These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Non-static system sec status
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Shahai Shintaro
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1 - 2013-04-23 15:30:27 UTC
I was thinking of an idea that would have systems change their sec status over time. My idea is this:

At the end of a set period of time, do the following
1) Rank all high and low sec systems by true sec from highest to lowest
2) On a separate list, rank all high and low sec systems by number of suspect and criminal flags over a set period of time from low to high
3) Do a side by side comparison of these two lists. Where they differ, adjust the sec rating of the system by some factor

In this way, systems where pirate activities commonly take place, slowly become more lawless while systems that are ignored slowly become more secure. I believe this system would be self correcting as when high traffic areas start to drop in security status, people will move to a different area. This will in turn reduce the number of security violations in the system driving the sec status back up.

Thoughts?
ExAstra
Echoes of Silence
#2 - 2013-04-23 15:39:08 UTC
That's kind of a roundabout way of asking for low sec Jita, don't you think?

Save the drones!
Ager Agemo
Rainbow Ponies Incorporated
#3 - 2013-04-23 15:39:41 UTC
this is so well though I actually like it O,o, but carebears will cry fool because they wont be able to idle on the same system all day long.
Ager Agemo
Rainbow Ponies Incorporated
#4 - 2013-04-23 15:40:36 UTC
ExAstra wrote:
That's kind of a roundabout way of asking for low sec Jita, don't you think?


which is a good thing, if you can decentralize people the game becomes more dynamic, think of dune by frank Herbert, precisely what leto atreides intended was to make people move so there was no stagnation on a single place.
Xavier Thorm
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#5 - 2013-04-23 15:47:13 UTC
I see a pretty serious logical problem with this idea in that the reaction of military/police forces in the case of increased criminal activity would normally be to increase security, not decrease it. The reverse of this would be pretty cool, where deep hisec systems are less heavily policed because they are farther away from danger.
Shahai Shintaro
State War Academy
Caldari State
#6 - 2013-04-23 15:51:07 UTC
I don't think jita would become low sec, but I don't think jita would stay jita. As the sec status falls people would leave jita for a new hub. The pirates would follow and jita would start to repair it's sec status
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#7 - 2013-04-23 16:28:05 UTC
the idea has come up before. the fun in turning jita into a low sec system makes the idea attractive. Burn jita everyday!

especially with ur iteration, if it is only ganking or thieving that can affect a sec status, it would be MUCH harder to raise a sec status than lower it. all it would take is a bunch of ppl to gank noob frigs and pods together to make the sec status plumit. something like a noob ship free for all (lol).

at least propose a way to raise a systems sec status, like ratting...

it would make players more responsible for system security, if only indirectly.

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
Xe'Cara'eos
A Big Enough Lever
#8 - 2013-04-23 16:49:33 UTC
I think that in the interests of whinge-prevention, this should only happen over DT...

For posting an idea into F&I: come up with idea, try and think how people could abuse this, try to fix your idea - loop the process until you can't see how it could be abused, then post to the forums to let us figure out how to abuse it..... If your idea can be abused, it [u]WILL[/u] be.
Shahai Shintaro
State War Academy
Caldari State
#9 - 2013-04-23 17:03:37 UTC
Daichi Yamato wrote:
the idea has come up before. the fun in turning jita into a low sec system makes the idea attractive. Burn jita everyday!

especially with ur iteration, if it is only ganking or thieving that can affect a sec status, it would be MUCH harder to raise a sec status than lower it. all it would take is a bunch of ppl to gank noob frigs and pods together to make the sec status plumit. something like a noob ship free for all (lol).

at least propose a way to raise a systems sec status, like ratting...

it would make players more responsible for system security, if only indirectly.


I don't think you understand my concept.

Let's say eve consists of only the following systems
System A True Sec .987
System B True Sec .910
System C True Sec .865
System D True Sec .752
System E True Sec .682

System E 1000 crime watch violations
System D 2000 crime watch violations
System C 3000 crime watch violations
System B 4000 crime watch violations
System A 5000 crime watch violations

Under my proposal, the following would result

System A sec status decrease due to being more lawless than current sec status indicates.
System B sec status decrease due to being more lawless than current sec status indicates.
System C no change as current sec status is equal to lawless action
System D sec status increase as system is more secure than current sec status indicates.
System E sec status increase as system is more secure than current sec status indicates.

