These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page123
 

Giving Security Status a meaning

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Baaldor
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#41 - 2015-03-26 15:07:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Baaldor
Chi'Nane T'Kal wrote:
Baaldor wrote:

Ok I have issue with this...please tell me more about the Risk v Reward issue. because if you want balance...we need to add some to the risk averse sheep raking in rewards with very little risk involved. I.E. most of your professional ratters, mission runners, rock humpers.

So please expand on this " risk balancing".


If mission runners didn't balance risk vs. reward, they would all be purple. I've still seen killmails where they lost expensive ships like marauders to ganks from thrasher gangs worth a fraction (with no profit to be had, either). I'm totally fine with ganks for a shot at that 6B officer module on an undertanked ship, just to be sure.

Also for those PVE activities there is the opportunity cost of time spent (i.e. we can easily disregard the "rock humpers"), which you also have to calculate in the risk column.

And I'm not willing to count the time a ganker sits in station (playing whatever else) waiting for their scout to give an alarm for a minute of 'action' as opportunity cost, sorry.


This subject has been beaten to death over the years. And it boils down to "I pay to play the game this way, and how you are playing the game interferes with what I want to do. CCP fix my problem."

First off I have indeed "Ganked" as you label it from time to time, and what you are missing is the "reward". You base your reward on a value of an item or accumulation of pixels sitting in your wallet or hanger. Most of your "Gankers", actually value their time spent in different way. it is not about the loot, it is actually the result of the actions taken in the form of enjoyment.

Crazy I know, playing a game to garner some for of enjoyment. The gap of understanding is from the folks that do not understand why people like to scatter your pixels. From the sheep mindset, there is no value in it...to them. But to me, it goes far beyond the pixel accumulation of crap.

I have done all the above care-bear activities and very familiar with risk vs reward. I have humped rocks, invented, built crap, ratted, ran missions, hauled crap etc etc. how else could I have raised and lowered my sec status so many times -10 to +10 (that was before the change -10 to +5 after that).

And for myself and I know many others that play this game as it was intended, grinding up sec status absolutely sucks. And just for your edification, before all this ISK faucet crap, "Gankers" do not set on piles of isk. most are pretty much running on the basics.
Caius Sivaris
Dark Nexxus
#42 - 2015-03-26 15:21:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Caius Sivaris
Chi'Nane T'Kal wrote:

- only allow initiation of an attack that would lower sec status, IF that sec status can actually be lowered, for example for an attack that would lower sec status by 0.1, you would have to be at -9.9 or better (i.e. -10 would effectively mean a permanent green security setting)


There are very few people that are -10, it's actually incredibly hard to get there, and shooting any rat ruins it.

http://eveboard.com/fullranks/50-lowest-security-status
Ravasta Helugo
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#43 - 2015-03-26 16:16:39 UTC
I think that ganking should be made a bit more difficult, but only a bit. This idea is overboard x3.
Baaldor
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#44 - 2015-03-26 17:46:28 UTC
Ravasta Helugo wrote:
I think that ganking should be made a bit more difficult, but only a bit. This idea is overboard x3.


As soon as the rock humpers, mission runners and what not have to actually do their collective care-bearing slightly above the mentality of a BOT.
admiral root
Red Galaxy
#45 - 2015-03-26 18:13:38 UTC
Ravasta Helugo wrote:
I think that ganking should be made a bit more difficult, but only a bit. This idea is overboard x3.


One... more... nerf!

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#46 - 2015-03-26 18:48:21 UTC
Ferni Ka'Nviiou wrote:
Outlaws.
That is all.

If people were organised enough, they could actively hunt outlaw suicide gankers.

If people were organised enough, -10s could be severely limited in their ganking ability.


The mechanics are there to utilise.
Change is not needed within the game. It's needed within the attitude.


It would probably be used more if it was not so god awful boring to try to catch gankers. The penalties are likely to be too harsh right now but even then if the gankers do it right, there isn't much possible to happen. The "vulnerable" character is docked and waiting for the order to initialise the "undock-warp-shoot" combo that leads to it's own destruction. You can catch him on the undock or figure out where the warp will lead to engage there. How long is the total "in space" timeframe for a gank anyway? It's likely under 2 minutes followed by a 15 minutes "downtime".

I don't see where the balance is percieved to be so I'll ask our fellow ganker what they would think of a twist on CONCORD rules.

Instead of being "shoot on existance" by CONCORD, your criminal timer would put different limitation on you. You can still board ships and use MOST modules. Your new limitation to make it so people can hunt instead of a stupid "sit in this corner" time.

You cannot dock, jump, cloak or safely log off for the duration of your criminal timer.

Note : I do think faction police would need a rework for this to work and it possibly might be irrelevant to make you huntable if you can always warp back and forth between 2 safes...

