| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
gfldex
Kabelkopp
   |
Posted - 2008.03.26 11:43:00 -
[1]
 Originally by: F'nog
In the old days, maybe in Beta, sec status was supposed to mean something. Back then, positive sec was supposed to make a difference. Currently, there's no difference between 0 and 5 other than a number on the screen.
In beta and until a few month after release there where no sentries and no CONCORD. The sec status of a player was a label and meant to be one.
CCP got the impression that ganking noobs in 1.0 systems was slowing the growth of EVE down so they give up with the player policed space idea. (If that move was successful will ever stay a mystery.)
Before I can agree to any change to the sec status system you have to show me that there is a problem. You have to provide numbers like barges destroyed by wars vs. suiciding or number of suicides compared to growth of the player base. All those mindless post in the past few weeks didn't show any evidence that there is a problem but will finally get goons what they want.
--
There are countless games in the world. There are at least as many ppl that dont like one or more rules of said games. That never stopped smart game designers from creating good games.
|
gfldex
Kabelkopp
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 11:45:00 -
[2]
Originally by: LaVista Vista
Well, a start would be to remove insurance from suicide-ganking.
But doesnt sec-status already affect you? If you have a good sec-status you can get jump-clones and less tax on market orders.
You can't get a sec status of 8.0 anymore.
--
There are countless games in the world. There are at least as many ppl that dont like one or more rules of said games. That never stopped smart game designers from creating good games.
|
gfldex
Kabelkopp
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 11:50:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Avon
I think higher security status should be rewarded, seems perfectly fair.
It is already rewarded by giving you the ability to destroy ships and even pods in empire space. If you don't stretch it you can even fly in CONCORD patrolled space 15 minutes after podding somebody as long as you got your sec status up in advance.
If that reward is reasonable is a different question. But being able to hurt somebody in a NPC corp (corp thief, mindless smack, etc.) is also a good option to have.
What I don't understand is that you lose the same sec status for ganking a hauler in a 1.0 system then you lose by destroying a (semi) pirate in 0.1.
--
There are countless games in the world. There are at least as many ppl that dont like one or more rules of said games. That never stopped smart game designers from creating good games.
|
gfldex
Kabelkopp
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 11:57:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Avon
Originally by: LaVista Vista
Well, a start would be to remove insurance from suicide-ganking.
I *still* don't understand why people keep suggesting this.
Because ppl tend to substitute proper solutions with knee-jerking. Esp. if they are on an election campaign.
--
There are countless games in the world. There are at least as many ppl that dont like one or more rules of said games. That never stopped smart game designers from creating good games.
|
gfldex
Kabelkopp
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 11:58:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Riho
i like the iea that OP presented... this would mean that positive sec acctually means something
And how would a miner get a positive sec status? Don't you think that's a bit unfair?
--
There are countless games in the world. There are at least as many ppl that dont like one or more rules of said games. That never stopped smart game designers from creating good games.
|
gfldex
Kabelkopp
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 12:55:00 -
[6]
Originally by: LaVista Vista
Thats the whole point of it. If you remove insurance the frequency of suicide ganking will decrease.
Are goons suiciding hulks for profit?
--
There are countless games in the world. There are at least as many ppl that dont like one or more rules of said games. That never stopped smart game designers from creating good games.
|
gfldex
Kabelkopp
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 13:30:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Matthew
Which is one of my main gripes with the sec-status system. Gaining sec-status isn't valued highly because you effectively get paid to gain it.
I'd like to see things changed so you can choose to receive the bounty or the sec-status increase, but not both. That would make earning sec-status a goal in it's own right, rather than a happy side-effect of an already profitable activity.
Low sec would be a lot less hostile playground and anything that can be obtained there (LP, med mins, ISK) would drop in value. That change would have a massive impact on the whole economy. Empire wars would increase in number and duration and the overall income outside of a NPC corp would drop a lot. Being in a NPC corp could get the new nano.
Changes to sec status gain could have the very opposite effect. Think of the jet can flagging. It did not help with ore thieves but increased the annoyance level for miners and got a new banable offense into the game.
--
There are countless games in the world. There are at least as many ppl that dont like one or more rules of said games. That never stopped smart game designers from creating good games.
|
| |
|