These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
12Next page
 

Dynamic security space?

Author
Troezar
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1 - 2013-06-19 21:44:23 UTC
Just an idea I thought I'd throw out there....

Rather than the fixed security level space we have now how about if it was dynamic? That is the more criminal acts in a system the lower the sec rating drops? Balance this out with kill rights being exercised in a system I.e. killing the bad guys raising the sec rating?
max ericshaun
Trust Doesn't Rust
Goonswarm Federation
#2 - 2013-06-19 21:53:44 UTC
I must admit, it's a pretty interesting idea. I don't know how well it would actually work though.

Lost in space

Mole Guy
Bob's Bait and Tackle
#3 - 2013-06-19 21:58:27 UTC
actually, i would prefer it exactly opposite.
the more crime in an area, the more 5.0 patrols. once the crime moves, the po po go.

bounty hunters and vigilanties can help concord move on qucker if they start collecting bounties.

that way the gate camps would have to become dynamic and one wouldnt know where they are.

i tink once a certain number of flags/time unit would increase concords response time.

50 ganks an hour and they respond in under 5 seconds.
25 is under 10
etc.


i think this dynamic idea would be fun.
Evei Shard
Shard Industries
#4 - 2013-06-19 22:17:03 UTC
Troezar wrote:
Just an idea I thought I'd throw out there....

Rather than the fixed security level space we have now how about if it was dynamic? That is the more criminal acts in a system the lower the sec rating drops? Balance this out with kill rights being exercised in a system I.e. killing the bad guys raising the sec rating?



Because no-one in all of Eve would get a large group together and spend a weekend deliberately driving the sec status of Jita down below 0.5. Roll

Profit favors the prepared

Luc Chastot
#5 - 2013-06-19 22:20:59 UTC
Evei Shard wrote:
Troezar wrote:
Just an idea I thought I'd throw out there....

Rather than the fixed security level space we have now how about if it was dynamic? That is the more criminal acts in a system the lower the sec rating drops? Balance this out with kill rights being exercised in a system I.e. killing the bad guys raising the sec rating?



Because no-one in all of Eve would get a large group together and spend a weekend deliberately driving the sec status of Jita down below 0.5. Roll

Such an immoral proposition!



I like it.

Make it idiot-proof and someone will make a better idiot.

Nex Killer
Perkone
Caldari State
#6 - 2013-06-20 00:13:23 UTC
max ericshaun wrote:
I must admit, it's a pretty interesting idea. I don't know how well it would actually work though.


Maybe they can make it so players can join Concord and when someone becomes a criminal in a system a jump portal opens in front of you and you can accept or decline. If you accept you get wrapped to where the person is and then you can take them out. Now I would make it so the only time you can get a jump portal to show is when your in a Concord controlled system. After the criminal is popped the player has to make their way back to the Concord system to help out more.

Now the hard part I think is how should a system sec be lowered? Maybe if there more crimes happening in a system and no one goes to help that system out it get lowered. That's all I can think of right now maybe later I'll come back and add more.
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#7 - 2013-06-20 00:51:16 UTC
No matter what arcane and convoluted method you come up with, players will jump through your hoops to make sure Jita goes to 0.1 and stays there. The same will be done with Dodixie, Amarr, Rens, Hek, Uedama, Niarja, Colelie and every ice system and mission hub everywhere in highsec.
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#8 - 2013-06-20 01:01:11 UTC
Yay I want a Titan in high sec, and a rorqual into favorite ice mining system.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.

Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#9 - 2013-06-20 01:53:33 UTC
Oh god. I didn't even think of that.

Ratting carriers for everyone!
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#10 - 2013-06-20 01:56:57 UTC
Why does everyone suggest more crime decreases the security rating? That's totally backwards. It creates an antibalance in which more crime leads to less security leads to more crime, while systems that get ignored will go up in sec status and eventually stop having crime pretty much altogether, forcing their sec status even higher. Also, police go TO a crime zone, not away from it.

Crime should cause sec status to go up, and lack of crime should cause it to go down.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."

Evei Shard
Shard Industries
#11 - 2013-06-20 02:26:34 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Why does everyone suggest more crime decreases the security rating?


That would be because they are convinced that if high-sec and Concord were completely gone, that the resulting free-for-all anarchy would skyrocket Eve's subscription base 10fold or so.

Profit favors the prepared

Troezar
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#12 - 2013-06-20 05:57:54 UTC
I wasn't really anticipating that this would apply to all Empire space but perhaps just to what is currently low sec. It would be possible to actually create more high sec space but of course plenty of people would like the opposite. Sounds like a nice way to cause more conflict aka fun ;)
StoneCold
Decadence.
RAZOR Alliance
#13 - 2013-06-20 06:21:17 UTC
Niarija would be at < 0.5 soon(tm).
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#14 - 2013-06-20 06:32:18 UTC
I like the idea of a dynamic EVE environment but I think that the only place that this particular mechanic would be plausible is in Lowsec and null. Rather than affecting police response time it would affect the resources and rats present in a system. Since it seems that's all sec status really represents right now anyway.
Troezar
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#15 - 2013-06-20 19:45:48 UTC
Rowells wrote:
I like the idea of a dynamic EVE environment but I think that the only place that this particular mechanic would be plausible is in Lowsec and null. Rather than affecting police response time it would affect the resources and rats present in a system. Since it seems that's all sec status really represents right now anyway.


