These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Large negative sec status = no concord protection
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Scialt
Corporate Navy Police Force
Sleep Reapers
#1 - 2017-05-04 13:56:04 UTC
Pretty much what the title says. If you're sec status is very low (-3 or -4 perhaps), you essentially are always suspect in high sec and low sec.

This adds content (more PvP fights... particularly good since getting that negative sec status probably means you enjoy PvP fights). It also gives players more of a warning when those who are into attacking those who are not suspect with the warning of a flashing icon in local.
Max Deveron
Deveron Shipyards and Technology
Citizen's Star Republic
#2 - 2017-05-04 14:00:51 UTC
uhm why?

If you can not be bothered to look at someone in local and
check their sec status
check their standing with you
check standing with your corp
check status with your alliance
check KB's for any relevant information

Why should you be handed a hands free intel operation tool? especially one that can/will be gamed by bot scriptors?

-1
Scialt
Corporate Navy Police Force
Sleep Reapers
#3 - 2017-05-04 14:23:50 UTC
Max Deveron wrote:
uhm why?

If you can not be bothered to look at someone in local and
check their sec status
check their standing with you
check standing with your corp
check status with your alliance
check KB's for any relevant information

Why should you be handed a hands free intel operation tool? especially one that can/will be gamed by bot scriptors?

-1



It creates more PvP between willing participants and allows more effective ways to actually cash in on bounties.

The intel side is secondary. And the number of false alarms from low sec-status people who aren't ganking others probably is less beneficial than seeing someone go criminal and realizing an actual ganker is in-system.

In the end, this creates more targets (all those blinking suspects with low sec-status). Why is that a bad thing?
Vokan Narkar
Doomheim
#4 - 2017-05-04 14:32:32 UTC
? this is already there and starts at -5.0
Obsidian Blacke
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#5 - 2017-05-04 14:45:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Obsidian Blacke
Scialt wrote:
Pretty much what the title says. If you're sec status is very low (-3 or -4 perhaps), you essentially are always suspect in high sec and low sec.

This adds content (more PvP fights... particularly good since getting that negative sec status probably means you enjoy PvP fights). It also gives players more of a warning when those who are into attacking those who are not suspect with the warning of a flashing icon in local.



You realize you can already attack anyone who is -5.0 right? And that you can modify your overview so that they stand out? Hell, you can even make them blink on your overview.
Carnivorous Swarm
Doomheim
#6 - 2017-05-04 14:48:44 UTC
-5 security status or lower is already free to be shot by anyone without CONCORD intervention or security status loss. They show as solid red by default.

It isn't clear to me why the color needs to changed to be confused with Suspect status.

For example in low sec, a pilot flashing yellow is one who recently shot at a ship. Flashing yellow in high sec is a thief or structure hunter or suspect baiting. Or, they just had a kill right activated.

Whereas -5 status infers none of these things.

I would readily engage a -5 pilot in high sec versus a suspect pilot. Mostly because I would feel terrible if I accidentally harmed a fellow who enjoys MTU euthanizing as much as I do.
Scialt
Corporate Navy Police Force
Sleep Reapers
#7 - 2017-05-04 17:24:23 UTC
Obsidian Blacke wrote:
Scialt wrote:
Pretty much what the title says. If you're sec status is very low (-3 or -4 perhaps), you essentially are always suspect in high sec and low sec.

This adds content (more PvP fights... particularly good since getting that negative sec status probably means you enjoy PvP fights). It also gives players more of a warning when those who are into attacking those who are not suspect with the warning of a flashing icon in local.



You realize you can already attack anyone who is -5.0 right? And that you can modify your overview so that they stand out? Hell, you can even make them blink on your overview.



Well, to be perfectly honest I didn't because unlike being suspect or a criminal the default settings don't indicate that to a player.

I still support raising the bar a bit so that players who are attacked by faction navy ships due to sec status are vulnerable to player attacks as well.
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#8 - 2017-05-04 18:03:03 UTC
They are free game for players if they fly around high sec (and in low sec attacking them does not incur a security penalty to the attacker) with a lower than -4.99 security status. You can engage these players freely without any concord retaliation against you. There status is also indicated in the overview when you are on grid with them.

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
The Conference
#9 - 2017-05-04 18:27:03 UTC
Old Pervert
Perkone
Caldari State
#10 - 2017-05-04 20:46:09 UTC
Thinly veiled attempt to preempt an attack against highsec gankers who've managed to lower their sec status enough. I'm not against that, but call it what it is.

Honestly, I think I'd like to see concord's protection scale inversely with the security level of a system, much like it is with when they choose to attack.

For example, in 1.0 space, I'd like to see them stop protecting players at -3. In 0.7, they'd stop protecting at -4, and at 0.5 they'd stop protecting at -5.

