These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Jita Park Speakers Corner

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

A High Sec Manifesto
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#221 - 2012-01-09 19:14:33 UTC
Temba Ronin wrote:
Hans thanks for the detailed reply to my inquiry. I find that I really do not have much disagreement with the future of EVE gameplay in highsec as you succinctly framed it. I wholeheartedly support changes that are controlled by players making choices. Perhaps I did not understand that Malcanis was supporting this because of the difference in wordsmithing craft.

I support the idea that player aggression, corp or alliance based, in highsec without a war dec should after some threshold trigger some type of bounty/ incursion sanction from Concord against the perpetrators, which mercs or other groups of players loosely aligned ala incursion fleets could choose to pursue.

As a newer player I can tell you absolutely the biggest obstacle to more people venturing into lowsec and null is ignorance of proper fits and tactics, coupled with horror stories spun about massive gate camps and instant unprofitable death. It really has nothing to do with just being afraid to lose my ship. I accept that possibility every time I undock.

Within a couple of months of sometimes vitriolic posts in the forums I learned more about playing in the larger portion of EVE then I did in the first six months of mostly highsec life with brief forays into lowsec and wh space. I hope instead of flaming highsec players more could be done to show us the ropes. Getting settled in nullsec or lowsec is not easily learned in a NPC or highsec corp.

I think CCP could help by changing the initial pilot training regime to include getting blown up or self destructing VERY early in the tutorials, followed by, “That is the worst that can happen to you so man up and select your next ship” type of statement to concretely stamp into the new players head that getting blown up is just part of the game.

Additionally I support the concept that player action could and should contribute to Concord responses to criminal activity. If a player continually ganks in highsec, or a corp interdicts commerce, after a certain threshold the player, corp, or alliance would suffer the consequences of Concord sponsored wardecs/ bounties that any other player, corp, or alliance could claim without hurting their sec status for podding the wanted criminals in any sector of New Eden. Of course the corp or alliance would have to get prior 24 hour notice and have the option to expel the member/s and avoid the consequence and the bounty would transfer to whatever player corp or alliance the wanted criminal was accepted into next staying on the wanted dead or alive list for a minimum of 90 days for criminal activity in 1.0 space and a graduated scale down to 18 days for 0.5. Conditional upon players contributing to the bounty Concord would offer. So player choice and player actions would be the driving forces behind any possible consequences of criminal activity in Concord controlled space.

I am not an expert game player so I readily accept any an all corrections or improvements to positions I offer in the forums. Power to the players!


The only thing I don't like about this is the idea that CONCORD would pay for the bounties. That should be the province of the players.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Arkon Olacar
black.listed
#222 - 2012-01-09 19:32:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Arkon Olacar
Malcanis wrote:
Arkon Olacar wrote:
One of the defining features of high sec space is that it is free from pvp, with the exception of suicide ganking.


This is precisely what I'm would like to see change, because the opportunities for non consensual PvP in hi-sec are essentially limited to ganking. There's very little else to do, because bounty hunting is a joke, war decs are so bad that it's not even funny, and FW is, as Hans will surely tell you, in a very poor state indeed.

Hi sec is large, large enough for a variety of playstyles, and it seems like you're actually echoing those "L33t PvPers" you claim to decry by saying that hi-sec is "free from PvP" and therefore PvP is only for nullsec and lo-sec. I will never subscribe to that kind of playstle apartheid. The only reason that people have this massively, horribly mistaken idea that "high sec is free from PvP" is that 3 out of the 4 main options (suicide ganking, FW, wardecs, bounty hunting) are horribly broken. Hi-sec is not, was never meant to be and should not ever be "free from PvP". You are explicitly trying to limit the playstyle options available in hi-sec whereas I am all about trying to expand them.

High sec can never be and should never be a "free from PvP" monty-haul wonderland. The open economy and single shard nature of EVE mean that can never be an option that can co-exist with a FFA and competitive low and null. However I believe that it is and should be possible for people who enjoy the hi-sec lifestyle of high population, easy access to markets to have access to player experiences currently confied to nullsec.

(and other stuff)


Answer me this then:

If non-consensual PvP were to freely exist in high sec, then what would be the difference between high and low sec systems?

EDIT: See post below for what I actually mean to say.

At the minute, there are so few differences, that to take away the fundamental cornerstone of high sec space would make high sec a new players zone only. As there would be no difference between high and low sec, players will move to low sec and null to seek the wealth to be found there. This would acheive the complete opposite of what you stated in your OP, something we both agree on: high sec is not and should not be just for new players.

