open All Channels
seplocked Features and Ideas Discussion
blankseplocked who else says true sec should be dynamic and not static?!?!?!?
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic

MeBiatch
Posted - 2011.04.02 15:01:00 - [1]
 

Edited by: MeBiatch on 02/04/2011 16:45:37
basically imo true sec should dynamic...

I think its lame that there is no change to it over time... a -0.8 system is a -0.8 system for ever and this is not a good thing…
There should be components that change or enhance true sec over time/ and should also diminish it...

The variables for true sec change should be a mix between environmental randomness and human interaction in the space...

IoWalker
Posted - 2011.04.02 15:06:00 - [2]
 

Incursions were brought in to sort of give that feel.

Who can battle Concord, from an corp/alliance perspective? Heck maybe nerf Concord slightly, or, allow capitals in hi-sec.

In the end, this game is pay-to-play and PLEX-to-buy. You should be very aware about what you are asking for. Because suddenly people with a lot of RL money are going to bring it to you.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.04.02 15:08:00 - [3]
 

Originally by: MeBiatch
basically imo true sec should dynamic.

You know what that would lead to, no ?
All space would trend towards the same sec over time.

MeBiatch
Posted - 2011.04.02 15:17:00 - [4]
 

Originally by: Akita T
Originally by: MeBiatch
basically imo true sec should dynamic.

You know what that would lead to, no ?
All space would trend towards the same sec over time.


not true... one of the factors could be the amount of npc's killed in the system... basically the more that is killed the lower the true sec goes... that way if you over rat a system the rats become worse and worse (because the system is actually safer due to podder Policing the system)... that way you still have people moving around to find that new system that has good status...

a way to increase the sec status could be minning the roids... basically making tasty prey for NPC's...

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.04.02 15:22:00 - [5]
 

Originally by: MeBiatch
not true... one of the factors could be the amount of npc's killed in the system... basically the more that is killed the lower the true sec goes... that way if you over rat a system the rats become worse and worse (because the system is actually safer due to podder Policing the system)...

Don't you mean, the more you kill the HIGHER the truesec goes, so rats become worse ?
-1.0 truesec has the best (most rewarding) NPCs to kill, +0.86 truesec has no rats at all.
Quote:
that way you still have people moving around to find that new system that has good status...
a way to increase the sec status could be minning the roids... basically making tasty prey for NPC's...

That was more or less my point - when a system becomes "not attractive", they move out, and in the process, since everybody wants a higher income, and the more income they make off a certain system the worse it gets, truesec everywhere would trend towards the same number.
TREND, not actually get there. There would obviously still be variations, mainly depending on distance to hubs and such.

Jacque Cruix
Posted - 2011.04.02 15:30:00 - [6]
 

Originally by: Akita T
Don't you mean, the more you kill the HIGHER the truesec goes, so rats become worse ?
-1.0 truesec has the best (most rewarding) NPCs to kill, +0.86 truesec has no rats at all.



OP not realizing that he is shooting himself in the foot.
Or using 1400 arty to do it.


Josefine Etrange
Gallente
Posted - 2011.04.02 15:34:00 - [7]
 

Originally by: Akita T
Originally by: MeBiatch
basically imo true sec should dynamic.

You know what that would lead to, no ?
All space would trend towards the same sec over time.


You can add enough chaos to the formula to prevent that from happening. And I agree true sec should be dynamic.

Adam Weishaup
Posted - 2011.04.02 15:38:00 - [8]
 

So basically you want EVE all 0.0. kthnx 4ur opinion.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.04.02 15:45:00 - [9]
 

Originally by: Josefine Etrange
You can add enough chaos to the formula to prevent that from happening.

