These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page12
 

Should Concord standing hits be removed from low-sec ?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Lagruna Zegata
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#21 - 2011-09-11 21:53:10 UTC
Abrazzar wrote:
Maybe make it dependent on the sec rating of the target.
If it's positive, you get a sec hit.
If you're 5 or more sec levels above your target, you don't get a sec hit.
If your target is -5 or less, you don't get a sec hit.



This system is already in place to some extent:
http://www.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=577

"Player vs. Player standing penalty

We will also count the standings of the two players involved; this extra variable can affect the total penalty received by a few percent. For example, if an aggressor has a high standing, and the victim negative standing, the aggressor get less of a penalty hit. This works in reverse, too. If you have low and the victim high, you will get an increased penalty.

As it currently stands, every whole point of standing difference will increase or decrease the penalty by 1%. If the aggressor has +5 and the victim -4, the overall penalty would be reduced by 9% (and increased if the other way around)."
Jenshae Chiroptera
#22 - 2011-09-11 21:56:26 UTC
Should this suggestion be in the correct forum for it?

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.
Gogela
Epic Ganking Time
CODE.
#23 - 2011-09-11 21:59:01 UTC
Lagruna Zegata wrote:
There was a popular Assembly Hall thread started by Mashie Saldana in the old forums about the sec gains in 0.0.

It was proposed that all sec gains could only be in low-sec (no gains in null anoms/belts or hi-sec missions). Only belt rats in low-sec could give sec gains.

Not sure why the idea died Question

I hadn't read that... but it seems like a good idea to me too. It's an idea definitely worthy of it's own thread, imho.

Signatures should be used responsibly...
Commander Spurty
#24 - 2011-09-11 22:06:24 UTC
Abrazzar wrote:

If your target is -5 or less, you don't get a sec hit.


Really, I like this idea. ... imaginative, makes sense, CCP make it so .. oh wait ...

There are good ships,

And wood ships,

And ships that sail the sea

But the best ships are Spaceships

Built by CCP
Bubanni
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#25 - 2011-09-11 23:18:40 UTC
One fix I could imagine would be...

Make so Concord doesn't shoot you on sight in high sec, or other factions for that matter, even if you have bad standing for them, (or sec status)

as it is now, if you have -5 sec status, or bad standing to a faction, concord or that faction will shoot you as soon as you enter high sec...

So my suggestion would simply be... change the way concord and factions react to your standing!... simply put, make so they only shoot you if you agress in those systems, not simply for being there

But!!! everyone els in that system will be allowed to attack you without concord or the faction interfering

The game mechanics shouldn't make people "not want to" pvp, if anything, it should encourage people to pvp!

Supercap nerf - change ewar immunity https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=194759 Module activation delay! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1180934
Mehrdad Kor-Azor
Doomheim
#26 - 2011-09-11 23:23:18 UTC
Bubanni wrote:
One fix I could imagine would be...

Make so Concord doesn't shoot you on sight in high sec, or other factions for that matter, even if you have bad standing for them, (or sec status)

as it is now, if you have -5 sec status, or bad standing to a faction, concord or that faction will shoot you as soon as you enter high sec...

So my suggestion would simply be... change the way concord and factions react to your standing!... simply put, make so they only shoot you if you agress in those systems, not simply for being there

But!!! everyone els in that system will be allowed to attack you without concord or the faction interfering

The game mechanics shouldn't make people "not want to" pvp, if anything, it should encourage people to pvp!


So basically players in hisec will be responsible for their own policing, and CONCORD only intervenes if a baddie shoots first?

Not a bad idea at all.
Whale Sex
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#27 - 2011-09-11 23:24:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Whale Sex
NPC 0.0 is training for 0.0
Montmazar
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#28 - 2011-09-11 23:48:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Montmazar
Simetraz wrote:
Then again this brings up a interesting question.

IF you can do anything you want in 0.0 and Concord cares less.
Why should you be able to increase your standing while in 0.0.

IF anything it is a nomads land. Everything you do there doesn't count.
Removing that loop hole would also have to be addressed.


I've seen it proposed before in old Features and Ideas (to substantial support) that only low sec ratting would give sec increases, and thought that was a pretty great idea. It would make low sec more meaningful, give more reason to be there, more targets, and would work better with the lore.

More generally, I totally agree both from a gameplay perspective and a lore perspective that CONCORD saying "hey, this guy is okay" because he killed a bunch of pirate ships in a place they don't even monitor is a bit silly. Bounties need to stay and stay high in null from a gameplay perspective, but there's no reason to keep the security increase. Right now, grinding up sec status is too easy.
Swooshie
USA Canada Private Corp
#29 - 2011-09-12 00:36:46 UTC
It seems to me that low sec is the only zone where it is actively possible to define players. By that, I mean that it is the only zone where one can, in theory, act unlawfully WHILE avoiding immediate consequences. 0.0 is supposed to be the "Wild West" while hi sec has mechanisms to force law abiding.

The removal of what turns low sec into that grey zone would rip the meaning of having low sec zones in the first place. It appears it was designed as a buffer zone. The question would then be : "do we need that buffer still?"

"It is when I think about meaning that I lose what I meant to say."     -Swooshie
Vyktor Abyss
Abyss Research
#30 - 2011-09-12 00:50:15 UTC
Herping yourDerp wrote:
the problem is sec status means nothing in low/null compared to highsec... there needs to be another penatly for having a low sec status... it SHOULD be bounty hunters after you, but that system is broken.... fix it or make a new penalty


Quoting this for truth....

The point is, there is currently no point of 'policing' the outlaws.

Being an outlaw currently only really serves as a mechanism to get you more pvp, since more generally people will have a pop at you if they know sentries wont help you.

The fix to this is as quoted. Sort out the bounty hunting system to actually reward 'policing' other players and quite a large subset of players would take to that.

Only problem is 'fixing' bounty hunting so it is free from any abuse with alts etc (as current). Unfortunately I can't suggest a decent 'fix' as I've not thought about it in enough depth, or read up on other peoples ideas.
Ezeria Mistanta
House Of Serenity.
#31 - 2011-09-12 00:53:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Ezeria Mistanta
Taedrin wrote:


Without sec hits in low sec, the distinction between these types of players would be significantly blurred. If someone is -10.0, you KNOW they are a pirate. There's a sort of romance behind having a -10.0 security status. Many pirates are proud of it, and would never have it any other way.




I am a -10 pirate and I love it. The -10 badge is a badge of honor among a lot of low sec dwellers. It actually takes some work to earn too. Most pirates don't sweat the -10 standing, High Sec access or isk grinding can be done with alts, and goods and services can be moved to low sec bases using courier services like Black Frog. :)


I think low sec works as it should. I guess you could shorten the GCC time in low sec or base it on system sec ratings.. High Sec giving the full 15min, but maybe 0.4-0.3 can do 10min and 0.2 and lower could be 5min or something like that. But even GCC is something we live with and it isn't really a hindrance tbh
Previous page12