It appears I misunderstood you then. My apologise for this. Mining, IMO, is in need of a pretty big revamp to make it more interesting in that people currently do it afk not because they can, but because it isnt interesting to do any other way. Thats a design problem.

How that would be fixed I have no idea and really haven't put much thought into it outside of giving all mission rats and belt rats incursion level AI.
Ismaus Taeus
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#47 - 2011-11-24 11:56:24 UTC
Myxx wrote:
Ismaus Taeus wrote:
Well, it was my own idea. I simply thought it could be correlated with yours on highsec and empire control. I guess I have a more economic sense when it comes to resource gathering/control, which is the cause for many actual and [very] real wars today.

However, I am in fact proposing such an overhaul to mining, and particularly mining since much of industry relies on it.

Its totally fine if you disagree. It's a very different approach to what most EVE players are used to, so it is expected.

Also, it isn't an immunity from loss - its loss having a more dramatic and pivotal effect, thus increasing the competitive dynamic of the EVE sandbox.

And you have my empathy for your losses. But I cannot empathize for old players who think they've "Won" the game of EVE.

It appears I misunderstood you then. My apologise for this. Mining, IMO, is in need of a pretty big revamp to make it more interesting in that people currently do it afk not because they can, but because it isnt interesting to do any other way. Thats a design problem.

How that would be fixed I have no idea and really haven't put much thought into it outside of giving all mission rats and belt rats incursion level AI.

True, which is why once you have a self-made corp with 20+ dedicated miners on alt accounts, and you start generating millions of ISK per day, you can start buying PLEX reasonably to sustain your alts. Something I'm particularly NOT against. [:D]

However, if with mining you instead mine-for-keeps, by extracting what you can, making a run for it, and stashing it away - or selling it - it would have a lasting effect on what you earned, and what henceforth was made. Of course, this rules in favor of the cheaper, smaller modules that aren't as hard to manufacture which would cater largely to newer players in their T1 ships and seasoned players that like to run in T2 and T3 ships, and less towards building capitals - which shouldn't necessarily take a substantial 'hit' from this, because resources should still be balanced where making them won't be nearly as hard, but they won't be used and wasted. Thus creating a sense of importance for caps, moms and titans.

I guess what I am getting at is this, playing EVE shouldn't be easy for anyone - it was never designed to be such - and for those who have exploited the loopholes, great for you, hope you had fun, now lets even the playing field. You would be astonished at how easily the shifting of economic ties has in the real world, and how quickly tensions flare up when natural (real) resources are strained. Thats why we're having all these wars in Afghan, and doing special ops in various countries. It's about 'control'. And what more realistic way to fuel wars in EVE, than by shifting the weight of the economy onto miners?

And, check this, since miners are so important - they're at higher risk. Meaning asteroid-farming will be harder, especially if someone from a different corp showed up and wanted to mine there. So players would need to keep a closer eye on their ships, and controlling multiple accounts wouldn't be as wise when mining in the same areas. I mean, this could seriously do a 180 degree on EVE's malleability... the tides could shift for anyone claiming nullsec space as their own, guarding their precious reservoirs of minerals that they claim to own... and you can't hide all the minerals inside a station, they're only good when you need to use them (reprocessing, saving in bulk, using to build ships and capitals) - and once they're used in some form, you are risking something of real value.

Lets just say I simply applied the idea of gold, to asteroid and ice minerals and ores... and this, in effect, will instill a sense of real value for items made with this "gold"... with rarer forms, of course, existing in deep space - worth tons more, in magnitudes greater abundance, but rarer and in certain places. Keeps the corps hunting for the next best place to call home. And in the end, EVE becomes a much livelier place - full of excitement, and danger.
Blink
Vio Geraci
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#48 - 2011-11-25 16:30:56 UTC
Ismaus Taeus wrote:
It seems like the cost-to-risk ratio is a bit high, especially for mature players that seek productivity over recklessness and PvP.

Again, I stress the economic factors.


I take issue with your implication that PvP-oriented players are immature. We want to compete. PvP is the most direct, unmitigated form of competition available in EVE as it is. If there were a way to do the same via the market, production, or a less destructive way, I would be all about that as well.

