Security hit for


(Cassie Trojan) #1

Ok so i used to do highsec wars and they could be fun but right now the current mechanics really just allow people to abuse the system, such as 50000000 wardecks because they can for no apparent reason; and what do these gents do all day? you guessed it, sit around trade hubs and travel routes not really adding anything to the game cus they dock when contested and so…
A quick fix
A security hit to any player providing ANY kind of assistance be it logi, links w/e to someone under wardeck that isnt in their own alliance.
Now you probably think this isnt really a fix but you can garantee it will start to be real annoying to the people who most abuse this particular mechanic in the game.
Other ‘fixes’ id suggest is a contract system thereby ensuring these ‘merc’ alliances and corps really ARE exctly that; so for example instead of being paid via forum posts contracts could be set up to pay for example…
*set % for/of target ships destroyed
*specified target structure destroyed
You can probably think of more as can i but you get the point.

Also, only allow so many blanket decs, maybe 5; this should push the whole genre into actually being something it really isnt but still allows small corps and alliances in highsec to wardeck each other and a few others that might actually relate to specific ‘arguments’ in game.

Just sayin…


(Black Pedro) #2

They already go suspect and are free-to-shoot to everyone in New Eden, so how is loss of a small amount of easily fixable security status going to change the equation? They’ll just occasionally grab some tags and fix their status. It will not be annoying at all.

While adding something like that might be useful for some client-merc contracts, how would you prevent mercenaries from just accepting a payment through other means? And what if you just want to pay some mercenaries to have them deny access to a trade hub to your enemy but don’t really care about kills? Or any of the other dozens of reasons you might want to declare war on someone in a sandbox game?

Why should mercenaries only be allowed five clients? Why shouldn’t I be able to declare war on whomever I would like?

Wars are intended. Interaction between players is good. I see no reason why as a game designer you would want to artificially limit the interactions and fighting between groups. Yes, there are some annoying aspects to the current highsec war meta, but the all seem to stem from the twin problems of station games sucking and a lack of ways to force a fight with another group, and an additional problem of a lack of tools to efficiently hunt targets and prosecute targeted wars. That, and the fact a large number of corps aren’t actually trying to compete and are really just social groups and therefore shouldn’t really exist at all. If you aren’t trying to compete, stay in the NPC corp and use a chat channel to connect with others and then wars aren’t are problem in the slightest.

I think there are much better ways to fix these problems than a cudgel like a hard limit on war numbers (which can be just evaded completely by corp hopping).

So -1.


(Cassie Trojan) #3

aww didums th nasty pvpers touch you in your speshul place did they??
Hang on, trying to find …anything to actually take note of anything you say… nope… not here; come out to nullsec mate i’ll show you how to pvp properly, maybe you might start actually playing the game instead of undocking to shoot structures?
basically tl:dr, checked your killboard on that character… yor not a pvper.

BUT you think a small sec hit of -0.5 wouldnt effect them… well it wouldnt take them too long to hit -2 would it? not only would that be a lot more isk to pay but also very annoying if you need them in jita… it would also allow opposing foces to ‘ping’ gate camps thereby activating sec hit on logi’s; another tactic that could be used.
Who are you really anyway? i find it hard to believe a player would dedicate his entire eve ‘pvp’ time to shooting offline pos’s… i hazard a guess your with one of the ‘merc’ groups?
And no hard limit on wardecks no, just a limit on ‘uncontracted ones’


(Sindara T'Soni) #4

If two people who are neutral / white to you are fighting each other and you remote rep one, you go Suspect?

I was under the impression you only go Suspect for helping a Suspect?


(Cassie Trojan) #5

you go suspect for helping people at war also, theres a few issues with this but only because certain groups over use the mechanic and have more logi on field than actual combat ships… except you can shootthe combat ships before anything else happens… there are ways to kill the logi too but more often than not these guys just dock up if you can do that; basically most highsec wardeck groups are obsessed with effiiency ratings so they dock up when opposed by anything that might be a threat and they also blanket deck industrial and newbro corps thus stifling much needed growth for the game, not just in terms of growth of new or small corps but also of players; these guys LIVE to see newbros quit.


(Black Pedro) #6

Why would it? Hauler gankers lose security status all the time and it doesn’t stop them at all. They just roll it into the cost of doing business. The number of times a neutral logi gets used must be negligible compared to gankers and groups that can afford 5B/week for a hundred wars won’t notice a few million here and their for tags. They still won’t hesitate to use their neutral logi if they deem it necessary to win, and you’ll be back here crying on the forums that they are “abusing” the mechanics because they came more prepared than you to a fight.

More generally though, if you can’t avoid losing ships to the bunch of hub humping degenerates your “ideas” seem to try to target, perhaps you should just stay in nullsec and stop worrying about the CrimeWatch mechanics which you clearly don’t fully understand.

If you rep a target who is presently involved in a war (and not in your corp/alliance) you immediately go suspect.

You also go suspect for repping a target with a suspect flag as you inherit all their flags, but the above rule is also true for interfering in a war.


(Sindara T'Soni) #7

Good to know Cassie, thank you :slight_smile:


(Cassie Trojan) #8

I have lost no ships to them LOL damn son, ive been in this game for ten years and done my fair share of highsec wardecks; its broken and it stifles the growth of the game as a whole; what do they provide to the game?
Nothing, they only take.


(Cassie Trojan) #9

when people only take at some point there will be nothing left to give, then my very risk averse freind, eve will truly be dead.


(Sindara T'Soni) #10

Cheers Pedro, that’s the bit I wanted to clear up.


(Cassie Trojan) #11

So i read and now i reply…

8 jumps to jan two or three times a night and 200mil isk will be incredibly annoying, especially when jan starts getting camped constantly and they start losing highgrade slave clones or the ability to field t2 logistics and nestors.

by only allowing a certain amount of ‘blanket’ decs, tbvh if you dont know what this term means you really shouldnt be posting here…

everyone uses alt haulers these days except for nubs and idiots so in reality this is generally an unviable task. You do know you can create a simple NPC hauler alt by creating an alpha account right?

see above ‘blanket’ decs…

There is no real interaction with these groups, thats the issue; most people simply just cant be bothered with them.

It would indeed appear that you my freind are less in touch with the mechanics of it all than I.


(Black Pedro) #12

If you haven’t lost any ships to them why are you crying on the forums like a butthurt carebear?

Wars are purely consensual. You can opt-out at any time with a single click of the mouse. Operating in highsec under a war is also trivial. Trade hub campers almost never leave their favourite spots since the watchlist nerf, so just go anywhere else and you will be left alone. Even going to the trade hubs is fine if you treat them as you would operating in lowsec and play accordingly, although the ease of using neutral haulers makes this unnecessary.

If there is any problem, it should be that you have a way to force a fight with them easier than trying to bait them out and playing the same games with neutral logi or whatever. I’m happy to explore ideas to force them to fight, but your ideas do none of this but rather just make wars less likely to happen.

Do you know what I think? I think you don’t like the fact you have to actually do something and change your lazy highsec habits when someone declares war on you. Instead of admitting these war-killing ideas stem from a personal dislike of being inconvenienced, you wrap them in the over-played ‘think of the children’ narrative and claim that somehow wars hurt new players and are bad for the game.

But it really doesn’t matter what I think. Most will agree wars need work, but they need changes that actually promote more wars between groups, preferably over meaningful objectives, not make them have even less teeth or reduce their number. These ideas don’t do that.

As to your OP though, I’m not actually against the idea of eliminating neutral logi, I just don’t think your idea will do much. I think wars would be much better off if repping a neutral in a war was a full criminal offence and you were CONCORDed for interfering. CCP is resistant to the idea though, probably because of effects it would have on other public fleets in the game.


(Cassie Trojan) #13

LOLwut? where is this mystical opt out button???

yes, we know, i live in nullsec most of the time nd despite being decked by these guys; we never see them, so what is the point? there is no interaction which you speak of is there?

You cant, they are risk averse, if i deck you now with an alt corp you will dock everytime you see me garanteed, i mean i might shoot u, u might gasp lose a pixalated ship…

Uhm… i dont live in highsec… im not even really sure what you mean by this; if they deck me surely they should come to where i live, not the other way around? so that would make them lazy and not me at all? so what you want is to keep it increasingly easy for groups like yourself to remain lazy?

Also, that 8 jumps to jan… 200mil a time… 2 or 3 times a night… i mean how often do you go to lowsec? or null? why are people decking null corps and not actually looking for them or even hittng any viable targets? just sitting in jita/amarr or wherever?

What im promoting is making them need to move, which the above would indeed promote; they dont really effect me, like i said, i live in null and only make the occasional trip to jita which to be fair i could easily run in a ceptor even under wardeck.
PLUS i dont mind neutral logi so actually dont want it taken away, just the ability to use it so freely needs to be hindered more; larger security hits would indeed make them think twice about using out of alliance alts so often, it would indeed put pressure on them to actually use in house logi and there fore be a part of the game rather than just… people who sit on a highsec gate all day.


(Cassie Trojan) #14

A contractual system would also make them have to actually achieve some sort of target, an actual target; not some imagined ‘high sec denial’ falsehood, having been a part of several MAJOR highsec ‘merc’ corps i know exactly how they work; most of their decs arent paid for by other parties if at all with the vast majority of wars simply being placed for easy kills, many decs dont even see any kills because there is no target, its not a contract; THESE ARE NOT MERCENARIES


(Cassie Trojan) #15

Just sayin…


(Black Pedro) #16

It’s right at the bottom of this menu:

LeaveCorp

I am so confused then. You think neutral logi is a fine mechanic, yet you propose penalties to discourage its use? What benefits do you see to the game of allowing neutral logi over just locking logi out of being in the war?

Personally, I think wars should be between defined parties and thus all logi should be in-house and neutral logi prevented completely. I also think though that all this would do is have highsec merc alliances bring their logi in-house, and the same people complaining about neutral logi would still lose to them and now be complaining about red logi.

So these endless posts stem from the fact you don’t like highsec mercenaries calling themselves mercenaries then?

Who cares if some, or even most of their wars aren’t contracts but rather just exploratory wars looking for kills or loot? It’s perfectly proper for me to declare wars on people with the hope to kill them or kill them and take their stuff. If you think they aren’t real mercenaries, feel free to call them something else - kill farmers or hub humpers or even something more derogatory, but perhaps you should take that to another forum, like Crime and Punishment, and do that to their face. But changing the game so that their game play conforms more with your conception of what a mercenary is is inane.


(Daichi Yamato) #17

You’re far better off reaching out to another local group to whallop the suspect logi. Suspect logi cannot defend themselves very well and you don’t need to worry about third parties as you will be in a limited engagement. If you’re ever in minnie space, give me a mail. It’ll be more satisfying to see them pop than to mildly irritate them with suspect status.

As for blanket decs; if they have the cash they can have the decs. Blanket decs and hub humping are a symptom of a deeper problem with decs.


(Uriel the Flame) #18

Worth to note however that if you keep your safties on green even if you are repairing someone that goes suspect you will not go suspect and your repper will shut down and a message box pops up informing you about this.

At least that is what I read regarding the subject, have no personal experience with neutral logis nor been one yet.


(Cassie Trojan) #19

quitting a corp is not an opt out of wardeck button…

using neutral logi on occasion is not COMPLETELY ABUSING and there fore by definition exploiting a game mechanic.

penalties to discourage CONSTANT use…

because they provide NOTHING TO THE GAME as a whole also:

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/mercenary?s=t

yeh your still at that classic point of denial that your thinking 'but ermigerd they do gat paid wot ermigerd wat’
i fear your engrish not so gud

just so we are clear on the definition; these are more akin to brigands who are infact not nearly effected by laws as much as they should be.

No country, alliance or organisation in the real world would allow that sort of behaviour to exist without having stricter control regulations; i refer to the real world as in new eden they are also supposed to be humans and would be governed by the same rules.

As a game mechanic allowing it to be used in such a way is severly flawed, many new players will come into the game ad want to band together almost instantly, theyll create corps and start on their journey and then they make the mistake of trying to recruit and bam; 50 new corps suddenly stop playing the game… now you can spend all year figuring out where ‘economically’ this leaves not just the game community but also ccp coffers…

Ive tried to explain this to you in so many way but i believe you may just be to dense so good luck shooting stuff that doesnt shoot back… i feel i should be repeating that slowly, clearly and a second maybe third time so you can take it in but i dont think it will get through tbh.

Daicho,

Its a very big problem imo, it was fun back in the day when groups like privateers were wardecking everyone and EVERYONE was basically fighting but times have moved on and the dudes left are these guys using the same tiresome, crappy tactic of neutral logi, dock if other folks in a gang, deaggro and jump gate if logi down…
Ive tried a few things and these guys just dont move away from complete safety, they are a massive joke to the PvP community having no real tactics or different fleet comps that were in use in what 2010? They stifle incomming player retention by blanket decking basically every noob corp trying to get started which then stifles the rest of the game for ‘new content’ and they (most annoyingly) wardeck us then dont have the balls or i dunno energy? sense? aptitude? to come look for us, instead WE have to go looking for them…
whats that about?
At least marmite have started to do stuff in lowsec and other areas i must admit but these hubcampers, in the real world you think the governers/rulers of ‘jita’ would even allow them to operate in such busy commercial shipping lanes? i think not, as for any ‘neutral’ help i vcan only imagine worse things would happen to them if they are caught… maybe killrights for the corps on the wardeck list that might be amusing…
I just think its time to change it for the benefit of the majority of gamers that play the game, not keep it for the few who abuse the system.

Uriel,

when last i checked citadels are set to green in highsec, which means they cant even shoot suspect logi… not sure if this has been changed but it just goes to show how dumb and futile and obviously underlooked game play is and has been for a very long time.


(Uriel the Flame) #20

@Cassie_Trojan wasn’t aware of that, interesting detail. I was referring to the situation where a neutral logi becomes suspect for repping someone illegally. Just wanted to add that detail in my post for clarification to people not aware of it in case they plan to get involved in such activities.