Criminal Standing changes

Fine, you want your 100% safe highsec with opt-in PvP only and no criminal activity? Here’s what you get:

  1. Remove all income above level 2 missions from highsec. All level 3+ agents go to lowsec, all but the most basic ore with ISK/hour rates comparable to level 2 missions goes to lowsec, and manufacturing jobs above T1 cruisers and their T1 equipment can not be done in highsec stations. Risk vs. reward is a fundamental rule of EVE, so if you want effectively 100% safety in highsec then you get 0% reward.

  2. Remove 90% of highsec. Since highsec is now tutorial space there is much less need for it. Most of highsec gets converted to lowsec, with a specific emphasis on creating small “islands” of highsec where you have to cross lowsec/nullsec areas to travel between highsec areas.

  3. Add CONCORD protection fees for all highsec activity. Want to put up a station in highsec? It’s going to cost you a ton. Want to have a corp office? Yep, more ISK. Police protection costs money and the people who benefit from it should have to pay the taxes to support it.

2 Likes

So criminals need a hand holding but their targets should have it harder?

And that part of the 5.5 billion people on the planet should not play EVE.

Why can’t you just go play a game that doesn’t allow PvP if you don’t want to PvP?

You don’t think it is a little self centered or selfish to come to a unique game thousands of players enjoy and change it to something it is not for your own PERSONAL PREFERENCE?

You’re showing a serious lack of understanding here. The POS system was changed because of legacy code issues, not because of design principles. CCP literally couldn’t make any changes to the POS system without breaking stuff, so they were forced to implement a new POS-like system to replace it. Highsec having criminal PvP is a fundamental part of EVE’s identity and design goals and it is not going to change just because you don’t like losing ships.

Prevent tethering for players with a sec status low enough to be attacked by faction police. Tie faction police arrival times similarly to Concord by lvl of sec of a system and it’s not hugely unfair to the ganker they can still do their thing

You dont get to set the requirements for implementation to eve, i dont even think hilmar has that power anymore. its not about what YOU want, or any number of your alts, or like minded goons.

its about whats better for the health of the game.

I actually dont like the amount of npc space, or null we have, though if we are advocating for large-scale pve buffs/protection changes it would not make sence to scale high sec so much.

Iv always believe the transition to null should be more fluid and natural. At the moment its sort of hard-stop one of the area’s of eve; for this reason a long it makes more sense to treat them all as unique entities just as we treat wormhole space uniquely with its own local mechanics, so to should low and high sec work.

Ill support this if we can remove null benefits and just make all stations fees and refine rates equal across eve no more free repairs, blah blah in null. i honestly think all that is abusive to the economy

The targets of highsec crime already have it about as easy as you can get. Suicide ganking is an opt-in PvP mechanic that you can easily avoid if you don’t wish to participate, and yet tons of stupid and/or greedy players continue to opt in to suicide ganking activities and then whine about how unfair it is that they lost their ships. At this point any further help for crime victims would go beyond “making it easy” and into coddling stupid players who don’t deserve to exist in EVE. You know, the sort of person who presses the self destruct button and then whines for a nerf to self destructing because it’s not fair that they are able to destroy their own ship.

Not at all, the targets should have a better chance to deal with things themselves rather than hope that they survive long enough for concord to show up.

You’re right, I don’t set the goals. I’m simply describing to you what would be required by CCP’s own design principles, which they show no sign of backing away from. I might not be 100% correct in the details, but the general picture is almost certainly true.

Also, what is best for the health of the game is to maintain EVE’s unique identity as a PvP-focused sandbox game (and the dedicated customer base that keeps paying for it) and not to sacrifice that identity and most of their existing customers in a desperate attempt to compete with established PvE farming games.

Ill support this if we can remove null benefits and just make all stations fees and refine rates equal across eve no more free repairs, blah blah in null. i honestly think all that is abusive to the economy

This is nonsense. Costs and station access in nullsec are set by players, if you don’t like the policies certain player groups have set then feel free to evict them from their space and put up your own stations.

The thing is: You do not make it easier for the targets. All you do is give them an actual way to engage the attackers that are otherwise completely immune to any attacks at all, while you are wide open to them if you just want to use space and not station hangars.

Nevyn keeps suggesting that haulers in particular should get proper fitting room to fit like PVP ships. That could be a start to improve the situation. Your argument hinges on a wrong premise, however: Ganks are not like a fight in null sec. Piracy, ie. ganks, means always the most possible necessary DPS to bring a target down so that people cannot interfere. Reps on field? Bring 2 more ships, and run again if you failed to notice the reps the first time. Jammers on field? Kill them first with disposable alts. Counter DPS on field? Kill them with disposable alts first.

This argument is window dressing, nothing more. It changes a system that people know how it works and where they know that if they are being engaged they will die unless a miracle happens into a system where you get told to you can survive but in reality it’s just empty. deceptive phrases and lies. I do not see the benefits of such a system change.

Just an example:

This person had a fitting that could have engaged with the attackers. He got very likely blapped off the field before the first repair cycle even ran through.

That Recon tried to be your hero and he got what every hero gets: ridicule and a first row seat in watching their overall uselessness.

The benefit is that suicide ganking is an opt-in PvP mechanic. To participate as a victim you first have to opt in by being too greedy and putting too much value in an untanked ship. Giving haulers the ability to fit a meaningful tank and preemptively engage threats in exchange for less CONCORD protection makes suicide ganking less “IF ShipValue >= X THEN die” and adds more gray area where you might survive the threat through superior skill.

I would not be opposed to something like this personally either, guard the freighter in high sec is boring as hell, and useless/pointless most of the time in low/null.

However the difficulty with this is making them PVP capable without making them OP PVP ships indirectly.

That is a direct result of concords existence.

If say you could engage anyone with a -.001 sec status or lower freely that could make for more defensive possibilities.

1 Like

Yes, that’s a fine line. DST walk on it and die to 3 Tornados, which is why I don’t think this will improve a thing.

Not true. Why move to low/null when you can make almost as much isk but with a lot less effort and risk?

I’m in hi-sec. So is omnathious. But we both want less safety for everyone. We just don’t want to unnecessarily expose ourselves to risk.

Look at the null nerfs, and how fast people jumped to wormholes. Nerf wormholes and null closer to low sec, and people will migrate there, especially since they have the benefit of being close to market hubs

I read this somewhere, and I feel it’s appropriate as a response to your suggestion:

You don’t get to set the requirements for implementation to eve, your point respectfully is not valid.

Regards,
Cypr3ss.

2 Likes

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.

It is still a drawback. But what you are looking for are absolutes in the sense that a crime cannot occur in the first place…which is lunacy.

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

It’s not crime free space…maybe YOU need to learn more about EVE.

I am strongly against afk mining

Yet what you are not realizing is that gankers are the only thing standing against a huge number of AFK fleets in HS. It would be zero risk ISK. It’s almost that now with all the ganking nerfs over the years.

i’d nerf high sec criminal activities

That’s because you fundamentally don’t understand both EVE and game mechanics… GL on your CSM run…please don’t cry when you are laughed out of the race.

It’s been suggested may times how to stop all three of your points…a feasible bounty system is easy to implement but CCP has no interest it seems. My theory is that it requires core code changes/additions as opposed to just minor twerks or new cookie cutter content.

Yeah it seems like a strange thing, but only when the emphasis is placed on the “highsec” part of that sentence.

When the emphasis is instead on a different part of the sentence “crime in space”, it isn’t so absurd.

Crime in space is clearly not reality. None of it is reality and “highsec” doesn’t correlate with anything more than a relative term.

Nothing is hilarious and it’s all hilarious at the same time. That’s sci-fi.

…i am absolutely insanely enraged about high sec…
…i’d nerf high sec criminal activities so hard…

Just wondering…

What actually would you do/suggest? Do you even know or is this all just emotions?

Also, why isn’t crime in RL 100% gone even when you have ultra tough penalties like death or life in prison?

1 Like