As you appear to have hinted at, I did indeed mean 'non-consensual PvP' whenever I said PvP. I was not including bounty hunting, faction warfare or wardecs, as they are all opt in (unless youre the target of a bounty). And yes, war decs are opt in. Don't like them? Leave the corp.

I have seen many people complain about wardecs, and I have been involved in a few in my short time as a player where the system was abused by 'griefers'. But what I am yet to see is a viable alternative. Plenty of people want to make wardecs a huge strain on both parties, something which must be avoided at all costs. Crippling charges, forced undocks, security status and/or standing penalties... all have been suggested, and luckily have all been thrown out for being too stupid and untenable.

No matter what you do, someone will always find a way to abuse the system. Its part and parcel of life, and its part and parcel of Eve. Unless someone can come up with a better solution which allows genuine wardecs to still occur easily, it should be left alone. I have had no experience with faction warfare, so no comment on them.

But all of this is besides the point. My main question is still this: If consensual PvP were to exist in high sec, then what would be the difference between high and low sec systems?

EDIT: See post below for what I actually meant to say.
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#223 - 2012-01-09 19:43:51 UTC
Arkon Olacar wrote:

But all of this is besides the point. My main question is still this: If consensual PvP were to exist in high sec, then what would be the difference between high and low sec systems?


I'm assuming you mean non-consensual? I was hoping you could clarify what you meant here – since as its been pointed out non-consensual PvP already exists in highsec, nothing prevents player attacks, they are only penalized after the fact.

Are you proposing that players be unable to non-consensually PvP in high sec? Meaning that it would be impossible to aggress another player without their consent? Or do you agree with the current system where attacks are allowed, but punished by CONCORD.

If you feel attacks should be allowed but punished, do you see anything wrong with players assisting CONCORD in retailiation or prevention of attacks, contributing to the overall safety of a high sec system?

I just want to make sure I’m not misinterpreting your suggestions here, thanks for elaborating...

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary
Arkon Olacar
black.listed
#224 - 2012-01-09 19:48:58 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Arkon Olacar wrote:

But all of this is besides the point. My main question is still this: If consensual PvP were to exist in high sec, then what would be the difference between high and low sec systems?


I'm assuming you mean non-consensual? I was hoping you could clarify what you meant here – since as its been pointed out non-consensual PvP already exists in highsec, nothing prevents player attacks, they are only penalized after the fact.

Are you proposing that players be unable to non-consensually PvP in high sec? Meaning that it would be impossible to aggress another player without their consent? Or do you agree with the current system where attacks are allowed, but punished by CONCORD.

If you feel attacks should be allowed but punished, do you see anything wrong with players assisting CONCORD in retailiation or prevention of attacks, contributing to the overall safety of a high sec system?

I just want to make sure I’m not misinterpreting your suggestions here, thanks for elaborating...


I meant consensual PvP, if that were to be introduced. Thats what I wrote at the beginning of the post when I first wrote it, then for some utterly unknown reason added "non-" as a prefix. *facepalm*

Even then, consensual PvP is a terrible description. What I mean is 'free for all' PvP, PvP without CONCORD intervention, 'permissable' PvP. My question was (in my head):

If PvP without CONCORD intervention were to exist in high sec space, what would be the difference between high and low sec space?
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#225 - 2012-01-09 20:19:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Malcanis
Arkon Olacar wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Arkon Olacar wrote:
One of the defining features of high sec space is that it is free from pvp, with the exception of suicide ganking.


This is precisely what I'm would like to see change, because the opportunities for non consensual PvP in hi-sec are essentially limited to ganking. There's very little else to do, because bounty hunting is a joke, war decs are so bad that it's not even funny, and FW is, as Hans will surely tell you, in a very poor state indeed.

Hi sec is large, large enough for a variety of playstyles, and it seems like you're actually echoing those "L33t PvPers" you claim to decry by saying that hi-sec is "free from PvP" and therefore PvP is only for nullsec and lo-sec. I will never subscribe to that kind of playstle apartheid. The only reason that people have this massively, horribly mistaken idea that "high sec is free from PvP" is that 3 out of the 4 main options (suicide ganking, FW, wardecs, bounty hunting) are horribly broken. Hi-sec is not, was never meant to be and should not ever be "free from PvP". You are explicitly trying to limit the playstyle options available in hi-sec whereas I am all about trying to expand them.

