Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Avon
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.03.27 08:53:00 -
[61]
Originally by: Ben Derindar 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
Sounds reasonable.
Eve-Online: The Text Adventure |
Cirro Morceratu
Aeon Of Strife
|
Posted - 2008.03.27 09:19:00 -
[62]
Edited by: Cirro Morceratu on 27/03/2008 09:20:09
Originally by: Lurana Jade
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.
I believe I'm misunderstood here, I'm hardly that guy who wants to lure carebears into low sec. If anything I'm the carebear, I spend most of my time running missions in high sec
So why did I post that? Because I am not against pvp, but I rarely get around to it because I see very little gain (profit) in doing it. If I would need high sec status to protect myself in empire, that would be extra reason to avoid pvp since any sec hit would make me more vulnerable in empire.
I like doing missions, but I wouldn't want pvp to be counterproductive to missionrunning, and I'm afraid that's what this suggestion would mean.
Perhaps I'm wrong and I misunderstand the way sec hits in pvp work, in that case feel free to correct me.
|
Matthew
BloodStar Technologies
|
Posted - 2008.03.27 13:16:00 -
[63]
Originally by: Avon 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.
You do realise how exploitable this would be, right?
Criminals would hire themselves out as sec-repairing punchbags (or make an alt for the job to allow really cheap poddings). With a decent supply of shuttles, a decent fee per kill allowed, you'd have a good business going that would let people restore sec status far faster and far safer than ratting.
I like the idea of larger sec penalties for attacking people with higher sec statuses, and smaller ones for people with lower sec statuses. But allowing it to flip over to a sec status bonus is just too open to abuse.
Originally by: Avon 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.
There would have to be a base constant modifier, otherwise the noob systems would be a perpetual massacare. All noobs pop out with 0.0 sec status, in ships that can be destroyed with a good sneeze. With no sec status penalty for killing them, and minimal loss in terms of ships, there would be people who spent all day shooting noobs just for laughs.
Personally, I'd see the scale running from a maximum penalty when the victim is +5 sec, a "normal" penalty when they are zero sec, down to zero penalty when the victim is -5 sec, and capped at zero down to -10 sec (given that -5 is when you can shoot them freely anyway). ------- There is no magic Wand of Fixing, and it is not powered by forum whines. |
Avon
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.03.27 13:41:00 -
[64]
Edited by: Avon on 27/03/2008 13:43:35
Originally by: Matthew Post
Like I said, I don't do the numbers :P
N00b blasting probably wouldn't be that much of an issue, and certainly not in starter systems, because it is already against the rules. In a system that allows security loss and gain there is always going to be a flipping point - a point of zero or minimal loss or gain. If pushed I would want that to be around -2, the point where players start having access to hi-sec space restricted .. but that is a question of balance.
As to people hiring themselves out to be shot at .. great. They get to sit there and profit from their bad reputation, whilst hoping you are honest enough not to go for the big gain and pod them. No issue.
With the absolute balance, I don't really mind too much how the numbers fall. Maybe they should depend on the difference of both players sec status, or have constants to modify them, or be adjusted on a non-linear scale .. but they are all number tweaks, a matter of balance, not design.
Eve-Online: The Text Adventure |
Nephiam
Quantum Industries Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2008.03.27 13:46:00 -
[65]
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?
Yes, but there is nothing wrong with my sec status so I can get Insurance - it is the people wth no regard to sec status that should be flagged Criminal and be refused the right to do business with the insurance company
|
Avon
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.03.27 13:50:00 -
[66]
Originally by: Nephiam
Yes, but there is nothing wrong with my sec status so I can get Insurance - it is the people wth no regard to sec status that should be flagged Criminal and be refused the right to do business with the insurance company
That isn't what people are asking for. They are saying that anyone killed by Concord should forfeit their insurance, whereas you are saying people with a low security status should - there is quite a big difference.
