Assembly Hall

Hey all, just checked this out after CCP Seagull mentioned it on last nights o7 show. Hope its the right place etc etc..

I have been thinking a lot about the ongoing division between play styles lately, read a few old and resent posts on the old high sec vs ganking topic and thought I would try and offer another opinion to the muddled soup already out there.

Whats clearly needed is a small compromise from all sides, CCP can't do sh*t until the involved parties agree on something.

When CCP gets new players into eve, we need to give them a place to get comfortable with the UI, navigating and shooting sh*t so they stay, and then let them head in the right direction for a play style they made a informed decision on.

High Sec ganking can not be removed, it would make eve b*llocks, but here is also where the biggest compromise is required.

So...

For the Newbro: 1.0 to 0.8. This "High Security" space should be just that, Highly secure space. It makes no sense to new players that they can get blown to sh*t for no reason in high sec just as easily as in all the other lower security systems. There is no real difference other than the attacker looses the cheap ass ship afterwards. What I am suggesting is security in high sec isn't granted fully at first, but earned or lost through in game choices.

Players with a security status -1.0 or lower should have restricted entry and be bared from docking in or clone jumping to npc stations. If you want to roll a new character to gank with and load it up with skill injectors great, so be it. That's cash for CCP and the ingame economy, but as soon as the security status for that character hits -1.0, concord finds you, blows up your ship and moves your pod, stored high sec clones, high sec assets and home station (if set to a NPC one) to the nearest npc station in the nearest low sec system. If you persistently break the law within 1.0 to 0.8 systems, then the message is simple..."f*ck off!

Low, null and WH life is harsh and unforgiving. That's what EVE is! So high sec consequences should be the same.

Gankers need to man up on this, stop flogging a dead horse and think about the bigger picture. Enough tears and winging. You would loose access to the 3 highest tier security systems, unless you have a war dec on a player corp based in one. These systems already have reduced bounties/mission payouts, high taxes/index costs, disincentivizing poco fees and are primarily filled with learning newbro's and casual or more peaceful players anyway. They play the game too, and contribute to the system in their own way. It's high time this was just accepted.

Citadels should still be anchorable of course, and player corp holdings and assets need to be attackable, so either concord needs to alow players with a low security rating entry providing they have a active war on a player corp based in high sec. (In this scenario, should a player with a security rating of -1.0 or lower attack anyone other than players in player corps they have active war decs with, they get removed as above and banned from the system for say 48 or 72 hours.) Or player corps would have to loose access to anchoring in -1.0 - 0.8 systems. I can only see the former idea working, the later would be horrific for the player corps already bedded into these systems.

For The Ganker & The Bear: 1.0 to 0.5. To counter balance the above, I would suggest having two separate timers to concord response times, the first, the standard timer, with a longer response time than at present giving the ganker more time in effect to do the gank before concord show up.

The second timer would relate to the victim and what there standing is with (a) the empire that owns the space, (b) the navy that protects that space, so theoretically if the victim was in a 0.5 sec or above Amarrian system and had 10.0 standing with the Amarr Navy and/or Amarr Empire, the response time would be shortened to the point that a gank would be futile.

This also adds 'a point' to standings again, and would make the high sec carebear have to earn their respite.

Now I'm sure CCP are aware of this idea and it's nothing new, I suspect it would be hard if not impossible to implement, so perhaps as the standing would relate directly to them, a new faction type police NPC could fill this roll, It could use the new AI CCP are playing with, and the current concord response timer could just be extended somewhat.

Thoughts? ...do try and abstain from the usual finger vomit these posts attract. We of EVE are a relatively small community, all sides need to show a bit of respect for opposing views and play styles so we can get on with supporting CCP, new players and playing EVE.

o7

One way of exacting revenge on CODE is an indirect approach. Gank anyone who pays their ransom and displayes their licence code. I predict CODE's revenue will take a hit. Also for most high sec players it will result in a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation. They will either not undock, or they will turn and fight.

First, the space the OP proposes already exists as its illegal to even bother new players in rookie systems along with a few other specialized places. So, great! You've already got it.

Second, ganking is pretty rare in most .8 - 1.0 systems as CONCORD is pretty fast. The people getting ganked in the trade hubs are not new players but rather, greedy players who undock with their life's savings in an untanked Industrial. These people need to be destroyed so its not helpful to anyone to give them some immunity.

Third, and this is the big one. If CCP made .8 - 1.0 systems relatively immune to ganking you wouldn't be able to get near the asteroids for all the veterans hoovering up all the ore. There would be even more massive bot fleets of mining ships than there already are working the relative safety of the highest security system. Its why the ice isn't there. The new player in his Venture or Retriever wouldn't get a full cycle off before his rock disappears. And if you don't like the guys taking all the ore before you can get any? Tough! You can't wardec them because they are all in NPC corps and you can't gank them because its against the "rules".

The one thing you didn't really cover in your rather lengthy idea is why anything needs to be changed to make things safer. Danger is the nature of Eve and the sooner a player realizes that the better chance he has of becoming a long term player. Frankly, anyone who actually needs to be protected while playing in a significant portion of game space probably is going to quit once they venture into a scary .7 system and sees someone flashing red.

Don't coddle the kids. They need to learn to fight for what they get in Eve.

Forum tears!

Another cry baby ganker, this one is one who always whines in every thread.

Attacking those who pay extortion and those who request it will likely become very popular once the Alphas hit, industrialists will weed out those who are not helping against the blight of high sec faux pvp. War decs are also a reasonable and more honorable way to discourage people from kneeling to extortionists.

The game is going to get more interesting when the Alphas change the balance upon arrival.

"Honorable" yes clearly a concept you are not familiar with.

Let me guess why you "always win" ........ could it be you are afraid to fight anyone who can fight back and all your targets are unarmed, oh be very proud little high sec faux pvp fan boi!