Criminal Standing changes

Curious to know what you guys think of this approach

  • Reducing the required standings from -5.0 to -2.5 to be actively engaged by concord as criminals.
  • Engaging high sec capitals (frieghter, orca) will reduce standing by 1 with all empire factions (concord, gallente, amarr, minmatar)
  • At -5.0 Pods docking rights are removed from players in high sec entities
  • At -7.5 concord will engage pods

The idea behind this is that limited criminal activity is possible, but will more quickly remove people from high security space and as you progress

No…

If you want to fight fight crime…literally. OR, push CCP hard to implement a real bounty hunter system.

CONCORD don’t actively engage players just for low sec status, except in the systems they specifically own.

It’s only FacPo that engage oulaws and you can already be engaged at -2.5. It starts at -2.0 (in a 0.5 system).

No one will be removed from highsec for a low sec status. Tags will just be used to fix sec status, so the whole thing is pointless.

6 Likes

Eve suffers from a significant issue of not having accountability.

When it comes to people like code for example, a merc system will not resolve them. Technically they can retreat under non-war status like high sec corps do, and still launch their operations. Thus any change like that would ultimately be useless in fighting criminal activities.

Imo, All criminal activities should be removed from high security space, but at the very lease making it more difficult to operate in it would be a good start in the right direction. perhapse the system just needs to be more aggressive at building (ie you get popped faster) but can be recovered even faster.

we have to remember that a large amount of this type of behavior is psychological and not isk driven, though that definitively has a place in it. It may be interesting to look into a isk-fee system where when you do criminal activities you get fined 50m from concord straight from the wallet and maybe if you cant pay, you get even more - sec status (maybe x1.5 - x2 effect)

High sec needs less concord protection not more, players need to be able to defends themselves and not rely on NPCs to do it.

11 Likes

Eve is a dystopia. Crime is rife and officials are corrupt.

That’s what makes it fun. The freedom to be the villain.

Fac-po yes. Concord no.

No need. The empires don’t care about your orca. In fact, no one cares about your orca.

You can always run level 1 missions to repair standings. So no.

Fac-po yes. Concord no.

Only because of alts, which aren’t going away.

Well we warned everyone about war eligibility…

No. Crime, pvp and ruining peoples day are integral parts of the game.

What omnathious is saying is correct. Both sides need consequences for their behaviour, not just gankers. Dumb people doing silly things should lose their stuff. Players are too fat and lazy, the game is boring, and the pendulum needs to swing the other way now.

6 Likes

Eve suffers from a significant issue of not having accountability

I would say that having your ship blown-up would counter that point.

A bounty system would not prevent crime but it would curtail it as it would be much more dangerous for a ganker to operate as people would actively hunt then for ISK…

All criminal activities should be removed from high security space

Ok so you want a place to AFK PLEX your account with zero worries…Let me guess, with an Orca…

psychological and not isk driven

I flew for CODE and I can assure you that ISK is the main reason…killing stupid miners/haulers is one of the easiest ISK earners in HS…and the targets are endless.

I personally never hit Ventures or new pilots though…but that was me.

That is only a drawback when that is a financial loss. When the death results in a reward, many times your ship costs it not.

I find it hilarious we are debating crime in a high security area of space.

not even close. I am strongly against afk mining or anything for that matter. you turn a game on to afk? what kind of madness is that. I Believe strongly that mining, standings, and the corporate alliance structure must be tackled and fully redesigned at once.

If i was the creative mind of eve i’d nerf high sec criminal activities so hard that it’d echo in the (gaming) industries future for generations.

after many years in null, i am absolutely insanely enraged about high sec. its why i am now running for csm.

Relatively high.

Hi-sec was never designed to be safe or crime free, only safer than low and null,

4 Likes

I’d suggest understanding how the current mechanics actually work, before coming up with any changes.

It just makes it all look silly and very hard to discuss, since the premise is false to begin with.

1 Like

This is a mentality that should be changed, for ccp, and for eve.
As i mentioned to my corp many times, the majority of players in an mmo do not want anything to do with pvp on hardloss systems.

about 46% of people do not engage in pvp by choice. I think we are looking at eve in a wrong light, about what each security means and the progression of it being more isk; Instead we should be looking at it in a light much like wow on a pvp server, that changes the conditions in which pvp is engaged.

To be clear, it would look something like as follows

Empire specific space

  • Current high sec criminal activities will be transferred to low by forcefully/brick walling all pvp from existing out side of legal means (War, Suspect).
  • Low Sec allowing for criminal activities

Player Specific Space

  • The rest of space being dictated by the powers that control it.

This enables the pvers to be in high sec, and through good recruitment and the value of risk to reward, some of them may eventually choose to go out to low or null to pvp. this would result in leaving the pvers alone, out side of minor harassment and the war dec system.

Since the war dec system will become more persistent in high sec, people will adapt, looking for wars to declare war, targets to find, etc. this will result in an increase of war declarations, and through that system will restore some of the original pvp. Ironically, by reducing the high sec criminal activity, we’ll se a significant shift to war decs, that will result in an increase in mercenary operations, which gives us a place to start improving that system, and validating it as a form of game play.

Im not against pvp not at all. I love it and its pretty much all i do in eve out side of running my corp, etc. but i do think that 105 kills to 1 death / code spam suicide ganking harassment has no place in high sec.

Then they are playing the wrong MMO, EVE has defined its self as a Single shard PVP MMO.

5 Likes

Do you have any credible sources for these statements? I’d very much be interested to read a bit more on the topic.

1 Like

This is industry based standards, any designer is aware of them if they are intelligent and do metric research before they make design choices. Its common knowledge among most of us senior designers.

Take alook at many games and look at the pve to pvp population rates. just thinking back about the amount of high-pop pve, vs pvp servers there are and you get a good idea about this. its close to 50/50 and variance +/- 10% depending on the game.

here is some evidences

Poll from MMO Champion asking about it across many games

let me go dig for some dev-blogs on the topic or you and see if i can find anything.

If it’s a known industry standard, I’d have hoped to see something more substantial than a player made poll with 102 votes.

There might be something about MMO’s attracting more PvE players, which was why I asked for sources. I was thinking more research papers or industry reviews. So if you have any of such sources, I’d love to get my hands on those.

And again, I assume we are talking MMO games specifically, because I definitely don’t agree if we include all games, given the popularity of competitive PvP games like, League, Dota, Counter-strike, battle royals, etc. etc.

Yea, I was thinking the same sorts of sources.

Many games publicize this information. For example Empyrion (https://empyriononline.com/threads/feature-survey-2018-results.35530/) published that around 86% of their population is PvE Based.

Many Such similar statements can be found by relating companies published their metric data.

The population of PvE based players far exceeds PvP. But there is the topic of the Pver’s that do pve; I personally fall in to pure pvp-player type. Its all i really do in eve, or wow.

The break down to a paper i read a few years back was stating that around 46% of a game does not pvp, nor has a desire to do so, and around 18% of the otherside are pvp only.

There is also a very small backing for “hard loss” systems which was published by blizzard (activision-blizzard tm) back during diablo 2’s days, but that may be a big out dated since the industry was in its infant state then.

There is also the argument of why eve should pursue to be just another industry-standard, mainstream game.

If we assume, that MMO games generally attract more PvE players and that most MMO’s are designed to support these tendencies, then there is a niche market for a PvP-based MMO.

This is what people are referencing when they say “eve has always been a niche game”. Basically, there are not many good PvP-based MMO’s on the market compared to good PvE-based MMO’s. So there is a stable amount of people that desires this experience, but they are obviously still a minority, hence a niche market.

So why not double down on the PvP aspects of the game, solidifying eve’s market share in this niche, instead of competing in an already rather saturated market of PvE-based MMO’s? With the current PvE systems, eve have very little to offer compared to other MMO’s. In order to compete, we would have to see a total/major rewrite of the whole game.

2 Likes

Im getting close. I found some vague statements claiming things like

The largest 14.1% of male is motivated to play competition, followed by 11.9% of male who plays for destruction. (Quanticfoundry, 2016)

A better question is “how can we make eve an option for both types of players?”.
The answer to this is by giving specific area’s of the game an assigned purpose by default.

You can read a short blog about why pvp systems like eve do not work well here:
https://massivelyop.com/2019/02/07/vague-patch-notes-why-the-social-penalty-for-open-pvp-in-mmos-never-works/

High sec losing criminal activity does not invalidate pvp in high sec
there will still be options of wars, and suspect trickery. So we are not hurting anyone here really, we’re just shifting where the pvp happens.

Historically, i cannot recall a time where low sec with significantly active, like high sec or null.

also until we get rid of this abuse we will never see a rise in other orms of pvp, like merc-anti high sec wars. this change could potentially buff pvp activity in high sec by creating more anti-wardec pvper corps which cause the two of them to fight.

this is the opposite of the idea that pvp will actually decrease some how.

then we come to the topic o low sec, and the people moving there to find options for pvp. not to mention the pvp that will be triggered by null/low sec players engaging in systems that are use for logistical purposes by null players.

This change benefits everyone.

In the 2 months you have been playing? I bet not.

1 Like

Some better sources, but I don’t believe the Quantic Foundry survey supports your argument.

I mean, at least not completely.

The two primary motivations for men are competition and desctruction. If we assume that more men play eve, then that would only support making the game more PvP-based.

However, with older players these motivations shift, so I do agree that there is room for having both, especially with the eve population growing in age. Personally, I’m not opposed to that, but I just feel the game is too safe as it is, while lacking PvP options for small-gang/solo gameplay. Just look at the MER numbers, the amount of desctruction is actually quite low.

I also don’t think it is as easy a fix as just banning all criminal activity from highsec.

I’m glad though, that we had an opportunity to have a little more constructive discussion going.