Player Features and Ideas Discussion

I am fairly certain there are fewer camps now then there were a couple years ago. The old hotspots like amamake, egghelende, bosboger, vehan and decon are almost never camped now. Even if they are, it's by maybe 3x BC's with no backup. What has changed is players have gotten better. When I first took up pirating in late '09, no one used ganglinks, remote sebo's, tackle bonused ships or even logi. Now all of those are standard.

The result is fewer camps but those that are around are infinitely superior. If you run into a decent camp now, you're screwed unless you've got a cyno and a whole lot of friends waiting. I don't think much can be done mechanic wise to counter this as it's a player issue, not a mechanic issue.

The only thing I think you can really argue for is a change in the probing and d-scanner systems. When I first started pirating, probing a ship was a big deal. It required cov ops 5 and all lvl4 probing skills as the absolute minimum to do any probing. It also required hundreds of tactical SS's spread around a system to fully cover all possible mission locations (probes had a 2au range, 5 minute cycle time, couldn't warp and you even had to match sensor types). Now it takes about 30s to probe out a missioning BS. On the flip side, you can now officially add probes to your d-scanner too. The result is if you run a low sec mission with a hostile around, you will be almost instantly probed down. But if you're paying attention you will also never be caught as you can warp off before anything can land on you. End result is a stalemate with both sides dissatisfied.

I would support a buff to sentry guns and another d-scanner/probe redesign. But beyond that I don't think any changes are appropriate.

I have previously proposed something that I think you would find agreeable.

(1) Remove concord from 0.5 sec space, Replace it with Empire Navy ships.
Instead of getting concorded in 0.5, a flotilla of Empure ships comes after you consisting of something like: 3 Battleships, 1 EWAR cruiser, 2 support cruisers (like an Osprey or Exequor), 3 combat cruisers (like a Thorax or Omen), 9 frigates that web and scram.
It would be possible to escape, unlike concord (you could even have friend pick off the scrammers, and run before an Empire spawn comes for them)
*This would make ganking in 0.5 ice belts even easier - it would also take away some incentive to remove 0.5 ice belts) - this will be somewhat rectified by point #3



(2) Add Empire police to 0.4 space, these police would be much weaker than in 05, the spawn would be something like: 2 Battleships, 4 combat cruisers, 6 frigates (web only, no scram) - thus you could easily escape them, but if you got into a prolonged fight, expect trouble



(3) Allow players to attack pilots with a low sec standing without concord intervention in systems 0.2 "security levels" lower than the level at which NPCs will attack. Allow podding in systems 0.2 "security levels" higher than the level at which NPCs will attack.

Example:
Pirate A has a security status so low that he will be attacked in systems of security status 1.0 to 0.8
Other players may freely attack Pirate A in systems from 1.0 to 0.6, they may pod him in 1.0 systems.

So routine suicide gankers who have low sec status may now be engaged before they suicide gank.
Right now, Concord actually acts to protect suicide gankers.
If you know someone is just waiting to suicide gank, you can't do anything about it, without having concord destroy your ship.
With this change, you'll be able to kill some suicide gankers before they suicide gank - or they will have to suicide gank less and do more to raise their sec status - which will lessen the problem of suicide ganking



(4) Insurance penalties and NPC generates bounties based on security status.
Basically, if your security status is <0.0, you divide it by 5, and multiply it by the system security level *100%. This is the percent modifier to your insurance payout.
If you have a sec status of -5, and you lose your ship in 0.5 space, you receive a -5/5 *0.5 *100% = -50% to insurance payout, you get half your payout. If you lost it in a 1.0 system, you get nothing (if you have a sec status of -10, you aren't going to get much of any payout except in 0.0 and 0.1 systems)
This means it will be more expensive to suicide gank, as payouts will be reduced.

This is coupled with a bounty given to the person that destroyed the ship.
Take the payout that would have resulted from a premium insurance policy (whether or not they had one), then through through basically the same calculations used to determine the insurance payout penalty *-1, your bounty is determined.

Ie:
You kill a guy with a -5 security rating in a 0.5 system, if his ship was insured, it would have a 20 million ISK payout.
-5*-1/5*0.5*100% = 50% -> You get 50% of what the insurance payout would have been, in this case that would be 10 million.

This bounty is given by the same entity that gives out bounties on NPC rats, and is tied to the value of the destroyed ship.

This may make bounty hunting viable.
Combined with point 3, there should be a lot more high sec PvP among pirates, and those who want to kill pirates.

I agree that there's a problem with low-sec, but adding logistic Concord ships doesn't sound like a logical solution to me. A better solution as far as I can see should be:
1- Increasing damage and range for gate guns and station guns. We should have almost instant-kill guns in every station and every gate (also they should make then look bigger :P)
2- If I get killed by an outlaw (i.e. illegall kill) then my ship's wreck should belong to me
3- Looting somebody else's wreck should have the same consequences as shooting somebody else's ship (ie get killed by gate/station guns and decrease of sec status). With a big fat warning for the looter of course.

