As a start, I’d like them to squash the FacPo and Navies. Then they can work on removing CONCORD. Baby steps…
1 Like
Yes, he gets letters from people 10 years after the bannishment, asking to return etc. The responsibility cuts both directions, either for banning or un-banning. It remains with CCP, not with the customers.
Same with wrongful banning. It is their responsibility and it cannot be outsourced to have it looked at (properly, in some cases, if you believe what people write). After all, they are the ones with all the data - which they cannot disclose without breaking a few laws. So there’s nothing for a “supreme court” to work with but the usual, volatile and polarizing sentiments we all know from “social” media.
3 Likes
… No …
Just another CSM to be abused by the large blocs, except with even more severe consequences.
1 Like
Why would you want to bring players back that have been banned? If bringing back banned players means bringing back B.O.B, the notorious alliance that got banned, all New Eden will say in one voice is, F*ck.
1 Like
you do know you can attack and destroy facpo and navy right?
Apparently it is fairly accurate then though it may be the date for the 15% milestone instead of the actual release date. 
That’s very optimistic, in my estimate it will be around 3191 when instead of colonizing the solar system that budget will be spent on ScamCitizen to move it from progress 31% up to an all-time high of 33.5%
1 Like
It sounds like the top of the list of bad ideas they’ve had over the years.
It’s a hard no from me…
1 Like
Haha, yes Geo. But I cannot find a reason for their existence in Highsec beyond stalking scallywags - as you put it, ineffectually.
Getting rid of them would not disadvantage the game and it would reduce the need to warp around for those with low security status or faction standing - who already endure some restrictions.
Then, it’s on to CONCORD!
Well high security as the name implies needs to be secure so i think its fine for them to stay because again, consequences matter.
1 Like
Yes, I do get what you’re saying, Geo, but the FacPo, for example, only show up when you’ve been on-grid for 15-20 seconds or so. They do encourage low security players to move around a system but they cannot interfere with or prevent a well-prepared gank, for instance.
The ‘consequences’ you mention are merely an implicit ‘move on’, which in any case is what players with very low security status will do because of their obvious vulnerability to player assaults, and if they’re in their pods, the FacPo has no jurisdiction anyway. Since the Police are easily evaded, I think a whole chunk of code could be removed.
If the Faction Police cannot prevent crime nor punish it (through player evasion), I struggle to understand why they exist. Futile harassment is surely not much of a justification for an NPC feature in Highsec. It might make the non-PvP residents of Highsec feel comfortable but it is attended by no practical benefit whatsoever.
A threat can only be real if there is a good chance of its being carried through into action. There is currently no chance of the FacPo succeeding in doing anything but - what, exactly?
CCP Hellmar is a nightmare fantasy for EVE. Nothing he ever says or does to EVE in the last 15 years has been beneficial to EVE. His decisions and faulty justifications for them have brought EVE to the brink of ruin several times.
1 Like
Seems like what you are really saying, is that you wish High-Sec was null.
When the last CSM vote happened, and I was testing out a nullbloc, I definitely did not vote for any of their nonsense, and actively encouraged others to not vote for null people.
Anyhow, what I wish is that more people in high sec banded together, like they do in Null. The intel community works pretty well, but in high sec we don’t really have a sense of community. Unfortunate.
I will agree, however, that the justification for police/navy/CONCORD interaction needs to be increased so that they are a real threat to either negative security status, or pirate behavior.
Not this. If Highsec were Null, there’d be no place for it. I would like CCP to get rid of legacy features which either serve no useful purpose or which hamper players unnecessarily. If a feature brings no benefit to players who might expect it to do so, why does it remain?
As far as banding together goes, Highsec and Lowsec support the solo player and his wish not to be bound by regulations not of his making. That there do exist properly constituted corporations in Highsec leads me to believe that banding-together is not extinct.