High sec can never be and should never be a "free from PvP" monty-haul wonderland. The open economy and single shard nature of EVE mean that can never be an option that can co-exist with a FFA and competitive low and null. However I believe that it is and should be possible for people who enjoy the hi-sec lifestyle of high population, easy access to markets to have access to player experiences currently confied to nullsec.

(and other stuff)


Answer me this then:

If non-consensual PvP were to freely exist in high sec, then what would be the difference between high and low sec systems?


I thought I had made this clear, but I'll try and be even more explicit: I mean that hi seccers will have the opportunity to engage in hi-risk behaviour at their conveinience. The "lo-sec pocket level 5 missions" was an example of what I had in mind. If a player doesn't fancy risking being attacked by pirates, he can simply not engage in that gameplay. And more importantly, he can very easily leave the situation by simply warping out and being back in hi-sec space without having to go through a jump gate or anything. Even if you don't like that specific idea, you can see the philosophy behind it: players can simply and easily try out risking non-consensual PvP, with the reward being a taste of the kind of money that normally is only available to people prepared to constantly travel in lo/null, with all the overhead of effort, group co-ordination and lack of ability to easily switch back into a low-stress game mode.

Likewise, my thoughts on sec status are about offering more gradiated choices. People who want to operate in maximum safety can choose to abide in 1.0 sec; people who want to up their income a few notches and take a few chances can move to a 0.6 or a 0.5, and have the choice to pick a level of risk that suits them, rather than a didactic "hi-sec is PvP-free".

And it's also worth remembering: non-consensual PvP does freely exist in hi-sec. Anyone can be ganked anywhere, anytime. And this is good and necessary. Careless, foolish players should do less well than careful, intelligent players, even in hi-sec. For a bounty hunting system to have any meaning, there must be scope from crimes to be committed.

EDIT: non consensual PvP is not the same thing as FFA PvP.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#226 - 2012-01-09 20:22:03 UTC
Arkon Olacar wrote:
If PvP without CONCORD intervention were to exist in high sec space, what would be the difference between high and low sec space?


You mean PvP like bounty hunting, wardecs and FW?

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#227 - 2012-01-09 20:30:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Hans Jagerblitzen
Arkon Olacar wrote:

I meant consensual PvP, if that were to be introduced. Thats what I wrote at the beginning of the post when I first wrote it, then for some utterly unknown reason added "non-" as a prefix. *facepalm*

Even then, consensual PvP is a terrible description. What I mean is 'free for all' PvP, PvP without CONCORD intervention, 'permissable' PvP. My question was (in my head):

If PvP without CONCORD intervention were to exist in high sec space, what would be the difference between high and low sec space?


There would be absolutely none. That's why, thankfully, no one here is advocating that high sec become the wild west where anyone can shoot freely without penalty.

I personally think there should be even GREATER intervention on behalf on the non-PvP crowd that doesn't want to be attacked, I just don't see NPC CONCORD as being the ultimate enforcer in terms of effectiveness. Giving players the tools to expand upon their own defense (through bounties, improving the war dec system, or player enlistment as CONCORD agents) would ultimately result in an even safer high sec than it stands today, while enabling those who want to engage in gankery there to do so ONLY at their own peril - peril meaning swift sentencing at the hands of other players enforcing justice.

To give a brief example - Bounty hunting could be expanded to allow the placement of bounties on entire corporations or Alliances that disturb the peace, such as Goonswarm. Currently, players only have a small window of time where they can be attacked freely once they've commited a crime. Player justice already exists, its just far too limited . Players repeatedly victimized by attacks should be able to invest resources to ensure that instead being flagged as a criminal for only a few minutes as they are now, repeat offenders end up being flagged as a criminal for, say, a weeks time.

The system right now favors the ganker, not the ganked. Authorized PvP justice could be harnessed in high sec to tip the scales the other direction, giving players a window of time they realistically need to make life hell for those that have done the same to them.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#228 - 2012-01-09 20:37:25 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Arkon Olacar wrote:

I meant consensual PvP, if that were to be introduced. Thats what I wrote at the beginning of the post when I first wrote it, then for some utterly unknown reason added "non-" as a prefix. *facepalm*

Even then, consensual PvP is a terrible description. What I mean is 'free for all' PvP, PvP without CONCORD intervention, 'permissable' PvP. My question was (in my head):

If PvP without CONCORD intervention were to exist in high sec space, what would be the difference between high and low sec space?


There would be absolutely none. That's why, thankfully, no one here is advocating that high sec become the wild west where anyone can shoot freely without penalty.