Then what would be the point of even doing it at all in the first place ?
Just for the sake of changing truesec around ?
Besides, there's very little practical difference between truesecs 0.1 apart, and even 0.2 apart is no big practical deal... unless you switch security classification by that alteration (like, say, highsec becoming lowsec or vice-versa)... and in that case, you would have much bigger problems to handle for a number of reasons which should be obvious.
You'd have to make the maximum possible alteration quite large (and not able to switch sec class) to make this work at all even remotely like the OP seemed to intend it, and it can't be TOO chaotic because then it would be pointless... and you end up again where we started, with all of them trending towards a similar value.
You might as well change the fixed system truesec by hand now based on jumps from hubs and other such factors and be done with it.

Mara Rinn
Posted - 2011.04.02 16:02:00 - [10]
 

It would be grand, if more NPC kills drove up true sec, while more PVP kills drove it down. Eventually all hisec would disappear.

The catch is that current game design involves security level of a system being hardcoded into the database. The dev I spoke to about variable security level (CCP Incognito) suggested that there would be too much data to shuffle to the client if security level was made dynamic. I disagree with this assumption since there is one number (with a very small range) to be fed to the client for each variable-sec system.

If the security status was allowed to change per-day, there would only be about 5000 bytes of information to be fed to the client each day. These would be non-cumulative, so if a client was disconnected for several months, there would only need to be one update of 5000 bytes.

Akita T is on the ball though. If ratting drove security status up, all mission hubs would end up being 1.0. If ratting drove security status down, all mission hubs would end up being nullsec.

Throw PvP into the mix, and things get a little more interesting. Make ratting drive security status down (thus making heavily ratted systems more valuable over time), make PvP drive security status up, and watch as enemies engage in PvP in each other's territory in order to ruin the other's income stream. Yes, it's counter-intuitive, but so is having a 0.5 system in which thousands upon thousands of Angel Cartel battleships are lost each day, with no change in the Cartel's strategies.

Now, how would we game this system?

As a hisec carebear, you'll rat away until the system is on the cusp of dropping into 0.4, then move to a less lucrative system. This will trend all hisec to 0.5. As a nullsec carebear, you'll rat away as much as you can, to push the system to -1.0 as fast as possible. As a lowsec mission runner, you don't really care since there will be PvP dragging the status down, and very few pilots engaged in PvE. Unless you're running level 5s in a carrier, at which point you'll find yourself in nullsec.

As a nullsec PvPer, you'll want to ruin the income of the enemy's carebears. Thus you'll press whatever PvP you can into the enemie's most valuable PvE systems. Stop them ratting, gank their ratting ships, camp their gates until they come to drive you off. In fact, you might intentionally die to their fleets to ensure that PvP kills happen in their systems.

Would a nullsec gatecamp ever be in the situation of remote repping an invading force to ensure that they jump out before being killed?

IoWalker
Posted - 2011.04.02 16:06:00 - [11]
 

The catch is simply that this game needs a grinding area for normal players to fund their preferred activities.

When I said this game is PLEX-to-buy, it's quite real. You let hi-sec go away and you are going to find that barrier drop very sharply, and enough of the playerbase kind of uses this game as wallpaper but for only a day out of a month when they want to do something. They won't find that day very agreeable with this notion.

Holy One
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2011.04.02 16:12:00 - [12]
 

Originally by: Josefine Etrange

You can add enough chaos to the formula to prevent that from happening. And I agree true sec should be dynamic.


agree with this. it would solve so many problems with player participation in regions.

IoWalker
Posted - 2011.04.02 16:14:00 - [13]
 

Power gamers would find a way to drop a system sec and probably faster than they learned to quash incursions. The notion is silly. Even the RL money players wouldn't want this, much less Joe Blow.

MeBiatch
Posted - 2011.04.02 16:18:00 - [14]
 

no this is not for high sec or low sec...
just for 0.0

imo true sec should change over time for 0.0
over time one system becomes less good and others becomes better...

the problem with the annom nerf leading to alliances going after good true sec is that it makes the game predictable as to what space is good to take and whats crap...

Having the true sec change for systems ensures that eve stays fluid and non predictable...

IoWalker
Posted - 2011.04.02 16:21:00 - [15]
 

So effectively you want to increase the cost of playing this game.

MeBiatch
Posted - 2011.04.02 16:27:00 - [16]
 

Edited by: MeBiatch on 02/04/2011 16:27:13
Originally by: IoWalker
So effectively you want to increase the cost of playing this game.


why because it would pi$$ off all the botters who would have to move thier chars around space because they ratted a system to death?

a fair trade if you ask me...

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.04.02 16:30:00 - [17]
 

Originally by: MeBiatch
why because it would pi$$ off all the botters who would have to move thier chars around space because they ratted a system to death? a fair trade if you ask me...

Right, so you want to punish botters that can EASILY move to a different system, in the process punishing people who put a serious effort towards improving their home system while playing relatively honestly ?
Good thing you finally mentioned that this is actually a bot whine thread.

Miilla
Minmatar
Hulkageddon Orphanage
Posted - 2011.04.02 16:32:00 - [18]
 

True-sec, is that like TrueCoat?

Quote:

Customer: We sat here right in this room and went over this and over this!
Jerry: Yeah, but that TruCoat--
Customer: I sat right here and said I didn't want no TruCoat!
Jerry: Yeah, but I'm sayin', that TruCoat, you don't get it and you get oxidization problems. It'll cost you a heck of lot more'n five hundred--
Customer: You're sittin' here, you're talkin' in circles! You're talkin' like we didn't go over this already!
Jerry: Yeah, but this TruCoat--
Customer: We had us a deal here for nine-teen-five. You sat there and darned if you didn't tell me you'd get this car, these options, without the sealant, for nine-teen-five!
Jerry: All right, I'm not sayin' I didn't--
Customer: You called me twenty minutes ago and said you had it! Ready to make delivery, ya says! Come on down and get it! And here ya are and you're wastin' my time and you're wastin' my wife's time and I'm payin' nineteen-five for this vehicle here!
Jerry: All right. I'll talk to my boss. See, they install that TruCoat at the factory, there's nothin' we can do, but I'll talk to my boss.
[Jerry leaves the room]
Customer: [to his wife] These guys here--these guys! It's always the same! It's always more!
[Other room]
Jerry: You goin' to the Gophers on Sunday?
Salesman: Oh you betcha.
Jerry: You wouldn't happen to have an extra ticket?
Salesman: You kiddin'!
[Jerry returns to his office]
Jerry: Well, he never done this before. But seeing as it's special circumstances and all, he says I can knock a hundred dollars off that Trucoat.
Customer: One hundred--You lied to me, Mr Lundegaard. You're a bald-faced liar. A ****ing liar.
Customer's Wife: Bucky, please.
Customer: Where's my god damn check book? Let's get this over with.


MeBiatch
Posted - 2011.04.02 16:35:00 - [19]
 

Edited by: MeBiatch on 02/04/2011 16:41:32
Originally by: Akita T
Originally by: MeBiatch
why because it would pi$$ off all the botters who would have to move thier chars around space because they ratted a system to death? a fair trade if you ask me...

Right, so you want to punish botters that can EASILY move to a different system, in the process punishing people who put a serious effort towards improving their home system while playing relatively honestly ?
Good thing you finally mentioned that this is actually a bot whine thread.


actually this is not a bot whine thread...
been playing for years and i think its silly that the 0.0 system i sit in never gets better or worse over time... and the one thing that did make it better is being removed to add flavour to pvp... so at the same CCP should make true sec dynamic so wo dont end up fighting over certain regions and leaving the rest to dust...

Derus Grobb
Minmatar
Selectus Pravus Lupus
Transmission Lost
Posted - 2011.04.02 16:37:00 - [20]
 

Dynamic is the way to go. The eve universe is a little too static.

Maybe they could limit 'dynamic' systems to lowsec so high remains high and null remains null, but "lowsec" systems can trend one way or the other.

