These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
#261 - 2012-01-25 11:40:10 UTC
Another Obvious Alt wrote:
Bounty hunting should be contract based, giving bounty hunters killrights on a bounty target until the target has no bounty (Ie. has been podded)... ?


That's the essence of my proposal in The Assembly Hall, with the twist being that the contract can also be accepted on behalf of a whole corporation, and the detail of each individual payout for a kill being limited to less than the irreducible ISK loss suffered by the perp.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Another Obvious Alt
Extropic Industries
The Initiative.
#262 - 2012-01-25 11:54:02 UTC
Then a +1 from here.

The lack of a functional bounty hunting system is about all that annoys me about EvE. Oh, and also that my signature "/me is grabbing coffee™" is looking rather dumb due to the ™ being ungawdly small with the new font.

/me is grabbing coffee™
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#263 - 2012-01-25 12:32:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Hans Jagerblitzen
Xorv wrote:

Well given the topic of this thread it's going to come up, although for me it's not about "Bears vs Gankers", it's about pushing EVE into a more Sandbox and immersive game built around conflict.

But I think the last poster to attempt to flame me may just have real reading difficulties which were then combined with a temper tantrum. When he's talking about something relatively simple like station camping and depleting asteroids he actually makes sense.


Well, I can read just fine and I agree that your fears of any place in New Eden being "PvP free" are completely unfounded.

Lets state the facts again - there is NO place in this game where you cannot PvP. Absolutely none whatsoever. Not in highsec, not anywhere. There is NO place in this game where you cannot PvP non-consensually.

The game is stacked to favor gankers. Even in highsec. Always has been.

Also, for the record, I have not seen ONE proposal yet to EVER create an "immunity bubble" where players cannot be harmed against their will. If there is, please link and I'll stand corrected.

So lets talk about "sandbox" and "immersion" for a second. You made a good point: sandbox gameplay depends on conflict. However, you seem to think that conflict = guns and explosions. I believe players deserve choice as to the type of conflict they enjoy.

If a players want to do some mining, make some stuff, and sell it to the general public - and yes, to avoid death in the process - that is a completely legitimate way to play the game that in no way breaks sandbox philosophies. Mining, manufacturing, and production are just as competitive a venture as PvP, the fact that they don't involve ships blowing up does not make them any less cutthroat.

And yet, those who want to avoid having their ship blown up continue to be stereotyped and degraded as WoW-lovers despite the fact that manufacturers and market traders often take LARGE risks in order to obtain a nice payout.

This idea that "safety zones break sandbox" is a bunch of horseshit, in my opinion. The constant fear of warping to a belt because a bunch of 12-year olds with thrashers and an hour lesson from a Goon instructor are going to nuke your ship is NOT IMMERSIVE. Its annoying, and disruptive.

Many of the types of gameplay available in the various security zones are made POSSIBLE by tiered levels of security - not hampered by them. This idea that safety zones are this necessary evil only existing to protect basic newbie protection or to coddle risk-averse WoW lovers, is outdated, shortsighted, and narrow minded.

The virtue in Malcanis proposal is that he recognizes that sandbox does not mean the entire game should be Ganks-R-Us. If players want to band together, pay bounty hunters, enlist in CONCORD, fly around in some sweet Police-edition Navy Comets with a paid commission to shoot all goons on sight - and create their own "WoW" safe zone where its more hassle than fun to PvP, than that should be celebrated as a victory for sandbox gameplay as much as anything else.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#264 - 2012-01-25 12:49:16 UTC
I would like to clarify that whilst I have no problem whatsoever with players creating areas of the map where things are run to their liking, I am strongly opposed to safety zones being created by CCP fiat.

Incidentally, proposals along the lines of "no one I don't like should be allowed to warp into my missions" are fairly frequent, but they're generally quickly and thoroughly shot down for the obvious reasons.

"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
#265 - 2012-01-25 13:01:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Hans Jagerblitzen
Malcanis wrote:
I would like to clarify that whilst I have no problem whatsoever with players creating areas of the map where things are run to their liking, I am strongly opposed to safety zones being created by CCP fiat.

Incidentally, proposals along the lines of "no one I don't like should be allowed to warp into my missions" are fairly frequent, but they're generally quickly and thoroughly shot down for the obvious reasons.


Well, being shot down and washed out faster than they gain any serious traction is as good as non-existent, in the end. The bottom line is still that paranoia about "Eve is turning into WoW" is still unfounded.

I say "safety zone" not to mean arbitrary lines drawn on the map and protected by NPC mechanics, I mean safety zones in that when travelling through a region, one can expect a certain level of *explosion* risk. How safe or dangerous a system is should be determined by the players, if we're going to create the ultimate sandbox here. You and I agree on that.

