These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Anti-pirate market blacklisting?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Solecist Project
#101 - 2014-06-20 12:20:15 UTC
Gully Alex Foyle wrote:
Solecist Project wrote:
Gully Alex Foyle wrote:
Because he's doing it wrong.

Every new player starts off with a 'Highsec Trade Permit'.

Permit is necessary to buy, station trade, accept contracts and access corp hangars in highsec.

Permit is revoked if sec status drops below -2.0.


Probably a terrible idea, but it would work.

What's the point? People use alts. It changes nothing to the better.
It wouldn't matter whose alt it is. Use a character for ganking --> sec status decreases --> that character couldn't get equipment in highsec stations.


Or an alternative, very simple version: station lockout based on sec status.

Ditch NPC Police (a bad mechanic imo), but revoke highsec station docking privileges altogether, based on sec status.

Gankers would have to stage at highsec POS, which makes sense since they're 'naughty pirates'. And POS are attackable.

Increase the challenge for gankers, give a real 'fight back' opportunity to white knights, if they're up to it.

If necessary, tweak CONCORD response times to make up for the net impact on ganks of ditching NPC Police + station lockouts.

You don't have any experience (which clearly shows),
yet believe you have something valid to say.

So then I'd be locked out of the station. Big deal.

I'd have people drop me a ship in space I can jump into
and I can have mobile depots spread around in every system to refit easily.
It's not even a hassle.

And the faction police is awesome. It adds spice for those who don't want to hide
in station all day. The facpo is easily avoided. Just because people chose to avoid
it in station, doesn't make it a bad mechanic. Ganking would be **** boring for me
if they weren't there. For my taste it's easy enough already as it is.

And unlike you I know what I am talking about.

That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breathe of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly PULVERISED by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds. - Tippia
Gully Alex Foyle
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#102 - 2014-06-20 12:21:18 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Petrus Blackshell wrote:
Is an idea bad just beacuse it doesn't benefit a specific group of people?


An idea is bad when it doesn't work as intended, hurts the people it's supposed to help and helps the people it's supposed to hurt (among other things).

Your idea wouldn't affect me at all, in fact if there were people who would only sell to people with (for example) 5.0 sec status, it would actually benefit me greatly as I have 8 characters at or near that now (of the other 4 only one is in the negative because of shooting at non-FW targets while in FW).

But just because something benefits an individual, that doesn't make it in any way a good idea for the 'community' ('game' in this case). An idea is a good one when it does what it's supposed to do, has limited negative and unintended consequences, and benefits the most people in the community in question.

Your idea does not of that. You can sink into that place where 'bright idea' people go to mentally hide (when other people demonstrate to them that they really aren't that smart and their idea isn't just horrible, it would be horrible for the person making the idea i the 1st place), but that doesn't make the idea we're talking about any less horrible.

EVE would have to have a strict ban on alts, contracts, and in station direct trading (hell, you'd even have to some how stop people from jet-canning stuff too lest you create a real , in space, 'black market' lol) enforced by game mechanics for your idea to even begin to have even the slightest merit.
Agree, obviously.

What about station lockout based on sec status? Coupled with elimination of NPC Police.

Outlaws could roam freely in highsec, but would need to base in lowsec or set up a POS.

Could be an interesting way to shake up boring highsec mechanics. Pirate

Make space glamorous! Is EVE dying or not? Ask the EVE-O Death-o-meter!
Jenn aSide
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#103 - 2014-06-20 12:23:44 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Petrus Blackshell wrote:
So far nobody has proposed anything that invalidates the idea's usefulness.

What?

There have been several examples posted of why the idea isn't useful.

They all come back to - it will have no practical affect on anything. Nothing will change and it won't achieve one iota of difference.

It's no better than a Carebear throwing ISK away by placing a bounty on someone and thinking that makes a difference.

This is an idea doomed to the same level of usefulness. It will only annoy new players who don't have the knowledge or experience to understand that's it's a compliment, not a road block.


Very well said. That's why 'bounty hunting' doesn't work. For bounty hunting to work you'd simply have to eliminate the ability to log off lol, and aren't we chained to EVE Online enough :) .

