EVE Search - The state of Highsec

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

The state of Highsec

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Ecrir Twy'Lar Federation Navy 3rd Fleet 13	Posted - 2015.09.24 18:02:07 - [1] - Quote TLDR: Suggested changes for the criminal system that would make ganking more fun for all and wardec system that would give incentive for experience players to move out into lowsec and nullsec for their content. I recently read about how some believe the population of Eve Online is in decline when for many years it was always growing. I feel like Eve has always lost players on a regular basis. But would regain many after some large battle received media coverage. It's too bad we have to constantly bleed subscription numbers the way we do. I work with a lot of gamers and I often try to recruit people to Eve. However, 90% of the time people just shake their head. This game has a reputation and no matter how good our community can be (I think it's one of the best), this reputation hurts the game. The number one reason I cannot recruit more people to this game is non-consensual PvP. Don't get me wrong, I don't think non-consensual PvP should be removed. It's what makes Eve Online the game it is. But, there are mechanics in this game that people are taking advantage of that sometimes just adds frustration for new players trying to survive in a game that is already difficult to learn to play. I think Highsec was meant to be "relatively" safe. Which is fine, it provides a place for players to get comfortable with the game before they move out into Lowsec , Null and WH space. The first thing I would change is the criminal justice system. Highsec shouldn't be more safe for criminals who don't undock until they have a target located and passively scanned using a non-criminal alt. These criminals are using game mechanics to protect themselves from the very thing they are inflicting on others. Criminals should not be able to dock up in systems where they are supposed to be banned from. I suggest a new system where a criminal cannot dock or keep a clone in any system with a security rating higher than their own security status deducted from 1 (Excluding Lowsec). For example, if a player has a security status of -2, he/she couldn't dock (or keep a clone) in a system with a security status higher than .8, -3 security .7, etc. Players should also not be able to log out in these same systems. If you disconnect, sorry your ship will remain there and be vulnerable to attack. Life can be tough for pirates making trips into high security space. This would keep criminals out where they can be hunted. They will have to actively evade those who want to hunt them while in Highsec. The second thing I would do is remove the tags which repair security status. If you want to repair your security status, you should have to complete missions for concord or another faction similar to how you repair standings. I would also like to see bounty payments adjusted based on the security status of the defeated player. The lower their security status, the higher the bounty payment. Of course this should never exceed the value of the ship for obvious reasons. The next system I would change is the wardec system. Currently we have corporations that spend their time wardec'ing any and all corporations they see as convenient targets. If you want to PvP, you really should be moving out into lowsec , null and WH space. It's like watching that race car driver who doesn't want to move into the next class because he doesn't want to give up his winning streak with the rookies. It goes something like this: Corp A wardec's corp B, C and D. Then they hang out at the local trade hub and other places they are likely to encounter their war targets. While their war targets either dock up or lose ships. If they dock up for the week and lose no ships, maybe Corp A will get bored and choose to not continue the wardec the following week. If they put together a fleet to fight, Corp A calls all their buddies and puts together a larger fleet made up with 50% logi and station camps them. In the end, there is still very little PvP. Just one corp inflating their egos to make up for the fact that they can't survive out where skilled pilots live. Wardec's should only be possible after some sort of trigger. Like maybe a pilot getting kill rights on a player from another corporation. Or maybe some theft that involves a pilot receiving suspect status after looting a can. When pilots can no longer get easy kills in Highsec, they will start looking for them in lowsec , null and WH space. This would provide more fights for everyone.
Danika Princip GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 3841	Posted - 2015.09.24 18:21:06 - [2] - Quote All together now! *Just one more nerf and it'll be balanced!*
Maldiro Selkurk CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X 509	Posted - 2015.09.24 18:28:30 - [3] - Quote 1. If you are a criminal you should not be allowed to dock. 2. wardecs are fine. 3. sec status should not be repairable at all, you made a choice deal with the consequences. Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
Vic Jefferson Stimulus Rote Kapelle 617	Posted - 2015.09.24 18:49:50 - [4] - Quote Ecrir Twy'Lar wrote: incentive for experience players to move out into lowsec and nullsec for their content. You have at least this much right, sort of. Antagonists go where bad-guy content can be created. So to motivate them to move to low, NPC null, or sov-null, there have to be players there to shoot at. Low and NPC null should be made vastly more attractive to new players, and should reward them for taking risks, but it currently doesn't, so most people either stay in Hi Sec, or join the zerg in the form of Karmafleet, Pandemic Horde, etc. Hunting in sov null isn't for everyone mostly because, well most of it is empty, and the places that aren't are extremely well defended. You can't blame Antagonists for taking the path of least resistance to the biggest killmails. The trick is to incentive people moving out of Hi Sec, which helps many facets of the game simultaneously. Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM XI
Ecrir Twy'Lar Federation Navy 3rd Fleet 14	Posted - 2015.09.24 20:57:16 - [5] - Quote Vic Jefferson wrote: Ecrir Twy'Lar wrote: incentive for experience players to move out into lowsec and nullsec for their content. You can't blame Antagonists for taking the path of least resistance to the biggest killmails. The trick is to incentive people moving out of Hi Sec, which helps many facets of the game simultaneously. I think no matter how much incentive you provide, if they can get free kills with no risk in Highsec, that's what they are going to do.
Frostys Virpio KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 2252	Posted - 2015.09.24 21:17:01 - [6] - Quote Danika Princip wrote: All together now! *Just one more nerf and it'll be balanced!* Well technically, it they choose the right nerf, it could happen. I won't happen but it indeed could take only 1 more. And yes, this is trolling but this thread is so bad I don't feel bad for it.
Zan Shiro Alternative Enterprises 779	Posted - 2015.09.24 22:37:02 - [7] - Quote Ganks in empire are part of CCP's economic controls OP. WH, low sec, 0.0....in theory they make their billions of isk but they also lose a few ships in the process as well. this is control. My usual example. One time in 0.0 I solo bagged a prechange officer spawn. Over a billion payout just like that once drop sold off. this a few years when 1 billion isk was 1 billion isk. Good ole days. When 2-3 billion in the wallet had you a space rich player. Now...I am lower middle class upper lower class with that few billion...sigh. And not even 2 weeks later I burned half of that easily on pvp losses. Give and take. I was given 1 billion, the game took some of that back. I wrote it off as offerings to the eve gods. They gave me a lot, I gave back a little to keep the karma flowing. Some isk barrons break this theory, yes. Many though live paycheck to paycheck as it were. Enter empire. Enter a world where no non-consensual pvp. Bears would make isk with little to no risk. Since after you learn how to missions run well...you don't die in missions much anymore. this would jack up the economy (more). enter the ganker. The pvp you won't agree to lose some isk for the billions you are making, they will force you into it. Put another way....if you won't lose your 250mil for every couple billion you make by choice they will make it happen regardless. Thus order restored to the economy in some way.
Ecrir Twy'Lar Federation Navy 3rd Fleet 14	Posted - 2015.09.24 23:07:30 - [8] - Quote Zan Shiro wrote: Ganks in empire are part of CCP's economic controls OP. WH, low sec, 0.0....in theory they make their billions of isk but they also lose a few ships in the process as well. this is control. My usual example. One time in 0.0 I solo bagged a prechange officer spawn. Over a billion payout just like that once drop sold off. this a few years when 1 billion isk was 1 billion isk. Good ole days. When 2-3 billion in the wallet had you a space rich player. Now...I am lower middle class upper lower class with that few billion...sigh. And not even 2 weeks later I burned half of that easily on pvp losses. Give and take. I was given 1 billion, the game took some of that back. I wrote it off as offerings to the eve gods. They gave me a lot, I gave back a little to keep the karma flowing. Some isk barrons break this theory, yes. Many though live paycheck to paycheck as it were. Enter empire. Enter a world where no non-consensual pvp. Bears would make isk with little to no risk. Since after you learn how to missions run well...you don't die in missions much anymore. this would jack up the economy (more). enter the ganker. The pvp you won't agree to lose some isk for the billions you are making, they will force you into it. Put another way....if you won't lose your 250mil for every couple billion you make by choice they will make it happen regardless. Thus order restored to the economy in some way. Maybe you didn't read the post. I never suggested stopping gankers. I just think they shouldn't have sanctuary in highsec stations.
Zhaceera Armerarram World Traders Guild Channel 9	Posted - 2015.09.24 23:28:10 - [9] - Quote The same repertoir. "CCP this, CCP that". The whats of crime and the way hisec is really does not contribute to the problem. There is only one thing that is the problem of virtually anything dealing with justice: it is not justice, it is vengeance. You see, people are not rewarded by doing what is considered right any time a person doing what is considered wrong is given a safe guard. As repent do not repair the damage of a sinner, and second time exam dont make people get taste for study, forgiveness dont dissuade criminals. There is one unique change to the system that would equate conditions for criminals and non criminals, bear with their choices. By choosing to be a loyalist, I give up piracy profits, I give up the sovs, the nulls, the big things that make a name in EVE, in order to be only one more in service of my empire. The lesser thing that empire would do to honor my commitment is to not forgive those who repeatedly squander its space. That is the only thing wrong. Wardecs arent the problem, the system of crime flagging is not wrong. The only thing wrong is that you can over and over again get back being trusted and do it again and again. The only change that need to be made, as the population of EVE clearly surpass 3 fold from the time it is the way it is, is that criminals must bear the loss for their acts in hisec. In old times, perhaps this would make virtually half of players be banned from hisec for good. Today there are much more players, much more corps and etc. There is no reason to keep forgiving the enemies of a given empire by just shooting some couple hundreds of NPCs. That one single change would just make everything else make sense. Edit.: On a second thought, maybe the idea of changing wardec sounds good. But the thing that would make sense is consider an aggressor who destroy no ship for 2 weeks be considered loser of a war and be banned from wardecing the same corp for a time. "If justice is not for everyone, it is for no one."
Zan Shiro Alternative Enterprises 779	Posted - 2015.09.24 23:36:54 - [10] - Quote Ecrir Twy'Lar wrote: Maybe you didn't read the post. I never suggested stopping gankers. I just think they shouldn't have sanctuary in highsec stations. The sanctuary is one of the bene's ccp gives to let them do their job. Long ago they removed insurance for this as well, don't look gift horses in the mouth really.

Ecrir Twy'Lar Federation Navy 3rd Fleet 14	Posted - 2015.09.24 23:47:38 - [11] - Quote Zan Shiro wrote: Ecrir Twy'Lar wrote: Maybe you didn't read the post. I never suggested stopping gankers. I just think they shouldn't have sanctuary in highsec stations. The sanctuary is one of the bene's ccp gives to let them do their job. Long ago they removed insurance for this as well, don't look gift horses in the mouth really. I really think you are missing my whole point. There is an opportunity for quite a bit of fun here. Gankers playing out their bad guy lifestyle while evading other players and giving other players someone they can hunt.
Serendipity Lost Repo Industries 1386	Posted - 2015.09.25 00:17:05 - [12] - Quote Incoming misquote of CCP saying ganking is good for retention. I like the can't dock/log in a system where you are a criminal. If you're a hard -10 sec status I don't see it as that big a deal needing to go to a low sex station to log off. It kind of makes sense that a known criminal wouldn't be able to 'live' in a system where he is a criminal. This is actually a nice change and doesn't nerf ganking. No ganking mechanics are touched. It just adds depth to the game and allows criminals to live where criminals live. The other stuff is totally over the top and a bad idea, but the docking thing is actually very reasonable. I'd go a bit deeper and if a criminal uses a fleet hangar then the owner of the fleet hanger gets a yellow card for helping a known criminal. I wouldn't concord him, just give put him yellow flashy as a consequence for helping a known criminal. I see these changes as obvious common sense. Don't nerf ganking, but aknowledge that a criminal is a criminal. Now that I think about it, it's kind of bizzare that a criminal gets hounded by the authorities on the one hand, but can dock as an obvious criminal in the same system. It's just kind of dumb and not tied to any realistic logic. Criminals living in low sec is probably the reasonable thing to do. I can hear an incoming outcry about diconnects and losing your stuff that way. That also seems reasonable. It's a part of the choice to be a criminal. I deal with it all the time. I do wh capital escallations. If the triage carrier pilot disconnects - we lose him and the rest of the fleet to npc. That's just how it works out. We know it and accept the risk. I see no reason to keep unrealistic game mechanics just for the sake of 'bad internet connections'. I don't see where a real true eve criminal would be upset about needing to live in low sec where criminals are supposed to live. The war dec idea is pure garbage. Not being able to repair sec status is also pure garbage - if there is a means to lower sec status then there needs to be a means to raise it. Ignore the OPs garbage but consider the actual realistic and good idea about docking.