Is an added risk by being hunted worthwhile if it means you don't have to stop playing for 15 minutes because you can't even board a ship?
Baaldor
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#47 - 2015-03-26 19:01:50 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Ferni Ka'Nviiou wrote:
Outlaws.
That is all.

If people were organised enough, they could actively hunt outlaw suicide gankers.

If people were organised enough, -10s could be severely limited in their ganking ability.


The mechanics are there to utilise.
Change is not needed within the game. It's needed within the attitude.


It would probably be used more if it was not so god awful boring to try to catch gankers. The penalties are likely to be too harsh right now but even then if the gankers do it right, there isn't much possible to happen. The "vulnerable" character is docked and waiting for the order to initialise the "undock-warp-shoot" combo that leads to it's own destruction. You can catch him on the undock or figure out where the warp will lead to engage there. How long is the total "in space" timeframe for a gank anyway? It's likely under 2 minutes followed by a 15 minutes "downtime".

I don't see where the balance is percieved to be so I'll ask our fellow ganker what they would think of a twist on CONCORD rules.

Instead of being "shoot on existance" by CONCORD, your criminal timer would put different limitation on you. You can still board ships and use MOST modules. Your new limitation to make it so people can hunt instead of a stupid "sit in this corner" time.

You cannot dock, jump, cloak or safely log off for the duration of your criminal timer.

Note : I do think faction police would need a rework for this to work and it possibly might be irrelevant to make you huntable if you can always warp back and forth between 2 safes...

Is an added risk by being hunted worthwhile if it means you don't have to stop playing for 15 minutes because you can't even board a ship?



You do realize that whilst under agro (criminal timer) and you log off...you can be probed down and killed...? Right? you knew that.... right?

But of course you knew that, you would not post about changing something you know very little about.
Chi'Nane T'Kal
Interminatus
#48 - 2015-03-26 19:54:25 UTC
Baaldor wrote:

You do realize that whilst under agro (criminal timer) and you log off...you can be probed down and killed...? Right? you knew that.... right?


Why would they log off outside of a station?
Baaldor
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#49 - 2015-03-26 20:08:21 UTC
Chi'Nane T'Kal wrote:
Baaldor wrote:

You do realize that whilst under agro (criminal timer) and you log off...you can be probed down and killed...? Right? you knew that.... right?


Why would they log off outside of a station?


I was responding to a post that stated "You cannot dock, jump, cloak or safely log off for the duration of your criminal timer. " as per that conversation. Meaning he was inferring being out of the station, in the space, among the stars etc etc.

No mention of being IN station.

And I have rode out many a timer bouncing from safe to safe until my timer has expired. Because docking and holding up in a station is no bueno.



Mag's
Azn Empire
#50 - 2015-03-26 21:17:48 UTC
admiral root wrote:
Ravasta Helugo wrote:
I think that ganking should be made a bit more difficult, but only a bit. This idea is overboard x3.


One... more... nerf!
Just one more and it will be balanced. No honest, it will. Straight

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Chi'Nane T'Kal
Interminatus
#51 - 2015-03-27 18:04:05 UTC
Caius Sivaris wrote:
Chi'Nane T'Kal wrote:

- only allow initiation of an attack that would lower sec status, IF that sec status can actually be lowered, for example for an attack that would lower sec status by 0.1, you would have to be at -9.9 or better (i.e. -10 would effectively mean a permanent green security setting)


There are very few people that are -10, it's actually incredibly hard to get there, and shooting any rat ruins it.

http://eveboard.com/fullranks/50-lowest-security-status


Well, if it's really that rare, it wouldn't be any problem to implement it, right? :)
Baaldor
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#52 - 2015-03-27 18:20:08 UTC
Chi'Nane T'Kal wrote:
Caius Sivaris wrote:
Chi'Nane T'Kal wrote:

- only allow initiation of an attack that would lower sec status, IF that sec status can actually be lowered, for example for an attack that would lower sec status by 0.1, you would have to be at -9.9 or better (i.e. -10 would effectively mean a permanent green security setting)


There are very few people that are -10, it's actually incredibly hard to get there, and shooting any rat ruins it.

http://eveboard.com/fullranks/50-lowest-security-status


Well, if it's really that rare, it wouldn't be any problem to implement it, right? :)


Can you tell me how many of these big bad guys you tracked down and killed in Lo-Sec. I am checking your stats or anyting as I am just way to lazy.

But seriously, have you ever had to chase down anyone like...oh say like from Neg 10, PL, BL, October Snow, etc etc?
Mario Putzo
#53 - 2015-03-27 18:26:54 UTC
Chi'Nane T'Kal wrote:


In essence that means players who actually PLAY the game are punished (by having to buy security tags or grind) while one trick ponies are doing just fine.


So how pray tell did these people who aren't playing the game get to -10? Osmosis?

