Player Features and Ideas Discussion

I really like that EVE is so dynamic, but one thing I noticed is that system security status is static. Would it be more compelling if system security status was more dynamic where:

1. # of ganks in a system might encourage CONCORD to invest more (or less) security to the system?

2. Allow corporations to bribe officials to lower security impact for them? (More skills to invest in and also an ISK sinkhole)

3. System security changes wouldn't impact the original security status in terms of what the system offers (e.g., asteroid quality)

Philosophically, what I like about this is that it reduces the noise between gankers and carebears. For example, if miners are in a position where they are hard to gank profitably, then over time, security status will start dropping to a point where miners become more and more at risk (and it works the other way). Dynamic system security would also make people not get too comfortable in their particular neck of the woods if things gradually get more risky.

10 year game, so I assume this is definitely not a new discussion. I am curious where the current opinions lie on this.

So... the more ganks that occur the HIGHER the sec rating for the system?
And it follows that systems where no ganking occurs eventually become 0.5s?


No, not until they make High Sec invadable by Sov Entities


I dont mind that either way. But bear in mind that players would attempt to manipule this to the point where it would become pretty pointless in the long run.


The problem with that is that it assumes that CONCORD exists to protect the miners through threat of consequence. This is not inherently true.

It's never about ganker v.s carebear, it's more about "player who cares about game mechanics" v.s. "player who is not interested in game mechanics and plays EVE like a solo game". With this in mind, who do you think will profit most from your idea, no matter what the rules for this mechanic are?

Apparently I'm just following Ramona around tonight like a lost puppy because here I am. I'm not trying to, it's just kinda happening. I had something to say on this but Ramona beat me to that too, because she took all the words I wanted to say and used them for me.

Instead, I'll just post something random. I'm not a very sexual individual and I'm not interested in relationships/flings/etc with one sex or the other - you could call me 'indifferent' to sexuality in general. However, I do occasionally derive a guilty pleasure from flirting with people that show an attraction towards me. I try not to lead them on, and I'm not interested in going further than the flirting, but the flirting is definitely fun.

This story was brought to you by the sleep deprived mind of Remiel Pollard, Space Cowboy, Mini-Merc and general all round outstanding New Eden Citizen. Please ignore the -3 security status, it's the result of a few accidental poddings I committed on purpose. I really am a good guy.

/me sits in the corner and mutters about strange reptiles following him around.

Quoting to protect this drug induced posting from certain deletion in a few hours

You can label EVE however you want but if the actual game mechanics allow players to play EVE solo with success, then it is the fault of the game mechanics for not maintaining the game philosophy.

Who would benefit from dynamic security ratings? Not sure. Let's say that X number of ganks per month is a healthy amount to maintain some risk to carebears and fun for gankers. If that quota isn't being met (i.e., things are too safe for whatever reason - mining tankability, sec status roo high), then perhaps a generaly decline is in order.

I bet you say that to all the clones x

Im inclined to infer from that that you think ganking is in a period of steep increase, and that it is impossible to defend yourself against?

Im happy to be corrected if I have picked this up wrong, but if not, can you supply some figures to back this assumption?

While we're on the topic of derailment...

Doesn't anyone else pee on the side of the toilet bowl to dislodge 'stains' and/or reduce the sound of their peeing? I mean... those of us that can aim it, anyway.

Kind of a tangent here, but I think that this principle applies. people always say they want a more dynamic environment but when you give them one, they tend to retreat to a more comfortable/LESS dynamic environment. This is as true in a game as it is in real life, people THINK they want dynamism and spontaneity the react like they'[ve been shot when something interrupts their comfortable routine.

That's why i think a lot of the talk about null sec SOV issues on this forum are naive , so many people claiming that they'd love to see a "non-blue donut situation" where "small groups have a chance" and they actually may believe that, but the actual most likely outcome of any such system is people saying 'screw it' and going to empire where they don't have to deal with the headache of having to adjust to changes very often lol.

Also, I think you may have it backwards, making the situation 'dynamic' would vastly increase the noise coming from carebears (carebears or notorious for being 'comfort-seekers', they love routine which is why saving the same Damsel 18,000 times in a row doesn't phase them). The FIRST time a dude undocks a mining ship to mine in his usual system (not bothering to even glance at the system sec indicator) and gets blown up because now it's an 0.5 instead of the 0.8 he was expecting, you can expect a seriously ticked off forum post lol.