I’m okay with that. This is Eve. If I lose a ship, well… I tried. I’ll have it replaced and be back on the field in no time.
Sigh. The Hulk is lost and all the gankers get is what the loot fairy leaves behind. The gankers don’t get 350m ISK. They’ll be lucky to cover the 128m.
Here endeth today’s lesson in math.
I like the train of thought into this.
Making scanning more of a cat and mouse game of gathering intel would work I think. Adding different scanning modules, scanning skills, even counter-intelligence NPCs that when catching a player cause the scanning ship to go suspect and modules players could fit to their ships to boost/inhibit scanning as well as % RNG about scanning results would be a start.
Scanning modules could be base t1, meta, t2, then faction, deadspace and even officer. Offering significantly better rates of % of cargohold scanned with one sweep, lower failed scans, lower ability for CI NPCs to do their job. Coupled with lower drop rates and higher prices for scanning ships it would mean specialized ships, fittings, alts and allow for more counter ganking due to cost of modules. Also I would advocate a work up of the passive targeter modules as well to add to the interplay and allow more covert scanning.
Anti scanning modules, again same growth rate, which do the opposite of the scanning modules. Cost would allow defense but at a price.
Scanning skills allow for greater successful scans (think salvagers %), greater % of cargo volume scanned, lower CI NPC interdiction rates. And the ability to have scanning defensive skills.
Counter-Intelligence NPCs could be a work around of the NPCs already on offer like the customs NPCs or even a new brand of NPC. Their behaviour could be to roam around the system at known hot spots, could be modified by player actions much like Concord does, and have a % chance of scanning and interacting with players ships scanning for modules with a % chance of causing players ships to go suspect, perhaps with a system wide message and warp delay. I say delay and not inhibition like a point would. Can be fought with and destroyed but reinforcements do come and with a standings hit to only the CI NPCs resulting in increased chances of rescanning later on.
Some random ideas off the top of my head for possible gameplay options.
2 Likes
I am catching up on this thread so this may have been discussed elsewhere, or not at all; but, it is something I believe I’ve mentioned casually elsewhere which I wish to address now in light of your quoted comment above.
I’ve read lots of suggestions in this thread which would make playing as a pirate, at least in 0.5 to 1.0 space more complicated, which I’m interpreting as making this gameplay more “team” oriented and less multi-box gank friendly. However, I fully admit I may be misinterpreting this; but phrases such as (and I’m recalling this from memory, not quoting) “make it hurt”, “punish”, oooh, and the catchall which is thrown about “consequences” all seem to me (I may just be reading this in when not actually intended) a condemnation of the EVE players choosing to play as villains, which seems at first glance to exceed, at least my expectations of in game rivalry.
However, that may be, your post, quoted above, is the first I recall mentioning any potential incentive to play as a pirate.
Your earlier post, where you mentioned removing or limiting Concord, had good ideas, at least from my perspective.
But, I guess, what I’m getting at and the reason why I’m referencing your posts, is reading them induced this line of thinking so,
@Arthur_Aihaken (it’s time to draw your attention, too)
I’ll put it bluntly, all of the suggestions, I’ve read so far, complicate the process of playing as a pirate to the point of I wonder…would anyone choose to engage in that play. I’ve never ganked for profit. I ganked cause I wanted to blow up a particular player’s ship, profit was never a motive for myself.
So, if the game play is increasingly complicated where is the incentive to engage in it? For, “for profit” pirates?
I can see removing Concord as an incentive, that seems a workable tradeoff.
I also like the wide variety of contracts, i.e. protection and such, you, Kezrai, suggested.
But, if players are to basically “dedicate” a character to this game play, “for profit piracy”, I’m going to suggest the following formally:
I suggest a drop rate increase in proportion to the “pirates” security standing. If someone chooses to play a “pirate” at -10, with all these…increased…complications, I think they deserve a better reward than a 50/50 drop rate.
So, something along the lines of 50/50 now, when you start out as a pirate, and as you get “better” at it, i.e. your security status goes down, and presumably the “bounties” (merc contracts you describe, well at least as I imagined them from your words) go up, your drop rate increases.
So, in the end, as I imagine a system such as this being implemented from your words, being a successful pirate would be very well paid. There would be a legitimate incentive to learn, coexist, and manipulate all the complications that came with being a successful pirate. It would be a challenge, with enough financial and creative incentive to attract players to engage in.
Otherwise, it just seems all these suggestions in this thread, at least to me, are merely punitive.
EVE, in it’s current iteration promotes piracy, I cite the Halloween event to support this contention. Drop rates during that event, if I remember climb to 90 percent.
So, I suppose the question, or my question, at this point after writing all this out, is: Are player pirates wanted by the highsec community any longer or not?
I can’t decide from reading this thread, and other similar threads.
But, I do think successful “for profit” player pirates should be rewarded and rewarded well, if they go minus 10 under the suggestions put forth in this thread, if such suggestions were to be implemented.
1 Like
Careers that don’t exist in EVE.
The Duelist
We don’t have duels in high-sec; we have games of “bait and switch”. A weapons flag would fix this (no docking, no jumping).
The Info Broker
There are no consequences for scanning ships, so you can use anything with impunity. A suspect and weapons flag would also fix this.
The Thief
Gankers use a cheap throwaway alt to grab and then jet-can any loot to circumvent a suspect flag. Again, no repercussions. Reduce cargo space on rookie ships to 10m3.
This is part of the problem with EVE’s “PvP” design, is that really they aren’t very well designed to attract more than a small fraction (eg. 25% or less) of players to engage in it. High sec PVP (and PvP in general) would be more interesting and active if it wasn’t so simplistic in EVE (make profit or kill calculation, shoot ship, get Concorded, repeat).
As you say, most non-ganker ideas appear to revolve around piling more and more restrictions and complications on criminals. What they’re all missing is that criminal/cop activity should be a tug of war, a battle of fits and strategy and hunting, that has risks and profits for both sides.
For instance, several look at my “permanent consequences” point and say, no way, then it’s insta-death to undock! Without even noticing the whole “remove Concord” aspect. Because they’re channeled that way. EVE has currently all but eliminated any potential highsec PvP player who doesn’t think in the mindset of “lurk in safety while scanning for near-certain kills, assemble kill squad, score kill, get Concorded, repeat endlessly”.
This gameplay loop is incredibly boring and stale, which is why there are (in actuality), so few gankers. More ideas are needed (like yours and mine) to juice up both piracy and protection and make them interesting and viable careers.
An interesting idea, although perhaps it could be implemented as having access to certain types of pirate weapons or gear that ensures less destruction (or better recovery) from a kill. Access gained as they progress in ‘piracy’ ranking. However that would need to be balanced against testing to see just how profitable piracy could be if Concord was removed. That changes the math entirely.
This is a tricky question, but what the ‘player community’ wants is less important than what CCP wants. MMO player communities in general, lean very heavily towards the “Don’t PvP me unless I opt in for it” view. Which is strongly against CCPs view.
And why follow the mainstream anyway? There’s room for divergence. It’s just that EVE would be more successful as EVE, IMO, if the high-sec PvP (and other forms of PvP) were implemented and supported in a more open, sandbox, “players have multiple options” manner.
Particularly, what any design I aimed at would be hoping to achieve, is players forming strong highsec corps with active “protection and policing” components that were actually effective and interesting. And those to be opposed by ‘pirate corps’ who would be working to find the gaps in protection and spot looting opportunities. Which is how the lore works, but not the game.
3 Likes
I feel there is a fundamental distinction between me being better than average, and my ship being better than average. Ideally both is good. But if I fly about in an ‘indestructible’ ship…in what sense is there any ‘me’ to it ? I can gloat that my ship is better…and maybe my fitting skills…but its not like shooting down a Dreadnought with a corvette where I’d be able to say ’ I did that’.
Im just all broken up that the aggressors have to collectively cover the loss of a few trash ships.
Pro tip: have the gankers pitch in for the collectove loss. Here endeth the lesson in economics.
Well you’ll be even more broke up to learn that I personally supplied some of them in Safety with clone tags for free. Actually I still have some left from my days of making large profits on them.
I wouldn’t even care if my corp mate directly supplied the ships as long as he got paid.
Payment isn’t important. I don’t have an issue with being loyal to AO and being on good terms with gankers. Those sort of things are what really matter in the game.
LOL, Kezrai…
First thing that popped into my mind was “faster getaway”, 
From my perspective, the critical word is “could”, especially given the removal of Concord. I agree, removing Concord, changes everything.
And, I agree removing Concord would have to be done in conjunction with an operable merc/protection/player system, such as you described earlier, or at least as I imagined it from your words.
I liked your post a lot.
But, the “rub” in all of this is…if players were given, and I hate to use this word, agency…actual agency to proactively defend themselves…would they?
o7
1 Like
I don’t care
Just how it should be
Yes it is. You’re allowed to play however you wish.
I do find it funny picturing you transporting those ships in a Bowhead you have no idea how to fit!
Lol…I always decline the offer of a Bowhead to move my ships. I always moved my Wrecking Machine ships individually…Nightmare, Leshak, Guardians, etc, etc, etc. I move my AO ships individually…flew my Rokh and other ships down to the new staging from Jita individually. How boring to just cram them all in a Bowhead. Where’s the fun in that ?
1 Like
Not sure why you wouldn’t want to use ‘agency’ as it’s exactly the aim of this type of design, and it’s a game design goal in general.
The answer is “yes, absolutely they would”. We don’t even need to delve into psychology or motivation or whatever. We know players will do this, because they already do. That’s what Nullsec and WH space is. Proposals along these lines are basically creating “Nullsec lite”: Null without sov, bridges, power projection, capitals, etc. And somewhat different rules of engagement. And a much more concentrated population.
Just like those spaces, the balance between rewards for farming, policing, and raiding has to be worked out. The problem with highsec is that those balances are very poorly managed, and they’re thrown further out of whack by having Concord stick its’ nose in.
EVE would be a lot more lively if “highsec”, starter areas were limited to 1.0 and 0.9. I’d maybe even like to see those spaces reserved for characters with under 8 or 10 million SP and flying nothing better than T1 frigs-dessies-cruisers.
0.5 to 0.8 could then be a semi-policed region, no Concord but perhaps some changes to FacPo, and where players would begin to integrate into the bigger (and more aggressive) picture of EVE. And to start to see the benefits of being in a more capable corp.
It’s somewhat astonishing that CCP hasn’t moved in these directions, really. But less so if you believe (as I do) that all the truly creative designers at CCP were gone by 2009 or so. And we’ve been stuck ever since with tweakers whose vision of EVE is “it’s sorta working, we don’t really know why, but hey it’s all we’ve got so let’s not mess with it too much”.
1 Like
But they do already have that. The whole idea of the ‘helpless victim’ in EVE is complete nonsense. So many discussions about ‘fixing’ EVE portray an EVE that does not actually exist…that is the single biggest problem.
1 Like
So, a solo player that wants to haul his goods to market has “agency” to do what, exactly?
There’s no reasonable counterplay to ganking in its current iteration.
#FACTS