These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Smooth the abrupt cliff between 0.5 and 0.4

Author
LordPidey Adtur
Aloren Foundations
#1 - 2012-10-17 11:44:37 UTC  |  Edited by: LordPidey Adtur
Hello fellow capsuleers.

As of right now, for most people at least, 0.5 is viewn as completely safe, and 0.4 is seen as a completely lawless hellhole where you will get mercilessly destroyed by about ten people as soon as you enter, and your only defense is a gate turret that does little more than spit at those who violate the law.

While I know that that view isn't always true, it CAN be true.

I know CCP wants to encourage hi-sec players to venture into low-sec.

However, the slightly increased profit in low-sec is simply NOT worth the huge amount of risk involved. Most of the risk is immediate destruction at the gate.


What I propose, is that in 0.4 systems, ONLY on gates that point to hi-sec, have the gate turret give a ONE point scram.

This will mean that either in a gatecamp, ONE of the attackers will die... or have to reduce their lockrange/speed to crap by putting a warp stab on it.


You can't really encourage people to go do stuff in low-sec, when the mere result of ENTERING is almost certain death.



I want low-sec to be dangerous, but the danger curve should be a CURVE, not a cliff between 0.5 and 0.4
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#2 - 2012-10-17 12:27:06 UTC
Then the cliff will be between 0.4 and 0.3. Your solution solve nothing. Just scout and you will be safe BTW. I often jump these gates and see nobody. It's not that dangerous.
Galphii
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#3 - 2012-10-17 12:33:58 UTC
Not every gate to lowsec is camped, and the campers tend to attract wandering predators if they stay there too long as well. There are some changes coming to lowsec that will impact gatecamps, as I recall (gate guns doing increasing damage over time), so this issue is being addressed. But yeah, scouting is always a good option, as is looking at the map to see how many ships have been destroyed in the last hour.

"Wow, that internet argument completely changed my fundamental belief system," said no one, ever.

AFKish
Doomheim
#4 - 2012-10-17 12:45:17 UTC
However, the slightly increased profit in low-sec is simply NOT worth the huge amount of risk involved.

I guess you never saw the isk people are making in faction warfare in lowsec?
BILLIONS MY FRIEND AS FAR AS THE EYE CAN SEE!
LordPidey Adtur
Aloren Foundations
#5 - 2012-10-17 12:53:07 UTC
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
Then the cliff will be between 0.4 and 0.3. Your solution solve nothing. Just scout and you will be safe BTW. I often jump these gates and see nobody. It's not that dangerous.

The cliff won't be nearly as bad though.

As it is now,
0.5 (almost completely safe) -> 0.4 (extremely dangerous) -> 0.3 (extremely dangerous)

With my change it would be
0.5 (almost completely safe) -> 0.4 (Somewhat safe) -> 0.3 (extremely dangerous)

This instead turns the danger cliff into merely a very steep curve.




And AFKish, that's for FW people. Most people are NOT into FW, so it doesn't help populate low sec much.
Doddy
Excidium.
#6 - 2012-10-17 13:13:25 UTC
LordPidey Adtur wrote:
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
Then the cliff will be between 0.4 and 0.3. Your solution solve nothing. Just scout and you will be safe BTW. I often jump these gates and see nobody. It's not that dangerous.

The cliff won't be nearly as bad though.
.


How about we just remove concord from anywhere but gates/stations in 0.5s instead
Schmata Bastanold
In Boobiez We Trust
#7 - 2012-10-17 13:20:40 UTC
Lowsec population is not low because gate camps, you can always scout/check map stats/go around them. Lowsec is "empty" because beside pvp there is nothing else to do in there. I mean, of course there are people doing PI/missions/mining/exploration but difference between rewards in low and in hisec with risk calculated in is simply not worth it. And of course that "empty" is also not completely true because is depends on TZ and region and people operating in area, also FW space tends to be rather busy due to plexers looking for farming grounds and people going after them.

So setting up border fates with additional CONCORD forces won't fix anything because even if you get relatively safe into 0.4 what will you do there? Sit on gate all the time because venturing into any of your activities will lead to same risks of getting ganked as it is right now.

Lowsec needs better rewards for risk taken not buffed up police presence.

Invalid signature format

Lin-Young Borovskova
Doomheim
#8 - 2012-10-17 15:09:55 UTC
LordPidey Adtur wrote:
Hello fellow capsuleers.

