These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Changes to increase pvp interactions in high sec

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Tengu Grib
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#101 - 2015-01-15 19:29:04 UTC
BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie wrote:
Gregor Parud wrote:
Mario Putzo wrote:
On a second look through, I want to say I no longer like the change to engagement timers. I can see this being abused by gankers and making life more tedious for people who have no ambition for PVP at all.

I still do like the restructuring of sec status though, and letting players engage before the fuzz can. As this will definitely allow people who want to engage in PVP more opportunity to do so.


Bingo. The whole idea is just a setup for gankers to actually get MORE targets, as if gankers are having it difficult atm and in need of a boost.

So if reducing criminal timers is such an issue would a 20 minute limited engagement be a better proposal? Also, would you please stop claiming that I have some ulterior motive for this? Its extremely insulting when I'm trying to address issues that have risen out of bad game design. What you are claiming is specifically want I don't want.


I can vouch for the authenticity of that statement. BeBop would be completely against an unbalanced change in favor of gankers. Equally he would be against an unbalanced change against gankers.

Rabble Rabble Rabble

Praise James, Supreme Protector of High Sec.
Dersen Lowery
The Scope
#102 - 2015-01-15 20:59:58 UTC
Velicitia wrote:
I would argue that for 0.5 systems, the facpo should never get beyond "weak help" -- that is, you can sit -10 on gate in a sufficiently large ship (BC) and tank them all day with the right fit (which can still be ganky enough to deal with players). Think CONCORD pre m0o blockade ...


You could also import an idea from lowsec and have the response scale over time. So if you're a -10 and you warp to a gate, they start by plinking at you. The longer you linger, the harder they hit. You could get around in small, fast ships the way you do now, but you could also get a bigger, heavier ship through as long as you didn't mind a little shield damage--or more, if you linger. Tanking indefinitely is impossible, but you don't have to do what you have to do now, which is insta-warp hither and yon in a fast-aligning ship.

I'm not sure that this will result in much up-shipping, though, because the neutron blaster Catalyst is going to win any bang/buck comparison within the very limited engagement envelope (i.e., at zero) that ganking requires. Once you're in a Cat, there's no particular reason not to remain hard to catch until you strike. Smaller ganker fleets could hop in Brutix or Talos fleets, but those would probably only appear in response to lucrative targets because of the higher cost per pilot.

That would leave you hoping that the ganker is running about on some other business on his ganking character, instead of outsourcing it to a friend or doing it on an alt.

Interesting discussion, though.

Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

I voted in CSM X!
Mario Putzo
#103 - 2015-01-15 21:16:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Mario Putzo
BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie wrote:
Gregor Parud wrote:
Mario Putzo wrote:
On a second look through, I want to say I no longer like the change to engagement timers. I can see this being abused by gankers and making life more tedious for people who have no ambition for PVP at all.

I still do like the restructuring of sec status though, and letting players engage before the fuzz can. As this will definitely allow people who want to engage in PVP more opportunity to do so.


Bingo. The whole idea is just a setup for gankers to actually get MORE targets, as if gankers are having it difficult atm and in need of a boost.

So if reducing criminal timers is such an issue would a 20 minute limited engagement be a better proposal? Also, would you please stop claiming that I have some ulterior motive for this? Its extremely insulting when I'm trying to address issues that have risen out of bad game design. What you are claiming is specifically want I don't want.



My issue was more so with changing the Limited Engagement timer. Largely because the way it works is bullshit.

You shoot me in an Ibis.
I shoot you back because its just an Ibis.
Concord kills you
You have a 5 minute timer to engage me again
I have a 5 minute timer to engage you.

Currently you can not realistically undock in another ship while your criminal timer ticks down, or you will just get blapped again by policia.

Changing this to 20 minutes however allows one to wait their criminal timer out, and then freely engage their initial target in any size ship they want without repercussion.

That is why I wouldn't touch the timers.

Lengthening the Criminal Timer makes people who like to gank sit in station or a safe spot for a longer period of time...thats no fun. Lengthening the Engagement Timer makes people who don't like to PVP victims of throw away ship/come back and gank for free.

Neither method actually helps increase actual PVP content, it either greatly limits ganking, or greatly increases ganking without consequence.

Again though I do like the idea of -2.0 dudes being engageable by anyone in highsec. That is a great idea to help increase the volume of PVP, and if the cops stay out of it (as they should) it is even more beneficial for improving HS PVP opportunity. The timers though offer nothing beneficial...except of course to gankers....and wankers.
Tengu Grib
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#104 - 2015-01-15 21:33:12 UTC
Mario Putzo wrote:
BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie wrote:
Gregor Parud wrote:
Mario Putzo wrote:
On a second look through, I want to say I no longer like the change to engagement timers. I can see this being abused by gankers and making life more tedious for people who have no ambition for PVP at all.

I still do like the restructuring of sec status though, and letting players engage before the fuzz can. As this will definitely allow people who want to engage in PVP more opportunity to do so.


Bingo. The whole idea is just a setup for gankers to actually get MORE targets, as if gankers are having it difficult atm and in need of a boost.

So if reducing criminal timers is such an issue would a 20 minute limited engagement be a better proposal? Also, would you please stop claiming that I have some ulterior motive for this? Its extremely insulting when I'm trying to address issues that have risen out of bad game design. What you are claiming is specifically want I don't want.



My issue was more so with changing the Limited Engagement timer. Largely because the way it works is bullshit.

You shoot me in an Ibis.
I shoot you back because its just an Ibis.
Concord kills you
You have a 5 minute timer to engage me again
I have a 5 minute timer to engage you.

Currently you can not realistically undock in another ship while your criminal timer ticks down, or you will just get blapped again by policia.

Changing this to 20 minutes however allows one to wait their criminal timer out, and then freely engage their initial target in any size ship they want without repercussion.

That is why I wouldn't touch the timers.

Lengthening the Criminal Timer makes people who like to gank sit in station or a safe spot for a longer period of time...thats no fun. Lengthening the Engagement Timer makes people who don't like to PVP victims of throw away ship/come back and gank for free.

Neither method actually helps increase actual PVP content, it either greatly limits ganking, or greatly increases ganking without consequence.

Again though I do like the idea of -2.0 dudes being engageable by anyone in highsec. That is a great idea to help increase the volume of PVP, and if the cops stay out of it (as they should) it is even more beneficial for improving HS PVP opportunity. The timers though offer nothing beneficial...except of course to gankers....and wankers.


Limited engagement timer would only occur if you shoot back. But I do see your point.

Rabble Rabble Rabble

Praise James, Supreme Protector of High Sec.
BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#105 - 2015-01-15 22:00:18 UTC
Dersen Lowery wrote:
Velicitia wrote:
I would argue that for 0.5 systems, the facpo should never get beyond "weak help" -- that is, you can sit -10 on gate in a sufficiently large ship (BC) and tank them all day with the right fit (which can still be ganky enough to deal with players). Think CONCORD pre m0o blockade ...


You could also import an idea from lowsec and have the response scale over time. So if you're a -10 and you warp to a gate, they start by plinking at you. The longer you linger, the harder they hit. You could get around in small, fast ships the way you do now, but you could also get a bigger, heavier ship through as long as you didn't mind a little shield damage--or more, if you linger. Tanking indefinitely is impossible, but you don't have to do what you have to do now, which is insta-warp hither and yon in a fast-aligning ship.

I'm not sure that this will result in much up-shipping, though, because the neutron blaster Catalyst is going to win any bang/buck comparison within the very limited engagement envelope (i.e., at zero) that ganking requires. Once you're in a Cat, there's no particular reason not to remain hard to catch until you strike. Smaller ganker fleets could hop in Brutix or Talos fleets, but those would probably only appear in response to lucrative targets because of the higher cost per pilot.

That would leave you hoping that the ganker is running about on some other business on his ganking character, instead of outsourcing it to a friend or doing it on an alt.

Interesting discussion, though.

This wouldn't change the ships used for ganking, but it would allow gankers at higher sec statuses participate in wardecs, and fight in "normal" combat against fleets that come out to shoot their cats.

My biggest issue with npc dps is that it completely negates the use of frigates and destroyers for any real combat (outside of gank situations I mean).

As for Mario's point, my personal experience is that most players not looking for pvp don't shoot back at the ganker in the first place, so a limited engagement is never received. Perhaps I'm completely wrong on this, as I have been doing mostly freighter ganking, but I think your scenario will only really hit mission/ incursion ganking. I'll have to think about it some more.

Founder of Violet Squadron, a small gang NPSI community! Mail me for more information.

BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie's Space Mediation Service!