These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Dynamic Sec Status - Your Input Required

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Endymion Varg
Interstellar Vermin Inc.
#1 - 2012-11-18 02:25:09 UTC
I think we can all agree that Eve's content is supposed to be dynamic and preferably player generated. This makes the world feel alive and meaningful. Currently one of the big determinants in how the game is played is the security rating of solar systems, but this feature is entirely static, which is contrary to the dynamism/user-influenced mantra. The decisions that CCP made when designating systems as high or low-sec are driving the player experience, whereas I believe it should be the other way around.

Let me be clear. I'm not advocating the removal of the security status rating. It's a good feature, but I think that the collective actions of people in solar systems should determine the security status of said systems. This goes without saying, but it would only be possible to change a system's sec status in empire space (leave null out of this).

I think that actions like suicide ganking, can flipping and other illegal activities should, over time, lower the security status of a system, eventually driving it below 0.5. The problem that I'm having right now is coming up with good ideas for actions that would do the opposite, namely to increase the security status of systems. One way would be to make it passive, so that if no illegal activity takes place in a given low-sec system for a certain amount of time, its rating would automatically go up, possibly surpassing 0.5, at which point Concord would move in and the system would become high-sec. Another possibility is to raise the sec-status of a system when known outlaws (people with negative rating) are killed.

Anyway, this thread is for people to contribute their own ideas for how to make sure this feature is balanced, so we don't get all of empire shrinking to a few small islands of high-sec, or the opposite where we get no low-sec left. Alternatively, if you think the idea is total ****, let me know as well.

Will pirate for food.
Thor Kerrigan
Guardians of Asceticism
#2 - 2012-11-18 02:35:11 UTC
Introduce a fluctuating sec but cap the min/max of each system. Only 0.4/0.5 should really swap between high and low as these are usually the key systems you want to flip on way or another.

The rest of 0.6 -> 1.0 would simply see a fluctuation of CONCORD response time and 0.3 -> 0.1 would see a fluctuation in sec loss/gate gun DPS.
Endymion Varg
Interstellar Vermin Inc.
#3 - 2012-11-18 02:39:18 UTC
Thor Kerrigan wrote:
Introduce a fluctuating sec but cap the min/max of each system. Only 0.4/0.5 should really swap between high and low as these are usually the key systems you want to flip on way or another.

The rest of 0.6 -> 1.0 would simply see a fluctuation of CONCORD response time and 0.3 -> 0.1 would see a fluctuation in sec loss/gate gun DPS.


I like this. It's a much more cautious approach, but still retains the core principle. Any ideas on how people would go about raising a system's sec status?

Will pirate for food.
Bane Necran
Appono Astos
#4 - 2012-11-18 02:53:00 UTC
Endymion Varg wrote:
Any ideas on how people would go about raising a system's sec status?


I think even with the best possible way to do that, you're invariably going to have to implement some kind of automatic balance to it. Whenever a system loses sec another gains it, or something like that. There's simply no way it would turn out balanced at all if it were left to the players, just by the very nature of MMO communities. There still needs to be some kind of external control over things.

"In the void is virtue, and no evil. Wisdom has existence, principle has existence, the Way has existence, spirit is nothingness." ~Miyamoto Musashi
Endymion Varg
Interstellar Vermin Inc.
#5 - 2012-11-18 03:20:31 UTC
Bane Necran wrote:
Endymion Varg wrote:
Any ideas on how people would go about raising a system's sec status?


I think even with the best possible way to do that, you're invariably going to have to implement some kind of automatic balance to it. Whenever a system loses sec another gains it, or something like that. There's simply no way it would turn out balanced at all if it were left to the players, just by the very nature of MMO communities. There still needs to be some kind of external control over things.


Perhaps a few islands of systems can be made unchangeable, so they can't revert to low or high sec from their present status. It would be a safety feature that would ensure that all of high-sec can't turn into low-sec and all of low-sec can't turn into high-sec. You are right that it won't be balanced, especially given this MMO community, but then again, so what? At least the sec status landscape would represent the reality of the player base and its actions.

Will pirate for food.
YoYo NickyYo
Doomheim
#6 - 2012-11-18 03:31:12 UTC
Dynamic is good, static is bad, why does your mom look just like your dad?


I am not, nor will I ever be...Nicky Yo.... The question you should ask is.....When will they release the NICKY!
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#7 - 2012-11-18 03:32:43 UTC
Endymion Varg wrote:
You are right that it won't be balanced, especially given this MMO community, but then again, so what? At least the sec status landscape would represent the reality of the player base and its actions.

You mean...

Goons/TEST.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Bane Necran
Appono Astos
#8 - 2012-11-18 03:42:10 UTC
Endymion Varg wrote:
You are right that it won't be balanced, especially given this MMO community, but then again, so what? At least the sec status landscape would represent the reality of the player base and its actions.