As of right now, for most people at least, 0.5 is viewn as completely safe, and 0.4 is seen as a completely lawless hellhole where you will get mercilessly destroyed by about ten people as soon as you enter, and your only defense is a gate turret that does little more than spit at those who violate the law.

While I know that that view isn't always true, it CAN be true.

I know CCP wants to encourage hi-sec players to venture into low-sec.

However, the slightly increased profit in low-sec is simply NOT worth the huge amount of risk involved. Most of the risk is immediate destruction at the gate.


What I propose, is that in 0.4 systems, ONLY on gates that point to hi-sec, have the gate turret give a ONE point scram.

This will mean that either in a gatecamp, ONE of the attackers will die... or have to reduce their lockrange/speed to crap by putting a warp stab on it.


You can't really encourage people to go do stuff in low-sec, when the mere result of ENTERING is almost certain death.



I want low-sec to be dangerous, but the danger curve should be a CURVE, not a cliff between 0.5 and 0.4


You jump your pixels directly in to someone guns, that is what gate camping is all about. There's no fight, there's no chance for you to escape 99% of the time and gate/Station guns dps/mechanic is so ridiculous you can perfectly pick a couple friends and camp it indefinitely while you're killing one by one everything passing through.

Gates were an awesome tool to provide pvp with little players numbers, with large players numbers is nothing but another form of graveyard camping.

brb

Lin-Young Borovskova
Doomheim
#9 - 2012-10-17 15:14:31 UTC
Schmata Bastanold wrote:
Lowsec needs better rewards for risk taken not buffed up police presence.



You're misunderstanding the real problem. There's no reward interesting enough when you know you have 100% chances of not getting it.
And besides, low sec has already far too many and interesting rewards added all over the years and changed absolutely nothing because the real problem over there is how easy it is to completely close low sec access or travel.

brb

Schmata Bastanold
In Boobiez We Trust
#10 - 2012-10-17 15:27:05 UTC
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:
Schmata Bastanold wrote:
Lowsec needs better rewards for risk taken not buffed up police presence.



You're misunderstanding the real problem. There's no reward interesting enough when you know you have 100% chances of not getting it.
And besides, low sec has already far too many and interesting rewards added all over the years and changed absolutely nothing because the real problem over there is how easy it is to completely close low sec access or travel.


Close access or travel? With what exactly except perma camps? And I'm pretty sure lowsec people are not organized enough to perma camp all routes in a out of lowsec. So yes, you can jump into camp, get blown up, reship, make a detour -> done.

Camps are excuse not real problem. Problem is in minds of people accustomed with hisec security. I went to low after first month of my eve life and nothing happened. Because getting your frig exploded is not end of the world, it is nice beginning.

I don't really care about how powerful gates on hisec/lowsec borders are, I just jump through them and move on. They can even be like CONCORD instablapping everything in sight, if you can't take care of your security yourself you will die the minute you land somewhere after warp from gate safety.

Invalid signature format

Verity Sovereign
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#11 - 2012-10-17 15:32:57 UTC
I've previously proposed getting rid of concord in 0.5, and instead having strong faction police (although it would be possible to escape these police without losing your ship - although it would be difficult) with multiple webbing and scramming frigs spawned for each aggressor - as well as a T1 "support frigate" that gives reps to the victim

In 0.4, you still have the faction police, but the spawns are smaller, and they only web- no scrams.
Also, no reps to the "victim".
In this case, if you get attacked, if you can hold out a bit, NPC backup will arrive and hopefully drive them off the field.
Of course, if an engagement is over quickly, the pirate can be gone before the NPCs arrive on the scene

0.5 becomes *much* more dangerous, as what used to be suicide ganks are not necessarily suicidal anymore.
0.4 becomes a bit safer if you travel in a properly tanked combat ship


As to your idea... I like the idea of local safety near the gates - solo players have no way of knowing what is on the other side of the gate, and a mechanic that encourages dual boxing repeated trial alts in noob ships to scout ahead is stupid.

I'd be in favor of putting a tiny POS type shield (5km radius? have ships spawn that close to the gate?) around the gates - you can enter a system, and look at your overview in relative safety (though bumping out of the shield is still possible, at which point they tackle and kill you)...
but doing any other activity in low sec has no security.

You can go to the other side of a gate in relative safety, but you can't mission, rat, plex, mine, etc in safety.

