These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
123Next pageLast page
 

complaints/discussion about low sec security

Author
Spawne32
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1 - 2011-11-20 06:13:31 UTC
I know this is probably a topic that's been beaten like a dead horse over and over again, but i was having a discussion with a fellow corp member of mine tonight and we were expressing some anger over the way security is in comparison to the way the players play the game.

Ive been playin the game for a few years off and on now, and when I first started playing the game, low sec really wasnt something i would necessarily complain about. I used to run ops from .5 security system borders in and out of low sec, mining, missions, etc, occasional pvp. Use your star map to watch for pirate travel, camps etc. However lately low sec has been all but off limits for the sheer fact that there seems to be a wall of gate camps all around high sec space, this pretty much makes low security systems untravelable and in my opinion really kills the fun you can have in the game when you cant travel from system to system without having to worry about constant roaming gangs of players that have way to much free time on their hands, even in systems that are supposedly labeled "low security", key word being "security" there.

Some of the things we were discussing was why security has not really been changed all that much in relation to the power that players have in the game, we consistently see more powerful ships being released for players to use, however security is increasingly diminished in their capability's because of the new ships players are able to pilot. They are easily able to challenge the authority of secure space. For players that have some time in, we pilot powerful ships, large battleships and battlecruisers that we have worked long hours for to buy and fit and use, yet these ships are seemingly useless in anything but high security space without being in a roving gang.

Now I know that it is going to raise alot of complaints about the idea of CCP making low sec a little more secure, but why is it that concord, or navy cant deploy a method of assisting you in low security space, thus making a buffer zone between noob players in high sec space, more experienced players in low sec space, and hardcore players in null space. If i was flying a CNR doing missions in low sec, say lvl 5's for instance, and I was ganked by a couple pirate players, what problem would it cause for concord to send out a couple logi ships, either frigs or cruisers, to assist me, not necessarily attack the other players with anything more then say, ecm, or assist me with shield transfer arrays or something of that nature. Thus giving us a fighting chance.

Im more then open to all kinds of ideas on the subject, again i know the subject has probably been beaten to death, but I hate being confined to high sec all the time when I have this much time in. I work during the day here on the east coast usa, and I have family issues to deal with at home, so I cant be on all the time to catch these "fleet operations" that everyone just assumes that people should be in when they are in low or no security space, but something has to be done about these god damn gate camps.
King Rothgar
Deadly Solutions
#2 - 2011-11-20 12:04:12 UTC
I am fairly certain there are fewer camps now then there were a couple years ago. The old hotspots like amamake, egghelende, bosboger, vehan and decon are almost never camped now. Even if they are, it's by maybe 3x BC's with no backup. What has changed is players have gotten better. When I first took up pirating in late '09, no one used ganglinks, remote sebo's, tackle bonused ships or even logi. Now all of those are standard.

The result is fewer camps but those that are around are infinitely superior. If you run into a decent camp now, you're screwed unless you've got a cyno and a whole lot of friends waiting. I don't think much can be done mechanic wise to counter this as it's a player issue, not a mechanic issue.

The only thing I think you can really argue for is a change in the probing and d-scanner systems. When I first started pirating, probing a ship was a big deal. It required cov ops 5 and all lvl4 probing skills as the absolute minimum to do any probing. It also required hundreds of tactical SS's spread around a system to fully cover all possible mission locations (probes had a 2au range, 5 minute cycle time, couldn't warp and you even had to match sensor types). Now it takes about 30s to probe out a missioning BS. On the flip side, you can now officially add probes to your d-scanner too. The result is if you run a low sec mission with a hostile around, you will be almost instantly probed down. But if you're paying attention you will also never be caught as you can warp off before anything can land on you. End result is a stalemate with both sides dissatisfied.

I would support a buff to sentry guns and another d-scanner/probe redesign. But beyond that I don't think any changes are appropriate.

