These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Ines Tegator
Serious Business Inc. Ltd. LLC. etc.
#61 - 2011-12-04 07:37:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Ines Tegator
Verity Sovereign wrote:
*snip*


+1

A brilliant plan. The progressive change down into lowsec is excellent- the details may be debated, but the concept is excellent.

Overhaul Dscan!
DHuncan
Long John Silver.
#62 - 2011-12-04 08:28:52 UTC
Nestara Aldent wrote:
DHuncan wrote:
The figure 'crime scene' could be added to the wrecks of a suicide attak. If a wreck is flaged as 'crime scene' it should not be touched with impunity by any except the corporation owning this ship. All would depend on how eficient or ineficient would CONCORD be depending -and coherently- of security level or due system. If a good ballance on time response and strenght of a law enforcement patrol is applied, this would be a great implementation.


C'mon! Do you realize player corps are allowed sovereignty and to declare war because Empires can't enforce law over vast outer space?

Too that would make for a bad gameplay mechanic. You're just trying to pass something that will benefit you personally, without thinking how it will affect the entire game. If you remove pvp, Eve is just shooting rocks, you know! And if you don't wanna get blown up from time to time pvp game isn't for you, anyway.



And how did you reach such a conclusion from what I said? Please guide me through your mental proces to determine how it would benefit me personally? How you assume I don't PvP? How you assume this would not benefit also PvP? How you assume I didnt think? Explain, please, how is a bad game mechanic and tracing a line is better? When I ever sayd anything about removing PvP?

Is true that sovereignty is there -not given but conquered- in areas where law dont reach. This is not the case of Empire space, in wich law applies gradually from almost nothing to almost total. At least in theory but in the praxis there is a lot of room to develop the idea. My suggestion of the 'crime scene' which so far in this thread was my only post, was only a little suggestion to make a workaround for the suicide attack workarounds. As any other idea is here to be duscused not to be passed for personal benefict.

The comment of EvE may not be for me I have heard before. Dull. I never tryed to ban PvP as I know is a great part of the EvE. Now that you outside PvP only can see shooting rocks leads me to think it is you who doesnt understand tha huge body of EvE. I will not tell you to quit but invite you to learn some more about it as obviously you didnt grasp the EvE concept.

What did you say about CODE?
Bearilian
Man Eating Bears
#63 - 2011-12-04 21:26:41 UTC
first i apologies for not reading everything. i read most of it though..

the main point i want to make is about security in general. think about what function a gate serves. transportation between systems, so with this in mind does it make sense that low security systems would not gaurd the gates that go strait into high sec ones?

since the main point of this thread really started on people spam camping around high sec, making low sec rather un accessable, why not just allow conkord to gaurd and defend pilots who are within 100 km of the gate? and only at gates that go strait to high sec systems. (theres got to be a way to balance the mechanics to make this change plausable)

dont forget that low sec is still considered territory of the nation, so if the protection it offeres did have a better diminishing feel it would be highly more believable.

gankers should have to use some skill in having to find targets. camping next to high sec gates is nooby, lazy, and unimaginative.
Spawne32
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#64 - 2011-12-04 22:34:33 UTC
Upgrading low sec and high sec security doesnt change the game mechanics at all, at least for most people it doesnt. The complaints come from griefers that dont PVP on the terms in which PVP in the game was made for. The kind of PVP that we are talking about that needs to be stopped is in fact "griefing" in its purest form. Suicide ganking in high sec of cargo ships, gate camps ON ENTRY so that its pointless to jump between systems, etc. This is not "player verus player" game play. This is,your game loads, and you blow up and die gameplay exacerbated by players exploiting a system that has not been updated for years yet other aspects of the game have been made so that they circumvent these original security measures.

Low sec space is in fact "security" guarded space, thats the reason it is called low security, but in its current form you might as well call it null, like i said before. The expansions that have been added to the game for the players have given an environment where this security is meaningless, and thus this security system that is in place needs to be updated. Subtle changes in the way current security is now could easily improve high sec gameplay by 10x.

Eliminating the ability to attack within 100km of a gate in low sec space without triggering some sort of "fleet response" from concord or empire would discourage gate camps that make travel through these systems impossible. Eliminating the drops from PVP attacks on convoy ships or ships in general in all systems above .5 would discourage the need to suicide gank players transporting materials, and a layered security buff across most levels would aid in overall security effectiveness.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#65 - 2011-12-05 11:21:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Mag's
Spawne32 wrote:
Upgrading low sec and high sec security doesnt change the game mechanics at all, at least for most people it doesnt.
So in other words, it does change mechanics.

