These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
123Next pageLast page
 

The state of Highsec

Author
Ecrir Twy'Lar
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#1 - 2015-09-24 18:02:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Ecrir Twy'Lar
TLDR: Suggested changes for the criminal system that would make ganking more fun for all (Ok, maybe it still wouldn't be fun for the victims) and wardec system that would give incentive for experience players to move out into lowsec and nullsec for their content.


I recently read about how some believe the population of Eve Online is in decline when for many years it was always growing. I feel like Eve has always lost players on a regular basis. But would regain many after some large battle received media coverage. It's too bad we have to constantly bleed subscription numbers the way we do. I work with a lot of gamers and I often try to recruit people to Eve. However, 90% of the time people just shake their head. This game has a reputation and no matter how good our community can be (I think it's one of the best), this reputation hurts the game. The number one reason I cannot recruit more people to this game is non-consensual PvP. Don't get me wrong, I don't think non-consensual PvP should be removed. It's what makes Eve Online the game it is. But, there are mechanics in this game that people are taking advantage of that sometimes just adds frustration for new players trying to survive in a game that is already difficult to learn to play. I think Highsec was meant to be "relatively" safe. Which is fine, it provides a place for players to get comfortable with the game before they move out into Lowsec , Null and WH space.

The first thing I would change is the criminal justice system. Highsec shouldn't be more safe for criminals who don't undock until they have a target located and passively scanned using a non-criminal alt. These criminals are using game mechanics to protect themselves from the very thing they are inflicting on others. Criminals should not be able to dock up in systems where they are supposed to be banned from. I suggest a new system where a criminal cannot dock or keep a clone in any system with a security rating higher than their own security status deducted from 1 (Excluding Lowsec). For example, if a player has a security status of -2, he/she couldn't dock (or keep a clone) in a system with a security status higher than .8, -3 security .7, etc. Players should also not be able to log out in these same systems. If you disconnect, sorry your ship will remain there and be vulnerable to attack. Life can be tough for pirates making trips into high security space. This would keep criminals out where they can be hunted. They will have to actively evade those who want to hunt them while in Highsec.

The second thing I would do is remove the tags which repair security status. If you want to repair your security status, you should have to complete missions for concord or another faction similar to how you repair standings.

I would also like to see bounty payments adjusted based on the security status of the defeated player. The lower their security status, the higher the bounty payment. Of course this should never exceed the value of the ship for obvious reasons.

The next system I would change is the wardec system. Currently we have corporations that spend their time wardec'ing any and all corporations they see as convenient targets. If you want to PvP, you really should be moving out into lowsec , null and WH space. It's like watching that race car driver who doesn't want to move into the next class because he doesn't want to give up his winning streak with the rookies. It goes something like this: Corp A wardec's corp B, C and D. Then they hang out at the local trade hub and other places they are likely to encounter their war targets. While their war targets either dock up or lose ships. If they dock up for the week and lose no ships, maybe Corp A will get bored and choose to not continue the wardec the following week. If they put together a fleet to fight, Corp A calls all their buddies and puts together a larger fleet made up with 50% logi and station camps them. In the end, there is still very little PvP. Just one corp inflating their egos to make up for the fact that they can't survive out where skilled pilots live.

Wardec's should only be possible after some sort of trigger. Like maybe a pilot getting kill rights on a player from another corporation. Or maybe some theft that involves a pilot receiving suspect status after looting a can. When pilots can no longer get easy kills in Highsec, they will start looking for them in lowsec , null and WH space. This would provide more fights for everyone.
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#2 - 2015-09-24 18:21:06 UTC
All together now!

Just one more nerf and it'll be balanced!

Roll
Maldiro Selkurk
Radiation Sickness
#3 - 2015-09-24 18:28:30 UTC
1. If you are a criminal you should not be allowed to dock.

2. wardecs are fine.

3. sec status should not be repairable at all, you made a choice deal with the consequences.

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

Vic Jefferson
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#4 - 2015-09-24 18:49:50 UTC
Ecrir Twy'Lar wrote:
incentive for experience players to move out into lowsec and nullsec for their content.



You have at least this much right, sort of.

Antagonists go where bad-guy content can be created. So to motivate them to move to low, NPC null, or sov-null, there have to be players there to shoot at. Low and NPC null should be made vastly more attractive to new players, and should reward them for taking risks, but it currently doesn't, so most people either stay in Hi Sec, or join the zerg in the form of Karmafleet, Pandemic Horde, etc. Hunting in sov null isn't for everyone mostly because, well most of it is empty, and the places that aren't are extremely well defended.