There was talk some time ago about having a "corruption" mechanic in lowsec, this would be one way of making that happen.

IoWalker
Posted - 2011.04.02 16:43:00 - [21]
 

Well, they're getting to the point to where they'll have to actually re-imburse players for any Mining skills, so I guess things like this would have a shot of happening.

Burnharder
Posted - 2011.04.02 16:48:00 - [22]
 

Originally by: Jacque Cruix

OP not realizing that he is shooting himself in the foot.
Or using 1400 arty to do it.



That would only work if he was orbiting his foot at 120km.

Miilla
Minmatar
Hulkageddon Orphanage
Posted - 2011.04.02 16:50:00 - [23]
 



Todays word is......
Dynamic

Maplestone
Myth and Peace Lords
Posted - 2011.04.02 17:06:00 - [24]
 

Edited by: Maplestone on 02/04/2011 17:07:00
Originally by: MeBiatch
the problem with the annom nerf leading to alliances going after good true sec is that it makes the game predictable as to what space is good to take and whats crap...


Why not suggest more layers of incursion-type mechanics? Have swarms of comets that add temporary high-value belts to constellations, outbreaks of exotic anomolies to research, etc. This would give you mini-gold rushes and rotating hotspots of drama.

MeBiatch
Posted - 2011.04.02 17:24:00 - [25]
 

Originally by: Maplestone
Edited by: Maplestone on 02/04/2011 17:07:00
Originally by: MeBiatch
the problem with the annom nerf leading to alliances going after good true sec is that it makes the game predictable as to what space is good to take and whats crap...


Why not suggest more layers of incursion-type mechanics? Have swarms of comets that add temporary high-value belts to constellations, outbreaks of exotic anomolies to research, etc. This would give you mini-gold rushes and rotating hotspots of drama.


that is an option (a really good one too)
i really dont care how CCP makes it more dynamic all i care is that they do...

I'l Duce
Minmatar
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2011.04.02 17:31:00 - [26]
 

change from for example 0.8 to 0.9 isn't meaningfull enogh and change from 0.4 to 0.5 would have too many bad effects.

While i like dynamic content, sometimes it just would add complexity with no real benefits or even meaning.

IoWalker
Posted - 2011.04.02 17:32:00 - [27]
 

Gate guns, Concord time.

MeBiatch
Posted - 2011.04.02 17:40:00 - [28]
 

Originally by: I'l Duce
change from for example 0.8 to 0.9 isn't meaningfull enogh and change from 0.4 to 0.5 would have too many bad effects.

While i like dynamic content, sometimes it just would add complexity with no real benefits or even meaning.



FYI there is a difference between sec status and true sec status...
sec status is what you see in game like.. 0.6 or 1.0 or 0.0....

true sec refers to how good a 0.0 system is... so you can have a 0.0 system that has a true sec of -1.0 which gives 3 1.8 mill bs spawns/ lots of hauler/faction spawns good chance for officer and anomms and complexes...

while a 0.0 system that has lets say 0.1 would get maybe two 1.8 mill spawns at best and low chance for hauler/faction spawns...

so when i talk about true sec i am referring to the value of a o.o system...

currently true sec is set in stone and this is not a good thing for game play…

Tom Fulleride
Caldari
State War Academy
Posted - 2011.04.02 18:00:00 - [29]
 

Originally by: MeBiatch



FYI there is a difference between sec status and true sec status...
sec status is what you see in game like.. 0.6 or 1.0 or 0.0....
Actually, truesec is just sec status carried out to more decimal places.

MeBiatch
Posted - 2011.04.02 18:30:00 - [30]
 

Originally by: Tom Fulleride
Originally by: MeBiatch



FYI there is a difference between sec status and true sec status...
sec status is what you see in game like.. 0.6 or 1.0 or 0.0....
Actually, truesec is just sec status carried out to more decimal places.


hmm interesting... did not know that... always thought itwas just a 0.0 thing...


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