[u]Fireworks and snowballs are great, but what I really want is a corpse launcher.[/u]

Spawne32
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#3 - 2011-11-20 18:17:13 UTC
Well I think one of the issues is that theres a clear dividing line between security and no security between .5 and .4 systems, when I believe, in my opinion that security should be layered across the levels from 1.0 to .1 systems, 1.0 being the highest level of security or "reinforcement" and .1 being the lowest level of security, either no reinforcement at all, or just sentry guns. I think that would add a level of play that we have never been able to do anymore. There is a constant talk about the "sandbox" by ccp, and I completely get that you want that section of the game manipulated and controlled by player politics. However again, they really dont leave any room for the difference between noobs, experienced players, and hardcore gamers.

Obviously not all of the options anyone presents will be completely viable in the long run as everyone expresses such a concern about the balance of the game, but the catering to "tards" aka goonswarm when a change is made is becoming ungodly annoying. Either way the security issue HAS to be addressed. I think you would actually gain alot of player accounts if people who had a set goal of not dealing in null sec pvp didnt have to worry about losing their ship to play more interesting aspects of the game. A newer player spends months training his character and saving his money for a good ship, only to have it blown to pieces by a gate camp in a low security system one jump over from high sec, 9 times out of 10 they get so mad they cancel their sub and go find another game to play. I know ive done it many times in the past, but the immersion keeps me coming back, along with the constant expansion packs changing gameplay, I cant hep but check in every so often to see how the game has improved.
Verity Sovereign
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#4 - 2011-11-20 20:13:31 UTC
Spawne32 wrote:
I think one of the issues is that theres a clear dividing line between security and no security between .5 and .4 systems, when I believe, in my opinion that security should be layered across the levels from 1.0 to .1


I have previously proposed something that I think you would find agreeable.

(1) Remove concord from 0.5 sec space, Replace it with Empire Navy ships.
Instead of getting concorded in 0.5, a flotilla of Empure ships comes after you consisting of something like: 3 Battleships, 1 EWAR cruiser, 2 support cruisers (like an Osprey or Exequor), 3 combat cruisers (like a Thorax or Omen), 9 frigates that web and scram.
It would be possible to escape, unlike concord (you could even have friend pick off the scrammers, and run before an Empire spawn comes for them)
*This would make ganking in 0.5 ice belts even easier - it would also take away some incentive to remove 0.5 ice belts) - this will be somewhat rectified by point #3



(2) Add Empire police to 0.4 space, these police would be much weaker than in 05, the spawn would be something like: 2 Battleships, 4 combat cruisers, 6 frigates (web only, no scram) - thus you could easily escape them, but if you got into a prolonged fight, expect trouble



(3) Allow players to attack pilots with a low sec standing without concord intervention in systems 0.2 "security levels" lower than the level at which NPCs will attack. Allow podding in systems 0.2 "security levels" higher than the level at which NPCs will attack.

Example:
Pirate A has a security status so low that he will be attacked in systems of security status 1.0 to 0.8
Other players may freely attack Pirate A in systems from 1.0 to 0.6, they may pod him in 1.0 systems.

So routine suicide gankers who have low sec status may now be engaged before they suicide gank.
Right now, Concord actually acts to protect suicide gankers.
If you know someone is just waiting to suicide gank, you can't do anything about it, without having concord destroy your ship.
With this change, you'll be able to kill some suicide gankers before they suicide gank - or they will have to suicide gank less and do more to raise their sec status - which will lessen the problem of suicide ganking



(4) Insurance penalties and NPC generates bounties based on security status.
Basically, if your security status is <0.0, you divide it by 5, and multiply it by the system security level *100%. This is the percent modifier to your insurance payout.
If you have a sec status of -5, and you lose your ship in 0.5 space, you receive a -5/5 *0.5 *100% = -50% to insurance payout, you get half your payout. If you lost it in a 1.0 system, you get nothing (if you have a sec status of -10, you aren't going to get much of any payout except in 0.0 and 0.1 systems)
This means it will be more expensive to suicide gank, as payouts will be reduced.

This is coupled with a bounty given to the person that destroyed the ship.
Take the payout that would have resulted from a premium insurance policy (whether or not they had one), then through through basically the same calculations used to determine the insurance payout penalty *-1, your bounty is determined.