Spawne32 wrote:
The complaints come from griefers that dont PVP on the terms in which PVP in the game was made for. The kind of PVP that we are talking about that needs to be stopped is in fact "griefing" in its purest form. Suicide ganking in high sec of cargo ships, gate camps ON ENTRY so that its pointless to jump between systems, etc. This is not "player verus player" game play. This is,your game loads, and you blow up and die gameplay exacerbated by players exploiting a system that has not been updated for years yet other aspects of the game have been made so that they circumvent these original security measures.
In other words, people play the game how it was designed to be played. The fact you seemingly cannot cope with or adapt to these designed game mechanics, is the fault of yours not Eve's.

Whether you like it or not, Eve is PvP centric.

Spawne32 wrote:
Low sec space is in fact "security" guarded space, thats the reason it is called low security, but in its current form you might as well call it null, like i said before. The expansions that have been added to the game for the players have given an environment where this security is meaningless, and thus this security system that is in place needs to be updated. Subtle changes in the way current security is now could easily improve high sec gameplay by 10x.
Low sec is safer than null, high sec is safer than low, none of them are safe. You still don't seem to understand that.

Spawne32 wrote:
Eliminating the ability to attack within 100km of a gate in low sec space without triggering some sort of "fleet response" from concord or empire would discourage gate camps that make travel through these systems impossible. Eliminating the drops from PVP attacks on convoy ships or ships in general in all systems above .5 would discourage the need to suicide gank players transporting materials, and a layered security buff across most levels would aid in overall security effectiveness.
You already have the tools provided by CCP, to have safer travel through low sec and null sec. If you don't want to, or are to lazy to use these tools, then again the fault is with you and not the game.

Suicide ganking is endorsed and even promoted by CCP. Empire travel is far safer now than it's ever been, if you use the tools provided and adapt to the game. At the moment, your asking CCP to adapt the game to you, it's not going to happen.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Spawne32
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#66 - 2011-12-05 22:33:41 UTC
Spoken like a true griefer.
Korg Tronix
Mole Station Nursery
#67 - 2011-12-05 23:26:43 UTC
Spawne32 wrote:
Spoken like a true griefer.


Spoken like someone who doesnt know what he is talking about

Evil: If I were creating the world I wouldn't mess about with butterflies and daffodils. I would have started with lasers, eight o'clock, Day One! [zaps one of his minions accidentally, minion screams]
Spawne32
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#68 - 2011-12-06 04:01:12 UTC
Korg Tronix wrote:
Spawne32 wrote:
Spoken like a true griefer.


Spoken like someone who doesnt know what he is talking about


Eve only has so much life left in it with the way the game is played now, accounts will continue to dwindle away as the years go by. CCP will be forced to lay off more employee's, and eventually the game will cease to exist, just because of the sheer fact that it doesnt promote an environment to play "casually" that most typical PVE games incorporate. You say eve is PVP centric, i say its both, you kill the one half, the other half of the game will die with it. You can complain all you want about my posts but my subscription will get canceled just like many times before when other games come out in the spring that are more for my style of gameplay, and maybe in a year or two ill come back and check in and see if CCP listened to what the "carebears" had to say.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#69 - 2011-12-06 11:35:00 UTC
Spawne32 wrote:
Korg Tronix wrote:
Spawne32 wrote:
Spoken like a true griefer.


Spoken like someone who doesnt know what he is talking about


Eve only has so much life left in it with the way the game is played now, accounts will continue to dwindle away as the years go by. CCP will be forced to lay off more employee's, and eventually the game will cease to exist, just because of the sheer fact that it doesnt promote an environment to play "casually" that most typical PVE games incorporate. You say eve is PVP centric, i say its both, you kill the one half, the other half of the game will die with it. You can complain all you want about my posts but my subscription will get canceled just like many times before when other games come out in the spring that are more for my style of gameplay, and maybe in a year or two ill come back and check in and see if CCP listened to what the "carebears" had to say.
The game didn't lose subscription due to PvP related things, it actually lost it because of Barbie in Space. The pinnacle of carebear you could say.
To illustrate the point, here's a graph showing the drop just after Incarna hit our shores.
ye olde PCU per week-day graph.

