Cookies Disclaimer

I agree Our site saves small pieces of text information (cookies) on your device in order to authenticate logins, deliver better content and provide statistical analysis. You can adjust your browser settings to prevent our site from using cookies, but doing so will prevent some aspects of the site from functioning properly.

Security Levels and Opt-In PvP

Dreggo
I think my problem with having player controlled security is that it once again creates a situation where if I have a person or small group misbehaving in my territory I have to respond against a whole company or settlement rather than just those individuals. If I have someone poaching or strip mining I either have to catch them in a lo-sec area (potentially very difficult or impossible) to mete out a little street justice or I have go all in and feud\blacklist their entire company\settlement?
Maybe there's something I'm not getting here and someone less xenophobic can set me straight smile
Duffy Swiftshadow
Bob
Duffy Swiftshadow
Yea there is some corner case oddness. I was assuming this feature was going to be based on the Blacklist/Ally stuff to determine whether to apply the Rep penalty, I didn't think they would go full on PvP restriction.

We were generally trying to avoid turning blacklists into anything resembling a free, long-lasting feud.

Yea I can see that line of thought. I was reasoning that the free feud aspect was balanced by tying it to static hexes and thus known locations and the ability to remove that state via holding warfare. I was hoping it would create a powerful political tool since we lack anything useful now and just take the rep hits. Odds are we'll just go no security and be diligent about who we pick fights with or we'll abuse the ally mechanic when we get the details of that. I guess my complaint is that Full Security and No Security don't actually seem balanced against one another as far as incidental conflict goes.

It's also possible I forgetting something about how flagging works, but if I start attacking someone in a no security hex and they run without attacking back can I kill them in a high security hex or near guards?
Bob
Decius
Will holding guards engage flagged unallied characters on sight in all three security levels?

We haven't changed anything about who the guards will or won't attack.
Bob
Dreggo
I think my problem with having player controlled security is that it once again creates a situation where if I have a person or small group misbehaving in my territory I have to respond against a whole company or settlement rather than just those individuals. If I have someone poaching or strip mining I either have to catch them in a lo-sec area (potentially very difficult or impossible) to mete out a little street justice or I have go all in and feud\blacklist their entire company\settlement?
Maybe there's something I'm not getting here and someone less xenophobic can set me straight smile

The security levels don't really help you in that kind of situation, and feuding does have to target the entire company, but you can blacklist individuals. Admittedly, blacklisting just allows you to block those individuals from using your facilities, not from gathering or monster killing on lands you consider yours, but it is at least a punishment you can target at the individual.
Bob
Duffy Swiftshadow
It's also possible I forgetting something about how flagging works, but if I start attacking someone in a no security hex and they run without attacking back can I kill them in a high security hex or near guards?

I believe they'd effectively be running to safety in that case, since they wouldn't have been flagged as attackers.
Flari-Merchant
@ Anyone

If I attack someone, how long does my flag last whether I am in High, Med, or Low Security?

Could it be turned up?
Bob
Duffy Swiftshadow
Yea I can see that line of thought. I was reasoning that the free feud aspect was balanced by tying it to static hexes and thus known locations and the ability to remove that state via holding warfare. I was hoping it would create a powerful political tool since we lack anything useful now and just take the rep hits. Odds are we'll just go no security and be diligent about who we pick fights with or we'll abuse the ally mechanic when we get the details of that. I guess my complaint is that Full Security and No Security don't actually seem balanced against one another as far as incidental conflict goes.

One of the important points here is that security levels were really created to make some parts of the map extremely safe for players who hadn't yet opted-in for PvP, and then let players ease themselves into increasing levels of risk by adventuring out to Wild hexes and then Monster hexes. Given the existence of those security levels, it was pretty easy to then give territory owners the ability to set them as well.

If we'd come at this the other direction, focusing on the kinds of settings that territory owners would want, we'd have designed very different systems. Hopefully we'll be able to look at doing exactly that sometime in the future. There may also be some minor tweaks we can make to the security levels along the way that would help with that kind of thing. That wasn't an initial goal for this feature, but it's always good to leverage a new or existing feature for additional possibilities.
Dreggo
So what is the answer to that situation then? We seem to have a fair number of folks who play this game who while they claim to be PVP averse aren't at all afraid to engage in PVP through other means. That's fantastic. Makes the game interesting. However I think if the game mechanics allow you to gather or PVE in any hex on the map then you should be able to be ganked in any hex on the map.
Flari-Merchant
Remember Boy's, Feud then gank, THEN burn! smile
Bob
Dreggo
So what is the answer to that situation then? We seem to have a fair number of folks who play this game who while they claim to be PVP averse aren't at all afraid to engage in PVP through other means. That's fantastic. Makes the game interesting. However I think if the game mechanics allow you to gather or PVE in any hex on the map then you should be able to be ganked in any hex on the map.

We want players, particularly starting players, to be able to do some basic, central gameplay activities (e.g. killing monsters, gathering raw materials, crafting) on some parts of the map without worrying that random players will attack them. Then we want them to opt-in to slowly increasing PvP risk by looking for better loot and raw materials in more dangerous territory, or by joining companies at the risk of being feuded, but to always have the option of falling back to safer spaces and choices. In general, that means you're safe in NPC hexes, less safe in Wild hexes, and very unsafe in Monster hexes. Likewise, you're pretty safe if you just join an adventuring company that's unlikely to get feuded by anyone, and much less safe if you join a company in a settlement that regularly makes waves.

As for territory owners having the option of making their own hexes extremely safe, they can do so, but at the cost of making it much more difficult to run off those they might consider poachers. Likewise, you can lower the security in your hexes so that you can punish poachers at will, but at the cost of opening yourself up to attack.

And in the really valuable monster hexes, with high-level mobs and T3 gathering, there's no avoiding Low security.
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post