I personally think there should be even GREATER intervention on behalf on the non-PvP crowd that doesn't want to be attacked, I just don't see NPC CONCORD as being the ultimate enforcer in terms of effectiveness. Giving players the tools to expand upon their own defense (through bounties, improving the war dec system, or player enlistment as CONCORD agents) would ultimately result in an even safer high sec than it stands today, while enabling those who want to engage in gankery there to do so ONLY at their own peril - peril meaning swift sentencing at the hands of other players enforcing justice.


Paying a bounty hunting corp to mercilessly persecute for 30 days the guy who just ganked your Hulk should be a valid form of PvP.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#229 - 2012-01-09 20:46:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Hans Jagerblitzen
Malcanis wrote:


Paying a bounty hunting corp to mercilessly persecute for 30 days the guy who just ganked your Hulk should be a valid form of PvP.


Hahaha I was just amending my above post to include that exact same thing. We're to the point of finishing each other's thoughts now, I should just slow my response time to let you speak for yourself so we're not double posting Roll


I am curious, though, if folks like Fazmarai still think we are wicked Gank-promoters hell bent on bringing the lawlessness and chaos of nullsec into the heart of Empire space. Cool

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary
Mars Theran
Foreign Interloper
#230 - 2012-01-09 21:04:17 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Mars Theran wrote:
I was surprised to find I actually agreed with most of what was written in the 'Manifesto'.

Manifesto: Really, that is such a pompous description, as to be bad form.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifesto

"A manifesto is a public declaration of principles and intentions, often political in nature."

I don't see what's "pompous" about using exactly the correct word.


History. Specifically related to the usage and intentions of those many individuals who have used it. Not to say it's always bad; just that my knowledge of manifestos isn't inclusive of any times when it hasn't been. Also, I'm too lazy to study all the ones I haven't heard of. There's quite a lot; I looked at the wiki last night.
zubzubzubzubzubzubzubzub
Arkon Olacar
black.listed
#231 - 2012-01-09 21:13:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Arkon Olacar
Malcanis wrote:
Arkon Olacar wrote:
If PvP without CONCORD intervention were to exist in high sec space, what would be the difference between high and low sec space?


You mean PvP like bounty hunting, wardecs and FW?


I have just had my first post eaten by the forum. Wtf is this bullcrap? How can you 'accidentally' lose a post when pressing 'post'? This must be CCPs revenge for the playerbase rejecting Incarna so utterly (which I am glad you all did.)

tl:dr of what I said:

Im making a complete hash of what Im trying to say.

Essentially, what I meant to say was that if you introduce low sec elements into high sec space, then you are giving people access to low sec rewards and low sec risk, but not the other, constant low sec risks when travelling to and from the complex, and when doing other tasks in the area. The players who live in low sec purely for the extra rewards and not for the PvP will move back to high sec and farm these complexes, as the overall risk will be severely reduced.

A better alternative, in my opinion, is to rewrite faction warfare completely. Make it 100% PvP, make it so you can easily 'sign up' for an hour or twos play, then 'sign out' so you are no longer involved. I havent actually done any faction warfare at all, so I dont know how it is currently done, but I get the impression no one is happy with it.

We both agree with the security status gradient, and how it needs to be made steeper - see my bullet list (which has been ignored so far Sad)

Another option is to allow players with up to 1 'security status level' above the CONCORD KOS level be attacked by any other player. Upon being attacked, the 'criminal' would obviously be free to return fire without CONCORD interferance.

A third option would be to allow the gankee to retain killrights on the perpetrator for a length of time (three hours) after the ganking incident, although this would be open to abuse by ganking-alts... but I cannot see anyway around ganking-alts at all.

Now, Ctrl+A, Ctrl+C, and post...
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#232 - 2012-01-09 21:24:13 UTC
Mars Theran wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Mars Theran wrote:
I was surprised to find I actually agreed with most of what was written in the 'Manifesto'.

Manifesto: Really, that is such a pompous description, as to be bad form.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifesto

"A manifesto is a public declaration of principles and intentions, often political in nature."

I don't see what's "pompous" about using exactly the correct word.


History. Specifically related to the usage and intentions of those many individuals who have used it. Not to say it's always bad; just that my knowledge of manifestos isn't inclusive of any times when it hasn't been. Also, I'm too lazy to study all the ones I haven't heard of. There's quite a lot; I looked at the wiki last night.


