Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Would love to see such a system. I would bet the sec status of Jita will be down to 0.0 faster than you look and will be taken over in a huge battle. Let it come CCP please.

FYI: Be clear what you wish every trade hub sec status would be "destroyable" through ganking and such things and with enough power you could turn all these.

+1

Well the flip side is that some highsec systems would become lowsec etc.

You might not have to; as highsec systems dropped to lower security, payouts increase, so mission runners would move there for the higher payouts. What I can see happening, is missioners spreading out until there are no more systems on main pipes that are under 0.7, and code screaming and crying their way into obscurity.

Dynamic security status, IMO, would be awesome. A dynamic EVE is an interesting / enjoyable / exciting EVE. CCP has been doing that well with the recent six-week releases. Dynamic security rating would give pilots very interesting decisions to make - where to rat and mission, what route to move cargo along, where to look for fights... Pilots would also have incentive to visit systems that are rarely utilized under the current setup.

Some thoughts of mine on how it might work:

1) There's more to null / low / high security space than the toughness of the resident rats. There are different mechanics for each type of space - bubbles, SOV, and CONCORD being the big ones. I think it would be good to keep each system in its type of space, so that the mechanics would not suddenly change. But allow variability within that type. An upper rated highsec system would have quick CONCORD response times, yet low quality asteroids and rats. A lower rated highsec system would have slow CONCORD response times but better ISK making opportunities, but would never become low or null.

2) Adjust the range of profitability of the types of space to allow for overlap. Give each null, low and high sec system a rating from 0.00 to 1.00. The ratings would be relative to other systems in EVE in that same type of space. So a 0.5 highsec system won't be as lucrative as a 0.9 lowsec system, but, for example, a 0.1 highsec system will be more lucrative than a 0.9 lowsec system. Make the equivalency rating at 0.8/0.2. That is, a 0.2 highsec system would be equivalent value to a 0.8 lowsec system.

3) Security rating would always be relative - "on a curve." So if every highsec system had the exact same rating, but one slightly lower and another slightly higer, the lower would have 0.0 rating because it's the lowest, the higher would have 1.0 rating because it's the highest, and all the rest would have 0.5 rating.

4a) Activities that would raise the security rating:
NPC kills, minerals mined, PI material harvested, moon material harvested, jump gate usage, market orders, items reprocessed, items manufactured. Basically, all player activities except blowing up ships.

4b) Activities that would lower the security rating:
Player ship/pod kills. (A system's security rating could be artificially lowered through suiciding, but the overall increase to a system's worth would be less than the value of the ship destroyed.)

4c) If a system has no player activity, its security rating would rise or fall based on the other systems' changes. So if there's a lot of farming else where, raising those systems' rating, an unused system will get more lucrative.

5) Things the dynamic rating would change:
Quality and quantity of: asteroids and belts, combat sites, exploration sites, rats, and PI and moon materials. (Higher with lower rating.)
CONCORD response time within highsec. (Slower with lower rating.)
Strength of gate guns and faction police in the systems that have those. (Stronger with lower rating.)
What level of mission can appear. (Higher levels with lower rating.)
Broker taxes. (Lower with lower rating.)
Reprocessing efficiency. (Higher with lower rating.)
Manufacturing efficiency. (Better ME and shorter build times with lower rating.)


Some possible scenarios of how it would play out:

1) Consider a highsec cargo route choke point. As freighters get ganked, the security rating will go down, making ganking even easier. However at the same time, PvE players would drawn to the system because they would be able to make more money in it, and those activities would then raise the security back up. Eventually, a balance would be reached depending on the predominate play style. (And how CCP balances the impact each activity has - it'd be unfortunate if, for example, an hour's worth of mining can counteract a whole day's worth of ganking.)

2) Consider a currently -0.1 NPC nullsec stationless system. There's very little reason for people to go there. But if its 0.9 security rating (under the new system) slowly moves towards 0.0 as time goes on and other systems are farmed, pilots will be drawn to it, creating the opportunity for conflict.

3) Nomadism would become a viable way of EVE life, with groups moving around the map to follow where the money is. Different groups who never otherwise see each other would interact more. SOV entities would likely want to keep their territory but would be incented to move around despite the jump fatigue, meaning more subcap engagements.

4) New-player systems would likely retain their higher security status due to the quantity of players in them, and the relative lack of ship kills (due to CCPs current "no griefing newbies" guideline.) So newbies will remain relatively safe, while being encouraged to move out due to few money-making opportunities. (CCP could also artificially inflate the security rating if they'd like.)

So, just some brainstorming. The above could all be crap and I don't mind of people think it's stupid.

Periodically spawning a burner rat in a mining or ice belt would sure be fun.

F

High sec systems moving between 1 and .5, low-sec moving between .4 and .1 and null moving between 0.0 and -1.0 would be interesting. Fully free movement from 1 to -1 would probably drive to many people away.