The "reward" activities still have the risk,
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#12 - 2012-10-17 15:47:07 UTC
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:
You're misunderstanding the real problem. There's no reward interesting enough when you know you have 100% chances of not getting it.
And besides, low sec has already far too many and interesting rewards added all over the years and changed absolutely nothing because the real problem over there is how easy it is to completely close low sec access or travel.

I suggested an idea a while back.
(Linking is flaky again, thread name: Awful Low Sec Idea that you might want to read)

The point was this: Concord's protection does not effectively taper off.

The PvP difference between current low sec and null is mostly academic. So the guys shooting you might have a penalty to their sec status.
You don't think that's going to stop anyone, do you?

My idea was to allow partial freedom to use light and medium equipped ships. (Modules and Rig sizes)
You could use ANY ship you wanted to, and fight and shoot anyone first... so long as you equipped nothing large or extra large.

Running missions? Great for you. Equip your ship however you like for PvE, but never ever shoot in PvP if you have large anything online.
(And why should you really care? Crank up your tank, and leave. A BS or bigger has a defensive advantage often against smaller vessels)

Yes, it is rough, and needs a dev to properly balance, but it looks into the right direction for a more gradual transition between high and null rule sets
Milton Middleson
Rifterlings
#13 - 2012-10-17 15:49:33 UTC
There are other entrances to lowsec besides the shortest route from a major trade hub to the nearest lowsec. Amamake, OMS, and Tama are not representative. Or you could just bust the camp with your friends, since most gatecamping pirates are incredibly fail pvpers.

But all this is beside the point, because you're never going to lure the risk intolerant into lowsec. Better to give the risk tolerant more reasons to pick low over null.
HELLBOUNDMAN
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#14 - 2012-10-17 16:48:05 UTC
1.0 - 0.6 = high sec

0.5 = mid sec - you can flee from concord, however, you're still criminal flagged and attackable by all players. Concord will still respond and chase you.

0.4 = large amounts of gate and station defenses, no concord response. No capital ships.

0.3 = less gate and station defenses, no concord response. No capital ships.

0.2 = gate and station defenses, no concord response. capitals can enter, but not super caps.

0.1 = tankable gate and station defenses, no concord response. capitals can enter, no super capitals.

0.0 - -1.0 - null sec, no loss of standings, no criminal flags.. anything goes.


You should be able to do anything in null sec without any reprecutions that aren't introduced by the players. No sec loss, no criminal flagging, etc. etc..

In low sec 0.4 - 0.1 concord will not respond but you will be criminal flagged, attacked by station and gate guns, lose sec status, etc. etc..

In 0.5 you're allowed to attempt a fleeing from concord response, but you will be attacked by gate and station guns if entering low sec, as well as attacked by any concord when entering further into high sec.

0.6 - 1.0 general high sec with the same settings.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#15 - 2012-10-17 17:22:36 UTC
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:
1.0 - 0.6 = high sec

0.5 = mid sec - you can flee from concord, however, you're still criminal flagged and attackable by all players. Concord will still respond and chase you.

0.4 = large amounts of gate and station defenses, no concord response. No capital ships.

0.3 = less gate and station defenses, no concord response. No capital ships.

0.2 = gate and station defenses, no concord response. capitals can enter, but not super caps.

0.1 = tankable gate and station defenses, no concord response. capitals can enter, no super capitals.

0.0 - -1.0 - null sec, no loss of standings, no criminal flags.. anything goes.


You should be able to do anything in null sec without any reprecutions that aren't introduced by the players. No sec loss, no criminal flagging, etc. etc..

In low sec 0.4 - 0.1 concord will not respond but you will be criminal flagged, attacked by station and gate guns, lose sec status, etc. etc..

In 0.5 you're allowed to attempt a fleeing from concord response, but you will be attacked by gate and station guns if entering low sec, as well as attacked by any concord when entering further into high sec.

0.6 - 1.0 general high sec with the same settings.

I gotta ask, how is this gradual to the significant number of pilots who are afraid to risk their ships outside of high sec?

If you have a PvE boat, your low sec may as well be null, for all the sense of safety it offers.
You effectively made .5 space gank happy too, they won't lose their ships as easily.

My understanding was this should be enticing to the high security pilot who might consider low sec for their PvE, and possibly even try PvP.
There is a big difference between "don't fly anything you can't lose", and "fly here to lose it".
HELLBOUNDMAN
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#16 - 2012-10-17 17:33:38 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:
1.0 - 0.6 = high sec

0.5 = mid sec - you can flee from concord, however, you're still criminal flagged and attackable by all players. Concord will still respond and chase you.

