EVE General Discussion

HS is more dangerous than NS, counterintuitively, exactly because of its own mechanics.
CONCORD is a double edged sword that cuts in favor of a deliberate illegal activity.

This is simply because the target has no recourse to "stand their ground" or first strike, because CONCORD will attack the initial aggressor, whereas this is not an issue outside of HS.

In HS me and my friends can fly up to, surround and illegally shoot in the head anyone we want, without them having a recourse to legally shoot us first, in terms of CONCORD intervention.

My proposal is to dramatically increase the negativr security status modifier resulting from HS illegal actions.
Not because it changes CONCORD (it doesnt).
Not because it changes faction police (which still operate, ineffectually, same as before, at that sec status).
BUT because it increases PvP opportunities, as you are red therafter (note:SYSTEMICALLY RED, not by player/corp rating) and anyone can attack you.

CONCORD will, as normal blow up your SHIP.
But your CHARACTER will also therafter remain systemically red, and a free target for anyone (and who in their right mind would argue against that?)

Thereby CONCORD is unaffected, Faction policr are unaffected.
Only commensurate PvP is affected!
Not only in the sense that if you therafter fly into HS space, you can be aggressed by other players with impunity, but also as you then have to return to pve activities in other security sectors, you are yourself subjected to being a target there.

Its win/win/win.

For once? Hell, every week there is a new thread with you weak minded fools asking to have PvP deleted. You lot didn't even have the common decency to wait six months after the deletion of awoxing to start crying for wars and ganking to get deleted too.

For once? That's all you people do, is spout off. So yeah, I can pop in here and suggest that the heavy handed, anti sandbox mechanic called facpo go away. But apparently, my being allowed to talk too is so hurtful to you.

Cry more.

I'm still trying to figure out where this bizzaro world thinking comes from in which the space with magical infallible unkillable space police is 'less safe' than areas where the only thing that can get you from getting killed is actually knowing how to play. It's not just on this forum, I've heard guys I play with say the same thing: "high sec fells safer because i don't know who is going to kill me whereas in null i can see it coming".

And yea, it's as stupid when people say it on comms as it is here. It's the same as saying "I feel safer in the woods because in the woods i can see a bear coming but in my house the bear could be hiding in a closet waiting to kill me and eat my porridge....never mind the fact that my house is bear free and i don't even know wtf porridge is".

So some how, if I'm standing in a room full of body guards (who will shoot anyone who tries to so much as slap me in the face), I'm less safe than if I were standing alone in a desert surrounded by hungry wolves? That's the difference between High Sec and the the other 83% of EVE-space, a mechanical response the rest of the game doesn't get.

in High Sec, ALL you have to do to be safe is tank your ship enough to survive initial contact. You could run missions in a super buffer Proteus and be physically immune to ganking (because enough ships on grid to kill you will probably cause module activation lag enough to let you escape in hull as CONCORD pops your last aggressor). You literally can't get safer than that, while you can't even come close to that outside of high sec.

Simply losing your ship as a result of an illegal act of HS aggression, as categorised as an illegal activity within HS jurisdiction (which also denies a victim the self-defence opportunity of first strike), is not enough.

This can be, and is being, gamed so that the risk/reward differential is unduly favored towards the aggressor in what nonetheless constitutes an illegal act.

Since prevention is not the cure, because:
A) The problem is in the nature of pre-emptive self defence as first strike/"stand your ground" when threatened, because CONCORD does not and cannot distinguish on that (as a reactionary NPC system).
B) CONCORD timers themselves are nominally fine, or arbitrary in any case. Sure, we can shave seconds off the response timer, but that does little to mitigate the victims position in an illegalnaction anyways.

Therafter, comes the consideration of punishment for an illegal crime.

To my mind, increasing the security penalty modifier (as effected by the security standings of the victim), is the way to mitigate this.

The meta of illegal actions in HS remains emminently possible (for the good of the game and its ethos), the sec status loss can be recouped as usual (thereby providing opportunity for others to aggress you where you are actualising that, promoting more content and PvP), and if the illegal aggressors sec status drops to red, anyone else can aggress them in HS thereby promoting more content and PvP.