You can't blame Antagonists for taking the path of least resistance to the biggest killmails. The trick is to incentive people moving out of Hi Sec, which helps many facets of the game simultaneously.

Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X.....XI.....XII?

Ecrir Twy'Lar
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#5 - 2015-09-24 20:57:16 UTC
Vic Jefferson wrote:
Ecrir Twy'Lar wrote:
incentive for experience players to move out into lowsec and nullsec for their content.



You can't blame Antagonists for taking the path of least resistance to the biggest killmails. The trick is to incentive people moving out of Hi Sec, which helps many facets of the game simultaneously.


I think no matter how much incentive you provide, if they can get free kills with no risk in Highsec, that's what they are going to do.
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#6 - 2015-09-24 21:17:01 UTC
Danika Princip wrote:
All together now!

Just one more nerf and it'll be balanced!

Roll


Well technically, it they choose the right nerf, it could happen. I won't happen but it indeed could take only 1 more.

And yes, this is trolling but this thread is so bad I don't feel bad for it.
Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
#7 - 2015-09-24 22:37:02 UTC
Ganks in empire are part of CCP's economic controls OP.


WH, low sec, 0.0....in theory they make their billions of isk but they also lose a few ships in the process as well. this is control. My usual example. One time in 0.0 I solo bagged a prechange officer spawn. Over a billion payout just like that once drop sold off. this a few years when 1 billion isk was 1 billion isk. Good ole days. When 2-3 billion in the wallet had you a space rich player. Now...I am lower middle class upper lower class with that few billion...sigh.

And not even 2 weeks later I burned half of that easily on pvp losses. Give and take. I was given 1 billion, the game took some of that back. I wrote it off as offerings to the eve gods. They gave me a lot, I gave back a little to keep the karma flowing.

Some isk barrons break this theory, yes. Many though live paycheck to paycheck as it were.


Enter empire. Enter a world where no non-consensual pvp. Bears would make isk with little to no risk. Since after you learn how to missions run well...you don't die in missions much anymore. this would jack up the economy (more). enter the ganker. The pvp you won't agree to lose some isk for the billions you are making, they will force you into it.


Put another way....if you won't lose your 250mil for every couple billion you make by choice they will make it happen regardless. Thus order restored to the economy in some way.



Ecrir Twy'Lar
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#8 - 2015-09-24 23:07:30 UTC
Zan Shiro wrote:
Ganks in empire are part of CCP's economic controls OP.


WH, low sec, 0.0....in theory they make their billions of isk but they also lose a few ships in the process as well. this is control. My usual example. One time in 0.0 I solo bagged a prechange officer spawn. Over a billion payout just like that once drop sold off. this a few years when 1 billion isk was 1 billion isk. Good ole days. When 2-3 billion in the wallet had you a space rich player. Now...I am lower middle class upper lower class with that few billion...sigh.

And not even 2 weeks later I burned half of that easily on pvp losses. Give and take. I was given 1 billion, the game took some of that back. I wrote it off as offerings to the eve gods. They gave me a lot, I gave back a little to keep the karma flowing.

Some isk barrons break this theory, yes. Many though live paycheck to paycheck as it were.


Enter empire. Enter a world where no non-consensual pvp. Bears would make isk with little to no risk. Since after you learn how to missions run well...you don't die in missions much anymore. this would jack up the economy (more). enter the ganker. The pvp you won't agree to lose some isk for the billions you are making, they will force you into it.


Put another way....if you won't lose your 250mil for every couple billion you make by choice they will make it happen regardless. Thus order restored to the economy in some way.





Maybe you didn't read the post. I never suggested stopping gankers. I just think they shouldn't have sanctuary in highsec stations.
Zhaceera Armerarram
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#9 - 2015-09-24 23:28:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Zhaceera Armerarram
The same repertoir. "CCP this, CCP that".

The whats of crime and the way hisec is really does not contribute to the problem.

There is only one thing that is the problem of virtually anything dealing with justice: it is not justice, it is vengeance.

You see, people are not rewarded by doing what is considered right any time a person doing what is considered wrong is given a safe guard.

As repent do not repair the damage of a sinner, and second time exam dont make people get taste for study, forgiveness dont dissuade criminals.

There is one unique change to the system that would equate conditions for criminals and non criminals, bear with their choices.

By choosing to be a loyalist, I give up piracy profits, I give up the sovs, the nulls, the big things that make a name in EVE, in order to be only one more in service of my empire. The lesser thing that empire would do to honor my commitment is to not forgive those who repeatedly squander its space. That is the only thing wrong.

Wardecs arent the problem, the system of crime flagging is not wrong. The only thing wrong is that you can over and over again get back being trusted and do it again and again.

