open All Channels
seplocked Crime and Punishment
blankseplocked Boosting lowsec by getting rid of it
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2 3

Author Topic

Lana Torrin
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2010.05.11 13:07:00 - [1]
 

I had this crazy idea today while I should have been working.. What is it that lowsec is missing? People.. Any why?? Because they are all carebears that don't want to get show at.. So how do we stop this attitude? Get them shot at in every system..

Basically the idea is that the trusec of the system (ie, the 2 digit one) is the percentage chance that concord will arrive.. 1.0 = 100% chance.. 0.90 = 90% chance.. 0.23 = 23% chance.. Keep everything else the same (caps up to 0.4, sec loss is less in lowsec, etc) but 'add' the protection of concord..

The down side for carebears is that it makes even 0.9 systems more dangerous as 10% of the time they get no protection at all, thus meaning they will probably get shot at at some point in the old highsec, thus meaning that the old lowsec isnt any more dangerous..

The only thing we have to do now is work out a way to prevent rage quits over the new system and we are on to a winner (and back to the good old days of carrier groups tanking concord)

Lady Ayeipsia
Posted - 2010.05.11 13:26:00 - [2]
 

The problem is, this would just encourage more Suicide Ganking, which people don't like.

Plus Jita is not a 1.0 system. Do you really think CCP would setup a system where Concord may not show up in Jita? I doubt that.

Muckle McJita
Posted - 2010.05.11 13:34:00 - [3]
 

Originally by: Lady Ayeipsia
The problem is, this would just encourage more Suicide Ganking, which people don't like.

Plus Jita is not a 1.0 system. Do you really think CCP would setup a system where Concord may not show up in Jita? I doubt that.


Well done, you fell for one of his spate of terrible trolls. For this he gets 1/10, as one guy fell for it.

Francais Tempest
Gallente
White Knights Imperius
Posted - 2010.05.11 13:37:00 - [4]
 

Interesting idea. Perhaps a slight modification:
Instead of a linear coorilation, how about a cosine curve (well half). Basically, a 1-.8 you'd be almost always safe (>90%). .5 would be 50%. And .3-.1 would be close to 0, but not quite.
This provides safety to the noobs in school.

And if they would do this, if Jita was too low, they could just raise its sec status (and since its a major hub, it should be secure from an IU perspective).

Paknac Queltel
Baden's Army
Posted - 2010.05.11 13:46:00 - [5]
 

Edited by: Paknac Queltel on 11/05/2010 13:47:27
Originally by: Muckle McJita
Originally by: Lady Ayeipsia
The problem is, this would just encourage more Suicide Ganking, which people don't like.

Plus Jita is not a 1.0 system. Do you really think CCP would setup a system where Concord may not show up in Jita? I doubt that.


Well done, you fell for one of his spate of terrible trolls. For this he gets 1/10, as one guy fell for it.
Troll or not, the idea itself is actually not that bad. At least, it makes sec rating more meaningful.

It also means a boost to mining, as it becomes more dangerous, and therefore profitable, to mine anything other than veldspar and scordite. Which, in turn, is a lowsec boost, as it now makes more sense to go for lowsec ores.

Another consequence is that most Hulks will move to 1.0 systems, which will make them even easier to find for the next Hulkageddon. Razz

EDIT: Oh, and +1 on Francais Tempest's half cosine curve thingy.

Lana Torrin
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2010.05.11 13:48:00 - [6]
 

Originally by: Muckle McJita
Originally by: Lady Ayeipsia
The problem is, this would just encourage more Suicide Ganking, which people don't like.

Plus Jita is not a 1.0 system. Do you really think CCP would setup a system where Concord may not show up in Jita? I doubt that.


Well done, you fell for one of his spate of terrible trolls. For this he gets 1/10, as one guy fell for it.


While I will admit its not a great idea, its something different to add to the discussion on what to do with lowsec.. The basic idea is to remove a hard distinction between highsec and lowsec therefor allowing people to naturally progress in to more dangerous space.. For anyone that has lived in lowsec you know the risks can be overcome by just being a little careful..

Ospie
Ransom and Kill
Core.Impulse
Posted - 2010.05.11 14:11:00 - [7]
 

Just a bit of speculation even if it is a semi-troll.

This would be ok if concord was nerfed or their damage/neuts/ecm was massively scaled down to tankable levels in lower sec status systems. Even then you'd still be faced with small ships being made somewhat obsolete (especially if there were a reoccurring 'tick' at which a concord spawn has a chance to appear [once per min of combat or w/e]), you'd see expensive faction ships being used less.

Now, an alternative might be for every extra ship taking unlawful actions to which concord may respond to there would then be a chance for a concord response, so a lone ship aggressing would mean no response in the 'lowsec' systems (though in 'highsec' systems there would be the aforementioned chance of a response), chance of a response could increase per person involved (reducing effect on small gangs whilst discouraging blobs).

Anyway, there's my rambling speculation.

Kixad
Minmatar
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2010.05.11 14:19:00 - [8]
 

Well i would say remove jumpbridges and jumpfreighters from game, so the 0.0 carebears have to actually travel/taking a risk.

that would for sure populate lowsec again.YARRRR!!I think its simply to easy to get far out in 0.0 space now a days.The Carebears got it all , the last few years, the pvp`er got nothing ,the last couple of years.

Sedilis
Lead Farmers
Kill It With Fire
Posted - 2010.05.11 14:30:00 - [9]
 

I quite like the idea but the issue would be how the Concord dice get rolled...

For example if you had a 10 man gang camping a .4 gate and some fool in a transport jumps in do they then get a chance for concord for every ship in the fight or just one? What if there is a 10v10 is there then 100 chances for concord? Obviously that would kill anything other than solo or very small gang fights and probably not be desirable.

Worth thinking about though...

Gunnanmon
Gallente
PURPLE.
Posted - 2010.05.11 14:32:00 - [10]
 

Originally by: Muckle McJita
Originally by: Lady Ayeipsia
The problem is, this would just encourage more Suicide Ganking, which people don't like.

Plus Jita is not a 1.0 system. Do you really think CCP would setup a system where Concord may not show up in Jita? I doubt that.


Well done, you fell for one of his spate of terrible trolls. For this he gets 1/10, as one guy fell for it.


If 10 more people fall for it, would the thread get 11/10?

darius mclever
Posted - 2010.05.11 14:33:00 - [11]
 

Originally by: Kixad
Well i would say remove jumpbridges and jumpfreighters from game, so the 0.0 carebears have to actually travel/taking a risk.

that would for sure populate lowsec again.YARRRR!!I think its simply to easy to get far out in 0.0 space now a days.The Carebears got it all , the last few years, the pvp`er got nothing ,the last couple of years.


And I always thought you want challenging pvp in lowsec and not just ganking.
btw jump bridges in lowsec? did i miss anything?

Kixad
Minmatar
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2010.05.11 14:35:00 - [12]
 

Originally by: darius mclever
Originally by: Kixad
Well i would say remove jumpbridges and jumpfreighters from game, so the 0.0 carebears have to actually travel/taking a risk.

that would for sure populate lowsec again.YARRRR!!I think its simply to easy to get far out in 0.0 space now a days.The Carebears got it all , the last few years, the pvp`er got nothing ,the last couple of years.


And I always thought you want challenging pvp in lowsec and not just ganking.
btw jump bridges in lowsec? did i miss anything?


maybe jumpfreighters?

Ava Starfire
Minmatar
Teraa Matar
Posted - 2010.05.11 16:35:00 - [13]
 

Hisec is too dangerous. Yesterday, i got podded leaving rens BTT. And concord never even came!

...it could have something to do with my sec status...

Kidding, btw. (except the getting podded in rens bitEmbarassed )

ANYTHING that brings more targ...err, people to losec is a plus, on the serious side. While i am not a fan of any concord presence in losec, making .5 chance based (and maybe .6?) would help people get used to the differences, rather than just being a huge step from "safe" space to "dangerous" space.

Ignore me. Been a crappy two days. Sigh.

DjRobin
Posted - 2010.05.11 17:42:00 - [14]
 

The problem is that most mission fits are useless for pvp making you an easy target. Perhaps they should generate more pvp style missions, bridging the gap for people who want to move into pvp and luring more people into lo-sec

Dr Fighter
Posted - 2010.05.11 17:48:00 - [15]
 

eve could do without more chance based mechanics, imo

Birdman Ravo
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2010.05.11 20:05:00 - [16]
 

I'll bite on the troll bait.

Problems with altering Concord are as follows:
1) CCP won't nerf nonconsentual PVP.
2) CCP won't nerf blobs.
3) CCP won't allow any mechanic that makes them lose more subs than they do now.
4) PVP'rs WILL exploit any game mechanic they can.

Op's idea is in violation of rules 2, 3, possibly 4.

I propose a different idea. It won't fix lowsec but it will encourage PVP. Allow players to buy exclusion from Concord protection. Licenses lasting a week, a day, 1 fight, and duel licenses could be bought at any station & are activated through the character panel. Players not protected by concord show up [Random unused color, orange?] in the overview. Finally, mutually not-protected players fighting in high sec don't lose sec status.

Could make things interesting IMO.

Alt Tabbed
Posted - 2010.05.11 20:15:00 - [17]
 

Edited by: Alt Tabbed on 11/05/2010 20:15:48
STUPID FORUMS LOGOUT TIMERZ...


nvm

Blackjack Turner
Caldari
State Protectorate
Posted - 2010.05.11 21:29:00 - [18]
 

ROFL @ AltTab's sig! Laughing

Oberon Ablefliesch
APOCALYPSE LEGION
Posted - 2010.05.11 21:30:00 - [19]
 

What they should do is create meaningful faction borders of conquerable space. I say conquerable in the sense that these systems could be claimed either as lowsec or highsec, with the claiming mechanic something similar to faction war plex conquering.

Imagine you have a band of systems, two or three systems wide, around each factions space, with lots of inter connections. These systems have a mechanic to allow them to be conquered as either 0.5 or 0.4 security status. The systems branch off to regular high and lowsec. The idea is to create dangerous travel areas between the regions and also to blur the lines of entry to lowsec. Of course these sytems can be claimed as highsec, and safe passage could be had by all. This would require that traders/mission runners and pvpers all work together to stop the local pirates taking over.

The timer before reconquering should be quite short and the objective relatively easy to accomplish to allow for ninja flipping of the sec status by small groups of players. Only players with positive sec status can claim the system as highsec. Only players with negative sec status can claim the system as lowsec. In highsec state faction navies would respond as usual to -5 players and below. Concord, sentries, gcc, would function as normal. No POS's and no Cyno's.

This idea would give meaningful borders for trade and industry.
Encourage players to work together in the hope of safe travel or maybe shut down a supply pipe.
Discourage current highsec suicide ganking. Not that i have a problem with it, but it is rather rife atm.
Blur the borders of higsec and lowsec, keeping pirates and carebears on their toes.

Owen Drakkar
Bad...Karma
Posted - 2010.05.11 21:37:00 - [20]
 

Originally by: Oberon Ablefliesch
Border zones.



This is pretty legit actually. If it could be incorporated into the story and mechanics well I would make use of it, for sure.

z0de
The Bastards
The Bastards.
Posted - 2010.05.12 03:41:00 - [21]
 

Another chance based mechanic is just what we need, I love ecm so much.

Apoctasy
Lethal Injection.
Hedonistic Imperative
Posted - 2010.05.12 03:49:00 - [22]
 

Originally by: Ospie
Just a bit of speculation even if it is a semi-troll.

This would be ok if concord was nerfed or their damage/neuts/ecm was massively scaled down to tankable levels in lower sec status systems. Even then you'd still be faced with small ships being made somewhat obsolete (especially if there were a reoccurring 'tick' at which a concord spawn has a chance to appear [once per min of combat or w/e]), you'd see expensive faction ships being used less.

Now, an alternative might be for every extra ship taking unlawful actions to which concord may respond to there would then be a chance for a concord response, so a lone ship aggressing would mean no response in the 'lowsec' systems (though in 'highsec' systems there would be the aforementioned chance of a response), chance of a response could increase per person involved (reducing effect on small gangs whilst discouraging blobs).

Anyway, there's my rambling speculation.


THIS

I haven't heard of a greater idea in a long time. This would help with the blobbing significantly and be a boost to solo gameplay.

This would also make being a criminal have more of a point, since in lowsec you are entirely safe, whereas with this new system, venturing into a higher sec neighborhood for juicier kills would lead to having to possibly evade the police.

