These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Make 0.5 More Dangerous
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Paul Panala
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#41 - 2013-10-02 20:51:30 UTC
Hopelesshobo wrote:
If concord was to be eliminated in a 0.5 system, and faction police brought into both 0.4 and 0.5 systems to act as concord, trade between the major trade hubs would become virtually impossible because the large corporations would simply camp the gates with logi support and tank the faction police to complete a gank, then warp off. As a result, they wouldn't even lose their ships, thereby changing 0.5 systems into lowsec for large corporations that can field logi fleets, while screwing the smaller corps in the game that can't field the needed support ships to travel through 0.5.

You cannot tell me that with all the 0.5 bottlenecks in the game, this would not be exploited.


Please re-read my OP, you are mis-stating my idea and then claiming it will not work. I have your concerns covered. I never talked about "faction police" or changing 0.4 systems, that was someone's reply (which I stated was a bad idea.) I did say that Concord will still be inescapable in 0.5 systems.

I have said from the beginning that an important part of high-sec is the idea that you are guaranteed to lose your ship if you aggress, that will still be the case.

Concord still comes, real concord, not some wimpy faction NPC.

All I said, was delay Concord a little (not much), lower their DPS a little (again, not much) and don't let them use e-war in those systems (they would still Scram you, no warping off).

If a fleet tries to camp a 0.5 system, same thing that happens now will stop them. Multiple concord spawns. Using logi to rep someone being Concorded will result in the logi ship getting its own Concord spawn. Ships attempting to use any form of assist modulus should probably be ECM by Concord, seems only fair.

I also said in my OP that if someone manages to tank Concord for too long (lets say more than 90 seconds) then the big 0.7+ Concord style ships should spawn and melt them.

All I am really saying is, lets give people about 90 seconds instead of the 20 seconds they have now. Nothing else really changes.
Hopelesshobo
Hoboland
#42 - 2013-10-02 22:10:57 UTC
Paul Panala wrote:
Hopelesshobo wrote:
If concord was to be eliminated in a 0.5 system, and faction police brought into both 0.4 and 0.5 systems to act as concord, trade between the major trade hubs would become virtually impossible because the large corporations would simply camp the gates with logi support and tank the faction police to complete a gank, then warp off. As a result, they wouldn't even lose their ships, thereby changing 0.5 systems into lowsec for large corporations that can field logi fleets, while screwing the smaller corps in the game that can't field the needed support ships to travel through 0.5.

You cannot tell me that with all the 0.5 bottlenecks in the game, this would not be exploited.


Please re-read my OP, you are mis-stating my idea and then claiming it will not work. I have your concerns covered. I never talked about "faction police" or changing 0.4 systems, that was someone's reply (which I stated was a bad idea.) I did say that Concord will still be inescapable in 0.5 systems.

I have said from the beginning that an important part of high-sec is the idea that you are guaranteed to lose your ship if you aggress, that will still be the case.

Concord still comes, real concord, not some wimpy faction NPC.

All I said, was delay Concord a little (not much), lower their DPS a little (again, not much) and don't let them use e-war in those systems (they would still Scram you, no warping off).

If a fleet tries to camp a 0.5 system, same thing that happens now will stop them. Multiple concord spawns. Using logi to rep someone being Concorded will result in the logi ship getting its own Concord spawn. Ships attempting to use any form of assist modulus should probably be ECM by Concord, seems only fair.

I also said in my OP that if someone manages to tank Concord for too long (lets say more than 90 seconds) then the big 0.7+ Concord style ships should spawn and melt them.

All I am really saying is, lets give people about 90 seconds instead of the 20 seconds they have now. Nothing else really changes.



Why do they need 90 seconds? So you only need 2 T3 Battlecruisers to pop a freighter? I'm still not convinced of the burning need to nerf 0.5 and 0.6 systems. Do you really think that people would engage an autopiloting cruiser anymore then they are now if their ship is still guarenteed to die, just in another 70 seconds?

And to the part where you never said anything about nerfing the 0.4 systems as well, its give and take. You want to merge the difference between highsec and lowsec, but you only want the merge to appear in the highsec side, while you leave lowsec alone.

Lowering the average to make you look better since 2012.
Paul Panala
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#43 - 2013-10-03 15:16:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Paul Panala
We can agree to disagree. Yes, this would be a huge sweeping change to high sec and it would have to be done with a lot of care. 90 seconds was just a number I pulled out of the air, maybe that is too high. Maybe some systems that are 0.5 would need to be changed to 0.6 so people still have a "long" route to move around in high sec if they want to avoid 0.5 systems.