Eve-Online: The Text Adventure |
Matthew
BloodStar Technologies
|
Posted - 2008.03.27 14:02:00 -
[67]
Originally by: Avon In a system that allows security loss and gain there is always going to be a flipping point - a point of zero or minimal loss or gain. If pushed I would want that to be around -2, the point where players start having access to hi-sec space restricted .. but that is a question of balance.
I could go with that, though it would be a bit odd to get a security gain for a gank you still got concorded for.
Originally by: Avon As to people hiring themselves out to be shot at .. great. They get to sit there and profit from their bad reputation, whilst hoping you are honest enough not to go for the big gain and pod them. No issue.
It wouldn't just be people hiring themselves out though. Anyone with multiple accounts (or even two co-operating corp mates) could get themselves a no-skill criminal alt (made criminal by repeatedly shooting an alt on the other account, in noob frigates) on each account, and use those to quickly and cheaply crank their main and their other alt to a very high sec status.
The only way this could be at all balanced is if the sec status bonus from killing a criminal player was capped at a really, really low amount, and subject to the same timers as the NPC gains. Popping your own alt should never be more effective than hunting down a decent spawn in 0.0 space. Otherwise the only characters with negative sec would be alts or people wearing it as a status symbol. ------- There is no magic Wand of Fixing, and it is not powered by forum whines. |
Avon
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.03.27 14:16:00 -
[68]
Originally by: Matthew
The only way this could be at all balanced is if the sec status bonus from killing a criminal player was capped at a really, really low amount, and subject to the same timers as the NPC gains. Popping your own alt should never be more effective than hunting down a decent spawn in 0.0 space. Otherwise the only characters with negative sec would be alts or people wearing it as a status symbol.
Unfortunatley every change in Eve has to be balanced for bloody alts ... grrr...
I guess the correct solution is to have the sec increase reward decrease as the attackers sec status increases. Use the difference between the attacker and victim sec status as a divisor for the increase. Again, throw numbers in to balance as required.
Eve-Online: The Text Adventure |
Hekilo Tetsatz
Crimson Rebellion Cold Star Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.03.27 14:32:00 -
[69]
Edited by: Hekilo Tetsatz on 27/03/2008 14:34:12
Originally by: MongWen in short changes like the stuff will hopfully not happen, since it may hemper to many players play style...
Many players play style doesn't include being ganked, but no one seems to worried about them being hampered.
Quote:
- 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)
Yes, because if there is one thing suicide ganking has accomplished, it is bringing the farming industry to its knees.
Quote: 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)
I always find this argument a bit bizarre. We're supposed to believe that removing insurance pay outs when popped by Concorde is a horrible idea because it will horribly discourage new players and penalize innocent people who make mistakes.
But when those same new players are being ganked or robbed, or make a mistake and get can flipped by people they have no real means of retaliating against they are supposed to be...what? Overjoyed that they got to experience EVE the way it was meant to be played?
|
Avon
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.03.27 14:36:00 -
[70]
Originally by: Hekilo Tetsatz
But when those same new players are being ganked or robbed, or make a mistake and get can flipped by people they have no real means of retaliating against they are supposed to be...what? Overjoyed that they got to experience EVE the way it was meant to be played?
You're right. Insurance payouts for people who get killed because they got can flipped should be stopped too. I mean, they are choosing to PvP, just like suicide gankers, right?
Eve-Online: The Text Adventure |
|
Hamfast
Lightfoot Industries
|
Posted - 2008.03.27 15:17:00 -
[71]
Originally by: Avon
Originally by: Matthew
The only way this could be at all balanced is if the sec status bonus from killing a criminal player was capped at a really, really low amount, and subject to the same timers as the NPC gains. Popping your own alt should never be more effective than hunting down a decent spawn in 0.0 space. Otherwise the only characters with negative sec would be alts or people wearing it as a status symbol.
Unfortunatley every change in Eve has to be balanced for bloody alts ... grrr...
I guess the correct solution is to have the sec increase reward decrease as the attackers sec status increases. Use the difference between the attacker and victim sec status as a divisor for the increase. Again, throw numbers in to balance as required.