This, once polished and tested for bugs-exploits-abuses, would get us rid of many gate camps. We still have the problem of being attacked far away from stations and gates in low-sec... but that looks kind of fair to me, since it's lowsec after all.
I want to make it clear that IMO low-sec should be dangerous, but we still need to get rid of many exploits/abuses like gate camping.

Nah, the looting policies should be for all empire space, both highsec and lowsec.
And yes, people who steal loots in highsec should definitely get Concorded big time and get a low security status.

EDIT: And also, thanks to the recent change of the insurance system (which was awesome btw), they won't get any insurance isk either. NO SOUP FOR YOU! NEXT!

Reminds me an idea I had: Adding a way to enroll in Concord and in NPC Pirates corps

This and a way to affect lowsec levels with attacks, maybe something like warfare/incursions, that would lower/raise the security level of the systems.

Or, perhaps like I had said in the past, a way to hire NPC "mercenaries" for protection in empire space. I think that would add a whole new level of gameplay. You see NPC ships flying around alot but you dont really interact with them except for security reasons. I often see retailers or merchants flying from stations....but they serve no real purpose.

Well you won't get rid of gate campers with a logistic npc ship nor with a merc npc either...
We are talking of two different things here, one is gate camping and another one is the lack of security in general in lowsec systems. I agree that something must be done to prevent gate camping (and suicide ganking as well since it's a similar abused mechanic), but still I think lowsec systems shouldn't have Concord presence. Don't know about a player police faction, sounds a bit too exploitable unfortunately... but I can be wrong about that.

I see your point but the issue still needs to be addressed with more then just gate guns.

First, you need to fix the bounty system.

-IMHO Anybody under GCC shouldn't get any payout on there ship. Instead it should be put onto there bounty, that way suicide gankers build bounties fast.
-Second anybody that loses a ship to someone who is GCC's will have the option to put isk from there insurance onto the aggressors bounty instead.
-When the person with the bounty loses a ship, the people on the killmail split 75% of the ships worth (including mods). The other 25% goes to either the pilot losing the ship, or their bounty.

This will make bounty hunting a legitamate practice and give antipirates a reason to go out and fight pirates. Bounties on pilots will mean something, and it will be very difficult to abuse the system, although it is possible.

Second I agree on having Navy patrols, but not system wide, constellation wide. They are a decently armed force that gets reinforced when the kills go up in the area, then they travel to the system where recent kills have occured and attempt to engage and destroy aggressors. If there is no action at all they patrol the lowsec constellation with minimal forces.

Gate guns shouldn't be buffed, but stations should have the ability to add more sentries to there defences. 1 additional gun for every 2 acts of aggression on the same grid as the station.

If aggression occurs on a highsec border gate, the faction should respond to distress calls and jump through to assist. Some may argue that this will just make gate camps larger and more organized, but as previously stated in this thread, they have already started doing that. This will make it so that first jump into lowsec doesn't seem like it's so bad, knowing that you have potential backup if you need it.

I believe that these things will not only make life more interesting for pirates, (some of them may even enjoy it!) and it'll go a long way in making people first making that jump into lowsec feel a little safer (even though they're going to lose there ship anyway).

My problem isn't so much with lowsec being risky, but with the sudden change of risk between 0.5 and 0.4. As such, I would definitely support a change to make the risk more gradual through empire space.

I'd be looking at the following:
- Both Concord and Navy fleets may respond in any system. The decision as to who if anyone responds will depend on several factors.

- Not all of the system is necessarily covered. In 1.0 space, Concord will react anywhere. In 0.1 space, the NPC ships will only consider reacting right outside of their own space stations, and even then they may decide to ignore a fight depending on the situation. Other areas that may be covered depending on system rating would be stargates, asteroid belts, etc

- Reaction times will vary more than currently. The actual response time would depend on the equation the server made to see if anyone would respond. Suffice to say, in 1.0 space, Concord would be on you pretty sharpish, whilst in 0.1 space, even concord would take 10 minutes just to respond to a fight outside their station.

- Avoiding Concord would no longer be an abuse. If you're in even a mid to high-sec system you should have a chance to gank your target and leave before Concord arrive. If you aren't gone by the time Concord arrives however, still expect bad times to happen.

- The security rating of the defender is a factor in deciding if and how quick Concord are to respond, whilst the defender's faction standing with the owner of the system is likewise a factor in the Navy's response. (If the NPCs in question think you're scum anyway, they're going to drag their feet over jumping in to help).


Basically, if balanced right, current lowsec getting safer should be balanced by current highsec getting more dangerous, with the most signifcant changes would be around midsec areas. The gradual drop in security would help remove the idea that "highsec is safe" (so less whining from gankees hopefully), and you'd get more people willing to venture into more dangerous areas of space as there's not such a big boundary to overcome in the first place.
Additionally, this would also give more importance to your security rating, which currently seems mostly pointless. If you want to be safer, you'll need to work at getting the cops to like you basically.