We've had people like yourself through the history of Eve, claiming it's dying and for a time it looked that way. But far from the reason you're claiming, in fact a full 180° turn from that reason.

So you're wrong about the game, wrong about the reason for the decline in numbers, wrong about the direction this game should take and this idea thread has your wrong written all over it.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Spawne32
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#70 - 2011-12-06 23:25:25 UTC
Mag's wrote:
Spawne32 wrote:
Korg Tronix wrote:
Spawne32 wrote:
Spoken like a true griefer.


Spoken like someone who doesnt know what he is talking about


Eve only has so much life left in it with the way the game is played now, accounts will continue to dwindle away as the years go by. CCP will be forced to lay off more employee's, and eventually the game will cease to exist, just because of the sheer fact that it doesnt promote an environment to play "casually" that most typical PVE games incorporate. You say eve is PVP centric, i say its both, you kill the one half, the other half of the game will die with it. You can complain all you want about my posts but my subscription will get canceled just like many times before when other games come out in the spring that are more for my style of gameplay, and maybe in a year or two ill come back and check in and see if CCP listened to what the "carebears" had to say.
The game didn't lose subscription due to PvP related things, it actually lost it because of Barbie in Space. The pinnacle of carebear you could say.
To illustrate the point, here's a graph showing the drop just after Incarna hit our shores.
ye olde PCU per week-day graph.

We've had people like yourself through the history of Eve, claiming it's dying and for a time it looked that way. But far from the reason you're claiming, in fact a full 180° turn from that reason.

So you're wrong about the game, wrong about the reason for the decline in numbers, wrong about the direction this game should take and this idea thread has your wrong written all over it.


The only thing thats wrong here is you, your the reason the game is unpleasant to play when it comes to areas of the game that should be fun, along with others like you. Anything short of a response from CCP saying that Im wrong on all my points, ill continue to make my case until something is done about it, or until i find a new game to play. Just because you can find an excuse for your reasoning doesnt make it right. Every time another player in the game causes someone to "ragequit", CCP loses money, and your game dies. All as a result of exploits that you think make the game better.
Torin Corax
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#71 - 2011-12-07 02:46:12 UTC
Spawne32 wrote:
Upgrading low sec and high sec security doesnt change the game mechanics at all, at least for most people it doesnt.


Changing the mechanics in order to upgrade lowsec isn't changing the mechanics? Pretty sure it is. It would certainly change the gameplay, for the worse from my point of view.

Quote:
Suicide ganking in high sec of cargo ships, gate camps ON ENTRY so that its pointless to jump between systems, etc.


Pointless if you are unwilling to take the necessary precautions to be safe, profitable if you are. I certainly have a point when jumping between systems, even in low sec. Avoiding camps just requires you to be a little more careful and exercise a healthy degree of paranoia. As Mag's has said, the tools (and techniques) are there, up to you to use them.

Quote:
This is not "player verus player" game play.


Yes it is. Just because it does not follow your preconceived idea of what PvP "should" be does not mean it isn't PvP.
And it's not griefing just because you say so either. Griefing will get you into trouble with GM's, if you think you are being griefed then report it and let the GM's decide if such is the case.


Quote:
Eliminating the ability to attack within 100km of a gate in low sec space without triggering some sort of "fleet response" from concord or empire would discourage gate camps that make travel through these systems impossible.


It's not impossible. Sure there are some systems that can be very hard to get through if you are not blue to the campers, but that in itself may be the point. It is not possible to gain sov in low sec. Therefore for a corp or alliance that wishes to take "control" of a low sec area camping is one of the methods by which to attempt this.
Controlling a low sec area is not a simple task, and best of luck to those with the balls to attempt it.

What you are asking for would render the threat of low sec travel obsolete. Thus negatively impacting on the success, profit and fun of those who have the skill and/ or nerve to take the risk and "get one over" on their less-prepared (cowardly?) competitors. If you know how to operate in low sec you gain an advantage over those that don't. This is how it should be.
Spawne32
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#72 - 2011-12-07 06:15:31 UTC
You want a pvp game go play call of duty, the game isnt pvp centric, its a role playing strategy game that is pve centric with pvp mechanics included, whether you like to belive it or not. 75% of the game content is geared ENTIRELY for pve. Again no one is asking to tip the balance of power in favor for pve players alone, we are asking to balance the game as a whole when it comes to empire space given the constant ever changing improvements that pvp players get every single god damn expansion.

