open All Channels
seplocked Features and Ideas Discussion
blankseplocked alarming lowsec boost rumors
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic

Manivald Kostaja
Posted - 2009.12.07 18:15:00 - [1]
 

According to some random csm member some ccp dev had proposet a lowsec boost:

Prevent all fighting at gates or stations! It would be a nice fix because people don't go to lowsec because of gatecamps.

Discuss.

Olthel
Posted - 2009.12.07 18:20:00 - [2]
 

This will be dealt with.

also

Fail troll is fail.

Intense Thinker
Minmatar
Posted - 2009.12.07 18:21:00 - [3]
 

I have 17m can I help?

Lady Karma
Posted - 2009.12.07 18:21:00 - [4]
 

According to some random ccp moderator, some ccp dev proposet a forum boost:

Prevent all posting from idiots and trolls! It would be a nice fix because people don't have to scroll past tons of useless crap

Discuss

Mr Opinions
Posted - 2009.12.07 18:30:00 - [5]
 

Originally by: Manivald Kostaja
According to some random csm member some ccp dev had proposet a lowsec boost:

Prevent all fighting at gates or stations! It would be a nice fix because people don't go to lowsec because of gatecamps.

Discuss.


lol, well it would end complaints about low-sec docking games Laughing


Abrazzar
Posted - 2009.12.07 18:58:00 - [6]
 

I heard they'll add faction police protection to lowsec, if you have enough positive security rating (2 for 0.4, 3 for 0.3, etc.) *and* higher standing with the sovereign faction of the system than the pilots attacking you.

This will of course not help with FW as those parties are at a war and wouldn't even call CONCORD in highsec, but it'll protect the FWers from random unaffiliated pirates in their own turf. Very Happy

5pinDizzy
Amarr
Pillow Fighters Inc
Posted - 2009.12.07 18:58:00 - [7]
 

About as likely to happen as warp core stabilisers losing their penalties.

Lady Spank
Amarr
In Praise Of Shadows
Posted - 2009.12.07 19:03:00 - [8]
 

Where are these secs boots?

Red Thunder
WEPRA CORP
White Noise.
Posted - 2009.12.07 19:04:00 - [9]
 

Originally by: Manivald Kostaja
According to some random csm member some ccp dev had proposet a lowsec boost:

Prevent all fighting at gates or stations! It would be a nice fix because people don't go to lowsec because of gatecamps.

Discuss.



actually not a bad idea tbh

Zeba
Minmatar
Honourable East India Trading Company
Posted - 2009.12.07 19:04:00 - [10]
 

I herd gate gunz waz gittin titan dd's fer christmas.

Captian Conrad
Minmatar
Empyrean Warriors
Posted - 2009.12.07 19:08:00 - [11]
 

Originally by: Zeba
I herd gate gunz waz gittin titan dd's fer christmas.


I also heard CONCORDE is setting up an alliance and pushing into lowsec, to weed out the weak and pop everyone with under -5 sec Cool

JitaPriceChecker2
Posted - 2009.12.07 19:09:00 - [12]
 

It aint such a bad idea .

You could still fight at planets,moons,belts,missions,anomalies,plexes.

You could still wardec to be able to fight at stations,gates.
Suicide ganking still possibile i belive.


Kerfira
Kerfira Corp
Posted - 2009.12.07 19:45:00 - [13]
 

It's actually a good idea that would restore the balance between high-sec, low-sec and 0.0.

In High-sec you'd be secure (apart from suicide ganks).
In low-sec, your TRAVEL would be secure, but your activities not.
In 0.0, you'd not be secure!

It would remove the choke-points of low-sec, and enable newbies to get their feet a little wet instead of getting thrown into the shark-pool when they first set their feet in low-sec.

It would also mean that cheap gate gankers would be gotten rid of, and only real pirates would be successful.

All in all, a very good idea!