I don't feel like the way to add middle ground is by making 0.4 systems safer. They are already extremely safe, with the exception of hitting a gate camp, moving from gate to gate, or gate to station is pretty easy going.
Hopelesshobo
Hoboland
#44 - 2013-10-03 16:03:20 UTC
Concord response times...
1.0 — 6±1 seconds.
0.9 — 6±1 seconds.
0.8 — 7±1 seconds.
0.7 — 10±1 seconds.
0.6 — 14±1 seconds.
0.5 — 19±1 seconds.

Numbers are from - http://blog.beyondreality.se/TTK-CONCORD

Paul Panala wrote:

My opening point is that there should be more gray area between high and low. Kind of a medium security space if you will. If YOU don't like the idea, then feel free to stay in 0.7 and higher systems.


So having a response time that is twice as long in a 0.5 system vs a 0.7 system is not enough gray area for you?

Paul Panala wrote:

EDIT: Based on a number of the replied I think I might have used the wrong term. When I said "make suicide ganking easier" I wasn't specifically talking about attacks ships with the goal of grabbing their valuable cargo or mods. I was talking about any type of suicide attack, even if the goal was just to get a kill. I edited the OP above.


This is the primary reason why suicide ganks occur. If you are simply looking for a killmail, nothing is stopping you from handing out ships to your friends, and suicide gank someone because every ship in the game that is undocked is gankable in any security space. If you make it easier to gank people, you will simply increase the profit margins of the current gank targets, and increase the amount of suicide ganking that happens for profit.

I have just provided you with the numbers above, it is up to you to make the friends needed to complete a suicide gank, and for you to do the math to ensure you will get the kill. After all, you don't care about the cost, you just want to get a killmail.

Lowering the average to make you look better since 2012.
Esk Esme
Simply Pleasure inc
#45 - 2013-10-03 16:11:26 UTC
Paul Panala wrote:
It is only every so slightly easier, Concord comes a little slower, but not much, and when they arrive they ECM you out of the fight instantly.

The fact of the matter is that suicide ganking is rare in 0.5 and 0.6 systems. It is not common.



Emp ganking not common in 0.5 and 0.6?


Hahaha yea right

tbh i think it is as it should be
Jeanne-Luise Argenau
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#46 - 2013-10-03 16:13:50 UTC
no, or make the following compromise.

double reaction time of concord. But the fleet would have to pay a fine after getting conordokken.

Fine components.

how much did the destroyed ship + fitting cost.
cargo would be ignored.
subtract the dropped fitted item.
subtract the suicide hull + fitting.

that would be the fine

now the fine will be split over all suicide gankers on the km.

the players fined now have 7 days to pay the fine or losing 1/50th of the fine in Random SP.

i know its a bad idea but its the only way i would go with increasing concord response time.
Hopelesshobo
Hoboland
#47 - 2013-10-03 16:37:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Hopelesshobo
Jeanne-Luise Argenau wrote:
no, or make the following compromise.

double reaction time of concord. But the fleet would have to pay a fine after getting conordokken.

Fine components.

how much did the destroyed ship + fitting cost.
cargo would be ignored.
subtract the dropped fitted item.
subtract the suicide hull + fitting.

that would be the fine

now the fine will be split over all suicide gankers on the km.

the players fined now have 7 days to pay the fine or losing 1/50th of the fine in Random SP.

i know its a bad idea but its the only way i would go with increasing concord response time.


1/50th of random SP on suicide gank alts that have 30 days training would be a joke.
Since the fine does not count the cargohold, this would mean that the fine basically would not exist in freighter ganks.

Overall fines really arn't the way to go about it, because with the 30 day alts, they will not worry about SP loss, and they will not worry about isk fines either because they simply use their logistic alts to trade them ships, which does not require any isk like the market and contracts do.

Lowering the average to make you look better since 2012.
Velicitia
XS Tech
#48 - 2013-10-03 17:07:38 UTC
Hopelesshobo wrote:
Concord response times...
1.0 — 6±1 seconds.
0.9 — 6±1 seconds.
0.8 — 7±1 seconds.
0.7 — 10±1 seconds.
0.6 — 14±1 seconds.
0.5 — 19±1 seconds.

Numbers are from - http://blog.beyondreality.se/TTK-CONCORD

Paul Panala wrote:

My opening point is that there should be more gray area between high and low. Kind of a medium security space if you will. If YOU don't like the idea, then feel free to stay in 0.7 and higher systems.