It would be hardest on industry, trying to mine and build things when the system you're in can just drop suddenly. With more ships exploding and less being built you'd have a problem. This playerbase is inherently self destructive that way. Something or someone has to hold off the hordes of people who want to kill the people who build their ships.

"In the void is virtue, and no evil. Wisdom has existence, principle has existence, the Way has existence, spirit is nothingness." ~Miyamoto Musashi
Tagera
Dog Nation
#9 - 2012-11-18 05:06:24 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Endymion Varg wrote:
You are right that it won't be balanced, especially given this MMO community, but then again, so what? At least the sec status landscape would represent the reality of the player base and its actions.

You mean...

Goons/TEST.



Not really. This community in general is dog eat dog. Except for the "we should be allowed to afk mine in peace without getting blown up and make isk" crowd. But then they don't matter.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#10 - 2012-11-18 06:40:54 UTC
Tagera wrote:
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Endymion Varg wrote:
You are right that it won't be balanced, especially given this MMO community, but then again, so what? At least the sec status landscape would represent the reality of the player base and its actions.

You mean...

Goons/TEST.

Not really. This community in general is dog eat dog. Except for the "we should be allowed to afk mine in peace without getting blown up and make isk" crowd. But then they don't matter.

CCP doesn't seem to take a view like yours ....

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Elder Ozzian
Perkone
Caldari State
#11 - 2012-11-18 11:38:36 UTC
What would make sec status go up? Mission running, ratting, plexing. When the sec has gone up, rewards from those activites should fall. Then Isk-minded capsuleers will move to less secured areas to start grinding again making that system sec status go up.

Does this lead to a point where every system is turned to highsec? So the actual problem is to find out which activities should lower the secstatus, since you can't just blow ships up without concord blowing you in highsec.

How about bringing FW to highsec space; remove npc faction police or make them appear as rats to opposing players = easy to find on overview and quite easy to kill -> removing the constant spawning where ever you are. Concord would not react since it's war not piracy. And mining & industry would be more profitable if you belong to the faction militia who owns that system. That would increase risk and profit to highsec miners.

After all, isn't this game about risk and reward?

I disagree!
Treston Cal
Space Force Manufacturing
#12 - 2012-11-18 12:27:43 UTC
I think we are failing to realize who enforces security in the high sec systems - Concord. FW is in place to upgrade the lowsec systems based on factional support. The systems stay "lawless" to an extent that you lose security rating for your actions against other players. To have a faction fight to raise security status, does not make it indicative of who actually enforces sec status.

Perhaps, if you changed high sec to upgrade system benefits as well, like low FW systems, people would be involved in FW in high sec as well. Problem with this is trying to counter the sec status increases. I think to do this, sec status should only be enforced on those who are not FW participants, by concord. An army of mini pilots can come in and flip the high sec systems, making high sec a lot more dynamic as well. They are also responsible for defending those systems against other FW individuals.

This means, 0.5 systems for NPC missions will not be the most profitable, but the systems that contain the best upgrades. It gives people a reason to right for their faction and keep mission hubs upgraded.
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#13 - 2012-11-18 12:58:37 UTC
Yes.

Easiest way to start is to make hisec incursion systems lowsec. Sansha forces have already defeated CONCORD in those systems, so they can't enforce law there.

In lowsec and null, Sansha forces would replace CONCORD and attack agressors.

Then make Incursions spread to neighbouring systems until stopped.

:)

.
Riddick Liddell
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#14 - 2012-11-18 13:07:17 UTC
The trouble is Super Caps. Once a .4 it's cyno up and in comes the Nyx.

They could create a true sec and force mechanics based on true sec. Allow sec deviations using FW. I'm not sure what the objective would be here though. Catch Hulks in .5 is now .4? Make .6 the new .5?
YuuKnow
The Scope
#15 - 2012-11-18 13:40:32 UTC
Faction warfare operates somewhere along those lines...
What I find boring is that there really isn't much of a distinction between a the sec-status amongst the groups. Meaning that Eve operates in 3 sec statuses really, high, low, and null. The difference between 0.1 and 0.5 neglible, and the difference between a 0.4 and 0.1 neglible as well. Perhaps it would be more interesting to have more variation amongst the systems in each of the three categories.

yk
Arduemont
Rotten Legion
#16 - 2012-11-18 13:51:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Arduemont
No to dynamic sec status.

There's my input.

YuuKnow wrote:
The difference between 0.1 and 0.5 neglible


Not when your a freighter pilot or a miner it's not.

"In the age of information, ignorance is a choice." www.stateofwar.co.nf
Feer Truelight
#17 - 2012-11-18 13:55:15 UTC
What about this approach:

Concord is only present in 0.8, 0.9, 1.0. They are not present in 0.7, 0.6, 0.5 (Hisec evenly divided in Hisec with CONCORD and Hisec without CONCORD).

