These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Improve Hi Sec Wars

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Cassandra Aurilien
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#221 - 2014-06-02 12:22:45 UTC
Velenia Ankletickler wrote:


So, it's a reason for being as it is because that is how it is?

That isn't a reason.



No, but that's not my answer.

If I warp scram someone in high-sec at random, I would get Concorded. If I remote repair someone at random in high-sec, there is absolutely no penalty, unless that person is involved in a limited engagement of some sort, at which point I would go suspect.

Making what would otherwise be a completely legal action Concordable is otherwise unprecedented. Making them go suspect is fair. Adding them as a war target if they interfere during a war seems fair as well.

Velenia Ankletickler wrote:


Incursions and missions does not involve engaging in combat you need flags for, it is a completely irrelevant element for if a Logi should be able to engage in PvP without engement rights.



They already did change the way this works. In the past, neutral logi's were not able to be engaged at all. The suspect flag adds some risk. Giving them a war target flag seems fair. Concording does not.

In fact, this was already changed a bit, to prevent people from using LE's to be able to make Logi's go suspect without the Logi even being able to avoid it, by creating a limited engagement while being repped, making the Logi a valid target for everyone. Now, RR modules stop cycling when the person being repped gains a flag to prevent this.

Velenia Ankletickler wrote:


And that is exactly the point, why isn't it illegal for a logi to engage when it is for everyone else?

And you did say: "No need to concord anyone". So we can agree this was completely wrong and there is a need to concord everyone except logi that illegally engages?

*EDIT Added last sentence + fix spelling.


The Logi are not engaging. They are interfering. When they do so, they gain the suspect flag, allowing you to do something about it. Making them war targets would be fair. Making them automatically die would not.

As to the 2nd, you are confusing me with the person who brought this back up. That's not something I said.
Velenia Ankletickler
Silverflames
#222 - 2014-06-02 12:36:01 UTC
Cassandra Aurilien wrote:

If I warp scram someone in high-sec at random, I would get Concorded.


Only if you don't have rights to hurt them.

Cassandra Aurilien wrote:
If I remote repair someone at random in high-sec, there is absolutely no penalty, unless that person is involved in a limited engagement of some sort


You aren't hurting anyone.

Cassandra Aurilien wrote:
, at which point I would go suspect.


So you go suspect for hurting someone, instead of getting concorded.

This is the whole point, why should a logi get away with hurting someone when no one else can?


Cassandra Aurilien wrote:
The Logi are not engaging. They are interfering.


What exactly makes this "not engaging" but only "interfering"?

And how would a DPS ship removing an equivalent amount of HP from the opposing ship as the logi ship repairs be separated from the logi under this definition?

Cassandra Aurilien wrote:
As to the 2nd, you are confusing me with the person who brought this back up. That's not something I said.


Apologies.
Cassandra Aurilien
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#223 - 2014-06-02 12:48:06 UTC
Velenia Ankletickler wrote:


What exactly makes this "not engaging" but only "interfering"?

And how would a DPS ship removing an equivalent amount of HP from the opposing ship as the logi ship repairs be separated from the logi under this definition?



Firstly... The logi is not "hurting" anyone. They are repairing someone. Those two things are opposite, by their very definition.

As such, they are interfering rather than engaging.

Do you also want a Logi who reps someone who has engaged a suspect to be Concorded as well, as they too are interfering in a conflict?
Velicitia
XS Tech
#224 - 2014-06-02 12:58:22 UTC
Velenia Ankletickler wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Velenia Ankletickler wrote:

Grief c: trouble, annoyance.

So a griefer can be one that cause trouble or annoy.


False.

In this context, no definition matters besides CCP's definition.


CCP doesn't have a definition for griefer. They have a definition for when grief play is punishable.



1. A "griefer" is a player who engages in "grief play"
2. "Grief Play" as an activity varies based on "house rules"
3. CCP has explicitly defined a unilateral wardec as "Normal Gameplay" rather than "Grief Play"

Therefore, someone wardeccing an industrial corp is not a "griefer".
QED.

Seriously, take EVE and "MMO" away from the argument.

Is it "Griefing" when I land on your space in Trouble / Sorry / other game where it means you move back X spaces?
Is it "Griefing" when I deck out the Yellow and Green squares in Monopoly with hotels right before you get there?
Is it "Griefing" in Scrabble when I take some word you made, and build off it for 3x point bonus?

