Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Dianeces
Repo Industries R.E.P.O.
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 13:15:00 -
[31]
Originally by: 000Hunter000 Sadly it's way too easy to recover from a negative sec status, personally i still think, if u did the crime u should do the time, so upping ur negative standing should not be so easy.
You have obviously never had to rat up security status before. It's pretty tedious, and (somewhat) time-limited.
|
Wet Ferret
Center for Advanced Studies
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 13:18:00 -
[32]
Originally by: LaVista Vista
Thats the whole point of it. If you remove insurance the frequency of suicide ganking will decrease. IF you run around in a Itty V that is dead slow with 20 freighter bpo's its your own fault. But Joe with 50mill worth of stuff shouldnt get ganked.
Heh, yeah I've done that so many times.
Good thing I didn't turn off the warning box that says "ARE YOU SURE YOU WANT TO DO THIS BECAUSE YOU ARE GOING TO GET BLOWN THE **** UP".
So, /signed on removing insurance payouts from CONCORD losses!
|
Cirro Morceratu
Aeon Of Strife
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 13:27:00 -
[33]
Not too sure I like the idea. An often heard complaint against mission grinders is that they never get out of empire to expose themselves to pvp. If they need high status for a quick concord response, this will give them even less reason to try out pvp in low sec and risk lowering their sec status.
|
gfldex
Kabelkopp
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 13:30:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Matthew
Which is one of my main gripes with the sec-status system. Gaining sec-status isn't valued highly because you effectively get paid to gain it.
I'd like to see things changed so you can choose to receive the bounty or the sec-status increase, but not both. That would make earning sec-status a goal in it's own right, rather than a happy side-effect of an already profitable activity.
Low sec would be a lot less hostile playground and anything that can be obtained there (LP, med mins, ISK) would drop in value. That change would have a massive impact on the whole economy. Empire wars would increase in number and duration and the overall income outside of a NPC corp would drop a lot. Being in a NPC corp could get the new nano.
Changes to sec status gain could have the very opposite effect. Think of the jet can flagging. It did not help with ore thieves but increased the annoyance level for miners and got a new banable offense into the game.
--
There are countless games in the world. There are at least as many ppl that dont like one or more rules of said games. That never stopped smart game designers from creating good games.
|
Poreuomai
Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 13:46:00 -
[35]
Originally by: J'Mkarr Soban
Originally by: Roen Dunaer For example, currently the maximum attainable Security Status is 5.0 and everyone currently starts at that.
You been smoking *****?
He's saying that everyone currently starts with a maximum attainable Security Status of 5, he's not saying that everyone currently starts with an actual Security Status of 5.
|
Hamfast
Lightfoot Industries
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 15:01:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Dianeces
You have obviously never had to rat up security status before. It's pretty tedious, and (somewhat) time-limited.
This is because you are doing something you do not enjoy... yet you feel you are required to do this to repair your standing because you forced someone else to do something they did not enjoy...
So making it less enjoyable for you may in some small way cause you to stop making it less enjoyable for others...
Personally, I would like to see Security hits for bad/good behavior be affected by the security of the system you are in... thus nothing you do in 0.0 space will affect your Security Rating, actions in Low Sec space would have very minor effects, pull something in 1.0 space and you can expect a huge sec hit... --------*****--------
Learn and be informed, because a Politicians worst nightmare is an informed voter...
So choose your CSM Candidates wisely
|
Avon
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 15:12:00 -
[37]
Edited by: Avon on 26/03/2008 15:12:46
Originally by: Hamfast
Personally, I would like to see Security hits for bad/good behavior be affected by the security of the system you are in... thus nothing you do in 0.0 space will affect your Security Rating, actions in Low Sec space would have very minor effects, pull something in 1.0 space and you can expect a huge sec hit...