I do think your second point is well-placed: CCP has done a really terrible job of incentivizing PvP, especially in high-sec. The attacker does not stand to gain much aside from the enjoyment of a fight or perhaps the contents of a POS (whose contents will be worth less ISK than that earned if the people that attacked it were farming missions rather than shooting structures). Maybe a baby corporation that is unprepared for conflict will break up, but that doesn't really help the attackers. The defender stains to gain even less from fighting, much less for giving the attackers an opportunity to find fights. In most cases, the best defense is also the most boring: deny the people that declared the war an opportunity to fight, and they will get bored and wander off. If the most boring solution is also the best one, that's a game design flaw and something that needs to be fixed. Make high-sec wars less avoidable, make them have a reason to fight and a reason to want to win. I don't know the best way to do this, but CCP can and should be working on a complete overhaul of how high-sec conflict occurs, hopefully within the next year.
Rina Asanari
CitadeI
#49 - 2011-11-28 08:30:29 UTC
Vio Geraci wrote:
The defender stains to gain even less from fighting, much less for giving the attackers an opportunity to find fights. In most cases, the best defense is also the most boring: deny the people that declared the war an opportunity to fight, and they will get bored and wander off. If the most boring solution is also the best one, that's a game design flaw and something that needs to be fixed. Make high-sec wars less avoidable, make them have a reason to fight and a reason to want to win. I don't know the best way to do this, but CCP can and should be working on a complete overhaul of how high-sec conflict occurs, hopefully within the next year.


To be more precise, there is NOTHING to gain from fighting a hisec war you didn't want. Killmails? Head into 0.0 or lowsec, less hassle. From a purely economic standpoint, one can only lose. Ships, ISK, assets are put on elevated risk on undocking in addition to the time one cannot do mission running or cannot mine.

So the strategy with the most positive (meaning: zero instead of negative) outcome is - not to fight. Simple as that.

Change hisec war so that the winning party may be paid some reparations out of the coffers of the losing party (alliance/corp/it's members, maybe even putting them on negative balance, for example) and more people would be inclined to fight if there is a real gain.

Jaketh Ivanes
Rigorous Rivals
#50 - 2011-11-28 09:12:22 UTC
Rina Asanari wrote:
Vio Geraci wrote:
The defender stains to gain even less from fighting, much less for giving the attackers an opportunity to find fights. In most cases, the best defense is also the most boring: deny the people that declared the war an opportunity to fight, and they will get bored and wander off. If the most boring solution is also the best one, that's a game design flaw and something that needs to be fixed. Make high-sec wars less avoidable, make them have a reason to fight and a reason to want to win. I don't know the best way to do this, but CCP can and should be working on a complete overhaul of how high-sec conflict occurs, hopefully within the next year.


To be more precise, there is NOTHING to gain from fighting a hisec war you didn't want. Killmails? Head into 0.0 or lowsec, less hassle. From a purely economic standpoint, one can only lose. Ships, ISK, assets are put on elevated risk on undocking in addition to the time one cannot do mission running or cannot mine.

So the strategy with the most positive (meaning: zero instead of negative) outcome is - not to fight. Simple as that.

Change hisec war so that the winning party may be paid some reparations out of the coffers of the losing party (alliance/corp/it's members, maybe even putting them on negative balance, for example) and more people would be inclined to fight if there is a real gain.



No, it should not be forced. Players should negotiate a peace treaty. If one side is really hurting, they will be more eager to achive peace... It should not be a game rule, the more rules the less sandbox.
Ismaus Taeus
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#51 - 2011-11-28 10:21:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Ismaus Taeus
Thank you all for your comments. I'm glad you understood my point. Not necessarily to agree, but understood nonetheless. Blink

And, Vio I never meant to say PvP-oriented players were immature. There are many ways to play EVE, and PvP happens to be one I just believe isn't as productive.

And thanks Rina, for the enthusiastic response. There really isn't anything to lose when players stay in highsec systems, continually pumping ISK with minimal loss. If CCP plans on making EVE any more challenging, a modification as to how ISK is produced AND valued within EVE's economy will add to the plasticity of the sandbox.