The AEther
Caldari
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
Posted - 2010.05.12 04:09:00 - [23]
 

just turn lowsec into NPC 0.0 ... imagine, undocking into a large bubble anchored around your station one bright Saturday morning, interceptors zipping by and shooting the crap out of each other on gates and stations, cloaky interdictor sitting at every 3rd gate waiting for local to go up - the sheer beauty of it ;) ... and you could still pvp for profit, ransom people, camp, smartbomb, receive hate mail, kill carebears in cold blood, never hold any space, and so on, basically do all those things pirates do in lowsec right now


Cpt Branko
Retired Pirate Club
Posted - 2010.05.12 07:20:00 - [24]
 

Who turned C&P into /b/?

ISK1machine
Posted - 2010.05.12 11:47:00 - [25]
 

Edited by: ISK1machine on 12/05/2010 11:48:08
Originally by: Lana Torrin
Originally by: Muckle McJita
Originally by: Lady Ayeipsia
The problem is, this would just encourage more Suicide Ganking, which people don't like.

Plus Jita is not a 1.0 system. Do you really think CCP would setup a system where Concord may not show up in Jita? I doubt that.


Well done, you fell for one of his spate of terrible trolls. For this he gets 1/10, as one guy fell for it.


While I will admit its not a great idea, its something different to add to the discussion on what to do with lowsec.. The basic idea is to remove a hard distinction between highsec and lowsec therefor allowing people to naturally progress in to more dangerous space.. For anyone that has lived in lowsec you know the risks can be overcome by just being a little careful..


By beeing carefull you propably mean having some alt scouting for you,or having some friends with you.
I wont judge your proposal but i would like to note that there isnt a balance in it.Ok Lets say you gank that nice Golem(and thats the hole point after all)what will be the concequences for the attacking char?The same sec penalty hit as it is now?Because it is ridiculous tbh.How about wrecking the sec status iot to balance for the new Concord rules?
Also how about adding a new feature where all redflagged chars,even pods get insta popped by Concord as they enter high sec space?
Personally i am making whatever ISK i am making in null sec or low sec running lvl5's.There are alot of ways to "boost" the game play of a group but it will always affect the gameplay of another group of players?
I got my own proposals to boost low sec and null sec presence.
1)How about each time a char loses a ship in low sec,loses a small percentage of the skill points it has to the players that ganked him or to the char that delivered the final blow?
I think everyone will be happy.The PVPers will have infinite ammount of rifters to kill but they will have to risk something more than the insuranced T1 crap 99% of low sec guys fly.
2)How about not allowing the presence in high sec systems if you dont have the proper faction stands?And i dont mean Concord,i mean the gates just not allowing the entrance.Imagine the tears of all the players you call "carebears" and the more tears of those that wait in -10 sec status chars to gank someone(always flying in crappy T1 stuff) when they wont be able to enter high sec systems.

So as you see,your post is like complaining for the rain on a rainy day.The field is not set by you or me.Its as it is so no reason to carebearwhine about it.

Taedrin
Gallente
Kushan Industrial
Posted - 2010.05.13 17:55:00 - [26]
 

Not sure if serious...


As a carebear, normal CONCORD responses do not have any place in low sec at all. If there would be ANY sort of "police" response in low sec, it should be tankable and counterable. However, this would just encourage blobbing, which is why I would personally believe that the police response should scale with the number and size of ships present in an illegal engagement and also scale with the security status of the system.

Thus I imagine something like this:

High sec remains unchanged - any illegal aggression is dealt with (relatively) immediately with excessive force

.4 systems - CONCORD no longer responds to illegal aggression and is instead dealt with by the local navy. The local navy ignores illegal aggressions where no more than a handful of frigates are involved. The local navy will have a delayed response when cruiser sized ships are involved. Local navy will immediately respond when battleships are involved. A continually escalating response against capital ships, such that capital ships can't stay on the gate smartbombing indefinitely.

Under .3 systems - Local navy stops responding when no more than a handful of cruisers are involved in illegal aggression or a small swarm of frigates. Delayed response against battleships, immediate response against capital ships (but no continual escalation).

Under .2 systems - No response against a large swarm of frigates, a small swarm of cruisers, or a handful of battleships. Delayed response against capital ships.

Under .1 systems - No response against any amount of frigates, a large swarm of cruisers, or a small swarm of battleships or a handful of capital ships.

