These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page123Next page
 

System security rebalance, introduction of medium security space
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
SaKoil
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#21 - 2012-11-26 12:40:12 UTC
TharOkha wrote:

1.0 - 0.7 - Highest security, instant concord response time

lol
Shmoogle Kuni Osukami
Perkone
Caldari State
#22 - 2012-11-26 15:53:21 UTC
What would happen if CCP turned off God mode for CONCORD?

Like actually have them work more like sleepers rather than indestructible objects with 5000 death lazorz?
Mag's
Azn Empire
#23 - 2012-11-26 15:57:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Mag's
TharOkha wrote:
0.6 - 0.4 - Medium security - concord response time 5-20s. you can evade concord but when they spawn, you cannot destroy them nor survive their superior DPS//scram/ECM/etc... also for evading concord there should be big sec status loss.
0.3 - 0.1 - Low security - gates and stations are the only "secure" space, (on asteroid fields there will be none concord spawns also no sec status loss). response time 30s-60s.
No thanks.

Most of the fights in low sec occur on gates and stations, which makes your idea terrible. Let alone the idea of having concord in low, which is equally bad.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Destination SkillQueue
Doomheim
#24 - 2012-11-26 15:58:25 UTC
Shmoogle Kuni Osukami wrote:
What would happen if CCP turned off God mode for CONCORD?

Like actually have them work more like sleepers rather than indestructible objects with 5000 death lazorz?

Permanent camps in highsec, that would disrupt the game so badly, that eventually CCP would have to forcefully disperse them.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#25 - 2012-11-26 16:01:42 UTC
Destination SkillQueue wrote:
Shmoogle Kuni Osukami wrote:
What would happen if CCP turned off God mode for CONCORD?

Like actually have them work more like sleepers rather than indestructible objects with 5000 death lazorz?

Permanent camps in highsec, that would disrupt the game so badly, that eventually CCP would have to forcefully disperse them.
This.

Although Concord is a pain, it's also a necessity.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#26 - 2012-11-26 17:49:40 UTC
TharOkha wrote:
Ok, there is a lot of talk about system security status. Does not matter if you are PvP camper or victim, but you all have to agree that there is a huuuuge gap between 0.5 and 0.4.

This gap is based on what you can do in 0.4 (instalocking, Smartbombs, indestructible "trash" arround gates to prevent cloaky ship pass through) and what you cannot do in 0.5 (certain death for aggresor, unable to evade concord).

So this is my proposal how to rebalance system sec status

1.0 - 0.7 - Highest security, instant concord response time, you cannot evade concord nor destroy them. (as it is now)
0.6 - 0.4 - Medium security - concord response time 5-20s. you can evade concord but when they spawn, you cannot destroy them nor survive their superior DPS//scram/ECM/etc... also for evading concord there should be big sec status loss.
0.3 - 0.1 - Low security - gates and stations are the only "secure" space, (on asteroid fields there will be none concord spawns also no sec status loss). response time 30s-60s. Evading them will not affect secstatus. Also those concord spawns are not so powerfull as hisec version they can be destroyed.
0.0 - lawless space (as it is now)

(sec status or response time can be variable - please dont respond to this thread just with "LOL" only if you dont like those numbers)

Benefits of this proposed change
-chance to survive "suicie" gank in medium sec space
-no security status loss in low sec asteroid fields, good for those who would like to PvP but they are affraid of secstat loss and who dont want to join blob bubble party in null.
- Spread of PvP fights arround the whole space, not just on gates.

Constructive critics only. Leave your Troll-Hammer at home please. Idea



It's a new game, a game most people will not like, the same being vocal about high sec far too secure, the same being vocal about eve economics and putting apples with oranges side to side and compare them with bananas because in the deepest fail of most explanations there's only one reason for such argumentation: do not make pvp actions complicated and have real consequences or the character gaming abilities, do not make FPS in space more complicated than reload and shoot, do not make "I win buttons" for any one else than "me" and etc. etc.

This is a game where choices should have consequences, real consequences and not the joke it is but it's impossible to implement.
You're told to make a choice for your character career but in fact it's a lure, nothing else. You can do anything you like and you wish with no matter the security status because of your previous or future actions, it has absolutely no real impact on your ability to do said things but only how: alts, Orca exploit etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc.

It's not really a sandbox but more of a gravel box in need to be refined, but this is not ready to happen.

removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne
Theodoric Darkwind
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#27 - 2012-11-26 18:49:24 UTC
I think a small adjustment should be done.

highsec - no change from current.

0.4-0.3 - current lowsec mechanics of sentry guns and sec status loss

0.2-0.1 - no sentry guns and no sec status loss, but still disable bubbles and bombs

Also reshuffle the sec status to more accurately reflect the distance from highsec, with systems near highsec being .4-.3 and systems near nullsec being .2-.1. On the same theme of increasing/decreasing empire control make the FW sov systems the border systems closer to highsec and the "pirate" lowsec systems the ones closer to nullsec.