I have a large vocabulary and a liking for words. If you want to think of that as pompous, go to it. In all fairness, I'm equally ready to pass judgement for the "NO U SHUT UP I WILL SPEL WORUDZ HOW I LIEK" crowd.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#233 - 2012-01-09 21:25:40 UTC
Arkon Olacar wrote:

I have just had my first post eaten by the forum. Wtf is this bullcrap? How can you 'accidentally' lose a post when pressing 'post'?


Welcome to the club :) Everyone here loses their forum cherry eventually.....its always brutal, always hurts.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#234 - 2012-01-09 21:30:31 UTC
Arkon Olacar wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Arkon Olacar wrote:
If PvP without CONCORD intervention were to exist in high sec space, what would be the difference between high and low sec space?


You mean PvP like bounty hunting, wardecs and FW?


I have just had my first post eaten by the forum. Wtf is this bullcrap? How can you 'accidentally' lose a post when pressing 'post'? This must be CCPs revenge for the playerbase rejecting Incarna so utterly (which I am glad you all did.)

tl:dr of what I said:

Im making a complete hash of what Im trying to say.

Essentially, what I meant to say was that if you introduce low sec elements into high sec space, then you are giving people access to low sec rewards and low sec risk, but not the other, constant low sec risks when travelling to and from the complex, and when doing other tasks in the area. The players who live in low sec purely for the extra rewards and not for the PvP will move back to high sec and farm these complexes, as the overall risk will be severely reduced.


Well either low sec mission pockets in hi-sec is a gankers dream come true that only a complete fool would even consider attempting, or it's a glorious wealth-fountain that will hollow out low-sec as everyone deserts the place in favour of hi-sec. Which is it? I'd like to be sure before continuing the discussion...

As said before, the primary reward of L5 missions is the LP. LP rewards are based on the sec status of the system the agent is in. A L5 agent in a 0.7 system will pay quite a lot less than one in a 0.1

As I also said previously, I think you'll find very few players who are currently willing and able to survive in 0.0 deserting quiet areas of space where they can get 8/10 and 10/10 plexes in order to take a chance being first to a 5/10 in a busy hi-sec constellation.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#235 - 2012-01-09 21:33:24 UTC
Arkon Olacar wrote:


A better alternative, in my opinion, is to rewrite faction warfare completely. Make it 100% PvP, make it so you can easily 'sign up' for an hour or twos play, then 'sign out' so you are no longer involved. I havent actually done any faction warfare at all, so I dont know how it is currently done, but I get the impression no one is happy with it...


Since Hans is active in this thread, I will concede FW advocacy to him. He's a far better person to discuss it with than me.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Arkon Olacar
black.listed
#236 - 2012-01-09 21:37:53 UTC
Malcanis wrote:

Well either low sec mission pockets in hi-sec is a gankers dream come true that only a complete fool would even consider attempting, or it's a glorious wealth-fountain that will hollow out low-sec as everyone deserts the place in favour of hi-sec. Which is it? I'd like to be sure before continuing the discussion...

As said before, the primary reward of L5 missions is the LP. LP rewards are based on the sec status of the system the agent is in. A L5 agent in a 0.7 system will pay quite a lot less than one in a 0.1


Touché. I back down on that example then. If the level 5 mission rewards follow the same gradient as lower level mission rewards, then this may not be as true, but if the gradient of rewards is increased (as we have both suggested) then doing level 5 missions in high sec will indeed be nothing more than a gankers wet dream.
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
#237 - 2012-01-09 21:42:20 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
I'd even go so far as to say I'd be totally fine with areas of highsec becoming as safe as PvE-servers on traditional MMO's in terms of the frequency of uninvited ganks taking place there, if it were a result of players working together to bolster security or leverage extra penalties and pain upon entities like the Goons that encroach upon the trade hubs and resource networks.


I'd assume the reverse would also be true, where players with effort could make a system less secure, weakening security and limiting penalties?

I see two directions High Sec could move towards that would be a big improvement over the status quo, both of which can be found in the ideas already posted.

One is to shrink High Sec and make it more safe. Along the lines of some of Arkon's ideas. The farms are moved out of High Sec (Incursions, level 3 and 4 combat missions, Exploration, and Mining) The remaining space is for industry, market, and newbies. Such space should be very safe with instant CONCORD response to aggression.

The second, is to expand High Sec, not in terms of star systems, but gameplay. Conflict and risk should be increased, but in a a more structured form that is easier for players to manage, participate, or avoid. The structure comes in the form of NPC Factions and conflicts. All the valuable farms not in Sov Null and WH space are tied into participating within the structure of the NPC Factions and their conflicts.