Theoretically, this already exists in 0.0 - an alliance could create a Jita with enough force and effort, potentially - but that would require a single, organized, powerful dictatorship, which doesn't foster player choice or player freedom. The highsec set of gameplay tools (bounties, CONCORD enlistment perhaps) should be accessible and opt-in for a massive variety of players who enjoy playing the security role, even if they still want to join their own corps for their own reasons, or play casually from time to time, or dont want to hassle with CTA's, capital ship muscle, advanced galactic resource management, or complicated diplomacy to achieve the same thing.

That way, sandbox is sandbox, carebears can still achieve a reduced gankage zone, and players still have the greatest degree of choice in how often, how deep they want to play and also as to the TYPE of conflict they want to participate in - even if it doesnt involve actual combat.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#266 - 2012-01-25 14:17:50 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:

Well, being shot down and washed out faster than they gain any serious traction is as good as non-existent, in the end. The bottom line is still that paranoia about "Eve is turning into WoW" is still unfounded.


Hmm well let's just say that I take a less complacent view of the matter. "The price of non-consensual PvP is constant vigilance" and all that.


Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:

I say "safety zone" not to mean arbitrary lines drawn on the map and protected by NPC mechanics, I mean safety zones in that when travelling through a region, one can expect a certain level of *explosion* risk. How safe or dangerous a system is should be determined by the players, if we're going to create the ultimate sandbox here. You and I agree on that.


It seems that we do. I advise you to make the distinction extremely clear when you're talking about it though, because it's a very contentious issue, what with all the constance vigilance. But yes in the end: Player tools good, fiat gameplay restrictions bad.


"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.
#267 - 2012-01-25 15:45:43 UTC
Temba Ronin wrote:
I would think things like being behind a planet should and could help hide ships from scans, which gives advantages to both hunters and hunted!


Wow, I really like that idea! That change all on it's own would add a lot of gameplay and tactical options.

"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.
#268 - 2012-01-25 15:51:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Malcanis
Xorv wrote:
I don't think there needs to be bonuses for production in lower security space, rather that most of the resources used in production come from lower or no security space.


Bear in mind that suggestion was made in the context of a much steeper gradient in hi-sec security that we have now. Where 0.5 isn't currently much different to 1.0, I proposed that the risk delta be noticeably increased, but with additional incentives to operate in lower-sec-but-still-high-sec systems.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Hiply Rustic
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#269 - 2012-01-25 18:30:34 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
On a side note, I suggest you get used to doing this kind of analysis, because people who make the mistake you made are the exact reason that our RL politics are dominated by corrupt lying weasels. A politician who offers a 10% rise in wage levels at the cost of a 10 percentile rise in the level of taxation isn't as much your friend as the first part of the proposal makes it seem.


Actually Malcanis, depending on where those tax dollars go he may indeed be my friend.

Carrots>sticks when one is discussing attempted changes in behaviour in a place where no one has to be. And at the very least, the illusion of a carrot will always beat an obvious stick in that scenario.

Ralph King-Griffin wrote: "Eve deliberately excludes the stupid and the weak willied." EvE: Only the strong-willied need apply.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#270 - 2012-01-25 18:44:21 UTC
Hiply Rustic wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
On a side note, I suggest you get used to doing this kind of analysis, because people who make the mistake you made are the exact reason that our RL politics are dominated by corrupt lying weasels. A politician who offers a 10% rise in wage levels at the cost of a 10 percentile rise in the level of taxation isn't as much your friend as the first part of the proposal makes it seem.


Actually Malcanis, depending on where those tax dollars go he may indeed be my friend.

Carrots>sticks when one is discussing attempted changes in behaviour in a place where no one has to be. And at the very least, the illusion of a carrot will always beat an obvious stick in that scenario.



Actually Hiply, depending on where those carrots go.... Twisted

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Hiply Rustic
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#271 - 2012-01-25 18:53:00 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Hiply Rustic wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
On a side note, I suggest you get used to doing this kind of analysis, because people who make the mistake you made are the exact reason that our RL politics are dominated by corrupt lying weasels. A politician who offers a 10% rise in wage levels at the cost of a 10 percentile rise in the level of taxation isn't as much your friend as the first part of the proposal makes it seem.


Actually Malcanis, depending on where those tax dollars go he may indeed be my friend.

Carrots>sticks when one is discussing attempted changes in behaviour in a place where no one has to be. And at the very least, the illusion of a carrot will always beat an obvious stick in that scenario.



