These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Meaningful consequences for low standings and pirate behaviour

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Skydell
Bad Girl Posse
#21 - 2014-12-05 05:56:56 UTC
The only meaningful consequences would be a multiplier on concord response time for negative sec players and do it heavy handed. -1.00 is .9 response, -10.00 is .1 response. 2 second Concord response if a -10.00 shoots someone in .5 sec.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#22 - 2014-12-05 06:46:44 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
this idea is useless. Most of the gankers are already -10 and deal with facpo just fine. They undock and warp to their neutral bumping alt, etc...

What is needed is a much longer GCC timer to make ganking painful for the gankers...and make them more selective about who they gank.


How about people actually use the tools they already have to fight back for once?
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#23 - 2014-12-05 06:49:32 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
this idea is useless. Most of the gankers are already -10 and deal with facpo just fine. They undock and warp to their neutral bumping alt, etc...

What is needed is a much longer GCC timer to make ganking painful for the gankers...and make them more selective about who they gank.


How about people actually use the tools they already have to fight back for once?


The tools are ineffective against -10 gankers in cheap gank ships who undock and warp straight to their neutral bumping alt. Expecting that the player base in highsec will either

a) regularly suicide gank the bumping ships

or

b) bring such an obscene amount firepower to annihilate the gank ships before the target goes down

may sound cute, but it will never happen. People in highsec aren't looking to play as the police, they are looking to PvE in peace.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#24 - 2014-12-05 06:52:16 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
this idea is useless. Most of the gankers are already -10 and deal with facpo just fine. They undock and warp to their neutral bumping alt, etc...

What is needed is a much longer GCC timer to make ganking painful for the gankers...and make them more selective about who they gank.


How about people actually use the tools they already have to fight back for once?


The tools are ineffective against -10 gankers in cheap gank ships who undock and warp straight to their neutral bumping alt. Expecting that the player base in highsec will either

a) regularly suicide gank the bumping ships

or

b) bring such an obscene amount firepower to annihilate the gank ships before the target goes down

may sound cute, but it will never happen. People in highsec aren't looking to play as the police, they are looking to PvE in peace.


Then they should go play a different game then.
Tabyll Altol
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#25 - 2014-12-05 07:04:15 UTC
Jared Bertrand wrote:
So here I am, preparing to go back to null to avoid mindless ganking, and discussing with friends the lack of consequences for said actions.

As things currently stand, illegal behavior is "punished" by the slap on the wrist of losing your cheap catalyst. The security penalty is easily worked around with tags, or if the pirate in question is feeling cheeky, he pods his way around and picks up a new ship from a handy Orca alt. These pirates are also able to hide behind the skirts of law abiding NPC corporations, there-by avoiding constant wardecs.

I'm advocating a change to this. Should a player's security and faction standing drop below a certain point, the player should be dropped out of said lawful NPC corp and be moved to an NPC pirate corporation. (Yes I know under our current system we can't have players joining pirate corps, and this would need to change) Once said players are a part of such an unlawful pirate corporation, they would be legitimate targets of opportunity to players in Hi-Sec.

In addition to players hunting these pirates, house navies would agress these unlawful residents in defense of their empire space in an attempt to keep unlawful pilots out of law abiding space.

This change to the behavior of navies would make them proactive defenders of lawful citizens, while concord would remain the punishers of unlawful actions in hi-sec.

How does a person become a pirate you ask? Simple, for any unlawful activity a player participates in, the player's standing with their NPC corp decreases. Commit enough illegal acts and your NPC corp will kick you out and you land in a pirate corporation. Ideally a player could be considered a pirate in one empire, but not in others. This would allow for diverse player interactions, and also promote boarder trade hubs between the major factions.

So here are the ideas thought up by myself and a few friends. Bring on the critiques and the flames. I'm sure we'll have the gank community weighing in and calling foul. Can't wait to read the responses.



Correct me please if i´m wrong. But youll get attacked below -5 Sec/Faction Standing. The joining in a Pirate NPC Corp would not change a bit of the problems you wanna solve.

Solve your problems by yourself, build a fleet, scout the way don´t use your god dam auto pilot and then cry why you get ganked.

