EVE General Discussion

1) To the illegality of the act, It doesnt matter what Im driving, whether an armored hummer, mercedes, bicycle or walking on my own twofeet. Its illegal, whether its in a pod, shuttle, or massively tanked ship of any type. It certainly doesnt matter to CONCORD. Im not responsible for the crime. The perpetrator is.

2) My proposal changes none of this anyways. Only the extent of the punitive measure. Illegal crimes can still be committed (as a meta) in EVE exactly the same way as before. CONCORD is not changed. Faction police are not changed. The parameters of what constitute a ceime in HS are not changed.

3) As you point out, the victim of a HS illegal crime continues to live, in a clone. But so does the perpetrator of that illegal crime. Infact illegal transgressors in HS are IMMUNE to pod destruction from CONCORD/faction police, whereas the victim of their crime is not f3om their aggressors This is an other interesting incongriguity. And again, which obviates the principle and precedent of pod killing reducing sec status even further, as in existing game mechanics.

Increasing the security status penalty of HS illegal actitivirsmakes emminent sense, especially considering its recent and current rate of occurance.

Any rational system that perceives an increase in illegality, would move to counteract it, atleast to maintain its frequency as was before. One of these core options, is to increase the punitive result. In this case, in EVE HS, to increase the security status drop, so asto moderate illegal behaviour at non-problematic levels, and also, in the case of EVE, to conducively create more content elsewhere as a result, as these security penalised illegal aggressors then have to move to other sectors of space to recoup it in PvE, and themselves beco ing targets and incentive for more content and PvP.

Its win, all around. Nobody loses anything. Everyone gains.

What's sad is needing (not wanting, NEEDING) to believe that the space with magical npc police and fewer per captia kills is less safe than the space with no magical npc police and the 2nd most per capita pvp kills. It's delusional.

CONCORD reaction times and Faction Police efficacy are largely irrelevant to the issue of HS illegal actions as they currently stand.
Thats why I propose a more severe sec standing malus modifier instead.

On CONCORDs part:
-The reaction timer is reactive (as in not preventative). I dont see reason for reducing the reaction time.
CONCORD timer reductions might save some ships from destruction by illegal aggression, but so what.
As has been pointed out, using your brain, taking pre-emptivr measures such as travel fits and not uber-blinging are primary in EVE, everywhere.
-Furthermore changing reacrion timers would inordinately complicate matters for aggressors (in their legit meta) extending far beyond its purview into ship balance issues.

-There is the issue of the double edges sword, in terms of CONCORD, as a simple AI entity, blowing up simply the first aggressor. This means their is no recourse for a potential victim for initiating aggression, before they are aggressed upon, uniquely in HS.
There is no way to reconcile this. It is what it is. EVE has no judiciary AI element which weighs the issue of self-defence vs that of the anticipated criminal act of an aggressor. CONCORD will kill whoever first aggressed, whenever they arrive, and thats that.
However, thats also where the increased sec status malus I suggest comes into effect, as a natural and reasonable result of capsuleers (whom though immortal), are still personally culpable for their illegal acts, even after rrsurrecting in a clone.

On Faction Police part:
-Lolwut. Who cares. Easily bypassed and laugably innefficient.
-Perhaps something to consider buffing, but beyond the purview of my suggestion, and irrelevant to it.

My suggestion:

Increase the sec standing negwtive modifier for illegal actions:
-This does not remove the meta of illegal HS activity
-This does not change the meta of illegal HS activity

All it means, is you can potentially do it less often, before you have to recoup sec standing elsewhere, which nonetheless creates content for other players hunting YOU in PvP, according to the legalities of those sectors. Alternatively, you can, if you so wish, remain in HS on your sec standing red character, and continue your activities. But you will beset by PLAYERS now open to engage you.

As a result, sum total of player based content creation remains the same, and is probably increased.

---

The issue here, is not whether HS ganking/aggression (without due cause from attack or wardec) is ILLEGAL.
It is clear, tabled and accepted, that it is , categorically, ILLEGAL within the games own mechanics.

Does tha mean we should alter CONCORD reaction times?
No
Does that mean Faction Police should be more efficient?
No.
Does that mean HS bling carebears should fly irresponsibly with impugnity?
No.

Does that mean the sum result of illegal acitivities should promote more PvP against their perpetrator?
Hell yes.

The means to do that, is very simple.
Just increase the security standing loss for ILLEGAL HS activitites.

Therafter, PLAYERS will handle the rest. PvP. Thats what we all want, right?
Not the current PvE vs CONCORD and Faction Police.