1) The magical infallible unkillable space police are not a problem unless you commit illegal activties.
Ypu are as safe from their action, as the victim, until you commit a crime, wherafter they respond retroactively and invariably "too late" as is lamentably the case in real life too. You are already dead by the time official help arrives.

2) I have not said anything about changing CONCORD or faction police efficacy nor reacrion times.

3) Ive merely suggested the punitive measure of adding a more substantial sec status modifier as a result of an ILLEGAL ACTION.

4) How tanked someone is, is immaterial to the fact of an illegal action perpetrated against them.
If I am attacked while riding in a armor plated mercedes, the fact I survived the attack, in no way mitigates the severity of the crime attempted against me, nor the cuplability of its perpetrators.

By what metric is it not enough? It worked fine for me, I've spent years flying faction battleships for the sole purpose of making isk in high sec without a single gank against me. My Incursion Vindicator costs almost 3 times as much as the carrier I use outside if high sec. Because of high sec's mechanical safety, i haven't suffered a single loss even while moving that ship from Incursion Focus to Incursion focus.

What you miss is the same thing that every "increase safety" advocate misses. The game is already safe enough to people who are lazy. Trying to increase safety for those too lazy to think for themselves only hurts the game as a whole.

You'll notice that this game was WAY more popular when it was less safe. This is (IMO) because the actions one could take to make themselves safe gave people a sense of accomplishment, and that sense create an emotional bond between gamer and game, the kind that keeps a player playing. We took PRIDE in keeping people like CODE and goons/whoever from killing us. Now, the game does all the heavy lifting...

..and you are advocating that it do even more of that heavy lifting. People like you have good intention, but what you think is wrong headed. By trying to Nerf the CODE types, you aren't hurting them, they will just find another way to screw with people. You are nerfing ME and folks like me who don't suck and playing open world video games against opposition. Which is why even after all these years of nerfs aimed at them, the CODE types are still here and there are fewer people like me (PVE adventurers) around.



TL;DR, the people you are trying to nerf are our content, stop asking CCP to nerf out content.

Delete ore holds. Bring back can flipping.

HS ganking, in its prepoderance, has become more pronounced and frequent in recent years.
It used to be rather more infrequent.
In a heuristic, adapative and dynamic sandbox system, changes in player behavior need to be measured against intent of the mechanics that govern them.

Changing the sec status modifier for illegal actions is:
A) Inline with an existing precedent and imperative; that of a sec status punishment from illegal actions existing in the first place.
B) Does not remove the HS aggression meta (in this case especially as differentiated from legal aggression, such as in wardec).
C) Merely diversifies the content/pvp resulting from the modifier, in that players who commit illegal crimes and become red in HS, have to then recoup that sec standing elsewhere, as they do now, which creates more PvP content in those sectors for their own local denizens.

D) I agree that the NPC Empire/Corp system should be more integrated in terms of standings, indexes and player activity. As to your specific example of Amarr shooting at you for running Minmatar missions, well, what? You cant get Minmatar missions in Amarr space. Furthermore, its already present, in that if you do have to FULFILL a Minmatar mission in Amarr space, you will be considered hostile, is your standings are low enough towards them.

You seem a bit perplexed, perhaps a little flummoxed.
Does the reason and rational of my proposal scare you a bit?
Was it not a bit naive to have not seen its inevitability, considered it, and prepared for it?

Nowhere have I advocated or suggested any measure that increases safety.

An increased negative modifier to security status on illegal activities does not prevent illegal activities.
Nor does it increase HS security.

CONCORD reaction is the same.
Faction police resction is the same.
Illegal HS action is still the same.

Increasing the negative modifier on sec status impairs none of these.
It merely creates more commensuratr content as these illegal activity characters reach the red flag, and become open targets for everyone in HS, as well as conducively increasing PvP content as they return to other relevant sectors inorder to recoup their sec standings.

HS security is not changed, at all.

You got some numbers for us? I'd e interested to see the number comparison.