The only change that need to be made, as the population of EVE clearly surpass 3 fold from the time it is the way it is, is that criminals must bear the loss for their acts in hisec. In old times, perhaps this would make virtually half of players be banned from hisec for good. Today there are much more players, much more corps and etc. There is no reason to keep forgiving the enemies of a given empire by just shooting some couple hundreds of NPCs.

That one single change would just make everything else make sense.

Edit.: On a second thought, maybe the idea of changing wardec sounds good. But the thing that would make sense is consider an aggressor who destroy no ship for 2 weeks be considered loser of a war and be banned from wardecing the same corp for a time.

"If justice is not for everyone, it is for no one."

Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
#10 - 2015-09-24 23:36:54 UTC
Ecrir Twy'Lar wrote:

Maybe you didn't read the post. I never suggested stopping gankers. I just think they shouldn't have sanctuary in highsec stations.


The sanctuary is one of the bene's ccp gives to let them do their job.

Long ago they removed insurance for this as well, don't look gift horses in the mouth really.
Ecrir Twy'Lar
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#11 - 2015-09-24 23:47:38 UTC
Zan Shiro wrote:
Ecrir Twy'Lar wrote:

Maybe you didn't read the post. I never suggested stopping gankers. I just think they shouldn't have sanctuary in highsec stations.


The sanctuary is one of the bene's ccp gives to let them do their job.

Long ago they removed insurance for this as well, don't look gift horses in the mouth really.


I really think you are missing my whole point. There is an opportunity for quite a bit of fun here. Gankers playing out their bad guy lifestyle while evading other players and giving other players someone they can hunt.
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#12 - 2015-09-25 00:17:05 UTC
Incoming misquote of CCP saying ganking is good for retention.

I like the can't dock/log in a system where you are a criminal. If you're a hard -10 sec status I don't see it as that big a deal needing to go to a low sex station to log off. It kind of makes sense that a known criminal wouldn't be able to 'live' in a system where he is a criminal.

This is actually a nice change and doesn't nerf ganking. No ganking mechanics are touched. It just adds depth to the game and allows criminals to live where criminals live. The other stuff is totally over the top and a bad idea, but the docking thing is actually very reasonable.

I'd go a bit deeper and if a criminal uses a fleet hangar then the owner of the fleet hanger gets a yellow card for helping a known criminal. I wouldn't concord him, just give put him yellow flashy as a consequence for helping a known criminal. I see these changes as obvious common sense. Don't nerf ganking, but aknowledge that a criminal is a criminal.

Now that I think about it, it's kind of bizzare that a criminal gets hounded by the authorities on the one hand, but can dock as an obvious criminal in the same system. It's just kind of dumb and not tied to any realistic logic. Criminals living in low sec is probably the reasonable thing to do.

I can hear an incoming outcry about diconnects and losing your stuff that way. That also seems reasonable. It's a part of the choice to be a criminal. I deal with it all the time. I do wh capital escallations. If the triage carrier pilot disconnects - we lose him and the rest of the fleet to npc. That's just how it works out. We know it and accept the risk. I see no reason to keep unrealistic game mechanics just for the sake of 'bad internet connections'.

I don't see where a real true eve criminal would be upset about needing to live in low sec where criminals are supposed to live.

The war dec idea is pure garbage. Not being able to repair sec status is also pure garbage - if there is a means to lower sec status then there needs to be a means to raise it. Ignore the OPs garbage but consider the actual realistic and good idea about docking.
Ecrir Twy'Lar
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#13 - 2015-09-25 00:25:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Ecrir Twy'Lar
Serendipity Lost wrote:
Incoming misquote of CCP saying ganking is good for retention.

I like the can't dock/log in a system where you are a criminal. If you're a hard -10 sec status I don't see it as that big a deal needing to go to a low sex station to log off. It kind of makes sense that a known criminal wouldn't be able to 'live' in a system where he is a criminal.

This is actually a nice change and doesn't nerf ganking. No ganking mechanics are touched. It just adds depth to the game and allows criminals to live where criminals live. The other stuff is totally over the top and a bad idea, but the docking thing is actually very reasonable.

I'd go a bit deeper and if a criminal uses a fleet hangar then the owner of the fleet hanger gets a yellow card for helping a known criminal. I wouldn't concord him, just give put him yellow flashy as a consequence for helping a known criminal. I see these changes as obvious common sense. Don't nerf ganking, but aknowledge that a criminal is a criminal.

Now that I think about it, it's kind of bizzare that a criminal gets hounded by the authorities on the one hand, but can dock as an obvious criminal in the same system. It's just kind of dumb and not tied to any realistic logic. Criminals living in low sec is probably the reasonable thing to do.