Keep PvE activity in the 0.3-0.4 systems around the current level and make FW the best way to make isk in 0.3-0.4 space.

Buff PvE activity in 0.2-0.1 systems to rival that of nullsec to encourage people to live out there full time, basically a nullsec-lite for those who want to live away from highsec but dont want to be part of the nullsec sov game.
TharOkha
0asis Group
#28 - 2012-11-26 21:22:19 UTC
okay and how about this

1.0 - 0.6 - as it is now
0.5 - 0.4 - vulnerable (but powerfull) concord on gates/stations, sec status loss. On asteroid belts, plex etc, no concord, no sec status loss.
0.3 - 0.1 - as it is now, but without sec status loss


Again. This thread is about gap removal between 0.5 - 0.4

CODE. Venture hunt contest in a nutshell
Ditra Vorthran
Caldari Imports and Exports
#29 - 2012-11-26 21:57:33 UTC
CCP doesn't know what to do with the Low Sec they already have, and you want to create another 'Just-Above-Low Sec.' Blink

"Miners mine so I don't have to." ~Metal Icarus
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#30 - 2012-11-26 22:03:22 UTC
Why do you want 0.1 to 0.6 to be empty, instead of just 0.1 to 0.4 being empty as we have now?


Hard to gank profitably = people there.
Easy to gank = no one there except roving bands of PVPers hoping to run into a smaller roving band of PVPers.

The current low sec = easy to gank, so not one is in 0.1 to 0.4. Your system it would be easy to gank in 0.6 and down, so no one would be there. So, again I ask, why do you want 0.6 and down to be empty instead of just 0.4 and down as we have now?
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#31 - 2012-11-26 22:05:28 UTC
TharOkha wrote:


Again. This thread is about gap removal between 0.5 - 0.4


To what end? Any place that it is possible to gank profitably, there will be lots of ganks, so it will be empty.

This "gap removal" will not remove the "lots of ganks"/"not lot of ganks" gap. It will simply shift the level where ganks happen, meaning no one will be there.
Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#32 - 2012-11-26 22:05:57 UTC
TharOkha wrote:
okay and how about this

1.0 - 0.6 - as it is now
0.5 - 0.4 - vulnerable (but powerfull) concord on gates/stations, sec status loss. On asteroid belts, plex etc, no concord, no sec status loss.
0.3 - 0.1 - as it is now, but without sec status loss


Again. This thread is about gap removal between 0.5 - 0.4

No it's not. It's pretty clearly about making low-sec almost as safe and sterile as high-sec was before CCP buffed CONCORD.

This is more of the same, "I want less risk in Eve Online but for the same (or greater) payout."

Just call it what it is and move on.

Working as intended.

He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom
Ginger Barbarella
#33 - 2012-11-26 22:31:00 UTC
Working perfectly fine as intended.

Next topic?

"Blow it all on Quafe and strippers." --- Sorlac
Mag's
Azn Empire
#34 - 2012-11-27 02:18:26 UTC
Darth Gustav wrote:
TharOkha wrote:
okay and how about this

1.0 - 0.6 - as it is now
0.5 - 0.4 - vulnerable (but powerfull) concord on gates/stations, sec status loss. On asteroid belts, plex etc, no concord, no sec status loss.
0.3 - 0.1 - as it is now, but without sec status loss


Again. This thread is about gap removal between 0.5 - 0.4

No it's not. It's pretty clearly about making low-sec almost as safe and sterile as high-sec was before CCP buffed CONCORD.

This is more of the same, "I want less risk in Eve Online but for the same (or greater) payout."

Just call it what it is and move on.

Working as intended.
This.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Johan Civire
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#35 - 2012-11-27 02:23:57 UTC
Sad
KrakizBad
Section 8.
#36 - 2012-11-27 03:37:39 UTC
TharOkha wrote:
1.0 - 0.7 - Highest security, instant concord response time, you cannot evade concord nor destroy them.

Posting in yet another 'nerf gankers' thread.
Shederov Blood
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
#37 - 2012-11-27 03:50:44 UTC
Secs, secs, secs, is that all you can think about?

Who put the goat in there?
Karrl Tian
Doomheim
#38 - 2012-11-27 04:12:33 UTC
So...you want to extend highsec to 0.4 now? Btw, CC response time already goes down with sec status.
Ager Agemo
Rainbow Ponies Incorporated
#39 - 2012-11-27 04:27:42 UTC
actually I would leave the system just the way it is right now with a very little change to 0.5 ,concord should be avoidable in this sec and not be absolute
Oopsy Bear
Doomheim
#40 - 2012-11-27 04:30:24 UTC
TharOkha wrote:
So this is my proposal how to rebalance system sec status (ver 2.0 here )

...

Constructive critics only. Leave your Troll-Hammer at home please. Idea


I get that not everyone likes hi-sec. I really do. I just wish the people who don't play there would stop trying to "fix" it.
Previous page123Next page