Actually Hiply, depending on where those carrots go.... Twisted


Actually Mal...depending on who's on the receiving end...perhaps it should be cucumbers? Cool

Ralph King-Griffin wrote: "Eve deliberately excludes the stupid and the weak willied." EvE: Only the strong-willied need apply.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#272 - 2012-01-25 18:58:49 UTC
It seems like we're verring off onto a WiS features tangent here. Possibly a lo-sec only one.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Alpheias
Tactical Farmers.
Pandemic Horde
#273 - 2012-01-27 00:04:23 UTC
*swoons* MARRY ME!

+1

Agent of Chaos, Sower of Discord.

Don't talk to me unless you are IQ verified and certified with three references from non-family members. Please have your certificate of authenticity on hand.
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
#274 - 2012-01-27 02:58:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Xorv
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:

Well, I can read just fine and I agree that your fears of any place in New Eden being "PvP free" are completely unfounded.

Lets state the facts again - there is NO place in this game where you cannot PvP. Absolutely none whatsoever. Not in highsec, not anywhere. There is NO place in this game where you cannot PvP non-consensually.

The game is stacked to favor gankers. Even in highsec. Always has been.


I disagree, compared to other Sandbox MMOs built around player conflict EVE is very heavily slanted against non consensual PvP combat. In High Sec being killed by another player mostly comes down to ignorance of the game, reckless lack of awareness, or was consented to in one form or another. If you're paying attention the only real danger in High Sec is Suicide Gankers, which again under most circumstances you can avoid or prepare against, and the ganker will without fail have their ship also destroyed by CONCORD. In Sov Null the only real danger is traveling through Gates when you lack Intel..well if you're part of a big alliance and in home territory you probably don't lack for that Intel, everything else can be avoided

EVE does not favor combat PvP, anyone trying to make ISK from PvP will be very disappointed if they compare to what they could make with comparable effort and time from High Sec PvE. The fact that non consensual PvP exists at all in EVE largely comes down to the tenacity and creativeness of some of the player base. So, yes PvP can currently happen anywhere, but the likelihood of it doing so with an unwilling participant is still rather slim, and over the years has become ever more and more slim.

Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:

Also, for the record, I have not seen ONE proposal yet to EVER create an "immunity bubble" where players cannot be harmed against their will. If there is, please link and I'll stand corrected.


Nearly every thread complaining about "AFK cloaking" or "High Sec Incursion griefers" is a defacto call for PvP free PvE. But since you asked for an actual proposal here you go: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=27600

As to Sandbox, Risk vs Reward, and conflict... I've gone out of my way in my posts to state that Manufacturers and Traders are perfectly fine in High Sec. My last comment to Malcanis was to say that there doesn't need to be a bonus to production in lower security space, they're fine doing what they do in High Sec and I see no problem with that side of EVE. So, I'm not sure where you got the idea I wasn't?

In fact if you took out all the raw resources and non newbie PvE from High Sec I wouldn't mind seeing the part of the ridiculous proposal I linked where you couldn't activate offensive mods on another player be implemented there. However, where players bring resources and ISK into the game I believe should be subject to the real risk of unwanted PvP... and I don't just mean suicide ganks for tears or KB stats.

..That's how most Sandbox MMOs work, it's dangerous everywhere, but a few usually NPC controlled areas used mostly for trade and production, sometimes with an additional area for brand new players to learn the basics of the game unhindered.. Games that have separate PvP and PvE zones are Themeparks, EVE needs to move in the opposite direction of that by having all valuable PvE in areas where PvP can freely happen without having to resort to metagaming and shenanigans.
Lucius Tal
Tal Holdings Limited
#275 - 2012-01-27 03:17:47 UTC
Apologies in advance if this has been mentioned before - This thread is starting to take a full day to read

Adding to OP's proposal:

1) Mission rats should be similar to WH rats to encourage mission ships to be fitted for PvP.

2) Local should be removed from 0.9 systems and lower so PvP players will have to scan to find targets in mission areas. Mission runners will be encouraged to mission in more "off the beaten track" areas to play the percentage game and hope that a PvP player doesnt end up in their system - similar to what most mission runners do in low sec except with local

Anyhow, just my 2 ISK worth
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#276 - 2012-01-27 08:03:41 UTC
Lucius Tal wrote:
Apologies in advance if this has been mentioned before - This thread is starting to take a full day to read

Adding to OP's proposal:

1) Mission rats should be similar to WH rats to encourage mission ships to be fitted for PvP.