Doom Viper
Posted - 2009.12.07 19:51:00 - [14]
 

Posting in a "locked" thread. Oh and I disagree with OP troll

Captain Tardbar
State Protectorate
Posted - 2009.12.07 20:15:00 - [15]
 

Originally by: Doom Viper
Posting in a "locked" thread. Oh and I disagree with OP troll


Its a legitimate idea actually.

Coylter
Posted - 2009.12.07 20:22:00 - [16]
 

Good idea it would be a more gradual way to zero space. They could also make concord gradually weaker the lower you go.

Captian Conrad
Minmatar
Empyrean Warriors
Posted - 2009.12.07 21:10:00 - [17]
 

Edited by: Captian Conrad on 07/12/2009 21:30:22
the more i think about it...the more it makes sence...mabye 0.1-0.2 still can have gatecamps so its not just 0.0 alliances Very Happy

Mr Opinions
Posted - 2009.12.07 22:50:00 - [18]
 


I've been speculating about how lowsec would evolve if you actually did this.

At first, you'd get a LOT more transit across lowsec and the stations there would get a lot more use; the population would definitely increase. That would start to spill over into people actually trying to do stuff there simply because they are in the vicinity, especially if this was accompanied by a boost in the value of lowsec income sources. Piracy becomes more involved, but the number of potential targets increases.



Professor Tarantula
Hedion University
Posted - 2009.12.07 23:09:00 - [19]
 

Gate camping is most pathetic form of "PvP" i've ever witnessed in a MMO. It's about time CCP made those mouth breathers work for their kills.

Cory Sopapilla
Minmatar
Kiroshi Group
Posted - 2009.12.08 16:40:00 - [20]
 

It would bring about some very creative locations for warp bubbles between stations and gates ;)

Insa Rexion
Minmatar
Fumar Puede Matar
Posted - 2009.12.08 16:42:00 - [21]
 

Edited by: Insa Rexion on 08/12/2009 16:42:32
Originally by: Manivald Kostaja
According to some random csm member some ccp dev had proposet a lowsec boost:

Prevent all fighting at gates or stations! It would be a nice fix because people don't go to lowsec because of gatecamps.

Discuss.


Complete troll or just plain ignorant, but heh, if they did that, there would be even less ppl there than there are now.... think you can figure out why ?

CCP StevieSG

Posted - 2009.12.08 16:49:00 - [22]
 

Moved to Features and Ideas from EVE General.

Wacktopia
Sicarius.
Legion of The Damned.
Posted - 2009.12.08 16:59:00 - [23]
 

Originally by: Kerfira
In High-sec you'd be secure (apart from suicide ganks).


No, hi-sec is not secure. You can get war-dec'd, can-flipped, scammed, suicided, robbed (ninja). CONCORD are there to punish players who break the law but players can cause a lot of greif without breaking any laws. :)

Originally by: Kerfira
In low-sec, your TRAVEL would be secure, but your activities not.


Travel is an activity. Please explain why you think that low-sec missioners, miners and ratters should not be 'secure' but travelling traders should be?

Originally by: Kerfira
In 0.0, you'd not be secure!


Actually, you can be pretty secure in null-sec. If you're in a decent alliance or friends of one or in a NRDS area then you are probably safer than low-sec.

Originally by: Kerfira
It would remove the choke-points of low-sec, and enable newbies to get their feet a little wet instead of getting thrown into the shark-pool when they first set their feet in low-sec.


EVE is supposed to be one big shark pool. Not some hello-kitty, penguin-island, kinder-garden. Ok, when you're new you need to do the tutorials and learn fast but after that, you're on your own in the nasty, dark universe.

Originally by: Kerfira
It would also mean that cheap gate gankers would be gotten rid of, and only real pirates would be successful.


Last time I got attacked on gate or station in low-sec it was by someone in a T3 or a Dread. In fact, I think they lost one recently.

Originally by: Kerfira
All in all, a very good idea!