Other conversation, another day I had with another player in the game that focuses on more PVE centric game play, basically came to the same conclusion, the latest expansions have essentially put pve gameplay up against a wall, you have a situation where you cant run high lvl agents above level 4 because of the lack of upgraded security along with the upraded pvp systems. Less and less people fly battleships because they cant afford to be lost at the frequency in which pvp play is occuring in empire space, and most people wont take their shiney ships out unless they have to for fear of losing them after working years to aquire them. So youve essentially rendered the top tier of ships in the game useless because of the cost to risk, unless you are backed by a huge alliance/corp that can afford the loss.

Call it whatever you want, my point stands.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#73 - 2011-12-07 10:10:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Mag's
Spawne32 wrote:
Just because you can find an excuse for your reasoning doesnt make it right.
You mean facts to back up what I'm saying. I've yet to see any facts to back up what you've said.

OK then, name three thing in Eve that are not PvP.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Aqriue
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#74 - 2011-12-07 11:00:24 UTC
Mag's wrote:
[quote=Spawne32] OK then, name three thing in Eve that are not PvP.

1. Ship spinning
2. NeX store
3. Captain's Quarters

None of these three things is interactable with Player vs Player. Ship spinning, solo thing. NeX store has no interaction with other players (assuming only converting PLEX bought from CCP to aurum then buying straight from NPC for yourself, not using isk to buy an item someone else used aurum to obtain to sell pixel cloths or you bought an PLEX from someone else with isk to convert to aurum). Captain's Quarters...still no ability to get a couple of friends over to your place and play a round of Call of DUST Roll on that big screen...and I still liked the first captain's quarters over the 4 new ones, as it had that grungy look of not being very clean vs the 4 new ones that look like hotel rooms.
Torin Corax
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#75 - 2011-12-07 11:34:32 UTC
Spawne32 wrote:
You want a pvp game go play call of duty, the game isnt pvp centric, its a role playing strategy game that is pve centric with pvp mechanics included, whether you like to belive it or not. 75% of the game content is geared ENTIRELY for pve.Again no one is asking to tip the balance of power in favor for pve players alone, we are asking to balance the game as a whole when it comes to empire space given the constant ever changing improvements that pvp players get every single god damn expansion.


I would be very interested in seeing the data that leads to this statistic. The only thing I can think of that is "pure" PvE is mission running in high sec. Yet even here there are mechanics in place to allow other players to interact with you without your consent. As far as I can tell this is deliberate and supported by CCP.
While players and forumites may wax lyrical about "bugs" actually being referred to as " features" I doubt CCP would of allowed such interaction if they deemed it counter to the spirit of EvE.

I make most of my isk from exploration ( a PvE occupation) yet I do so only in low sec. The reason for this is that it is more profitable because of the risk involved. I have less competition for sites and therefore more success. The changes being suggested would make it a lot easier than it already is, leading to far more competition.
I use the isk I make to fund my PvP in low sec, adding to the risk ( and my own enjoyment of the game) and helping to perpetuate the fear of low sec that keeps out my competitors. To me this is a perfect system of risk/ reward (would be nice if the reward were a little higher, but that's a different argument for a different threadSmile ), and seems to be working as intended.

If you want to be able to travel "freely" in low sec, and exploit the PvE, mining or market opportunities that exist there it is incumbent on you to learn how, not on CCP to make it easy. If I can do it anyone can, I'm no PvP god.

As far as suicide ganking goes. It's not an occupation that I pursue, but I am glad that it exists. I have experienced several (unsuccessful) attempts to gank me when moving stuff around high sec, and I have to consider it lucky that the gankers were less than experienced. However those attempts made what I was doing far more interesting than it otherwise would of been, and I love the fact that it is possible. For me it serves to underline the premise that drew me to try Eve in the first place, that it is " A cold harsh universe", this is the kind of gameplay I enjoy so this is the game I play.
If this ever becomes WoW(PvE server) in space I'm out. Hopefully this never happens.
Bearilian
Man Eating Bears
#76 - 2011-12-07 12:21:17 UTC
you guys got really off topic, and none of you have helped to discourage this post or promote the idea. no offense spawn I agree with some of what you said, but your post made them completely miss some important points. Dont ask for so much, and dont argue with pvp'ers that this is pve. its a great mixture of both, the argument cannot be won by other side (seen countless countless times).