However, forcing players to pay out-of-pocket for losing shouldn't be. It's already enough damage done when a player loses a ship. It's something he or she decided could be put at risk. If CCP forced players to pay out-of-pocket, in addition to their losses, there would be even fewer people willing to risk anything. Which is why CCP included an awesome 'Insurance' feature, so people could receive some kind of reconciliation for natural losses. Blink

Which is why I place emphasis on the resource market/economy. If CCP made it so that common ores and resources were moderately taxing (if not already easy) to obtain, and so that the rarer, more exotic elements were less abundant and riskier to obtain, the value (save, also, the actual ISK prices) of minerals would go up. If emphasis was placed there, people would have a much more exciting experience - and would actually be enticed to face possible PvP, to obtain the riskier, more scarcely-guarded resources.

Again, if it costs you more to build your ship (non-ISK wise), the more willing people will do what it takes to secure what they need to make it. And to make it more challenging to maintain resource upkeep, systems would have resource *regeneration* rates rather than resource *respawning* - which also wouldn't be limited to only ice & ores, but NPC entities as well. To say, as one system depletes, another solar system somewhere else gains a *bonus* to it's resource content (and regeneration rate) until someone claims the surplus - all while the depleted system *struggles* to regenerate its resources back to normal.

This sort of natural checks-and-balances exists even in the wild. You can't have too many lions preying on the gazelles, or else they will die. Same as too many gazelles consuming the natural food supply too quickly, or else they'll die. Which is why gazelles constantly migrate, to balance their ecology and consume uneaten grass. As for the lions, their well-being depends on both the condition of the environment AND the gazelles.

This is, of course, saying that miners are like gazelles (the workhorses), and the corporations and alliances in EVE are like the lions.

And just as vigorous as is the African jungle, it's this natural dynamic that we as humans seek - uncertainty. When we don't know what will happen next, when we can't find comfort because you don't know who's going to show up in your system trying to tap into your resources, when it is rightfully yours - and losing that system would mean you would become like them - then nullsec and lowsec systems becomes more of a struggle to control, and henceforth a greater reward since you are able to be more productive so long as your system's resources remain in abundance.


Also, peace treaties are ACTUALLY a GREAT IDEA! Something like that Rina, on the other hand, should definitely impose a cost and is supported by CCP/EVE/CONCORD as far as cease-fires. However, as with many sandbox rules, it should mean that neither entities are allowed to harm the other (at ALL) and cannot utilize any resources in systems owned by either corp or alliance, except jumpgates. Meaning travel is permitted, however interaction between the two entities are not.
Rina Asanari
CitadeI
#52 - 2011-11-28 10:59:03 UTC
Ismaus Taeus wrote:
However, forcing players to pay out-of-pocket for losing shouldn't be. It's already enough damage done when a player loses a ship. It's something he or she decided could be put at risk.


You're actually underlining my point. Currently there is nothing to win -- only to lose. And many people on the receiving end decide it's not worth losing the ship, thus either JC'ing far away or wait out the week or two and let the wardec pass over.

Quote:
If CCP forced players to pay out-of-pocket, in addition to their losses, there would be even fewer people willing to risk anything. Which is why CCP included an awesome 'Insurance' feature, so people could receive some kind of reconciliation for natural losses. Blink


Which is usually not nearly enough to have the expenses covered for a decent missioning ship.

Quote:
Again, if it costs you more to build your ship (non-ISK wise), the more willing people will do what it takes to secure what they need to make it.


Again, there's only to lose. More expensive ships (ISK/effort) would mean people would even less inclined to risk them. You see such tendencies right now with people forgoing expensive ships/fittings in favour for cheaper ones to make themselves less of a target for suicide ganks.

Quote:
This sort of natural checks-and-balances exists even in the wild. You can't have too many lions preying on the gazelles, or else they will die. Same as too many gazelles consuming the natural food supply too quickly, or else they'll die. Which is why gazelles constantly migrate, to balance their ecology and consume uneaten grass. As for the lions, their well-being depends on both the condition of the environment AND the gazelles.

This is, of course, saying that miners are like gazelles (the workhorses), and the corporations and alliances in EVE are like the lions.


