These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Awful Low Sec Idea that you might want to read

Author
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#1 - 2012-08-06 19:51:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Nikk Narrel
EDIT: Removed ban on defensive fire. If they shot you first, they asked for it.


With a title like that, you know I am not likely to let you down. You might be finding this to be better than expected, in fact.

Ok, to clarify:

The reward side is already tweaked. The high sec pilots are not lemmings, and they are often avoiding low because of risk exclusively.

In order of consideration:
QUESTION 1 >>> Can I survive there if I go to do things there?
QUESTION 2 >>> Is it worth the effort?

You need to get past the perceived answer to question 1, in order for the reward to affect the answer to question 2.

Perhaps this explanation may help the understanding of philosophical differences. (Mission runner as example)

PvP logic: Don't fly what you can't afford to lose

PvE logic: fly the best ship possible so you can beat your mission, grab your reward, and move one step closer to your goal.
(Goal is a issue often unique to the pilot)

Q: Why isn't PvE trying to stick to ships they can afford to lose?
A: This would downgrade the type of mission they could attempt. They went to a lot of effort to build and learn the ship they are flying so they could tackle challenging missions.

Q: Why don't they gradually build up instead, grinding out lower missions with ships they can afford to lose?
A: They are playing it safe already staying in High Sec. Flying low sec in disposable ships to do missions repeatedly that you mastered long ago is boring.
The reward they want is not measured in ISK, it is measured in FUN. Challenging missions where they have their best ship, and the results are not guaranteed, this is what they seek. The fun penalty is not ship loss, but losing the mission.
Losing the mission often means hours of play for nothing, which is what is considered an acceptable penalty for failure.
Ship loss is reserved for avoidable and foolish mistakes.

Q: Why is this PvE dynamic so far removed from the PvP one?
A: Only the devs can explain why, but mission running uses different types of challenges than PvP fights. Often mission running is about active tanking long term fights, with predictable NPC reactions. PvP fights tend to be opportunistic, and unexpected to the target, with the aggressor having an obvious advantage on some level.

How is this idea different:
This idea does not fly off the deep end by assuming a fix can be made on the high security side. This problem is not located on the high security side because that is not what is broken here!
The problem is that low security is repulsive to many PvE pilots, since they see it only as a way to lose their treasured mission running or mining ships. Every kill mail on one of these reinforces this view.


Here is the base concept:
High sec is effectively war dec only PvP and suicide ganking.
(FW is more like a sub category of war dec style)

Null sec is anything goes. You can hot drop titans on anything under the right conditions, even.

Low sec, using a swimming pool analogy, is the shallow end of null sec PvP.
The smaller ships get to play here without the bigger ones overshadowing the action.


Low Security space. Something that should be between high security and null sec.

I would suggest something for it, instead, to limit it in some ways, and open it up in others.

No more gate guns. Forget them since I suspect they had the effect of creating all or nothing PvP at gates.

Limited Response Empire Navy:
Anything using large modules, (be it shield booster or large weapon types), that would draw Concord attention with it's use in high sec also does the same thing here, but with local Empire Navy response. This includes cruise missiles launchers and torpedo too.
No large rigs may be fitted to a ship wishing to avoid attention either.
Empire navies do NOT care about medium or small module / weapon usage. They cannot even see it unless you fire on them directly.

Something to keep in mind: Empire navies do not care which ship class you use, just which modules you activate. If you want to fit a BS hull with medium modules, go for it.

Gameplay impact: So long as you use medium or small modules rigs and weapons, empire navies do not exist to bother you.

Empire navies do care: They are honoring a multi-empire treaty which bans usage of large weapons and other gear. Use of a large weapon or other module in a hostile manner will bring them the same as if you had acted first in High Sec.

To clarify: Don't shoot first unless using medium or smaller guns. If you do start shooting with medium or smaller weapons, do not activate any defenses or have online any passive effects from large modules or rigs.
If your ship is equipped with large passives in either module or rig form, avoid using any weapons on player ships unless you want the local navy to come for you.

You can always mount a defense, even with large modules. You can only return fire with large modules. No firing on ships unprovoked unless fitted exclusively with small or medium items.

