These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Permanent Security Status penalty.

Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Black Pedro
Mine.
#21 - 2015-04-23 06:23:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Black Pedro
el cowboy wrote:
Ultimately I just want to see actual consequences for being a criminal in high sec and to lesser extent in low sec.
No, ultimately you want increased safety for yourself with no additional effort on your part. This suggestion does nothing to make the game more engaging or the gameplay more interesting. It simply shifts to rules to be more in your favour.

-1 to this unoriginal and completely self-interested suggestion.

el cowboy wrote:
Ok, now queue the incessant barrage of flaming and care bear comments from people that think it is fun to go out in low vaulue suicide ships because they do not like a fair fight.
No flaming, but I will point out that I enjoy going out in low value suicide ships, attacking vulnerable targets. Not only that, I will remind you that CCP likes me (or at least expects/condones me) to do that to because they have explicitly coded into the game the ability for me to do so. They have also come straight out and said this is intended gameplay so that begs the question, why would they add yet more artificial deterrents to discourage gameplay they have deliberately coded into the game, for no compelling reason other than you want "consequences"?

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
Celthric Kanerian
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#22 - 2015-04-23 13:03:32 UTC
And Miners should recieve the title dumbass for getting ganked again and again by going afk...
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#23 - 2015-04-23 13:51:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Donnachadh
As the phrase goes just saying.

I always find it interesting, here we have gankers defending their right to do what they do all the while claiming that EvE is a harsh place. And yet when others venture ideas that would make EvE a harsh place for gankers all they do is whine about it.

That being said I find myself at odds with this particular conundrum of EvE. Gankers do add a degree of spice and risks to the other players in the game and that is as you gankers would likely say a very good thing. On the other side you have the simple fact that mechanics also coded into the game by CCP to make a gankers life difficult are far to easily circumvented by the use of other game mechanics intend or otherwise like disposable alts.
Mario Putzo
#24 - 2015-04-23 13:52:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Mario Putzo
I think that CCP should add a weekly fee to folks who wish to have CONCORD watching their back, based on a players SP and security level of the space.

In a sense it would work somewhat like insurance where you purchase a CONCORD protection package.

1.0 = SP*1.1
.9 = SP*1.15 (covers to 1.0 as well)
.8 = SP*1.25 (covers to 1.0 as well)
.7 = SP*1.4 (covers to 1.0 as well)
.6 = SP*1.55 (covers to 1.0 as well)
.5 = SP*1.75 (covers to 1.0 as well)

This means the new bros with low SP won't have a huge cost associated with CONCORD. The more SP you get and lower Security you work in increases the cost for protection. This of course will be a completely voluntary thing if you choose not to buy a protection package, you of course will be able to be shot at without CONCORD intervention.

notes
this will not tell other players if you are protected or not, thus making gankers assume you are protected even though you may not be.

the coverage persists through ship loss/pod loss also coverage lasts 7 days from date of purchase.

- Teaches new players protection has a cost associated to it...even in HS
- Nothing in EVE *should be* free
- Take more care with their stuff since replacing a ship and paying for CONCORD every week will scale with the length a person plays the game...could get mighty expensive if you AFK mine in Hulks in frequent ganking areas.


Lore wise:

CONCORD has decreed that with the ever present Sansha Incursions, and the new Drifter/Sleeper threat that they will need additional funding. The increasing threats entering Empire Space have placed more burden on CONCORD than previously thought. As such their protective services division will now require pilots to purchase one of several protection packages, for their own safety it is highly advised to keep these packages up to date with weekly recurring fees. Pilots who do not wish to pay these fees will unfortunately be unable to receive assistance from the CONCORD security forces, in any capacity.
Arya Regnar
Darwins Right Hand
#25 - 2015-04-23 13:55:48 UTC
Implying I can't just offset these changes with a bigger amount of accounts.

EvE-Mail me if you need anything.
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#26 - 2015-04-23 14:14:28 UTC
Mario Putzo wrote:
I think that CCP should add a weekly fee to folks who wish to have CONCORD watching their back, based on a players SP and security level of the space.

In a sense it would work somewhat like insurance where you purchase a CONCORD protection package.