I would like to point out that I am not arguing for full points of sec status change. I am advocating that it changes by some factor. This factor can be static for slower change (such as a 0.01 shift over each time period), or it can be formulaic for faster change (such as shifting sec status based on how far out of position it should be). Regardless, the change should be somewhat gradual so 1'0 systems don't become low sec over night

I would also like to point out that I am advocating the change to occur at set intervals like once a month, once a week, or once a downtime.
Viktoria Von Doom
Oceania Endeavors Incorporated
#10 - 2013-04-23 17:04:01 UTC
Ager Agemo wrote:
this is so well though I actually like it O,o, but carebears will cry fool because they wont be able to idle on the same system all day long.


In the long run, I think a lot of lowsec would end up becoming highsec. I don't think they'd have any right to complain.

I'm not sure how I feel about the proposed method in the OP, but I 100% support dynamic system security.
Shahai Shintaro
State War Academy
Caldari State
#11 - 2013-04-23 17:14:25 UTC
Viktoria Von Doom wrote:
Ager Agemo wrote:
this is so well though I actually like it O,o, but carebears will cry fool because they wont be able to idle on the same system all day long.


In the long run, I think a lot of lowsec would end up becoming highsec. I don't think they'd have any right to complain.

I'm not sure how I feel about the proposed method in the OP, but I 100% support dynamic system security.


I would foresee many of the unused areas of low sec becoming high sec while several of the 0.5 systems would become low sec. I would probably exclude certain systems from this, particularly FW space. As an active war zone, security should be fixed low. I could also see the new player areas being fixed as high security.
Argoist Zxim
Terraprobe Dynamics
#12 - 2013-04-23 17:47:01 UTC
This would work for border systems (0.5 - 0.7). For story reasons (and eve does have a story) anything 0.8 and higher would be too well patrolled by concord / faction navy for sec status to be lowered in a meaningful manner, seeing as these systems would be to0 important to the faction that controls them

And for the record, I'm a carebear that lives in 0.5 - 0.7

The only caveat i would add, is that systems to are next to a true low sec system lose sec faster than ones next to a true high sec systems
sabre906
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#13 - 2013-04-23 17:50:16 UTC
Ager Agemo wrote:
ExAstra wrote:
That's kind of a roundabout way of asking for low sec Jita, don't you think?


which is a good thing, if you can decentralize people the game becomes more dynamic, think of dune by frank Herbert, precisely what leto atreides intended was to make people move so there was no stagnation on a single place.


Ban everyone. That'll shake things up.Big smile

But no. It turns out what looks funny for us is bad for Eve. See? This is why devs don't look at F&I board.Roll
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#14 - 2013-04-23 19:24:37 UTC
Shahai Shintaro wrote:
Daichi Yamato wrote:
the idea has come up before. the fun in turning jita into a low sec system makes the idea attractive. Burn jita everyday!

especially with ur iteration, if it is only ganking or thieving that can affect a sec status, it would be MUCH harder to raise a sec status than lower it. all it would take is a bunch of ppl to gank noob frigs and pods together to make the sec status plumit. something like a noob ship free for all (lol).

at least propose a way to raise a systems sec status, like ratting...

it would make players more responsible for system security, if only indirectly.


I don't think you understand my concept.

Let's say eve consists of only the following systems
System A True Sec .987
System B True Sec .910
System C True Sec .865
System D True Sec .752
System E True Sec .682

System E 1000 crime watch violations
System D 2000 crime watch violations
System C 3000 crime watch violations
System B 4000 crime watch violations
System A 5000 crime watch violations

Under my proposal, the following would result

System A sec status decrease due to being more lawless than current sec status indicates.
System B sec status decrease due to being more lawless than current sec status indicates.
System C no change as current sec status is equal to lawless action
System D sec status increase as system is more secure than current sec status indicates.
System E sec status increase as system is more secure than current sec status indicates.

I would like to point out that I am not arguing for full points of sec status change. I am advocating that it changes by some factor. This factor can be static for slower change (such as a 0.01 shift over each time period), or it can be formulaic for faster change (such as shifting sec status based on how far out of position it should be). Regardless, the change should be somewhat gradual so 1'0 systems don't become low sec over night

I would also like to point out that I am advocating the change to occur at set intervals like once a month, once a week, or once a downtime.


no i got it.

if 10 000 noobs (or goonswarm) enter jita and shoot each other again and again, there is nothing u can do to prevent it becoming low sec? it may take days, months or years, but under ur current iteration, there is nothing u can do to stop ppl deliberately committing crimes to lower sec status.

so again, at least put something there that can resist such behavior.