Crap... another factor...
I still like the idea that you can gain status (perhaps to 0.0) by attacking characters with lower security, but the alt abuse potential has to be taken into account... --------*****--------
Learn and be informed, because a Politicians worst nightmare is an informed voter...
So choose your CSM Candidates wisely
|
Hekilo Tetsatz
Crimson Rebellion Cold Star Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.03.27 15:35:00 -
[72]
Originally by: Avon
You're right. Insurance payouts for people who get killed because they got can flipped should be stopped too. I mean, they are choosing to PvP, just like suicide gankers, right?
Unless I missed something in the patch notes you don't get popped by Concord for being can flipped.
|
Hamfast
Lightfoot Industries
|
Posted - 2008.03.27 15:57:00 -
[73]
Avon and Matthew,
Question for you... (In an attempt to get around the alt abuse issue) How about if the Security gain base was limited to the difference between the attacker and the Target or 0.0 which ever is smaller... (As the base modifier is currently the difference between your current sec status and -10 (going down) or +10 (going up))
I know there has to be a problem...
--------*****--------
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 - 2008.03.27 16:06:00 -
[74]
Originally by: Hekilo Tetsatz
Originally by: Avon
You're right. Insurance payouts for people who get killed because they got can flipped should be stopped too. I mean, they are choosing to PvP, just like suicide gankers, right?
Unless I missed something in the patch notes you don't get popped by Concord for being can flipped.
I never said you did. If you didn't understand the context of my reply then I apologise, I thought it was pretty clear.
Eve-Online: The Text Adventure |
Avon
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.03.27 16:07:00 -
[75]
Originally by: Hamfast Avon and Matthew,
Question for you... (In an attempt to get around the alt abuse issue) How about if the Security gain base was limited to the difference between the attacker and the Target or 0.0 which ever is smaller... (As the base modifier is currently the difference between your current sec status and -10 (going down) or +10 (going up))
I know there has to be a problem...
I'll let Matthew comment on that, he is far better at the details than me.
Eve-Online: The Text Adventure |
Jawas
The Scope
|
Posted - 2008.03.27 19:02:00 -
[76]
Edited by: Jawas on 27/03/2008 19:04:51
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.
I think you missed the point entirely. Yes, it would decrease the frequency of suicide ganking but people looking to do it would be more likely to aim for targets that would produce a profit after the cost of their ship was covered. No point in shooting a mining barge and getting only 1 million in ore if you're going to lose a 3 million ship doing it.
At the moment, it's the victim that loses every time. The gankers get the loot and their insurance so if they only make 1 million from the loot, it's a gain. However, recent ganks on Exhumers shows that insurance for the T2 ships is not reasonable. While the ganker gets the entire payout for a T1 which is often higher than they paid for the ship, the victim gets only 50% or less. When you consider the price of Exhumers, that's a loss of 50+ million even without the cargo. This also applies to Freighters which are a big slow invitation to gank just for the sheer hell of it. Hehe, the victim just lost 750 million and that's even if their hold was empty. Work it out: 1 billion or so + platinum insurance then look at the platinum insurance payout. It doesn't take a math genius to work out that a victim of suicide ganking stands to lose far more than the ganker even if insurance wasn't paid to the ganker.
The victim of the suicide attack should be paid the insurance on their own ship plus compensation (compensation being the payment of insurance that would have gone to the ganker). It would make the suicide attacker more choosy of their targets and at least allow the victim to recover most of the cost of the ship. It still hurts because you lose all the cargo but at least you have more chance to replace your ship. If you only lost a T1 ship, you gain some extra isk as a compensation for the loss.
I've played for a few years in Empire space and I can tell you it's hard to make 750 million back in any reasonable time if you lose it. Even mining takes 3 or 4 days to make 100 million and that's if you can find roids bigger than pebbles any more. I cleared an entire belt with a T2 fitted Hulk and a hauler alt, it took 7 hours and I made a massive 32 million Oh joy, I could have made more running lvl3 missions in the same time. Consequently, I don't bother mining any more.
