These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Crime & Punishment

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

My Views On Hisec - CSM Platform

First post
Author
admiral root
Red Galaxy
#321 - 2015-09-09 13:16:00 UTC
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:
There's scarcely more than thirty thousand people logged in at a given time


Your point?

Demerius Xenocratus wrote:
and over half of those are alts.


Your source?

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff

Zihao
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#322 - 2015-09-09 22:25:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Zihao
I assume he means the 1.5 accounts per player and is very bad at algebra since that renders more alts than mains a mathematical impossibility.

30,000 Accounts = 1.5Accounts/1Players -> Players= 30,000 Accounts/1.5 Accounts = 20,000 Players
Players-Total Accounts = Alt Accounts -> 30,000 Accounts - 20,000 Mains = 10,000 Alts

So about 1/3 or 33.3% of the characters online are probably alts.
admiral root
Red Galaxy
#323 - 2015-09-09 22:44:45 UTC
Zihao wrote:
I assume he means the 1.5 accounts per player and is very bad at algebra since that renders more alts than mains a mathematical impossibility.

30,000 Accounts = 1.5Accounts/1Players -> Players= 30,000 Accounts/1.5 Accounts = 20,000 Players
Players-Total Accounts = Alt Accounts -> 30,000 Accounts - 20,000 Mains = 10,000 Alts

So about 1/3 or 33.3% of the characters online are probably alts.


Except your post is an educated guess (based on a figure released by CCP?), which is perfectly reasonable. He's stating a "fact" that probably isn't a fact at all because grrrr, ebil piwates.

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff

Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#324 - 2015-09-09 23:47:12 UTC
Bronson Hughes wrote:
Regarding FacPo & CONCORD:

I'd be okay with eliminating FacPo response to simply undocking in hisec with low sec status. Strictly speaking, it doesn't serve to protect anyone it only serves to limit the behavior of folks who's security status is too low. Some people may complain about taking away a punishment for low security status, but FacPo is generally more of a nuisance than a punishment once you learn how to deal with them so I don't think this should be a huge concern. The benefit here is driving player content as opposed to NPC content. With FacPo weakened or eliminated, criminals would be more likely to fly bigger ships in hisec, thus making it potentially easier for White Knights to track them down and engage them before CONCORD arrives.

I'm going to admit my own ignorance here for a moment and ask a question: if someone engages a -10 player in hisec, thus earning both players a limited engagement, can the -10 player retaliate without provoking CONCORD? If this is the case, then removing FacPo could open up a whole new world to folks who want to cruise around looking for fights: simply undock in hisec as a -10 and wait for folks to attack you. Talk about content! If this is not the case...why the heck isn't it?

As for CONCORD, I think it should be left as it is (i.e. untankable, unescapable NPCs, or UUNs) for now. One of the core dynamics of hisec is that if you criminally aggress someone, CONCORD relieves you of your vessel in very short order. This would be an awfully huge change to make (or, strictly speaking, un-make) and I'd like to consider other issues first, but I'm open to ideas. I think mechanics that allow players to more easily assist CONCORD would be fabulous though.


At the very least I think the -5.0 penalty of permanent suspect status should kick in before the -2.0 to -5.0 penalty of faction police harrassment.

That would seriously encourage a player response, not an NPC response, to unlawful highsec aggeression. Quite a buff to white knighting as a career.

I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#325 - 2015-09-09 23:51:16 UTC
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
Bronson Hughes wrote:
Regarding FacPo & CONCORD:

I'd be okay with eliminating FacPo response to simply undocking in hisec with low sec status. Strictly speaking, it doesn't serve to protect anyone it only serves to limit the behavior of folks who's security status is too low. Some people may complain about taking away a punishment for low security status, but FacPo is generally more of a nuisance than a punishment once you learn how to deal with them so I don't think this should be a huge concern. The benefit here is driving player content as opposed to NPC content. With FacPo weakened or eliminated, criminals would be more likely to fly bigger ships in hisec, thus making it potentially easier for White Knights to track them down and engage them before CONCORD arrives.

I'm going to admit my own ignorance here for a moment and ask a question: if someone engages a -10 player in hisec, thus earning both players a limited engagement, can the -10 player retaliate without provoking CONCORD? If this is the case, then removing FacPo could open up a whole new world to folks who want to cruise around looking for fights: simply undock in hisec as a -10 and wait for folks to attack you. Talk about content! If this is not the case...why the heck isn't it?

As for CONCORD, I think it should be left as it is (i.e. untankable, unescapable NPCs, or UUNs) for now. One of the core dynamics of hisec is that if you criminally aggress someone, CONCORD relieves you of your vessel in very short order. This would be an awfully huge change to make (or, strictly speaking, un-make) and I'd like to consider other issues first, but I'm open to ideas. I think mechanics that allow players to more easily assist CONCORD would be fabulous though.


At the very least I think the -5.0 penalty of permanent suspect status should kick in before the -2.0 to -5.0 penalty of faction police harrassment.

