open All Channels
seplocked EVE Information Portal
blankseplocked New Dev Blog: Serious Security
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... : last (22)

Author Topic

CCP Taera

Posted - 2008.08.06 01:49:00 - [1]
 

CCP Fear joins us again for a look at some security standing and suicide ganking issues. Check out his new blog Serious Security for information on upcoming CONCORD and security standing changes!

Aelena Thraant
The Executives
IT Alliance
Posted - 2008.08.06 03:28:00 - [2]
 

Great Ideas...... Can't wait to see this on TQ... And no I've never been suicide ganked Very Happy

Mecinia Lua
Galactic Express
Intrepid Crossing
Posted - 2008.08.06 03:40:00 - [3]
 

Looks good. I actually thought this was a good system outline and good progress. It will help I think, we might see more of a shift to wars, but that's better than just unsuspecting ganks.


Wen Jaibao
Aperture Harmonics
Posted - 2008.08.06 03:46:00 - [4]
 

Originally by: CCP Fear
In addition, the highly requested feature of removal of insurance in CONCORD related events will be implemented in the near future.



Hahaha, lol, etc

I can't wait to see the whines from the people who abuse the insurance system. All in all, epic dev blog.

Lysander Kaldenn
Dead Reckoning.
Posted - 2008.08.06 03:54:00 - [5]
 

As long as suicide ganking remains possible... I don't really care about doing it, but i always thought high sec violence made the game more credible.

Pak Narhoo
Gallente
Posted - 2008.08.06 03:55:00 - [6]
 


LOL. CCP drops da bomb.

Again. Laughing

Hope you guys wear your extra protective flame suit. Wink

MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
Posted - 2008.08.06 04:03:00 - [7]
 

CCP fear, you are indeed feared :P

good changes.

Lo Lightshard
4 wing
-Mostly Harmless-
Posted - 2008.08.06 04:09:00 - [8]
 

Good. Thanks.

Treelox
Posted - 2008.08.06 04:10:00 - [9]
 

most excellent changes to the sec status roles, and makes so much sense.


1 question though from the following quote;

Originally by: CCP Fear
In addition, the highly requested feature of removal of insurance in CONCORD related events will be implemented in the near future.

The CONCORD changes and Security penalty will be hitting TQ this fall, with Empyrean Age 1.1.


Does this mean that any changes to the insurance program will occur in a patch after EA 1.1 or will the insurance change occur in EA 1.1?

Kil'Roy
Minmatar
The Rat Patrol
Posted - 2008.08.06 04:21:00 - [10]
 

Originally by: CCP Fear
In addition, the highly requested feature of removal of insurance in CONCORD related events will be implemented in the near future.



I fully support this message.

Never really made sense anyways.


Aelin Dao
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2008.08.06 04:21:00 - [11]
 

Quote:
Be safe out there!


That's kind of a given, considering what sounds like an unbalancing CONCORD buff. I hope some kind of lessening in Empire profitability is similarly forthcoming.

here is a hint

Nyphur
Pillowsoft
Posted - 2008.08.06 04:29:00 - [12]
 

Edited by: Nyphur on 06/08/2008 04:30:21

I see information on what's being changed but not much of an explanation as to why. They could be good changes but with no reasoning behind them and no goals laid out they could be shots in the dark for all we know. Most of the changes look good on paper, I'll have a proper look over them later.

Lep Erd
Minmatar
Pator Tech School
Posted - 2008.08.06 04:34:00 - [13]
 

Quote:
As it currently stands, every whole point of standing difference will increase or decrease the penalty by 1%. If the aggressor has +5 and the victim -4, the overall penalty would be reduced by 9% (and increased if the other way around).


I'm not familiar with security rating loss in detail.... but will this nullify the security rating loss in extreme cases (i.e. a +10.0 player attacking a -4.0 player in a 5.0 system)?

Tareen Kashaar
Gyoza Society
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.08.06 04:37:00 - [14]
 

Interesting. Looks like this TEA1.1 patch will be quite something.

Essque
tr0pa de elite
Triumvirate.
Posted - 2008.08.06 04:41:00 - [15]
 

Good changes. Could you now please have the same team look at the speed balancing?

Bellum Eternus
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2008.08.06 04:54:00 - [16]
 

It's sad to see CCP cave again. Oh well, it wasn't unexpected. On the flip side, this'll keep the lesser players away from killing in high sec and let the pros get on with culling the braindead carebears and taking their ISK.

So, question: with the removal of insurance, will you still get the default 50% insurance payout that you normally get when the ship isn't insured? Or will you get no payout at all?

The funny thing is, this won't even slow down the high sec killings that much. It may raise the bar a bit on what is considered worth killing, but it won't stop it. Thank God.

LASER WATCHER
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2008.08.06 05:09:00 - [17]
 

no insurance just means we'll use more caracals vOv

Arekaine
Gallente
Shadowmen.
Galactic System Lords Alliance
Posted - 2008.08.06 05:13:00 - [18]
 

Just another good step to making pirates in Eve real pirates. Having to scout, research, and plan to take out targets in high sec while weighing the factors of roaming police groups. Will also promote escort fleets in high sec as well. High ISK traders will know that the gankers won't be messing with the small targets anymore and will be tring to find the big fish. And anything that promotes fleet ops and corp teamwork is just super with me

MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
Posted - 2008.08.06 05:25:00 - [19]
 

Originally by: Bellum Eternus

The funny thing is, this won't even slow down the high sec killings that much. It may raise the bar a bit on what is considered worth killing, but it won't stop it. Thank God.


that's the point :)

Quote:
I hope some kind of lessening in Empire profitability is similarly forthcoming.


I would honestly still like to see all positive level 4 agents taken out of empire space.

BlackMoon Thrawn
Stimulus
Posted - 2008.08.06 05:31:00 - [20]
 

I've never suicide ganked anyone and never been ganked either, that said I really don't understand these ham-fisted changes to mechanics that need minor tweaks. Game balance is a delicate thing, why not change one thing (like insurance to concord deaths)and give it a few months to see if that gives the desired effect before buffing concord, or increasing sec hits?

The same thing applies to the speed nerf, there was 1 rig that was way out of whack compared to others why not nerf that back in line(like 8-10 months ago tbh) and see what happens?

Scout R
Posted - 2008.08.06 05:35:00 - [21]
 

This game get nearer and nearer to being carebears online every day Confused

GOd SAvior
Posted - 2008.08.06 05:35:00 - [22]
 

Nice read.

Idea for the insurance removal: If you've been involved in (non-warred/flagged) ship destruction during aggro timer, you won't be able to get insurance payout. Might help with accidental aggression, where you'd still get the insurance after aggro timer ends.

Dungar Loghoth
Caldari
Gank Bangers
Posted - 2008.08.06 05:37:00 - [23]
 

Edited by: Dungar Loghoth on 06/08/2008 05:54:36
Keep bending over for the whiners CCP, it's really what's made this game unique among the sea of other MMOs.

Haks'he Lirky
Durgarnir
Posted - 2008.08.06 05:40:00 - [24]
 

Originally by: Treelox
most excellent changes to the sec status roles, and makes so much sense.


1 question though from the following quote;

Originally by: CCP Fear
In addition, the highly requested feature of removal of insurance in CONCORD related events will be implemented in the near future.

The CONCORD changes and Security penalty will be hitting TQ this fall, with Empyrean Age 1.1.


Does this mean that any changes to the insurance program will occur in a patch after EA 1.1 or will the insurance change occur in EA 1.1?


I am going to guess that they want to see the changes in the dev blog alive on their own before changing the insurance as well, at least it would make sense to see the exact impact of one change before going all the way.

Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
Posted - 2008.08.06 05:46:00 - [25]
 

Quote:
Conversely, 0.1, 0.2, and 0.3 will see a decrease in penalty, but not a big step down. This should move most ganking to the lower security areas where it belongs.


CCP, please do not nerf low-sec like this. Do you have any idea how hard it is to keep a perfect -10.0 when your gang-mates insist on killing random belt rats while waiting for targets? By nerfing security status loss in 0.1-0.3 systems, you force pirates to grind even more shuttles/noobships/haulers on gates just to stay -10.0.

Treelox
Posted - 2008.08.06 06:00:00 - [26]
 

Originally by: Merin Ryskin
Quote:
Conversely, 0.1, 0.2, and 0.3 will see a decrease in penalty, but not a big step down. This should move most ganking to the lower security areas where it belongs.


CCP, please do not nerf low-sec like this. Do you have any idea how hard it is to keep a perfect -10.0 when your gang-mates insist on killing random belt rats while waiting for targets? By nerfing security status loss in 0.1-0.3 systems, you force pirates to grind even more shuttles/noobships/haulers on gates just to stay -10.0.



Lol thanks for the chuckle.

I'm not laughing at but at you unique problem, there is indeed a flip side to every coin.

Shinigami
Gallente
Shinra
Posted - 2008.08.06 06:10:00 - [27]
 

Edited by: Shinigami on 06/08/2008 06:12:16
CCP will be introducing trammel pretty soon. STAY TUNED!

Tobias Sjodin
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2008.08.06 06:16:00 - [28]
 

Quote:
we are confident that these changes and the future plans will make EVE a better experience for everyone.


I'm not.

Sakura Nihil
Selective Pressure
Rote Kapelle
Posted - 2008.08.06 06:17:00 - [29]
 

Look, I can agree that suicide ganking nerf via the loss of insurance, even making CONCORD response sec-based. But now suddenly ganking someone that's 5.0 slaps you with more of a penalty that someone with 0.0?

Come on. Its not nearly a big of a shotgun nerf as the nano one, but again, changing too many variables at once - instead of making it more costly and therefore uncommon, you seem to be aimed at making it very rare instead through draconian measures.

Also, deal with the macroers and sov issues before this, tbh. Get your priorities straight.

Kyguard
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2008.08.06 06:18:00 - [30]
 

Sad, so sad.


Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... : last (22)

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only