-1 No new idea/No big change not worth the work
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#26 - 2014-12-05 08:15:42 UTC
Lipot wrote:
As far as I can see is that most of the shooting down of this idea that the OP had is based around a group of guys that rather attack "care bears" then go find a real fight in 0.0. But then I don't expect much from guys that are trying to say destruction is creation.



So you think other ppl should be allowed to take my rocks with impunity?

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
Gawain Edmond
Khanid Bureau of Industry
#27 - 2014-12-05 13:24:36 UTC
i think as soon as you lose sec status for any reason you should be moved to a npc corp that lets the characters within that corp be war dec'ed (yes i know you can't war dec people at the moment and just corps but lets change that). Then never again let that person join a regular npc corp. This would only affect characters that lose sec status while in a npc corp people hwo have bad sec status then end up in a npc corp would go to their normal one unless they lose sec status while in the regular npc corp.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#28 - 2014-12-05 13:29:11 UTC
Gawain Edmond wrote:
i think as soon as you lose sec status for any reason you should be moved to a npc corp that lets the characters within that corp be war dec'ed (yes i know you can't war dec people at the moment and just corps but lets change that). Then never again let that person join a regular npc corp. This would only affect characters that lose sec status while in a npc corp people hwo have bad sec status then end up in a npc corp would go to their normal one unless they lose sec status while in the regular npc corp.


Someone hits their smartbomb accidentally on the jita undock and are then punished forever.
Gawain Edmond
Khanid Bureau of Industry
#29 - 2014-12-05 13:37:17 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Gawain Edmond wrote:
i think as soon as you lose sec status for any reason you should be moved to a npc corp that lets the characters within that corp be war dec'ed (yes i know you can't war dec people at the moment and just corps but lets change that). Then never again let that person join a regular npc corp. This would only affect characters that lose sec status while in a npc corp people hwo have bad sec status then end up in a npc corp would go to their normal one unless they lose sec status while in the regular npc corp.


Someone hits their smartbomb accidentally on the jita undock and are then punished forever.


yep... also how do you do it accidentally with all the safeguards in place now?
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#30 - 2014-12-05 14:20:57 UTC
I wonder how much fun it would be if a fleet inherits the sec status of the lowest member.

Yes, I'm fully aware of the comedy this would create.
Niskin
The Dead Parrot Shoppe Inc.
The Chicken Coop
#31 - 2014-12-05 14:37:05 UTC
Arden Elenduil wrote:
With ganks, what you can do, for instance, is sit in a known gank spot with a jammer, and jam the gankers when they either land, or go criminal, depending on their sec status. You'll stop several ganks that way and won't even lose your ship.


If I ever find myself back in high sec for an extended period of time I'm going to do this, just for the fun of it.

It's Dark In Here - The Lonely Wormhole Blog

Remember kiddies: the best ship in Eve is Friendship.

-MooMooDachshundCow
Lipot
The StarJammers
#32 - 2014-12-05 15:10:40 UTC
Tabyll Altol wrote:


Correct me please if i´m wrong. But youll get attacked below -5 Sec/Faction Standing. The joining in a Pirate NPC Corp would not change a bit of the problems you wanna solve.

Solve your problems by yourself, build a fleet, scout the way don´t use your god dam auto pilot and then cry why you get ganked.

-1 No new idea/No big change not worth the work


Most of the ganks that I have witness have had scouts and are not auto-piloting in their pod. And I am willing to bet that the OP has seen the same things. But in high sec, that doesn't matter much. A good bumped off the gate and away from where the victim is trying to align to, a quick log in of a bunch of throw away ships, and you are minus one hauler/freighter/battleship, whatever the target is.

Telling people to form fleets and be aggressive doesn't work in high sec. Nor does the New BOB (Goon) operating orders of always fly with your safeties set to red. And the -5 Sec status thing is not a true as everyone keeps claiming. Most of those guys have neutral alts move gear to where they need it and pod over. And shooting a pod is always a criminal offense in empire high and low sec.