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
Shahai Shintaro
State War Academy
Caldari State
#15 - 2013-04-23 19:40:25 UTC
The resistance would be the players themselves. Let's just say in your hypothetical scenario, someone does tank jita's security rating. How do you think the players would react? Odds are a new market system is formed as fewer people go to jita. As the targets move, what's the point of tanking jita anymore. The system therefore starts to recover it's security status.

furthermore, as the proposed concept of based on relative position to other systems, there is another built in resistance. While it would be unpopular, if you tank a different system more, the targeted system would be less effected
Mra Rednu
Vanishing Point.
#16 - 2013-04-23 19:51:50 UTC
Shahai Shintaro wrote:
The resistance would be the players themselves. Let's just say in your hypothetical scenario, someone does tank jita's security rating. How do you think the players would react? Odds are a new market system is formed as fewer people go to jita. As the targets move, what's the point of tanking jita anymore. The system therefore starts to recover it's security status.

furthermore, as the proposed concept of based on relative position to other systems, there is another built in resistance. While it would be unpopular, if you tank a different system more, the targeted system would be less effected


Thats not players providing resistance that is players becoming refugees and running away from the trouble, if anything the lowering of the population should crash the sec status even faster.

I like the idea of an evolving sec system when it been put forward in the past but this is not the mechanic for it tbh.
Felsusguy
Panopticon Engineering
#17 - 2013-04-23 23:24:49 UTC
GoonSwarm would be all over this. It would be Burn High-Sec, everything must go. Eventually, all of high-sec will be low-sec. Not only that, but it's a major logic bomb. Crime increases, so police... leave? The hell?

The Caldari put business before pleasure. The Gallente put business in pleasure.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#18 - 2013-04-24 01:39:30 UTC
OP you have it backwards. In your system, nobody could ever collect up in one spot. There would be no major trade hubs. Also, it flies in the face of conventional wisdom to expect the increased presence of CONCORD to somehow REDUCE the system's sec status.

No, illegal activity in a system should INCREASE the sec status of a system, and ignored systems should go DOWN in sec status. Why station cops in an area with no crimes?

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Absolon Echerie
Roving Guns Inc.
#19 - 2013-04-24 06:35:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Absolon Echerie
Felsusguy wrote:
GoonSwarm would be all over this. It would be Burn High-Sec, everything must go. Eventually, all of high-sec will be low-sec. Not only that, but it's a major logic bomb. Crime increases, so police... leave? The hell?


i doubt even goons have the capacity to lower all of high sec, while also keeping low sec criminal enough to stay low sec.
Basicly this would mean low sec and high sec would switch around a lot


i do agree this may work for the border systems, though i doubt many people with a research POS in 0.5 would agree as it would require a more active defence for them
Zan Shiro
Doomheim
#20 - 2013-04-24 07:19:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Zan Shiro
Viktoria Von Doom wrote:
I don't think they'd have any right to complain.



that's because you probably don't fly caps.


Player A is not a no life neckbeard. He goes on a 2 week vaca to a nice island. He has better things to do than play eve on vaca, like his gf/wife, girls from the island or if lucky his gf/wife and the local girls.

But anyway, he knows 0.0 is a dynamic place and in 2 weeks he could log in to find he is homeless (even goons had this problem, jsut ask kartoon, they imploded on his honeymoon iirc) . So he jsut in case moves major assets to a safer spot. And then parks his carrier(s) and dread(s) in a .4 system. Its so quiet that and many surrounding systems go .5 or higher.

Those caps are now stuck in a worst case.

Now the GM's are getting flooded with petitions from him and others to fix this.




Another issue with this is eve is small enough as is and ccp does not want it smaller with low sec pockets in empire. Since goons always mentioned, ccp does not want them hopping from 0.0 to endpoints deep in empire with a .5 right next door. They can crawl system by system in a jf like everyone else. Same for the 0.0 empires out by other borders.

they don't want empire based jfs' in general doing this either. Or blops. I'd love to hop using low sec points for record times to get to say amarr from caldari space. If ccp wanted this ability, they'd allow cyno's in empire.
12Next page