Lucius Tal wrote:

2) Local should be removed from 0.9 systems and lower so PvP players will have to scan to find targets in mission areas. Mission runners will be encouraged to mission in more "off the beaten track" areas to play the percentage game and hope that a PvP player doesnt end up in their system - similar to what most mission runners do in low sec except with local

Anyhow, just my 2 ISK worth


Whilst I'm not at all keen on the "instant omni intel" aspect of local, any discussion on removing it is on hold pending a reasonable replacement system as far as I am concerned. Plus I think local removal should start in 0.4 (or at best 0.5)

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Henry Haphorn
Killer Yankee
#277 - 2012-01-27 16:10:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Henry Haphorn
@ Malcanis

This is a very informative topic here and your ideas are spot on. I wasn't able to push myself to read passed the third or fourth page but I read enough to get a general idea of what's going on.

Being that I am a season miner and I usually enjoy dwelling in 0.5 space (usually close to low-sec systems or in systems where ships have been destroyed), I would actually welcome the idea of replacing Concord with the faction navy coming in.

As it stands right now, mining in 0.5 space is not all that fun unless you willingly throw yourself into a system that has a statistically high number of ships destroyed in the last 24 hours. On top of that, the risk is disproportionate to the rewards one gains when mining there. Therefore, removing Concord and handing it over to the Faction Navy (which can be tanked, but not for long) would allow for a greater sense of danger when mining and usually I prefer that mining should have more risk to it when you progress lower along the sec status.

Other than the obvious drama plaguing corporations in Eve Online, the way high-sec is currently laid out is the main reason I decided to stay in a NPC corp. Doing away with the current system and implementing the gradiated sec system you proposed could actually encourage me to join a player-run corp again willing to take the plung into 0.5 and below.

Of course, I also like FloppyTheBanjoClown's suggestion of allowing dreadnaughts to enter into certain parts of high-sec to help deal with the large POS towers that belong to corps that are war decced. Those take forever to destroy and that is before the Strontium kick in. I would know as I have been to more than enough POS bashes before during my time in null-sec to see that if you don't have a dreadnaught by your side, bashing large POSes with a blob is a boring chore.

But to be fair for the carebears, dreadnaughts should be limited to at least no higher than 0.7 space and (as Floppy suggested) only fire when in seige mode. This way, weak corps with small POSes in 0.8 and higher won't have their medium-small towers popped instantly because of a dreadnaught, but still allow dread pilots to leave their footprint in high-sec. For once, I would like to pilot a dread and do orbital bombardments on a planet in 0.5.Twisted But that's just me.

Adapt or Die
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#278 - 2012-01-27 16:47:42 UTC
At the risk of sounding even more egotistical than I am, I urge you to read all of the thread - lots of people have come up with some really good stuff.

I'm kind of unsure about allowing dreads & carriers into hi-sec - there're good reasons to keep them out too. Maybe into 0.5s with restrictions, like drawing faction navy response if they go into siege mode/deploy fighters.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Henry Haphorn
Killer Yankee
#279 - 2012-01-27 16:52:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Henry Haphorn
Malcanis wrote:
At the risk of sounding even more egotistical than I am, I urge you to read all of the thread - lots of people have come up with some really good stuff.

I'm kind of unsure about allowing dreads & carriers into hi-sec - there're good reasons to keep them out too. Maybe into 0.5s with restrictions, like drawing faction navy response if they go into siege mode/deploy fighters.


It was only a suggestion anyways. Besides, I didn't mention carriers as I felt they are too much to have anywhere in high-sec. Perhaps limiting dreads to 0.5 space is the better option instead of 0.7.

As for the rest of the thread, I'm trying my best. It's a really long thread after all.

EDITED

Adapt or Die
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#280 - 2012-01-27 18:23:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Alavaria Fera
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
The constant fear of warping to a belt because a bunch of 12-year olds with thrashers and an hour lesson from a Goon instructor are going to nuke your ship is NOT IMMERSIVE. Its annoying, and disruptive.

He woke up to the sound of alarms going off. An unmarked minmatar destroyer had just appeared in his belt.
Moments more, several more popped up on his scanner as he slammed the warp button.
As his mining ship began to accelerate, the keening sound of yellow-boxes reverberated in his pod.

xxXSephiroth 420SSJXxx has started warp scrambling Innocent Miner

I think now people use the Gallente destroyer for ganking on new alts.
Though it is of course true that nowadays ganking with better ships is necessary to kill tanked Hulks, Orcas and especially Freighters.
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Theoretically, this already exists in 0.0 - an alliance could create a Jita with enough force and effort, potentially - but that would require a single, organized, powerful dictatorship, which doesn't foster player choice or player freedom.

This situation sounds oddly familar.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?