Truth be told I have no idea how this would impact gankers, if it would at all - I've never ganked, nor have I been ganked.
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#11 - 2017-05-04 22:00:27 UTC
Vokan Narkar wrote:
? this is already there and starts at -5.0


^^^

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Scialt
Corporate Navy Police Force
Sleep Reapers
#12 - 2017-05-05 12:56:29 UTC
Old Pervert wrote:
Thinly veiled attempt to preempt an attack against highsec gankers who've managed to lower their sec status enough. I'm not against that, but call it what it is.

Honestly, I think I'd like to see concord's protection scale inversely with the security level of a system, much like it is with when they choose to attack.

For example, in 1.0 space, I'd like to see them stop protecting players at -3. In 0.7, they'd stop protecting at -4, and at 0.5 they'd stop protecting at -5.

Truth be told I have no idea how this would impact gankers, if it would at all - I've never ganked, nor have I been ganked.



I'm not sure I was veiling anything with that.

Basically the sliding scale of protection you talk about would be excellent. In general I think high-sec space should be less safe... both for the average miner and the average ganker. I'm all for anything that flags more players as eligible for non-concord PvP.

I think those who initiate wars should lose all concord protection for the length of the war (not just from attacks from those they dec... but from everyone). The one being decc'd keeps their protection from everyone but the dec corp. I think criminal timers for being involved in a gank should last a day.

I like having high sec ganking as a thing. I think it's a good idea to increase the number of non-concord engagements in high sec. I see too many killmails where someone is trying to help someone being suicide ganked and ends up gettting concorded in return.
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#13 - 2017-05-05 13:16:15 UTC
Scialt wrote:


I think criminal timers for being involved in a gank should last a day.

I like having high sec ganking as a thing.



If you cannot see how these two statements contradict one another, I suggest you train 'basic comprehension' to I
Scialt
Corporate Navy Police Force
Sleep Reapers
#14 - 2017-05-05 13:34:38 UTC
Danika Princip wrote:
Scialt wrote:


I think criminal timers for being involved in a gank should last a day.

I like having high sec ganking as a thing.



If you cannot see how these two statements contradict one another, I suggest you train 'basic comprehension' to I


I'm thinking of it in how the criminal timer works in low sec. Fired on by gate guns and station guns and everyone can engage without sec status penalty. I

Basically, I would like the prevent warp/concord spawn mechanic be unrelated to a timer but instead by a result of the actual gank... once concord does what it does that part should go away. But being vulnerable to gate gun/sentry guns and player attacks stays.
Cade Windstalker
#15 - 2017-05-05 14:17:50 UTC
Scialt wrote:
I'm thinking of it in how the criminal timer works in low sec. Fired on by gate guns and station guns and everyone can engage without sec status penalty. I

Basically, I would like the prevent warp/concord spawn mechanic be unrelated to a timer but instead by a result of the actual gank... once concord does what it does that part should go away. But being vulnerable to gate gun/sentry guns and player attacks stays.


Even gate gun fire doesn't actually last as long as the penalty unless you stay on grid IIRC, and if you're -5 everyone can attack you without penalty already.

Ganking is not supposed to be massively punished, it's supposed to be disincentivized but not to the point that no one does it, or to the point that if you gank someone you can't do anything else for a long while.
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#16 - 2017-05-05 14:20:26 UTC
Scialt wrote:
Danika Princip wrote:
Scialt wrote:


I think criminal timers for being involved in a gank should last a day.

I like having high sec ganking as a thing.



If you cannot see how these two statements contradict one another, I suggest you train 'basic comprehension' to I


I'm thinking of it in how the criminal timer works in low sec. Fired on by gate guns and station guns and everyone can engage without sec status penalty. I

Basically, I would like the prevent warp/concord spawn mechanic be unrelated to a timer but instead by a result of the actual gank... once concord does what it does that part should go away. But being vulnerable to gate gun/sentry guns and player attacks stays.



yes. And in highsec, that criminal timer is what gets you concorded. Meaning that if you have a one day criminal timer, you can gank one person a day and are them useless for literally everything else in highsec for a full 24 hours.

If you're getting lit up by gate guns the second you undock for a full 24 hours, you are exactly as useless as you are if you get lit up by concord the second you undock. This idea of yours allows one gank a day per character, total.

that is not a mechanic that encourages any kind of player interaction at all. That is a mechanic that REMOVES character interaction.

Vulnerable to player attack at all times is a suspect timer. or an outlaw. Criminal timers have nothing to do with that.
Scialt
Corporate Navy Police Force
Sleep Reapers
#17 - 2017-05-05 14:57:11 UTC
Danika Princip wrote:
Scialt wrote:
Danika Princip wrote:
Scialt wrote:


I think criminal timers for being involved in a gank should last a day.