Expected impact: Cruiser sized and smaller hulls rule the day in low sec. Mock capital ships fitting BC and BS hulls with medium modules exist, but they must exercise caution. The BS hulls cannot have large rigs fitted, or anything classified as large. (Neither can BC, but a BC uses valid medium rigs where the BS can't use any large here)

Battleships doing missions should avoid shooting player ships except in defense outside of a war dec. (Assuming fits using large modules) The benefit to this forced pacifist behavior is they have a good chance of being able to tank threats effectively, and possibly escape if prepared.
Nalha Saldana
The Vomit Comets
#2 - 2012-08-06 19:58:31 UTC
Based on module size? I don't even know where to begin explaining why this is a terribad idea..
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#3 - 2012-08-06 20:02:43 UTC
Nalha Saldana wrote:
Based on module size? I don't even know where to begin explaining why this is a terribad idea..

Module and rig size, actually.

I suggest you consider the results this creates. Would you want a section of space that catered to PvP for medium and small size?
Nalha Saldana
The Vomit Comets
#4 - 2012-08-06 20:05:12 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Nalha Saldana wrote:
Based on module size? I don't even know where to begin explaining why this is a terribad idea..

Module and rig size, actually.

I suggest you consider the results this creates. Would you want a section of space that catered to PvP for medium and small size?


Like nullsec? Everyone is flying drakes, tengus, canes and logis anyway :P

Nah but battleships are not ruining lowsec, they are not the issue.
freighter hater
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#5 - 2012-08-06 20:06:04 UTC
see this post fails because it is based on the assumption that people dont like battleships existing in lowsec.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#6 - 2012-08-06 20:11:34 UTC
freighter hater wrote:
see this post fails because it is based on the assumption that people dont like battleships existing in lowsec.

Not true.

My idea explicitly promotes battleship usage in two ways:

1> The Mission runner's BS. With the possible addition of a stab, (advise caution with that range penalty), this makes it potentially risk manageable for high sec mission runners to bring their expensive toys over. Knowing only medium sized weapons or smaller can be involved shooting at them, and the perpetual tank many have against NPCs, this makes them more survivable. Nothing perfect, but it pushes the level of risk down.

2> Big fish in a small pond. The BS becomes a mock capital ship, mounting no rigs but using all medium modules. It doesn't target quickly, but it is durable in ways many pilots may not expect.
Velicitia
XS Tech
#7 - 2012-08-06 20:28:44 UTC
No. No need for CONCORD in lowsec ... else it's hisec ... since sec status is given by CONCORD anyway ...

MAYBE the faction navies, and they can be terribad at saving your ass (i.e. random chance they spawn)... but even that might be overdoing it.

One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia

Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#8 - 2012-08-06 20:38:31 UTC
Velicitia wrote:
No. No need for CONCORD in lowsec ... else it's hisec ... since sec status is given by CONCORD anyway ...

MAYBE the faction navies, and they can be terribad at saving your ass (i.e. random chance they spawn)... but even that might be overdoing it.

It could be the wiggles for all I care, I just want the end effect to be that it feels prohibitive to use large guns / missiles / defenses.
And that could easily mean that faction navies jump into fights on the side opposing the large fittings user. Not an automatic death sentence, but hardly good for the odds of winning a fight.


I am trying to make it like null so long as you avoid anything considered large deliberately involved in PvP.

Suicide ganking should be less common than in high sec, since a properly equipped ship using medium or smaller fittings is perfectly free to fire first every time.
Mary Annabelle
Moonlit Bonsai
#9 - 2012-08-06 20:51:26 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:


It could be the wiggles for all I care,


You sick sick man. Now I have to get the idea of feathersword responding in a brightly painted gallente frigate out of my head....
PhantomTrojan
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#10 - 2012-08-07 03:05:46 UTC
in my opinion, its a terrible idea.
Why you dont want bs fighting in lowsec?
i fail to see why, mission runners bs would get raped by any small ship anyway, any t2 or t3 cruiser can eat alive the average mission runner bs. Also battlecruiser with medium weapons is at least 2 times better than a bs with med weapons.

and by the way this would make any kind of gate camp and hunting very easy because would make possible to camp with interceptors with 8k scan res.
hungrymanbreakfast
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#11 - 2012-08-07 04:36:21 UTC
This is not the way to fix lowsec. Thanks for posting on the subject though as CCP has 0 interest in doing anything with lowsec beyond the FW nonsense Its nice to know people are actually thinking about it.

Also I laugh at stabbed ships when I'm sitting in my HIC, or my shadow serp scrambler proteus. By all means please try that so I can be free of your guns while I wait for my friends.
Gerrick Palivorn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#12 - 2012-08-07 06:02:43 UTC
You're right, this is a terribad idea, kudo's for atleast addressing the issue. ;)

Lowsec needs fixing and your idea has some good suggestions actually. I don't have time right now to say to much, but I like the direction this may be heading.