Tie that in with the OP's suggestion of making positive security status meaningful, make the penalty for attacking someone: Attacker sec -((System Sec rating * Victim Security Satus)/10) And the penalty for killing someone's ship: Attacker sec - ((System Sec rating * Victim security Status)/2) And the penalty for podding someone: Attacker sec - (System Sec rating * Victim security Status)
Eve-Online: The Text Adventure |
Max Teranous
The Illuminati. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 15:19:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Avon
Originally by: LaVista Vista Well, a start would be to remove insurance from suicide-ganking.
I *still* don't understand why people keep suggesting this. It will do nothing other than raise the break-even point on a gank, whilst penalising players who lost their ship through a genuine mistake (such as people working together on a mission in a laggy situation, or just misclicking).
It's because people in general are dumb, and don't follow through and think of the cause and effect of changes.
Let's take an example from this thread, that calls for no insurance & concord poddings. Instead of a fully insured T1 gank brutix costing ~15mil, it costs about 50 mil. The suicide ganker would use an implantless clone of course, and that assumes a pricy clone also. The change to the ganker is the potential ganks for profit changes slightly - by 35 mil or so. That is 1 faction mod, ballpark difference, or not much in real terms. More importantly the ganker works with the change and changes his targets slightly accordingly.
The other person, in his fully insured T2 Battleship with a full set of +4's misclicks a gate with his guns primed and gets wasted by concord. Instead of losing ~70mil replacement cost (mods & new insurance) they are now down ~300 mil (ship, mods, new insurance, clone & +4's). That's a huge difference to that person, who will then maek post in this very forum about being podded by npc's and losing his faction BS & +5 implants (a bit of exaggeration never happens in forum posts! ) and threaten to quit with his 12 accounts.
Max |
Hamfast
Lightfoot Industries
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 15:35:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Avon Edited by: Avon on 26/03/2008 15:12:46
Originally by: Hamfast
Personally, I would like to see Security hits for bad/good behavior be affected by the security of the system you are in... thus nothing you do in 0.0 space will affect your Security Rating, actions in Low Sec space would have very minor effects, pull something in 1.0 space and you can expect a huge sec hit...
Tie that in with the OP's suggestion of making positive security status meaningful, make the penalty for attacking someone: Attacker sec -((System Sec rating * Victim Security Satus)/10) And the penalty for killing someone's ship: Attacker sec - ((System Sec rating * Victim security Status)/2) And the penalty for podding someone: Attacker sec - (System Sec rating * Victim security Status)
Good idea, except for the math part (Idea is good, implementation error)...
the Victim's security level needs to be replaced with a value equivilent to the differnce between the victim's security level and say -5.0... (just fleshing out the idea here, later I will stick it in the suggestion box...)
your current values with a victim with a 0.0 sec raiting would mean no sec hit for the attacker... should be more like: Attacker sec -((System Sec rating * (Victim Security Status - (-5)))/10) And the penalty for killing someone's ship: Attacker sec - ((System Sec rating * (Victim Security Status - (-5)))/2) And the penalty for podding someone: Attacker sec - (System Sec rating * (Victim Security Status - (-5)))
putting numbers in, everything starts at 0.0 in .7 space... the penalty for killing someone's ship: Attacker sec - ((System Sec rating * (Victim Security Status - (-5)))/2) 0.0 - ((.7 * (0.0 - (-5)) /2) 0.0 - ((.7 * 5.0) /2) 0.0 - (3.5 /2) 0.0 - 1.75 -1.75 sec rating for the attacker...
reason for the -5 would be because beyond -5 and you are free to attack them... This also does not bother to adjust the amount based (as I believe the current system does) on the attackers starting security level... --------*****--------
Learn and be informed, because a Politicians worst nightmare is an informed voter...
So choose your CSM Candidates wisely
|
Avon
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 16:27:00 -
[40]
No, my maths was intentional. The reason is the side effect of attacking people who have a -ve security status. Get it?
