Player Features and Ideas Discussion

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.

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?

see this post fails because it is based on the assumption that people dont like battleships existing in lowsec.

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.

You sick sick man. Now I have to get the idea of feathersword responding in a brightly painted gallente frigate out of my head....

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.

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.



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.

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)

No, you got it all wrong.

My idea is awful, but I feel good.

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.