These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#281 - 2012-01-27 18:37:27 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
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


Hahaha, I enjoyed that. I'm sure the reason that most miners hated the ice interdiction is because they lacked appreciation for the exhilarating rush it can be to get caught in the midst of the pinnacle of EvE gameplay. Twisted

All miners need is the proper narrative framework, perhaps with a little more Goon fiction we can silence the complaints of empire citizens once and for all. Roll

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#282 - 2012-01-27 18:50:54 UTC
The pinnacle of EVE is shooting big guns at big things that have massive hitpoints, timers and do not shoot back.

X for POS destruction.

Exhibit 1: Raiden propaganda video showing the amazing art of POS shooting. Highsec people will never get to siege their dreadnaught and shoot at enemy POSes for hours on end.

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 ?
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#283 - 2012-01-27 18:53:22 UTC
I'm rather attached to shooting medium sized guns at things with moderate hit-points, if truth be known. T2 cruisers are the old man's interceptor; fast and agile enough to be fun to fly, durable enough to forgive the odd error or slightly slower reaction.

"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.
#284 - 2012-01-27 18:55:13 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Alavaria Fera wrote:
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


Hahaha, I enjoyed that. I'm sure the reason that most miners hated the ice interdiction is because they lacked appreciation for the exhilarating rush it can be to get caught in the midst of the pinnacle of EvE gameplay. Twisted

All miners need is the proper narrative framework, perhaps with a little more Goon fiction we can silence the complaints of empire citizens once and for all. Roll



Honestly, I don't understand why people complain about Goons. A game with a player-driven narrative needs someone to step up and wear the black hat; cowboys'n'injuns is no fun if everyone's a cowboy and you have to persuade mom to be Cochise.

"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
#285 - 2012-01-27 19:06:25 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
. A game with a player-driven narrative needs someone to step up and wear the black hat; cowboys'n'injuns is no fun if everyone's a cowboy and you have to persuade mom to be Cochise.


I agree, and The Mittani certainly has done a great job and casting himself as the man in the black hat. The one the steps on screen and gets equal parts cheers and boo's. He loves it, is good at it, and I don't see him retiring that role any time soon!

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#286 - 2012-01-29 19:48:59 UTC
two ways to make high sec bears happy...

re do the missions system (after so many years one can do angel extravaganza/worlds collide so many times...)

two. redo the war dec system... integrate it with contracts... and enhance the hell out of it... alot of players are "casual" and would love the ability to pew pew but more like a wild west duel at dawn...

pvp in eve is usually a waiting game to which requires loads of free time to invest too... most of it is align to this warp to that for hours to finally come to a fight that is exhilarating and rewarding but lasts not long enough for the time investment so people will tend to drift away after years of doing so...

having a more casual approach to pvp by enhancing the war dec system by integrating it into the contract system would allow for casual players to get thier teeth wet...

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#287 - 2012-01-29 20:09:41 UTC
MeBiatch wrote:
two ways to make high sec bears happy...

re do the missions system (after so many years one can do angel extravaganza/worlds collide so many times...)

two. redo the war dec system... integrate it with contracts... and enhance the hell out of it... alot of players are "casual" and would love the ability to pew pew but more like a wild west duel at dawn...

pvp in eve is usually a waiting game to which requires loads of free time to invest too... most of it is align to this warp to that for hours to finally come to a fight that is exhilarating and rewarding but lasts not long enough for the time investment so people will tend to drift away after years of doing so...

having a more casual approach to pvp by enhancing the war dec system by integrating it into the contract system would allow for casual players to get thier teeth wet...


It's all too easy to say "enhance" the war dec system, but the devil is in the details. Enhance how, exactly?

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#288 - 2012-01-29 20:31:15 UTC
well if you look at the war dec system... its i dec you we are at war for a week... and thats pretty much it.. (as long as i have money to war dec you thats it)

what i am looking for is more of a mutual war dec system

i would like it so i can put up a pvp contract that has specifics like 1v1 or 5v5 or corp vrs corp and so on... time restraints are an open variable... ship types aswell.... also could be specific victory rules like... up to how many kills... there could be isk bets...

example...

contact pvp
1v1
time limit 5 hours
max kills 4
isk needed to accept contract 10 million
ship size limit tech I frigs...
system: jita

i would then put up this contract and when someone accepts it the time limit would start we would get a our own chat comms and we could engage in pvp once we undock (or the time limit starts when the undock happens)

the contracted pvp would usurp rights of engagement like if you are in a fleet... so a gang member cant just join in the fray with out getting concorded...

what i would like is a the dirty word "dueling" system but not arena based just enhanced wardecs on the contract system... i know lots of people who would get back into eve if there was such an option to have casual pvp...

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
#289 - 2012-01-29 20:58:39 UTC
MeBiatch wrote:

what i am looking for is more of a mutual war dec system

i would like it so i can put up a pvp contract that has specifics like 1v1 or 5v5 or corp vrs corp and so on... time restraints are an open variable... ship types aswell.... also could be specific victory rules like... up to how many kills... there could be isk bets....


That's not an enhanced Wardec system, it's not a Wardec system at all! I'm indifferent to whether CCP adds a dueling contract system as you suggest, but it would be an epic leap backwards to replace Wardecs with anything remotely like this. Wardecs must be free from the need of consent of both parties.
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#290 - 2012-01-29 21:15:34 UTC
Xorv wrote:
MeBiatch wrote:

what i am looking for is more of a mutual war dec system

i would like it so i can put up a pvp contract that has specifics like 1v1 or 5v5 or corp vrs corp and so on... time restraints are an open variable... ship types aswell.... also could be specific victory rules like... up to how many kills... there could be isk bets....


That's not an enhanced Wardec system, it's not a Wardec system at all! I'm indifferent to whether CCP adds a dueling contract system as you suggest, but it would be an epic leap backwards to replace Wardecs with anything remotely like this. Wardecs must be free from the need of consent of both parties.




sorry if i was not specific... i dont want the current war dec system to disapear... perhaps lack of better words made it seem soo...

i should have just cut to the chase and said dueling system...

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
Shazzam Vokanavom
Doomheim
#291 - 2012-01-29 22:26:03 UTC
I support your High sec manifesto Malcanis.

Is it possible to link any proposed offical threads of interest that need voting support for?

(Might aswell follow the process)
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#292 - 2012-01-30 08:04:03 UTC
Shazzam Vokanavom wrote:
I support your High sec manifesto Malcanis.

Is it possible to link any proposed offical threads of interest that need voting support for?

(Might aswell follow the process)



The idea is to inspire a change of thinking so that you make the proposals.

(Or look at other people's proposals in a new perspective)

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Shazzam Vokanavom
Doomheim
#293 - 2012-01-30 19:16:19 UTC
Nah I wouldnt waste my time currently under the current CSM co-ordination.

No point having view points collecting dust.
Imryn Xaran
Coherent Light Enterprises
#294 - 2012-01-31 13:54:25 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
MaiLina KaTar wrote:
Good ****, dude. Few things I kinda have my gripes with...

Malcanis wrote:
(5) "Carebears". These are players - often with significant assets and skills - who simply won't accept the risk of losing a ship to PvP at any price, regardless of other considerations. Economic, gameplay and game balance considerations are not of interest to them; the idea that other players can destroy their ship is revolting to them.

The reality is: If losing a ship doesn't serve a purpose for the owner, you can't reasonably expect him to expose it to situations where such losses can and will occur "cause it's a pvp game".
Obviously, the majority of players who invested billions in isk and weeks in playtime into their (PvE) rigs will not take the risk of potential pvp encounters if the projected profit isn't absurdly high. And their reasons are perfectly valid. Despite the general consensus on this forum, most players are not dumb. When the deck isn't stacked in their favour, they'll look for alternatives and rightly so. Whatever you change gameplay-wise will change not one iota here. Stripping the alternatives will accomplish nothing except lowering subcount.

For example you have the industrial types, who are all too often labeled "carebear" out of sheer ignorance. They're in it for the isk only, and they'll do whatever it takes to prevent losing ships to pvp encounters. It's not fear, ignorance or some mental disorder, it's industrial players maximizing in their particular profession. They're doing it right.

The "carebear" as you define it here needs not to be worried about. He doesn't exist beyond a few nutcases who aren't relevant either way.

Malcanis wrote:
One idea that occurred to me was: reintroduce level 5 missions to hi-sec, but make the mission deadspaces themselves lo-sec areas. This preserves the concept of level 5s only being available to those willing to risk PvP, but makes them easily accessible. We could also introduce 4/10 and 5/10 plexes which are nullsec within the deadspace. This would give the casual players a chance to experience the high-end PvE available, and also enjoy a little bit of thrilling danger.

This is a great concept. However, it'll remove even more players from the low-/nullsec areas since highsec becomes even more attractive.

Another serious problem is the fact that in areas with high population density you'd be absolutely stupid to fly PvE encounters where you know you'll have a very high chance of dying to PvP fitted raiders. Best case, there would be little to incentive to play these things in highsec for the average player. The pvp-addicted minority might welcome the change, but in the great scheme of things not much would change except less people in lowsec.


Note that a hi-sec level 5 agent would necessarily pay rather less than one based in lo-sec - this is significant when the rewards for L5s are primarily the LP. The risk side of the equation is complex; the high sec system will have more people in it, but fewer of them will be actively looking to attack you. It's also worth noting that anyone aggressing someone in a lo-sec deadspace is stuck inside that deadspace until their GCC clears. That might lead to some extremely interesting gameplay possibilities, with pirates hunting mission runners being stuck inside a fixed area for 15 minutes.

It would also answer the long-standing desire by mission runners to be able to shoot savlagers taking "their" salvage.

Personally, I don't think you'll find all that many 0.0 players giving up the chance to run 8/10 and 10/10s in a quiet bit of 0.0 for the opportunity to do 5/10s in a busy hi-sec area.


No mission runner is going to take their pimped out mission ship into a “PvP enabled” deadspace pocket for any reward short of “full ship and fit replacement” levels. My reason for saying that is that mission running as a whole has a terrible flaw. The AI used by all mission rats is ancient, basic and dumb. The rats all shoot the same damage types, never switch targets, and never run away. The only challenge to mission runners is the sheer weight of fire they have to tank. For this reason mission ships have terrible fits with no point, no eccm and huge holes in their resistances. Also, if a PvPer shows up the rats will not switch aggro so the mission runner will have to continue to tank the rat dps whilst also dealing with whatever the PvPer is doing. That is never going to end well (for the mission runner).

I think that mission running as a whole needs some love. The game already has 2 AI’s that are far better than the one currently used by mission rats. Get rid of the existing AI and use either the sleeper or incursion AI for mission rats. Specifically let’s have mission rats that use multiple damage types, switch targets as new targets appear, warp off if they are primaried, switch fire to vulnerable opponents, and so on. Mission runners will fit their ships accordingly (i.e. omnitanks, point, eccm etc) and the PvPers and mission runners will be competing on a level playing field.

Obviously this is a huge change in terms of work required, because every single mission would need to be re-balanced, but I think it is overdue. I have never understood why it is necessary to use a ridiculously gimped fit to mission run effectively.

As for the comment about hi-sec L5 agents paying less than low-sec ones due to relative risks – you have that the wrong way round. Whilst in the deadspace pocket the risk is exactly the same in either location, but the player in low-sec has the added safety margin of being able to assume anyone in local is a definite threat, whereas the high-sec player will have a crowded local with no way of telling who are potential aggressors and who are not. This means that it is actually safer in low-sec.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#295 - 2012-01-31 14:21:07 UTC
Imryn Xaran wrote:

No mission runner is going to take their pimped out mission ship into a “PvP enabled” deadspace pocket for any reward short of “full ship and fit replacement” levels.


I suggest you read a little further into the thread. Mission runners do take their pimped out mission ships into PvP enabled deadspace pockets all the time, for rewards somewhat greater than hi-sec Level 4s, but only incrementally so. I know this is true because I am in fact one of them, and I have made a good deal of ISK at it.

My mission Tengu isn't all that pimped (Around 1.6B, including the hull, at a rough estimate, but it would take many more than a single mission to replace it. Nevertheless, I have found it very worthwhile to mission even while sharing a system with a very competent, very hostile alliance (Darkside).

Anyway, read on on the discussion some more and consider some of the refinements that we discussed - and remember that the key principle is that if you think lo-sec deadspace L5s would be too dangerous for your liking, you can choose another level of risk that suits you better. Personally, I think that you're reflexively over-estimating the danger without fully analyzing the situation. After all, people do missions in lo-sec and in 0.0 already. It's not intended that you would never lose a ship, but I think that it would be more than possible to keep losses sufficiently infrequent that it would still be worthwhile.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
#296 - 2012-01-31 21:14:34 UTC
Imryn Xaran wrote:
[...]Get rid of the existing AI and use either the sleeper or incursion AI for mission rats. Specifically let’s have mission rats that use multiple damage types, switch targets as new targets appear, warp off if they are primaried, switch fire to vulnerable opponents, and so on.[...]


NPCs in Known space missions belong to Empire and Pirate Factions, they should not switch targets randomly, they should act as players would. If I'm in space being shot at by Malcanis and then Imyrn shows up and starts shooting at Malcanis, I don't switch from shooting Malcanis to Imyrn, that would be stupid. All that's not even counting standings...

If I'm shooting Angel NPCs and some pilot with positive standing to Angels shows up and starts shooting me, what craziness would motivate those NPCs to start shooting at an ally helping them rather than the enemy blowing them up for bounties? Doesn't make sense. NPCs shouldn't even aggress players with very high standing that don't take any aggressive action against them.
Dzajic
#297 - 2012-02-01 08:58:45 UTC
Xorv wrote:
Imryn Xaran wrote:
[...]Get rid of the existing AI and use either the sleeper or incursion AI for mission rats. Specifically let’s have mission rats that use multiple damage types, switch targets as new targets appear, warp off if they are primaried, switch fire to vulnerable opponents, and so on.[...]


NPCs in Known space missions belong to Empire and Pirate Factions, they should not switch targets randomly, they should act as players would. If I'm in space being shot at by Malcanis and then Imyrn shows up and starts shooting at Malcanis, I don't switch from shooting Malcanis to Imyrn, that would be stupid. All that's not even counting standings...

If I'm shooting Angel NPCs and some pilot with positive standing to Angels shows up and starts shooting me, what craziness would motivate those NPCs to start shooting at an ally helping them rather than the enemy blowing them up for bounties? Doesn't make sense. NPCs shouldn't even aggress players with very high standing that don't take any aggressive action against them.



And that beautiful suggestion takes current "pretty much a frig can kill a missioning BS if it catches it with full pocket agro" even further. I'm sure victims would enjoy such a change and would love doing missions in lolsec and null.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#298 - 2012-02-01 11:06:54 UTC
So let's say you're doing a L5 in a moderately active high sec mission hub with 60-70 other missioners. Assuming you haven't named your ship "L5 SHIP X-TYPE FIT", what's to make your ship look any different from any other standard level 4 ship to a prober?

Also, I'm inferring that you've chsen to ignore or skip the part of the discussion where I suggested that hi-sec level 5 missions be awarded by all level 4 agents?

PS If you're flying a BS and you can't deal with a single frigate, then you should maybe ask for some advice on the Tactics forum. Hint: Neuts, Drones. Advanced Hint: ECM Drones. Super Double Advanced Hint: watch DSCAN for probes. Ultra-Hint 9000™: Friends: have them.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Imryn Xaran
Coherent Light Enterprises
#299 - 2012-02-01 13:57:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Imryn Xaran
Malcanis wrote:
Imryn Xaran wrote:

No mission runner is going to take their pimped out mission ship into a “PvP enabled” deadspace pocket for any reward short of “full ship and fit replacement” levels.


I suggest you read a little further into the thread. Mission runners do take their pimped out mission ships into PvP enabled deadspace pockets all the time, for rewards somewhat greater than hi-sec Level 4s, but only incrementally so. I know this is true because I am in fact one of them, and I have made a good deal of ISK at it.