So having a response time that is twice as long in a 0.5 system vs a 0.7 system is not enough gray area for you?


I think that the OP is trying to get at this:

1. Hisec has a pretty decent progression from "safest" to "least safe"
2. Lowsec has a pretty decent progression from "safest" to "least safe".
3. The progression from "hisec" to "lowsec" is too abrupt and is bad.
4. Therefore, something needs to be done to the hisec side to remove that "lowsec wall"


The ideas presented by both sides are pretty good, but seem self-serving without actually making things better.

Here's the deal though -- there are ten (10) distinct security systems in empire (1.0, 0.9, 0.8, 0.7, 0.6, 0.5, 0.4, 0.3, 0.2, and 0.1). Would it be terrible to divvy it up into thirds?

Here are my (very rough and ill thought out) splits:

1.0 - all by itself, reserved for those systems classified as "starter" areas (12x noob character spawn systems). Will probably end up being one per "core" empire region.

0.9-0.7 - highest sec empire space. Navies respond in 6-8 seconds (a la CONCORD now), with CONCORD showing up in 12-15 to mop up anyone who's still alive (insta scram and whatnot still in effect).

0.6 - 0.4 - Navies respond in 15-25 seconds. No CONCORD insta scram and whatnot (though navy will point you when they catch you). Suspects banned from gate travel, and docking for 15 minutes.

0.3 - 0.1 - lowsec as it is today (no CONCORD, no navies, your safety is all on you)


Navy response is strong, though tankable (at least at the start -- think gate guns), resulting in nearly assured destruction of your ship (I say nearly, because a properly fit BS "might" make it out with hull tanking). You can warp away from the crimescene, but the navy will show up ... or with the new mechanics for Rubicon, have a 'ceptor waiting to say hi at your safespot. Twisted

One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#49 - 2013-10-03 18:39:29 UTC
Paul Panala wrote:
Kasife Vynneve wrote:
Plenty of high volume transit routes that have 0.5s that are breeding grounds of the low skilled ganker ~ unable to handle a ship that might fight Back.

It happens enough that its fairly common, hardly rare at all.


I will keep going back to this point, it is rare, not common at all. Fly around in low sec, how long will it take someone to shoot at you? Not long at all. Fly around in 0.5 and 0.6 systems, how long will it take? Unless you are in a freighter with high value cargo or an officer fit mission ship, it will probably never happen. I feel like the risk should be quite a bit higher than it is now.



No, it should not. It's already dangerous enough and highsec receives one nerf after another. There's not more needed. If you want more kills in this sec range, go and start killing. But as a game mechanic it's not feasible.

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
Swiftstrike1
Swiftstrike Incorporated
#50 - 2013-10-03 18:54:31 UTC
Paul Panala wrote:
My opening point is that there should be more gray area between high and low.
Either Concord are present and will respond or they're not. There is no room for grey... unless you want concord to spawn and just watch lol

Casual Incursion runner & Faction Warfare grunt, ex-Wormholer, ex-Nullbear.
Jasmine Assasin
The Holy Rollers
#51 - 2013-10-03 19:07:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Jasmine Assasin
Lucas Kell wrote:

Show me the source of your statistics that prove that most players in a 0.5 have neither seen nor been the victim of a gank. Most high sec gankings occur in 0.5s. It's rare to go through a popular 0.5 and see no blinky reds in local.


Hear, hear, been many times I have landed on gate to have literally just missed the gank (or being ganked myself probably) and I have seen people get ganked and it wasn't even profitable. I figure it's only a matter of time before it happens to me. I have seen some mails recently advising incursion runners to fit more tank for travel, and be more careful because ganks are on the rise even.

If you think people don't die in hisec, just open your map. Look at how many ships die in hisec, then check to see which of those systems is a .5 and learn something today.
Paul Panala
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#52 - 2013-10-03 19:48:09 UTC
Thank you everyone for the great discussion! This has been a really good and constructive thread, even if most of you don't agree with my idea.

To the comments about high sec being nerfed. I think that by making 0.5 and 0.6 less safe, but still safer than low, it would great a good opportunity to make more ISK without taking the full risk of low sec. CCP could/should make the mining better in those systems after this change, maybe better rates and agents too. That way you still have your risk/reward radio.
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#53 - 2013-10-03 20:38:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Daichi Yamato
Commander Ted wrote:


In a .5 system a talos can get off two volleys before concord.


concord can take upto 20 seconds to arrive in 0.5. Talos's can get a lot more than two volleys off in that time. did u forget that the initial volley also happens when t=0?

ganking in 0.5 and 0.6 is indeed common. ppl get ganked in these systems several times a day.

