These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page12
 

Dynamic Sec Status - Your Input Required

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#21 - 2012-11-18 14:53:16 UTC
I remember reading somewhere that sec status is determined by the local governments on the planets in that system. That is, how much CONCORD presence they want.

Its not clear how the actions of us pod pilots could or should effect that.

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction
It'sNotMyFaultYourMother ThrewYouAway
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#22 - 2012-11-18 15:01:18 UTC
Something like 75% of the playerbase lives in highsec, while something like 75% of all systems are nullsec ones.

You really think squeezing 75% of the playerbase in to 10% of systems in the universe is a good idea? Sure it would be fun for the ones doing it, but for everyone who naturally prefers hisec it would straight out suck.
Lin-Young Borovskova
Doomheim
#23 - 2012-11-18 15:09:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Lin-Young Borovskova
Thor Kerrigan wrote:
Introduce a fluctuating sec but cap the min/max of each system. Only 0.4/0.5 should really swap between high and low as these are usually the key systems you want to flip on way or another.

The rest of 0.6 -> 1.0 would simply see a fluctuation of CONCORD response time and 0.3 -> 0.1 would see a fluctuation in sec loss/gate gun DPS.



Not rally, if something should expand and change security status it's not low/high sec in between 0.4 and 0.5 systems but in between low and null.
Low sec doesn't need to be stretch in detriment of high sec since it's still empire systems, low sec needs to stretch their legs in to null sec, but I suppose it's a task far beyond low sec entities abilities or understanding.

brb
Feer Truelight
#24 - 2012-11-18 15:15:13 UTC
March rabbit wrote:

too much work. it's easier to remove high-sec completely i guess.....

just few questions to you:
- what is the difference between low- and high-sec?
- did you see any kills in low-sec or 0.0-sec which took more than 1 minute (to CONCORD arrive)?


ad 1) The difference between low- and high-sec:
- no CONCORD intervention (FFA-System) in low-sec
- more risk -> better rewards in low-sec

ad 2) Numbers doesn't matter at this stage of the idea. If you feel better you can trim it to 30 seconds before CONCORD is reacting.
Personally the idea is more important than numbers. Later you can always adjust numbers.

8/7/2006 3:39:36 PM UTC FreeCCP Promotional Game Time 7 Days Paid

6/1/2012 5:48:57 PM UTC PayPal 1 x 1 Month EVE Subscription + Signup €19.95 Paid

CCP took 6 years to convert me to a (still) paying subscriber :)
Zagdul
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#25 - 2012-11-18 15:17:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Zagdul
I've already suggested this:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=163419

If they do this, null sec income will need to be increased or the frequency of higher anoms as anyone with low security space will literally struggle.

Our income can be adjusted by moving meta 4 items away from Empire.

Dual Pane idea: Click!

CCP Please Implement
Sentamon
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#26 - 2012-11-18 15:20:07 UTC
Vincent Athena wrote:
I remember reading somewhere that sec status is determined by the local governments on the planets in that system. That is, how much CONCORD presence they want.

Its not clear how the actions of us pod pilots could or should effect that.


It does leave the door open for Dust 514 impacting the future security of a system.

~ Professional Forum Alt  ~
MasterEnt
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#27 - 2012-11-18 15:35:26 UTC
I like this idea. This is what I kind of hoped would happen with FW.
Borders would change a bit as would sec status.

Agreed though there needs to be a limit on range that it will fluctuate, but the eve universe could definitely benefit from such a dynamic system.
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#28 - 2012-11-18 18:25:09 UTC
Here's a thought:

What happens to an area that experiences an uptick in crime?

Do the police go away, or do they come in more force to eliminate it?

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
Ginger Barbarella
#29 - 2012-11-18 18:58:14 UTC
Endymion Varg wrote:
I think we can all agree that Eve's content is supposed to be dynamic and preferably player generated. This makes the world feel alive and meaningful. Currently one of the big determinants in how the game is played is the security rating of solar systems, but this feature is entirely static, which is contrary to the dynamism/user-influenced mantra. The decisions that CCP made when designating systems as high or low-sec are driving the player experience, whereas I believe it should be the other way around.

