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

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.04.02 18:34:00 - [31]
 

Originally by: MeBiatch
hmm interesting... did not know that... always thought itwas just a 0.0 thing...

"0.5" can be between +0.4500 and +0.5499, IIRC.

MeBiatch
Posted - 2011.04.02 18:38:00 - [32]
 

Originally by: Akita T
Originally by: MeBiatch
hmm interesting... did not know that... always thought itwas just a 0.0 thing...

"0.5" can be between +0.4500 and +0.5499, IIRC.


in that case then yeah... make it apply to all space...
or lets just keep high sec high sec... but it would be interesting if low sec status changed too...
that way 0.4 systems will reflect the status they really should have...

Mighty Dread
Minmatar
Posted - 2011.04.02 18:50:00 - [33]
 

Always bothered me that for all this time Empire Space is as static as it is. Logic dictates that there would be at least some ebb & flow. In my opinion .4 systems should be able to become .5 high sec and .5 systems should be able to become .4 low sec with enough player initiative either way. Thus low sec becomes the PVP battleground so many players wish it would be. As an example; miners want to mine a particular low sec system, they higher a Merc corp to clean up the system raising it's sec status to .5 (note this would be a good time for Empires to offer incentives and rewards for raising the sec of a solar system), miners move in and now have higher profits. Pirate corp decides it wants the system under it's control and so retaliates, etc. and so on. Of course Concord would have to be adjusted.

Similar principal to Empires expanding into other Empires.

xXxSatsujinxXx
Whacky Waving Inflatable Flailing Arm Tubemen
Posted - 2011.04.02 19:10:00 - [34]
 

I thought about this a while back... Killing more rats should make the space safer and less likely to spawn tough sites. Ratters/plexers would need to move around a bit... Surprised


Ivorr Bigun
Posted - 2011.04.02 19:15:00 - [35]
 

as systems become populated and stabilised they should by definition become safer.

This would be amazing applied across the board actually - WH space full of POS could gain sec, deserted low-sec would revert to null, heavily populated null would move up, unpopulated high sec could become low.

yeh id love to see that.

xXxSatsujinxXx
Whacky Waving Inflatable Flailing Arm Tubemen
Posted - 2011.04.02 19:26:00 - [36]
 

Originally by: Ivorr Bigun
as systems become populated and stabilised they should by definition become safer.

This would be amazing applied across the board actually - WH space full of POS could gain sec, deserted low-sec would revert to null, heavily populated null would move up, unpopulated high sec could become low.

yeh id love to see that.


I wasn't thinking quite that extreme, otherwise everything would become spread out to a thin layer of slightly low sec... lol

I was thinking more along the lines of space keeping it's respective class (null, low, high), but on a sliding scale within each class depending on the ratting activity there...

Sraik Doubter
Posted - 2011.04.02 19:26:00 - [37]
 

Seems like a pretty cool idea. Wow, it's logical too. The extent of civilization (ie sec rating) ought to be tied to how populated/stable a system is. Make sense that this would be tied to the player activity in the system. Stagnant backwaters of space, whether they are empire or null, should tend to become more dangerous with time as the NPC rats notice that no one is looking and move in.

Probably some obstacles to implementing (as stuff like tower anchoring and weapon use are tied to sec rating), but still a pretty cool and real-sounding concept.

Josefine Etrange
Gallente
Posted - 2011.04.02 19:58:00 - [38]
 

Originally by: Mighty Dread
Always bothered me that for all this time Empire Space is as static as it is. Logic dictates that there would be at least some ebb & flow. In my opinion .4 systems should be able to become .5 high sec and .5 systems should be able to become .4 low sec with enough player initiative either way. Thus low sec becomes the PVP battleground so many players wish it would be. As an example; miners want to mine a particular low sec system, they higher a Merc corp to clean up the system raising it's sec status to .5 (note this would be a good time for Empires to offer incentives and rewards for raising the sec of a solar system), miners move in and now have higher profits. Pirate corp decides it wants the system under it's control and so retaliates, etc. and so on. Of course Concord would have to be adjusted.

Similar principal to Empires expanding into other Empires.


Nah, o.4 and 0.5 should never change. 0.5 has concord patrols, that makes ALL the difference. Though if you are suggesting PVEVP Missions which attack concord, kinda player based incursions, than I am fine with changing security status.

Dorian Wylde
Posted - 2011.04.02 20:06:00 - [39]
 

Originally by: Josefine Etrange
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.


Not only that, they could easily make it so there are always X number of systems with the best value, Y number with mid range values, Z number with crappy values, etc. It wouldn't have to be random, or based on any player driven factor in order to add some chaos to the system. Player driven is good for some things, but not everything.