Ad hominem.
Fail.

I demonstrably have more actual experience and knowledge/understanding of the subject in discussion than you.

Next!

I'm not sure if larger sec status losses would be very useful. Career gankers usually lI've indefinitely with very low sec status and it doesn't prevent or even particularly impede their activity.

At the most it would affect part time or occasional gankers and then not in a very big way.

People would like to see faction police nerfed or removed because it limits low sec status players to being in totally disposable ships, which in turn leads to the "there's no way to get back at them" complaint. The continuous NPC enforcement means there's no opportunity for player enforcement.

It may seem counterintuitive but less pervasive NPC enforcement might actually make carebears happier.

But highsec was already perfectly balanced back when CCP nerfed awoxing. So we don't need another nerf, everything is fine now. The more important topic is who will train all the new players once the awox-nerf subscription wave hits eve.

HS is peculiar in many ways.

One of them is that, unlike most other sectors, once you drop below -5.0, you become content for everyone else.
But everywhere else, you are ALREADY free game, regardless of sec status (as far as CONCORD is concerned).

The NPC enforcements are irrelevant to HS illegal action, as either reactive or innefficient (CONCORD and Faction Police respectively).

What could, however, police against proven criminals in HS, is other players.

As such, increasing the sec standing malus, will make illegal criminal CHARACTERS more immediate content for other players.

CONCORD only reacts to the criminal act itself, responsively.
Faction police, inneffectively, react to sec standing players according to specific rules.

PLAYERS, however, have been largely cut out from acting upon proven criminal players.

STANDINGS, and in this case for sec, are real and dynamic states that govern the relstion of a CHARACTER to their environment in terms of NPCS, and through sec, to other players.

Repeat illegal activity characters should, and can be, content for everyone else, as in thr only sector (HS) where it rrally matters.


Increasing the sec standing loss for illegal actions, as close to the -5.0 loss as possible, allowing for multipliers in the sec standing calculations, creates more content in terms of PvP in HS should they choose to remain there, but also commensurately in other sectors where they must farm PvE inorder to recoup sec standing, and where they are vulnerable and content to other aggressive players within those sectors rulesets and deliniations.

While i did actually laugh, I also have to say that what you describe is frustrating on some small level. All the time I think "how many times does a way of thinking have to fail before you realize that it's that way of thinking that is faulty"?

CCP had a game that was rough enough to spawn this graphic, and it grew. Then they started trying to 'expand the universe' and 'lower the barriers of entry' and make a game that is 'easy to learn, hard to master' . And it stopped growing. It's this insidious carebearish ideology that hurts the game by trying to comfort the lazy at the expense of the creative.

They increased the safety of high sec (where everyone starts), added all these 'nanny state' pop ups that stop you from doing anything memorable/interesting/emotionally impactful at least until you click the "don't show me this again" box for the 20th time and then wonder why they aren't getting more people, like they don't understand the idea that people who are into space sandbox games are adventurer types for which too much safety is off putting.

If I started playing EVE in 2015 instead of 2007, I don't know it I'd stay, 2007 EVE treated me like an adult in charge of my own space life and destiny, 2015 EVE tells me I need reminding that I'm undocking without a mission item oh and here is a complete in game guide to completing that same mission...

Look, I get it, you think you are great game developer. But you don't realize how this works. You can't fix stupid.

As an example, here is what will happen if your idea gets implemented:

We don't care because we operate at -10 anyway. The anti-gankers and local heroes on the other hand, who try to kill our bumping ships will now become instant outlaws after only one gank?! And they will not be prepared for the Facpo and probably lose a few other ships until they realize what they have done. They will cry about how unfair it is and how we hide behind this unbalanced mechanic, a mechanic people like you tried to implement to nerf what we do.

It's always people who care about game mechanics vs. lazy people who don't care and there is no patch to fix that.

Not entirely sure this comes under your request for ideas but I would suggest removing 'hyperdunking' . It is so obviously an exploit as it subverts the fifteen minute combat timer. I have personally argued with CCP in-game over the issue but to no avail. Don't get me wrong though - I don't support 'afk' hauling, bad ship fittings or overfilling cargo holds with expensive cargo - but I believe 'hyperdunking' has now pushed ganking of haulers to a silly level. I'm not against ganking as a mechanic either. But 'hyperdunking' would be stopped if I had the power to do so.

Apparently 'hyperdunking' may be about to be removed soon according to other posts so maybe my request is about to happen.