Ecrir Twy'Lar Federation Navy 3rd Fleet 14	Posted - 2015.09.25 00:25:39 - [13] - Quote Serendipity Lost wrote: Incoming misquote of CCP saying ganking is good for retention. I like the can't dock/log in a system where you are a criminal. If you're a hard -10 sec status I don't see it as that big a deal needing to go to a low sex station to log off. It kind of makes sense that a known criminal wouldn't be able to 'live' in a system where he is a criminal. This is actually a nice change and doesn't nerf ganking. No ganking mechanics are touched. It just adds depth to the game and allows criminals to live where criminals live. The other stuff is totally over the top and a bad idea, but the docking thing is actually very reasonable. I'd go a bit deeper and if a criminal uses a fleet hangar then the owner of the fleet hanger gets a yellow card for helping a known criminal. I wouldn't concord him, just give put him yellow flashy as a consequence for helping a known criminal. I see these changes as obvious common sense. Don't nerf ganking, but aknowledge that a criminal is a criminal. Now that I think about it, it's kind of bizzare that a criminal gets hounded by the authorities on the one hand, but can dock as an obvious criminal in the same system. It's just kind of dumb and not tied to any realistic logic. Criminals living in low sec is probably the reasonable thing to do. I can hear an incoming outcry about diconnects and losing your stuff that way. That also seems reasonable. It's a part of the choice to be a criminal. I deal with it all the time. I do wh capital escallations. If the triage carrier pilot disconnects - we lose him and the rest of the fleet to npc. That's just how it works out. We know it and accept the risk. I see no reason to keep unrealistic game mechanics just for the sake of 'bad internet connections'. I don't see where a real true eve criminal would be upset about needing to live in low sec where criminals are supposed to live. The war dec idea is pure garbage. Not being able to repair sec status is also pure garbage - if there is a means to lower sec status then there needs to be a means to raise it. Ignore the OPs garbage but consider the actual realistic and good idea about docking. LOL. The docking part is in the original post. I am not against ganking. Everyone just reads a line or two and makes the assumption that I am.
Danika Princip GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 3843	Posted - 2015.09.25 00:35:16 - [14] - Quote Ecrir Twy'Lar wrote: Maybe you didn't read the post. I never suggested stopping gankers. I just think they shouldn't have sanctuary in highsec stations. So is the part where you make all the current methods people use to gank impossible not a proposal for a seriously heavy handed nerf? Or the part where you essentially remove mercenary groups and make pocos and pos in highsec basically immortal? Is that not a nerf to those playstyles too? If you're not against ganking, maybe you shouldn't be asking for it to be made so much harder to do?
Ecrir Twy'Lar Federation Navy 3rd Fleet 14	Posted - 2015.09.25 00:41:19 - [15] - Quote Danika Princip wrote: Ecrir Twy'Lar wrote: Maybe you didn't read the post. I never suggested stopping gankers. I just think they shouldn't have sanctuary in highsec stations. So is the part where you make all the current methods people use to gank impossible not a proposal for a seriously heavy handed nerf? Or the part where you essentially remove mercenary groups and make pocos and pos in highsec basically immortal? Is that not a nerf to those playstyles too? If you're not against ganking, maybe you shouldn't be asking for it to be made so much harder to do? Hard to do? To hunt down a ganker you would have to combat scan him down and catch him. This change would basically require he be at the keyboard and actively watch for someone hunting for him. No worse than being in low or null imo.
Danika Princip GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 3843	Posted - 2015.09.25 00:48:10 - [16] - Quote You outline the methods gankers currently use in your OP. You then state that that method would be made impossible. Please explain how that is not a tremendously heavy nerf. Do you particularly enjoy rolling safes or something? because that's what any ganker waiting for a target is going to have to be doing. As well as evading the inevitably smartbomb camps on every relevant lowsec entrance near niarja or udema. And why are you ignoring every comment made about your nerfs to wardecs?
Ecrir Twy'Lar Federation Navy 3rd Fleet 14	Posted - 2015.09.25 00:49:45 - [17] - Quote I did consider suggesting nerfing the Concord mechanics to make it more of a fight with the possibility of escape. But thought that it could maybe get a bit out of hand and people would flip out.
Ecrir Twy'Lar Federation Navy 3rd Fleet 14	Posted - 2015.09.25 00:53:01 - [18] - Quote Danika Princip wrote: You outline the methods gankers currently use in your OP. You then state that that method would be made impossible. Please explain how that is not a tremendously heavy nerf. Do you particularly enjoy rolling safes or something? because that's what any ganker waiting for a target is going to have to be doing. As well as evading the inevitably smartbomb camps on every relevant lowsec entrance near niarja or udema. And why are you ignoring every comment made about your nerfs to wardecs? So gankers unlike everyone else shouldn't be bothered by gate camps or being hunted at safe spots? I didn't respond to your opinion on wardecs because I accepted your opinion on that part.
Danika Princip GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 3843	Posted - 2015.09.25 00:58:18 - [19] - Quote You DO know that gankers with low sec status are hunted by faction police, right? As in, if you're sitting still in a safespot, they will warp in, tackle you and kill you? And that people already camp gates and stations waiting for flashy reds to come through? Can you explain why ganking needs another round of massive nerfs, rather than just proposing them?
Ecrir Twy'Lar Federation Navy 3rd Fleet 14	Posted - 2015.09.25 01:05:47 - [20] - Quote Danika Princip wrote: You DO know that gankers with low sec status are hunted by faction police, right? As in, if you're sitting still in a safespot, they will warp in, tackle you and kill you? And that people already camp gates and stations waiting for flashy reds to come through? Can you explain why ganking needs another round of massive nerfs, rather than just proposing them? Can you explain why they should have sanctuary in the systems they are considered criminals in?

Danika Princip GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 3843	Posted - 2015.09.25 01:08:53 - [21] - Quote That's the way the game has worked since the start. You're the one asking for the massive change, justify it.
Ecrir Twy'Lar Federation Navy 3rd Fleet 14	Posted - 2015.09.25 01:16:12 - [22] - Quote Danika Princip wrote: That's the way the game has worked since the start. You're the one asking for the massive change, justify it. I already explained my reasoning. But you are making me feel like a bully. I guess I should feel bad for picking on the poor gankers. They have it so rough after all.
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 2529	Posted - 2015.09.25 01:58:55 - [23] - Quote Ecrir Twy'Lar wrote: I already explained my reasoning. But you are making me feel like a bully. I guess I should feel bad for picking on the poor gankers. They have it so rough after all. The problem is you are focusing on the stick and punishing gankers. The Gankers lobby group have this issue also, they focus on the stick wanting to nerf the Industrialist so they are better bait. The best solution focuses on making it more fun for everyone involved by making people feel like they have reasonable options that don't boil down to 'run multiple accounts or just don't be there scrub' like the gankers 'but you have options' rhetoric actually comes out as. To achieve this of course requires getting rid of the whole 'cargo ships must be weak and easy to kill' mentality and going back to the days of the Spanish main when cargo ships actually had heavy armour, large crews and lots of guns. And from there giving EVE Industrial ships equivalent PG/CPU & slots to their same size 'combat' counterparts. Just not the combat bonuses.
Ecrir Twy'Lar Federation Navy 3rd Fleet 14	Posted - 2015.09.25 02:06:09 - [24] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: Ecrir Twy'Lar wrote: I already explained my reasoning. But you are making me feel like a bully. I guess I should feel bad for picking on the poor gankers. They have it so rough after all. The problem is you are focusing on the stick and punishing gankers. The Gankers lobby group have this issue also, they focus on the stick wanting to nerf the Industrialist so they are better bait. The best solution focuses on making it more fun for everyone involved by making people feel like they have reasonable options that don't boil down to 'run multiple accounts or just don't be there scrub' like the gankers 'but you have options' rhetoric actually comes out as. To achieve this of course requires getting rid of the whole 'cargo ships must be weak and easy to kill' mentality and going back to the days of the Spanish main when cargo ships actually had heavy armour, large crews and lots of guns. And from there giving EVE Industrial ships equivalent PG/CPU & slots to their same size 'combat' counterparts. Just not the combat bonuses. I think if you don't want your ship ganked, you should protect it. If you are solo, hire protection and pass the cost off to your customers. This is why it is already so expensive to ship outside of highsec. I am not asking for any changes to the ganking mechanics. I just don't think criminals should have sanctuary in highsec stations.
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 2529	Posted - 2015.09.25 02:08:02 - [25] - Quote 1. Ganking in the EVE sense is highsec only, anywhere else it's just PvP. 2. In Highsec you can't effectively protect against Ganking, the Gankers cries to the contrary. 3. Yes you are focusing on the stick to try and 'punish' gankers.
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. 14473	Posted - 2015.09.25 02:13:45 - [26] - Quote Ecrir Twy'Lar wrote: If you want to PvP, you really should be moving out into lowsec , null and WH space. No to each and every thing in your post for a lot of reasons, but especially this. EVE Online is a PvP game first, last, and always. And that means that PvP belongs everywhere in EVE Online, including highsec. If you don't want to PvP, quit. You will not be missed. "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.
Ecrir Twy'Lar Federation Navy 3rd Fleet 14	Posted - 2015.09.25 02:20:40 - [27] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: 1. Ganking in the EVE sense is highsec only, anywhere else it's just PvP. 2. In Highsec you can't effectively protect against Ganking, the Gankers cries to the contrary. 3. Yes you are focusing on the stick to try and 'punish' gankers. You are making me feel like I need to defend gankers now. LOL. But I really don't want to get into a debate over whether or not you can defend against ganking. When I am hacking data and relic sites almost everyone in system wants to get me. Do they succeed? Yeah, sometimes. But if I am paying attention, they more than likely won't. If they do, i have to get back to where i can get another ship or I can get podded for a free ride back. I don't think this is an unreasonable situation and I don't think it would be much worse for gankers under my proposal.
Ecrir Twy'Lar Federation Navy 3rd Fleet 14	Posted - 2015.09.25 02:25:23 - [28] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Ecrir Twy'Lar wrote: If you want to PvP, you really should be moving out into lowsec , null and WH space. No to each and every thing in your post for a lot of reasons, but especially this. EVE Online is a PvP game first, last, and always. And that means that PvP belongs everywhere in EVE Online, including highsec. If you don't want to PvP, quit. You will not be missed. Can you point out where I said I wanted some pvp removed?
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. 14474	Posted - 2015.09.25 02:35:30 - [29] - Quote Ecrir Twy'Lar wrote: Can you point out where I said I wanted some pvp removed? Sure thing. Quote: Maybe the wardec part... but my point was that most wardecs involve little actual pvp. Just station camping. That's PvP. PvP is defined solely as Player Vs Player. So whether you like it or not, it is PvP. You just want to try and define it otherwise to make the dishonest claim that you are not trying to remove PvP, which you very much are. "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.
Iain Cariaba 1812	Posted - 2015.09.25 03:16:34 - [30] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: 1. Ganking in the EVE sense is highsec only, anywhere else it's just PvP. 2. In Highsec you can't effectively protect against Ganking, the Gankers cries to the contrary. 3. Yes you are focusing on the stick to try and 'punish' gankers. 1: As provided by definitions.net: Gank (verb) - To kill, ambush, or defeat with little effort; used in online games. So, when a fleet of ships hotdrops a ratter in null, or a roam drops in on some FW plexing frig and blaps it, those are examples of ganks. Ganking is not exclusive to highsec. 2: Four years I've had a freighter in highsec, never lost it. I've been a highsec mission runner off and on for my entire EvE career, never been ganked. It is quite easy to protect yourself from gankers, just ask them how and most of them will be happy to explain it to you. Hell, they even write guides and post them online, just google it. (Before you accuse me of it, I am not a ganker. I tried it and didn't find it to my liking.) 3. No comment. EvE is hard. It's harder if you're stupid. I couldn't have said it better. Will troll for a t-shirt.

