Player Features and Ideas Discussion

I read this thread now... and really wanted to set some things straight.... but rather than go off on another tangent, I'll try to stick to the thread topic:

I don't think hi-sec needs MORE protection... suicide ganking, loot stealing, etc... are excellent game mechanics. Perhaps the new tier 3 BC's will alter the risk reward paradigm too much, but with the insurance changes I'm not too worried about it yet. Either way, a discussion about hi-sec is NOT the topic of this thread.

As for low-sec: I agree that the boundary between hi-sec and low-sec is too harsh. It goes from a system of extreme protection to an area of very limited protection. I think a more gradual declination in security is appropriate. As such:

1.) The idea of a Mid-Sec zone (.4-.6), with more security than low-sec, but a carefully balanced NPC-police is brilliant. Many of the associated suggestions have flaws and need some serious work, but I really like the idea of a middle zone where a faction navy rather than almighty concord monitors gates & stations, attacks outlaws, and hunts criminals. A zone where it’s free-fire on people of negative sec status, even if they aren't outlaws or criminally flagged. A zone where running level 4's in a single BS spells target, but running them in groups of 3-4 is usually safe. A place were solo, untanked mining is just ********, but mining in tanked exhumers with logistics support is very feasible. Note: The risk vs reward paradigm needs to be rebalanced and maintained across all space with these changes!!! Also, the 60s combat aggression timer might need to be signficantly extended in this area....

2.) Perhaps I haven't uncovered the system security assignage mystery, but the hi-sec, low-sec, null-sec map is very random to me. I think the whole layout of security systems probably needs to be reviewed.

3.) I think that improving the range and firepower of gate guns, so they very in strength with system security rating is an O.K. start to smooth out the hard border... but I really don't think

The problem with suicide ganking and loot stealing in high sec is that it undermines the game mechanics in high security space. The fundamental flaw is that despite all the NPC involvement that you have in empire space, there really is no way to defend against another player exploiting you in high sec other then just not doing whatever it is that would be suicide gank material. There is really no in game mechanic that allows you to hire protection when you are a solo player, or much on the way of intel unless you are actually in system....in which case the gate is camped, and your ****** six ways from sunday by the time you realize your in trouble.

I had suggested a while ago of being able to hire NPC based "merc"s as protection by expanding the contract system to more of a "classifieds" ad system with much more in the way of services and products being sold off the regular market. PVP players complain that CCP already has systems in place to protect you against "them" and they call you stupid otherwise if you are a victim, but in reality the scales are tipped in the favor of gankers more then anything. This is a fundamental flaw of high sec, i dont care how you fix it to balance the system, but it needs to be fixed. People getting ganked in .7-.9 systems with billions of dollars in cargo and then being called stupid afterwards is not an incentive to play the game.

Other thing you constantly hear about is that the changes in empire security will change the way pvp players play the game and adversely affect them. However this is just not true, the people that complain of this are exactly the problem with empire space, and are what are commonly referred to as "griefers" because they are not true PVP players, they are vultures that seek only to aggrivate other players by exploiting small loopholes in the system. Correcting the security flaws in empire space effects pve player ONLY.

You hear of CCP constantly talking about the "sandbox" and how they dont like to screw with it, the sandbox does not refer to empire space, empire space is constant, experiencing very little in the way of change, null space however is where CCP intended the "wild west zone" to be. However that sandbox area as of late has been spilling over into empire space due to the sheer lack of things to do in null.

You mentioned the hard border, and that exactly what we are trying to fix most of all, on paper, you would believe that empire space is a layered security system however in reality, it is not. PVE play comes abruptly to an end at .5 security space.

You didn't answer my question.

I just dont understand the logic behind the idea that securing empire space a tad bit more then what it already is is somehow destroying the system for PVP, when you have the entirety of null space for that. Rough half of the 5000 or so systems are completely dedicated to full player control and player on player combat. As far as peoples refusual to go that way for pvp and to prey on unsuspecting noobs, that is a player issue that merely needs to be corrected by game mechanic adjustments, the system was obviously NEVER designed for pvp in empire space, otherwise you wouldnt have concord ships that cannot be killed and pop you in damn near one shot when pvp happens, why no one see's this is another thing that boggles my mind. As far as the cool factor that you mentioned, yes I understand that but I think your mistaken, eve's current pvp system encourages just that, "i killed you there fore im cool and your not" mentality. Thats why you get people that do nothing but sit on a gate for 8 hours a day in high sec and look for cargo ships to pop, because they dont do any real "pvp" fighting at all.

Im approaching this with the utmost care in not damaging the way the game is played for pvp, but merely with a way to improve the gameplay for people on the opposite side of the spectrum who only want pve and not pvp play, a more balanced approach if you will, because only PVE players see the unbalanced side of the in game security. Progessively stepping security down from 1.0 to .1 will cure ALOT of the large fleet roam's where people go 10v1 and then yell "gf" in local, no, its not a good fight, you ganked a ship and he had no chance, I want to bring that down to a more 1v1 pvp level in low security space. Keep the bullshit out in null if thats all anyone ever does anymore is gang **** solo players.

The bubbles, that goes without saying, are absolute bullshit, just the other day again, i was flying through null back to high sec and there was no one even in the system, the bubble was 80km OPPOSITE of the direction I was approaching the gate, sucked me past the gate and dropped me on the edge of the bubble. WHAT IS THAT? You people really call that PVP? Some no skill required way of ganking people?

Aside from that the high sec ganking of players in trade hubs has to be controlled, big time. The rewards NEED to be lessened for killing player ships in high sec, im not saying that you have to end the pvp ability like it is now if thats the case, but it needs a slight discouragement to keep transport ships alive, otherwise, whats the point of a transport ship in high sec? Every pvp complains that "your doing it wrong" but that bs with the cargo containers should only be necessary for transporting in low sec/null sec.

If you think thats being unreasonable then your probably right, its not the game for me, and I probably will move on and put my 15 bucks a month towards another game, but thats one less account CCP will be making money off of, and im not surprised if this has probably happens alot with other players. Why bother investing cash money into a game if your cash gets flushed down the toilet because other people can blow your stuff up at will.

Well you know, its like beating a dead horse now since there are more people on this forum that object to things that dont benefit them then people with suggestions that actually benefit the game, but ill say it again as ive said it before, none of these changes make PVP consensual, nor do they stop PVP at all, they merely end the way YOU play PVP. Which is of course, griefing, because like i said the only people that complain about these changes are in fact, griefers. Promoting a area of space where the game play environment encourages more 1v1 pvp and less fleet based pvp, and less suicide ganking maneuvers that should be restricted to only null space since null represents completely lawlessness hurts absolutely no one except people who play the game entirely to annoy other people who do not wish to engage in PVP.

Given the fact that ive been a player since 2008 as ive said before the changes that have been made over the past few years have caused grief based PVP to intrude into space that was otherwise not designed for it, and CCP has done nothing to modify that area space of make up for the changes to the PVP system.

Now you can sit here and argue the point all you like, I welcome you to. Feel free to keep posting about how suicide ganking a cargo ship on one 26" monitor and then moving your mouse over to another 26" monitor which is running an alternate account, is in fact, the way CCP wants the game to be played. But while you do that, the non life long virgins will be here to argue with the fact that CCP leaves no more room anymore for casual players who like to come on, do some pve with their cool ships, and then go back to the real world and interact socially with other human beings without the risk of being blown to pieces every chance they get for the great price of 14.99 a month.