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

Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#13 - 2012-08-07 13:54:20 UTC
Gerrick Palivorn wrote:
You're right, this is a terribad idea, kudo's for atleast addressing the issue. ;)

I knew that when I put it up. It is in serious need of refinement to say the least.

That being said, I think it is a starting point to actually getting a better solution. A lot of people talk about how they are dissatisfied regarding low sec.
Listening to what is said gives me the impression of having the downsides of null and high sec, without the advantages.

Gerrick Palivorn wrote:
Lowsec needs fixing and your idea has some good suggestions actually. I don't have time right now to say to much, but I like the direction this may be heading.


Here is the base concept:
High sec is effectively war dec only PvP and suicide ganking.
(FW is more like a sub category of war dec style)

Null sec is anything goes. You can hot drop titans on anything under the right conditions, even.

Low sec, using a swimming pool analogy, is the shallow end of null sec PvP.
The smaller ships get to play here without the bigger ones overshadowing the action.
Mary Annabelle
Moonlit Bonsai
#14 - 2012-08-07 20:43:21 UTC
What about drones?
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#15 - 2012-08-08 14:09:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Nikk Narrel
Mary Annabelle wrote:
What about drones?

I am thinking to set sentries and large type drones the same as large modules.

They overshadow the usefulness of smaller ships.

To prevent exploits against mission runners and war dec types, (FW included), large type drones would not engage player targets without a warning, if said attack would result in Concord / Faction navy aggro.
(Noone gets to trick them into fighting back to get aggro onto them)
Malatha
Collapsed Out
Pandemic Legion
#16 - 2012-08-08 14:43:54 UTC
Your idea is bad, and you should feel bad.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#17 - 2012-08-08 14:56:52 UTC
Malatha wrote:
Your idea is bad, and you should feel bad.

No, you got it all wrong.

My idea is awful, but I feel good.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#18 - 2012-08-29 16:41:12 UTC
Velicitia wrote:
No. No need for CONCORD in lowsec ... else it's hisec ... since sec status is given by CONCORD anyway ...

MAYBE the faction navies, and they can be terribad at saving your ass (i.e. random chance they spawn)... but even that might be overdoing it.

On further consideration, I believe you have good insight on this.

I have amended the OP to specify empire navies as the responder.

We all understand that they are not the absolute force that Concord represents.
That said, this is more PvP oriented than high sec, and rule breaking here can be survived.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#19 - 2012-10-18 21:02:52 UTC
I have amended the OP to include some details on the logic for this idea.

How is this idea different:
This idea does not fly off the deep end by assuming a fix can be made on the high security side. This problem is not located on the high security side because that is not what is broken here!
The problem is that low security is repulsive to many PvE pilots, since they see it only as a way to lose their treasured mission running or mining ships. Every kill mail on one of these reinforces this view.

The threat level of low sec is effectively the same to these pilots as null sec. There is no gradual increase to threat.
It is viewed as follows:
High Sec: Safe for PvE. (Safe compared to below, we all know it has risks)
Low Sec: Die in a Fire.
Null Sec: Die in a well organized fire possibly with capital ships involved.

See? To the high sec oriented pilot, all they really know is they will be the main feature in a BBQ, and that is a hard sell to make.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#20 - 2012-10-18 21:16:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Nikk Narrel
PhantomTrojan wrote:
in my opinion, its a terrible idea.
Why you dont want bs fighting in lowsec?
i fail to see why, mission runners bs would get raped by any small ship anyway, any t2 or t3 cruiser can eat alive the average mission runner bs. Also battlecruiser with medium weapons is at least 2 times better than a bs with med weapons.

and by the way this would make any kind of gate camp and hunting very easy because would make possible to camp with interceptors with 8k scan res.

I just was inspired to respond to this, admittedly some time after the fact.

For starters, I don't want to eliminate any class of ship from low sec. My idea uses battleships freely, with medium or small fittings.
However, no ship can mount large or extra large modules and or rigs and engage in PvP. They cannot shoot first. All they are permitted is purely defensive.
Any ship firing with large or extra large modules / rigs will draw the attention of the faction navies, as described.

These are not Concord. You can run from them, you can survive them.
But the chances of winning in a fight with them helping your opponent is a disadvantage you must accept.
123Next pageLast page