Mighty Dread
Minmatar
Posted - 2011.04.02 22:11:00 - [40]
 

I think the point here is that Empire Space has been static for far too long. In fact one of the complaints I hear about FW is that it in the larger scheme of things it doesn't change anything, and it should. For that matter what if no one answered the call to a Sansha incursion?

As for low sec, it has more than just rats to shoot. Valuable minerals to mine and better quality agents (which is purely illogical but...I guess CCP) and access to certain areas of the map.

Ariane VoxDei
Posted - 2011.04.02 23:03:00 - [41]
 

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.
Intriguing suggestion, being able to farm/populate 0.0 into hisec status. Yes, I definitively think we can outdo greyscales 80page thread with that.

Jacque Cruix
Posted - 2011.04.02 23:31:00 - [42]
 

Edited by: Jacque Cruix on 02/04/2011 23:32:06
Originally by: Ariane VoxDei
Intriguing suggestion, being able to farm/populate 0.0 into hisec status. Yes, I definitively think we can outdo greyscales 80page thread with that.


You have won todays distance award in jumping to conclusions. Who invited the empires out there?

Realistically, it can never get above -0.0 since 0.1 or better would require one of the empires to declare sovereignty not simply players actions by ratting. IMO Wink.

Alonzo Harris
Posted - 2011.04.02 23:42:00 - [43]
 

OP is NC.

MeBiatch
Posted - 2011.04.02 23:57:00 - [44]
 

Originally by: Jacque Cruix
Edited by: Jacque Cruix on 02/04/2011 23:32:06
Originally by: Ariane VoxDei
Intriguing suggestion, being able to farm/populate 0.0 into hisec status. Yes, I definitively think we can outdo greyscales 80page thread with that.


You have won todays distance award in jumping to conclusions. Who invited the empires out there?

Realistically, it can never get above -0.0 since 0.1 or better would require one of the empires to declare sovereignty not simply players actions by ratting. IMO Wink.



true...

so for 0.0 you can flux the true sec from -0.01 all to way to -1.0
high sec can be fluxed too and for FW you can make low sec high sec by securing you home space and can turn high sec into low sec by invading enemy high sec

oh and i am not NC (the alliance or coalition) i applied they would not let me inCrying or Very sad

Caghji
Posted - 2011.04.03 00:17:00 - [45]
 

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.


That's true in general terms - but of course being determined by player action would vastly increase the game immersion which would be a great thing imo


Trader Hansen
Failure Assured
Posted - 2011.04.03 02:50:00 - [46]
 

Dynamic sec status would be awesome (more carebear activity/population = higher sec status, more pvp/less population = lower sec status), but it would require a fundamental redesign of the current Concord/Sentry Guns system as they would also need to be dynamic. It would also require a rethink of the sovereignty system, and limitations on cynosural fields/bubbles (or more likely, a complete removal of those limitations).

In a nutshell it would be an entirely different game. CCP will never do it.

Emperor Cheney
Celebrity Sex Tape
Posted - 2011.04.03 03:38:00 - [47]
 

Originally by: Mara Rinn

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.



Looking forward to the day CONCORD patrols Serpentis systems, protecting its Serpentis mission runners from untoward violence.

Ariane VoxDei
Posted - 2011.04.03 12:39:00 - [48]
 

Originally by: Jacque Cruix
Edited by: Jacque Cruix on 02/04/2011 23:32:06
Originally by: Ariane VoxDei
Intriguing suggestion, being able to farm/populate 0.0 into hisec status. Yes, I definitively think we can outdo greyscales 80page thread with that.


You have won todays distance award in jumping to conclusions. Who invited the empires out there?

Realistically, it can never get above -0.0 since 0.1 or better would require one of the empires to declare sovereignty not simply players actions by ratting. IMO Wink.


Technically, he did not say what the cap on increasing the truesec should be. Nor did he or I mention anything about letting the 4 hisec empires take the sov. It could remain unclaimed, just using the sec as a "selfbalancing nerf".

But come on, you guys are so boring, its about keeping your eyes open to the possibilities.
If you find yourself saying "no, because <existing game tradition/rule>" then you need to take a step back and question what else you think is impossible in this game, but really is not. The question is of course always, would you want that something, not just "is it possible?".

Let yourself play with the "what if" sometimes. I am pretty sure CCP did not make EVE by thinking that you have to limit yourself to mimicking WOW.

Emp.Cheney is getting the gist of it, but it is not really about getting corcord.
You could rat/anom/mission sec up. If you for a moment say the limit would be +0.449 (=lowsec), instead of 0.0, then there is a lot of tactical denials possible, breaking a lot of the things that require null or below, by increasing the sec of enemy space (farmers in unprobeable T3).

In any case, would it be so terribly bad if the mission hubs in null progress into lowsec status instead?