Serendipity Lost Repo Industries 1388	Posted - 2015.09.25 03:52:20 - [31] - Quote Criminals should not be allowed to dock up. If you want to dock you should be in a system where you are not flagged as a criminal. It's reasonable that if a player can spacewarp arcross a galaxy, concord can detect any and all violations within all of HS and LS then some minimum wage docking manager can see a red flashy thing on his dashboard and push the SCRE YOU SCUMBAG button to prevent a known criminal from docking in the station he is managing. It's kind or rediculous that the docking manager can time and police agression not only outside his station, but anywere in eve (I can get a timer Hek hit a HS > HS wh and be prevented from docking in Motsu) right down to the second, but can't figure out that this clearly labelled bad guy is a bad guy. Dearest CONCORD, For the love of all that is fair and just, give docking managers a small raise and train them that flashy red is actually worse than flashy yellow and get this docking oversight fixed once and for all. Suncerly, Every reasonable pilot in eve
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 1660	Posted - 2015.09.25 07:50:43 - [32] - Quote Ecrir Twy'Lar wrote: Wardec's should only be possible after some sort of trigger. Like maybe a pilot getting kill rights on a player from another corporation. Or maybe some theft that involves a pilot receiving suspect status after looting a can. When pilots can no longer get easy kills in Highsec, they will start looking for them in lowsec , null and WH space. This would provide more fights for everyone. Let's start with wardecs. Wardecs are suppose to be there there to enable ships PvP in highsec. There is a clear progression intended in the game design: Low risk -----------------------------------> High risk Low reward <------------------------------ High reward NPC Corps -> Player Corps -> Lowsec -> Nullsec You, as a player get to choose how much risk you are willing to expose yourself in turn for increasing rewards. The risk increases as you move up the scale. Nullsec has no restrictions, while lowsec has lack of bubbles, gate guns and disincentives to pod people. Player corps come with the benefits of deploying structures and a few other perks over the NPC corp, but with the responsibility you will have to defend them from wardeccers. They allow limited combat in highsec, between a limited number of known opponents with 24h notice. More risk for more reward. You are not forced to join a player corp. You are not forced to defend a player corp. It is your choice to do so, and it is always an option to leave a corporation. If you don't want to deal with warp disruption bubbles, you don't go to nullsec. If you don't want to deal with wardecs, then you do not join/form a players corp. It's as simple as that. You have to make a choice: this game is about tradeoffs. As to you not liking station games, they are a product of how the game has been designed and are not a phenomenon just restricted to wardecs. Stations are central to fights in places where they are present because of their tactical importance. Perhaps the new docking/undocking mechanics of the new citadels will change this situation, but really removing/nerfing wardecs because you don't like station games is not a logical solution. Now for ganking, you propose locking criminals out of highsec, removing the security tags, and scaling the bounty system. The third proposal is strange as bounties are not related to security status in any way. I can place a bounty of the 5.0 security status miner that is stealing "my" ore, or the positive status director that cleaned out my corp hanger. Bounties are a tool in the sandbox anyone can use against anyone else. Why should it be attached to security status which describes your relationship with CONCORD? Besides, the bounty payout at 20% is are already near the maximum payout possible without be exploitable due to insurance. There isn't much room to increase it. Security tags were only added to the game a few years ago. All they enable is one player to trade the time to grind status to another for ISK. Expect more of these mechanics not less like something similar for faction standing. Such mechanics stimulate the economy, create professions and allow players to interact more efficiently. Besides, the only way to attack an NPC corp member in highsec is by suicide ganking. Why should someone who just wants to take out a rival miner say, be locked out of attacking them unless they are willing to grind something they don't want to do? CCP currently working to remove excess grinding. These systems allow players who like grinding "sell" that effort to others for ISK and is better for the game overall as everyone is doing what they find most fun. And finally, the oft-proposed lock gankers out of highsec. This is just a straight up nerf to gankers. It will do little to stop ganking, just make it even more difficult for new gankers to get started. It would make an Orca/Bowhead alt near mandatory, something almost all professional gankers have but not new gankers starting out, and add a few minutes travel time in an empty pod for the ganker, for no gain in engaging gameplay. Trying to shoot/smartbomb an empty pod in the era of no clone costs will tire very quickly for anti-gankers when they realize they are doing nothing. More NPC enforced hoops aren't going to stop ganking, just make the game more tedious for them. Why should CCP do that if it doesn't make the game better in anyway? If they think ganking is "too easy" CCP will balance the EHP of the target ships so they are more costly to gank. If they want players to be safe highsec, they would just lock out offensive weapons in highsec. But just ramping up the tedium on gankers for engaging in what is intended gameplay is nonsensical. CCP explicitly coded suicide ganking into the game. They have confirmed this many times. Criminals are suppose to exist as a profession to provide some risk in highsec. CCP is not going spend all the time coding in the ability for criminals to exist only to make it so boring/grindy/tedious that no players do it. You are intended to have to protect yourself from criminals in this game and have more than enough tools to do so. Learn how to do that and stop asking CCP to change the game in your favour because you cannot be bothered to.
Corraidhin Farsaidh Farsaidh's Freeborn 1685	Posted - 2015.09.25 09:12:09 - [33] - Quote Serendipity Lost wrote: Criminals should not be allowed to dock up. If you want to dock you should be in a system where you are not flagged as a criminal. It's reasonable that if a player can spacewarp arcross a galaxy, concord can detect any and all violations within all of HS and LS then some minimum wage docking manager can see a red flashy thing on his dashboard and push the SCREW YOU SCUMBAG button to prevent a known criminal from docking in the station he is managing. It's kind or rediculous that the docking manager can time and police agression not only outside his station, but anywere in eve (I can get a timer Hek hit a HS > HS wh and be prevented from docking in Motsu) right down to the second, but can't figure out that this clearly labelled bad guy is a bad guy. Dearest CONCORD, For the love of all that is fair and just, give docking managers a small raise and train them that flashy red is actually worse than flashy yellow and get this docking oversight fixed once and for all. Suncerly, Every reasonable pilot in eve Actually I wouldn't mind criminals not being able to doc in NPC stations but allowed to dock in a POS. Then the gankers would need to be in a player corp, have assets in space and be vulnerable to wardecs. This would really give any industry corp a means by which to retaliate if they so wished.
Serendipity Lost Repo Industries 1389	Posted - 2015.09.25 09:17:46 - [34] - Quote Did you just try to say that null sec should be high reward because it's high risk? Unless you live in npc null that's just crazy talk. NPC corp >player corp > low sec > null sec Let's call the first 2 apples and the second 2 oranges. Now let's all take as step back and try to find some logic in that progression. I just don't see anything logical. I agree that his war dec idea is totally bad, but ffs, don't mix apples and oranges - you're just confusing my side of the arguement. His ganking idea is pretty spot on. He's not locking gankers out of HS, he's just saying criminals shouldn't be allowed to dock where they are hunted criminals (see above letter to concord). It's pretty sound. It's both reasonable and logical. You can still conduct ganking ops where ever you like. You just can't dock if you're a criminal in that space. Take me - occaisionally I gank mission cream puffs. My sec status is high enough that I am not a criminal. So, once my criminal timer clears I can dock. If I go negative and become a full time criminal in a systems given sec status (-2 for 1.0 systems and so on down the line to -5 in 0.5 systems) then I have to go to progressively lower sec systems to dock. You can get up at 8:00 every morning and commute to HS and start your ganking job at 9:00 - most of the world already commutes to work - criminals working in HS should be no different. Again - NOT LOCKED OUT, just have to dock and log w/ the criminals if you are a criminal. It's really a no brainer. Don't distort what he's saying into something it's not and then argue about the myth you created. (thanks) Repairing sec status - has to be available. If you can go down you can go up and vice versa. Has to work both ways. Quiit yammering about it being TEDIOUS if you have to go 5 jumps to get to your ganking system. Look at the other side of the coin. Getting ganked is also TEDIOUS. You have to go re-ship and all that other stuff. I think it's fair play if you have to go a little out of your way considering your chosen profession is to force others to go out of their way (reship and repod and all that). It's ludicris to call 5 jumps tedious for you and not be able to aknowledge that ganking me is also tedious for me.
Serendipity Lost Repo Industries 1389	Posted - 2015.09.25 09:25:35 - [35] - Quote Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote: Serendipity Lost wrote: Criminals should not be allowed to dock up. If you want to dock you should be in a system where you are not flagged as a criminal. It's reasonable that if a player can spacewarp arcross a galaxy, concord can detect any and all violations within all of HS and LS then some minimum wage docking manager can see a red flashy thing on his dashboard and push the SCREW YOU SCUMBAG button to prevent a known criminal from docking in the station he is managing. It's kind or rediculous that the docking manager can time and police agression not only outside his station, but anywere in eve (I can get a timer Hek hit a HS > HS wh and be prevented from docking in Motsu) right down to the second, but can't figure out that this clearly labelled bad guy is a bad guy. Dearest CONCORD, For the love of all that is fair and just, give docking managers a small raise and train them that flashy red is actually worse than flashy yellow and get this docking oversight fixed once and for all. Suncerly, Every reasonable pilot in eve Actually I wouldn't mind criminals not being able to doc in NPC stations but allowed to dock in a POS. Then the gankers would need to be in a player corp, have assets in space and be vulnerable to wardecs. This would really give any industry corp a means by which to retaliate if they so wished. See, this is a fair and balanced idea. On one hand you could argue that the starbase charters you use for HS pos could prevent criminals from entering the shields. That's plausable, but unreasonable. Now this proposal has real merit. If a criminal wants the luxury of docking in HS then he must provide an asset that could be counter attacked. This would give the criminal a choice - commute from low sex OR put an actual asset out in space that could be destroyed. There is a lot of beauty in this simple idea. White knights would have something more than a t1 destroyer to go after. Actual pvp (the real kind where both sides show up to fight) might actually happen from time to time. So the POS charters would only allow 'in corp' criminals docking rights. No name npc criminals would be out of luck. LOL this falls into the apples and oranges progression that pedro spoke of. Gankers would have to graduate from no risk npc corps to player corps with attackable assets in space. What say you about this idea mighty risk vs reward pedro?
Madd Adda 125	Posted - 2015.09.25 09:25:44 - [36] - Quote Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote: Actually I wouldn't mind criminals not being able to doc in NPC stations but allowed to dock in a POS. Then the gankers would need to be in a player corp, have assets in space and be vulnerable to wardecs. This would really give any industry corp a means by which to retaliate if they so wished. i second this. Carebear extraordinaire
Samillian Angry Mustellid Decayed Orbit 1004	Posted - 2015.09.25 09:38:10 - [37] - Quote Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote: Actually I wouldn't mind criminals not being able to doc in NPC stations but allowed to dock in a POS. Then the gankers would need to be in a player corp, have assets in space and be vulnerable to wardecs. This would really give any industry corp a means by which to retaliate if they so wished. Works for me, not only does it seem reasonable but as a LowSec pirate I'd be more than happy to see the increase in ~~targets~~......err.....traffic. NBSI shall be the whole of the Law
Tappits North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion 177	Posted - 2015.09.25 09:45:01 - [38] - Quote Maldiro Selkurk wrote: 3. sec status should not be repairable at all, you made a choice deal with the consequences. That would be fine but this game lasts for years and years and it would be a super bad game decision if something you did in 2004/2005 was un changeable years down the line.... People change what some one did a few years ago might not be there play stile now.
Corraidhin Farsaidh Farsaidh's Freeborn 1687	Posted - 2015.09.25 09:59:05 - [39] - Quote Tappits wrote: Maldiro Selkurk wrote: 3. sec status should not be repairable at all, you made a choice deal with the consequences. That would be fine but this game lasts for years and years and it would be a super bad game decision if something you did in 2004/2005 was un changeable years down the line.... People change what some one did a few years ago might not be there play stile now. Besides there were many examples of pirates turning King's privateer, it should be no different in Eve (that and someone could buy a character on the bazaar and want to move up to hisec with it).
Caleb Seremshur Gladiators of Rage RAZOR Alliance 657	Posted - 2015.09.25 10:31:31 - [40] - Quote Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote: Tappits wrote: Maldiro Selkurk wrote: 3. sec status should not be repairable at all, you made a choice deal with the consequences. That would be fine but this game lasts for years and years and it would be a super bad game decision if something you did in 2004/2005 was un changeable years down the line.... People change what some one did a few years ago might not be there play stile now. Besides there were many examples of pirates turning King's privateer, it should be no different in Eve (that and someone could buy a character on the bazaar and want to move up to hisec with it). If you can't dock in NPC stations in high as a red then definitely they need to keep tags in the game as that's a major reason to fly in lowsec AND the rats there aren't quite exactly push overs. The minimum investment to kill one isn't too high but still enough to make ganking a guy running for clones good money, and then getting the tag youself. Veteran and solo/small gang PVP advocate.

Black Pedro Yammerschooner 1660	Posted - 2015.09.25 10:43:39 - [41] - Quote Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote: Actually I wouldn't mind criminals not being able to doc in NPC stations but allowed to dock in a POS. Then the gankers would need to be in a player corp, have assets in space and be vulnerable to wardecs. This would really give any industry corp a means by which to retaliate if they so wished. I agree that these new structures could open some interesting gameplay like that. Problem with your idea is that the new structures will allow anyone to dock. Criminals will be able to use structures put up by third parties as well as ones installed by their alts/associates meaning it may not always be clear who to wardec. But since docking can be restricted as well it could open up some interesting game play where some station owners allow criminals and some do not. So perhaps down the road, when we have an ecosystem of player stations, it might be feasible to lock gankers out of NPC stations but you still have the problem that is where their stuff ends up if the citadel is taken down or destroyed so I am guessing it will never happen. But these new structures are going to be a real boon for gankers it looks like. They will serve as unassailable staging posts with this new docking/undocking invulnerability - no more risk on the undock. Gone are the days of setting up insta-docking and undocking bookmarks. They also eliminate the need for a dedicated Orca alt. They can be placed in systems without stations eliminating the only real vulnerability window for a -10 ganker which is taking a gate, and can easily be taken down in the event of a wardec. And depending how people choose to set them up you can just use another corp's citadel and not even worry about catching a wardec: it will be interesting to see how people set them up. They will also simplify logistics for ganking organizations who can use them to dispense ganking ships across New Eden by using private markets. Every ganker can set one up with an alt corp and share them with the greater collective meaning it will be impossible or at least expensive to wardec them all. But I guess there will be some in-space vulnerabilities now which could drive some fights. All-in-all though, It's a good time to be a ganker.
Zhaceera Armerarram World Traders Guild Channel 15	Posted - 2015.09.25 10:54:43 - [42] - Quote Misquoting CCP and adding own conclusions without clearly implying so is like a full time ocupation of some people here. The "Amarr" Logic. God exists, and you gotta prove it does not. LoL "If justice is not for everyone, it is for no one."
Corraidhin Farsaidh Farsaidh's Freeborn 1687	Posted - 2015.09.25 11:13:28 - [43] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote: Actually I wouldn't mind criminals not being able to doc in NPC stations but allowed to dock in a POS. Then the gankers would need to be in a player corp, have assets in space and be vulnerable to wardecs. This would really give any industry corp a means by which to retaliate if they so wished. I agree that these new structures could open some interesting gameplay like that. Problem with your idea is that the new structures will allow anyone to dock. Criminals will be able to use structures put up by third parties as well as ones installed by their alts/associates meaning it may not always be clear who to wardec. But since docking can be restricted as well it could open up some interesting game play where some station owners allow criminals and some do not. So perhaps down the road, when we have an ecosystem of player stations, it might be feasible to lock gankers out of NPC stations but you still have the problem that is where their stuff ends up if the citadel is taken down or destroyed so I am guessing it will never happen. But these new structures are going to be a real boon for gankers it looks like. They will serve as unassailable staging posts with this new docking/undocking invulnerability - no more risk on the undock. Gone are the days of setting up insta-docking and undocking bookmarks. They also eliminate the need for a dedicated Orca alt. They can be placed in systems without stations eliminating the only real vulnerability window for a -10 ganker which is taking a gate, and can easily be taken down in the event of a wardec. And depending how people choose to set them up you can just use another corp's citadel and not even worry about catching a wardec: it will be interesting to see how people set them up. They will also simplify logistics for ganking organizations who can use them to dispense ganking ships across New Eden by using private markets. Every ganker can set one up with an alt corp and share them with the greater collective meaning it will be impossible or at least expensive to wardec them all. But I guess there will be some in-space vulnerabilities now which could drive some fights. All-in-all though, It's a good time to be a ganker. The structures won't be able to be torn down before a wardec kicks in I think but this will need to be considered. Even without gankers being locked out of NPC stations they will all move over to these structures anyway in the above scenario for the simplicity they offer. This will all need balancing very carefully since as discussed elsewhere an XL station may well be unassailable in hisec without a reasonably sized alliance. Since these structures won't need rigs fitted etc just to operate as a staging post and no longer need fuel to operate then the pirates only need to pay the initial outlay and have a gunnery alt sat on the guns for vulnerability defence. This could actually make for some great ganker/pirate/white knight gameplay but it could also be a horrible fustercluck if it isn't balanced right. In terms of where would the stuff in the station go I'd suggest there are two cases for loot handling: a) the safety mechanic of the magical loot fairy's. This would be required for stations to be feasable as trading posts and outposts otherwise nobody will use them. Would be appropriate for hisec (with maybe good standings to limit it) , losec and null stations. b) situations where NPC's aren't available/won't touch you with a bargepole i.e. pirates in hisec and stations in WH's. In this case the personal hangar is in effect a warp enabled cloaked container. On destruction of the station it launches away to a random point which is logged as any planetary launch is. This allows pilots to still recover their stuff but takes more effort and risk as befits their living space/sec status choice. It also makes sense lorewise :)
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 1660	Posted - 2015.09.25 12:09:17 - [44] - Quote Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote: The structures won't be able to be torn down before a wardec kicks in I think but this will need to be considered. Even without gankers being locked out of NPC stations they will all move over to these structures anyway in the above scenario for the simplicity they offer. This will all need balancing very carefully since as discussed elsewhere an XL station may well be unassailable in hisec without a reasonably sized alliance. Since these structures won't need rigs fitted etc just to operate as a staging post and no longer need fuel to operate then the pirates only need to pay the initial outlay and have a gunnery alt sat on the guns for vulnerability defence. This could actually make for some great ganker/pirate/white knight gameplay but it could also be a horrible fustercluck if it isn't balanced right.) No, it was pretty clear from the blogs you can scoop a citadel at anytime. Of course the design is clearly in flux, but the original blog said that if undamaged they can be scooped whenever you'd like but that will immediately start a one vulnerability window after which it can be scooped. Plenty of time during the 24h run up to a war to pull in your staging posts. You would lose your rigs, but as you pointed out you don't need any rigs for a mere staging post. It highlights a fundamental problem for carebears: almost every safety mechanic they propose and/or get put into the game can also be used by those that wish them harm. Safety for them equals safety for the pirates too. Still, I agree with you that if these structures are implemented correctly they could generate tons of fun content, not just between gankers and anti-gankers, but even between the law-abiding citizens of highsec themselves. They hold much promise to revitalize the game. So OP, let's see how these structures play out and then you can try again in a year or two your proposal to get your opponents banned from highsec.
Philip Ogtaulmolfi We are not bad. Just unlucky The Bastion 28	Posted - 2015.09.25 12:20:45 - [45] - Quote If you want to incentivize people to leave High Sec, just forbid ganking and wardecs. The high sec carebears will stay, whatever you do, but perhaps you will get a few of the HS gankers to grow a pair and move where people shoots back. But it is not significant. As Pedro said in another thread, there s only a few of them.
Khan Wrenth Ore Oppression Prevention and Salvation 233	Posted - 2015.09.25 12:31:14 - [46] - Quote Make highsec interesting again... Remove sec status completely from the game. No more criminals. Just players. Double the time it takes for Concord to react across the board. ???? Profit. Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
Corraidhin Farsaidh Farsaidh's Freeborn 1687	Posted - 2015.09.25 12:57:06 - [47] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: No, it was pretty clear from the blogs you can scoop a citadel at anytime. Of course the design is clearly in flux, but the original blog said that if undamaged they can be scooped whenever you'd like but that will immediately start a one vulnerability window after which it can be scooped. Plenty of time during the 24h run up to a war to pull in your staging posts. You would lose your rigs, but as you pointed out you don't need any rigs for a mere staging post. ... True, I still have it in my head there is a 24 hr cooldown but it looks like that is on anchoring (this really needs proper clarification from the devs). Personally I think the cooldown should be prior to unanchoring rather than anchoring so that wardecs mean you will have a structure in space when it starts no matter what.
Ecrir Twy'Lar Federation Navy 3rd Fleet 15	Posted - 2015.09.25 13:50:25 - [48] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote: The structures won't be able to be torn down before a wardec kicks in I think but this will need to be considered. Even without gankers being locked out of NPC stations they will all move over to these structures anyway in the above scenario for the simplicity they offer. This will all need balancing very carefully since as discussed elsewhere an XL station may well be unassailable in hisec without a reasonably sized alliance. Since these structures won't need rigs fitted etc just to operate as a staging post and no longer need fuel to operate then the pirates only need to pay the initial outlay and have a gunnery alt sat on the guns for vulnerability defence. This could actually make for some great ganker/pirate/white knight gameplay but it could also be a horrible fustercluck if it isn't balanced right.) No, it was pretty clear from the blogs you can scoop a citadel at anytime. Of course the design is clearly in flux, but the original blog said that if undamaged they can be scooped whenever you'd like but that will immediately start a one vulnerability window after which it can be scooped. Plenty of time during the 24h run up to a war to pull in your staging posts. You would lose your rigs, but as you pointed out you don't need any rigs for a mere staging post. It highlights a fundamental problem for carebears: almost every safety mechanic they propose and/or get put into the game can also be used by those that wish them harm. Safety for them equals safety for the pirates too. Still, I agree with you that if these structures are implemented correctly they could generate tons of fun content, not just between gankers and anti-gankers, but even between the law-abiding citizens of highsec themselves. They hold much promise to revitalize the game. So OP, let's see how these structures play out and then you can try again in a year or two your proposal to get your opponents banned from highsec. With the current system a POS can be removed before a war has started. Seems to me that it would be better to allow the owner to remove it than grind it down. Does anyone actually like that? Btw, I know reading comprehension isn't what it used to be. But if you bothered to read what I wrote you might understand that I am NOT trying to remove gankers from highsec. My intention is to make it more of a cat and mouse game where they actually have to evade other players rather than just dock up in the sanctuary of a highsec station.
Ecrir Twy'Lar Federation Navy 3rd Fleet 15	Posted - 2015.09.25 13:56:31 - [49] - Quote Philip Ogtaulmolfi wrote: If you want to incentivize people to leave High Sec, just forbid ganking and wardecs. The high sec carebears will stay, whatever you do, but perhaps you will get a few of the HS gankers to grow a pair and move where people shoots back. But it is not significant. As Pedro said in another thread, there s only a few of them. I don't want ganking removed. Not sure where you got that idea.
Ecrir Twy'Lar Federation Navy 3rd Fleet 15	Posted - 2015.09.25 14:00:10 - [50] - Quote Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote: Black Pedro wrote: No, it was pretty clear from the blogs you can scoop a citadel at anytime. Of course the design is clearly in flux, but the original blog said that if undamaged they can be scooped whenever you'd like but that will immediately start a one vulnerability window after which it can be scooped. Plenty of time during the 24h run up to a war to pull in your staging posts. You would lose your rigs, but as you pointed out you don't need any rigs for a mere staging post. ... True, I still have it in my head there is a 24 hr cooldown but it looks like that is on anchoring (this really needs proper clarification from the devs). Personally I think the cooldown should be prior to unanchoring rather than anchoring so that wardecs mean you will have a structure in space when it starts no matter what. Why would it be different than it is now? If you get wardec'd, you can remove your POS before the war starts. I find it hard to believe that the new citadels will be easier to destroy than current POS. I don't know why anyone would want to do that when the option to just move in is there. If you want to just destroy someone's valuable stuff, there has to be much more fun options out there. lol

Black Pedro Yammerschooner 1661	Posted - 2015.09.25 14:21:01 - [51] - Quote Ecrir Twy'Lar wrote: Btw, I know reading comprehension isn't what it used to be. But if you bothered to read what I wrote you might understand that I am NOT trying to remove gankers from highsec. My intention is to make it more of a cat and mouse game where they actually have to evade other players rather than just dock up in the sanctuary of a highsec station. Your proposal is literally to prevent gankers from docking or logging out in a highsec system. How is that not trying to remove them from highsec? I think you need to think your proposal through just a little. I appreciate that might not be your intention, but the obvious consequence of such a change is that there would be less gankers in highsec. Your proposal would just mean they would dock up in lowsec instead of highsec, and then fly their empty pod in when the criminal timer was up to meet their Orca alt to get a new ship just before the next gank. And even if your "cat" caught the likely empty pod, the gankers lose nothing. It would do nothing to make the game better or drive conflict, just slightly more tedious for current criminals, and more difficult for aspiring criminals to get into the business. If such a proposal has any hope, it must require gankers to use structures or something else so that they are vulnerable to retaliation.
Ecrir Twy'Lar Federation Navy 3rd Fleet 15	Posted - 2015.09.25 15:31:00 - [52] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: Ecrir Twy'Lar wrote: Btw, I know reading comprehension isn't what it used to be. But if you bothered to read what I wrote you might understand that I am NOT trying to remove gankers from highsec. My intention is to make it more of a cat and mouse game where they actually have to evade other players rather than just dock up in the sanctuary of a highsec station. Your proposal is literally to prevent gankers from docking or logging out in a highsec system. How is that not trying to remove them from highsec? I think you need to think your proposal through just a little. I appreciate that might not be your intention, but the obvious consequence of such a change is that there would be less gankers in highsec. Your proposal would just mean they would dock up in lowsec instead of highsec, and then fly their empty pod in when the criminal timer was up to meet their Orca alt to get a new ship just before the next gank. And even if your "cat" caught the likely empty pod, the gankers lose nothing. It would do nothing to make the game better or drive conflict, just slightly more tedious for current criminals, and more difficult for aspiring criminals to get into the business. If such a proposal has any hope, it must require gankers to use structures or something else so that they are vulnerable to retaliation. Now these are some good points. Don't want to force the use of orca or bowhead. I don't know that forcing them to use structures is right either. My point wasn't about retaliation. It was about the fun of trying to chase/hunt them. Maybe if there was a way they would benefit by not docking up instead of stopping them from docking up? My initial idea was to get rid of the concord mechanic, but prevent them from docking and making them trackable for a time period to make players hunt them instead of Concord. But then I imagined them forming large fleets and all hell breaking loose. LOL.
Zhaceera Armerarram World Traders Guild Channel 16	Posted - 2015.09.25 16:23:40 - [53] - Quote All the hisec drama from a chunk of the players is based on flawed premisses: - Not CCP, not logic, nor observation shows that people like to be in non-stop conflicts. Logic and observation even dictates that the more the people play per session, the less prone they are to ratio conflict above anything else ingame. (Which means people who only like conflict usually play for a short while, do some fight, log off, and complain about people who have either more time or willingness to make longer sessions not combat drvien). That can be easly verified by the fact that no matter how much Devs stir conflicts, people in the big political schemes of EVE tend to achieve equilibrium. The very own efforts from CCP to incentivate conflict comes from that acessment. - As stated before, it was said by CCP in a post that the line on the sand is draw among other places, in that the only way to avoid wars altogether is to remain in a NPC corp. Which is always misquoted as that being the "most" they can do, but actually, if that wasnt the intention, they would have no reason to make that so. So there is a way that CCP allows people to not go to war. Sacrifice the "wonders" of player run corps in exchange for a tax that is the charge of your "protection". Allied to the scheme of sec status it clear states a message: This is the model the game persues until changed. - As you have non combative people who lives pratically 100% of the time, sometimes 6 or 7 hours daily in Uedama, Sivala, just for the thrill of being there. There are people who logs and stays in 1.0 status for hours, activelly, talking, doing stuff and whatever, who you can safely assume likes the gameplay they are entrenched into. So still flawed premisse that everyone seeks to go to places where things get messy. So you can clearly see that there are sections of the playerbase that interact in different levels, and altho some do not part take in armed fight, they are no less responsible for paying subs or farming isk for plex sellers than anyone else, and therefore, by any standards, entitled to their space under the rules in place. If for some reason CCP had, or will have, considered any of those franchised players undesireable, they would have had taken measures to eliminate their niches. The fact that they didnt, and instead, clearly made the lines well drawn, is that you have to understand that those players have their voices listened as anyone else. And there is a clear message that different gameplays overlap but they are not intended for those different areas. You ssek the industrial path, you can get the EVE version of cap level never leaving the hisec, and that has nothing to do with the state of other places, as these players would rather play another game if forced to change their desired gameplay. There are mercs and other fighters who enjoy the percs of hisec, and they also can evolve without leaving hisec. Probably eliminating their niche would make them leave rather than move to a gameplay they would not want. And as I said before, it is non-sense to say what people would do without providing a reason for believing so, and there it is: We know people likes, supports and tolerate different things. There are people who cant tolerate the idea of paying for someone else's joy in a game. There are people who cant tolerate paying to be forced to what they dont want to. There are people who cant tolerate be without rules or rules that are not enforced ideally. That I dont say taking my example, because being a good Matari, I endure the changes to make what I have what I like. So I really dont care what happens elsewhere as long as my slice of heaven can still be just that. Wont say how long so people dont get all cheesy, but at least for 2 years that have been a good deal for me here. I stopped playing tons of games, and so did many people I know, and thousands of Youtubers, Redditers, Bloggers in General, because of the toleration level, not the like level. That is the main thing that lacks in the sense people make from numbers and statements. People dont leave games they play for 5, 6 months or more because they suddenly did something they dont like. There must be something they dont tolerate. If there wasnt the level of attachment to the game, you would have left much earlier. So that is the reason why changes must take into account the gameplay people do and gameplay people tolerate, all of them. The main reason for aknowledging everyone is that, for the most part, in the sandbox, everyone else gives the part of gameplay a given person likes. You may not be aware of that, but directly or indirectly, the guy who dont like combat and stays in his hisec very protected part of eve contributes to the possibility of you having your high octane borderline lowsec pvp fest. So think better about what other people may like or want, because removing that may affect you and you wont like it. And CCP indulging those selfish accessment would endup displeasing you and them, leaving CCP with neither. CCP knows that, and when you dont, you usually endup unheard, and think that is stupidity from devs, but it is not. "If justice is not for everyone, it is for no one."
Ecrir Twy'Lar Federation Navy 3rd Fleet 15	Posted - 2015.09.25 16:34:02 - [54] - Quote How about this: Due to increased criminal activity, Concord has made the decision to move most assets to higher security space. This will lower response times in systems with security levels of .7 and higher. However Concord will now only respond in .5 and .6 security systems in extreme situations (See below). To help manage criminal activities in systems with .5 and .6 security levels, Concord is enlisting the help of capsuleers. When an attack occurs in a .5 or .6 system Concord immediately launches a drone to the site and places a beacon on the criminals hull. This beacon will transmit coordinates to all nearby capsuleers who can then warp to and engage the criminal. If any criminal attempts to dock at any station or leave the system while this beacon is active (Maybe 15-60 minutes?), they will be immediately disabled and shot on sight. If any two or more beacons come in close proximity to each other, the beacons will escalate and Concord ships will respond. This would give criminals the possibility of not losing their ship in exchange for the opportunity for other pilots to engage them for a period of time. This also gives highsec miners a safer location to mine if they stick to .7 security systems and above. But, if they want more profit, they can take the risk and mine in .5 and .6 systems. To be honest, this would be quite a nerf to miners. So maybe belts in .5 and .6 systems should get a buff. The reason I would prevent criminals from being in close proximity to each other is because I think they would fly more capable ships if they know they have a fighting chance to keep them. If they are allowed to form ganking fleets with no Concord response... Well I think it would no longer be high security space. As it is, this may actually be TOO much of a buff to criminals. But what do you all think?
Zhaceera Armerarram World Traders Guild Channel 18	Posted - 2015.09.25 17:13:12 - [55] - Quote The Caldared States style politic logic again ? "We will be cutting quarters and diminishing the effectiveness of something in order to make it better. So, we will allow criminals to do their activities in more borderline zones to justify the excuse that criminality is rising in order to make people think we are actually better in what we are doing worse. But it does not matter, because we already educated people on how to interpret numbers so they wont know how it works, and the few who does, we call conspiracy teorists, or plain old, terrorists." While promising competitive times and lots of challenge, effectivelly just downgrading the quality of life for everyone, which will only be marginally tolerable to the masses who already live in difficult situations, while just taking the 13th bean from the plates of those who entrenches in the top side. Dont really know if that works in a place where people can just "run away" tho. "If justice is not for everyone, it is for no one."
Ecrir Twy'Lar Federation Navy 3rd Fleet 15	Posted - 2015.09.25 17:40:09 - [56] - Quote Zhaceera Armerarram wrote: The Caldared States style politic logic again ? "We will be cutting quarters and diminishing the effectiveness of something in order to make it better. So, we will allow criminals to do their activities in more borderline zones to justify the excuse that criminality is rising in order to make people think we are actually better in what we are doing worse. But it does not matter, because we already educated people on how to interpret numbers so they wont know how it works, and the few who does, we call conspiracy teorists, or plain old, terrorists." While promising competitive times and lots of challenge, effectivelly just downgrading the quality of life for everyone, which will only be marginally tolerable to the masses who already live in difficult situations, while just taking the 13th bean from the plates of those who entrenches in the top side. Dont really know if that works in a place where people can just "run away" tho. So you like the idea, right?
Ecrir Twy'Lar Federation Navy 3rd Fleet 16	Posted - 2015.09.25 18:16:59 - [57] - Quote Ecrir Twy'Lar wrote: How about this: Due to increased criminal activity, Concord has made the decision to move most assets to higher security space. This will lower response times in systems with security levels of .7 and higher. However Concord will now only respond in .5 and .6 security systems in extreme situations (See below). To help manage criminal activities in systems with .5 and .6 security levels, Concord is enlisting the help of capsuleers. When an attack occurs in a .5 or .6 system Concord immediately launches a drone to the site and places a beacon on the criminals hull. This beacon will transmit coordinates to all nearby capsuleers who can then warp to and engage the criminal. If any criminal attempts to dock at any station or leave the system while this beacon is active (Maybe 15-60 minutes?), they will be immediately disabled and shot on sight. If any two or more beacons come in close proximity to each other, the beacons will escalate and Concord ships will respond. This would give criminals the possibility of not losing their ship in exchange for the opportunity for other pilots to engage them for a period of time. This also gives highsec miners a safer location to mine if they stick to .7 security systems and above. But, if they want more profit, they can take the risk and mine in .5 and .6 systems. To be honest, this would be quite a nerf to miners. So maybe belts in .5 and .6 systems should get a buff. The reason I would prevent criminals from being in close proximity to each other is because I think they would fly more capable ships if they know they have a fighting chance to keep them. If they are allowed to form ganking fleets with no Concord response... Well I think it would no longer be high security space. As it is, this may actually be TOO much of a buff to criminals. But what do you all think? Edit or... Could limit these rules to .5 security systems only. Maybe the beacon could put a few second cooldown on the criminals warp drive and there could be a new criminal skill that would reduce the cooldown. Haha Actually.. with this system, I may want to be a criminal. If I don't get too many holes poked in this one, I may update my original post.
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. 14478	Posted - 2015.09.25 18:23:26 - [58] - Quote Serendipity Lost wrote: See, this is a fair and balanced idea. No it's not. Just like yours, it's a selfish demand to handcuff the player freedom of people you don't like. "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.
Zhaceera Armerarram World Traders Guild Channel 18	Posted - 2015.09.25 18:56:46 - [59] - Quote Ecrir Twy'Lar wrote: Zhaceera Armerarram wrote: The Caldared States style politic logic again ? "We will be cutting quarters and diminishing the effectiveness of something in order to make it better. So, we will allow criminals to do their activities in more borderline zones to justify the excuse that criminality is rising in order to make people think we are actually better in what we are doing worse. But it does not matter, because we already educated people on how to interpret numbers so they wont know how it works, and the few who does, we call conspiracy teorists, or plain old, terrorists." While promising competitive times and lots of challenge, effectivelly just downgrading the quality of life for everyone, which will only be marginally tolerable to the masses who already live in difficult situations, while just taking the 13th bean from the plates of those who entrenches in the top side. Dont really know if that works in a place where people can just "run away" tho. So you like the idea, right? Ofc not. I am South Matarian, I hate Caldared States ideas. LOL "If justice is not for everyone, it is for no one."
Mag's the united 20262	Posted - 2015.09.25 19:35:35 - [60] - Quote So can the OP explain what problem he is trying to fix? I'm not seeing it. Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.

Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. 14489	Posted - 2015.09.25 19:37:08 - [61] - Quote Mag's wrote: So can the OP explain what problem he is trying to fix? I'm not seeing it. As best I can tell, he thinks the problem is that PvP still exists. Fortunately for every real player, he's out of luck in that. "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.
Mag's the united 20262	Posted - 2015.09.25 19:40:52 - [62] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Mag's wrote: So can the OP explain what problem he is trying to fix? I'm not seeing it. As best I can tell, he thinks the problem is that PvP still exists. Fortunately for every real player, he's out of luck in that. Ah so PvP, in a PvP centric game, is bad and we should feel bad. Good to know. Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. 14490	Posted - 2015.09.25 20:35:55 - [63] - Quote Mag's wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Mag's wrote: So can the OP explain what problem he is trying to fix? I'm not seeing it. As best I can tell, he thinks the problem is that PvP still exists. Fortunately for every real player, he's out of luck in that. Ah so PvP, in a PvP centric game, is bad and we should feel bad. Good to know. Of course. And it cannot possibly be that he's just playing the wrong game. "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.
Vic Jefferson Stimulus Rote Kapelle 618	Posted - 2015.09.25 23:43:49 - [64] - Quote Ecrir Twy'Lar wrote: Vic Jefferson wrote: Ecrir Twy'Lar wrote: incentive for experience players to move out into lowsec and nullsec for their content. You can't blame Antagonists for taking the path of least resistance to the biggest killmails. The trick is to incentive people moving out of Hi Sec, which helps many facets of the game simultaneously. I think no matter how much incentive you provide, if they can get free kills with no risk in Highsec, that's what they are going to do. What's the sound of catalysts ganking, if there are no hulks around to hear it? Content denial takes many forms. If rabid gankers aren't fed a steady stream of barges, exhumers, and freighters, they will be forced to either quit or seek prey elsewhere. The only kills they get, are the ones given to them. Stop giving them kills. Leave Hi Sec. Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM XI
Zan Shiro Alternative Enterprises 781	Posted - 2015.09.26 00:56:28 - [65] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Of course. And it cannot possibly be that he's just playing the wrong game. Its never them. They always lead I tried to bring my friends in and they hate eve. They actually played the game. They learned to live with it. But not their friends. Which, and maybe its just me, I write that off as friends have different tastes in games. All good really. Cost of games these days....put that 40-60+ (monthly subs in case of eve) into something you will enjoy. Life and money can be too short to play a game you just don't like. I have a coworker at work who doesn't like stealth games. Tried phantom menace and hated it. I can talk all day long about the greatness of of phantom pain (Kojima-san left konami with a bang on this one, he did not screw us the players over in the political crap that severed him from konami) ....they won't jump on that wagon. Which is cool....we all have our likes and dislikes. Eve not for for everyone. No game is. Eve has been like this since day one and its had subscribers to keep it afloat 10+ years. Not too shabby for a game developer to be honest. Niche game is niche. Some people need to understand how niche business models work. They work by keeping a core type of client happy enough it pays the bills. If a retail store as an example they become the source for things Generic_monster_chain_store can't provide. Will they ever take on say Walmart? Nope. Pays the bills, make some profit....gratz they are a success.