Example: Attacker Sec 2.0 Victim 1 Sec 5 Victim 2 Sec -3
1/ Attacker vs Victim 1 in a 0.8 system. 2 - ((0.8 * 5)/10) -- attacks 1.6 - ((0.8 * 5)/2) -- kills -0.6 - (0.8 * 5) -- pods Result -4.6 .. a massive sec hit of -6.4 in one attack.
Now that same attacker engaged Victim 2 in a 0.4 system. -4.6 - ((0.4 * -3)/10) -- attacks -4.48 - ((0.4 * -3)/2) -- kills -3.88 - (0.4 * -3) -- pods Result -2.68 .. a security gain of 1.92 for attacking another criminal.
Eve-Online: The Text Adventure |
|
Hamfast
Lightfoot Industries
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 17:05:00 -
[41]
Avon,
I see your point, but if you do the math where the victim is someone with a Sec raiting of 0.0 then there is no security hit for the attacker (.08 * 0.0)/10 = 0 --------*****--------
Learn and be informed, because a Politicians worst nightmare is an informed voter...
So choose your CSM Candidates wisely
|
Dianeces
Repo Industries R.E.P.O.
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 19:18:00 -
[42]
Edited by: Dianeces on 26/03/2008 19:19:36
Originally by: Hamfast
This is because you are doing something you do not enjoy... yet you feel you are required to do this to repair your standing because you forced someone else to do something they did not enjoy...
So making it less enjoyable for you may in some small way cause you to stop making it less enjoyable for others...
Personally, I would like to see Security hits for bad/good behavior be affected by the security of the system you are in... thus nothing you do in 0.0 space will affect your Security Rating, actions in Low Sec space would have very minor effects, pull something in 1.0 space and you can expect a huge sec hit...
It's tedious because Eve PvE is ******* boring.
Edit: Also, your idea about security rating of systems is terrible. I have no desire to run level 4 missions to get sec status back.
|
Matthew
BloodStar Technologies
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 19:23:00 -
[43]
Originally by: gfldex Low sec would be a lot less hostile playground and anything that can be obtained there (LP, med mins, ISK) would drop in value. That change would have a massive impact on the whole economy. Empire wars would increase in number and duration and the overall income outside of a NPC corp would drop a lot. Being in a NPC corp could get the new nano.
A lot of the genuinely threatening hostility in low-sec come from -10 players anyway - they don't work their sec status back up, so it would make zero difference to them. Though on the other side, it's likely to impact the anti-pirates who want to do pre-emptive strikes against the pirates without locking themselves out of their day jobs in empire.
And of course if low-sec is less hostile, more people will go to it, meaning more targets for the pirates. High-sec wars wouldn't be an attractive option as all the targets will have moved the other way.
Originally by: gfldex Changes to sec status gain could have the very opposite effect. Think of the jet can flagging. It did not help with ore thieves but increased the annoyance level for miners and got a new banable offense into the game.
Jet Can flagging was never meant to "help" ore thieving. It was intended to give the miner the ability to help themselves, and it does that very successfully.
Just because most miners do not make use of the ability, does not mean it shouldn't be there for those that are willing to. After all, just because most players do not make use of 0.0 space doesn't mean that it was a bad idea to put it in the game.
Similarly, just because there is a coding error in the current implementation does not make the game design itself invalid. If we got rid of every game feature that could potentially harbor a bug, we wouldn't even get to Hello World. ------- There is no magic Wand of Fixing, and it is not powered by forum whines. |
Ethaet
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 19:23:00 -
[44]
I like the suggestions in this thread, about a faster concord response based on sec, and the choice between isk or sec is nice too but might need some balancing.
|
Avon
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 20:04:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Hamfast
I see your point, but if you do the math where the victim is someone with a Sec raiting of 0.0 then there is no security hit for the attacker (.08 * 0.0)/10 = 0
I'm cool with that too, I don't see the issue. As far as Concord are concerned they are a nobody - no foul. If the system allows security loss or gained based on the sec status of the victim, then there is always going to be a null-point somewhere. You could add a base constant modifier if you so desire - but that is all about balancing the numbers rather than the concept of the system.