In Hisec 1.0 - 0.5 these actions raise the security status of the system:
- Mining
- Ratting
- Missioning
- Plexing

In Hisec 1.0 - 0.5 these actions lower the security status of the system:
- Ship kills (PvE & PvP)
- Pod kills

In Hisec 0.7 - 0.5 CONCORD still comes to help you, but it takes > 1min to arrive.
This way you still get "some" protection in 0.7 - 0.5 but since it's dynamic the security is not always guaranteed.
Also if the system goes above 0.7 you can lower the secstatus only with suicide-ganking. So you can flip every hisec system (except tradehubs, or other important systems).
In regards to Losec it shouldn't go below 0.5 since the "core" of the EVE galaxy is Hisec surrounded with Losec. Losec itself is surrounded with Nullsec. This way it wouldn't create holes in the uniform systemstatus distribution we have right now.

Thoughts?

8/7/2006 3:39:36 PM UTC FreeCCP Promotional Game Time 7 Days Paid

6/1/2012 5:48:57 PM UTC PayPal 1 x 1 Month EVE Subscription + Signup €19.95 Paid

CCP took 6 years to convert me to a (still) paying subscriber :)
March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#18 - 2012-11-18 13:58:23 UTC
Tagera wrote:
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Endymion Varg wrote:
You are right that it won't be balanced, especially given this MMO community, but then again, so what? At least the sec status landscape would represent the reality of the player base and its actions.

You mean...

Goons/TEST.



Not really. This community in general is dog eat dog. Except for the "we should be allowed to afk mine in peace without getting blown up and make isk" crowd. But then they don't matter.

it's only in your mother basement

for business all clients are equal while they pay

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#19 - 2012-11-18 14:02:34 UTC
Feer Truelight wrote:
What about this approach:

Concord is only present in 0.8, 0.9, 1.0. They are not present in 0.7, 0.6, 0.5 (Hisec evenly divided in Hisec with CONCORD and Hisec without CONCORD).

In Hisec 1.0 - 0.5 these actions raise the security status of the system:
- Mining
- Ratting
- Missioning
- Plexing

In Hisec 1.0 - 0.5 these actions lower the security status of the system:
- Ship kills (PvE & PvP)
- Pod kills

In Hisec 0.7 - 0.5 CONCORD still comes to help you, but it takes > 1min to arrive.
This way you still get "some" protection in 0.7 - 0.5 but since it's dynamic the security is not always guaranteed.
Also if the system goes above 0.7 you can lower the secstatus only with suicide-ganking. So you can flip every hisec system (except tradehubs, or other important systems).
In regards to Losec it shouldn't go below 0.5 since the "core" of the EVE galaxy is Hisec surrounded with Losec. Losec itself is surrounded with Nullsec. This way it wouldn't create holes in the uniform systemstatus distribution we have right now.

Thoughts?

too much work. it's easier to remove high-sec completely i guess.....

just few questions to you:
- what is the difference between low- and high-sec?
- did you see any kills in low-sec or 0.0-sec which took more than 1 minute (to CONCORD arrive)?

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
Knot'Kul Sun
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#20 - 2012-11-18 14:52:30 UTC
Throw in trading, mission running, mining as possible variables to increasing/decreasing sec of a system?

Make FW a possible gross indicator of an empires sec... example: say gallente militia kicks caldari militia to their last systems possible, as a result of a new empire creeping in on former criminal low sec hubs of the caldari state, criminals migrate to former high sec areas to keep their businesses alive (cus i can totally see the gal fed keeping caldari crims around once the fed has caldari systems /sarcasm) thus reducing sec status overall of the state, alas this trait should be very minimal however far reaching, due to the expanse of its possible influence.

to my previous points...

Trading every day lawful items on a market scale increases, or at least negates decreases to sec status. Trading of unlawful items contributes to the fall os sec status. drugs and all that still need work, especially when you throw in WiS eventually.

Missions that clear up pirates can contribute to increased sec status... not sure of a way that it would decrease it... obviously you cant provide missions to kill the faction you got the mission from. Perhaps introduce anti-faction missions, like L4's from a caldestine caldari agent out of dodixie with missions that can deteriorate the sec status of the system the mission was in. (as well as the obvious penalties this incurs with your standing with gal fed.) this would also encourage people to get out of their empires where they have all the missions theyd ever need.

Mining already has an influence due to the fact you kill rats, and then do a lawful trade by selling ores and minerals on market.

Mining itself could increase sec status by measuring belts that have been depleted,
higher sec status = lower belt yield = shifting mining populations

( if a prosperous highsec area gets over mined, the belts will automatically become lesser yield, which might prompt more people into lowsec/null)

Then obviously theres the ganks, pod kills to decrease sec.
How about adding in war decs to decrease sec, obviously no ones getting shot outside of that, but in a real world sense... security wouldnt be all that YAY! if a war was tearing apart the outside of a station.

12Next page