Ie:
You kill a guy with a -5 security rating in a 0.5 system, if his ship was insured, it would have a 20 million ISK payout.
-5*-1/5*0.5*100% = 50% -> You get 50% of what the insurance payout would have been, in this case that would be 10 million.

This bounty is given by the same entity that gives out bounties on NPC rats, and is tied to the value of the destroyed ship.

This may make bounty hunting viable.
Combined with point 3, there should be a lot more high sec PvP among pirates, and those who want to kill pirates.
Spawne32
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#5 - 2011-11-20 23:36:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Spawne32
Your system is well thought out but I think empire security fleets need to be expanded all the way to .2 systems at the least in same way shape or form, and a new method of implementing the low standing/low concord security rating as well in these lower security systems. Removing concord from .5 systems I think would undoubtedly cause much more grief for miners as you will have stealth bombers popping ships left and right mining ice. Discouraging roaming gang **** and gate camps is the biggest focus here, which would allow alot more 1v1 pvp in low sec systems.

I would put my pve ships up against single roaming pirates in low sec space any day, the issue is I cant because I jump into a system and not hit a warp bubble and a gang of 15 players once my game loads the next system.

Long story short though I would definitely support your system if it was something that CCP was looking at in the future.
Vizvayu Koga
#6 - 2011-11-21 04:12:24 UTC
I agree that there's a problem with low-sec, but adding logistic Concord ships doesn't sound like a logical solution to me. A better solution as far as I can see should be:
1- Increasing damage and range for gate guns and station guns. We should have almost instant-kill guns in every station and every gate (also they should make then look bigger :P)
2- If I get killed by an outlaw (i.e. illegall kill) then my ship's wreck should belong to me
3- Looting somebody else's wreck should have the same consequences as shooting somebody else's ship (ie get killed by gate/station guns and decrease of sec status). With a big fat warning for the looter of course.

This, once polished and tested for bugs-exploits-abuses, would get us rid of many gate camps. We still have the problem of being attacked far away from stations and gates in low-sec... but that looks kind of fair to me, since it's lowsec after all.
I want to make it clear that IMO low-sec should be dangerous, but we still need to get rid of many exploits/abuses like gate camping.
Tamiya Sarossa
Resistance is Character Forming
#7 - 2011-11-21 04:32:26 UTC
Vizvayu Koga wrote:

3- Looting somebody else's wreck should have the same consequences as shooting somebody else's ship (ie get killed by gate/station guns and decrease of sec status). With a big fat warning for the looter of course.


Ignoring the rest of your post, are you seriously implying that lowsec should have more stringent policies with regards to stealing loot than highsec? Or are you saying that people who loot wrecks in highsec should get Concorded too?
Vizvayu Koga
#8 - 2011-11-21 04:41:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Vizvayu Koga
Tamiya Sarossa wrote:
Vizvayu Koga wrote:

3- Looting somebody else's wreck should have the same consequences as shooting somebody else's ship (ie get killed by gate/station guns and decrease of sec status). With a big fat warning for the looter of course.


Ignoring the rest of your post, are you seriously implying that lowsec should have more stringent policies with regards to stealing loot than highsec? Or are you saying that people who loot wrecks in highsec should get Concorded too?


Nah, the looting policies should be for all empire space, both highsec and lowsec.
And yes, people who steal loots in highsec should definitely get Concorded big time and get a low security status.

EDIT: And also, thanks to the recent change of the insurance system (which was awesome btw), they won't get any insurance isk either. NO SOUP FOR YOU! NEXT! Big smile
Spawne32
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#9 - 2011-11-21 05:46:47 UTC
Well the whole purpose of layered "fleet assist" based security would be so that you dont need huge ridiculously overpowered gate guns. There is a set number of the type of fleet spawn's that occur in high sec when you attack some one, so gradually dumb it down as the security gets lower. To the point where only gate guns exist in .1 systems and nothing exists when you cross that threshold.
Esunisen
Les Tueurs de Killer
#10 - 2011-11-21 06:20:59 UTC
Reminds me an idea I had: Adding a way to enroll in Concord and in NPC Pirates corps