Side note, over the last 16 years of my career I've had occasion to deal with a few real life 'bounty hunters'. Not nearly the fun and glamorous job people imagine, they catch most of their targets when they are sleeping, usually at some family member's or girlfriends house. EVE Bounty hunting can't work because 'sleeping' in EVE makes you magically disappear from the universe lol).

As I said in my post before this, soooo many things about EVE make the whole 'universal blacklisting' idea useless.
Jenn aSide
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#104 - 2014-06-20 12:25:52 UTC
Gully Alex Foyle wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Petrus Blackshell wrote:
Is an idea bad just beacuse it doesn't benefit a specific group of people?


An idea is bad when it doesn't work as intended, hurts the people it's supposed to help and helps the people it's supposed to hurt (among other things).

Your idea wouldn't affect me at all, in fact if there were people who would only sell to people with (for example) 5.0 sec status, it would actually benefit me greatly as I have 8 characters at or near that now (of the other 4 only one is in the negative because of shooting at non-FW targets while in FW).

But just because something benefits an individual, that doesn't make it in any way a good idea for the 'community' ('game' in this case). An idea is a good one when it does what it's supposed to do, has limited negative and unintended consequences, and benefits the most people in the community in question.

Your idea does not of that. You can sink into that place where 'bright idea' people go to mentally hide (when other people demonstrate to them that they really aren't that smart and their idea isn't just horrible, it would be horrible for the person making the idea i the 1st place), but that doesn't make the idea we're talking about any less horrible.

EVE would have to have a strict ban on alts, contracts, and in station direct trading (hell, you'd even have to some how stop people from jet-canning stuff too lest you create a real , in space, 'black market' lol) enforced by game mechanics for your idea to even begin to have even the slightest merit.
Agree, obviously.

What about station lockout based on sec status? Coupled with elimination of NPC Police.

Outlaws could roam freely in highsec, but would need to base in lowsec or set up a POS.

Could be an interesting way to shake up boring highsec mechanics. Pirate


Now see, those are ideas that could work, would fit with EVE Online, and aren't dumb. Gully for CSM 6! (screw it, lets go back in time! Big smile ) .
Solecist Project
#105 - 2014-06-20 12:38:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Solecist Project
Gully Alex Foyle wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Petrus Blackshell wrote:
Is an idea bad just beacuse it doesn't benefit a specific group of people?


An idea is bad when it doesn't work as intended, hurts the people it's supposed to help and helps the people it's supposed to hurt (among other things).

Your idea wouldn't affect me at all, in fact if there were people who would only sell to people with (for example) 5.0 sec status, it would actually benefit me greatly as I have 8 characters at or near that now (of the other 4 only one is in the negative because of shooting at non-FW targets while in FW).

But just because something benefits an individual, that doesn't make it in any way a good idea for the 'community' ('game' in this case). An idea is a good one when it does what it's supposed to do, has limited negative and unintended consequences, and benefits the most people in the community in question.

Your idea does not of that. You can sink into that place where 'bright idea' people go to mentally hide (when other people demonstrate to them that they really aren't that smart and their idea isn't just horrible, it would be horrible for the person making the idea i the 1st place), but that doesn't make the idea we're talking about any less horrible.

EVE would have to have a strict ban on alts, contracts, and in station direct trading (hell, you'd even have to some how stop people from jet-canning stuff too lest you create a real , in space, 'black market' lol) enforced by game mechanics for your idea to even begin to have even the slightest merit.
Agree, obviously.

What about station lockout based on sec status? Coupled with elimination of NPC Police.

Outlaws could roam freely in highsec, but would need to base in lowsec or set up a POS.

Could be an interesting way to shake up boring highsec mechanics. Pirate
Not really.
Read my post above yours.

And removing the facpo would make it easier and more boring.

Gankers should be treated equally. The facpo aren't as bad as people make out to be
and don't need to be removed., just becausemost people chose to unnecessarily hide from them.

