EVE Search - Security Status Balance Issues (new formulas inside!)

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

Security Status Balance Issues (new formulas inside!)

» 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)
Rear Commander	Posted - 2008.08.06 15:51:00 - [1] Edited by: Rear Commander on 06/08/2008 16:00:03 Edited by: Rear Commander on 06/08/2008 15:54:43 Originally by: CCP fear We are increasing the security penalties throughout high-security space. It will be a gradual change, from 1.0 down to 0.1, where the security level of the system will dictate how much penalty you receive for illegal actions against a fellow capsuleer. This means that 1.0 will now be the safest of places, where aggressions and kills will be severely penalized and can quickly outlaw the aggressor from higher security levels. Conversely, 0.1, 0.2, and 0.3 will see a decrease in penalty, but not a big step down. To me this reads as if .4 systems were chosen as the balancing point, retaining the standard .5% loss for aggression and 2.0% loss for destruction. However, this hasn't been done. Instead it's been balanced around .3 systems. Sec status is already a royal PITA to maintain. So far on Sisi, sec loss on high sec systems and sec loss versus high security targets have already been penalized. Let's not start increasing the base sec status loss in .4s as well. As it stands on sisi you can lose as much as thirty two percent more sec lost than currently on tranq. Compared to before: 1.0 = 3x sec loss .9 = 2.7x sec loss .8 = 2.4x sec loss .7 = 2.1x sec loss .6 = 1.8x sec loss .5 = 1.5x sec loss .4 = 1.2x sec loss .3 = .9x sec loss .2 = .6x sec loss .1 = .3x sec loss Previous LOSS formulas were: Aggress: (.005)(Current Sec + 10) = actual sec loss Destroy: (.02)(Current Sec + 10)= actual sec loss New LOSS Formulas are: Aggress: (.005(1-(aggressor's sec- victim's sec)/100)(truesec 3)(current sec + 10)= actual sec loss Destroy: (.02(1-(aggressor's sec- victim's sec)/100)(truesec 3)(current sec + 10)= actual sec loss Test Numbers: Test 1: .06 aggresses a -1.6 in a .3384 system Combat log reports a .0998% loss. Security sheet reports a .4991% loss Resulting sec status is .01 Test 2: .01 aggresses a -1.6 in a .4319 system Combat log reports a -.1274% loss Security sheet reports a .6372% loss Resulting sec status is -.05 Test 3: -.05 aggresses a -1.6 in a .1889 system Combat log reports a -.0558% loss Security sheet reports a .279% loss Resulting sec status is -.08 Test 4: -.08 aggresses a -1.6 in a .1498 system Combat log reports a -.0443% loss Security sheet reports a -.2213% loss Resulting sec status is -.10 Test 5: -.10 destroys a -1.6 in a .1498 system Combat log reports a -.1771% loss Security sheet reports a -.8855% loss Resulting sec status is -.19
AshtarDJ Filthy Scum	Posted - 2008.08.06 16:14:00 - [2] Great!!!! It looks like the voices of the afk/macro haulers that have had their ships suicided have finally been heard! The only thing left to do now is to give carebears the ability to hire concord escort in lowsec, be able to cheaply insure all contents in the cargo and at last take away the "PvP based MMO" from EvE's description...
marakor Gallente Anti Lag Forum Smackers	Posted - 2008.08.06 16:21:00 - [3] So does this mean i can only kill 2 freighters or industrial s full of juicy goodies before i need to chain a few systems and gain some sec status back?. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. Why not introduce sec gain for killing PC piwats instead of just the NPC kind?.
Ydyp Ieva Caldari Amarrian Retribution	Posted - 2008.08.06 16:33:00 - [4] Originally by: marakor So does this mean i can only kill 2 freighters or industrial s full of juicy goodies before i need to chain a few systems and gain some sec status back?. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. Why not introduce sec gain for killing PC piwats instead of just the NPC kind?. Problem is there isn't any mechanism to define PC piwats I think they got the right path for the security hits, but whent hey balance it around a 0.3 system then I wonder why 0.4 is still considred low-sec with no concord in it. I agree if they should balance it around 0.4 or even 0.5.
marakor Gallente Anti Lag Forum Smackers	Posted - 2008.08.06 16:37:00 - [5] Originally by: Ydyp Ieva Originally by: marakor So does this mean i can only kill 2 freighters or industrial s full of juicy goodies before i need to chain a few systems and gain some sec status back?. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. Why not introduce sec gain for killing PC piwats instead of just the NPC kind?. Problem is there isn't any mechanism to define PC piwats I think they got the right path for the security hits, but whent hey balance it around a 0.3 system then I wonder why 0.4 is still considred low-sec with no concord in it. I agree if they should balance it around 0.4 or even 0.5. Well i thought like if he is -10 you get x gain -9 you get x thats a bit less all the way down to whatever it is when your not a piwaty kinda dude.
