These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Should eve have a feature where players can change the sec status of a system?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Linna Excel
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#1 - 2012-06-24 00:13:34 UTC
In my non-eve MMO time, I'm playing TERA. One of the things about it is that people who control an area of the game have the ability to turn pvp on or off if they like, among other things. So with that in mind, should players be able to adjust the sec status of a system in EVE either up or down?

If the status is lowered, more areas could be friendlier to PvP. I've heard that people out in null hate the lack of a trade hub or industry... so maybe if you raise the system to at least hi sec levels, the more trade and manufacturing is possible in the system with the highest levels going to 1.0 systems. Maybe if you get a 1.0 system, you can have newer players start off there as a member of your alliance if you want.

I can has blogging skills!
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#2 - 2012-06-24 00:16:01 UTC
lack of industry & hubs in nullsec is due to horrible outposts, not sec status

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#3 - 2012-06-24 00:16:45 UTC
and our newbies handle starting out in vfk just fine

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.
ModeratedToSilence
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#4 - 2012-06-24 00:44:23 UTC
With Eve Online's sov system how would one conquer other peoples space? The obvious fun game breaker I can see with your idea would be turn PVP off and never log back in.
Linna Excel
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#5 - 2012-06-24 02:17:04 UTC
ModeratedToSilence wrote:
With Eve Online's sov system how would one conquer other peoples space? The obvious fun game breaker I can see with your idea would be turn PVP off and never log back in.


I thought it was possible to capture sov. Obviously you could still declare war and take over the old fashioned way. However, there should be measures to prevent people from changing the sec of a system and then ignoring it. So if the carebears want to nerf null, they can if they can hold the systems. Likewise null can nerf low and high as well.

Probably some null systems and some hi systems would have to be off limits.

I can has blogging skills!
Schalac
Apocalypse Reign
#6 - 2012-06-24 02:57:53 UTC
How can you nerf low anymore?

SCHALAC HAS SPOKEN!! http://eveboard.com/pilot/Schalac
Graic Gabtar
The Lemon Party
#7 - 2012-06-24 03:15:08 UTC
Linna Excel wrote:
In my non-eve MMO time, I'm playing TERA. One of the things about it is that people who control an area of the game have the ability to turn pvp on or off if they like, among other things. So with that in mind, should players be able to adjust the sec status of a system in EVE either up or down?

If the status is lowered, more areas could be friendlier to PvP. I've heard that people out in null hate the lack of a trade hub or industry... so maybe if you raise the system to at least hi sec levels, the more trade and manufacturing is possible in the system with the highest levels going to 1.0 systems. Maybe if you get a 1.0 system, you can have newer players start off there as a member of your alliance if you want.
Maybe.

Just don't be too successful at it or make too much ISK from it.

Doesn't seem to be a popular concept at the moment raising levels of this and that for you know, profit.
Linna Excel
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#8 - 2012-06-24 03:20:40 UTC
Schalac wrote:
How can you nerf low anymore?


Just because the horse is dead doesn't mean you can't beat it a little more. You probably shouldn't beat it, but you can anyway. Blink




Actually, if you think about this it might help the low sec. Null users might want more null playgrounds. Carebears would want more places to run missions and explore. Giving both groups the ability to fight over those areas would make the game interesting. Low systems might not remain that way, but people would have the ability to up them or down them to make those systems more appealing.

I can has blogging skills!
Jih'dara
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#9 - 2012-06-24 03:36:30 UTC
I don't know.

I did hear about the CVA raising the sec status of one low-sec system from .04 to a mid-sec .049. I think this was a special case that required CCP intervention.

It makes sense that the security status of a system can be raised or lowered based on player activity in that system. A 0.5 mid-sec system could be lowered until it was a low-sec system if it was a 'choke hold' system where ganks frequently occurred, such as Niarja for example. I think this would have to be based on 'number of ships and pods destroyed' on an hourly basis, stretched out over a period of time such as months.

Yes, this would probably mean that Jita's security would eventually start going down, but isn't that what defines high sec from low-sec?

I've suggested this sort of thing before, and of course many people object to it. They would not want the trade hub of Jita to be fractured over different systems such as Sobaseki, etc. They also don't like the idea of a low-sec buffer zone between the four empires, which also -might- happen. Some say this has been tried before and al

Just as pirates could make the security of a system go down, non-pirates such as the Militia could make the security of a system go up. At the moment of course Pirates can also be part of the Militia, so there would have to be a way to fix this.

