Comments on Inner Sanctum of the Ninveah: BB32: Say Yes To Reasonable Protection

After some encouragement by Seismic Stan I wrote a...

2012-01-24T08:30:34.606-05:00

After some encouragement by Seismic Stan I wrote a post on the subject despite coming late to the show. It basically comes down to: More non-consensual PVP for the griefers; not an opportunity to opt out of PVP, but an easier way to opt in on behalf of the victims.

In fact, it is often paradoxically easier to ensure the safety of a mining operation outside of highsec than inside because you can strike pre-emptively and/or block escape routes for offenders with bubbles.

Personally I think some improvements can be made, ...

2012-01-19T11:08:09.967-05:00

Personally I think some improvements can be made, though they might sound pretty drastic:

Concord should start podding criminals. Concord should pop & pod anyone with a negative sec status as spoon a they try to enter hi sec space; they should be unable to dock in hi sec, must pay (reasonably cheap) bribes to dock in low sec, all their assets get dumped from high sec stations, end can't set clone contracts in high sec.

Imperial navies/police should start doing the same (using faction standings instead of sec status, podding only in that empire's space, and no docking/clones anywhere in that empire's space).

Very interesting idea there, although I agree with...

2012-01-19T09:34:27.476-05:00

Very interesting idea there, although I agree with the comments about possible exploits, although if limited to hi-sec and ship types and fittings, and perhaps even cargo value, it might be workable. It might end up needing to be quite complex to cope with the abuse us lot will try to throw its way to make the most of it though.

"...new players are devastated by the resulti...

2012-01-18T20:01:46.527-05:00

"...new players are devastated by the resulting loss." I would love to see the numbers behind this phenomenon. I wonder what the Ragequit Quotient is?

The real argument here is whether or not CCP would see an increase in subscriber numbers if a period of acceptable molly-coddling could be introduced.

The first commenter got it right. Anybody who woul...

2012-01-18T16:47:57.847-05:00

The first commenter got it right. Anybody who would quit Eve because they got ganked will quit the game for some other reason sooner or later. You either "get" Eve or you don't. I, for one, am tired of people asking CCP to break the game to cater to the people who don't get it.

I tend to agree with the comments calling for a no...

2012-01-18T12:31:31.207-05:00

I tend to agree with the comments calling for a non-pvp flag that deactivates after x days (month?) Or when the player deactivates it.

2012-01-18T11:50:19.092-05:00

This comment has been removed by the author.

I agree, except to change the fitting T2 exception...

2012-01-18T11:49:58.497-05:00

I agree, except to change the fitting T2 exception to fitting meta 5+

I like your title and agree with it on principal, ...

2012-01-18T11:42:50.599-05:00

I like your title and agree with it on principal, but the suggested reasonable protection just isn't "reasonable." A flagging system like this could be too easily used by people looking to permanently avoid combat. Even if you made it so that this flag would only operate until one of the suggested parameters were breached, in an effort to try to protect new players, people would STILL game the system. Pacifist alts for intel, not to mention pacifists alts for hauling, mission-running, and anything else they could get away with. I know that would be limited somewhat by not being able to fit faction or T2 modules, but it would still be possible.

I would advocate a flag system that would only work for the first 14 days would be more acceptable, one that could only be turned off and never turned back on again would be best, so if new players wanted to get directly into PvP they could, but once it was manually turned off, or deactivated that'd be it. Usual on-screen warnings would apply. Also it would have to be for the first 14 days of the account, not just for the new character. Preventing new-spy alts from gaining 14 days of protection and then being biomassed after that.

I'm not against better protecting new players (to an extent) against the retards that like to prey on them, like banning jet cans in the starter systems would also be a good step. Or at least have modified agression mechanics for them so people can't use them to bait new players would be required. I'm just against any system that could allow players, if they understood how it worked, to be able to deny combat for any longer than the first 14 days of their account's life. After that, all's fair in Eve.

Its not a terrible idea, but off the top of my hea...

2012-01-18T11:41:20.663-05:00

Its not a terrible idea, but off the top of my head i can think of several exploits and problems with the specifics of what you suggest (auto lock-back turning off your IsoMat, exploits in high-sec wars, invulnerable high-sec couriers).

That said, the idea of offering a PvP flag for newer players is one that I support. Perhaps, as you suggest but discount, this could be applied to the newbie NPC corps while the new player is in them. Additionally, having new players 'grauate' (read 'get kicked out') from the newbie corp into another NPC corp after say 1 month or so could help prevent exploits.

I tend to agree to the last comment. Suicide ganki...

2012-01-18T10:19:35.985-05:00

I tend to agree to the last comment. Suicide ganking should be posible, but should carry harsher penalties.. but it's really complicated to design a viable way to do so. Anyone can create a "10 hour hero" toon, burn his sec status ganking at will and when it has been burnt to -5.0, simply biomass it and begin with a new ganker character.

Suicide ganking has its place in Eve, but what concerns me is:

- No _real_ penalties in-game for the gankers.

- No _real_ way to defend from it.

Anything one player does in Eve should bare consequences, and there should be a viable counter-tactic to avoid it. Right now SG falls out of these boundaries, and that should have to be fixed.

I hate this idea, because it's very immersion ...

2012-01-18T09:57:48.108-05:00

I hate this idea, because it's very immersion breaking. Removing insurance from concord kills is a no brainer, and I'd also like to see larger sec status hits for hisec combat (scaled with sec status). From an RP point of view, defying concord and ganking a ship killing hundreds should carry more of a penalty than a minor inconvenience. Conversely, I'd like to see sec status hits in lowsec reduced or eliminated.

I'll say the idea is good, but I don't nec...

2012-01-18T09:22:31.545-05:00

I'll say the idea is good, but I don't necessarily agree with it. Anyone that would quit because they are suicide ganked would quit relatively soon for another reason. Many MMO players cannot handle "loss" in a game.