Red Panda VMF-214 Blacksheep	Posted - 2008.08.06 17:47:00 - [6] Could a dev explain to us why there is a bigger sec staus hit in 0.4 ? If you want to promote fights in low sec, why this increase in 0.4 ? I dont understand. My suggestion : make it so that the highest 0.4 ( being 0.44 ?) is at 1x penalty compared to tranquility. --------- Red Panda --------- ()_() ( '_') (")(") I need Bamboo !!
Rear Commander	Posted - 2008.08.06 17:59:00 - [7] Originally by: Red Panda Could a dev explain to us why there is a bigger sec staus hit in 0.4 ? If you want to promote fights in low sec, why this increase in 0.4 ? I dont understand. My suggestion : make it so that the highest 0.4 ( being 0.44 ?) is at 1x penalty compared to tranquility. That's what I think too. It's also what the dev blog implies happened. I wonder if it was a mistake?
Dahin Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2008.08.06 18:06:00 - [8] Gaining sec status for killing pirates is very exploitable. How fast can you chain your alt before you can go back in jita? Why fly covops? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0WOIwlXE9g
Rear Commander	Posted - 2008.08.06 18:13:00 - [9] Originally by: Dahin Gaining sec status for killing pirates is very exploitable. How fast can you chain your alt before you can go back in jita? Yah, that's a pretty obviously bad idea. I would like to see the changes be balanced around the .4s rather than the .3s
doctorstupid2 The Accursed	Posted - 2008.08.07 03:34:00 - [10] Edited by: doctorstupid2 on 07/08/2008 03:34:26 Originally by: Red Panda Could a dev explain to us why there is a bigger sec staus hit in 0.4 ? If you want to promote fights in low sec, why this increase in 0.4 ? I dont understand. My suggestion : make it so that the highest 0.4 ( being 0.44 ?) is at 1x penalty compared to tranquility. My formula was way esier and more direct. But hey, that's CCP's thing lately, if you're nerfing one thing better nerf unrelated stuff for good measure. "Suicide ganking is broken, let's increase sec hits in low sec." When you think about it, it really is a stone's throw from "nanos are overpowered, nerf webs." Abusive \| Deadspace \| Deadspace2
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2008.08.07 06:08:00 - [11] You could try a bug report, pointing out that the sec loss seem centered about 0.3 system, while the dev blog seem to use 0.4 as a point of reference. It could be a simple error. Or a effect of your sec status. (you have used a clean 0 sec status character for the test?) Originally by: Gamesguy the suicide ganking is merely an isk farming activity.
ridik ulass	Posted - 2008.08.07 08:19:00 - [12] Edited by: ridik ulass on 07/08/2008 08:19:26 first question, can you get your sec back up quicker in higher sec then? secondly this is pritty crap imo...but as a -sec player anyway, hopefully this will send some unattentive gankers forcably into lo-sec and help populate my kills (hopefully not my deaths) Blood on my torp or isk in my wallet
Rear Commander	Posted - 2008.08.07 11:45:00 - [13] Originally by: doctorstupid2 My formula[/url] was way esier and more direct. But hey, that's CCP's thing lately, if you're nerfing one thing better nerf unrelated stuff for good measure. "Suicide ganking is broken, let's increase sec hits in low sec." When you think about it, it really is a stone's throw from "nanos are overpowered, nerf webs." Not sure I understood your post doc. This isn't my suggestion for sec changes but rather the actual changes on Sisi. I definitely agree that more sec shouldn't be lost in .4s than is currently lost on Tranq, especially when the Dev Blog is supposed to be reducing sec losses in low sec. Originally by: Ridik Ulass first question, can you get your sec back up quicker in higher sec then? secondly this is pritty crap imo...but as a -sec player anyway, hopefully this will send some unattentive gankers forcably into lo-sec and help populate my kills (hopefully not my deaths) No, the formula for gaining sec has never been based on the sec of the system you're in. The only reason that matters is it determines the rat spawns. So nothing changes there. And although I doubt you'll see people mis-calculate their sec drop you may find less people wanting to keep up the sec grind to keep their sec high, as .4s are now about 30% more sec loss with the same rate of sec gain in ratting. A good deal of the major low sec pvp areas are .4 too, which seems pretty stupid to penalize to me.
Rear Commander	Posted - 2008.08.07 12:13:00 - [14] Edited by: Rear Commander on 07/08/2008 12:13:27 Originally by: Venkul Mul You could try a bug report, pointing out that the sec loss seem centered about 0.3 system, while the dev blog seem to use 0.4 as a point of reference. It could be a simple error. Or a effect of your sec status. (you have used a clean 0 sec status character for the test?) It's not an effect of my sec status or a simple error, the test results are there, do the math yourself if you want. To get sec losses equal to tranq you need to be in a .3333 system. Higher sec than that is penalized.
Hugh Ruka Exploratio et Industria Morispatia	Posted - 2008.08.07 14:24:00 - [15] Originally by: Rear Commander Finally, on an equally fail note. When I did these tests I noticed this: After I aggressed my alt in the first low sec and then we jumped into the next low sec, aggressing him again, inside of 15 minutes, gave me a second sec hit. Yes, jumping clears the aggression timers versus a player, though it doesn't clear GCC, so chasing a player through low sec and aggressing in each system gives a separate penalty each time. Now THAT is broken IMO. --- SIG --- CSM: your support is needed !
Matalino Gallente Ki Tech Industries	Posted - 2008.08.07 15:58:00 - [16] Edited by: Matalino on 07/08/2008 15:59:51 Originally by: Venkul Mul You could try a bug report, pointing out that the sec loss seem centered about 0.3 system, while the dev blog seem to use 0.4 as a point of reference. It could be a simple error. Given that the dev blog states "Conversely, 0.1, 0.2, and 0.3 will see a decrease in penalty, but not a big step down." and does not state if 0.4 systems are getting an increase or decrease, I doubt that it was a "mistake". Looks like 0.333 security was the balancing point with the aim being that security hits are increased alround: we discovered that the balance between gaining standing and losing it was not in line with our intentions. It is too easy to gain back lost standing, taking only a few days to erase all the damage done by ganking. Now have they brought it in line with their intentions by only increasing the security penalty or have they also stealth nerf'ed the gains for ratting/mission running? Rear Commander, thanks for posting your findings. Originally by: Rear Commander Finally, on an equally fail note. When I did these tests I noticed this: After I aggressed my alt in the first low sec and then we jumped into the next low sec, aggressing him again, inside of 15 minutes, gave me a second sec hit. Yes, jumping clears the aggression timers versus a player, though it doesn't clear GCC, so chasing a player through low sec and aggressing in each system gives a separate penalty each time. That needs a bug report!
Dahin Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2008.08.07 22:54:00 - [17] all kinds of timers are tied to the solarsystems and people have been disgruntled about this for a long time now. I don't expect them to become mobile any time soon. Why fly covops? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0WOIwlXE9g
Vengal Seyhan Sten Industries	Posted - 2008.08.08 00:46:00 - [18] Originally by: Rear Commander Originally by: Dahin Gaining sec status for killing pirates is very exploitable. How fast can you chain your alt before you can go back in jita? Yah, that's a pretty obviously bad idea. I would like to see the changes be balanced around the .4s rather than the .3s Why not tie a security status gain for podding a pirate to the magnitude of their bounty? 100M bounty also = 10% sec status gain, or something? ...potentially able to be exploited since rich pirates could bounty up and pod themselves (or each other) back to redemption... but if you make it prohibitive enough, then no problem. It'd also add motivation for (some) bounty hunters.
Matalino Gallente Ki Tech Industries	Posted - 2008.08.08 00:51:00 - [19] Edited by: Matalino on 08/08/2008 00:52:55 Originally by: Vengal Seyhan Why not tie a security status gain for podding a pirate to the magnitude of their bounty? 100M bounty also = 10% sec status gain, or something? ...potentially able to be exploited since rich pirates could bounty up and pod themselves (or each other) back to redemption... but if you make it prohibitive enough, then no problem. Because the bounty goes to person who pod kills them. All you need to do is borrow some ISK to place a bounty on your alt while you repeatedly pod kill him. The only why that you can increase your security status is via time spent doing PvE. Don't want to do the time grinding back the security status, then don't lose it in the first place, or live the the consequsenses.

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.