My mission Tengu isn't all that pimped (Around 1.6B, including the hull, at a rough estimate, but it would take many more than a single mission to replace it. Nevertheless, I have found it very worthwhile to mission even while sharing a system with a very competent, very hostile alliance (Darkside).

Anyway, read on on the discussion some more and consider some of the refinements that we discussed - and remember that the key principle is that if you think lo-sec deadspace L5s would be too dangerous for your liking, you can choose another level of risk that suits you better. Personally, I think that you're reflexively over-estimating the danger without fully analyzing the situation. After all, people do missions in lo-sec and in 0.0 already. It's not intended that you would never lose a ship, but I think that it would be more than possible to keep losses sufficiently infrequent that it would still be worthwhile.


I did read on and have given it some thought, and I have come to the conclusion that there is no reward high enough to persuade me to take a 2 bil mission ship into a PvP pocket in hi-sec. Getting caught by a PvPer or two whilst you have rat aggro, a mission specific fit and no Concord response will end with a lost ship. Every single time. With no realistic way of fighting back the risk is just too high.

Now, if CCP made some changes so that a mission fit ship did have a chance in PvP that might change, but with the current mission setup the disadvantage is just insurmountable.

Xorv wrote:
Imryn Xaran wrote:
[...]Get rid of the existing AI and use either the sleeper or incursion AI for mission rats. Specifically let’s have mission rats that use multiple damage types, switch targets as new targets appear, warp off if they are primaried, switch fire to vulnerable opponents, and so on.[...]


NPCs in Known space missions belong to Empire and Pirate Factions, they should not switch targets randomly, they should act as players would. If I'm in space being shot at by Malcanis and then Imyrn shows up and starts shooting at Malcanis, I don't switch from shooting Malcanis to Imyrn, that would be stupid. All that's not even counting standings...

If I'm shooting Angel NPCs and some pilot with positive standing to Angels shows up and starts shooting me, what craziness would motivate those NPCs to start shooting at an ally helping them rather than the enemy blowing them up for bounties? Doesn't make sense. NPCs shouldn't even aggress players with very high standing that don't take any aggressive action against them.


If I have high standings with Guristas (let’s say 10.0) and take a Caldari Navy mission to eradicate a Gurista base do the rats in that mission not shoot at me? Of course they shoot at me. If they will shoot at a mission runner with high standings why wouldn’t they shoot at a PvPer with high standings? You can think up whatever RP justifications you want, but that is how it works – mission rats shoot at the first thing that enters their pocket, and will sometimes aggro the second thing as well, they just don’t switch their fire between targets.

Malcanis wrote:
So let's say you're doing a L5 in a moderately active high sec mission hub with 60-70 other missioners. Assuming you haven't named your ship "L5 SHIP X-TYPE FIT", what's to make your ship look any different from any other standard level 4 ship to a prober?

Also, I'm inferring that you've chsen to ignore or skip the part of the discussion where I suggested that hi-sec level 5 missions be awarded by all level 4 agents?

PS If you're flying a BS and you can't deal with a single frigate, then you should maybe ask for some advice on the Tactics forum. Hint: Neuts, Drones. Advanced Hint: ECM Drones. Super Double Advanced Hint: watch DSCAN for probes. Ultra-Hint 9000™: Friends: have them.


L4/5 agents are only in certain stations and these are widely known and nobody puts a 2 bil fit into a Raven. So just sit just off the station with a scanner alt and look at the fits on any outgoing CNR’s Golem’s etc. When you find a juicy one scan it down to its deadspace pocket and go calling with a friend or two. It’s not rocket science.

If you are flying a BS and under heavy aggro from rats and a single frigate turns up and hits you with ecm and a neut. Dicey, but you probably survive. Now what if he is in a cruiser? The point is that a very cheap PvP fit ship can easily kill a very expensive mission fit ship.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#300 - 2012-02-01 14:34:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Malcanis
From page 12:

Malcanis wrote:

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.



How many L4 security agents exist in hi-sec? A couple of hundred?

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016