What I like about this is that it makes EvE a little more 'sandbox'. Players can now take a more active role in directly patrolling and enforcing the security of their own space, instead of leaving it to Concord. There is more reason to invest in a system where your actions have a direct effect on the EvE universe.
Lipbite
Express Hauler
#10 - 2012-06-24 03:51:53 UTC
I already proposed dynamic systems some time ago - including ability for players to discover new solar systems, build new gates, etc. etc. But TERA is latest generation MMO with freshly written compact code, EVE is 9 years old dinosaur with massive code base there slight changes may destroy parts of economy and gameplay as we've seen in rigged faction warfare where nobody want to play for Amarr - so I doubt we'll see anything new soon. At least not until Dust will be released, debugged and stabilized in a couple of years. CCP won't put itself in danger by risking to face new monoclegeddon and player exodus over radical changes in EVE mechanics while it has +1 game to develop and no other sources of income.
Barbara Nichole
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#11 - 2012-06-24 03:57:28 UTC
in general .. no.

  - remove the cloaked from local; free intel is the real problem, not  "afk" cloaking -

[IMG]http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a208/DawnFrostbringer/consultsig.jpg[/IMG]
Thor Kerrigan
Guardians of Asceticism
#12 - 2012-06-24 05:09:15 UTC
A common misconception is that highsec = PVP free zone.

And on a more serious note, how does one exactly change sov in a highsec system?
Sarah Schneider
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#13 - 2012-06-24 08:37:44 UTC
Thor Kerrigan wrote:
A common misconception is that highsec = PVP free zone.

And on a more serious note, how does one exactly change sov in a highsec system?

Made friends with CONCORD?

"I'd rather have other players get shot by other players than not interacting with others" -CCP Soundwave
Malacath Azaria
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#14 - 2012-06-24 10:13:15 UTC
In a way this would be pretty awesome. We could just make everything nullsec. On the other hand all the highsec bears would quit the game & I wouldn't have anyone to educate anymore.

All in all, this is the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
Potrondal Morrison
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#15 - 2012-06-24 11:10:01 UTC
Are you suggesting that high sec could change also, as that would have to be the case of you could change the sec status of null sec to even things out, in which case the goons, test, etc could come into every system and destroy the security status of it and turn the whole map into null sec, and i guarantee thats exactly what would happen .

I dont think this idea was thought through very well.
Ptraci
3 R Corporation
#16 - 2012-06-24 11:30:02 UTC
It's fairly predictable what would happen:

Nullsec and lowsec alliances would lower the sec status of hi sec systems, converting all of empire into low/nullsec. Carebears would complain but never be organized enough to put up an actual fight. There would be massive amounts of ganking and tears, and everyone would blame the goons. Noob systems would be camped once the easy PvP victi- er targets were forced to ragequit, and any noob jumping out of a noob system would be immediately ganked.

Is this what you want for EVE?
Lexmana
#17 - 2012-06-24 11:32:27 UTC
My favorite is to make the outcome of FW affect sec status in empire. If that would have been implemented there would hardly be any highsec right now in Amarr space and maybe we could get more players to help turn the tide in the war.
Ptraci
3 R Corporation
#18 - 2012-06-24 11:34:46 UTC
Lexmana wrote:
and maybe we could get more players to help turn the tide in the war.


That's the part that just won't happen. You can't force the carebears to take up arms, you can't bribe them, you can't coerce them. They will either do it on their own eventually, or they will move elsewhere or ragequit.
Lexmana
#19 - 2012-06-24 11:44:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Lexmana
Ptraci wrote:
Lexmana wrote:
and maybe we could get more players to help turn the tide in the war.


That's the part that just won't happen. You can't force the carebears to take up arms, you can't bribe them, you can't coerce them. They will either do it on their own eventually, or they will move elsewhere or ragequit.

You may be right. But I don't see that as a problem. With such mechanic the war will have real consequences for New Eden. Amarr highsec might become a pirate infested waste land and Minmatar might take over all the carebearing. But as long as there are realistic mechanics in the game to change all that within FW I think it just adds to the experience of EVE. Ofc, first they have to fix FW again.
Kuehnelt
Devoid Privateering
#20 - 2012-06-24 12:04:40 UTC
Apart from 'safety', higher-security systems are worse in every way than lower-security systems. If lowsec-dwellers could make all of lowsec be 0.1 rather than have these wholly inferior 0.2, 0.3, 0.4 systems, then they would. In nullsec, likewise: the more negative the better. In highsec, there's maybe some tension between missioners and miners (for whom 0.5 is better in every way than higher-security systems) and bots (for whom 1.0 is wholly preferable to 0.5-0.9).

So the very first thing your proposal would do is homogenize the galaxy. The struggles others have alluded to would be a poor replacement, and your vision of nullsec empires creating little pockets of highsec just wouldn't happen: they'd be destroying the value of their own space.
12Next page