this post should be to ask for a smoother transition between high and low. its a cut off point. granted you get a nice warning before venturing off, but the empre would still protect you at their own gate. .4 systems would not be abandoned the way they are. there would be a couple (if not a crapload) buffed ships defending the gate that sends you strait to high sec. protect their assets, "customs officers" if you like.

ganking, will always and should always exist in this game. having that option is exciting and scary, makes you think. gate camping on the other hand is pathetic and sad. like i said before, its entirely to lazy. And no, I'm not trying to stop gaters, all except the nooby free loaders, camping gates that go strait to high sec.
(If ccp made this change, heres your solution, if you are a gate greifer in low sec. watch someone warp in, watch and attempt to follow where they go. if you can catch them then well deserved)
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#77 - 2011-12-07 14:46:48 UTC
Aqriue wrote:
Mag's wrote:
OK then, name three thing in Eve that are not PvP.

1. Ship spinning
2. NeX store
3. Captain's Quarters
Since they just introduced the ship spin counter, we can strike that one from the list. Blink

Anyway, yes, EVE is pretty much entirely PvP-centric except for the button clicks to request and to complete a mission (and no, the mission itself is not PvP:less either).
Velicitia
XS Tech
#78 - 2011-12-07 16:27:00 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Aqriue wrote:
Mag's wrote:
OK then, name three thing in Eve that are not PvP.

1. Ship spinning
2. NeX store
3. Captain's Quarters
Since they just introduced the ship spin counter, we can strike that one from the list. Blink

Anyway, yes, EVE is pretty much entirely PvP-centric except for the button clicks to request and to complete a mission (and no, the mission itself is not PvP:less either).


you missed one Tippia -- I can turn around and sell you NEX crap on the open market ...

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
Torin Corax
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#79 - 2011-12-07 17:58:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Torin Corax
Bearilian wrote:


ganking, will always and should always exist in this game. having that option is exciting and scary, makes you think. gate camping on the other hand is pathetic and sad. like i said before, its entirely to lazy. And no, I'm not trying to stop gaters, all except the nooby free loaders, camping gates that go strait to high sec.
(If ccp made this change, heres your solution, if you are a gate greifer in low sec. watch someone warp in, watch and attempt to follow where they go. if you can catch them then well deserved)



So which tools should I use to follow someone, given tha 99.9% of the people that jump in to a camp are in all likelihood warping to 0 at the out-gate or station? Doesn't matter if I know where they are going if there is nothing I can do about it once they reach warp.
I suppose I could try and warp faster to their out-gate and catch them on the other side...oh wait, I can't engage on the gate because of the NPC backup they are going to get under the proposed systemRoll

Given the mechanics of travel that exist at this time gate and station camping is the only really reliable way of catching someone in system. Belt PvP is reserved primarily for those who are after a fight themselves, or the terminally careless. Same with those running plexes. Anyone who spends any time in low sec knows that it is very hard to catch/ kill another player who is aware of the risks and actively taking precautions.(damn near impossible in fact).

You may feel camping is lame, I'd tend to agree even though I camp myself, but it is currently the only real option. Nothing in the OP addresses this issue, and it would definitely need to be addressed if the suggestions put forth so far in this thread were to be implemented. However I can imagine the crying and moaning that would occur if bubbles, or some other equivalent were introduced to allow for trapping/ hunting people in deep space. And I certainly don't advocate bubbles in low sec, despite the fact I like flying 'dictors/ Hics.

As a low sec PvP'er I would dearly love a more "active" means of hunting targets, those that do exist at the moment rely on the "prey" being either stupid or careless, or both. Same as camping tbh. Come up with a system that allows for that then start talking about "balance", because I see nothing balanced in the suggestions so far.

Tip: Camping a gate properly requires multiple players working together in ships chose for this role and using tactics that lend themselves to success. Busting a camp or busting through a camp requires a similar grasp of tactics and teamwork. Getting past a camp solo is also possible, but you need the right tool for the job. These tools exist already, use them Blink
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#80 - 2011-12-07 19:15:19 UTC
Velicitia wrote:
you missed one Tippia -- I can turn around and sell you NEX crap on the open market ...
True, but it is possible to use it without engaging other players… well, until you go on the forums at least, and use it as a weapon in your forum-PvP, so I suppose you're right regardless. P