-- Sig design in training: Remaining time 30 years 20 days, 4 hours, 10 mins, 15 seconds. |
000Hunter000
Missiles 'R' Us
|
Posted - 2008.03.27 19:12:00 -
[77]
Originally by: Avon I wouldn't, seriously. There are ways to address this situation, but this is not a solution, no matter how much people want to think it is.
On the surface it seems fairer, but really it would only serve to punish genuine mistakes, whilst making no difference to the people who choose to suicide gank.
I lolled, u seriously don't believe these gankers with their, what is it now? 20 to 30 domies? don't calculate insurance into the equation? u can bet ur ass that all of those domies are insured to the fullest when they pop that freighter. _______________________________________________________ CCP, let us pay the online shop with Direct Debit!!!
|
Ioci
Ioci Exploration Apotheosis of Virtue
|
Posted - 2008.03.27 19:19:00 -
[78]
T2 Sentry Guns That Pod.
|
Overwhelmed
Center for Advanced Studies
|
Posted - 2008.03.27 19:35:00 -
[79]
OP = Excellent idea. This alt approves.
The only thing I would add is that high sec status should reasonably decay, possibly with every time they are summoned, so people can't ride on a cloud forever after grinding it up.
|
WMD
State War Academy
|
Posted - 2008.03.27 20:17:00 -
[80]
removing the insurance payout will not stop me from suiciding a hauler in highsec. stop thiking that. all that means is i make a bit less profit, or it means i use different ships and tactics.
having sec status mean something, maybe, but that is a different subject entirely. suicide ganking is a game mechanic, and if someone is stupid enough to haul tons of valuables in a T1 hauler on autopilot, it is THEIR mistake and they deserve to lose it.
its perfectly easy to fit a ship well and warp to 0 and not give a suicider a chance to even scan you.
think about the old west days, if you ran around with a stack of gold in an open buggy with one slow horse and you trotted past a group of train robbers... youre gunna get fcking robbed!!! now if you have a closed buggy and 5 fast horses, those robbers wont be able to catch you and they dont be able to see whats inside.
suiciders make attacks of oportunity. if you present one, you are a target, if you use your brain and avoid the robbers you KNOW are there, you are safer. making their profit margin slightly less will not stop anything.
|
|
Matthew
BloodStar Technologies
|
Posted - 2008.03.27 21:47:00 -
[81]
Originally by: Avon I guess the correct solution is to have the sec increase reward decrease as the attackers sec status increases. Use the difference between the attacker and victim sec status as a divisor for the increase. Again, throw numbers in to balance as required.
That would help against them building up a high security status, but it wouldn't be as effective against the gankers who tend to just oscillate between -2 and 0.
If we must have security status bonuses in the system, then I'd say the size of them should be scaled by security status of the system, with the reward increasing as sec status decreases, so that it reflects the same scaling as that available via ratting (even if you are helping, vigilantism is likely to be frowned on in systems that they are trying to keep completely orderly (i.e 1.0), but strongly encouraged in the border regions where they don't have the assets to patrol themselves). If you keep the bonuses available in each system comparable between player rats and the NPC rats generally found there, and apply the same timer to both to limit the rate of increases applied, then alt-ganking shouldn't give too much advantage. Of course that would also mean that hunting players for their sec status isn't that attractive an option.
Originally by: Hamfast Question for you... (In an attempt to get around the alt abuse issue) How about if the Security gain base was limited to the difference between the attacker and the Target or 0.0 which ever is smaller... (As the base modifier is currently the difference between your current sec status and -10 (going down) or +10 (going up))
I know there has to be a problem...
The problem with that alone is that you could still get a big "kick" out of alt-ganking when the difference is large, which would be a great way to start off your sec recovery, even if you then moved to ratting when the difference became smaller. ------- There is no magic Wand of Fixing, and it is not powered by forum whines. |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |