EVE Search - Solution to security status: Inertial style.

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Solution to security status: Inertial style.

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Inertial The Python Cartel	Posted - 2008.02.26 08:04:00 - [1] Edited by: Inertial on 26/02/2008 08:04:15 Thread coming soon!

Chribba Otherworld Enterprises Otherworld Empire	Posted - 2008.02.26 08:06:00 - [2] can't wait!! so excited!! omg!! Secure 3rd party service ■ Do you Veldspar?

eWrath Caldari Revenent Defence Corperation The Omni Federation	Posted - 2008.02.26 08:12:00 - [3] When? This is torture.. I can't wait.. ----- Beware miners with guns!
Rodj Blake Amarr PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris	Posted - 2008.02.26 08:18:00 - [4] Ooooh, this is more than I can bear! Dulce et decorum est pro imperium mori.
Marcus TheMartin Gallente Deadly Addiction Un-Natural Selection	Posted - 2008.02.26 08:34:00 - [5] Dukenukem forever will be out before the op updates his post
Inertial The Python Cartel	Posted - 2008.02.26 08:39:00 - [6] Edited by: Inertial on 26/02/2008 08:41:39 Edited by: Inertial on 26/02/2008 08:41:15 Originally by: Chribba can't wait!! so excited!! omg!! Woot! Chribba posted in my thread before even reading my OP! I am so happy! EDIT: ZOMG! I just realised: This looks like a official endorsement from Chribba! Now CCP HAVE to implement it!
Frances Ducoir Bounty Hunter - Dark Legion Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2008.02.26 08:48:00 - [7] troll... btw this is actually how lowsec was intended to be. snip Signiture remoted because it contained profanity - hutch
Inertial The Python Cartel	Posted - 2008.02.26 08:50:00 - [8] Originally by: Frances Ducoir troll... btw this is actually how lowsec was intended to be. Yes, but this isn't generally how low-sec is. And this isn't a troll post, or flamebait. These are my personal opinions.
Frances Ducoir Bounty Hunter - Dark Legion Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2008.02.26 08:55:00 - [9] Edited by: Frances Ducoir on 26/02/2008 08:55:50 boost lowsec gateguns & lowsec rewards then? ^-^ snip Signiture remoted because it contained profanity - hutch
Amateratsu Caldari Terra Incognita The Reckoning.	Posted - 2008.02.26 09:04:00 - [10] For starters, there has to be place where new players can learn the game and find their way with out being ganked the second they undock for the 1st time. And as you said, industrial (Carebear) players would quit in large enough numbers to reduce ccps subscriptions to such an extent that it would be finantial suicide and end eve's developement. So sure, if you really want to kill eve online, remove hi-sec
eWrath Caldari Revenent Defence Corperation The Omni Federation	Posted - 2008.02.26 09:10:00 - [11] Posting to a flamebait thread, your post has been censored. ----- Beware miners with guns!
Roxanna Kell FinFleet Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.02.26 09:11:00 - [12] Love it, lol iam so ebil.
Golden Helmet Caldari The Python Cartel	Posted - 2008.02.26 10:50:00 - [13] Dammit Inertial, what did I say about trying to enrage the carebears on the forums .... not that I disagree. If I had my way, it'd all be 0.0, no sov, no POS's, no capitals. But I'm a selfish bastard
Surfin's PlunderBunny Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.26 10:59:00 - [14] I endorse this idea Originally by: Avaricia look a goon lol
ghosttr Amarr ARK-CORP RONA Alliance	Posted - 2008.02.26 11:20:00 - [15] This idea oughta set him off then Hope i get his stuff My Blog
Rodj Blake Amarr PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris	Posted - 2008.02.26 11:34:00 - [16] I got all excited waiting for this thread to have some content, and after all the hype, I must say that I'm very disappointed with the result. Dulce et decorum est pro imperium mori.
Wet Ferret	Posted - 2008.02.26 11:35:00 - [17] Hmmm, not seeing what's good about this suggestion aside from the "less lag" part. Not seeing it. Oh wait, I get it... "open season on mission runners and miners all over space". Yup, that about sums it up. Right? I mean, who else loses in this equation?
Admiral Eos Gallente Federation Fleet Chaos Incarnate.	Posted - 2008.02.26 11:53:00 - [18] Originally by: Wet Ferret Hmmm, not seeing what's good about this suggestion aside from the "less lag" part. Not seeing it. Oh wait, I get it... "open season on mission runners and miners all over space". Yup, that about sums it up. Right? I mean, who else loses in this equation? No, no you silly goose. The "opean season on mission runners" is yet another solution to lag!
Inertial The Python Cartel	Posted - 2008.02.26 12:13:00 - [19] Edited by: Inertial on 26/02/2008 12:14:20 Originally by: Golden Helmet Dammit Inertial, what did I say about trying to enrage the carebears on the forums .... not that I disagree. If I had my way, it'd all be 0.0, no sov, no POS's, no capitals. But I'm a selfish bastard I hate 0.0 bubble camps, they are almost impossible to get out of in certain ships (specially when you fit expanded cargoholds). Originally by: Wet Ferret Hmmm, not seeing what's good about this suggestion aside from the "less lag" part. Not seeing it. Oh wait, I get it... "open season on mission runners and miners all over space". Yup, that about sums it up. Right? I mean, who else loses in this equation? In the end, the carebears get a nasty punch in the face, but if they are able to clear the blood out of their eyes, and clear their thoughts, they would see that banding together and striking back would be the best solution. Today in the game, you can make several millions with minimal risks. Traders take large risks. They can pool a lot of money into a market that crashes, leaving them with crumbs, compared to what they had. PVPers take huge risks. They can loose their ships and pods, and everything that goes with it. 0.0 and low-sec ratters/miners take huge risks. Facing the same concequenses as PVPers. High-sec miners/ratters take minimal risks. They only risk loosing anything if they are wardecked or careless. You pretty much have to fall asleep in a mission to loose a ship. All in all you might make more in low-sec if you are able to work undisturbed (which isn't that hard, if you do your homework), but the advantage isn't that much greater than high-sec (unless you know what you are doing). Now, as far as I am concerned, the world needs carebears, but I wish more of them got out in low-sec and kill rats/pirats more often. I am sure if some carebear alliance decieded to take a piece of low-sec, and didn't announce their arrivel at the forums (thereby bringing every single pirate within 5 region to their doorstep), they would be able to extract huge ammounts of isks from it. Originally by: Amateratsu For starters, there has to be place where new players can learn the game and find their way with out being ganked the second they undock for the 1st time. And as you said, industrial (Carebear) players would quit in large enough numbers to reduce ccps subscriptions to such an extent that it would be finantial suicide and end eve's developement. So sure, if you really want to kill eve online, remove hi-secRolling Eyes I understand your point about new players needing somewhere to learn the ropes, but are 70% of all characters in EVE newbs? Surely 10 systems around the starter systems, would be enough to facilitate them. Problem with this would of course be that 70% of eve would move to those ten systems. I actually don't think that all high-sec dwellers would quit. I think that a lot of the high-sec dwellers who are short term subscribers would quit. I think that most players would adapt and find ways of defending themselves. I believe that 70% of Eve would be able to defend against the 5000-10000 outlaws out there (I am not sure about those numbers, but I think that is correctish).
Lerand Gaunt	Posted - 2008.02.26 12:13:00 - [20] I do have a "better proposal" for this "problem": Originally by: Inertial This is basically what I would love to see happen: Concord is removed! Concord precense if quadripled and extended to 0.1 space. Their reponsetime is also reduced by 90%. Originally by: Inertial Gateguns/Station guns in 0.5 to 1.0 is boosted to be able to kill a Battle ship in a single shot, and capitals in a few. High-sec gateguns/Station guns don't kill anyone wihtout a agression timer. This means there can be pirates in high-sec, but no gatecamps (except gatecamps to kill pirates who are <-5). Gateguns/Station guns in 0.0 to 1.0 is boosted to be able to kill a Battle ship in a single shot, and capitals in a few. They would also engage anyone with sec status below 0.0. Originally by: Inertial This drastic move would ideally cause several things: People would need to band together to create what used to be high-sec, meaning that carebears would actually have to make a effort to be left in peace. Grievers would actually need to build own stations and work to support their cause. They would also need to plan things in advance instead of just "gank anyone" mentality. Originally by: Inertial A lot of people would quit, meaning less lag! Pirates across New Eden would rejoice ! The first two points would be what I consider the major selling points of this whole thing. A lot of grievers would quit, meaning less lag Players EVE-Online would rejoice The first point would be what I consider the major selling points of this whole thing. Originally by: Inertial BTW, CCP needs to prohibit threads without any content (10 points to the first one who says "like this one!"). BTW, CCP needs to prohibit threads where OP's only try to boost his or her way of playstyle in expence of majority of playerbase. Way to go, OP. Both of our posts are as genuine, well thought of and sure to fix every aspect in EVE.
Inertial The Python Cartel	Posted - 2008.02.26 12:32:00 - [21] Originally by: Lerand Gaunt BTW, CCP needs to prohibit threads where OP's only try to boost his or her way of playstyle in expence of majority of playerbase. Numero uno: My reference to posting threads without content was pointed at the fact that this thread was first posted without a OP and just a title. The reason was that I pressed enter while typing the topic, thereby posting a empty thread. All of the replies above my second post came before I added content to the thread. On a lot of other forums and discussion boards you are unable to post wihtout entering at least 1 character. Here is the message you get from slashdot if you try to post without content Quote: Cat got your tongue? (something important seems to be missing from your comment ... like the body or the subject!) Numero Dos(?): And yes, my "ultimate solution" may be a bit biased... Actually, VERY biased, but it makes sense to me. My thread will probably not make that much of a difference. I doubt a CCP dev will look at the forums and say: "This guy got it RIGHT! TO THE DEVMOBILE!", but, something... something... something... The main difference with mine and your post, is of course that my suggestions makes one playstyle less luctrative, while your suggestions makes one playstyle dissappere. I am guessing though, that you took it to the extreme to underline your point.
Zeros Omega Reikoku Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.02.26 12:54:00 - [22] I vote we just disable everyones warp drive, and stick us all outside jita 4-4!!!11oneonehax... --- History is written on the sands of Arrakis. A chapter has ended, swept away by the whirlwind. One door has closed, but another has opened. And on the other side... our future...
Luh Windan	Posted - 2008.02.26 12:59:00 - [23] Originally by: Inertial In the end, the carebears get a nasty punch in the face, but if they are able to clear the blood out of their eyes, and clear their thoughts, they would see that banding together and striking back would be the best solution. . Perhaps there should be an automatic punishment for people with low-sec ratings - they should be forced to do community service helping out carebears - including paying some or all of the ISK they make while helping out. More seriously (and assuming that the OP was after debate and wasn't just trolling - not quite decided on that one): There seem to be two kinds of player in EVE - those that look at what everyone else is doing, decide that it is unfair in some way and come on here shouting the odds and demanding that the game be changed, and there are those that look at what others are doing and say "how can I take advantage of that" and depending on their skills and abilities make some Isk. I would hope that just as in life the latter are the rich ones. Given we seem to see just as many people moaning about pirates as we do about carebears I guess the balance must be about right.
Luh Windan	Posted - 2008.02.26 13:00:00 - [24] Originally by: Zeros Omega I vote we just disable everyones warp drive, and stick us all outside jita 4-4!!!11oneonehax... ha ha ha /this we could have 'jita week' once a year - the whole of EVE fighting lag and each other until the last one left standing in an empty unlagged system is declared the winner of Eve.
Halcana	Posted - 2008.02.26 15:55:00 - [25] Firstly, this would create serious problems for new players. Enough Ibises and Bantams get lost just to can-baiters, without the added potential for anyone with the mean reds to just jump into Kisogo and start shooting. Secondly, you personally might not care about whether people would quit in droves, but it's CCP who would have to decide whether to implement this, and I'm pretty sure they would care; regardless of your personal standpoint, you have to look at things from CCP's point of view if you want to make serious suggestions. Thirdly, this is (somewhat) a role-playing game; it wouldn't make much sense for the empire factions to cheerfully allow their "secure" systems to become anarchic pirate playgrounds. In an RP sense, if there was no Concord then the factions would deploy local cops instead. So, good things about it from the non-pirate perspective; well, yes, it would make (ex-)highsec life more exciting (or more frustrating, depending on your POV); it would create a situation of open-season on macro-miners (two thumbs up); it would promote teamwork and make NPC corporations less attractive as long-term employers; it would render moot the whole question of whether corp-jumping to avoid war is an exploit; and it would (I think), on balance, actually lessen the overall potential for industrial corps to be "griefed", since an arbitrary "griefer" in system would be a threat, and therefore a target, to anyone in Local, not just the corp he's at war with. Therefore an industrial corp composed of normal people who've made friends in the area, rather than gobby smacktards who everyone in Local hates, might even be safer without highsec and the war mechanics than with them. The flipside of that is that it would seriously mess with the empire-war mechanics, making wardecs essentially optional, which you can form your own opinion about.
Rawr Cristina Caldari Cult of Rawr	Posted - 2008.02.26 16:16:00 - [26]
Stakhanov Metafarmers	Posted - 2008.02.26 16:22:00 - [27] What about macrohaulers ? They make a steady profit off courier missions (zero risk of market crash) and never leave the protection of sentry guns , ever. This suggestion would make highsec an atrocious blend of deserted belts and nastily overcrowded gates / stations. Originally by: CCP Mitnal Hi, my name's Mitnal and I'm addicted to locking threads
Jowen Datloran Caldari Science and Trade Institute	Posted - 2008.02.26 16:40:00 - [28] Edited by: Jowen Datloran on 26/02/2008 16:42:23 Interesting suggestions by the OP. In the same sweep I would add these changes: Anybody with a security status below -5.0 can not dock in ANY station belonging to the 4 empires+Ammatar, Khanid, SOE, Thukker, Mordu, ORE, The Society, Syndicate and CONCORD. Anybody with a factional standing below -5.0 with Angels, Serpentis, Blood Raiders, Guristas or Sansha's Nation can not dock at stations of that faction. In fact the station guns should shoot you on sight instead. This will provide great opportunity for the more "must-pew-pew" minded to learn the pleasures of handling their own POS. ---------------- Mr. Science & Trade Institute
Inertial The Python Cartel	Posted - 2008.02.26 17:02:00 - [29] Originally by: Halcana Firstly, this would create serious problems for new players. Enough Ibises and Bantams get lost just to can-baiters, without the added potential for anyone with the mean reds to just jump into Kisogo and start shooting. Secondly, you personally might not care about whether people would quit in droves, but it's CCP who would have to decide whether to implement this, and I'm pretty sure they would care; regardless of your personal standpoint, you have to look at things from CCP's point of view if you want to make serious suggestions. Thirdly, this is (somewhat) a role-playing game; it wouldn't make much sense for the empire factions to cheerfully allow their "secure" systems to become anarchic pirate playgrounds. In an RP sense, if there was no Concord then the factions would deploy local cops instead. So, good things about it from the non-pirate perspective; well, yes, it would make (ex-)highsec life more exciting (or more frustrating, depending on your POV); it would create a situation of open-season on macro-miners (two thumbs up); it would promote teamwork and make NPC corporations less attractive as long-term employers; it would render moot the whole question of whether corp-jumping to avoid war is an exploit; and it would (I think), on balance, actually lessen the overall potential for industrial corps to be "griefed", since an arbitrary "griefer" in system would be a threat, and therefore a target, to anyone in Local, not just the corp he's at war with. Therefore an industrial corp composed of normal people who've made friends in the area, rather than gobby smacktards who everyone in Local hates, might even be safer without highsec and the war mechanics than with them. The flipside of that is that it would seriously mess with the empire-war mechanics, making wardecs essentially optional, which you can form your own opinion about. A lot of what you said is a part of the reasoning behind my suggestion. Originally by: Jowen Datloran Edited by: Jowen Datloran on 26/02/2008 16:52:27 Interesting suggestions by the OP. In the same sweep I would add these changes: Anybody with a security status below -5.0 can not dock in ANY station belonging to the 4 empires+Ammatar, Khanid, SOE, Thukker, Mordu, ORE, The Society, Syndicate and CONCORD. Anybody with a factional standing below -5.0 with Angels, Serpentis, Blood Raiders, Guristas or Sansha's Nation can not dock at stations of that faction. In fact the station guns should shoot you on sight instead. This will provide great opportunity for the more "must-pew-pew" minded to learn the pleasures of handling their own POS. EDIT: Another good addition here would be restrict ejecting from ships to only be possible near the appropriate POS structure. I kinda agree with this. However several stations would be "free stations" allowing anyone to dock, no mather what alliegiance or security status. These stations would of course be in low-sec.

Pages: [1] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last 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.