You forget, lions kill for food, just not "for the lulz". So that comparison is flawed. And humans think nothing of depleting a resource or hunting something to extinction.

So, as long as there is nothing to gain from being wardecced, people won't fight if they're not PvP inclined. And, be reasonable, most of the wardecs are against missionrunners or miners, exactly the sort of people PvP doesn't have any appeal to.

Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#53 - 2011-11-28 11:44:14 UTC
Myxx wrote:
This problem also exists with some Gallente stations such as the school stations such as the type in the Duripant system. This, coupled with CONCORD's immunity to being harmed in any way whatsoever makes it rediciously easy to evade legitimate wardecs from people that are angry with the target.

whats more legitimate in your wardec than the machanics of avoiding it?
You want shoot them, they dont want to be shot at. So what?
Its high sec after all, leaving it for pvp does make sense then.

Myxx wrote:
Station games, as they are called, take any fun in fighting out of the picture.

lol. If station games arent fun, why do you play them then?? Just stop, nobody forces you to those pointless activities.

Myxx wrote:
It should be kept in mind that a large number of wars in highsec occur BECAUSE people enjoy talking smack, and playing the market to make passive income while someone else camps the station outside, hoping that they get bored and just stfu and go away. This effectively makes wars in highsec pointless because actions lack consequence for people that overstep their boundries.

mh, playing markets while some dudes camping the station makes sense as well, why is that broken?
They do NOT "overstep their boundaries" quite obvious, otherwise they would suffer ship losses or something, no??
In fact, they know exactly what they can do and what not, they know they can smack in local or whereever, and you cant do anything about that, camp station for hours get bored and leave. Whats wrong with that?

Myxx wrote:
Any new war mechanic needs to be looked at from this perspective in that it should be a viable gameplay choice in highsec, or anywhere else and that current loopholes should be plugged/given counters for both sides. Goals should be established for both sides so that one or the other may truly claim victory and bring an end to the conflict once a set number of goals are achieved. Goals can/should always be dynamic so as to allow the aggressor to cause the victim harm be it in space or in their wallet. This can come in the form of blockades to somebodie's ecnomic empire, station/gate camps, ship losses, manufacturing processes taking damage, or whatever suits either side. The victim should be capable, in theory, of fighting back in multiple ways, including hiring mercenaries to remove blockades, escort transport ships to a market, or what-have-you.

Goals? Why must the game set goals if you can do that better? You decide what your goals are and if you achieved them or not. What do you want else?
Any mechanic giving pvpers any advantage over non-pvpers would violate the principles of high sec I believe. Leave to lowsec/0.0 for pvping, thats the place where stuff is getting shot, not high sec.



Myxx wrote:

Such a balance would likely improve the game, I would argue however that it would have to be a careful one.

improves the game for one group of people, worsens it for the other.

[qqqqqqquoteeeeeeee=Myxx]Edit: I should add that current evasion mechanics such as simply creating new corporations exist at this time because of the relative ease with wich corporations are created and disbanded, they don't really matter. Likewise, some alliances exist for the explicit purpose of helping corporations evade wars. These can be solved by having wars follow corps through alliances and reformations. Decsheilds as they are called exist because of similar reasons.[/qqqqqqqqqqquoteeeeeeee]
If there is a wardec, why should there be no unwardec?? This would be imbalanced.
You want your word to be final but why should it?

PS: CCP remove this pointless annoying limit of 5 quites finally, its no good for anything but using fakequotes
Myxx
The Scope
#54 - 2011-11-28 16:24:18 UTC
Robert Caldera wrote:

whats more legitimate in your wardec than the machanics of avoiding it?
You want shoot them, they dont want to be shot at. So what?
Its high sec after all, leaving it for pvp does make sense then.


lol. If station games arent fun, why do you play them then?? Just stop, nobody forces you to those pointless activities.


mh, playing markets while some dudes camping the station makes sense as well, why is that broken?
They do NOT "overstep their boundaries" quite obvious, otherwise they would suffer ship losses or something, no??
In fact, they know exactly what they can do and what not, they know they can smack in local or whereever, and you cant do anything about that, camp station for hours get bored and leave. Whats wrong with that?