Eve-Online: The Text Adventure |
Hamfast
Lightfoot Industries
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 20:34:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Avon
Originally by: Hamfast
I see your point, but if you do the math where the victim is someone with a Sec raiting of 0.0 then there is no security hit for the attacker (.08 * 0.0)/10 = 0
I'm cool with that too, I don't see the issue. As far as Concord are concerned they are a nobody - no foul. If the system allows security loss or gained based on the sec status of the victim, then there is always going to be a null-point somewhere. You could add a base constant modifier if you so desire - but that is all about balancing the numbers rather than the concept of the system.
Thanks, I think I understand now... the idea is not so much to change the security hit from any attack, but to adjust that hit by the setting... Attacking a target with a lower Security rating could have a positive effect on your security rating and attacking someone with a higher security rating would cause your hit to be greater (as you pointed out, to a point where you could be looking at a -6.4 (as you put it) sec rating hit from the single attack... --------*****--------
Learn and be informed, because a Politicians worst nightmare is an informed voter...
So choose your CSM Candidates wisely
|
Letouk Mernel
Blue Shell Corporation
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 20:47:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Max Teranous Let's take an example from this thread, that calls for no insurance & concord poddings. Instead of a fully insured T1 gank brutix costing ~15mil, it costs about 50 mil. The suicide ganker would use an implantless clone of course, and that assumes a pricy clone also. The change to the ganker is the potential ganks for profit changes slightly - by 35 mil or so.
You know, before the Goons came, most of the ganking was against haulers, and once the Goons go, it'll be against haulers again. Goons are just FOTM, temporary.
As far as ganking haulers, moving the loss from 15 mil to 50 mil DOES make a difference. Right now if a hauler has over 100 mil he'll be attacked; with this change maybe they can haul 150 mil before they're attacked. Guess who this change affects the most? The newbie guy who's only got skills for a T1 indy and whose total assets are only worth 100 million or so.
Be nicer to the newbies, I say. Let them fatten up a bit before ganking them.
Goons and the Hulks, yeah, buff the Hulk defenses, take care of that, this won't affect it. Suicide ganks vs. haulers, on the interstate pipelines, this change to no insurance will make a difference.
As for making it harder for the guy who makes mistakes... well don't make the mistake. People don't make the same mistake more than once or twice. Ganks, on the other hand, daily.
|
Javiir Soban
Amarrian Religious Reformation Society Exalted
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 20:52:00 -
[48]
Originally by: Lag Hon No insurance payouts on ships lost by Concord Once Concord has had call to destroy your ship they should pay closer attention to you thus resulting in a faster response time to any illegal actions perfomed by you. All infractions are accumulative to a point where Concord basically is there as soon as you show up even if your in a shuttle.
Hi Sec status should be rewarded with a certain degree of leniency from Concord (If you have a Kill record already with Concord you are classified at one sec stat category lower) High Standings +5 and up 1)First illegal shot, Concord issues a warning to cease fire. 2)Continue and Concord wil issue a fine, payable withing 28 days before autodeduct from your wallet. 3)Destroy the ship and u get stomped 4)Non destructive hostile acts (Webbing, ECM, NOS etc) initial warning then a fine for continuance.
Moderate standings 0 - +5 1)First illegal Shot or non destructive hostile act you get fined outright, no warning. 2)Destroy a ship u get stomped
Negative standings any -5 - 0 Same as Moderate standings except Fines are steeper
Negative standings -5 and below You even sneeze wrong and Concord stomps you.
While it is not hard to recover standings any Kills you make that are Concordable are never erased from your record and Accumulate to a point where as soon as you jump into a Concord protected system 2-3 Concord ships will "Escort" you everywhere you go, just waiting for a chance to pop you.