1.0 = SP*1.1
.9 = SP*1.15 (covers to 1.0 as well)
.8 = SP*1.25 (covers to 1.0 as well)
.7 = SP*1.4 (covers to 1.0 as well)
.6 = SP*1.55 (covers to 1.0 as well)
.5 = SP*1.75 (covers to 1.0 as well)

This means the new bros with low SP won't have a huge cost associated with CONCORD. The more SP you get and lower Security you work in increases the cost for protection. This of course will be a completely voluntary thing if you choose not to buy a protection package, you of course will be able to be shot at without CONCORD intervention.

notes
this will not tell other players if you are protected or not, thus making gankers assume you are protected even though you may not be.

the coverage persists through ship loss/pod loss also coverage lasts 7 days from date of purchase.

- Teaches new players protection has a cost associated to it...even in HS
- Nothing in EVE *should be* free
- Take more care with their stuff since replacing a ship and paying for CONCORD every week will scale with the length a person plays the game...could get mighty expensive if you AFK mine in Hulks in frequent ganking areas.

-1 since I would not get a "protection" package from Concord. Concord is as you gankers keep pointing out a "reactionary force" not a "protection force", a force intended to punish not prevent criminal activity. A "protection" force is by its very definition one that "protects" or attempts to "prevent" that which the buyer does not want to happen. The US Secret Service presidential protection unit is a prime and very visible example of a "protection" force as are the body guards routinely hired by many public personalities.

Change Concord from a reactionary force intended to punish criminal activities to an actual protection force intended to "prevent" criminal activities and i could get behind a modified version of this. But as it is this is just one more really bad idea intended to make it easier for gankers.

While CCP may be supporting the gankers in the game by continuing code that allows it, it is also true that CCP intends to keep it very tightly controlled and changes that have made ganking harder of the past few years are the only indicator we need that this is the truth.
Zimmer Jones
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#27 - 2015-04-23 14:18:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Zimmer Jones
How would this affect character sales? I can't imagine CCP would let characters be sold if they are -10 with recourse to raising sec again.

Or at least the pricing model would have to be revamped.

Use the force without consent and the court wont acquit you even if you are a card carryin', robe wearin' Jedi.
Mario Putzo
#28 - 2015-04-23 14:21:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Mario Putzo
Donnachadh wrote:

Change Concord from a reactionary force intended to punish criminal activities to an actual protection force intended to "prevent" criminal activities and i could get behind a modified version of this. But as it is this is just one more really bad idea intended to make it easier for gankers.

While CCP may be supporting the gankers in the game by continuing code that allows it, it is also true that CCP intends to keep it very tightly controlled and changes that have made ganking harder of the past few years are the only indicator we need that this is the truth.


How does this make it any easier for gankers than it is today? As you said yourself Concord is reactionary...sometimes Concord is fast enough to save your ship (assuming its tanked efficiently, the security of the system is high enough they can warp in in time). All this change does it removes the free Concord services and gives pilots the option to have Concord attempt to save them, and dish out punishment to the aggressors.

Still take a sec hit for ganking...check.
Still have to assume Concord shows up...check
If you are a neg standing pilot and land on Grid in HS the Navy will still come get you...check.
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#29 - 2015-04-23 14:30:10 UTC
Mag's wrote:
Enya Sparhawk wrote:
Make CONCORD more aggressive.
Yea they should call you names in Local and tell 'your mom' jokes, before killing your ship.

Edit: Oh it's this thread again. Just one more nerf and it will be balanced.

"Hey bro, it's okay, I aggressed YOUR MOM in hisec last night...." - CONCORD Police Captain

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs
Iain Cariaba
#30 - 2015-04-23 17:48:32 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Iain Cariaba wrote:
Thanks to the whining of carebears over the years, I can now fly my highsec haulers around with 100% security, because I took the advice of the gankers on how to avoid getting ganked.

We don't need further nerfs to ganking, we need fewer players with an unearned sense of entitlement.


Technically there's nothing you can do to be 100% secure, since there's always the chance someone will just decide they should shoot you for no other reason than "I felt like it" but you can make yourself an unattractive target. That's still part of Eve's risk vs reward dynamics though.

If you use every preventative measure available to you, you reach a point where you're so close to 100% safety that the difference is negligable.
Cade Windstalker
#31 - 2015-04-23 19:52:09 UTC
Iain Cariaba wrote:
If you use every preventative measure available to you, you reach a point where you're so close to 100% safety that the difference is negligable.


Okay? And why is this a problem? In hauling the biggest preventative measure is "don't haul too much" followed by getting an alt or another player to web your ship into warp. You're lowering your reward and increasing your costs for more safety. Working as intended.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#32 - 2015-04-23 20:32:05 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Working as intended.
I think the point Iain is making, is that the OP and his ilk are failing to understand this. That even before the last nerfs, this was much the case. But here we are, with another 'Just one more nerf and it will be balanced' thread.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#33 - 2015-04-23 20:37:37 UTC
Mag's wrote:
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Working as intended.
I think the point Iain is making, is that the OP and his ilk are failing to understand this. That even before the last nerfs, this was much the case. But here we are, with another 'Just one more nerf and it will be balanced' thread.

and breaking the "rules" still results in a fairly small percentage of people who are actually hit on a per-run basis.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
Mag's
Azn Empire
#34 - 2015-04-23 20:44:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Mag's
Donnachadh wrote:
As the phrase goes just saying.

I always find it interesting, here we have gankers defending their right to do what they do all the while claiming that EvE is a harsh place. And yet when others venture ideas that would make EvE a harsh place for gankers all they do is whine about it.

That being said I find myself at odds with this particular conundrum of EvE. Gankers do add a degree of spice and risks to the other players in the game and that is as you gankers would likely say a very good thing. On the other side you have the simple fact that mechanics also coded into the game by CCP to make a gankers life difficult are far to easily circumvented by the use of other game mechanics intend or otherwise like disposable alts.
You are missing the point. Sure we will defend the right to the game remaining a sandbox, but the issue we and many have with these threads, is the fact that there are already options available to avoid ganks. That there are already tools within the arsenal of modules, ships and mechanics, to reduce the chances of ganks to such a small level, it's hardly worth worrying about.

Plus if you want it to be harsher for gankers, then make it harsher. No one is stopping you. But then why put in the :EFFORT: when you can run to the forums asking for handholding, or extra NPC mechanics?

Oh and if you have any information regarding the bannable offence of disposable alts, then contact CCP. We know you mean deleting negative sec characters.
But if you have a spare slot on your account, then please by all means try it. Go ahead and recycle a few negative sec characters on your main account. I'm sure you will not be facing the ban hammer and that CCP do not have measures in place to detect it. Blink

You won't of course, because just like the 'ganking newbies hurts retention and is killing Eve' line, the recycling alts one is also a lie.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#35 - 2015-04-23 20:45:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Mag's
James Baboli wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Working as intended.
I think the point Iain is making, is that the OP and his ilk are failing to understand this. That even before the last nerfs, this was much the case. But here we are, with another 'Just one more nerf and it will be balanced' thread.

and breaking the "rules" still results in a fairly small percentage of people who are actually hit on a per-run basis.
Breaking the rules? You mean those that do not even put the effort into their own protection?

Yea, even then the rate is low.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Iain Cariaba
#36 - 2015-04-23 20:46:26 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Iain Cariaba wrote:
If you use every preventative measure available to you, you reach a point where you're so close to 100% safety that the difference is negligable.


Okay? And why is this a problem? In hauling the biggest preventative measure is "don't haul too much" followed by getting an alt or another player to web your ship into warp. You're lowering your reward and increasing your costs for more safety. Working as intended.

My point was to say that the goalof the highsec carebears has been met. If you've half a brain, you've got the totally safe dreamland in highsec.
McChicken Combo HalfMayo
The Happy Meal
#37 - 2015-04-25 00:23:22 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Iain Cariaba wrote:
If you use every preventative measure available to you, you reach a point where you're so close to 100% safety that the difference is negligable.


Okay? And why is this a problem? In hauling the biggest preventative measure is "don't haul too much" followed by getting an alt or another player to web your ship into warp. You're lowering your reward and increasing your costs for more safety. Working as intended.

The biggest preventative measure for hauling in highsec today is "fly a Deep Space Transport". You'd have to think up a very contrived scenario to gank a properly fit DST. Working as intended? I'd argue not. There's increasing your costs for more safety, then there's increasing your costs for total safety.

There are all our dominion

Gate camps: "Its like the lowsec watercooler, just with explosions and boose" - Ralph King-Griffin
Petrified
Old and Petrified Syndication
#38 - 2015-04-25 00:37:11 UTC
Given the nature of this game, the proposal has no real teeth and becomes pointless.

Sec Status IS the way CONCORD measures people's behavior. Since they seem to be a forgiving lot, you can work/buy your way back into their good graces.

But nothing prevents someone from creating an alt to do what every other law abiding high sec player does. So in essence, any permanent penalty is moot.

There are other things to consider: would such a permanent status effect the ability to legally biomass the character or transfer it to another account?

One thing about EVE: there is no real permanence, except NPC stations... for now... so why should Sec Status be permanent?

Cloaking is the closest thing to a "Pause Game" button one can get while in space.

Support better localization for the Japanese Community.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#39 - 2015-04-25 03:39:04 UTC
el cowboy wrote:
I think there should be a second level of security status put into the game. I have thought for a long time that there was too easy of a mechanism to be able to do bad things with very little consequence. People can kill people in high and low sec and after a few hours of ratting they can go back and do it again day after day and week after week.

There should be some way that Concord can distinguish which characters are prone to criminal activities independent of their current pointless security status. If someone continually is killing people in high sec they should be flagged permanently or have some very slow recovery of status.

One other thing that might work is the more you have to farm security status the less you actually receive so that at some point you no longer receive positive security status from doing mundane activities like ratting.

Ultimately I just want to see actual consequences for being a criminal in high sec and to lesser extent in low sec.



Ok, now queue the incessant barrage of flaming and care bear comments from people that think it is fun to go out in low vaulue suicide ships because they do not like a fair fight.


HS is safe enough as it is. No.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#40 - 2015-04-25 07:29:33 UTC
Mario Putzo wrote:
Donnachadh wrote:

Change Concord from a reactionary force intended to punish criminal activities to an actual protection force intended to "prevent" criminal activities and i could get behind a modified version of this. But as it is this is just one more really bad idea intended to make it easier for gankers.

While CCP may be supporting the gankers in the game by continuing code that allows it, it is also true that CCP intends to keep it very tightly controlled and changes that have made ganking harder of the past few years are the only indicator we need that this is the truth.


How does this make it any easier for gankers than it is today? As you said yourself Concord is reactionary...sometimes Concord is fast enough to save your ship (assuming its tanked efficiently, the security of the system is high enough they can warp in in time). All this change does it removes the free Concord services and gives pilots the option to have Concord attempt to save them, and dish out punishment to the aggressors.

You were the one that stated that people should have to pay for a protection package from Concord.

Mario Putzo wrote:
I think that CCP should add a weekly fee to folks who wish to have CONCORD watching their back, based on a players SP and security level of the space.

In a sense it would work somewhat like insurance where you purchase a CONCORD protection package.

1.0 = SP*1.1
.9 = SP*1.15 (covers to 1.0 as well)
.8 = SP*1.25 (covers to 1.0 as well)
.7 = SP*1.4 (covers to 1.0 as well)
.6 = SP*1.55 (covers to 1.0 as well)
.5 = SP*1.75 (covers to 1.0 as well)

This means the new bros with low SP won't have a huge cost associated with CONCORD. The more SP you get and lower Security you work in increases the cost for protection. This of course will be a completely voluntary thing if you choose not to buy a protection package, you of course will be able to be shot at without CONCORD intervention.

If I have to pay for it then that punitive function MUST change to a true protection package so I get something for the ISK I will pay. It does not matter to me if that protection comes in the form of an insurance policy that gives me 100% replacement value of ship, fittings and cargo, or a true protection force that responds instantly to any aggressive act against me by another player thereby eliminating the possibility that I might loose my ship or cargo.

As to your idea making ganking easier that is common sense and as plain as the nose on your characters face.
In all my time on these forums you have been a very outspoken supporter of the ganking ways, and it is simply impossible to believe that here in this topic you have had a turn of heart and are truly offering an idea that would make ganking harder. And so the only conclusion that can be reached by someone with a few brain cells active is that in some way you believe this idea will make the gankers life easier, more profitable or perhaps both.