This and a way to affect lowsec levels with attacks, maybe something like warfare/incursions, that would lower/raise the security level of the systems.
Spawne32
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#11 - 2011-11-21 06:24:16 UTC
Maybe use the way militias are setup and enroll as either "space police" with concord or "space pirate" with npc pirate factions to some kind of effect.
Spawne32
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#12 - 2011-11-21 06:27:52 UTC
Or, perhaps like I had said in the past, a way to hire NPC "mercenaries" for protection in empire space. I think that would add a whole new level of gameplay. You see NPC ships flying around alot but you dont really interact with them except for security reasons. I often see retailers or merchants flying from stations....but they serve no real purpose.
Verity Sovereign
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#13 - 2011-11-21 06:52:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Verity Sovereign
Spawne32 wrote:
Removing concord from .5 systems I think would undoubtedly cause much more grief for miners as you will have stealth bombers popping ships left and right mining ice. Discouraging roaming gang **** and gate camps is the biggest focus here, which would allow alot more 1v1 pvp in low sec systems.


Well, the 0.5 miner ganks already happen. Under what I propose, they are still faced with a fight they can't win (not the spawn is triggered for *each* ship that attacks, if three ships open fire, then 3x as many forces come) - the difference is that they have a chance of escaping.
This will encourage them using more expensive ships/equipment, since they won't necessarily regard their ships as "throw-away", but rather they will aim to reuse their ships.
- But now, due to the low sec rating they will have, lots of people will be able to attack them. We could in fact set up high sec gate camps to gank any one with low enough sec status coming through - allow players to act as police, as CONCORD really doesn't do a good job of keeping pirates out.
In 0.5 systems, players could attempt to keep other players out with -3.5 or lower sec status out.
Currently, we can't without getting concorded ourselves. I think this is the major problem.

And of course, the bounty system I propose based on the ship value of the pirate will further encourage people to do this (plus there are plenty of people that just want pew pew, maybe they might go for this rather than can flipping around stations)


With regards to low sec gate camps: I'd propose buffing station and gate guns proportionally to sec status (0.4 gate guns are more powerful than 0.2 guns).
However, with NPC police coming to your aid, it should be easier to clear gate camps - you jump in with a few ships, and find 10 ships waiting for you, they open fire, and 30 seconds later, with 10 spawns triggered, they will definitely be clearing out (although pointing them will be your responsibility).

In 0.4 they'd even come to mission sites and roids, but for 0.3 -0.2, they'd only come to stations and gates (0.1 is just guns)
Vizvayu Koga
#14 - 2011-11-21 06:52:37 UTC
Well you won't get rid of gate campers with a logistic npc ship nor with a merc npc either...
We are talking of two different things here, one is gate camping and another one is the lack of security in general in lowsec systems. I agree that something must be done to prevent gate camping (and suicide ganking as well since it's a similar abused mechanic), but still I think lowsec systems shouldn't have Concord presence. Don't know about a player police faction, sounds a bit too exploitable unfortunately... but I can be wrong about that.
Nezumiiro Noneko
Alternative Enterprises
#15 - 2011-11-21 06:58:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Nezumiiro Noneko
King Rothgar wrote:
I would support a buff to sentry guns and another d-scanner/probe redesign. But beyond that I don't think any changes are appropriate.


very fair changes if you ask me.


More police...no. Why low is low. Also remember if jumped on a belt/site and you fight back sometimes you and friends will be the "pirate" since hitting a target first is quite possible.

I'll be nice...give you an over eager falcon pilot landing on tackle warp in. He didn't decloak in warp since too eager...so he declaoks on you. You got about 10 seconds if lucky to lock and drop him.

Might be the good call under current system. No "police" on belts/sites and once jammed you aren't killing him or the tackler or anything else if falcon is lucky with the random numbers.