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
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#225 - 2014-06-02 14:14:17 UTC
Velicitia wrote:

Seriously, take EVE and "MMO" away from the argument.

Is it "Griefing" when I land on your space in Trouble / Sorry / other game where it means you move back X spaces?
Is it "Griefing" when I deck out the Yellow and Green squares in Monopoly with hotels right before you get there?
Is it "Griefing" in Scrabble when I take some word you made, and build off it for 3x point bonus?


By the OP's assertion, yes it is.

Apparently anything that causes badfeelz is griefing.

"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.
Velicitia
XS Tech
#226 - 2014-06-02 14:19:10 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Velicitia wrote:

Seriously, take EVE and "MMO" away from the argument.

Is it "Griefing" when I land on your space in Trouble / Sorry / other game where it means you move back X spaces?
Is it "Griefing" when I deck out the Yellow and Green squares in Monopoly with hotels right before you get there?
Is it "Griefing" in Scrabble when I take some word you made, and build off it for 3x point bonus?


By the OP's assertion, yes it is.

Apparently anything that causes badfeelz is griefing.


double_facepalm.jpg

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
Benny Ohu
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#227 - 2014-06-02 14:21:38 UTC
Velenia Ankletickler wrote:
Benny Ohu wrote:
Velenia Ankletickler wrote:
But how much effort would you say an aggressor has to put into a war?

none at all.

oh, unless they want to win, in which case it's quite a bit


Since you can't win a war currently, it is just always none at all :).

Although I don't agree it is none at all, I would say it is 30 seconds and 50 mill.

But checking on the amount of current wars that has no kill in them at all, and aggressors not even caring to try keep defender out of the system they normally come in (both the wars against Silverflames we have been able to come and go pretty much as we wanted,, worst was one ship getting scanned down with combat probes by a neutral alt, while looking for information on aggressor in local) - it is definitely way to low.

hey wow, you not getting it
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#228 - 2014-06-02 14:25:29 UTC
Velicitia wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Velicitia wrote:

Seriously, take EVE and "MMO" away from the argument.

Is it "Griefing" when I land on your space in Trouble / Sorry / other game where it means you move back X spaces?
Is it "Griefing" when I deck out the Yellow and Green squares in Monopoly with hotels right before you get there?
Is it "Griefing" in Scrabble when I take some word you made, and build off it for 3x point bonus?


By the OP's assertion, yes it is.

Apparently anything that causes badfeelz is griefing.


double_facepalm.jpg


At least you didn't mention Risk. Or, God help us, Diplomacy. That is the EVE of board games.

"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.
Velicitia
XS Tech
#229 - 2014-06-02 14:28:50 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Velicitia wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Velicitia wrote:

Seriously, take EVE and "MMO" away from the argument.

Is it "Griefing" when I land on your space in Trouble / Sorry / other game where it means you move back X spaces?
Is it "Griefing" when I deck out the Yellow and Green squares in Monopoly with hotels right before you get there?
Is it "Griefing" in Scrabble when I take some word you made, and build off it for 3x point bonus?


By the OP's assertion, yes it is.

Apparently anything that causes badfeelz is griefing.


double_facepalm.jpg


At least you didn't mention Risk. Or, God help us, Diplomacy. That is the EVE of board games.


They always turn into blue donuts when I play Oops

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
Raw Matters
Brilliant Starfire
#230 - 2014-06-02 19:27:58 UTC
Velicitia wrote:
relevant
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

I think it is very accurate. From Wikipedia:
Quote:
A griefer is a player in a multiplayer video game who deliberately irritates and harasses other players within the game, using aspects of the game in unintended ways. A griefer derives pleasure primarily or exclusively from the act of annoying other users, and as such is a particular nuisance in online gaming communities, since griefers often cannot be deterred by penalties related to in-game goals.

If someone denies me access to trade-hubs using a game concept that is implemented to settle what diplomacy could not for pure ISK gain instead, while there are many other ways to gain much more money in the same time, then I think it is correct to call that person a griefer.

The core concept here is ISK gain, so if you take away the free money aspect, high-sec wars should return to what they are intended for.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#231 - 2014-06-02 19:56:46 UTC
Raw Matters wrote:

If someone denies me access to trade-hubs using a game concept that is implemented to settle what diplomacy could not for pure ISK gain instead, while there are many other ways to gain much more money in the same time, then I think it is correct to call that person a griefer.