Max Deveron Deveron Shipyards and Technology 239	Posted - 2015.09.26 04:46:35 - [66] - Quote just give us WiS.....and the ability to break into a criminals quaters whether they are logged in or not and "pod" them...successful podding....you confiscate their ship in hangar....and they wak up in nearest lowsec station.
Justin Cody Hard Knocks Inc. Hard Knocks Citizens 306	Posted - 2015.09.26 05:48:01 - [67] - Quote Make War Dec's Matter - You can't the meta is too stronk. Neutral alts are all powerful. If CCP can find a way to penalize neutral alts with instant destruction or at least a weapons timer simply for activating reps even if the target isn't aggro'd (a la bastion) then it makes a huge difference.
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 3398	Posted - 2015.09.26 06:10:51 - [68] - Quote Ecrir Twy'Lar wrote: Danika Princip wrote: You DO know that gankers with low sec status are hunted by faction police, right? As in, if you're sitting still in a safespot, they will warp in, tackle you and kill you? And that people already camp gates and stations waiting for flashy reds to come through? Can you explain why ganking needs another round of massive nerfs, rather than just proposing them? Can you explain why they should have sanctuary in the systems they are considered criminals in? Yes, because no place in Eve is supposed to be safe. Driving gankers from the game makes it safe. Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence So Local Chat vanished, now what?
Zhaceera Armerarram World Traders Guild Channel 21	Posted - 2015.09.26 19:59:04 - [69] - Quote So basically you must have the freedom to take the freedom of other people away. And you basically need to have tools to make your life easier using the excuse of someone else's life being easy ? And you need to enhance the ability of people to earn by crime obscene sums of money in the hisec because people not doing crime in hisec earn too much without risk ? And hisec must not be secure, so basically, not hisec. That smells one thing and one thing only: Low sec is too dangeous for the "bad boys" so they must be able to do their crime under the protection of the police, so no one else attacks them while they attack someone ? Nah. That must be met with a distribution of blocks. "If justice is not for everyone, it is for no one."
admiral root Red Galaxy 3361	Posted - 2015.09.26 22:09:34 - [70] - Quote Max Deveron wrote: just give us WiS.....and the ability to break into a criminals quaters whether they are logged in or not and "pod" them...successful podding....you confiscate their ship in hangar....and they wak up in nearest lowsec station. Sure, just so long as we can walk up behind you in the station and casually stick a vibroblade between your ribs and snag the hard currency you're carrying for some carebear item that can only be sourced that way. Also, as we're criminals, we should have an easier time breaking into your quarters while you're sleeping than those of you who role-play being self-righteous, and an easier time getting away. No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff CODE. forum - everyone's welcome (no shiptoasters)

Maldiro Selkurk CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X 514	Posted - 2015.09.27 01:46:00 - [71] - Quote Tappits wrote: Maldiro Selkurk wrote: 3. sec status should not be repairable at all, you made a choice deal with the consequences. That would be fine but this game lasts for years and years and it would be a super bad game decision if something you did in 2004/2005 was un changeable years down the line.... People change what some one did a few years ago might not be there play stile now. He's killed hundreds of defenseless people for no other reason than laughs and a bit of profit but he sure seems to want to turn his life around so lets give him the chance. You are looking at it from the bad guy's point of view. The bad guy gets to keep his kill mail, gets to brag about his kill, gets to know he frustrated another player, etc..etc..etc. You want to sympathize how about with the victims, they have a permanent record of their slaughter (killmail) forever, they remember the day with frustration, they permanently lose ISK and once lost it can never be made up again, you can make more but you will always be in a situation that you could have had more had you not gotten ganked. so again, no chance to repair is how the game should be. It is a mantra of the game that you must deal with your decisions. The guy that got ganked could have played in a different space, could have rolled with more tank, could have taken friends but whatever he did he must live the the consequences of his choices that led him to be ganked forever, so should his ganker. Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
Maldiro Selkurk CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X 514	Posted - 2015.09.27 01:52:36 - [72] - Quote Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote: Tappits wrote: Maldiro Selkurk wrote: 3. sec status should not be repairable at all, you made a choice deal with the consequences. That would be fine but this game lasts for years and years and it would be a super bad game decision if something you did in 2004/2005 was un changeable years down the line.... People change what some one did a few years ago might not be there play stile now. Besides there were many examples of pirates turning King's privateer, it should be no different in Eve (that and someone could buy a character on the bazaar and want to move up to hisec with it). It has long been a given that if you buy a character off the bazaar you deal with whatever past that character had before, my suggestion is consistent with this long held belief and understanding. Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
Max Deveron Deveron Shipyards and Technology 240	Posted - 2015.09.27 03:42:15 - [73] - Quote Maldiro Selkurk wrote: Tappits wrote: Maldiro Selkurk wrote: 3. sec status should not be repairable at all, you made a choice deal with the consequences. That would be fine but this game lasts for years and years and it would be a super bad game decision if something you did in 2004/2005 was un changeable years down the line.... People change what some one did a few years ago might not be there play stile now. He's killed hundreds of defenseless people for no other reason than laughs and a bit of profit but he sure seems to want to turn his life around so lets give him the chance. You are looking at it from the bad guy's point of view. The bad guy gets to keep his kill mail, gets to brag about his kill, gets to know he frustrated another player, etc..etc..etc. You want to sympathize how about with the victims, they have a permanent record of their slaughter (killmail) forever, they remember the day with frustration, they permanently lose ISK and once lost it can never be made up again, you can make more but you will always be in a situation that you could have had more had you not gotten ganked. so again, no chance to repair is how the game should be. It is a mantra of the game that you must deal with your decisions. The guy that got ganked could have played in a different space, could have rolled with more tank, could have taken friends but whatever he did he must live the the consequences of his choices that led him to be ganked forever, so should his ganker. I dont believe in that...same as working for (recovering) status with factions and NPC corps...the ability is there...but yeah just 1 more nerf.....
FT Diomedes The Graduates Get Off My Lawn 1752	Posted - 2015.09.27 06:33:08 - [74] - Quote Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote: Serendipity Lost wrote: Criminals should not be allowed to dock up. If you want to dock you should be in a system where you are not flagged as a criminal. It's reasonable that if a player can spacewarp arcross a galaxy, concord can detect any and all violations within all of HS and LS then some minimum wage docking manager can see a red flashy thing on his dashboard and push the SCREW YOU SCUMBAG button to prevent a known criminal from docking in the station he is managing. It's kind or rediculous that the docking manager can time and police agression not only outside his station, but anywere in eve (I can get a timer Hek hit a HS > HS wh and be prevented from docking in Motsu) right down to the second, but can't figure out that this clearly labelled bad guy is a bad guy. Dearest CONCORD, For the love of all that is fair and just, give docking managers a small raise and train them that flashy red is actually worse than flashy yellow and get this docking oversight fixed once and for all. Suncerly, Every reasonable pilot in eve Actually I wouldn't mind criminals not being able to doc in NPC stations but allowed to dock in a POS. Then the gankers would need to be in a player corp, have assets in space and be vulnerable to wardecs. This would really give any industry corp a means by which to retaliate if they so wished. This is a pretty good suggestion. I'm all about forcing players to do things in space or have things in space that are at risk. Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So, why do I post here? I'm stubborn.
Rowells ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans 2736	Posted - 2015.09.27 07:58:20 - [75] - Quote What page did this become a philosophy debate?
Rivr Luzade Kenshin. DARKNESS. 1944	Posted - 2015.09.27 08:39:58 - [76] - Quote Maldiro Selkurk wrote: so again, no chance to repair is how the game should be. It is a mantra of the game that you must deal with your decisions. The guy that got ganked could have played in a different space, could have rolled with more tank, could have taken friends but whatever he did he must live the the consequences of his choices that led him to be ganked forever, so should his ganker. Repairing security status has a place in the game. Rehabilitation is better than locking away people for ever (safe for serious capital crimes. However, since we do not have murder/mass murder in EVE thanks to immortality, this point is moot.). However, rehabilitation should requires effort and commitment. With tags, neither nor is necessary to atone for criminal acts. By having to run missions, hunt NPC and slowly crawl back the security status (and/or faction standing, for that matter), criminals and pirates deal with the unpleasant consequences of their actions. Most pirates obviously do not care about their security status or NPC standings, but those who do or do so in later times of their EVE careers, have ways to rectify their mistakes of the past through hard work. Similar to the ganked person who can replace the ship/modules/implants, gankers can have ways to salvage their standings and statuses. just not as quickly and easily. I am also in support of revoking docking rights for people who have lower than -5 security status in High sec NPC stations. Even more so after the introduction of citadels and other dockable player structures. Station Tab :: UI Improvement Collective
Marranar Amatin Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 15	Posted - 2015.09.27 08:59:01 - [77] - Quote Most people are carebaers at heart. They want a risk and consequence free enviroment in which they can do what they want to do. Many "pvp" players are even worse carbears than miners and mission runners. They only want risk for the other side and perfect safety for themselfs. "No place in eve should be safe" is perfectly right. So of course ganking should always be possible. But of course the same must be true for the gankers, they should carry at least an equal risk. Which in the current state they dont. Ganking is nearly perfectly safe. No one is going to gank your catalyst, and even if someone did, the loss would be near zero. You will loose it after the gank, but thats not a risk, thats simply a part of the cost for the kill, like ammunition. So following the rule "no place in eve should be safe" there should be more risk for the gankers. I liked the solution of Ultima Online: Every illegal kill gets you a murder count. One count decays after 40hours, but the timer is reset if you get another count within that period. If you have 5 kills your name turns red and you are a valid target for everyone, everywhere. If you collect a serious number of kills, you were not going to be blue again for a long long time. No buying security tags to remove this. I would like to see a similar system in eve. Kill too many people and you are a target for everyone. No concord protection for "murderers". For a long time. No buying out of this. Important: this mechanic should be seperate from the current security. I do not want to set them to -5 nearly permanently, since then they would also be attacked by NPC. Thats not the point, since this would greatly reduce their ability to perform ganks. They just should also have the risk of being attacked by players. Not hiding behind concord.
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. 14525	Posted - 2015.09.27 14:16:00 - [78] - Quote Zhaceera Armerarram wrote: So basically you must have the freedom to take the freedom of other people away. Wrong. We must have the freedom to bring risk to people who otherwise would have zero. Because the game is very literally based on loss. We are what keeps highsec existing at all, because without ganking and wars, highsec would be about twelve systems with nothing but Veldspar and level 1 distribution missions, and the rest of the game would be various flavors of lowsec. You should be thanking them every time you see a gank. "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.
Zan Shiro Alternative Enterprises 783	Posted - 2015.09.27 15:22:28 - [79] - Quote Marranar Amatin wrote: Most people are carebaers at heart. They want a risk and consequence free enviroment in which they can do what they want to do. Many "pvp" players are even worse carbears than miners and mission runners. They only want risk for the other side and perfect safety for themselfs. "No place in eve should be safe" is perfectly right. So of course ganking should always be possible. But of course the same must be true for the gankers, they should carry at least an equal risk. Which in the current state they dont. Ganking is nearly perfectly safe. No one is going to gank your catalyst, and even if someone did, the loss would be near zero. You will loose it after the gank, but thats not a risk, thats simply a part of the cost for the kill, like ammunition. So following the rule "no place in eve should be safe" there should be more risk for the gankers. I liked the solution of Ultima Online: Every illegal kill gets you a murder count. One count decays after 40hours, but the timer is reset if you get another count within that period. If you have 5 kills your name turns red and you are a valid target for everyone, everywhere. If you collect a serious number of kills, you were not going to be blue again for a long long time. No buying security tags to remove this. I would like to see a similar system in eve. Kill too many people and you are a target for everyone. No concord protection for "murderers". For a long time. No buying out of this. Important: this mechanic should be seperate from the current security. I do not want to set them to -5 nearly permanently, since then they would also be attacked by NPC. Thats not the point, since this would greatly reduce their ability to perform ganks. They just should also have the risk of being attacked by players. Not hiding behind concord. Its called outlaw status. They get this if they are really successful at thier job. You get warning signs before blinky red. it be pay attention yellow. Cost of tags is not the out some make it. It costs money. Can be a few isk. Unless banging out some really good kills...they will see low sec soon. If this successful....well the smart bet is to keep that isk and run the loops I mentioned earlier. Or join 0.0. Here is thier risk. When they hit low sec, and turn to sec status fixing its test time. Can they avoid pirates better than pirates can find them on pve runs. The gank dessie whine....fun fact, this was player asked for. CCP fix our dessies was the cry of the masses. Low level bears asked for this. FW asked for this. RvB asked for this. Gankers kept their mouth shut and said let these deemed more honorable pvp'ers get their wish so they can ride that wave too. Wish granted.
Zhaceera Armerarram World Traders Guild channel 22	Posted - 2015.09.28 00:48:16 - [80] - Quote Another block. It is entertaining, to be polite, that someone comes to this forums and have the audacity to claim that the crime mechanics in EVE serve to any purpose of creating risk for criminals. Might aswell remove it and keep just the concord immediate response, which in most cases, is the only thing that criminals "may" take into consideration as risk. But actually, they mostly consider it just cost benefit. It is funny to indulge the filosophical discussion, but everyone who claim to know EVE knows that this carebear thing was invented by people who want to play EVE as a solo FPS shooter game and resent CCP to take the MMO aspect seriously, and RPG to some extent. Great work talking about people who take EVE seriously as being "disfunctional" while turning the game universe more and more like real politics. "If justice is not for everyone, it is for no one."

Syn Shi School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 195	Posted - 2015.09.28 01:54:59 - [81] - Quote Ganking in hi-sec is the safest form of one-sided pvp Eve has to offer. Can you really blame some for not wanting to give that up.
admiral root Red Galaxy 3369	Posted - 2015.09.28 02:12:09 - [82] - Quote Syn Shi wrote: Ganking in hi-sec is the safest form of one-sided pvp Eve has to offer. As safe as the CFC showing up to 6VDT with thousands more players than Test bothered to field; as safe as a lowsec gate camp waiting for a solo freighter to blindly jump in; as safe as Marmite camping the 4/4 undock. The simplest way to win at spaceship PvP in this game is to bring more guys than the other side. If people want to stop volunteering to be ganked they just have to bring the right friends. You're just mad that some people can't be bothered to do what's required of a winner. No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff CODE. forum - everyone's welcome (no shiptoasters)
Avvy Republic University Minmatar Republic 193	Posted - 2015.09.28 02:24:52 - [83] - Quote Ecrir Twy'Lar wrote: I recently read about how some believe the population of Eve Online is in decline when for many years it was always growing. I feel like Eve has always lost players on a regular basis. But would regain many after some large battle received media coverage. It's too bad we have to constantly bleed subscription numbers the way we do. I work with a lot of gamers and I often try to recruit people to Eve. However, 90% of the time people just shake their head. This game has a reputation and no matter how good our community can be (I think it's one of the best), this reputation hurts the game. The number one reason I cannot recruit more people to this game is non-consensual PvP. Don't get me wrong, I don't think non-consensual PvP should be removed. It's what makes Eve Online the game it is. But, there are mechanics in this game that people are taking advantage of that sometimes just adds frustration for new players trying to survive in a game that is already difficult to learn to play. I think Highsec was meant to be "relatively" safe. Which is fine, it provides a place for players to get comfortable with the game before they move out into Lowsec , Null and WH space. It doesn't have a very good reputation, which isn't really surprising when you have groups like CODE, that operate the way they do. It's not just CODE of course, the reputation has been around for a long time. But that reputation will also attract some players albeit a minority. That reputation won't change and so the main stream of gamers will just avoid the game. So EVE remains a niche game, which is what I'd expect it to continue as.
Daniela Doran Ministry of War Amarr Empire 119	Posted - 2015.09.28 02:57:52 - [84] - Quote Vic Jefferson wrote: Ecrir Twy'Lar wrote: incentive for experience players to move out into lowsec and nullsec for their content. You have at least this much right, sort of. Antagonists go where bad-guy content can be created. So to motivate them to move to low, NPC null, or sov-null, there have to be players there to shoot at. Low and NPC null should be made vastly more attractive to new players, and should reward them for taking risks, but it currently doesn't, so most people either stay in Hi Sec, or join the zerg in the form of Karmafleet, Pandemic Horde, etc. Hunting in sov null isn't for everyone mostly because, well most of it is empty, and the places that aren't are extremely well defended. You can't blame Antagonists for taking the path of least resistance to the biggest killmails. The trick is to incentive people moving out of Hi Sec, which helps many facets of the game simultaneously. Or stay in NPC corps. There is almost zero reason for anyone to join a Player corp if they intend on doing anything in Hi-Sec.
Daniela Doran Ministry of War Amarr Empire 119	Posted - 2015.09.28 03:32:50 - [85] - Quote Serendipity Lost wrote: Criminals should not be allowed to dock up. If you want to dock you should be in a system where you are not flagged as a criminal. It's reasonable that if a player can spacewarp arcross a galaxy, concord can detect any and all violations within all of HS and LS then some minimum wage docking manager can see a red flashy thing on his dashboard and push the SCREW YOU SCUMBAG button to prevent a known criminal from docking in the station he is managing. It's kind or rediculous that the docking manager can time and police agression not only outside his station, but anywere in eve (I can get a timer Hek hit a HS > HS wh and be prevented from docking in Motsu) right down to the second, but can't figure out that this clearly labelled bad guy is a bad guy. Dearest CONCORD, For the love of all that is fair and just, give docking managers a small raise and train them that flashy red is actually worse than flashy yellow and get this docking oversight fixed once and for all. Suncerly, Every reasonable pilot in eve I second this.
Daniela Doran Ministry of War Amarr Empire 119	Posted - 2015.09.28 03:37:35 - [86] - Quote Madd Adda wrote: Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote: Actually I wouldn't mind criminals not being able to doc in NPC stations but allowed to dock in a POS. Then the gankers would need to be in a player corp, have assets in space and be vulnerable to wardecs. This would really give any industry corp a means by which to retaliate if they so wished. i second this. Yep this is also a great idea.
Caleb Seremshur Gladiators of Rage RAZOR Alliance 661	Posted - 2015.09.28 09:15:13 - [87] - Quote Docking in highsec for criminals and enemy fw players is a joke. A joke that Rise supported. I guess I can see the reason why they have made this stance but it does break the internal consistency of the game. It would be like being a nightelf and sitting inside orgrimmar and being left alone because its a city and apparently the home defence only functions outside the walls of the city. There's a lot more to it than that. Veteran and solo/small gang PVP advocate.
Zhaceera Armerarram World Traders Guild channel 22	Posted - 2015.09.28 14:55:25 - [88] - Quote The fascinating thing is that people bluntly disconsider a lot of things when talking about hisec. For them, it is like hisec is the same as everywhere else but you cant shoot people without concord interference. What people forget is that their accessment of hisec being high earning and secure shows how little they know of anything but hisec. In hisec you may find things in market that were not found or harvested in hisec, but at a cost people living out of hisec do not have. Most things CCP puts up as content and itens, also can only be found only out of hisec. People out of hisec have permission to create POS and equipment which streamline tons of revenue virtually impossible for a hisec pilot. The only problem to someone arguing hisec is high profitable low-risk is that the person saying it is uncapable of taking advantage of profitable venues out of it. I choose to be in hisec for a simple thing: There is no market advantage out of hisec. Exactly because the high payout comes at a high risk, but the payout/risk ratio of low and null is directly linked to other players relations with you. I dont like that. I worked for a time under a big alliance protection, and that was better than hisec. The moment that alliance started to fall apart, then everyone became fair game and those of us who could not bring our things back had huge losses. You cant earn even 0,1% of what null offer in hisec. The risk however, due to CCP regulations and "make bad pvpers happy" policy, is very close to the null risk. You may get a 10mil ship alone to kill a miner in hisec and kill them and flee before concord respond. You can gate camp in hisec and kill a transport ship before concord respond, and haul the cargo with an alt. Due to constraints to please those so called "oh my God elite pvp pirates", you cannot fit a ship enough to make it not worth kill people in .6 systems. While at the same time, very little trade, mine or exploration can be profitable in .7 or above systems. So, no. Your argument of hisec high pay low risk is just as non-sense as the claim that you have to priviledge piracy in hisec for the game to "interesting". "If justice is not for everyone, it is for no one."
admiral root Red Galaxy 3374	Posted - 2015.09.28 16:08:18 - [89] - Quote Caleb Seremshur wrote: Docking in highsec for criminals and enemy fw players is a joke. A joke that Rise supported. I guess I can see the reason why they have made this stance but it does break the internal consistency of the game. It would be like being a nightelf and sitting inside orgrimmar and being left alone because its a city and apparently the home defence only functions outside the walls of the city. There's a lot more to it than that. Actually, there's a lot less to it than that. The stations are owned by for-profit corporations who really don't give a damn who you are, they just want your isk. No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff CODE. forum - everyone's welcome (no shiptoasters)
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. 14544	Posted - 2015.09.28 17:32:04 - [90] - Quote admiral root wrote: Caleb Seremshur wrote: Docking in highsec for criminals and enemy fw players is a joke. A joke that Rise supported. I guess I can see the reason why they have made this stance but it does break the internal consistency of the game. It would be like being a nightelf and sitting inside orgrimmar and being left alone because its a city and apparently the home defence only functions outside the walls of the city. There's a lot more to it than that. Actually, there's a lot less to it than that. The stations are owned by for-profit corporations who really don't give a damn who you are, they just want your isk. Nor are they concerned about what passes for morality among obscenely wealthy demigods. "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.

Syn Shi School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 196	Posted - 2015.09.28 20:07:05 - [91] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: admiral root wrote: Caleb Seremshur wrote: Docking in highsec for criminals and enemy fw players is a joke. A joke that Rise supported. I guess I can see the reason why they have made this stance but it does break the internal consistency of the game. It would be like being a nightelf and sitting inside orgrimmar and being left alone because its a city and apparently the home defence only functions outside the walls of the city. There's a lot more to it than that. Actually, there's a lot less to it than that. The stations are owned by for-profit corporations who really don't give a damn who you are, they just want your isk. Nor are they concerned about what passes for morality among obscenely wealthy demigods. These last 2 responses are right up there with ships in Eve that are made of nerf material and bounce off of each other with no damage.
admiral root Red Galaxy 3375	Posted - 2015.09.28 20:20:53 - [92] - Quote Syn Shi wrote: These last 2 responses are right up there with ships in Eve that are made of nerf material and bounce off of each other with no damage. I don't understand, are you saying there's a lore reason for ship bumping? I'm fairly confident you're wrong about that. No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff CODE. forum - everyone's welcome (no shiptoasters)
Syn Shi School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 196	Posted - 2015.09.28 23:07:23 - [93] - Quote admiral root wrote: Syn Shi wrote: These last 2 responses are right up there with ships in Eve that are made of nerf material and bounce off of each other with no damage. I don't understand, are you saying there's a lore reason for ship bumping? I'm fairly confident you're wrong about that. Alice in Wonderland game mechanics because its too hard for CCP to actually fix. AKA - Emergent gameplay.
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. 14546	Posted - 2015.09.28 23:37:31 - [94] - Quote Syn Shi wrote: admiral root wrote: Syn Shi wrote: These last 2 responses are right up there with ships in Eve that are made of nerf material and bounce off of each other with no damage. I don't understand, are you saying there's a lore reason for ship bumping? I'm fairly confident you're wrong about that. Alice in Wonderland game mechanics because its too hard for CCP to actually fix. AKA - Emergent gameplay. It's easily explained by the fluidic physics model, even if it weren't 100% approved emergent gameplay. "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.
Marranar Amatin Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 17	Posted - 2015.09.29 09:00:15 - [95] - Quote Zan Shiro wrote: Its called outlaw status. They get this if they are really successful at thier job. You get warning signs before blinky red. it be pay attention yellow. Except that it completeley misses my point, since you can easily buy yourself out of it. You need to get to -5 or lower to be attackable, you can do a lot of kills before reaching that point, and its not really expensive to get out of it again. And not difficult to farm out of it. They still are super safe in highsec, and protected much better by concord than their victims. What would be wrong with them being "perma" blinky after enough kills? Its not like they couldnt do their job anymore, as I said, only players should allowed to attack them,not NPC. Only difference is that they can be attacked too, so they get more pvp. Great, isnt this exactly what they want? Or could it be that they dont want to have actual pvp, but prefer perfect safety until they make their guaranteed kill with zero risk for themselfs? Well here we are again at "everyone is a carebear" and "nothing should be safe". I can understand that they want the safety for themselfs, I just dont see any reason why they should have it. Zhaceera Armerarram wrote: You cant earn even 0,1% of what null offer in hisec. The risk however, due to CCP regulations and "make bad pvpers happy" policy, is very close to the null risk. That is not correct. You can make about the same money in highsec as in nullsec and are much safer while doing it. Some player who live in nullsec are actually doing it, because its easier, safer and still offers a great payout. Of course you have to do it right, afk mining in a non tanked mining ship is not the way to do it. But with incursions and mission blitzing you get about the same as in nullsec. But with much lower risk. Thats why I do not want to nerf the ability to gank in highsec, just put the gankers to some risk themself.
Mag's the united 20302	Posted - 2015.09.29 10:08:18 - [96] - Quote Syn Shi wrote: Alice in Wonderland game mechanics because its too hard for CCP to actually fix. AKA - Emergent gameplay. Amongst the many errors in your posts, I'll point out two. 1. You assume because of how you feel about the mechanics of the game, CCP somehow have made a mistake in that regard. You are wrong in your assumption, how you feel has no bearing on how the game should work. Seeing as Eve has always been a space game based on water physics, your feelings are irrelevant. 2. You also assume there is something to fix and CCP is unable to fix it. CCP have quite often made changes to how ships interact when bumped, they do, have and can make changes in that regard. But seeing how they looked into this situation over many months and decided to allow what they deemed emergent gameplay with intended mechanics, to continue. Your assertion of the need of a fix, holds no water. As usual in these cases, you and your ilk rely upon 'feelings' as proof of something wrong. Whereas those of us who love the game and it's core, rely upon facts. Come back when you have the latter. Marranar Amatin wrote: Zan Shiro wrote: Its called outlaw status. They get this if they are really successful at thier job. You get warning signs before blinky red. it be pay attention yellow. Except that it completeley misses my point, since you can easily buy yourself out of it. You need to get to -5 or lower to be attackable, you can do a lot of kills before reaching that point, and its not really expensive to get out of it again. And not difficult to farm out of it. They still are super safe in highsec, and protected much better by concord than their victims. What would be wrong with them being "perma" blinky after enough kills? Its not like they couldnt do their job anymore, as I said, only players should allowed to attack them,not NPC. Only difference is that they can be attacked too, so they get more pvp. Great, isnt this exactly what they want? Or could it be that they dont want to have actual pvp, but prefer perfect safety until they make their guaranteed kill with zero risk for themselfs? Well here we are again at "everyone is a carebear" and "nothing should be safe". I can understand that they want the safety for themselfs, I just dont see any reason why they should have it. So what about a player like myself? I lived in low sec for years, never killed in highsec whilst I lived there and gained my much loved -10 status all in low. When a friend in game asked for my assistance in high sec, I travelled to the relevant station and paid with tags and ISK to revert my sec status to 0. I must admit I didn't like it, but he asked and it was done. Are you now suggesting that my time in low, should be permanently punished with -10 sec status? That even though I play the game as defined, haven't broken any EULA rules. That I should be forever frozen in the game, to one particular game style? Should we then suggest that because I and others dislike mining immensely, that anyone who has ever partaken that style of play, should be forever warped to belts and held there to mine roids? How is it you can define, what is and what isn't 'actual' PvP? Are you privy to some knowledge in this, that the rest of us somehow missed in the term player versus player? Or is it: *"Just one more nerf and it will be balanced."* Is that what you really mean? Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Corraidhin Farsaidh Farsaidh's Freeborn 1693	Posted - 2015.09.29 11:15:49 - [97] - Quote I didn't see my idea as 'One more nerf' but rather a case that: If a player corp wants the benefits of a POS in hisec they should be expected to defend it (citadels will hopefully fix this). If a pirate wants the benefit of operating in hisec without CONCORD interference they should be expected to use a POS and thus be just as at risk of wardecs as the player corps with a POS. This would depend upon how the citadels shake out though I think. An XL defended citadel named Tortuga for pirates could be a fun place though :D
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 2047	Posted - 2015.09.29 11:19:32 - [98] - Quote admiral root wrote: Caleb Seremshur wrote: Docking in highsec for criminals and enemy fw players is a joke. A joke that Rise supported. I guess I can see the reason why they have made this stance but it does break the internal consistency of the game. It would be like being a nightelf and sitting inside orgrimmar and being left alone because its a city and apparently the home defence only functions outside the walls of the city. There's a lot more to it than that. Actually, there's a lot less to it than that. The stations are owned by for-profit corporations who really don't give a damn who you are, they just want your isk. The FW one is foobar though. They don't allow it in lowsec, but the space faeries make them allow it in high? It's weird.
admiral root Red Galaxy 3377	Posted - 2015.09.29 12:20:43 - [99] - Quote afkalt wrote: admiral root wrote: Caleb Seremshur wrote: Docking in highsec for criminals and enemy fw players is a joke. A joke that Rise supported. I guess I can see the reason why they have made this stance but it does break the internal consistency of the game. It would be like being a nightelf and sitting inside orgrimmar and being left alone because its a city and apparently the home defence only functions outside the walls of the city. There's a lot more to it than that. Actually, there's a lot less to it than that. The stations are owned by for-profit corporations who really don't give a damn who you are, they just want your isk. The FW one is foobar though. They don't allow it in lowsec, but the space faeries make them allow it in high? It's weird. I guess that's a case of things are probably different at the Coke factory in Mogadishu (assuming it's still operational) being in a warzone than they are in one in the US. I don't do faction warfare so I can't really comment. No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff CODE. forum - everyone's welcome (no shiptoasters)
admiral root Red Galaxy 3377	Posted - 2015.09.29 12:32:08 - [100] - Quote Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote: If a pirate wants the benefit of operating in hisec without CONCORD interference they should be expected to use a POS and thus be just as at risk of wardecs as the player corps with a POS. Risk comes from players, not mechanics, and as long as the vast majority of those in highsec are going to sit on their butts and scream impotently for Someone to do something(TM) I don't see why CCP should waste any more time on you whinebears. CODE. have had POSes up multiple times over the years and no-one has had the fortitude to come at us (even the people who had declared war on us at the time), so what makes you think this would magically change if we were driven out of stations in your crusade to nerf highsec into the ground? This all sounds a lot like "if highsec was much safer, players would have time to accumulate enough isk to progress to PvP in lowsec and nullsec". Followed by "if carebears had this" and "if carebears had that". You have more than enough tools to deliver risk directly and indirectly to our pods - use them. No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff CODE. forum - everyone's welcome (no shiptoasters)

Corraidhin Farsaidh Farsaidh's Freeborn 1693	Posted - 2015.09.29 13:04:36 - [101] - Quote admiral root wrote: Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote: If a pirate wants the benefit of operating in hisec without CONCORD interference they should be expected to use a POS and thus be just as at risk of wardecs as the player corps with a POS. Risk comes from players, not mechanics, and as long as the vast majority of those in highsec are going to sit on their butts and scream impotently for Someone to do something(TM) I don't see why CCP should waste any more time on you whinebears. CODE. have had POSes up multiple times over the years and no-one has had the fortitude to come at us (even the people who had declared war on us at the time), so what makes you think this would magically change if we were driven out of stations in your crusade to nerf highsec into the ground? This all sounds a lot like "if highsec was much safer, players would have time to accumulate enough isk to progress to PvP in lowsec and nullsec". Followed by "if carebears had this" and "if carebears had that". You have more than enough tools to deliver risk directly and indirectly to our pods - use them. Actually it is none of those things but rather a proposal to level the playing field between the haulers and gankers in such a way that allows the hauler/indy chars to retaliate somewhere.
admiral root Red Galaxy 3378	Posted - 2015.09.29 14:08:59 - [102] - Quote Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote: Actually it is none of those things but rather a proposal to level the playing field between the haulers and gankers in such a way that allows the hauler/indy chars to retaliate somewhere. Guns are a thing and everyone can get, or hire, them. No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff CODE. forum - everyone's welcome (no shiptoasters)
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 2049	Posted - 2015.09.29 14:43:41 - [103] - Quote admiral root wrote: afkalt wrote: admiral root wrote: Caleb Seremshur wrote: Docking in highsec for criminals and enemy fw players is a joke. A joke that Rise supported. I guess I can see the reason why they have made this stance but it does break the internal consistency of the game. It would be like being a nightelf and sitting inside orgrimmar and being left alone because its a city and apparently the home defence only functions outside the walls of the city. There's a lot more to it than that. Actually, there's a lot less to it than that. The stations are owned by for-profit corporations who really don't give a damn who you are, they just want your isk. The FW one is foobar though. They don't allow it in lowsec, but the space faeries make them allow it in high? It's weird. I guess that's a case of things are probably different at the Coke factory in Mogadishu (assuming it's still operational) being in a warzone than they are in one in the US. I don't do faction warfare so I can't really comment. LOL I may steal that
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 1687	Posted - 2015.09.29 19:32:51 - [104] - Quote admiral root wrote: Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote: If a pirate wants the benefit of operating in hisec without CONCORD interference they should be expected to use a POS and thus be just as at risk of wardecs as the player corps with a POS. Risk comes from players, not mechanics, and as long as the vast majority of those in highsec are going to sit on their butts and scream impotently for Someone to do something(TM) I don't see why CCP should waste any more time on you whinebears. CODE. have had POSes up multiple times over the years and no-one has had the fortitude to come at us (even the people who had declared war on us at the time), so what makes you think this would magically change if we were driven out of stations in your crusade to nerf highsec into the ground? This all sounds a lot like "if highsec was much safer, players would have time to accumulate enough isk to progress to PvP in lowsec and nullsec". Followed by "if carebears had this" and "if carebears had that". You have more than enough tools to deliver risk directly and indirectly to our pods - use them. Yes, this is why I am not worried for organized criminal organizations like CODE. if docking restrictions were put in place. The mechanics are already extremely punitive for criminals in highsec - you just need to prevent a free-to-shoot -10 from warping and they will explode in a less than a minute - yet there have been only a handful of times anyone has tried an organized effort to stop me (outside of the usual freighter ganking vultures who themselves seem there more for killmail whoring than actual fights) from doing the Saviour's work. Organized criminals will be just fine, especially if they have an ecosystem of player-built citadels to use as bases. Highsec bears will in general not lift a finger to fight back: the vast majority of them are just there to endlessly grind resources and have no fortitude to actually shoot back, especially when it lowers their ISK/h. And if they do it is still a win, as it is just more content. But such a system would hurt new players and lowsec pirates much more and is why CCP has not, and is not likely to ever make this change. It would be extremely harsh to lock a new player who doesn't fully understand the Crimewatch mechanics and pods a few people out from highsec. As the mechanics are they can join up with FW to get some pew-pew experience, and a few days later find themselves unable to get back to their stuff in highsec . Similarly, new player who decides to take up ganking would be unable to do so alone anymore. They would need to join an established criminal organization which will reduce the number of players choosing that career. The bottom line is that suicide ganking is an intended mechanic. Criminals are suppose to exist, even in highsec. There are already enough NPC-enforced mechanics to jump through for outlaws, CCP is not going to add any more without a very compelling reason. In fact, from CCP Seagull's vision of a more player-driven universe, I expect we will start to see the pendulum finally start to swing back a bit and crime mechanics that stifle player-driven content, like the faction police (the Empires are losing control!), go away/get nerfed.
admiral root Red Galaxy 3382	Posted - 2015.09.29 19:42:41 - [105] - Quote So the whinebears get this latest nerf to highsec and the good guys fight back by tricking lots and lots of newbies into blowing their sec status. Suddenly, lowsec gets a whole load of fresh meat and maybe we prevent the next generation of highsec carebears. Not that they ever make suggestions that blow up in their faces or anything. No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff CODE. forum - everyone's welcome (no shiptoasters)
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. 14550	Posted - 2015.09.29 19:49:56 - [106] - Quote admiral root wrote: Not that they ever make suggestions that blow up in their faces or anything. "Make bumping deal damage!" is my favorite one. Sure, carebears, we can turn each and every Stabber in the game into a one shot super torpedo. That won't go badly for you at all. "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.
Frostys Virpio KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 2285	Posted - 2015.09.29 20:02:55 - [107] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: admiral root wrote: Not that they ever make suggestions that blow up in their faces or anything. "Make bumping deal damage!" is my favorite one. Sure, carebears, we can turn each and every Stabber in the game into a one shot super torpedo. That won't go badly for you at all. They obviously only want the bumper to take damage because ... well... it hmmm... you see... It's not like differentiating the aggressor between 2 ships colliding is gonna be hard right? RIGHT??
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. 14551	Posted - 2015.09.29 20:09:11 - [108] - Quote Frostys Virpio wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: admiral root wrote: Not that they ever make suggestions that blow up in their faces or anything. "Make bumping deal damage!" is my favorite one. Sure, carebears, we can turn each and every Stabber in the game into a one shot super torpedo. That won't go badly for you at all. They obviously only want the bumper to take damage because ... well... it hmmm... you see... It's not like differentiating the aggressor between 2 ships colliding is gonna be hard right? RIGHT?? "Realism only when it favors me." "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.


Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.