That would seriously encourage a player response, not an NPC response, to unlawful highsec aggeression. Quite a buff to white knighting as a career.


Lately I've been of the opinion that they don't actually want to be buffed, they want to remain ineffectual so they can use that as a platform for more whining that we still exist.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Zihao
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#326 - 2015-09-10 06:39:18 UTC
admiral root wrote:
Zihao wrote:
I assume he means the 1.5 accounts per player and is very bad at algebra since that renders more alts than mains a mathematical impossibility.

30,000 Accounts = 1.5Accounts/1Players -> Players= 30,000 Accounts/1.5 Accounts = 20,000 Players
Players-Total Accounts = Alt Accounts -> 30,000 Accounts - 20,000 Mains = 10,000 Alts

So about 1/3 or 33.3% of the characters online are probably alts.


Except your post is an educated guess (based on a figure released by CCP?), which is perfectly reasonable. He's stating a "fact" that probably isn't a fact at all because grrrr, ebil piwates.


Yes, hence the "bad at algebra," bit. No doubt he lost his ability to count in that fit of rage.
Demerius Xenocratus
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#327 - 2015-09-10 08:06:15 UTC
Zihao wrote:
I assume he means the 1.5 accounts per player and is very bad at algebra since that renders more alts than mains a mathematical impossibility.

30,000 Accounts = 1.5Accounts/1Players -> Players= 30,000 Accounts/1.5 Accounts = 20,000 Players
Players-Total Accounts = Alt Accounts -> 30,000 Accounts - 20,000 Mains = 10,000 Alts

So about 1/3 or 33.3% of the characters online are probably alts.


You are very smart.

I may have misread the dev's reddit comment as 1.5 alts per player or whatever the number he gave. I would have to find it again and r/Eve is currently infected with rage posts on other matters.

That's still a ton of alts. And really my point was that for CODE/goons to claim that highsec bears would outnumber them by tens of thousands when there are only 20-30k players on at a time in the entire game is disingenuous at best.
Demerius Xenocratus
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#328 - 2015-09-10 08:12:33 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
Bronson Hughes wrote:
Regarding FacPo & CONCORD:

I'd be okay with eliminating FacPo response to simply undocking in hisec with low sec status. Strictly speaking, it doesn't serve to protect anyone it only serves to limit the behavior of folks who's security status is too low. Some people may complain about taking away a punishment for low security status, but FacPo is generally more of a nuisance than a punishment once you learn how to deal with them so I don't think this should be a huge concern. The benefit here is driving player content as opposed to NPC content. With FacPo weakened or eliminated, criminals would be more likely to fly bigger ships in hisec, thus making it potentially easier for White Knights to track them down and engage them before CONCORD arrives.

I'm going to admit my own ignorance here for a moment and ask a question: if someone engages a -10 player in hisec, thus earning both players a limited engagement, can the -10 player retaliate without provoking CONCORD? If this is the case, then removing FacPo could open up a whole new world to folks who want to cruise around looking for fights: simply undock in hisec as a -10 and wait for folks to attack you. Talk about content! If this is not the case...why the heck isn't it?

As for CONCORD, I think it should be left as it is (i.e. untankable, unescapable NPCs, or UUNs) for now. One of the core dynamics of hisec is that if you criminally aggress someone, CONCORD relieves you of your vessel in very short order. This would be an awfully huge change to make (or, strictly speaking, un-make) and I'd like to consider other issues first, but I'm open to ideas. I think mechanics that allow players to more easily assist CONCORD would be fabulous though.


At the very least I think the -5.0 penalty of permanent suspect status should kick in before the -2.0 to -5.0 penalty of faction police harrassment.

That would seriously encourage a player response, not an NPC response, to unlawful highsec aggeression. Quite a buff to white knighting as a career.


Lately I've been of the opinion that they don't actually want to be buffed, they want to remain ineffectual so they can use that as a platform for more whining that we still exist.


It would just save suspect baiters the trouble of having to acquire a flag every 15 minutes. Most people in highsec have learned to leave the yellow flashies alone lest they be relieved of their ship when the suspect swaps into a Vindicator, undocks his logi alts, or solos them in an Ishkur because they don't understand combat mechanics.


punkgirl
Apocalypse Enterprises
#329 - 2015-09-10 10:51:20 UTC
I agree with a lot and disagree with a lot also.

I get the feeling you are coming from a pvp background.

Like it or not PVE is a large part of the game and if I couldn't do level 4 missions in hi sec there would be no reason to play I couldn't generate ISk t

It is not possible to run missions in a hostile system without support.

I still like the idea suggested a while back of having npc corp only open for a period of say x amount of months after that the player is auto ejected into NO CORP. and in no corp you would be freely attacakble with out concord police intervention thus forcing you to form a corp or join one.

Something does need doing about npc rookie corp immunity (also let me block them)

Back those ideas and I'll support you to hell and back

HoleySheet1
Deep-Fried Prawns with Lemon
#330 - 2015-09-10 11:25:40 UTC  |  Edited by: HoleySheet1
Bronson hides behind pre-arranged pvp. I think you're an idiot....but you have my vote for csm lol. Didn't read any of these post as it's long winded noob bs, but I thought I'd share my 2 cents.

Killing your ships and pods since 2008. Killboards don't lie, Don't get mad, get better.

Lan Wang
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#331 - 2015-09-10 11:28:58 UTC
HoleySheet1 wrote:
Bronson hides behind pre-arranged pvp. I think you're an idiot....but you have my vote for csm lol. Didn't read any of these post as it's long winded noob bs, but I thought I'd share my 2 cents.


oh look its eve's elite undock camper

Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel

Calm down miner. As you pointed out, people think they can get away with stuff they would not in rl... Like for example illegal mining... - Ima Wreckyou*

HoleySheet1
Deep-Fried Prawns with Lemon
#332 - 2015-09-10 11:34:16 UTC
Lan Wang wrote:
HoleySheet1 wrote:
Bronson hides behind pre-arranged pvp. I think you're an idiot....but you have my vote for csm lol. Didn't read any of these post as it's long winded noob bs, but I thought I'd share my 2 cents.


oh look its eve's elite undock camper


Oh look, it's a forum troll and noob. The best undock camper this game has ever seen....far past elite. Number 1 of all time kills in amarr. Check zkillboard today and be jelly.

Killing your ships and pods since 2008. Killboards don't lie, Don't get mad, get better.

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#333 - 2015-09-10 11:40:27 UTC
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:

It would just save suspect baiters the trouble of having to acquire a flag every 15 minutes.


It'd do so much more than that. It would make it not futile to undock in things that aren't cheap glass cannons.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#334 - 2015-09-10 11:48:03 UTC
HoleySheet1 wrote:
Bronson hides behind pre-arranged pvp. I think you're an idiot....but you have my vote for csm lol. Didn't read any of these post as it's long winded noob bs, but I thought I'd share my 2 cents.

Thanks for your vote, but I do way more than Thunderdome. Pirate

Check out my corp's killboard sometime. We're small, so it's not all that impressive, but it's a good mix of hisec and losec activity.

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs

Lan Wang
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#335 - 2015-09-10 11:55:19 UTC
HoleySheet1 wrote:
Lan Wang wrote:
HoleySheet1 wrote:
Bronson hides behind pre-arranged pvp. I think you're an idiot....but you have my vote for csm lol. Didn't read any of these post as it's long winded noob bs, but I thought I'd share my 2 cents.


oh look its eve's elite undock camper


Oh look, it's a forum troll and noob. The best undock camper this game has ever seen....far past elite. Number 1 of all time kills in amarr. Check zkillboard today and be jelly.


yeah the best because everyone else who tries realises how much of a crappy noobish way to play a game it is :) yeah noob but atleast i dont hang around an undock killing frigs and pods to pad a killboard, maybe try risking something sometime :)

Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel

Calm down miner. As you pointed out, people think they can get away with stuff they would not in rl... Like for example illegal mining... - Ima Wreckyou*

HoleySheet1
Deep-Fried Prawns with Lemon
#336 - 2015-09-10 12:03:59 UTC  |  Edited by: HoleySheet1
Don't get mad, get better.Lol. This will be my last post on this mega thread of rubbish.

Killing your ships and pods since 2008. Killboards don't lie, Don't get mad, get better.

Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#337 - 2015-09-10 13:39:13 UTC
punkgirl wrote:
I agree with a lot and disagree with a lot also.

I get the feeling you are coming from a pvp background.

Like it or not PVE is a large part of the game and if I couldn't do level 4 missions in hi sec there would be no reason to play I couldn't generate ISk t

It is not possible to run missions in a hostile system without support.

I still like the idea suggested a while back of having npc corp only open for a period of say x amount of months after that the player is auto ejected into NO CORP. and in no corp you would be freely attacakble with out concord police intervention thus forcing you to form a corp or join one.

Something does need doing about npc rookie corp immunity (also let me block them)

Back those ideas and I'll support you to hell and back




I've run L4s in a busy system where anyone could shoot me at any time (cheap killright available).

You most certainly CAN run level 4 missions around dangerous other players without capacity to escalate.

I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com

Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#338 - 2015-09-10 13:42:33 UTC
HoleySheet1 wrote:
Don't get mad, get better.Lol. This will be my last post on this mega thread of rubbish.

Thanks for stopping by, and I appreciate your support.

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs

Lan Wang
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#339 - 2015-09-10 13:42:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Lan Wang
punkgirl wrote:
It is not possible to run missions in a hostile system without support.



i run missions in nullsec solo perfectly fine without any support

Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel

Calm down miner. As you pointed out, people think they can get away with stuff they would not in rl... Like for example illegal mining... - Ima Wreckyou*

Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#340 - 2015-09-10 13:51:23 UTC
Lan Wang wrote:
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
It is not possible to run missions in a hostile system without support.



i run missions in nullsec solo perfectly fine without any support

I think you crossed your quotes there....

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs