| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Avon
Black Nova Corp
Band of Brothers
   |
Posted - 2008.03.26 11:37:00 -
[1]
I think higher security status should be rewarded, seems perfectly fair.
I'm not sure about linking it to Concord response time though; here is my reasoning:
People with higher security status have usually obtained it by grinding missions.
Grinding missions earns lots of ISK.
Thus, people who have a higher sec status probably have a larger financial buffer than those who do not; and do not need faster Concord response than those who would lose a larger proportion of their wealth in the same attack.
That said, I'm not sure what reward you could offer to players with a higher security status which would be fair and balanced - afterall, I kill people all the time, and my sec status is pretty good.
Eve-Online: The Text Adventure |
Avon
Black Nova Corp
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 11:38:00 -
[2]
 Originally by: Malken
i think a decaying sec status should be implemented.
as in lets say a person havent comitted any crimes in a long time then his sec status should slowly start returning at a very small rate.
lets say if no crimes have been done in a month by this person his sec status starts to grow back up at 0.001 a week or something
and yeah suicide stuff is fun, all ppl who whine about it are way to much in the hellokitty state of mind tbh.
That is how the system used to work, along with Concord agents you could bribe or do missions for to increase it more quickly.
Eve-Online: The Text Adventure |
Avon
Black Nova Corp
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 11:46:00 -
[3]
Originally by: LaVista Vista
Well, a start would be to remove insurance from suicide-ganking.
I *still* don't understand why people keep suggesting this.
It will do nothing other than raise the break-even point on a gank, whilst penalising players who lost their ship through a genuine mistake (such as people working together on a mission in a laggy situation, or just misclicking).
Eve-Online: The Text Adventure |
Avon
Black Nova Corp
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 12:32:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Avon on 26/03/2008 12:32:44
Originally by: LaVista Vista
Thats the whole point of it. If you remove insurance the frequency of suicide ganking will decrease.
I wouldn't, seriously.
There are ways to address this situation, but this is not a solution, no matter how much people want to think it is.
On the surface it seems fairer, but really it would only serve to punish genuine mistakes, whilst making no difference to the people who choose to suicide gank.
It may make a great election pledge, but it is ultimately hollow and pointless. Worse, it would probably do more harm than good, and mostly to the people you are trying to sell it to.
Eve-Online: The Text Adventure |
Avon
Black Nova Corp
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 15:12:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Avon on 26/03/2008 15:12:46
Originally by: Hamfast
Personally, I would like to see Security hits for bad/good behavior be affected by the security of the system you are in... thus nothing you do in 0.0 space will affect your Security Rating, actions in Low Sec space would have very minor effects, pull something in 1.0 space and you can expect a huge sec hit...
Tie that in with the OP's suggestion of making positive security status meaningful, make the penalty for attacking someone:
Attacker sec -((System Sec rating * Victim Security Satus)/10)
And the penalty for killing someone's ship:
Attacker sec - ((System Sec rating * Victim security Status)/2)
And the penalty for podding someone:
Attacker sec - (System Sec rating * Victim security Status)
Eve-Online: The Text Adventure |
Avon
Black Nova Corp
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 16:27:00 -
[6]
No, my maths was intentional.
The reason is the side effect of attacking people who have a -ve security status.
Get it?
Example:
Attacker Sec 2.0
Victim 1 Sec 5
Victim 2 Sec -3
1/
Attacker vs Victim 1 in a 0.8 system.
2 - ((0.8 * 5)/10) -- attacks
1.6 - ((0.8 * 5)/2) -- kills
-0.6 - (0.8 * 5) -- pods
Result
-4.6 .. a massive sec hit of -6.4 in one attack.
Now that same attacker engaged Victim 2 in a 0.4 system.
-4.6 - ((0.4 * -3)/10) -- attacks
-4.48 - ((0.4 * -3)/2) -- kills
-3.88 - (0.4 * -3) -- pods
Result
-2.68 .. a security gain of 1.92 for attacking another criminal.
Eve-Online: The Text Adventure |
Avon
Black Nova Corp
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 20:04:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Hamfast
I see your point, but if you do the math where the victim is someone with a Sec raiting of 0.0 then there is no security hit for the attacker (.08 * 0.0)/10 = 0
I'm cool with that too, I don't see the issue.
As far as Concord are concerned they are a nobody - no foul.
If the system allows security loss or gained based on the sec status of the victim, then there is always going to be a null-point somewhere.
You could add a base constant modifier if you so desire - but that is all about balancing the numbers rather than the concept of the system.
Eve-Online: The Text Adventure |
Avon
Black Nova Corp
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.03.27 08:53:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Ben Derindar
One idea I wonder about factoring in somehow is a slightly reduced rate of security increase as the total of all your negative sec hits grows, with a view that CONCORD shouldn't forgive repeat suicide gankers as easily, i.e. once a player has gone through the cycle of frittering away their security status and farming it up again over and over a few times, it should start to become harder to raise their sec yet again.
This wouldn't affect genuine pirates as their sec status would tend to stay lower without fluctuating as much as a career suicide ganker.
/Ben
Sounds reasonable.
Eve-Online: The Text Adventure |
Avon
Black Nova Corp
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.03.27 13:41:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Avon on 27/03/2008 13:43:35
Originally by: Matthew
Post
Like I said, I don't do the numbers :P
N00b blasting probably wouldn't be that much of an issue, and certainly not in starter systems, because it is already against the rules. In a system that allows security loss and gain there is always going to be a flipping point - a point of zero or minimal loss or gain. If pushed I would want that to be around -2, the point where players start having access to hi-sec space restricted .. but that is a question of balance.
As to people hiring themselves out to be shot at .. great.
They get to sit there and profit from their bad reputation, whilst hoping you are honest enough not to go for the big gain and pod them. No issue.
With the absolute balance, I don't really mind too much how the numbers fall.
Maybe they should depend on the difference of both players sec status, or have constants to modify them, or be adjusted on a non-linear scale .. but they are all number tweaks, a matter of balance, not design.
Eve-Online: The Text Adventure |
Avon
Black Nova Corp
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.03.27 13:50:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Nephiam
Yes, but there is nothing wrong with my sec status so I can get Insurance - it is the people wth no regard to sec status that should be flagged Criminal and be refused the right to do business with the insurance company
That isn't what people are asking for.
They are saying that anyone killed by Concord should forfeit their insurance, whereas you are saying people with a low security status should - there is quite a big difference.
Eve-Online: The Text Adventure |
Avon
Black Nova Corp
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.03.27 14:16:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Matthew
The only way this could be at all balanced is if the sec status bonus from killing a criminal player was capped at a really, really low amount, and subject to the same timers as the NPC gains. Popping your own alt should never be more effective than hunting down a decent spawn in 0.0 space. Otherwise the only characters with negative sec would be alts or people wearing it as a status symbol.
Unfortunatley every change in Eve has to be balanced for bloody alts ... grrr...
I guess the correct solution is to have the sec increase reward decrease as the attackers sec status increases.
Use the difference between the attacker and victim sec status as a divisor for the increase. Again, throw numbers in to balance as required.
Eve-Online: The Text Adventure |
Avon
Black Nova Corp
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.03.27 14:36:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Hekilo Tetsatz
But when those same new players are being ganked or robbed, or make a mistake and get can flipped by people they have no real means of retaliating against they are supposed to be...what? Overjoyed that they got to experience EVE the way it was meant to be played?
You're right.
Insurance payouts for people who get killed because they got can flipped should be stopped too.
I mean, they are choosing to PvP, just like suicide gankers, right?
Eve-Online: The Text Adventure |
Avon
Black Nova Corp
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.03.27 16:06:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Hekilo Tetsatz
Originally by: Avon
You're right.
Insurance payouts for people who get killed because they got can flipped should be stopped too.
I mean, they are choosing to PvP, just like suicide gankers, right?
Unless I missed something in the patch notes you don't get popped by Concord for being can flipped.
I never said you did.
If you didn't understand the context of my reply then I apologise, I thought it was pretty clear.
Eve-Online: The Text Adventure |
Avon
Black Nova Corp
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.03.27 16:07:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Hamfast
Avon and Matthew,
Question for you... (In an attempt to get around the alt abuse issue)
How about if the Security gain base was limited to the difference between the attacker and the Target or 0.0 which ever is smaller... (As the base modifier is currently the difference between your current sec status and -10 (going down) or +10 (going up))
I know there has to be a problem...
I'll let Matthew comment on that, he is far better at the details than me. 
Eve-Online: The Text Adventure |
| |
|