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
Raphael Celestine
Celestine Inc.
#54 - 2013-10-03 22:09:34 UTC
What we're seeing right now in highsec is not a 'lack' of PvP - this is what it looks like when the industrialists are winning.

Suicide ganking has to be balanced around a competent team looking for profitable ganks - try to balance based on anything else, and you turn the Jita gates into a bloodbath and send the economy into a tailspin.

The hard truth is that it's already 100% possible to kill anything, anywhere... if you're willing to spend the resources necessary. Most people aren't interested in suicide-ganking in highsec unless they can make a profit off it, so they're only willing to spend the resources on those high-value targets mentioned earlier.

The corollary to the 'anything can be killed' principle is that once the guns start firing, the target has already lost. Between ship scanners and EFT, it's easy enough to work out exactly what you need to kill any given target; the only way a gank victim can survive is if the gankers screw up.

All of that means that for haulers and industrialists, 'PvP' is keeping the cost of your ship low enough to make ganking you unprofitable. We don't fight the gankers ship-to-ship in the space-lanes, because EVE doesn't give us the weapons to win. We 'fight' with spreadsheets and DPS charts, before either ship has even undocked.

Sun Tzu wrote:
The best victory is when the opponent surrenders of its own accord before there are any actual hostilities...It is best to win without fighting.
...
Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.

The fact that you're not seeing wrecks doesn't mean that there's no PvP going on in highsec. It just means that the locals are fighting on a higher-level battlefield.
Caleb Seremshur
Bloodhorn
Patchwork Freelancers
#55 - 2013-10-03 22:47:41 UTC
I'd like to reiterate something that I said in my own thread on a similar topic:

0.5 systems should not have concord at all. Faction navy responses should instead be used towards pirate aggression.
0.6 systems could probably benefit from the same structure.

This all comes down to a general imbalance and outmoded design of the system security mechanics we have had. The gameplay has evolved but the structure in a very general sense has not. With CCP introducing player owned poco to highsec perhaps now we can finally evolve the security status mechanics to be more intuitive and modern.
Fey Ivory
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#56 - 2013-10-03 23:08:51 UTC
Id personally want to see a more flexible yet hard system for concord...

1.0-0.7 Systems, concord is bascially allways on patrol, and will engage violaters almost asap

0.6-0.5 Systems, concord is on patrol but responce time is alittle FASTER then now... but from time to time, concord will not patrol these systems as their resources will be elsewhere, it will be broadcasted and a system of this rating will clearly be seen it is for a time without concord protection... this have a few cons, it penalices bots and actually demands alittle bit more attention from capsulars

04-XX Systems, from time to time, concord will make incursions into low sec, espechially when gates been camped etc, this will also be broad casted and give capsulars a notion up that concord pressence is there, or will leave

This system, probably have some flaws i havbent thought off, but it give a more dynamic system yet harder, if concord is in system, responce is very fast, if their not, its up to capsulars to pay atention to broad casts and maybe show on star map, where concord is ! in any case hopethis made sense
Maldiro Selkurk
Radiation Sickness
#57 - 2013-10-03 23:17:49 UTC
Paul Panala wrote:
Desert Ice78 wrote:
Why don't YOU go that extra jump into a 0.4 system? Maybe afraid of....someone shooting back?


I spend most of my time in low sec already. My opening point is that there should be more gray area between high and low. Kind of a medium security space if you will. If YOU don't like the idea, then feel free to stay in 0.7 and higher systems.


If YOU dont like the current system in 0.5 and higher feel free to stay in 0.4 and below.

I propose a counter offer to your suggestion. Make 0.4 to 0.1 graduated, (i.e. high sec gets bigger, rather than smaller) and make null, true and WH the only places that CONCORD doesn't bother to defend you.

Yawn,  I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#58 - 2013-10-03 23:23:07 UTC
except concord does not defend, it punishes. they aren't exactly effective at preventing ganks. just destroying everything that is flashy red after the gank has happened

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
Barry Filler
Cold Moon Consortium
#59 - 2013-10-04 00:04:50 UTC
I saw in some EvE fanfest 2013 video that they want to make the security status matter more, so it's not a cliff between 0.5 and 0.4. So they want it to be more dynamic
Caleb Seremshur
Bloodhorn
Patchwork Freelancers
#60 - 2013-10-04 00:10:26 UTC
Yeah but are they going to publicly address this ancient mechanic in rubicon or is it getting shelved for another few years