If everyone thinks that the idea that going to pirate corps is a bad idea, how about afkalt idea about a fleet inheriting the lowest sec status in the fleet for the duration that fleet is up then?
Mag's
Azn Empire
#33 - 2014-12-05 15:19:55 UTC
Lipot wrote:
And the -5 Sec status thing is not a true as everyone keeps claiming. Most of those guys have neutral alts move gear to where they need it and pod over. And shooting a pod is always a criminal offense in empire high and low sec.
It's not an offence if the pilot is -5 or below. Even shooting the pod of a pilot -5 and below, does not create a suspect or criminal flag.

-5 and below are open season to everyone, everywhere in space. Shooting them or their pod, only creates a limited engagement. Please stop giving out wrong information in this regard.

As far as the rest of your post is concerned, there are already plenty of options that mean you avoid ever being bumped. In the years I have used a freighter and BR, I've never yet lost one.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Dangeresque Too
Pistols for Pandas
#34 - 2014-12-05 15:50:08 UTC
This thread makes me sad, as I had a much more thorough and developed idea I was working on, and then this thread comes up... sorry dude, your entire original post would change nothing for actual game play.

And I wanted to say to all those guys out there that say just sit with a jamming alt (or 10 in some cases you need that many) and jam them as they gank... well my guess is you haven't tried this or been successful enough at it early on to cause them to counter back with one of several methods... pre-jamming blackbirds, 2-3 times the number of pilots needed for the gank, bringing in extra and only ganking with a few so you have to wait until the hit starts before you can lock up each one and jam them... and many more ganker counters to the griffin on grid...

With all the -10 thrashers out there hitting pods at gates... with a full sebo griffin on a gate, and a sebo'd thrasher comes in to hit a pod, 80% of the time you can't lock him until he has already shot due to server ticks and warp invul, so not really much there to do to prevent it. Yeah, it might still work most of the time on thrashers that don't have any sebo, but i don't know many pod gankers that don't sebo.

Furthermore, with the changes to clones coming next week, you can no longer get lucky and catch the guy's pod and hope that he isn't just a base skilled -10 alt character and maybe you will cost him a clone upgrade fee. Not anymore :(

NPC navies out there are incredibly wimpy. I have seen countless times where say an Galente FW Oracle is just hanging around Jita 4-4 like nothings wrong... you know, cause an Oracle is known for its supreme tanking abilities. And then if he gets too bored he just warps away because half of the navies don't scram...

"So and So you are an enemy to our people and you will die!".... but if you want to dock in our navy's station thats cool, carry on your business and we will leave you alone until you get in space again.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#35 - 2014-12-05 16:26:18 UTC
I would never bother joining a NPC corporation to escape mad gankees, not only because they rarely put up a fight, but because even when they do, they still aren't scary to anyone who flies defensively.

I would like to see both an increase to punishments for piracy and a stronger discouragement toward hiding in a NPC corporation. I've thought before that it might make sense to give players some choices for NPC corporations, and to offer some variance: some have weaker rewards, less protection, constant wars with other NPC corporations -- while those with higher protections would have higher tax rates. Each faction would have one completely safe and functional NPC corp with a super high tax rate.

As for pirates, I'd like to see patrolling naval ships in lowsec that move places other than just the gates, insurance agencies placing a fraction of ship destruction payouts as bounty on the ganker(s) (if it's an illegal attack), bounty payouts for implant destruction (dunno if this already exists in-game), and reductions to security status gains in nullsec.

On top of that nerf to piracy, I think there should be better rewards from pirate factions, such as being friendly to their rat ships and perhaps even having "empire" space in pirate-controlled nullsec in which systems would act like lowsec to anyone friendly enough with the pirates--although bubbles and superweapons would not be disallowed there.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#36 - 2014-12-05 17:33:48 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
this idea is useless. Most of the gankers are already -10 and deal with facpo just fine. They undock and warp to their neutral bumping alt, etc...

What is needed is a much longer GCC timer to make ganking painful for the gankers...and make them more selective about who they gank.


How about people actually use the tools they already have to fight back for once?