That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breathe of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly PULVERISED by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds. - Tippia
Grunanca
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#106 - 2014-06-20 12:38:57 UTC
Petrus Blackshell wrote:
The recent deluge of freighter ganking and other hisec lawlessness is a travesty. Yeah I get it, it's Eve you can do what you want, sandbox, HTFU, etc etc etc.

But we people who choose to focus on things other than destructio (and keep Eve running in the process) have no way to fight back! Not just that, but it's worse: those doing productive things are actively helping the destroyers by providing materials, ships, ammo, and fuel! This is terrible!

If you were an automobile manufacturer IRL would you sell your cars to a guy who has a record of using those cars to nudge lorries off the road, or cause horrific traffic accidents on purpose? NO! Why can we not do the same thing?

CCP this is an enemy that only fights on his terms and has the objective of ruining the game. We want to advance and contribute to the game. Give us market pirate blacklisting, or sec status limits on orders, so we can fight them on our terms! More content for everyone and Eve grows.



I dont remember when I last bought a ship or a module on this char... Pretty sure the same counts for most other -10s. We got alts doing the shopping. So good luck banning me from the market. Chances are that years would pass before I even noticed it.

Also, stop making comparing to real, this is a game... But now that you are there, when did you last get asked about your criminal background when buying a car? I definately never got asked.

If no one shoot at someone else, how much do you think you would sell?
Gully Alex Foyle
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#107 - 2014-06-20 12:41:42 UTC
Solecist Project wrote:
Read my post above yours.
I did, it wan't interesting.

Make space glamorous! Is EVE dying or not? Ask the EVE-O Death-o-meter!
BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#108 - 2014-06-20 16:59:28 UTC
This is an amazing idea! Everyone knows that sec status is a perfectly good indicator of how trustworthy people are! I sure can't trust that nasty FW pvper, so let me go ask Fighter Jets GuitarSolo to double my isk. She even has non-negative sec status!

I actually don't think this is a terrible idea, though it should not be based on sec status. It should be based only on standings. Also, this needs to be turned off by default to prevent any significant drop in items traded.

Founder of Violet Squadron, a small gang NPSI community! Mail me for more information.

BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie's Space Mediation Service!
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#109 - 2014-06-20 17:03:03 UTC
So why would a manufacturer want to lock themselves out of FW/lowsec market and lose all of that isk flow?
Iain Cariaba
#110 - 2014-06-20 17:12:57 UTC
Petrus Blackshell wrote:
Stealth nerf ganking

I support this idea.

The less you sell to those who gank you, the more I sell to those who gank you.
Jenn aSide
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#111 - 2014-06-20 17:31:58 UTC
BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie wrote:
Fighter Jets GuitarSolo.


Gawd dayum that's an awesome name :)
Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings
#112 - 2014-06-20 17:34:44 UTC
Iain Cariaba wrote:
Petrus Blackshell wrote:
Stealth nerf ganking

I support this idea.

The less you sell to those who gank you, the more I sell to those who gank you.

Hardly a stealth nerf to ganking. Glad to see people are coming around though.

Accidentally The Whole Frigate - For-newbies blog (currently on pause)
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings
#113 - 2014-06-20 17:42:58 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
So why would a manufacturer want to lock themselves out of FW/lowsec market and lose all of that isk flow?


Because they're ignorants that think they're going to somehow punish play styles they don't approve of with this mechanic.

I've decided to support this sec status trading idea; I like to see things fail in spectacular fashion. The quicker goody two shoes goes bankrupt, the quicker he gets the hell out of EVE.
Saji'us
Magnetar Dynamics
#114 - 2014-06-20 18:06:55 UTC
Petrus Blackshell wrote:
But we people who choose to focus on things other than destructio (and keep Eve running in the process) have no way to fight back!


lol
Sentamon
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#115 - 2014-06-20 19:48:54 UTC
Hiding behind alts is the single biggest reason to completely lock all the gankbears out of highsec stations.

We've got -10 security pirates taking down fully tanked ships , and far from lowec systems, all made possible by their high securiy alts doing the prep work and the complete safety of stations. You've got to be a trully risk averse carebear to support this type of system.

