open All Channels
seplocked Jita Park Speakers Corner
blankseplocked is there one canditate that has something about low sec ?
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Author Topic

Pizi
Gallente
Posted - 2008.05.04 14:39:00 - [1]
 

i ve read alot but didnt find anything about lowsec

ccp prommised long time ago that they would implement low sec "ownership" (by renting it from the faction and policing it) by players



John Blick
Posted - 2008.05.04 14:53:00 - [2]
 

Tell me more about the proposal and when I win (haha) I will bring it up.

Wu Jiun
State War Academy
Posted - 2008.05.04 15:02:00 - [3]
 

http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=759974

Wasn't that hard to find tbh. Anyway check out goumindongs thread/platform among other things he has some ideas on player policing. Also check out ank's material. There are probably lots of others who have an opinion on the issue but i don't recall it atm.

LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
Posted - 2008.05.04 15:04:00 - [4]
 

It's not really in my manifesto, but having spend year as a pirate in low-sec, I know your pain.

Ankhesentapemkah
Gallente
Posted - 2008.05.04 15:25:00 - [5]
 

I remember CCP discussing that for lowsec yes, how corporations could be assigned a system to claim.

It's definately interesting, and I'd like to hear the current progress on it. But CCP also claimed that low-sec would play a role in Faction Warfare, so it all might be a part of that, and we have to wait and see how faction warfare develops.

I definately agree that lowsec is currently underused, and that there is a lot of potential to develop it into a place of interest.

Currently the rewards largely are not in line with the risk one suffers for being there, so I think some financial motivation for players willing to take the risk is appropriate.

From the other thread:

Quote:
I'd like to see an increase to the rewards: Better ores, a multiplier to mission rewards, some BS sized rats, and of course lowsec playing an important role in faction warfare.

On the other hand, I'd like to see rewards for players that engage in antipiracy and it becoming a valid profession.

Ma Zhiqiang
Minmatar
Huang Yinglong
Posted - 2008.05.04 15:33:00 - [6]
 

I think low sec should be tied to factional warfare. If you align yourself to the faction space holder, you should get some benefits in that area, as you should get disadvantages when entering space belonging to competitive or rival factions.

Events tied to the faction you/your corp have aligned itself to, could bring you into hostile space to do differents tasks/missions.

I don't believe player corps should be able to "own" faction space, to begin with at least. I'd rather see players and player corps being able to align themselves to factions/npc corps.

zoolkhan
Minmatar
Mirkur Draug'Tyr
Ushra'Khan
Posted - 2008.05.04 16:22:00 - [7]
 

Originally by: Ma Zhiqiang
I think low sec should be tied to factional warfare. If you align yourself to the faction space holder, you should get some benefits in that area, as you should get disadvantages when entering space belonging to competitive or rival factions.

Events tied to the faction you/your corp have aligned itself to, could bring you into hostile space to do differents tasks/missions.

I don't believe player corps should be able to "own" faction space, to begin with at least. I'd rather see players and player corps being able to align themselves to factions/npc corps.


that makes sense

it requires an alliance to own in 0.0 right, why should low sec be assigend to corporations?

i think the factional warfare has to play a role in this, low sec will probably play a string role in its final implementation.

the topic low sec has been handled now a couple of times.

I spend a lot of time there , my HQ is in low sec.
And i see its not dense populated, its not attractive enough.

pirates gank mission runners, mission runners go back to safe space since there is no profit gain from staying in risku area... there is something to fix.

doublebounty for low sec missions - more prey for pirates ; both sides have what they want.

Breha Organa
Posted - 2008.05.10 22:38:00 - [8]
 

Go to my campaign thread... or I'll just repeat here:

The corporation with the most POSes in a low sec system ought to be granted "defense rights" of the system and not be interfered with by gate guns, and station defenses. Even though my character belongs to an "anti-pirate" corp, to be fair, this ought to include any corporation with the most POSes... even if it is a pirate corp.

As a player wanting to visit a certain area of low sec, you can certainly ask for blue standings with the corp that has defense rights. This at least is a start. There have been other suggestions as well that are equally valid.

Adelorae24
Caldari
Limited Mercy
Posted - 2008.05.11 01:36:00 - [9]
 

I think it would be analogous to the millitas or mercenaries that are sometimes employed by governments to police the frontier areas they lack the resources or interest to control themselves. The benefits for these groups in the real world typically include lots of stealing from and oppressing the locals. Not to mention the government turning a blind eye. Perhaps imunity from sentries for the defenders of these systems.

zoolkhan
Minmatar
Mirkur Draug'Tyr
Ushra'Khan
Posted - 2008.05.11 07:11:00 - [10]
 

Edited by: zoolkhan on 11/05/2008 07:13:45
i like my simple solutions

a)i would boost mission rewards in that area
b)i would boost the belts and inject some ore into there which is worth the risk to meet pirates

a+b = c -> that would be good for yarr and carebears

the player ownershp idea needs to be reviewed.
it may contain dangers we are not able to
foresee at this point.

Bunyip
Gallente
Center for Advanced Studies
Posted - 2008.05.11 11:41:00 - [11]
 

Branching off of Zoolkhan's idea, here's one that might help out the mining area.

Fact: The ores in low-sec space are often near worthless (ie Jaspet)
Fact: Pirates roam these systems looking for unprotected miners and taking them out without guilt.
Solution: Bring 0.0 ores up into low-sec. Encourage corps to patrol a given system, and even put up POSes. They will never be able to achieve sovereignty with the systems, but the lucrative opportunities might be too much to pass up for corps that are not part of an alliance.

As far as missions, here's my idea that should help both high-security and low-security mission-runners:
Whenever anybody not in your fleet enters a deadspace zone to a mission you or your fleet are running, they immediately start flashing red (before taking anything from a can or otherwise). This gives players a chance to take out the nuisance before they can be affected, and encourages faster PvP for the people probing out missions. Win/Win situation.

Jess Ica
Gallente
Posted - 2008.05.11 12:19:00 - [12]
 

Hey Pizi,
check my thread and see my oppinion on low sec there...also in the other comments lower in my post i answered to some ppl on this matter Very Happy

Check here

Breha Organa
Posted - 2008.05.15 04:26:00 - [13]
 

Originally by: Bunyip
Branching off of Zoolkhan's idea, here's one that might help out the mining area.

Fact?: The ores in low-sec space are often near worthless (ie Jaspet)
Fact: Pirates roam these systems looking for unprotected miners and taking them out without guilt.



Sorry to strongly disagree on all counts. I lived in low sec.
There are plenty of rare ores... including those laced with Zydrine, and even occasionally Megacyte... yes, Megacyte... but you have to scan for hidden belts for these.

Of course pirates are going to target unprotected miners. They're pirates, after all. Miners in low sec without protection = stupid.

Missions and deadspace in low sec... again, it should be risky. Which is why you should mission in low sec in groups, and make sure you have decent skills and have decent combat capabilities. Some of the best complexes are in low sec. Take a fleet of Tech II frigates to do the complexes... with no tech II stuff on board, make sure your clone is up to date, or (better yet) have a jump clone ready with all implants...
low cost = low risk.

Still, I repeat what I said before. Make it so player corps have the right to defend a system in low sec. How you do it is up for debate. I'd like to see input from the player community. My thought was to have the corp with the most POSes automatically gain "defense rights" and they can charge other corps a "protection fee" for the enjoyment of a safer and more secure life in low sec space. But, there are other ideas on the table as well. Let's make it a top priority.

Bunyip
Gallente
Center for Advanced Studies
Posted - 2008.05.15 07:13:00 - [14]
 

Originally by: Breha Organa
Sorry to strongly disagree on all counts. I lived in low sec.
There are plenty of rare ores... including those laced with Zydrine, and even occasionally Megacyte... yes, Megacyte... but you have to scan for hidden belts for these.

Of course pirates are going to target unprotected miners. They're pirates, after all. Miners in low sec without protection = stupid.

Missions and deadspace in low sec... again, it should be risky. Which is why you should mission in low sec in groups, and make sure you have decent skills and have decent combat capabilities. Some of the best complexes are in low sec. Take a fleet of Tech II frigates to do the complexes... with no tech II stuff on board, make sure your clone is up to date, or (better yet) have a jump clone ready with all implants...
low cost = low risk.

