These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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 page123
 

System security rebalance, introduction of medium security space
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
TharOkha
0asis Group
#41 - 2012-11-27 05:58:10 UTC  |  Edited by: TharOkha
Quote:
It's pretty clearly about making low-sec almost as safe and sterile as high-sec


Yes, because my proposal of removing sec status loss in lowsec will defintely make it safer. Shocked

and about this...
Quote:
Posting in yet another 'nerf gankers' thread.

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


idiocy in GD is reaching astronomical levels Evil. I have a proposal of removing gap between 0.5 and 0.4 finding some compromise between those "two worlds" and not just that, i have proposed to remove any security loss in lowsec BUT I !!! "want to make hisec safer".

OK ISD, lock this thread. It seems that i will not find any reasonable disscussion here. Evil.

CODE. Venture hunt contest in a nutshell
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#42 - 2012-11-27 06:59:29 UTC
TharOkha wrote:
Quote:
It's pretty clearly about making low-sec almost as safe and sterile as high-sec


Yes, because my proposal of removing sec status loss in lowsec will defintely make it safer. Shocked

and about this...
Quote:
Posting in yet another 'nerf gankers' thread.

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


idiocy in GD is reaching astronomical levels Evil. I have a proposal of removing gap between 0.5 and 0.4 finding some compromise between those "two worlds" and not just that, i have proposed to remove any security loss in lowsec BUT I !!! "want to make hisec safer".

OK ISD, lock this thread. It seems that i will not find any reasonable disscussion here. Evil.

Thats because its a bad idea. You are effectivly removing low sec and the people who live there dont like that.
Herr Hammer Draken
#43 - 2012-11-27 07:18:35 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 (ver 2.0 here )

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


I am going to have to say about 70% of the players that play eve already do not understand the current high and low sec security status game mechanics. Your proposed idea would only make this condition worse.

I am also guessing your main idea to change this is to gain some access to 0.4 systems ore belts.

If not that would become part of an unintended consequence of your idea. Which would then require a rework of the belts in 0.4 systems.

Herr Hammer Draken "The Amarr Prophet"
TharOkha
0asis Group
#44 - 2012-11-27 08:24:46 UTC
Herr Hammer Draken wrote:

I am also guessing your main idea to change this is to gain some access to 0.4 systems ore belts.


why do you think so?

Quote:
If not that would become part of an unintended consequence of your idea. Which would then require a rework of the belts in 0.4 systems.


Well i dont have a problem with that. if this change requires belts rework then let it be.

Quote:
Thats because its a bad idea. You are effectivly removing low sec and the people who live there dont like that.


look at ver 2. There is no removing of lowsec.

CODE. Venture hunt contest in a nutshell
Ghazu
#45 - 2012-11-27 08:35:51 UTC
Um just no, no concord ever in a 0.4.

http://www.minerbumping.com/ lol what the christ https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2299984#post2299984
Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#46 - 2012-11-27 08:50:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Darth Gustav
TharOkha wrote:
Yes, because my proposal of removing sec status loss in lowsec will defintely make it safer. Shocked

...stuff...

idiocy in GD is reaching astronomical levels Evil. I have a proposal of removing gap between 0.5 and 0.4 finding some compromise between those "two worlds" and not just that, i have proposed to remove any security loss in lowsec BUT I !!! "want to make hisec safer".

OK ISD, lock this thread. It seems that i will not find any reasonable disscussion here. Evil.

With CONCORD on the gates and stations, it's not like that will really matter. Roll

He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#47 - 2012-11-27 08:50:57 UTC
Quote:


look at ver 2. There is no removing of lowsec.

Given that most fights and traffic takes place at gates and stations this cant be seen as anything other than a nerf to the people of low sec.
TharOkha
0asis Group
#48 - 2012-11-27 08:57:50 UTC
baltec1 wrote:

Given that most fights and traffic takes place at gates and stations this cant be seen as anything other than a nerf to the people of low sec.


This change would affect 0.4 and 0.5. So it is not "nerf to lowsec people" but hisec people too. Its a little bit of nerf/buff to both 0.4 and 0.5.

Quote:
With CONCORD on the gates and stations, it's not like that will really matter.


And if you read it again you will find that it will affect 0.4 and 0.5 only and we would call it medium sec. 0.4 would be a slightly more secure and 0.5 would be a slightly less secure.

CODE. Venture hunt contest in a nutshell
Mag's
Azn Empire
#49 - 2012-11-27 11:38:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Mag's
TharOkha wrote:
baltec1 wrote:

Given that most fights and traffic takes place at gates and stations this cant be seen as anything other than a nerf to the people of low sec.


This change would affect 0.4 and 0.5. So it is not "nerf to lowsec people" but hisec people too. Its a little bit of nerf/buff to both 0.4 and 0.5.

Quote:
With CONCORD on the gates and stations, it's not like that will really matter.


And if you read it again you will find that it will affect 0.4 and 0.5 only and we would call it medium sec. 0.4 would be a slightly more secure and 0.5 would be a slightly less secure.
You're basically nerfing mining and mission running in .5 and pirating in .4 systems. No thanks.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
TharOkha
0asis Group
#50 - 2012-11-27 13:49:37 UTC
Mag's wrote:
You're basically nerfing mining and mission running in .5 and pirating in .4 systems. No thanks.


Every coin has two sides. This "medium sec" would also buff piracy in 0.5 and buffing mission runing in 0.4

CODE. Venture hunt contest in a nutshell
highonpop
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#51 - 2012-11-27 14:32:42 UTC  |  Edited by: highonpop
They just put training wheels on. You can actually have settings to keep you from shooting?


Noob Pussies. Sorry, not sorry. Its part of the harshness of eve. Learning what you can and can't do, and where you can and can't do it and who you can and can't do it to.

YOU HAVE TO CLICK A POP UP THAT SAYS THIS IS DANGEROUS! YOU KNOW THAT ITS DANGEROUS! IF YOU CLICK THE BOX TO NOT SHOW AGAIN ITS YOUR DAMN FAULT

We shouldn't need settings on our ships to keep us from doing something stupid.

FC, what do?
Warde Guildencrantz
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#52 - 2012-11-27 14:45:38 UTC
instigating NPCs podding anyone ever totally breaks the meaningfulness of podding someone personally. Stop proposing it, podding is supposed to be a slap in the face from someone who hates you, or because you didn't pay ransom.

TunDraGon ~ Low sec piracy since 2003 ~ Youtube ~ Join Us
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#53 - 2012-11-27 15:34:57 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 (ver 2.0 here )

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


I'd just like to say that the following statement is not a troll: This is a stupid idea & you should feel stupid.

This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.
Flurk Hellbron
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#54 - 2012-11-27 16:41:20 UTC
Nope
Previous page123