0.4 = large amounts of gate and station defenses, no concord response. No capital ships.

0.3 = less gate and station defenses, no concord response. No capital ships.

0.2 = gate and station defenses, no concord response. capitals can enter, but not super caps.

0.1 = tankable gate and station defenses, no concord response. capitals can enter, no super capitals.

0.0 - -1.0 - null sec, no loss of standings, no criminal flags.. anything goes.


You should be able to do anything in null sec without any reprecutions that aren't introduced by the players. No sec loss, no criminal flagging, etc. etc..

In low sec 0.4 - 0.1 concord will not respond but you will be criminal flagged, attacked by station and gate guns, lose sec status, etc. etc..

In 0.5 you're allowed to attempt a fleeing from concord response, but you will be attacked by gate and station guns if entering low sec, as well as attacked by any concord when entering further into high sec.

0.6 - 1.0 general high sec with the same settings.

I gotta ask, how is this gradual to the significant number of pilots who are afraid to risk their ships outside of high sec?

If you have a PvE boat, your low sec may as well be null, for all the sense of safety it offers.
You effectively made .5 space gank happy too, they won't lose their ships as easily.

My understanding was this should be enticing to the high security pilot who might consider low sec for their PvE, and possibly even try PvP.
There is a big difference between "don't fly anything you can't lose", and "fly here to lose it".


As it sits right now, low sec gate and station guns are tankable.
With my suggestion, .4 guns would ****, .3 guns would leave little time to get away, .2 might leave enough for a quick battle, .1 would be tankable.

So, you would be protected fairly well as long as you're at a gate or station, and this would brake gate camps.

Not, the lack of capitals in. 4 and. 3 systems would help with those that like small scale pvp without worrying about hot drops.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#17 - 2012-10-17 17:38:41 UTC
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:
As it sits right now, low sec gate and station guns are tankable.
With my suggestion, .4 guns would ****, .3 guns would leave little time to get away, .2 might leave enough for a quick battle, .1 would be tankable.

So, you would be protected fairly well as long as you're at a gate or station, and this would brake gate camps.

Not, the lack of capitals in. 4 and. 3 systems would help with those that like small scale pvp without worrying about hot drops.

It's a start, but Joe PvE doesn't hang out at gates or stations as much as he goes to mission sites, or roid belts.

If he doesn't think he has a good chance to survive a surprise attack, that fear of a surprise attack will keep him away.
Obsidiana
Atrament Inc.
#18 - 2012-10-17 22:21:23 UTC
It's a hotly debated topic. Fact is nullsec is safer than lowsec. Heck, sometimes it is safer than highsec.

IMHO...
Risk: nullsec > lowsec > highsec
Reward: nullsec > lowsec > highsec

The problem I see is that people want to throw money at the problem. They want to just add stuff to lowsec and even make highsec worthless. They also see juicy highsec targets with costly modules and think this change would make them accessible targets (I've seen the threads and pointed out the logic flaws). This conventional thinking is what has led to the depopulation of lowsec.

Lowsec needs to be safe enough to draw in many targets. Those targets need to make more ISK than they lose, or they will leave. No matter how much you can make in lowsec, if you can't turn a profit better than highsec, you leave. From there, it should be survival of the fittest, with the hunt being for weaker prey.

Most people want more easy targets in lowsec; they should want more difficult targets.
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#19 - 2012-10-17 22:26:52 UTC
Just nerf high sec profits by 25% across the board.

Will force bears that really want to make isk to actually learn the terribly easy things you need to know to be able to live in low sec without getting ganked whenever you peak outside.

BYDI recruitment closed-ish

Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#20 - 2012-10-17 23:16:06 UTC
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:


0.5 = mid sec - you can flee from concord, however, you're still criminal flagged and attackable by all players. Concord will still respond and chase you.



fleeing from concord in a 0.5 isnt an exploit? how did i miss that?...

for the OP: hi sec is not safe, just relatively safe to low sec.

low sec is a barren wasteland with no serious opportunities for grinding like a hi sec player. its more a free-for-all of scavengers and outlaws.

Wormholes on the other hand are far less traveled and don't have as much of a problem with opportunistic pvp'ers. they are also worth more. u just have to know how to watch ur back.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs

12Next page