Your system...hit the decloak delayed falcon and that first navy response will be for those tacklers and for your preemptive strike on the falcon. Or you could have fun with aoe like ecm burst and smarties. Just takes one burst to hit something that hasn't hit you, and yet again that navy fleet is coming for your ship.

no police in low sec helps out non-pirates who fight back. Its not always cut and dry kill only those who hit you. Why iits good its in place.
Spawne32
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#16 - 2011-11-21 22:36:46 UTC
I see your point but the issue still needs to be addressed with more then just gate guns.
Spawne32
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#17 - 2011-11-24 05:23:33 UTC
bump this for more suggestions
Gerrick Palivorn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#18 - 2011-11-24 07:07:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Gerrick Palivorn
First, you need to fix the bounty system.

-IMHO Anybody under GCC shouldn't get any payout on there ship. Instead it should be put onto there bounty, that way suicide gankers build bounties fast.
-Second anybody that loses a ship to someone who is GCC's will have the option to put isk from there insurance onto the aggressors bounty instead.
-When the person with the bounty loses a ship, the people on the killmail split 75% of the ships worth (including mods). The other 25% goes to either the pilot losing the ship, or their bounty.

This will make bounty hunting a legitamate practice and give antipirates a reason to go out and fight pirates. Bounties on pilots will mean something, and it will be very difficult to abuse the system, although it is possible.

Second I agree on having Navy patrols, but not system wide, constellation wide. They are a decently armed force that gets reinforced when the kills go up in the area, then they travel to the system where recent kills have occured and attempt to engage and destroy aggressors. If there is no action at all they patrol the lowsec constellation with minimal forces.

Gate guns shouldn't be buffed, but stations should have the ability to add more sentries to there defences. 1 additional gun for every 2 acts of aggression on the same grid as the station.

If aggression occurs on a highsec border gate, the faction should respond to distress calls and jump through to assist. Some may argue that this will just make gate camps larger and more organized, but as previously stated in this thread, they have already started doing that. This will make it so that first jump into lowsec doesn't seem like it's so bad, knowing that you have potential backup if you need it.

I believe that these things will not only make life more interesting for pirates, (some of them may even enjoy it!) and it'll go a long way in making people first making that jump into lowsec feel a little safer (even though they're going to lose there ship anyway).

MMOs come and go, but Eve remains.  -Garresh-

Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#19 - 2011-11-24 09:11:24 UTC
wtf, walls of text (tldr) about losec being risky?? Get real dude
Ho'Taru
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#20 - 2011-11-24 14:51:27 UTC
My problem isn't so much with lowsec being risky, but with the sudden change of risk between 0.5 and 0.4. As such, I would definitely support a change to make the risk more gradual through empire space.

I'd be looking at the following:
- Both Concord and Navy fleets may respond in any system. The decision as to who if anyone responds will depend on several factors.

- Not all of the system is necessarily covered. In 1.0 space, Concord will react anywhere. In 0.1 space, the NPC ships will only consider reacting right outside of their own space stations, and even then they may decide to ignore a fight depending on the situation. Other areas that may be covered depending on system rating would be stargates, asteroid belts, etc

- Reaction times will vary more than currently. The actual response time would depend on the equation the server made to see if anyone would respond. Suffice to say, in 1.0 space, Concord would be on you pretty sharpish, whilst in 0.1 space, even concord would take 10 minutes just to respond to a fight outside their station.

- Avoiding Concord would no longer be an abuse. If you're in even a mid to high-sec system you should have a chance to gank your target and leave before Concord arrive. If you aren't gone by the time Concord arrives however, still expect bad times to happen.

- The security rating of the defender is a factor in deciding if and how quick Concord are to respond, whilst the defender's faction standing with the owner of the system is likewise a factor in the Navy's response. (If the NPCs in question think you're scum anyway, they're going to drag their feet over jumping in to help).


Basically, if balanced right, current lowsec getting safer should be balanced by current highsec getting more dangerous, with the most signifcant changes would be around midsec areas. The gradual drop in security would help remove the idea that "highsec is safe" (so less whining from gankees hopefully), and you'd get more people willing to venture into more dangerous areas of space as there's not such a big boundary to overcome in the first place.
Additionally, this would also give more importance to your security rating, which currently seems mostly pointless. If you want to be safer, you'll need to work at getting the cops to like you basically.
123Next pageLast page