Here you find a place for Hans' general idea of players being able to make their space more secure by enlisting or aiding CONCORD or the Regional Faction. However, there's also the counter players in enemy Factions can work to make your space less secure. Even the outright rogues of High Sec have their place and should receive benefits for aligning with certain NPC Factions, perhaps Orphanage become Angels, TEARS Guristas, and Skunkworks and others that have been messing with High Sec Incursions align with the Sansha. The Goons can remain the Goons, as large holders of Sov Null they've become very much their own fully independent faction in EVE,.. ideally though they should be able to wardec entire NPC factions.

Granted these are just overviews and glimpses, not heavily detailed plans of what changes should be made, that would take a 100 Hans posts worth to write. ;) Speaking of which.. Select All -> Copy -> Post will save you much frustration on these forums!!
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#238 - 2012-01-09 21:47:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Malcanis
Arkon Olacar wrote:
Malcanis wrote:

Well either low sec mission pockets in hi-sec is a gankers dream come true that only a complete fool would even consider attempting, or it's a glorious wealth-fountain that will hollow out low-sec as everyone deserts the place in favour of hi-sec. Which is it? I'd like to be sure before continuing the discussion...

As said before, the primary reward of L5 missions is the LP. LP rewards are based on the sec status of the system the agent is in. A L5 agent in a 0.7 system will pay quite a lot less than one in a 0.1


Touché. I back down on that example then. If the level 5 mission rewards follow the same gradient as lower level mission rewards, then this may not be as true, but if the gradient of rewards is increased (as we have both suggested) then doing level 5 missions in high sec will indeed be nothing more than a gankers wet dream.


A thought that occurred to me: by far the largest danger to people doing level 5 missions is that there are only a few, well known agents who offer them. But what if the high-sec level 5 missions were acquired differently than the ones in lo-sec? What if they were offered by existing level 4 security agents on the following basis:

Every n completed missions earns you an level 5 mission offer in a similar way to way to how storyline missions are offered (therefore there's no need to accept one if you don't want to and you can just delete the offer). They're offered by the agent you did those missions with, and the offers are cumulative and do not expire, or take a long time to expire . This would allow a missioner to save up his level 5s for a time when he feels like running them - when the system is quietest, when it's busiest, when his friends are online and can help him, etc etc.

This would mean that every system with a level 4 security agent in it is a "level 5" mission system. Prospective gankers would have choose to scan down your ship out from amongst all the other 'normal' missioners. If they were specifically looking for people doing level 5s, this would add a significant time overhead, and give level 5 missioners plenty of time to notice probing activity - as well as the possibility of moving to one of many quieter systems.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Killer Gandry
The Concilium Enterprises
#239 - 2012-01-10 09:42:38 UTC
To make the game a tad more interesting but also a bit more real I think the whole station hugging thing in hi sec needs to be revamped.

Why would a stationmanager let someone dock who is clearly agressive and fighting outside his station?

Simply put, you fight within a certain radius of a station the stationmanager decides to not let you dock for 15 minutes.

You want to shoot at someone then shoot, but not shoot and hide, shoot and hide.

If you haven't returned fire but were assaulted then you can dock because you are clearly looking for refuge from harm.

If you somehow decided to assist in agression by using remore repairs then you also get the 15 minute no docking timer.


The whole concept of the docking games are ridiculous. If it's an own station in null sec or an NPC station in null sec the managers might look differently at it, but in High Sec the stations should be a no dock for a substantial longer time period than just a few seconds.

Also standings with factions should have some docking impact with certain stations, they might lower the time you are locked out after agression, but it should be minimal 5 minutes unless you pay a very hefty fee to the manager to look the other way.
And with hefty I don't mean 1 million ISK, I am talking about a substantial amount, preferably reflecting your ships value minimal.
Hiply Rustic
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#240 - 2012-01-22 23:40:45 UTC
Myxx wrote:


Re-educated, or forced to cope or leave/die.


Hmmm, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the Powers That Be would not agree with that 'leave' part.

I don't know what the population of genuine dyed in the wool carebears to the rest of the population is...and by that I mean the people who would leave if PvP was crammed down their throats beyond the current hisec gank-death risks...but I'm going to bet that the number is more than big enough to ensure that no one in a management position at CCP would ever say "Hey, Myxx sure has it right, screw those carebears that don't want more risk...we'll just tell 'em all to leave if they don't like this!"

And they would be right not to.




Ralph King-Griffin wrote: "Eve deliberately excludes the stupid and the weak willied." EvE: Only the strong-willied need apply.