I take it that what you mean is that there don’t seem to be groups with a clearly defined Highsec identity; specialists, perhaps. Some of them, at least, seem to be offshoots of organisations based in Nullsec (which has forever had a firm foothold in Highsec).
This would probably remove suicide ganking as a viable play style. CCP seems currently unwilling to go down that route, so we’re left with what we have. I am not arguing for the status quo; if a feature is redundant then yes, one option might be to rewrite it; another must be to remove it.
I see that you’re unlikely to agree with me, but my point has always been that if the presence of a feature provides no actual benefit to the generality of Highsec dwellers or serious threat to those whom it is intended to affect, then it can be removed without consequence. Easier to do that than to rewrite it.
True, it would represent a small QoL improvement for us, but materially? Nothing.
No, I would have posted that. The Kill Right Tag is meant to be part of the Supreme Court idea CCP Peterrson talked about in the video.
If a player with less than 0.0 comes into High Sec the Supreme Court would issue a Kill Right on the player for a certain number of days based on their Sec Status.
The victorious player would get ISK and Supreme Court LP. If the 0.0 player wins, the player gets a boost in their Sec Status based on the Sec Stat of the player who lost their ship to the 0.0.
Definitely a lot more RvR.
The true absurdity for me is that you can lose 0.7 faction points for legitimately ( by Concord’s own rules ) shooting the pod of a faction member in highsec. You can shoot a designated criminal and lose 0.7 points…yet you can gank a non criminal and lose only about 0.16 of Concord security status. So the penalty for podding a 10K ISK pod is over 4 times that of ganking a 400m ISK ship. Rather crazy…as I’ve found from suspect hunting in highsec.
CCP seem to go out of their way to dis-incentivize just about everything except watching a mining laser.
Concord are only really relevant for large gank groups or in asteroid belts. For all else, the primary deterrence is sentry guns. And in fact, on most discussions about ganking…sentry guns rarely ever get mentioned. Yet they are the primary reason why solo gankers or those with quite small gank fleets are forced to stick to asteroid belts.
A single Catalyst doesn’t have a hope in hell of ganking anyone at a stargate. This means gate ganking is largely the preserve of larger gank groups of half a dozen or more. This is a dis-incentive for the budding noob PvP player who joined Eve precisely to shoot other players. He doesn’t have the skills to survive lowsec gate camps, and he physically can’t do much in highsec. So he wonders what is the point of the game.
Not a Cata but a single Vexor or Tornado or Thrasher or Gnosis can.
I’ve said it before; the whole Crimewatch system is in need of revision.
Even those who disagree with me on the detail feel that it doesn’t effectively represent their (no doubt sincerely held) views.
Highsec has become bloated with mechanics which complicate rather than simplify player interactions. And they complicate matters without providing any real benefit that I can see (others may be able to do so…).
The would-be PvP pilot is herded in the direction of Nullsec or Lowsec. Unless you’ve been in the game for a while and made an effort to find out what goes on, and where, you’re likely not to have even heard of suicide ganking. It can be a sobering introduction to Highsec.
Despite the fact that ganks are entirely preventable, it is the ganker who is reviled. If people used the tools available to them they could prevent a gank and give themselves a pat on the back (or whatever substitute would serve).
CONCORD represents the punishment that a lot of ‘right-thinking’ folks in Highsec demand. But then they go on to complain that the punishment is not sufficiently severe, that gankers use cheap ships and fittings, that it’s not fair that they can ‘easily’ repair hits to their security status, that more needs to be done to discourage them. Yes, discourage them. Because the purpose of discouraging an activity is predicated upon a desire for its removal. That’s why we get statements like ‘I don’t disagree with ganking, but…’
Thrashers and Tornadoes seem to work ok on gates, but they’re usually after the smaller fry. Freighters will not be affected by such vessels. As you say, a Catalyst would be quickly incinerated in such a situation. Are gate guns too powerful? Now there’s an interesting question.
2 Likes