Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Title says it all.

Yesterday I realized that Ignoitton and Carrou are two lowsec systems in a sea of highsec systems. There are a few other lowsec pockets with highsec systems wrapping around that pocket. I marveled at the thought because as I thought it through, it did seem to sound more and more realistic as I applied it to life...

I walk to work through downtown everyday and I see all of these tiny alleyways that could be great "camping" spots for thugs and other lesser creatures. Those would be lowsec pockets in a sea of highsec since downtown cops are on every corner near the bus stops generally since most disturbances happen there. Then you have certain areas where there are just no one there and thus have very very few cops such as the wild west. The mountains of Utah, deserts of New Mexico, and so on apply to this... those would be lowsec systems. "True" nullsec systems IRL would probably be those places with no government such as Somalia. But that is not necessary knowledge to my point.

My point is that IRL there is a relative amount of security in proportion to the activity of one region. "Security" by definition in this post is the amount of cops, NOT the likelihood you will be attacked somewhere. This is to establish a relationship between IRL security and ingame Concord. Quiet regions with little to no traffic don't have many cops (lowsec and nullsec) while other regions with a huge amount of traffic have many cops (highsec).

So what if the security of systems ingame was based on how much traffic there is in a certain system? For example, Jita would obviously be 1.0 because everyone is there. The same goes for the areas near Jita and Amarr. Dodixie and Rens would probably be .9 or .8 in relation to Jita/Amarr. But there would be some limitations/technology to this feature:

- Only so much in game can be flipped to a highsec system. It doesn't make any sense that you could flip a 0.0 system to highsec just because 1000 people play there a lot. So basically all nullsec systems would remain intact. MOST lowsec systems would stay lowsec, but I think we’d lose a lot of highsec systems as a result because there are many uninhabited highsec systems. The remaining highsec systems would become a much more condensed, small blueberry jelly donut.
- Systems can only be flipped to highsec if they have an adjacent highsec system. This is to prevent a strangeness in the diversity of system security. There could be a highsec system wrapped around a sea of lowsec systems which makes no sense. Cops need to have a highsec chain going from somewhere to another.
- There needs to be some sort of an endurance system for flipping a system to highsec and lowsec. For example, a system can only be increased in security or decreased in security if it consistently (though with a degree of deviation) meets the requirements of a security increase/decrease over a period of time. This is to prevent a 1000 man fleet moving around flipping systems to highsec, which is just silly and unrealistic.
- A long chain of highsec systems in a sea of lowsec systems should be able to be broken, but there should be a weighing algorithm on these systems so that even if there are 10000 people living in the “last” highsec system of that highsec system chain, the chains tying that system to a more condensed highsec space weaken and eventually flip these highsec systems one by one. I know there is a graph/matrix/tree algorithm that does this, I forgot what it was though. You could modify a DFS algorithm to detect these chains.
- Systems other than trade hub should have their own requirements for security increase/decrease. Because if Jita is 1.0, this doesn’t mean Kusomonmon is .3 because only 300 pilots play there. Trade hubs are special exceptions in this feature.

inb4 the annoying guy with sunglasses links me to F&I forum

Anyways, just a thought.

I'll just leave it at "interesting".

I dunno how interesting this really is, but there are some mechanics issues that would have to be dealt with.

FW would have to be fixed to accomodate it; either you'd end up with flippable highsec systems, or you'd have permanent lowsec systems for FW that are immune to flipping. This might make constructing a 'high sec chain' to certain areas problematic.

Along the same lines, there is no sov in high sec. What happens if someone actually is able to flip a player sov null system to high sec? What happens to capital construction in flipped high sec systems? New capitals are technically banned in high sec, but suddenly you'd have high sec pockets with capitals in them. You can't light cynos in high sec, so JF shipments to these systems would suddenly halt, meaning that you would have to crank up the old school freighter convoys through new high sec 'suicide gank' pipes.

refer to



Current nullsec systems are not eligible for security increase/decreases. FW systems could be made the same way.

Maybe sometime even Doc Fury needs a break.

Except NBSI works against it.

Provi's NRDS is most likely the closest thing to changing security rating of a system truth be told.

I would also love to see dynamic security. Sadly, I don't think CCP has any real interest...

I know what the end result would be, anyway. A few systems would flip to low-sec, and any high-sec types would leave. The nearby systems would get less traffic and flip. Rinse, repeat. Soon everyone will be huddled together in the half dozen high-sec systems remaining.

Oh well. : <

Im pretty sure the guy breathes heavily down the mic just waiting for the moment to pounce and stike. The guy lives and breathes wannabe ISD. He doesnt take breaks. He's always there...watching...waiting...
And if someone beats him to it, he sacrefices a cat in the name of the overlords...

I know right. How inconsiderate!

I am unimpressed.