Still, I repeat what I said before. Make it so player corps have the right to defend a system in low sec. How you do it is up for debate. I'd like to see input from the player community. My thought was to have the corp with the most POSes automatically gain "defense rights" and they can charge other corps a "protection fee" for the enjoyment of a safer and more secure life in low sec space. But, there are other ideas on the table as well. Let's make it a top priority.


Nice job completely ignoring the focus of my discussion and taking bits out to retort on. The point is to make low-sec more desirable/accessable. What my solution does is that very thing, allowing systems to be valuable enough that a moderate sized corp or NPC corp would want to fly there and protect the system or two for a few days.

Yes, there may be some high-value ores in low-sec, but those are often deep low-sec (.2 or .1) and in certain regions, and not enough to make them really tempting. If we have to, move some Gneiss, Ochre, or Spudomain into low-sec, while keeping the higher-value ores (Bistot, Crokite, Mercoxit) in 0.0 and deep 0.0 only.

I'm not against exploration sites, but I'm looking for something that will whet the players' enough to say "Lets take this system and do everything we can to hold it so we can mine/rat/etc". If we can do this, we'll have a strong start to getting players into low-sec, but no player is going to enter if they absolutely refuse.

Also, my solution towards missions doesn't benefit mission-runners much except for allowing them to make an AS. I'm sure most mission-runners don't jump into a mission with scramblers/webbers fitted, as there's more to focus on than the 'what if?' factor.

Again, however, if there are rational debates with this issue, we can discuss them and iron out any kinks. I don't plan to be only a representative, but also a player who gives and receives, then delivers the completed topic to CCP once any loopholes have been worked out.

Thirzarr
Posted - 2008.05.15 08:39:00 - [15]
 

And I'm still thinking:

If a level 1 Mission run in low sec had the same payout as a level 4 Mission in highsec, that would definately make it tempting. As one could loose a ship every 2-5 Missions and still make a lot of money.

Remember, the Mission not only has to pay for the loss, but have a good chance of making the pod-pilot richer AND compensate for the emotional part of loosing a fight. Being the pirates victim is not the fun end of the play.

Ben Derindar
Dirty Deeds Corp.
Posted - 2008.05.15 10:00:00 - [16]
 

Originally by: Breha Organa
Still, I repeat what I said before. Make it so player corps have the right to defend a system in low sec. How you do it is up for debate. I'd like to see input from the player community. My thought was to have the corp with the most POSes automatically gain "defense rights" and they can charge other corps a "protection fee" for the enjoyment of a safer and more secure life in low sec space.

Disagree, I'm afraid. IMO increasing the importance of POSs in low-sec would probably lead to more 0.0 style blobbage and capital warfare. Let's keep that sort of thing in 0.0, shall we? Smile

Rather than players having the right to defend a system in low-sec, I'd like to see players have the right to defend themselves in low-sec. I favour a dynamic security status system of some sort where people can play the good-guy role if they wish, being rewarded for shooting pirates instead of punished as if they were one themselves.

The new Empyrean Age dev blog has some interesting new connotations for low-sec as well.

/Ben

Inertial
Did I just do that
Test Alliance Please Ignore
Posted - 2008.05.15 14:11:00 - [17]
 

Originally by: Breha Organa

The corporation with the most POSes in a low sec system ought to be granted "defense rights" of the system and not be interfered with by gate guns, and station defenses. Even though my character belongs to an "anti-pirate" corp, to be fair, this ought to include any corporation with the most POSes... even if it is a pirate corp.


Nonononononooooo.

POS Warfare is bad, we don't want it. There should be some other kind of mechanic to deciede who gets the system(s). Imagine some pirate corps prefere frigates and crusiers, and brining POS mechanics to low-sec means they have to start training for a completely different ship to be able to hold a system they "own".

There got to be something else.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.15 14:31:00 - [18]
 

Edited by: Goumindong on 15/05/2008 14:32:13
POS warfare isn't inherently bad. But low-sec cannot be conquered by the strongest force willing to bring caps since that is counter-productive to the goal of having player police. The person who "holds" the system needs to have incentive to let players produce in the area and the way in which its contested should have something to do with the efficacy of how well they are able to make it "safe" and not be a direct contest since that means you get to circumvent the law in your quest to be the police.


 

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