No, it's called denying you a strategic objective. Ransom is both approved of and intended as gameplay.

And besides, the point of the game isn't just to make the big number get bigger. Yeah, there are ways to make better money than wardeccing. But most of them aren't as fun to the people who wardec.


Quote:

The core concept here is ISK gain, so if you take away the free money aspect, high-sec wars should return to what they are intended for.


Um, what? What do you think they're intended for?

"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.
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings
#232 - 2014-06-02 20:28:51 UTC
Raw Matters wrote:

If someone denies me access to trade-hubs


I see the root of your problem.

No one can deny you access to trade hubs. No one at all, ever.

They can certainly make it difficult for you, but they cannot deny you.

Your issue is that you don't want to come up with your own solution to problems; you would prefer that CCP do it for you.

Also, highsec wars would be vastly improved if they were free.
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#233 - 2014-06-03 00:46:34 UTC
if someone decs u and then doesnt come anywhere near u then whats the problem?

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Velenia Ankletickler
Silverflames
#234 - 2014-06-03 10:07:38 UTC
Cassandra Aurilien wrote:


Do you also want a Logi who reps someone who has engaged a suspect to be Concorded as well, as they too are interfering in a conflict?


Since the logi has valid engagement with the suspect, no.

Repping the enemy of X, is hurting X.
Velenia Ankletickler
Silverflames
#235 - 2014-06-03 10:08:46 UTC
Velicitia wrote:


1. A "griefer" is a player who engages in "grief play"
2. "Grief Play" as an activity varies based on "house rules"
3. CCP has explicitly defined a unilateral wardec as "Normal Gameplay" rather than "Grief Play"

Therefore, someone wardeccing an industrial corp is not a "griefer".
QED.



And that is based one what offical source? Link please.
Velenia Ankletickler
Silverflames
#236 - 2014-06-03 10:14:15 UTC
Domanique Altares wrote:

Also, highsec wars would be vastly improved if they were free.


That would not improve hi sec wars, that would simply turn hi sec into low sec for corps.

If you just want to randomly fly around and shoot people. Go to low sec.
Velenia Ankletickler
Silverflames
#237 - 2014-06-03 10:15:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Velenia Ankletickler
Daichi Yamato wrote:
if someone decs u and then doesnt come anywhere near u then whats the problem?


That I can't strike back and make them _very_ sorry they inconvenienced my corp by forcing one of us to spend 30-60 minutes researching if they are a thread.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#238 - 2014-06-03 11:31:31 UTC
Velenia Ankletickler wrote:
Velicitia wrote:


1. A "griefer" is a player who engages in "grief play"
2. "Grief Play" as an activity varies based on "house rules"
3. CCP has explicitly defined a unilateral wardec as "Normal Gameplay" rather than "Grief Play"

Therefore, someone wardeccing an industrial corp is not a "griefer".
QED.



And that is based one what offical source? Link please.


Feigning ignorance of the EULA doesn't exactly help your case.

"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.
Velicitia
XS Tech
#239 - 2014-06-03 11:46:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Velicitia
Velenia Ankletickler wrote:
Velicitia wrote:


1. A "griefer" is a player who engages in "grief play"
2. "Grief Play" as an activity varies based on "house rules"
3. CCP has explicitly defined a unilateral wardec as "Normal Gameplay" rather than "Grief Play"

Therefore, someone wardeccing an industrial corp is not a "griefer".
QED.



And that is based one what offical source? Link please.


Ask and ye shall receive.

In case all the words confuse you...

CCP Games wrote:

...[Grief Play] should not be confused with standard conflict that might arise between two (or more) players, such as corporation wars.


edited to add

Raw Matters wrote:

If someone denies me access to trade-hubs using a game concept that is implemented to settle what diplomacy could not for pure ISK gain instead, while there are many other ways to gain much more money in the same time, then I think it is correct to call that person a griefer.

The core concept here is ISK gain, so if you take away the free money aspect, high-sec wars should return to what they are intended for.


The above rulings about "grief play" (and a wardec not constituting as such) apply to your comments as well.

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
Kasife Vynneve
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#240 - 2014-06-03 11:59:17 UTC
Don't like having neut logi help them means bringing your own neut logi or living with the fact that they are better organized than you.