That's what I thought, make things matter a little more and a little more unpredictable. May be too radical for some of the players thoughBlink
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#16 - 2013-06-21 03:51:22 UTC
It won't be unpredictable though. It'll just be constant camps in all the trade routes. The trade hubs will fall and nobody will be able to erect new ones. It'll be Spira online.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."

Aquila Sagitta
Blue-Fire
#17 - 2013-06-21 07:44:06 UTC
Troezar wrote:
Just an idea I thought I'd throw out there....

Rather than the fixed security level space we have now how about if it was dynamic? That is the more criminal acts in a system the lower the sec rating drops? Balance this out with kill rights being exercised in a system I.e. killing the bad guys raising the sec rating?


So basicly the trade hubs go to -1.0 and nullsec goes to 1.0 awesome idea +1 Roll
Tchulen
Trumpets and Bookmarks
#18 - 2013-06-21 10:43:48 UTC
Mole Guy wrote:
actually, i would prefer it exactly opposite.
the more crime in an area, the more 5.0 patrols. once the crime moves, the po po go.


This is significantly more realistic. Considering high sec specifically, it would be more likely that a system with increasing crime would also have increasing police presence.

I don't think could really apply to nullsec as there are no "po po" there.

Allowing High sec to become Low sec and vice versa would be immediately abused as several people have pointed out. There are lots of threads dealing with just this dilemma though so I won't go into it here.
Shereza
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#19 - 2013-06-21 11:25:58 UTC
Honestly, neither of the proposed ideas for driving down, or increasing, a system's security rating are all that great in my opinion. If you really want to drive down a system's security rating nuke the cops. If you want to raise it hire more cops.

Now before someone points out that CONCORD is invulnerable, I'm not talking about CONCORD. I'm referring to empire faction security forces. Every system gets one or more security stations with both the number of stations and the size of the stations having not only an impact on the system security rating but also the number of NPCs that each station can deploy to handle combat issues. Small stations would field frigates and destroyers and increase system security by 1.0 a pop, medium stations would field cruisers and battlecruisers and increase system security by 1.5 a pop, and large stations would field battleships and increase system security by 2.5 a pop. Two of each sized security station and you've got a 1.0 system which you can lower by nuking said stations.

In addition to this I would suggest that NPCs spawned by these stations drop loot per appropriate mission NPCs which means tags and named items with no bounties to (immediately) spawn isk from thin air. This provides monetary incentives for players to do this as well as the "Hey, let's go f*** with these people" incentives. Furthermore by having to take out empire faction NPCs there will also be the tangible consequence of nuking your standings with that faction. If they're already trashed it doesn't really matter as much, but if you want to keep the high and mighties happy it will definitely be a concern.

Rebuilding the system security would be equally as simple, and likely more mind-numbingly boring, by virtue of being a multitude of fetch missions where you fetch various goods and resources to help the local security forces rebuild their stations.

To help facilitate this being on a system building mission or actively engaging the system security NPCs should revoke CONCORD protections for you. This allows it to be a PvP event as well as a PvE event and might help discourage people from super boosting systems by doing a dozen rebuild missions in a couple minutes by virtue of having a freighter loaded down with supplies right outside the station, agent, or whatever you interact with to do them.

Regarding what happens with the system as the security rating goes down or up I would suggest the following.
#1 No change in asteroid belt, anomaly, or exploration site spawning should occur. These are geographical features and should stay that way.

#2 If system security drops below .5 CONCORD will react as it does in no/low-sec for the most part. The only exception would still be a ban on the usage of jump drives and capital ships. However, just to be an ass I would suggest that you be allowed to light cynos, but any capital ship jumping into a former high-sec system get nuked by CONCORD. Consequences, not protection. :-)

#3 Belt NPC spawns should correspond approximately to the system security level and mission NPCs/rewards should also be accordingly scaled.

#4 Empire faction security forces should act as a localized CONCORD in the event of "unwarranted" PvP activities. By localized I mean that if they're in the area and spot it they'll help the person being attacked. Having NPC patrols through the system should help with this as well as add to a sense of "we're trying to kick these murderous bastards out of our system" realism.

If we're going to talk about screwing with system security ratings let's at least make it directly interactive on both sides, a PvP as well as PvE event, and provide both risk and reward in both the PvP and PvE arenas for it.
Troezar
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#20 - 2013-06-21 13:00:57 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
It won't be unpredictable though. It'll just be constant camps in all the trade routes. The trade hubs will fall and nobody will be able to erect new ones. It'll be Spira online.


Read all the thread, the talk has been about low sec.
12Next page