I like having high sec ganking as a thing.



If you cannot see how these two statements contradict one another, I suggest you train 'basic comprehension' to I


I'm thinking of it in how the criminal timer works in low sec. Fired on by gate guns and station guns and everyone can engage without sec status penalty. I

Basically, I would like the prevent warp/concord spawn mechanic be unrelated to a timer but instead by a result of the actual gank... once concord does what it does that part should go away. But being vulnerable to gate gun/sentry guns and player attacks stays.



yes. And in highsec, that criminal timer is what gets you concorded. Meaning that if you have a one day criminal timer, you can gank one person a day and are them useless for literally everything else in highsec for a full 24 hours.

If you're getting lit up by gate guns the second you undock for a full 24 hours, you are exactly as useless as you are if you get lit up by concord the second you undock. This idea of yours allows one gank a day per character, total.

that is not a mechanic that encourages any kind of player interaction at all. That is a mechanic that REMOVES character interaction.

Vulnerable to player attack at all times is a suspect timer. or an outlaw. Criminal timers have nothing to do with that.


Well again... I mention that concording would have to relate to the gank itself rather than the timer.

People tank gate guns for hours in low sec in cruisers. I don't think they prevent travelling all that much even in less tanky ships as long as you don't linger. It would have no impact in belts, anoms or mission space ganks.

If you remove concord from the criminal timer... gankers wouldn't have to wait 15 minutes between ganks because once concord puts them in the pod... they can reship immediately. They'd have to add some tank or logistics if they want to gank at gates instead of going full on glass cannon. They could also operate out of citadels and gank miners using damage only destroyer fits much easier.

Right now it's a GUARANTEED 15 minute time out when you gank. This would remove that time out but add a longer duration negative factor (gateguns/player attacks). I've never considered gate/station guns a real deterrent to PvP... at least it doesn't seem to have that impact in low sec where that's all the criminal flag does.
Max Deveron
Deveron Shipyards and Technology
Citizen's Star Republic
#18 - 2017-05-05 15:24:09 UTC
Scialt wrote:
Danika Princip wrote:
Scialt wrote:
Danika Princip wrote:
Scialt wrote:


I think criminal timers for being involved in a gank should last a day.

I like having high sec ganking as a thing.



If you cannot see how these two statements contradict one another, I suggest you train 'basic comprehension' to I


I'm thinking of it in how the criminal timer works in low sec. Fired on by gate guns and station guns and everyone can engage without sec status penalty. I

Basically, I would like the prevent warp/concord spawn mechanic be unrelated to a timer but instead by a result of the actual gank... once concord does what it does that part should go away. But being vulnerable to gate gun/sentry guns and player attacks stays.



yes. And in highsec, that criminal timer is what gets you concorded. Meaning that if you have a one day criminal timer, you can gank one person a day and are them useless for literally everything else in highsec for a full 24 hours.

If you're getting lit up by gate guns the second you undock for a full 24 hours, you are exactly as useless as you are if you get lit up by concord the second you undock. This idea of yours allows one gank a day per character, total.

that is not a mechanic that encourages any kind of player interaction at all. That is a mechanic that REMOVES character interaction.

Vulnerable to player attack at all times is a suspect timer. or an outlaw. Criminal timers have nothing to do with that.


Well again... I mention that concording would have to relate to the gank itself rather than the timer.

People tank gate guns for hours in low sec in cruisers. I don't think they prevent travelling all that much even in less tanky ships as long as you don't linger. It would have no impact in belts, anoms or mission space ganks.

If you remove concord from the criminal timer... gankers wouldn't have to wait 15 minutes between ganks because once concord puts them in the pod... they can reship immediately. They'd have to add some tank or logistics if they want to gank at gates instead of going full on glass cannon. They could also operate out of citadels and gank miners using damage only destroyer fits much easier.

Right now it's a GUARANTEED 15 minute time out when you gank. This would remove that time out but add a longer duration negative factor (gateguns/player attacks). I've never considered gate/station guns a real deterrent to PvP... at least it doesn't seem to have that impact in low sec where that's all the criminal flag does.


nope, CCP got rid of hyperdunking...and you do not get to resurrect it with this idea.
Dior Ambraelle
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#19 - 2017-05-05 16:43:49 UTC
I would implement this idea a slightly different way. Instead of simply not protecting people, the response time should be delayed based on the security status difference between the aggressor and the victim.
If the victim has higher security than the attacker, concord responds somewhat faster, the maximum could be 50%, in case of +10/-10 security status.
However if the attacker has higher security status, then concord should respond slower, again maximum 50% in case of -10/+10 security status.

If you want an intelligent argument, please do, I'm up for it!

But if you want a trolling contest, I will win it by simply not participating.