Of course we all know you are upset because they aren't playing "YOUR" way....living life at -10 is a very real way to play the game and many many people wear that -10 as a badge of honor...considering the effort it takes to actually hit perfect -10 and maintain it.
Baaldor
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#54 - 2015-03-27 18:31:17 UTC
Mario Putzo wrote:
Chi'Nane T'Kal wrote:


In essence that means players who actually PLAY the game are punished (by having to buy security tags or grind) while one trick ponies are doing just fine.


So how pray tell did these people who aren't playing the game get to -10? Osmosis?

Of course we all know you are upset because they aren't playing "YOUR" way....living life at -10 is a very real way to play the game and many many people wear that -10 as a badge of honor...considering the effort it takes to actually hit perfect -10 and maintain it.

^^this

Because I know there are the few out there that indeed earned that neg-10, and you know what they did, they played the game as it was intended.

And now we have the OP that wants to punish the ones that actually play the game as it was intended.
thatonepersone
Black Jack 0-1
#55 - 2015-03-27 19:00:39 UTC
Ganking don't need to be nerfed by making it more costly. The reason why the gankers are so successful is that they organize large groups of players. If you want to counter them you can put a spy in there group, probe out there target and warp in with your group of falcons at range with full racks of galante jams.

I don't see getting -10 sec status as a challenge either. Undock in a rookie ship, shoot random player and repeat until -10.
Lienzo
Amanuensis
#56 - 2015-03-27 19:44:30 UTC
Are -10 players allowed to set clones in HS stations?

Just pod them before they can warp back to get more catalysts. A range fit destroyer seems adequate.

Honestly, I think I should just start a mercenary corp to patrol Niarja/Uedama and rescue people for a fee. Sounds boring, so I'll have to charge a lot.
Baaldor
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#57 - 2015-03-27 19:46:33 UTC
thatonepersone wrote:
Ganking don't need to be nerfed by making it more costly. The reason why the gankers are so successful is that they organize large groups of players. If you want to counter them you can put a spy in there group, probe out there target and warp in with your group of falcons at range with full racks of galante jams.

I don't see getting -10 sec status as a challenge either. Undock in a rookie ship, shoot random player and repeat until -10.



wait....are you asking them to actually use the mechanics available to everyone!!! Shocked

Don't know dude, it may require some form of effort and or brain cells.
Mario Putzo
#58 - 2015-03-28 03:31:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Mario Putzo
thatonepersone wrote:
Ganking don't need to be nerfed by making it more costly. The reason why the gankers are so successful is that they organize large groups of players. If you want to counter them you can put a spy in there group, probe out there target and warp in with your group of falcons at range with full racks of galante jams.

I don't see getting -10 sec status as a challenge either. Undock in a rookie ship, shoot random player and repeat until -10.



Have fun with that... It takes longer to get from -9.0 > -10.00000 than it does to go from 0 > -9.9 because it goes -9.9999 before it hits -10.0 its a long grind and a single frigate npc ship kill can set you back dozens of attacks on player targets.

Obviously you have never actually attempted to make the journey. Not saying it can't be done your way, but it would be a boring boring way to do it.

Fastest way is to gank an alts pod a couple hundred times, or just gank people and harvest tears and sec hits at the same time for maximum pleasure.
Chi'Nane T'Kal
Interminatus
#59 - 2015-03-30 09:07:36 UTC
Baaldor wrote:
Chi'Nane T'Kal wrote:
Caius Sivaris wrote:
Chi'Nane T'Kal wrote:

- only allow initiation of an attack that would lower sec status, IF that sec status can actually be lowered, for example for an attack that would lower sec status by 0.1, you would have to be at -9.9 or better (i.e. -10 would effectively mean a permanent green security setting)


There are very few people that are -10, it's actually incredibly hard to get there, and shooting any rat ruins it.

http://eveboard.com/fullranks/50-lowest-security-status


Well, if it's really that rare, it wouldn't be any problem to implement it, right? :)


Can you tell me how many of these big bad guys you tracked down and killed in Lo-Sec. I am checking your stats or anyting as I am just way to lazy.

But seriously, have you ever had to chase down anyone like...oh say like from Neg 10, PL, BL, October Snow, etc etc?


Are you actually bringing up chasing down someone in a ganking thread?

If it was actually feasible to chase down gankers, we would not even have this discussion.
You can't chase someone who doesn't actually play the game outside of a 15 second window used for ganking.

(That's already been addressed in this thread by someone else, btw. - reading skills ftw.)
Maldiro Selkurk
Radiation Sickness
#60 - 2015-03-30 23:42:04 UTC
How about a slowly recovering sec status. You blast people and drop to -10 but it rises over time back up (or you can use tags). If your sec status is below -8 all navies and concord will blap your pod.

Now you have a system that has some teeth to it and allows you an alternative method of sec status recovery over paying for or grinding tags.

I would expect to see a great increase in Highsec ganking if this policy was put in place. I would probably quit; so if they do it cheers and have fun.

Yawn,  I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
Previous page123