I agree with this, the part about sneezing wrong being CONCORDable made me laugh. I'd support this implimentation, with 0 -5 second shot brings CONCORD to toast ya, and half of fines going to victim(s). --- --- --- --- --- My views don't reflect those of my corporation, and definitely not those of my alliance as I don't have an alliance :p . |
Corron
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 22:37:00 -
[49]
Originally by: gfldex
Originally by: F'nog
In the old days, maybe in Beta, sec status was supposed to mean something. Back then, positive sec was supposed to make a difference. Currently, there's no difference between 0 and 5 other than a number on the screen.
In beta and until a few month after release there where no sentries and no CONCORD. The sec status of a player was a label and meant to be one.
CCP got the impression that ganking noobs in 1.0 systems was slowing the growth of EVE down so they give up with the player policed space idea. (If that move was successful will ever stay a mystery.)
Before I can agree to any change to the sec status system you have to show me that there is a problem. You have to provide numbers like barges destroyed by wars vs. suiciding or number of suicides compared to growth of the player base. All those mindless post in the past few weeks didn't show any evidence that there is a problem but will finally get goons what they want.
Hate to contradict you here, but there where concord in beta. I remember loosing ships to them when I was learning the game and what I could or couldn't do.
I agree that high sec should give you some type of benefit. Linking it to concord wouldn't be a terrible idea, but that may be a little too over powered.
Also, to an earlier comment, having a high sec status doesn't help with jump clones and market tax reduction. That is dictated by your standing with the faction, and for jump clones, it's based on your corp's standing with the faction as I understand it.
|
Billy Sastard
Life. Universe. Everything. Rejuvenate
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 23:19:00 -
[50]
(I didnt read pretty much any of the replies, tl:dr, but anyway....)
Having a high sec status DOES have benefits actually... It gives me more time to gank people in hisec before I have to go kill rats in 0.0
-=^=-
|
|
Cpt Fina
Mutually Assured Distraction
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 23:22:00 -
[51]
If I can gain secstatus by not grinding missions or other NPC-exclusive content, then why not.
|
ceyriot
Crimson Rebellion Cold Star Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 23:32:00 -
[52]
Originally by: Rodj Blake To those people suggesting that you shouldn't get an insurance payout when killed by CONCORD: have you never accidentally targeted the wrong person whilst lagged out and suffering from a screwy overview?
No, and I don't know anyone who has.
Faction Store |
Bimjo
SKULLDOGS
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 23:32:00 -
[53]
Originally by: Cirro Morceratu An often heard complaint against mission grinders is that they never get out of empire to expose themselves to pvp.
what is it with you guys always wanting carebears to travel to low sec just to appease the pirates ? if CCP says mission running in empire is ok, then it's ok , let it go and play your own game and don't worry how others play theirs
|
Kagura Nikon
Infinity Enterprises Odyssey.
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 23:33:00 -
[54]
Originally by: Malken i think a decaying sec status should be implemented.
as in lets say a person havent comitted any crimes in a long time then his sec status should slowly start returning at a very small rate. lets say if no crimes have been done in a month by this person his sec status starts to grow back up at 0.001 a week or something
and yeah suicide stuff is fun, all ppl who whine about it are way to much in the hellokitty state of mind tbh.
You notice that at this rate woudl take 10 years to go from -5 to 0? ------------------------------------------------- If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough
|
ceyriot
Crimson Rebellion Cold Star Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 23:35:00 -
[55]
Originally by: Cirro Morceratu Not too sure I like the idea. An often heard complaint against mission grinders is that they never get out of empire to expose themselves to pvp. If they need high status for a quick concord response, this will give them even less reason to try out pvp in low sec and risk lowering their sec status.
Sorry, couldn't resist ripping this argument apart.
THIS IS A GAME!! If they want to play CareBear in highsec and get mission ISK, and if thats how they get there kicks, how in hell can you take that away from them? I say, all for the no insurance on CONCORD kills, and harder to gain sec status back up when negative. Becuase if you're negtive, you want to be there, and thus getting it back up should be harder. Also, that mission-runner should get a reward (other than ISKies) for running all those missions, you would think the police would more aggressively defend a protector of the peace?