~ Professional Forum Alt  ~
Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings
#116 - 2014-06-20 19:51:23 UTC
Sentamon wrote:
Hiding behind alts is the single biggest reason to completely lock all the gankbears out of highsec stations.

We've got -10 security pirates taking down fully tanked ships , and far from lowec systems, all made possible by their high securiy alts doing the prep work and the complete safety of stations. You've got to be a trully risk averse carebear to support this type of system.

~~But orca alts just circumvent that.~~

See? That stupid alt argument can be used to argue against a lot of changes that would make the game better.

Accidentally The Whole Frigate - For-newbies blog (currently on pause)
Sentamon
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#117 - 2014-06-20 20:12:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Sentamon
Petrus Blackshell wrote:
Sentamon wrote:
Hiding behind alts is the single biggest reason to completely lock all the gankbears out of highsec stations.

We've got -10 security pirates taking down fully tanked ships , and far from lowec systems, all made possible by their high securiy alts doing the prep work and the complete safety of stations. You've got to be a trully risk averse carebear to support this type of system.

~~But orca alts just circumvent that.~~

See? That stupid alt argument can be used to argue against a lot of changes that would make the game better.


Yes they do. Still don't understand why forming a fleet with people doesn't set everyones security to that of the lowest security member. I realize big bad pirates want their warm milk and safetly blanket but lets be real here.

Whoever designed Crimewatch needs to take it beyond the scribbles on the back of a napkin stage and put some real thought coding behind it.

~ Professional Forum Alt  ~
Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings
#118 - 2014-06-20 20:15:15 UTC
Sentamon wrote:
Petrus Blackshell wrote:
Sentamon wrote:
Hiding behind alts is the single biggest reason to completely lock all the gankbears out of highsec stations.

We've got -10 security pirates taking down fully tanked ships , and far from lowec systems, all made possible by their high securiy alts doing the prep work and the complete safety of stations. You've got to be a trully risk averse carebear to support this type of system.

~~But orca alts just circumvent that.~~

See? That stupid alt argument can be used to argue against a lot of changes that would make the game better.


Yes they do. Still don't understand why forming a fleet with people doesn't set everyones security to that of the lowest security member. I realize big bad pirates want their warm milk and safetly blanket but lets be real here.

Whoever designed Crimewatch needs to take it beyond the scribbles on the back of a napkin stage and put some real coding behind it.

Because joining an innocent-looking +10 sec character's fleet will get you killed since he has a -10 sec alt sitting in a safe spot in system, and joins the fleet right after you join it, causing you to become instantly shootable?

Accidentally The Whole Frigate - For-newbies blog (currently on pause)
Jon Joringer
The Third Foundation
Commonwealth Vanguard
#119 - 2014-06-20 21:19:27 UTC
I can actually see this being a cool idea in an EVE without alts. It might cause the creation of true pirate hubs. And everyone wants seedy pirate trade hubs.
Inxentas Ultramar
Orde van Oranje Nassau
Evictus.
#120 - 2014-06-20 22:05:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Inxentas Ultramar
Jon Joringer wrote:
I can actually see this being a cool idea in an EVE without alts. It might cause the creation of true pirate hubs. And everyone wants seedy pirate trade hubs.

I too would like my Mos Eisley. The best pirate organizations can do now is either contract corp-wide or sell at publicly accessable stations, potentially arming rival gangs. Right now the situation is actually vice versa: thanks to altism the outlaw can easily access stations in hisec, but carebears would require a standings agreement or blockade runner (actual bloody mechanics) to access stations in systems regulated by outlaws. And even then many don't truly get FiS mechanics and die on the undock, because every player error will be punished.

Let's turn this thing around shall we?
Anytime the Faction police may shoot at you, so may other capsuleers causing a Limited Engagement. Faction police itself is to be deleted entirely. How about that to at least balance out the above problem? It might make going to hisec as a negative sec character actually interesting, and might spurn some bounty-hunting. I've always wondered why the NPCs could shoot bananas and we players are forbidden to do so. Lore-wise the change would make sense, capsuleers have been encroaching upon NPC regulated mechanics since Rubicon.

Alts can't be tackled anyway, trying to solve anything caused by alts is a problem way past fixing anyway.