Goals? Why must the game set goals if you can do that better? You decide what your goals are and if you achieved them or not. What do you want else?
Any mechanic giving pvpers any advantage over non-pvpers would violate the principles of high sec I believe. Leave to lowsec/0.0 for pvping, thats the place where stuff is getting shot, not high sec.




improves the game for one group of people, worsens it for the other.


If there is a wardec, why should there be no unwardec?? This would be imbalanced.
You want your word to be final but why should it?

PS: CCP remove this pointless annoying limit of 5 quites finally, its no good for anything but using fakequotes

This is exactly the mindset I'd like to eradicate.
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#55 - 2011-11-28 16:29:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Robert Caldera
some more arguments from your side??
So far you arent viable at all.

You must understand that there is no real "war declaration" in eve, because there are no "wars" at all in lack of reasons. You might say you want shoot certain people by wardeccing them but because there cant be real reasons for such a "war", the mechanics are easy to avoid your wish for pew pew.

And the biggest fallacy in your idea is your assumption about your wardec being final word, which is not.
I do not know any single reason for this being other way.
Llyona
Subsidy H.R.S.
Xagenic Freymvork
#56 - 2012-02-03 23:54:21 UTC
Spawne32 wrote:
I tried to move a faction pulse laser today out of a station in a .4 system into a .5 system, and a guy sat there waiting for me to come out of the station, while the station gun was BLASTING HIM, he popped me before my screen even loaded, my pod all but seconds later. This **** needs to be corrected. Low sec security needs to actually resemble SECURITY.


I can't believe I'm the first one to call bull*excrement* on this.

You do realize there is a 30 second invulnerability timer on every station undock, regardless the security level of the system you're in, right?

There are only 3 ways your invulnerability is dropped when undocking:

  1. You start to align to a BM or Celestial Object, or move your ship in any manner before 30 seconds is up.
  2. You activate any modules in your ship.
  3. 30 seconds elapses from your undock time.


You can evade a station camper by simply stopping your ship immediately. This will not prematurely terminate your invulnerability timer.

Another tool you can use is a fast undock BM. Simply put, you get a frigate with a MWD, undock and burn at least 600km from station. It's important you not change your trajectory and ensure your ship has finished any rotations it was making while undocking (Thanks CCP) before you turn on any modules, including the MWD.

EVE is an illness, for which there is no cure.

Xolve
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#57 - 2012-02-04 00:02:23 UTC
Llyona wrote:
Spawne32 wrote:
I tried to move a faction pulse laser today out of a station in a .4 system into a .5 system, and a guy sat there waiting for me to come out of the station, while the station gun was BLASTING HIM, he popped me before my screen even loaded, my pod all but seconds later. This **** needs to be corrected. Low sec security needs to actually resemble SECURITY.


You do realize there is a 30 second invulnerability timer on every station undock, regardless the security level of the system you're in, right?



Its shorter now, 20 seconds I believe, IIRC
Llyona
Subsidy H.R.S.
Xagenic Freymvork
#58 - 2012-02-04 00:06:34 UTC
Myxx wrote:

This is exactly the mindset I'd like to eradicate.


Well ain't that swell? I mean, for a minute there I thought you might be mature enough to realize that it's okay for people to disagree with you.

EVE is an illness, for which there is no cure.

Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#59 - 2012-02-04 00:31:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Nicolo da'Vicenza
A great topic.

Ban NPC corps.
Make individuals wardecable.
Then have it so each subsequent corp/alliance hop increases the time it takes to join another corp/alliance on an exponential scale within the timespan of, say, a month. In the interim, you're on your own.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#60 - 2012-02-04 09:11:35 UTC
While concord does seem OP, as has been stated it's a necessary evil but it could be tweaked if any other changes were to take place.

High sec will always attract PvP, due in part to how lazy most high sec dwellers are. But I would agree that the war dec mechanic should be looked into and changed.

Just throwing ideas into the ring:
How about a war dec change, that places a marker on each and every player in a corp/alliance. This marker will stay with any pilot after he leaves the corp/alliance for a set amount of time. Say a few weeks. This mean leaving will eventually remove the war, but everyone simply jumping into the same corp will no longer work.

Yes it has holes, but it's just an idea.

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