All in all, an ill-thought-through idea.

Koyama Ise
Caldari
Posted - 2009.12.08 17:07:00 - [24]
 

This thread is now about China.

Discuss.

Aalu Aullard
Posted - 2009.12.08 18:05:00 - [25]
 

Ive never really understood why faction navies patrol only in high secQuestion

Isnt the armies/navies job to patrol and secure the borders of any nation, or in Eve case, low sec?

Ancy Denaries
Posted - 2009.12.08 18:46:00 - [26]
 

Sex boost?

Windows 2k
Science and Trade Institute
Posted - 2009.12.08 19:36:00 - [27]
 

I approve this message

Kerfira
Kerfira Corp
Posted - 2009.12.09 08:42:00 - [28]
 

Edited by: Kerfira on 09/12/2009 08:42:57
Originally by: Wacktopia
No, hi-sec is not secure....

I was fairly certain that someone would not get the general idea and state the bleeding obvious.... You're it!
Originally by: Wacktopia
Please explain why you think that low-sec missioners, miners and ratters should not be 'secure' but travelling traders should be?

Quite simple! To get more people into low-sec, and to make low-sec into the intermediate (measured in danger) area between high-sec and 0.0 it is supposed to be.
Originally by: Wacktopia
Actually, you can be pretty secure in null-sec. If you're in a decent alliance or friends of one or in a NRDS area then you are probably safer than low-sec.

Which is exactly the point! It SHOULDN'T be that way as low-sec should be in-between high-sec and 0.0 in danger.
Originally by: Wacktopia
EVE is supposed to be one big shark pool.

True, and it will still be. Now it'll just have the decreasing protection level it was supposed to, signified by the decreasing sec. level!
Originally by: Wacktopia
All in all, an ill-thought-through idea.

You're saying that mainly because you haven't thought of what it would mean!
More secure low-sec = More people in low-sec for us to hunt!

Your post is the knee-jerk, no thinking, "I want no change!" reaction I expected! Today, EVERYONE advises noobs to stay away from low-sec, and it's ingrained in almost EVERY player that you just don't go to low-sec. Thus, very few targets!
It is imminently fit for purpose to kill off the cheap gate-gankers to benefit the people who actually hunt down their targets!

Mr Opinions
Posted - 2009.12.18 13:41:00 - [29]
 


(TL;DR: You can't make low-sec pvp at gates/stations safe for thru-traffic because of the way the EVE servers are setup, so this proposal is pretty good, actually.)

Originally by: Kerfira
It would remove the choke-points of low-sec,


This is actually the main thing preventing lowsec from being much more populated --- choke points which are dictated by the technical limitations of the EVE server architecture. Even if the devs wanted to provide detailed information about the goings-on outside a station or on the other side of the gate, the fact that the neighboring system is on another node prevents this, in practice. This is why there are imperfect workarounds that have been added like the invulnerability timer during undock or the pseudo-cloak at gates -- workarounds which aren't sufficient to get most of the hi-sec population actually to set foot in low-sec.

What this proposal does is to admit, flat out, that combat at these points in lowsec does more to deter pvp than to promote it, and to stop bandaging an aspect of lowsec that would be better off amputated. Eliminate combat at stations and gates, get even more pvp everywhere else in system.



Helicity Boson
Amarr
The Python Cartel.
The Defenders of Pen Island
Posted - 2009.12.18 13:56:00 - [30]
 

I think there are a lot of people in this thread that never set foot in low sec, because they are so scared of gatecamps.

I can tell you know that if there were half as many gate camps as these people *believe* I will eat my proverbial hat.

And making it so there is no fights on stations and gates is pretty ******ed, because it means there is no fights -period- unless someone WANTS ONE by purposefully going to a belt or planet.

If you want consensual PVP, you are in the wrong bloody game, go back to WoW and do some battlegrounds.


Pages: [1] 2

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