0.0 - lawless space, remains unchanged.

No first of all, a few definitions: What do I mean by "immediate"? I mean that the response happens within 30 seconds, much like it does in high sec.

A delayed response would happen after a few minutes, meaning that you have that amount of time to finish the evil deed and get out before even having to deal with the cops.

A "handful" of ships would be about 3-5 ships. A "small swarm" would be 5-10 ships, and a large swarm would be 10-20 ships.

I imagine that this could be implemented through a points based system similar to what CCP uses for the alliance tournament. The more "points" which are engaged in an illegal aggression on a grid, the heavier and faster the response from the navy. Smaller ships are worth less points, and larger ships are worth more points.

Combined with the above changes, I would also like some changes to sentry guns in low sec. I would like to see sentries in .3-.4 systems to be more effective against larger ships, but less effective against smaller ships. IE, they have higher raw damage, but poor tracking. As the security status of a system decreases, the effectiveness of sentry guns also diminishes until they are essentially ineffective in a .1 system.

IDEALLY, I would also like to see warp to 0km removed from the game, and enforcing this by preventing ANY ships from warping any closer than 15km to the gate. CCP already has the means to do this. All they need to do is put an invisible 15km radius bubble around every gate which drags you out of warp, but does not prevent you from warping out. But EVE has become addicted to warp-to-0km, so this is probably too much to ask.

Although now that I think about it, it would probably be better to include high sec in this gradient, as I personally believe that high sec is too safe anyways.

Cyan Cure
Posted - 2010.05.13 20:00:00 - [27]
 

This game isn't called Space Pirate Online, piracy is a byproduct of the sandbox concept and the simple fact alot of players like to be di**s. CCP isn't going to do anything just to bonus this activity. There's a very solid base of manufacturers, inventors, traders, miners, mission runners etc. In general, people that seek different activities than PvP and who you box as carebears and treat as the worse kind of players. Why punish them for having fun playing a game they like.

I'm really getting sick of these threads. Lowsec is not broken, it's alot more populated than nullsec. What C&P wants are easy targets without any effort. People don't come out too much 'cause they are simply aware of the risk. NOTHING reasonable is going to make people come to lowsec as long as there is risk, 'cause they got burned more than once.

Solo PvP isn't a CCP concept, they provided only the enviroment and a set of basic rules. Whatever CCP changes to favor that is going to get exploited, blobed, falconed, whatever. Any "boost lowsec" threat is just reinventing stupid.

Cpt Branko
Retired Pirate Club
Posted - 2010.05.13 21:31:00 - [28]
 

Can you please please stop with the "boost/change/nerf lowsec" idiocy? I rather like lowsec, I've lived there both solo and in corps for the last three years and am enjoying it. I understand that some PVP-ers and PVE-ers alike fail to suceed in low-sec. However, that is not a problem with low-sec; you're just incompetent.

Changing it to accomodate stupid better I do not support.

Galdrin Shiltok
Posted - 2010.05.13 21:41:00 - [29]
 

Quote:
IDEALLY, I would also like to see warp to 0km removed from the game, and enforcing this by preventing ANY ships from warping any closer than 15km to the gate. CCP already has the means to do this. All they need to do is put an invisible 15km radius bubble around every gate which drags you out of warp, but does not prevent you from warping out. But EVE has become addicted to warp-to-0km, so this is probably too much to ask.


EH no the game used warp not have it and every one complained people where making warp to 0 bookmarks like 6 or 7 of them per gate now imagin 20k + players with 6-7 bookmarks per gate at which they might have 100s of = that much more memory the game has to store, lets just say it doesn't help the lag issue any.

Kiorden Untarusk
Posted - 2010.05.13 22:29:00 - [30]
 

Lowsec being dangerous isn't the reason it's so empty. Danger is fun, but the fact that everybody wants to kill you when you go there, no matter what ship you have, what you're doing, makes it pointless. If there was some rhyme and reason for the violence, people would be there. I'd be there, but I'm not, because no matter what ship I go in, from the most defenseless ship there is, a shuttle, or a tormentor with nothing but miner I's, everybody and anybody is going to kill me, for no reason whatsoever.

You've all ruined lowsec, and you're the reason that there are so many people in highsec all damn day, so stop complaining.


Pages: [1] 2 3

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