High And Low Ganking, New Content Type, And Pirate - Low sec Fixes

[Solecist_Project]

@Scoots_Choco

Let’s try to stay on topic, shall we?

Awwww, do we really have to??

[Bronson_Hughes]

General thoughts:

1. You want to change how suspect flagging works universally in order to accommodate a single new module type? That seems rather short-sighted. If you want the new module to incur a security status penalty, simply have it incur a security status penalty. There’s no need to abruptly start penalizing players for activities that, since the dawn of EvE, have not incurred penalties.

2. I think your idea of the PvP-oriented event that improves your security status is interesting, but misguided for two reasons. Firstly, you’d be granting a security status bonus for engaging in acts that potentially reduce your security status (if you have to shoot at someone who isn’t -5 or below), which seems wholly counter-intuitive. Secondly, it seems like it would be way too easy for large groups to simply camp these events, wait out the timer, and repair their security status. I can think of several groups that would abuse this ability to no end to rapidly repair their security status.

3. In principle, I rather like your idea of introducing a level of hisec criminality below outright ganking someone. My problem with your implementation though is this: why would anyone risk going suspect (and deal with taking a security status hit) in an expensive faction ship when they can just hop into a throw-away Catalyst/Thrasher/Tornado/etc. and produce much the same effect but with a satisfying explosion as a bonus?

-1

[Nuuri_Naarian]

@Bronson_Hughes

You want to change how suspect flagging works universally in order to accommodate a single new module type?

No,
I want to create a module that does not trigger criminal action in high sec, which allows them to basically do what they do with can flipping, but with cargo.

The intent behind this is to not remove the isk-game play involved in high sec, but to remove the lethality of it.

This will enable freighters to be slightly safer, and be able to play the game how they want, with out (much) fear of suicide ganks.

with these changes they will optimize income, will drop of death rates, but will also drop off kill rates. Suicide is still an option, but who is gona take it when you can safe the isk and all the loot to boot?

[Nevyn_Auscent]

@Nuuri_Naarian

Suicide is still an option, but who is gona take it when you can safe the isk and all the loot to boot?

When suicide ganking is already too optimised and easy, you want to make it EASIER?
Freighter pilots would rather be ganked than be bumped and have all their cargo sucked out with no realistic counter play.
Because there is no realistic counter play to this.

[Natocha_Daisy]

Hi Nuuri

I agree with you. Eve possesses a very toxic framework that makes it easy for people like us to feel it’s glaring inadequacies. Don’t be fooled by the troll responses or feel belittled in the slightest.

Your idea has great merit and deserves discussion here

[Knowledgeminer]

Hey, I wanted to reply to say that I, like nearly everybody else here, care about your posts and ideas A LOT. We’re all gonna take them VERY seriously and anxiously await for the devs to implement them ASAP.

[Kaylee_Rayl]

@Nuuri_Naarian

Ah. So any suggestion that balances the game, is invalid because it caters to the larger, casual majority of players?

give me a break. I Hope to god this game changes in a way that will utterly make you rage quit. May the creator curse you with that fate, or end this games existence.

that is justice for you, and the douchebags in eve like you.

Darn it, this is out of line @Nuuri_Naarian

If you cannot take in negative criticism, it would be mighty wise to refrain from replying, or better yet, OP’ing an idea thread in the first place. Also please keep religion, out-of-eve politics, hate mongering (see Eula rules) at your door step before entering a post.

[Nuuri_Naarian]

@Natocha_Daisy

Your idea has great merit and deserves discussion here

@Knowledgeminer

Hey, I wanted to reply to say that I, like nearly everybody else here, care about your posts and ideas A LOT. We’re all gonna take them VERY seriously and anxiously await for the devs to implement them ASAP

Thanks I am grateful when people speak out, because thats what we need to fix this game we love, people to speak out. We specifically need those who are opposing the abusive, pvp-egotistically eccentric players. We need opinions from those who are not like them.

Only then will we ever get balance, and find a way to compromise.

[Knowledgeminer]

@Nuuri_Naarian

Thanks I am grateful when people speak out

ROFLMAO

[ISD_Norros]

Removed posts that violated forum rules, which the replies to also went off topic.

2. Specifically restricted content.

EVE Online holds ESRB Teen and PEGI 12 ratings. All content posted to the EVE Online forums must be teen rated.

In addition to this, the EVE Online forums are not for discussion of real life current affairs, news, politics or religion. Discussion should revolve around EVE Online and its community.

For these reasons, specific content is prohibited on the EVE Online forums. These are:

• Pornography
• Profanity
• Real Money Trading (RMT)
• Discussion of Warnings & Bans
• Discussion of Moderation
• Private communications with CCP
• In-Game Bugs & Exploits
• Real World Religion
• Real World Politics
• Content that distorts the forum layout

If you wish to complain about forum moderators:

Complaints

If any pilot has an issue or complaint regarding the conduct of our forum moderators, the EVE Universe Community Team can be reached by contacting communityteam@ccpgames.com from the verified email address connected to their EVE Online account(s).

[Kaylee_Rayl]

I don’t mind the negative responses really.

[Kaylee_Rayl]

@Natocha_Daisy

Darn it, this is out of line @Nuuri_Naarian

If you cannot take in negative criticism, it would be mighty wise to refrain from replying, or better yet, OP’ing an idea thread in the first place. Also please keep religion, out-of-eve politics, hate mongering (see Eula rules) at your door step before entering a post.

Kaylee if you are unable to control the tone of your replies on this forum then it is inevitable that you will draw negative responses.

And there’s nothing wrong in my ‘tone’ from the piece that you quote, yeah?

[Natocha_Daisy]

@Kaylee_Rayl

And there’s nothing wrong in my ‘tone’ from the piece that you quote, yeah?

My comrade, you do protest too much.

[Kaylee_Rayl]

@Natocha_Daisy

My comrade, you do protest too much.

Sposibo for the compliment

[Bronson_Hughes]

@Nuuri_Naarian

No,
I want to create a module that does not trigger criminal action in high sec, which allows them to basically do what they do with can flipping, but with cargo.

Okay then, why the change to how suspect flags work? From your original post:

@Nuuri_Naarian

Suspect actions now reduce security standing by 0.15 per an offense
…
Pirate ships will now gain access to a new module (mid slot) that will enable ships to transport goods off a target.
…
Additionally, using this module will grant SUSPECT status, and will NOT trigger Concord, however will insecure a penalty.

If that was your goal, just have using the module trigger a suspect flag and a security status penalty and be done with it. There’s no need to tack on a security status hit for all suspect flagging just to accommodate this new module.

And before you say, “But look at my post as a whole”, that’s an invalid argument because you’re effectively proposing two largely unrelated things in one post.

[Nuuri_Naarian]

@Bronson_Hughes

Okay then, why the change to how suspect flags work? From your original post:

Because encouraging and allowing are not the same.

Encouraging pvp is a good thing, it keeps it optional, which is in harmony with my positions for high sec.

Thus, if stealing encourage them to get attacked and prevoked an encounter, it would allow them to remain safe, and be little more then an irritant to the high sec players.

They can create counter - theft play by a counter-transporter module, it should come at a cost, like heavy training, or limited ship options.

@Bronson_Hughes

If that was your goal, just have using the module trigger a suspect flag and a security status penalty and be done with it.

that is what i advocated, though you seem to have missed it.

to be clear, stealing from cants either manually, or by transporters should trigger a loss of security status.

[Bronson_Hughes]

@Nuuri_Naarian

that is what i advocated, though you seem to have missed it.

to be clear, stealing from cants either manually, or by transporters should trigger a loss of security status.

No, you quite clearly stated that you’d change the suspect flag, all suspect flags, to incur a security status hit, and that this new transporter would trigger a suspect flag. If all you want to do is have this module incur a security status penalty, then there is no need to have all suspect flags incur one, just have using this module incur one.

If what you’re trying to say is that you’d have all thefts from cans or this new module trigger a security status hit, I don’t think you were very clear about that in your OP.