The tools are ineffective against -10 gankers in cheap gank ships who undock and warp straight to their neutral bumping alt. Expecting that the player base in highsec will either

a) regularly suicide gank the bumping ships

or

b) bring such an obscene amount firepower to annihilate the gank ships before the target goes down

may sound cute, but it will never happen. People in highsec aren't looking to play as the police, they are looking to PvE in peace.


Then they should go play a different game then.


While I don't agree with the person you are quoting, I also don't agree with this sentiment. GTFO of Eve is not a good answer. The game needs better mechanics to allow more player interaction.

I honestly think Concord is the problem with high security space. What is needed is another penalty that is worse for people who routinely commit crimes in high security space than for those who actually just want to defend themselves preemptively. I'm not sure what the best solution is, but perhaps some sort of fatigue mechanism could replace violent Concord intervention?

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#37 - 2014-12-05 17:50:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Reaver Glitterstim
FT Diomedes wrote:
I honestly think Concord is the problem with high security space. What is needed is another penalty that is worse for people who routinely commit crimes in high security space than for those who actually just want to defend themselves preemptively. I'm not sure what the best solution is, but perhaps some sort of fatigue mechanism could replace violent Concord intervention?

I dislike how CONCORD actively discourages trying to defend oneself. I think perhaps in lower highsec CONCORD should show up quickly but take a long time to unleash the insta-pop gun, spending the earlier time hitting the ganker with EWAR, gunfire, and warp scramblers. Were the gankee in a tough warship, they might use that time to turn on the hurt against their attacker, hoping to make them dead a little sooner, or even just to use EWAR on them for additional self-defense. Attacking global criminals should not give a person a suspect flag. This would also give larger ships more use in ganking, as small and squishy destroyers would not last as long as tough battleships with EWAR resistance.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Dangeresque Too
Pistols for Pandas
#38 - 2014-12-05 17:59:55 UTC
FT Diomedes wrote:
I honestly think Concord is the problem with high security space. What is needed is another penalty that is worse for people who routinely commit crimes in high security space than for those who actually just want to defend themselves preemptively. I'm not sure what the best solution is, but perhaps some sort of fatigue mechanism could replace violent Concord intervention?

I mostly agree, though as I stated above, a lot of what the ganker's keep crying about any real consequence to their action they keep saying that people should defend yourself. Well sorry, you can't defend yourself against 50 cata's that are already -10. Gank their bumping alt, so they can just come right back out and keep bumping you? Yeah good luck with that.

Anyhoo, the most definitely should have real and legitimate consequences more than just losing their meta 0 fit thrasher. For one NPC stations should not allow criminals to dock, its called aiding and abetting, and police don't take to kindly to that. And all the warnings we all see when criminals show up in space "you are a criminal, you will be terminated"... yet what shows up to shoot them, a couple faction navy frigs that don't scram, yeah, that's not really effective. If they are indeed criminals then stations, esp navy/police stations, should shoot them on site, perhaps even gates too. The navy spawn should include a fast locking tackle ship with will scram them (as currently half the navies don't actually scram and you can just warp away anyways).

Before they complain about how unfair that would be, well nobody forced you to do criminal things... except maybe CCP by not having real consequences.
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#39 - 2014-12-05 18:02:53 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
I think perhaps in lower highsec CONCORD should show up quickly but take a long time to unleash the insta-pop gun, spending the earlier time hitting the ganker with EWAR, gunfire, and warp scramblers.

Reaver... when you go criminal in high-sec you are pretty much insta-scrammed and webbing + Ewar effects follow within mere seconds (regardless of system security level).

It is the final blow coming from CONCORD that depends on the system security level (5 seconds for 1.0 systems... 15 seconds for 0.5 systems).

Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Attacking global criminals should not give a person a suspect flag.

Jesus christ... how widespread is this myth?

Attacking a criminal (or even a suspect or outlaw) will not give you a suspect flag. It will only give you a "Limited Engagement Timer" which means that the criminal/suspect/outlaw can now legally attack you (but won't excuse any actions taken before than time).

How did you Veterans start?
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#40 - 2014-12-05 18:09:56 UTC
Gawain Edmond wrote:


yep... also how do you do it accidentally with all the safeguards in place now?


People like me never have them turned on.