These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Assembly Hall

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Proposal] More Dynamic changes between Null -High Sec
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
z Flint
z Mining Corp
#1 - 2011-10-19 19:06:38 UTC  |  Edited by: z Flint
What I propose would be for the borders between the Empire’s and Null- Sec to be in flux. This can be accomplished by during an update to a 0.4 system that has shown a higher use by a plus rated Corp or Alliance be moved to a 0.5 status. The same could be done if a minus 10 .0 - 0.0 Corp or Alliance moves in or continues to hold the area. This may happen to 1 to 10 systems per update or maybe entire constellations during a major update. (ie. Incursion) This would be more realistic of showing political changes between Empire’s for materials and/or expansion.

Some ideas that would help with this:

1. That High Sec mining belts be sized down to account for the years of mining to push miners to the outer areas or into low or null sec to make ISK’s

2. Using the new PI plans. Set the tax on Concord Custom stations in Null Space, 0.0 to 0.4 and 0.9 stations to 40%, 0.8 to 30%, 0.7 to 20%, 0.6 to 10%, 0.5 to 5% . In Null Space to 0.4, a Concord Custom Station will stay in place till 24 hours after a Player Owned Custom Station comes online. At that time is will be assumed that the Concord workers have been hired by the POCS or evacuated by Concord. A POCS will stay online till destroyed or the Empire has rated the system to a level of 0.7 or higher. At 0.7 Concord will either pay for the POCS pro-rated by standing of the Corp or Alliance to the dominating Empire or by hostile takeover. Once a POCS is destroyed or falls into non-uses , the planet it orbits will be inaccessible for Planetary Interaction till rebuilt.
Endovior
PFU Consortium
#2 - 2011-10-19 19:25:56 UTC
Actually, I think that Concord probably shouldn't put up any Customs Stations in lowsec at all; let player corporations (and/or pirates!) do that themselves. Give them a taste of nullsec conflict mechanics, and the necessity of defending some expensive thing based on a timer... see what happens.
Dark Drifter
Sons of Seyllin
Pirate Lords of War
#3 - 2011-10-19 19:55:50 UTC
... concord are not supplying NPC customs offices to low sec, and no.

if you decide to live in low security space you take the hit . changing security status of a sys over an expansion will have adverse effects that you have not ever nconsidered.

1. traping -10 players assets in highsec: this is counter to what CCP wants. they like the fact that people decide to live outside the confines of the law. traping assets on a whim is not CCPs style

2. influx of caps in highsec border systems: i myself live in a .4 system and if the security status was raised then i would lose the ability to field my capital contingent this may not seem like a majure problem to you but.. there are plenty of 0.0 alliance who use these border systems to store and move capital ships. this change would cause IMO upheaval on par with the NEX

3. changing a .5 to a .4: could potentialy cut off entire areas of space to people who need to move around. udema is just one example of this . all trade lanes pass through udema .

not supported
z Flint
z Mining Corp
#4 - 2011-10-20 17:55:39 UTC
Endovior wrote:
Actually, I think that Concord probably shouldn't put up any Customs Stations in lowsec at all; let player corporations (and/or pirates!) do that themselves. Give them a taste of nullsec conflict mechanics, and the necessity of defending some expensive thing based on a timer... see what happens.


There are a couple of ways that CCP could make this new idea of Custom Stations to be built even in Null Sec would be:

1. Place a Concord station with a high tarriff.

2. Make the surface to orbit delivery nurffed by about 75%.

They have to get Eve ready for the Dust 514 offshoot.


Dark Drifter wrote:
... concord are not supplying NPC customs offices to low sec, and no.

if you decide to live in low security space you take the hit . changing security status of a sys over an expansion will have adverse effects that you have not ever nconsidered.

1. traping -10 players assets in highsec: this is counter to what CCP wants. they like the fact that people decide to live outside the confines of the law. traping assets on a whim is not CCPs style

2. influx of caps in highsec border systems: i myself live in a .4 system and if the security status was raised then i would lose the ability to field my capital contingent this may not seem like a majure problem to you but.. there are plenty of 0.0 alliance who use these border systems to store and move capital ships. this change would cause IMO upheaval on par with the NEX

3. changing a .5 to a .4: could potentialy cut off entire areas of space to people who need to move around. udema is just one example of this . all trade lanes pass through udema .

not supported


I have thought of quite a lot. I have dabbled in politics, criminal organizations, and corporate greed.

In responce to your points 1 & 2. Most of this is basic economics. If you .4 system you live in is (to you) invaded by a +10 alliance and they build a POS and start taking over all the planets with Custom stations and they are able to hold it against all comers. And you spend most of your time on your Alt because your -10 toon wakes up in a clone vat every time you undock, you will probably try to find a new home way before CCP would ever change the security status of the system.

Your number 3 is not a good example. Udema is a major trade route inside a major empire house whereas limited ganking can accure. If enough traders get ganked over a period of time, then politics (CCP) may raise the sec status to lower Concord or Milita response time. A better Example would be Actee an island high sec area that with the current ganking of miners has curbed the total economic out flow of ice and minerals from the system and if over a period of time it would be uneconomic and politic to remove Concord and or Milita assits, therefore lowering the security status of the system.
TrollFace TrololMcFluf
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#5 - 2011-10-20 18:45:57 UTC
I read "push people out of highsec" and i thought to myself how much of a idiot you must be you try to force someone to do something and they will do the exact opposite
Solo Player
#6 - 2011-10-24 20:03:08 UTC
Dynamic sec status sounds very good - I'd definitely want to see that.
All those trying to protect their play style and in-game habits just fear the need to adapt even a little. Sec too low/high for you? Get to work lowering it back to your needs!

That said, I won't support you proposal. It does not seem complex enough and thus far too likely to be gamed in some way. Activity involving risks and costs should be required to affect something as fundamental as sec status, and it needs to be kept up for months.
Sec changes should primarily reflect player behaviour, not targetted campaigns.