Or far more interesting, if the pirate factions, actually ran their space like the empires, with their own faction police on the gates, attacking people with < -5 standing with them?
Had their own gateguns.
Shot everyone who has positive sec status.
(and many more RP-esque rules and consequences, like running their own renting-racket and "protection" schemes, paying them for nap/blue status if you dont have good standing,...).

It would be a major rework, and we know the devs are lazy wretches in that department, but it would be fun.
It would actually matter that they have sov, it wouldnt just be another bit of unclaimed 0.0.
It could be a mix of rules from hi, low and null:
hisec-like gatepatrols and guns
lowsec rules about what you may use/do
nullsec about what you can find there (let them use the 0.0 to -0.5 range of truesec)
and naturally not have any concord.


Renan Ruivo
Hipernova
Vera Cruz Alliance
Posted - 2011.04.03 15:58:00 - [49]
 

Originally by: MeBiatch
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...


No.

If anything, true sec above 0.0 would remain static, and below 0.0 would change according to PLAYER kills on the system. The more PVP we have on a system, the lower the true-sec. So a system with no PVP activity would be -0.01 and a system with a dozen kills or more per day would be -0.8 to -1.0.

MeBiatch
Posted - 2011.04.03 18:05:00 - [50]
 

Edited by: MeBiatch on 03/04/2011 18:06:40
Originally by: Renan Ruivo
Originally by: MeBiatch
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...


No.

If anything, true sec above 0.0 would remain static, and below 0.0 would change according to PLAYER kills on the system. The more PVP we have on a system, the lower the true-sec. So a system with no PVP activity would be -0.01 and a system with a dozen kills or more per day would be -0.8 to -1.0.


when i came up with the thread i was thinking yeah just for 0.0 should be be able to affect the sec status... but there have been some interesting points made that could add vaulue to changing sec status for empire too...

this is more a disccussion about making eve more dynamic and in the process making eve the sandbox its marketed as being...
We are here to provide options to ccp and let them know that the comunity supports such a change...

Khors
El Barco Pirata
Posted - 2011.04.03 18:18:00 - [51]
 

I'd support this if it was actually more npc killing = higher sec status, not some carebears desperate attempt at making his rented space more profitable again.
Even with the anomaly changes, 0.0 is more profitable than it was before, just let go of this dream you've had and enjoy having to fight for the better systems.

MeBiatch
Posted - 2011.04.03 18:21:00 - [52]
 

Originally by: Khors
I'd support this if it was actually more npc killing = higher sec status, not some carebears desperate attempt at making his rented space more profitable again.
Even with the anomaly changes, 0.0 is more profitable than it was before, just let go of this dream you've had and enjoy having to fight for the better systems.


the problem with just making it more npc kills = better true sec is it will just lead to what we have now pre annom nerf...
i like the idea of having to fight for key space... i just think that key space should be dynamic and not static... that way we dont have peeps fighting over 4-5 regions and the rest is just blah...

Lucinda Madeveda
Posted - 2011.04.04 11:35:00 - [53]
 

Edited by: Lucinda Madeveda on 04/04/2011 11:42:58
I aqgree to making 0.0's real security staus dynamic.

It should change depending on the amount of NPC's farmed + some slow changes over time.

If it stays static, we have the same situation as currently with moons. People who sit on good farming systems won't move and new alliances going to 0.0 can't make enough profit and will never be able to bring enough Titans to take over the good systems.

I suggest:


  • More farming = raise of truesec (closer to 0.0) -> system becomes less valuable and system owners must either farm less or expand to other systems.

  • Less farming (small alliances) = drop of truesec (closer to -1.0), more income possibilities but also higher risk because of less crowded space.



Additionally:

  • Stations or POS in a system should raise the level because it becomes safer for the farmers, so they should gain less from the system.

  • Small random changes (about +-0.1 per month) wich affect that for example Geminate drops in overall quality because of the big battles. But in return the neighbor regions profit from it and will then also become a juicy target to invade.



This might lead to more dynamic farming locations. People need to move out of their carebear paradise behind the 10-layers of intel channels if they want to earn ISK quickly. More risk = higher reward - but also - higher chance of getting killed -> more small scale pvp opportunities for the enemy.

CCP Spitfire


C C P
C C P Alliance
Posted - 2011.04.04 11:50:00 - [54]
 

Moved from 'EVE General Discussion'.


Eastman Color
Posted - 2011.04.04 12:23:00 - [55]
 

As long as this also applys yo highsec I think it'd be funny.
i.e.
Mission runners spam a lvl 4 agent system, system hits 1.0, agent moves to a different system.
Image the tears oh and imagen lvl 4 agents moving to a low sec.

It'd also be amusing for the pirates that love the lowsec when loads of mission runners turn up and move their loved 0.2 system to a 0.5


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