I can hear an incoming outcry about diconnects and losing your stuff that way. That also seems reasonable. It's a part of the choice to be a criminal. I deal with it all the time. I do wh capital escallations. If the triage carrier pilot disconnects - we lose him and the rest of the fleet to npc. That's just how it works out. We know it and accept the risk. I see no reason to keep unrealistic game mechanics just for the sake of 'bad internet connections'.

I don't see where a real true eve criminal would be upset about needing to live in low sec where criminals are supposed to live.

The war dec idea is pure garbage. Not being able to repair sec status is also pure garbage - if there is a means to lower sec status then there needs to be a means to raise it. Ignore the OPs garbage but consider the actual realistic and good idea about docking.


LOL. The docking part is in the original post. I am not against ganking. Everyone just reads a line or two and makes the assumption that I am. I also didn't say they shouldn't be able to fix their security status. Just said it shouldn't be so easy.
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#14 - 2015-09-25 00:35:16 UTC
Ecrir Twy'Lar wrote:


Maybe you didn't read the post. I never suggested stopping gankers. I just think they shouldn't have sanctuary in highsec stations.



So is the part where you make all the current methods people use to gank impossible not a proposal for a seriously heavy handed nerf?

Or the part where you essentially remove mercenary groups and make pocos and pos in highsec basically immortal? Is that not a nerf to those playstyles too?

If you're not against ganking, maybe you shouldn't be asking for it to be made so much harder to do? Roll
Ecrir Twy'Lar
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#15 - 2015-09-25 00:41:19 UTC
Danika Princip wrote:
Ecrir Twy'Lar wrote:


Maybe you didn't read the post. I never suggested stopping gankers. I just think they shouldn't have sanctuary in highsec stations.



So is the part where you make all the current methods people use to gank impossible not a proposal for a seriously heavy handed nerf?

Or the part where you essentially remove mercenary groups and make pocos and pos in highsec basically immortal? Is that not a nerf to those playstyles too?

If you're not against ganking, maybe you shouldn't be asking for it to be made so much harder to do? Roll


Hard to do? To hunt down a ganker you would have to combat scan him down and catch him. This change would basically require he be at the keyboard and actively watch for someone hunting for him. No worse than being in low or null imo.
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#16 - 2015-09-25 00:48:10 UTC
You outline the methods gankers currently use in your OP. You then state that that method would be made impossible.

Please explain how that is not a tremendously heavy nerf.

Do you particularly enjoy rolling safes or something? because that's what any ganker waiting for a target is going to have to be doing. As well as evading the inevitably smartbomb camps on every relevant lowsec entrance near niarja or udema.

And why are you ignoring every comment made about your nerfs to wardecs?
Ecrir Twy'Lar
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#17 - 2015-09-25 00:49:45 UTC
I did consider suggesting nerfing the Concord mechanics to make it more of a fight with the possibility of escape. But thought that it could maybe get a bit out of hand and people would flip out.
Ecrir Twy'Lar
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#18 - 2015-09-25 00:53:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Ecrir Twy'Lar
Danika Princip wrote:
You outline the methods gankers currently use in your OP. You then state that that method would be made impossible.

Please explain how that is not a tremendously heavy nerf.

Do you particularly enjoy rolling safes or something? because that's what any ganker waiting for a target is going to have to be doing. As well as evading the inevitably smartbomb camps on every relevant lowsec entrance near niarja or udema.

And why are you ignoring every comment made about your nerfs to wardecs?


So gankers unlike everyone else shouldn't be bothered by gate camps or being hunted at safe spots?

I didn't respond to your opinion on wardecs because I accepted your opinion on that part. Those are valid concerns.

I've lost a proteus to a gate camp. But god forbid a ganker lose a catalyst to one. LOL
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#19 - 2015-09-25 00:58:18 UTC
You DO know that gankers with low sec status are hunted by faction police, right? As in, if you're sitting still in a safespot, they will warp in, tackle you and kill you?

And that people already camp gates and stations waiting for flashy reds to come through?



Can you explain why ganking needs another round of massive nerfs, rather than just proposing them?
Ecrir Twy'Lar
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#20 - 2015-09-25 01:05:47 UTC
Danika Princip wrote:
You DO know that gankers with low sec status are hunted by faction police, right? As in, if you're sitting still in a safespot, they will warp in, tackle you and kill you?

And that people already camp gates and stations waiting for flashy reds to come through?



Can you explain why ganking needs another round of massive nerfs, rather than just proposing them?


Can you explain why they should have sanctuary in the systems they are considered criminals in?
123Next pageLast page