Faction Store |
Mogren
CCCP INC
|
Posted - 2008.03.27 00:37:00 -
[56]
I agree with the original poster. First good idea I have seen on the boards in a while.
|
Lurana Jade
State War Academy
|
Posted - 2008.03.27 00:42:00 -
[57]
Quote: An often heard complaint against mission grinders is that they never get out of empire to expose themselves to pvp.
Like I said in another post:
EVERYONE IS SUBJECT TO PVP, EVERYWHERE IN SPACE!
Got that? YOUR problem is you want to pvp them on YOUR terms, not THEIRS or Concords. In other words, prats who whine about this are really just gank-bear pus***s that wants the bait to come to them.
If they really wanted missioners in Empire ythey would scan em down and suicide em... but oh nooooo, the terms are too harsh, waaaaaa, make em come to us. Ha, buncha whiny losers I swear.
|
Ben Derindar
Dirty Deeds Corp. Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2008.03.27 01:11:00 -
[58]
I like where Avon is going with his formula, especially how it allows for the possibility of security increases for shooting pirates under the right circumstances.
One idea I wonder about factoring in somehow is a slightly reduced rate of security increase as the total of all your negative sec hits grows, with a view that CONCORD shouldn't forgive repeat suicide gankers as easily, i.e. once a player has gone through the cycle of frittering away their security status and farming it up again over and over a few times, it should start to become harder to raise their sec yet again.
This wouldn't affect genuine pirates as their sec status would tend to stay lower without fluctuating as much as a career suicide ganker.
/Ben
|
MongWen
Farmer Killers United Corporations Against Macros
|
Posted - 2008.03.27 01:32:00 -
[59]
Edited by: MongWen on 27/03/2008 01:34:02 Ok, many good views here, i like the idea off the op.. but why dont we make high sec a "Pink Fluffy lala land" where everyone is safe ? it seems its the way it is going...
in short changes like the stuff will hopfully not happen, since it may hemper to many players play style...
- concord boost destroys people form doing damgae to high sec farmers. (and i know there is no 100% way to tell if they are farmers)
- New Players will loose out with changes that affect payouts due to loss
- Players that loose thair ship due to shooting the wrong target. (due to lag or desync)
Originally by: LaVista Vista Well, a start would be to remove insurance from suicide-ganking.
Yes in a waty it whood calm it down a bit but going on the forums whining about it, has the opposite effect, since people will do it more since people will whine...
for the record yes i have been suicided, yes i have done it.
------------------------- Vote MongWen For The CMS. ------------------------- Opinions are my opinions. They do not reflect view of UCAM, if it is not stated |
Bellum Eternus
Death of Virtue Sex Panthers
|
Posted - 2008.03.27 01:47:00 -
[60]
Originally by: F'nog I'm all for suicide ganking, it's a legitimate tactic as along as it isn't with disposable alts, so bear that in mind, though I don't partake in it (I've been tempted to with some of the rewards and stupid setups I've seen).
In the old days, maybe in Beta, sec status was supposed to mean something. Back then, positive sec was supposed to make a difference. Currently, there's no difference between 0 and 5 other than a number on the screen.
So what about if the victim's sec affected how fast Concord responds? So if you have a higher sec, Concord responds faster than a lower, depending on the sec of the system?
Thus people with high standing with Concord get responded to faster? This could add certain variables to the equation other than just the system's sec.
I'm just throwing this out there. Feel free to rip it apart (with evidence). It would be nice if there were something to show for having a positive standing, and this is one possible way to do it.
Having Concord respond to attacks if people have higher standing with Concord is fail. That is all. The logic is self evident.
Bellum Eternus [Vid] L E G E N D A R Y [Vid] L E G E N D A R Y I I |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |