Thursday, December 17, 2015

It's Time to Remove Faction Police

From time to time, I have been critical of CCP's decisions when it comes to changing EVE's game mechanics. Smart people often ask me, "James 315, what would you change to make EVE a better game?" An easy reply would be to roll back some of the bad changes from the last few years. I might say that CCP could easily improve the game by simply giving us back awoxing, can-flipping, hyperdunking, and boomerang ganking. I could go on. And I will, but about something else.

Aside from those obvious ideas, I would like to offer an entirely new proposal: The removal of faction police.

For those who are unfamiliar with highsec mechanics, it's important to understand what the faction police are, and I'll give you a quick assist: Faction police are not CONCORD (which automatically kill suicide gankers) or faction navies (which attack players with low faction standings). Faction police attack players who have low security status in highsec. If a player has low sec status and remains on the same grid for about 20 seconds, faction police appear and automatically hold that player in place, and eventually kill him.

Faction police are the reason that players with low sec status must constantly bounce around and avoid staying in the same place for more than a few moments. Unlike CONCORD, faction police will seal a player's doom even if he has not committed a hostile act. Faction police function entirely separately from CONCORD. They don't have much impact on the ganks themselves, as they generally show up after CONCORD has already jammed a ganker, and where they don't (like a 0.5 system), they only have a chance at jamming a ganker before CONCORD performs its 100% guaranteed jam.

A lot of people, especially disingenuous carebears, might wonder why it would be a good idea to remove faction police. After all, they say, there should be some penalty for operating with negative sec status in highsec. Indeed, the advocates of a risk-free highsec frequently demand additional penalties (due to One More Nerf™ syndrome).

Aside from dealing with faction police, those with very low sec status have another penalty in highsec: They're freely attackable by everyone. They operate, in essence, as if there's a permanent kill right on them which is always active. This creates the potential for an enormous amount of content. Or it would, if not for the existence of faction police.

Because faction police prevent a low-security player from being on the same grid for more than about 20 seconds, these players can basically do only one thing: Participate in highly coordinated, well-prepared, perfectly timed suicide ganks. If you're not ganking, you're traveling gate-to-gate or gate-to-station in a pod with instant align time. In other words, you can't be attacked unless you're ganking, in which case your ship is already intended for death.

Being a blinky red does have one effect, which is that an Anti-Ganker can preemptively attack a ganker before the ganker opens fire on his target, or maybe preemptively tackle a ganker on his way out of a stargate if the ganker's target is in a neighboring system. (Ironically, Anti-Gankers complain most about their inability to "preemptively" strike at gankers, when it's really the only thing they can do under the mechanics.)

In theory, a low-security player could loiter around busy stargates, inviting a fight from anyone who dares. If someone wants a fight--or if a group wants a fight--they could open fire, allowing the low-security player to retaliate freely, instead of losing his ship to CONCORD. But because of faction police, the low-security player will be tackled and killed by NPCs anyway within a few seconds. Thus, the low-security player has the incentive neither to engage in a fight or even pilot a ship (other than a throw-away ganking vessel).

I think the idea of making low-security players into blinky reds was that they're considered criminals who can be attacked by vigilantes. CONCORD won't bring them to justice unless they gank someone, but any player in EVE is free to make a sort of citizen's arrest. Maybe they succeed, or maybe the ganker fights them off and gets away. It seems counter-intuitive for CCP to set the stage for this kind of content, and then have it eliminated by NPC interference.

It's clear, then, that the removal of faction police opens the door to a lot more content and conflict, both of which EVE could use. What would we lose by removing faction police? Nothing that I can think of. Low-security players can travel freely by warping in their pods, and the fact that gankers must time their ganks and prepare warp-ins obviously doesn't save carebears from being shot. Faction police don't add anything to the game; they only take from it.

Additional benefits of scrapping the facpo: Players who earned their negative sec status by living in lowsec have greater access to highsec, if they're willing to brave the vigilantes who lurk there. Lowsec conflicts can bubble into highsec, since lowsec players of warring factions can now use regular ships to patrol highsec trade routes and lowsec entry points--while risking interference from any EVE player who wants to take a shot at them.

Interestingly, CCP devs have occasionally spoken of their desire to remove NPC police mechanics and replace them with player-driven content, but they've never actually made a move to do it. Removing faction police would be a good first step.

My prediction: If CCP eliminates faction police, EVE subscriptions will skyrocket and everyone at CCP will get rich!

75 comments:

  1. BeBopAreBop RhubarbPieDecember 17, 2015 at 8:43 PM

    Self promotion:
    http://eve-search.com/thread/397511-1/page/1

    ReplyDelete
  2. Won't work. Most, if not all, carebears would simply stop playing, if high-sec essentially becomes low-sec. Which means a lot less targets, like in low-sec.

    Facpo has never been a serious threat to us blinky-reds, anyways - makes things a bit more challenging, but not much, esp. since they don't touch pods.

    So, if anything, facpo adds a degree of false security for high-sec players, which encourages them to keep playing. That is a good thing.

    Concord needs to be changed/nerfed, though. There should always be some way to escape/survive, even if it is 1,000-to-1 odds against you. Insta-pop is just silly.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Instapop is the intention of CONCORD; if you aggress another player in Highsec who isn't suspect, you lose your ship 100% of the time. If people escaped CONCORD's justice, they would escape 100% of the time.

      However, Faction police do absolutely nothing but "hurry along" players with low security status (which can now be immediately fixed by paying a nominal fee.) Allowing for low-security players to stay on grid offers more opportunities for PvP; as the "driving off of hostile players" becomes an opportunity for would-be bot-aspirants to be reformed from their PvE ways, and rely less on the "robotic solution" that carebears wrongfully desire.

      Delete
    2. Holy fucking shit Ming you are so fucking useless. Please do the rest of code a favor and just shut the fuck up and slit your god damn wrists. Jesus Fucking Christ....

      Delete
    3. Ming, undock and contribute to your so called cause once in a while. Otherwise, you're a laughing stock in which nobody will take you serious.

      As for everyone else, in case you are wondering what all the fuss is about, take a look here:

      https://zkillboard.com/character/2012975004/

      No kills or losses for a year and a half.

      Delete
    4. Miners, calm down.

      @Butthurt Miner
      I suppose my killboard link shows the pretty elite PvP I did over a year and a half ago, and it was pretty spectacular, if I do say so myself. I suppose it definitely outshines your killboard, which, should you provide it, can safely be assumed to carry nothing but mining ship losses from your futile resistance to legitimate, elected Authority.


      Delete
    5. But at least he undocks which is more than can be said for you.

      Delete
    6. Legitimate elected authority? Really? What are you smoking because I want some. Maybe you should read your own code that you profess to love and defend. And I quote: "Respect for elected officials. As Saviour of Highsec, I acted as proxy when electing myself Supreme Protector. Miners should respect the will exercised by the people when they made this choice."

      Jimmy boy 315, the anal dwelling butt monkey of highsec, elected himself. There was no election. There was no ballots cast. CCP didn't run it. So guess what, the NO wasn't elected, and your "authority" is not legitimate.

      Enough Said.

      Delete
    7. Almost forgot...

      Ming, you and Jimmy boy are both of the same caliber: Too much of a coward to undock because you're afraid to get ganked.

      Delete
    8. @BM
      Yes, you read the part of the Code correctly that says that James cast a proxy vote for all citizens of Highsec in the election. This means that, effectively, all citizens of Highsec voted for James 315. Which means that he was democratically elected.

      There was an election, there were ballots cast, CCP didn't have to run it because it was emergent gameplay, and, most importantly James 315 is your elected representative because of it.

      Arguing with the democratic process, while refusing to get involved or take a stake in the system only hurts you in the end. Nobody said you couldn't run for the Office of Supreme Protector yourself the next time the position becomes available.

      Delete
    9. No, James 315 is NOT my elected representative, because that so called proxy vote is just a fancy way to say that he appointed himself. Which, in turn means that he was not democratically elected. You claim there was an election, and ballots were cast. If we are to believe your claim, then there was only one ballot cast. That was from James 315 voting for himself, which, again, is the same as appointed himself. This also means that NO authority is not legitimate. For NO authority to be legitimate, CCP has to run the election (similar to voting for CSM). It's CCP's game, not yours, and not James 315's.

      And operating as The Mittani is still the legitimate chair of the CSM is trying to claim glory when there's none to be had. The Mittani was denounced and forced out of the CSM by CCP because he told everyone to harass a player to the point where the harassment would drive them to real life suicide. That right there tells everyone that the so called "Code" is a piece of shit that should, and is, pissed on by the people in the game.

      And I find it interesting that there is no challenge to my comment of you being a coward. At least I undock and take my chances. You just sit in station mouthing off here. And your claim to have people prove they are worthy to fight (the same claim that Jimmy the Butt Fungus Picker of Highsec) is just an excuse for your cowardice.

      Delete
    10. tbh Butthurt, I'll be pissed if Ming starts undocking. Your tears are delicious!

      #mingtso1000years

      Delete
    11. Butthurt Miner, calm down.

      If proxy votes cast by someone as luminous as James 315 are accepted by the EVE Community and by CCP, (who did actually sanction His election, by the way) then that means that yes, in fact, you did cast a ballot for James 315 and you, yourself, helped James 315 become the Saviour of Highsec. Denying it after the fact and refusing to take part in your governmental process is no excuse for your apparent inability to do anything to change the Rightful Ruling Party of High Security space.

      And as for undocking, let's go ahead and point out that your claim that you undock cannot be independently verified with only "the claim that you do." Otherwise I would just make the claim that I do too, and rob you of one of your favorite, albeit confusingly ineffective lines of argument. So, instead, I will ask you to please link your killboard to provide proof of your most-likely false claims. I mean you regularly slander the Saviour, I'm surprised anyone regards anything that you say with anything more than a handful (okay maybe a bagfull) of salt.

      Delete
    12. @John: And if he ever does, I'll be there to blow him into a new clone. Besides, if you call that tears, then you are way more desperate than I.

      @Ming Tso: Nice try, but I am calm...unless you count my laughing at you as being...laughing at you. And your little charade to try to get me to say who I am in game by trying to induce me to link my killboard. As I said, nice try, but it didn't work. So right now, all that you can do is rage at your computer at someone who may or may not exist while you hear my laughter in the background of your station games.

      BM.

      Delete
    13. @Butthurt Miner ya know, I mined for a bit. Was forced to stop playing the game recently, but let me say this: your reactions are both funny, adorable and downright idiotic. You make tons of empty threats and swagger about like a five year old convinced of his own self-importance, while refusing to provide any proof to back up your rather brash, even foolhardy, claims. Ming is merely guilty of staying in character; you're guilty of personal attacks and bravado that is almost comical.

      I'm technically against CODE, and even I'm telling you that right now, you look fuckin retarded, man.

      Delete
    14. @Anonymous 10:49PM: Thanks for your concern, but everything you said about me was the entire point of my role play.

      Delete
  3. Removing Faction Police is a typically stupid new order idea...you made the choice to get your low standing, now you don't want to face the consequences??? That sounds like a CAREBEAR talking, refuse to tank the ship and complain about facing the consequences...let your standings drop, and now you are bi#%&ing about the consequences...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Anon9:35

      And exactly what consequences do we face for having low security status, other than being able to be freely PvPed for the few seconds that we do stay on a grid before the Faction police appear?

      Wouldn't it be more prudent to allow such elite PvPers to be engaged and destroyed in honourable combat, (which, I will remind you, is the CCP sanctioned purpose of EVE) rather than have the PvP and gloury be gained by robots?

      Delete
    2. LOL at Mingle commenting on this topic, but doesn't effect it, because it never undocks.

      How about actually undocking and killing something before opening that black void you call a mouth?

      Delete
    3. As I have said before, Anon, I will undock and fight anyone, anytime. However they must first prove themselves worthy, as the Code states the procedures for challenging a New Order Agent to a duel under New Order Law.

      Delete
    4. Dear Mingleling,

      You are pulling shit out of your ass again. Please stop and learn to read. Those rules apply to James315 himself and not some scrub too afraid to undock...

      Delete
    5. @Anon5:29

      Ahahaha and there lies the rub; You need to understand that these are the rules that I, by right of being an Agent of the New Order, are imposing on my challengers.

      Since The Code applies to every person in Highsec, The provisions of the Code that are good enough for a person to duel James 315 are good enough for a person to duel me.

      So therefore, before I will duel a person, that person must be deemed worthy enough to fight me using the very same reasonable and common-sense tests that James 315 uses.

      I'm sure you will agree that it's not an issue, and that you will be happy to CONCORD an expensive ship to show your dedication to the Code.

      Delete
    6. @Ming

      Let's face it. You are a coward. Just admit it and you will feel better, because that's the first step to recovery.

      Delete
    7. I recently witnessed CODE. agent extraordinaire loyalanon spamming local in a lowsec system with "come and fight me you cowards" rhetoric. Of course he was flying a blinged out faction cruiser with a link-alt in system while those he was taunting were flying mostly t1 frigates, but I digress. With no faction police loyalanon and other Jamey cronies could now spout the same rhetoric is highsec.

      Delete
    8. AS WE CAN ALL SEE;

      As the carebear progresses in its bot aspirancy, Specimen "Butthurt Miner's" language begins to creep towards that of its companions, faking concern for noble Agents of The New Order to mask its irrational hatred of duly elected Law and Order, probably while wearing black eyeliner and fingernail polish and listening to The Smiths.

      Delete
    9. Not elected, appointed. Get your facts straight.

      BM

      Delete
    10. @BM

      Sure, let's get our facts straight.
      "Elected" means that James 315 gained a majority of votes cast in the Election for Saviour Of Highsec, which happened on or around June 21, 2012.

      "Appointed" means that James was elevated to the position of Supreme Protector by self-promotion, or by the promotion of another, not proportional-to-the-general-population body.

      Clearly, James 315 was elected, as all of Highsec voted for him. He was not "appointed," as you say, because all of highsec voted, and he was by and far, the clear winner. Plus there was nobody of the caliber in existence to promote anyone to position of Supreme Protector before James 315 elected to it, so even how would it even be that someone could even be appointed to that position in the first place?

      What you are suggesting makes no sense to reasonable, well-informed people. Only to miners, who, as we all know, will bandwagon onto anything that claims to disrupt authority due to the poor life decisions they have made in their time playing EVE, and the squalor they live in because of that.

      Honestly, every day I am reminded of the terrible squalor that is the plight of the common miner. It is absolutely disgusting to behold. It is why I believe that Highsec is worth saving. And it is why my contributions to the New Order are among the highest total contributions ever made- and indeed among the highest one-time donations ever made as well.

      Delete
    11. Ming Ming Ming...

      You are so into James's koolaid that you cannot see beyond your own delusion.

      Just because you call something an election, and just because one vote was cast, doesn't mean that it was an actual election. It was a device that he used to appoint himself. All of highsec voted for him, huh? That's interesting because I never did, and I'm in highsec.

      Delete
  4. Look I am a lawyer in RL... Having more police is a good thing. IMHO facpo should be buffed to CONCORD levels and then CONCORD can be free'd up to provide ship reimbursements, escort duties for new players, and ganking -10's at stations/gates. In real life the police have been given so much more power they can literally execute black folks for just walking down the street. EVE should mirror RL and start ganking anything < -2.0

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow another pleb that cannot seperate game from rl.

      Delete
    2. So black people are -2.0 and under in your eyes?

      Delete
    3. Veers, you are an idiot. People of African descent have the same human rights as everyone else. If an officer went around killing people of African descent, they should (and have been), arrested, tried, and maybe convicted based on the jury's judgement and interpretation of the evidence in accordance with the legal standard "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."

      So Veers, if I ever need any real life legal assistance, I won't be calling you.

      BM

      Delete
    4. HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA, Veers you are a scoundrel!!!

      Delete
  5. Stations and gates are strategic assets and choke points, so I could see why a faction would want to defend them. Having them be undefended seems like a bit much for what is supposed to be highly-controlled faction space. But if you want to argue why would a faction care about some remote asteroid field, or a ship stopped in the middle of nowhere, then there's a point to be had.

    On that note, if the police were to be removed or nerfed I'd want to see gate/station defenses buffed somehow. It wouldn't be terrible, still easier, you could stage your fleet just off grid then when a juicy target warped in, scram it in a non-criminal ship (if you even needed to for a slow-aligning freighter or whatnot) fit to tank the gate guns, and quickly warp the fleet on grid to complete the gank.

    A group of criminals could also camp an asteroid field, maybe only periodically interrupted by a faction patrol or something that you would have the potential to fight back against. Would mean people wanting to mine there would have to push you away somehow.

    Dunno, little steps and such.

    ReplyDelete
  6. This was actually something I've been wondering about for a bit. Pilots that are -5 and below can be attacked by anyone in highsec, but I could never really see a chance for that to happen with the presence of facpo, outside of instalocking gatecamps for that specific purpose (good luck with your 1 kill an hour). I'm not sure if removing facpo entirely would be feasible, but maybe something like decreasing response time to allow pilots the chance to fight/kill them would work?

    ReplyDelete
  7. If I was still on the CSM, I would link this to CCP devs and tell them they should do this. Of course there's that issue that CCP devs apparently aren't meeting with the CSM anymore since the last summit, butyou still have a good idea. I will pimp it anyway!

    ReplyDelete
  8. The removal of FacPo is a brilliant idea... At first I was sceptical, but then it made more and more sense...

    -10 can be freely shot by anyone, and risks in game should come from players not from NPC's.
    This would allow for white knights to attempt to stop crims, instead of just whoring on FacPo/Concord KM's

    Puts the onus back on players to deal with criminally flagged players.

    ReplyDelete
  9. If I was an Anti-Ganker, then I would want FacPo removed. The removal would allow more opportunities to earn kill mails on gankers instead of just piggy-backing on CONCORD kills.

    ReplyDelete
  10. tho i agree with this article and support it, it has a few minor errors and i want to suggest to enhance this suggestion:

    faction police arent the dudes that come after me because im -10sec.
    faction police are these dudes that come after me because im an enemy to the faction (be it because i did to many missions that target faction rats, or because i am enlisted in factional warfare).
    now, faction police is way less of a thread then normal security police. they do less damage, they usually web first and scram later.
    yet, they are a big hinderance to do any factional warfare in hostile highsec.
    i think this is a protection noone deserves that is enlisted in factional warfare.
    its widely unnoticed by these that fight for a better highsec. but the bot aspirant crimes that carebears commit under the flag of fw every minute are endless.

    therefore, i am strongly in favour of removing both security AND faction police.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Antigankers are failing non-stop daily!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Ming Tso you kill freighters in high sec and talk about honourable combat? Are you serious?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Deadly serious. We prevent those who would flout James 315's Law of Highsec from getting away with their treachery. Permits are 10 million isk apiece, and must be displayed prominently in the bio. Any freighter that does not wish to comply is more than welcome to fight us, but I'll go ahead and tell you right now, The Code will always win, because freighters always show up to the fight unarmed.

      Delete
    2. Mingle can't kill anything while dock up like puss. He is too afraid to undock and contribute to a cause he supposedly believes in.

      The last person I'd take PVP advise from is Mingle due to lack of experience.

      Delete
    3. @Ming

      LOL. He seems calm to me, so you calm down, and undock. Speaking of CCP, I would love to be able to raid your Captian's Quarters and shoot you in station. Headshot anyone? LOL

      Delete
    4. AS IT CAN BE SEEN:

      Let it be known that Butthurt Miner would rather play with his dolls in-station, and for CCP to spend their resources developing 'station games' rather than focus on the real crux of EVE Online; spaceship combat.

      I'll bet he doesn't even have a killboard to link, the coward.

      Delete
    5. I've said it before, I do undock. Which is more than what you do. Besides, I've said it before, so I'll say it again:

      Incorporate the code from DUST514 into EvE Online so we can have some station based clone on clone action.

      BM.

      Delete
  13. Have gankers idle AFK in deep safe spots where their FC can automatically warp them away from any threat, automatically warp them to gank targets, and not have to undock where their flashy status will get them shot at?

    Try not to advocate bot aspirancy, James.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ever heard of probes?

      Delete
    2. Hasn't heard of instant undock bookmarks either, apparently. I do love the care bears arguments revolve around a misconception of game mechanics.

      Delete
    3. If the idea of a criminal fleet sitting in a deep safe spot has Anon2:29 and his friends unsettled, I can wait to see them go apoplectic when gankers start using Citadels next to gates and in stationless systems to base out of.

      The Faction Police are living on borrowed time. CCP often moves at a glacial pace, but all that talk about the Empires losing control, and more player driven stories and mechanics means removing them is on a white board somewhere, just waiting to be implemented. The Saviour has correctly identified they do nothing to drive content, only stifle interactions and the chance at escalation by forcing and keeping criminals in disposable ships. I am sure CCP has seen that as well.

      Delete
    4. Probes don't stop the ganker FC from just warping the bot aspirant AFK ganker group to the next safe spot if he sees something on short scan. As for undock bookmarks, why even risk it when you can AFK idle in space?

      And Pedro, as for a Citadel, lots of corps would love for CODE to have assets in space to shoot at. CODE wouldn't do it because that involves risk.

      Delete
    5. Yep, because they are cowards. Just look at Ming and Jimmy boy, the coward of highsec, who refuses to undock.

      Delete
    6. "Yep, because they are cowards. Just look at Ming and Jimmy boy, the coward of highsec, who refuses to undock."

      - Butthurt Miner (the coward who makes fun of massacres and posts anonymously)

      Delete
    7. Ohh... Fresh Meat, and Bacon at that. Yummy.

      BM

      Delete
    8. Looks like Anon2:21 hasn't read the dev blogs carefully enough. These Citadels are so safe, and so flexible (docking is completely configurable to people outside your corp) that there is zero risk in using them in highsec. Alt corps, tiny vulnerability windows and the ability to take them down after a war is declared means they will be a gankers best friend and untouchable by anti-gankers. The worst is that they will have to shuffle them from alt corp to alt corp on occasion.

      Delete
    9. Anonymous miner is confused.

      "As for undock bookmarks, why even risk it"

      There is no risk. This is why trying to camp undocks in highsec space is quite literally retarded. Does not stop AG from trying it all the time and crying about it not working, of course.

      "when you can AFK idle in space?"

      Yes, without facpol gankers could AFK idle in space. However, you would be free to probe them down and shoot them. Seems like something you would want!

      Delete
  14. Quoting Anon 9:35 PM:

    "Removing Faction Police is a typically stupid new order idea...you made the choice to get your low standing, now you don't want to face the consequences??? That sounds like a CAREBEAR talking, refuse to tank the ship and complain about facing the consequences...let your standings drop, and now you are bi#%&ing about the consequences..."

    I have to agree with this. Why should CCP remove a major game mechanic to benefit the scumbags known as highsec gankers? You claim elite PvP but all you do is hit people that are either minding their own business or AFK. You, James 315, claim that code engages in highsec PvP. Then man up and prove it by dealing with the consequences of your actions.

    My view is that having a low security status for the system that you are in is akin to having a wanted poster published by the police. You are wanted as a CRIMINAL. Not because of a bounty. Not because of standings.

    So, the only way that I can legitimately see faction police being removed from the game is to have it replaced with something else entirely. Something like disallowing people with low security status not being able to enter the system in question. That would be -2.0 or lower for a 1.0 system to -5.0 or lower for a 0.5 system. And if someone does manage to get into a high security system beyond what their security status allows (jump clone, medical clone), then they get automatically teleported to the nearest low security system with a station.

    So James, be careful what you wish for. You just might get it.

    BM.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "Something like disallowing people with low security status not being able to enter the system in question."

    Not being able to enter a system because you have low security status should definitely be disallowed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Perhaps, but a proposal to eliminate a fundamental game mechanic requires an equally fundamental game mechanic to replace it.

      BM

      Delete
    2. A game mechanic already exists: The players themselves.

      Delete
  16. Better solution: remove Concord from .5-.6, replace with faction police. .7-.9 have escalating response time based on sec status of pilot and system security. 1.0 remains how it is now.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Oh James315, such a carebear request. If you were half the player you claim to be, you'd just deal with it rather than crying about it.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Who's crying? He makes well reasoned and explained points to his argument. Unlike the miners and freighter pilots who spurge and insult when they don't get what they want.

    ReplyDelete
  19. haha the knee jerk butthurt in these comments is awesome :) :)

    ReplyDelete
  20. Highsec needs loyalanon sitting on a gate in a flashy red Vargur. I can't imagine a more dreadful sight for the AG.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Facpo isn't the deterrent to getting shot at. Being flashy red is the deterrent. The average player surmises (usually correctly) that the criminal is an experienced pilot and engaging them would result in a ship loss.

    People don't like being humiliated.

    You're also dealing with a population that lacks both the confidence and the experience to take on a target even if presented, due to the lack of constructive PVP as well as shyness preventing many from seeking out these venues themselves.

    Want more content? Ask permit holders flat out if they want to learn how to pvp. Provide fitted frigs and T1 cruisers and do duels if they don't want to suicide gank for whatever reason. Do it until everyone's exhausted or they seem to get the concept.

    Don't wait for them to ask about it as that takes a heck of a lot of self confidence that many don't have but secretly want. People don't like being humiliated, but many will humbly accept the hand out of the abyss.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Anon5:35

      AS you may or may not have been aware, The New Order welcomes all who wish to obey and enforce the Law of Highsec, as James 315 (praise him) provides Holy Reimbursement for kills carried out in the Name of the New Order.

      And as for your complaints that "people are shy and don't like to be humiliated, and lack the confidence and experience to even press F1 on a target," well, I have to say that I am entirely unsympathetic to your position.

      To quote CCP Falcon:
      "Eve is not a game for the faint hearted. It's a game that will chew you up and spit you out in the blink of an eye if you even think about letting your guard down or becoming complacent.

      While every other MMO starts off with an intro that tells you you're going to be the savior of the realm, holds your hand, protects you, nurtures your development and ultimately guides you to your destiny as a hero along with several other million players who've had the exact same experience, EVE assaults you from the second you begin to play after you create a character, spitting you out into a universe that under the surface, is so complex that it's enough to make your head explode.

      EVE will test you from the outset, from the very second you undock and glimpse the stars, and will take pleasure from sorting those who can survive from those who'd rather curl up and perish.

      EVE will let you fight until you collapse, then let you struggle to your feet, exhausted from the effort. Then when you can see the light at the end of the tunnel it'll kick you flat on your ass in the mud again and ask you why you deserve to be standing. It'll test you against every other individual playing at some point or another, and it'll ask for answers.

      Give it an answer and maybe it'll let you up again, long enough to gather your thoughts. After a few more steps you're on the ground again and it's asking more questions.

      EVE is designed to be harsh, it's designed to be challenging, and it's designed to be so deep and complex that it should fascinate and terrify you at the same time."


      There you go. You aren't entitled to sympathy from us. You are only entitled to give us what we want, which is compliance with the New Halaima Code of Conduct for 10 million isk and a permit in the bio. Alternately you can join us and learn how to do what we do.

      But don't even think about telling us we need to change. You need to change.

      Delete
    2. We don't need to change, you need to change.

      And I am entitled to play the game how I want and you are entitled to nothing of mine.

      BM

      P.S: Nice wall of text there. I've added your post to my successfully trolled bin.

      Delete
  22. and long may the faction police remain...nuff said

    ReplyDelete
  23. I had to get myself security then I decided to contact plain clothes security guard! And believe me they helped me a lot! Suggested to all! They are great in their work!

    ReplyDelete

Note: If you are unable to post a comment, try enabling the "allow third-party cookies" option on your browser.