Let me be clear. I'm not advocating the removal of the security status rating. It's a good feature, but I think that the collective actions of people in solar systems should determine the security status of said systems. This goes without saying, but it would only be possible to change a system's sec status in empire space (leave null out of this).

I think that actions like suicide ganking, can flipping and other illegal activities should, over time, lower the security status of a system, eventually driving it below 0.5. The problem that I'm having right now is coming up with good ideas for actions that would do the opposite, namely to increase the security status of systems. One way would be to make it passive, so that if no illegal activity takes place in a given low-sec system for a certain amount of time, its rating would automatically go up, possibly surpassing 0.5, at which point Concord would move in and the system would become high-sec. Another possibility is to raise the sec-status of a system when known outlaws (people with negative rating) are killed.

Anyway, this thread is for people to contribute their own ideas for how to make sure this feature is balanced, so we don't get all of empire shrinking to a few small islands of high-sec, or the opposite where we get no low-sec left. Alternatively, if you think the idea is total ****, let me know as well.


You do realize that once those .5 bottlenecks drop to .4, the VAST majority of gankers will run to another high sec system, right? And not for the lulz. (Hint: think weenies in paper-thin gank ships; we already know that they refuse to have real fights with others that shoot back)

"Blow it all on Quafe and strippers." --- Sorlac
ISD Suvetar
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#30 - 2012-11-18 19:30:51 UTC
Moved from General Discussion.

[b]ISD Suvetar Captain/Commando Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department[/b]
Crimeo Khamsi
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#31 - 2012-11-18 23:13:41 UTC
Didn't read all of the thread, but a very simple way to place a control on this would be to require a certain NUMBER of systems that are 1.0 and a certain number that must be 0.9, etc.

Then, the ones that end up being 1.0 are the ones that had the LEAST (relatively) criminal activity in the last week or so on average, and the ones that end up being 0.1 are those that had the most (relatively) criminal activity.



If it's relative, not absolute, then players can never make everything 1.0 or everything 0.1. Only shift things around. Also, since shifting things in one direction will be good for some players and bad for others by nature, there's already competition amongst players that will ensure it doesn't stay too static.
Corey Fumimasa
CFM Salvage
#32 - 2013-01-20 22:16:28 UTC
Great idea with a lot of possibility.

Maybe have a limit to how far a status can shift, say .2. So .7 will always be highsec but .5 and .6 systems could be forced lower. I guess you would need a base sec status and then a temp one. this would help to make more of a difference between the highsec systems as far as risk.

On of the best Eve adventures that I had was when I found a highsec WH that led deep into null. We went through and spent the day hunting the big rats in the belts out there. I would love to see more of those, and even better would be ones that would stay open for a week or 2 with no weight limit. And CONCORD support on the far side. Once highsec players get a taste of those big bounties and the shiny rocks out there they might make more of an effort to get out into null.
Dolorous Tremmens
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#33 - 2013-01-20 23:03:22 UTC
Sure sure, next will be pirates of the Carebearia where really low truesec (-0.1) turn to islands of lowsec in the nullsec sea
Input is that this isn't a good idea, just like everything it will be gamed. Do you really want carriers in .5 space? they just drop fighters, assign them to griefers, and recall them after one miner/whatever is down. velators getting suicide ganks.

Get some Eve. Make it yours.
Feer Truelight
#34 - 2013-01-21 09:12:10 UTC
What about constellations that get lowered/increased in sec status? This way they have more meaning and not single systems are going to get lower/higher but entire groups.

8/7/2006 3:39:36 PM UTC FreeCCP Promotional Game Time 7 Days Paid

6/1/2012 5:48:57 PM UTC PayPal 1 x 1 Month EVE Subscription + Signup €19.95 Paid

CCP took 6 years to convert me to a (still) paying subscriber :)
Previous page12