These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Should system security status be dynamic?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Unsuccessful At Everything
The Troll Bridge
#21 - 2014-09-04 16:50:56 UTC
Ramona McCandless wrote:
Charax Bouclier wrote:


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.


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?


Oh.. official numbers? Errrr.. um...

Well, I think she is just under the assumption that ganking is on the increase because of the recent thread activities that claim that is happening. Everyone knows the best wagon to jump on.. is the bandwagon.

Since the cessation of their usefulness is imminent, may I appropriate your belongings?
Charax Bouclier
Silvershield Universal
#22 - 2014-09-04 16:55:14 UTC
Ramona McCandless wrote:
Charax Bouclier wrote:


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.


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?


I simply like more things dynamic and subject to manipulation by player actions.

FYI, I am only a month into the game and haven't been ganked nor attempted to gank anyone. I am not speaking from a vested interest other than liking dynamic systems.
Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#23 - 2014-09-04 16:55:16 UTC
one line bad ideas thread is here.

beaten to it by CCP Rise.

Murderers of Negotiable Motivations

=]|[=
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
The Conference
#24 - 2014-09-04 16:57:09 UTC
Charax Bouclier wrote:
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.

That's not what I mean. You have one player group who cares about how the mechanic works and one who's majority probably does not even know that this can be changed. Who is more likely to find a way to use that game mechanic against the other type of player? And if it is in some way balanced then there will be a way, otherwise you are just proposing another nerf to ganking..

Evil RatKid
Ramona McCandless
Silent Vale
LinkNet
#25 - 2014-09-04 16:57:20 UTC
Charax Bouclier wrote:

I simply like more things dynamic and subject to manipulation by player actions.

FYI, I am only a month into the game and haven't been ganked nor attempted to gank anyone. I am not speaking from a vested interest other than liking dynamic systems.


Oh ok cool

In that case, I support your intention

I too would like more things dynamic and subject to manipulation by player actions.

*Hands you pamphlets entitled "Why the Donut Is Good" and "Free Highsec: Allow Sov To Be Challenged Here"

"Yea, some dude came in and was normal for first couple months, so I gave him director." - Sean Dunaway

"A singular character could be hired to penetrate another corps space... using gorilla like tactics..." - Chane Morgann
Charax Bouclier
Silvershield Universal
#26 - 2014-09-04 16:57:38 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
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.


Yes to the first part. Yes to the second part when I was on a second date at her place.
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#27 - 2014-09-04 16:59:58 UTC
Personally, I'm a huge fan of procedural generation rather than dynamics but, it would be difficult to implement that in EVE, and probably not necessary. There's enough content I can create myself for my randomised entertainment purposes. Just yesterday, I stole someone's corp. Remember that? That was fun.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#28 - 2014-09-04 17:00:04 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
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.


Good for you, I'm totally different. it doesn't take much to turn me on, I once experienced a boner after watching a Thorax come out of warp and land square in the Gap at the front of a Megathron. For some strange reason the name "Baltec" took on new menaing.....
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#29 - 2014-09-04 17:03:07 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
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.


Good for you, I'm totally different. it doesn't take much to turn me on, I once experienced a boner after watching a Thorax come out of warp and land square in the Gap at the front of a Megathron. For some strange reason the name "Baltec" took on new menaing.....


mmmm


Sexy Megathron Thigh Gap.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Ramona McCandless
Silent Vale
LinkNet
#30 - 2014-09-04 17:03:31 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Personally, I'm a huge fan of procedural generation rather than dynamics


THATS WHAT SHE SAID

"Yea, some dude came in and was normal for first couple months, so I gave him director." - Sean Dunaway

"A singular character could be hired to penetrate another corps space... using gorilla like tactics..." - Chane Morgann
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#31 - 2014-09-04 17:05:22 UTC
Ramona McCandless wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Personally, I'm a huge fan of procedural generation rather than dynamics


THATS WHAT SHE SAID


BAZINGA!!!

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Inxentas Ultramar
Ultramar Independent Contracting
#32 - 2014-09-04 17:17:55 UTC
Yarda Black wrote:
I find this dynamic interesting. I notice something VERY VERY wrong here tho:

The entire idea is restricted to 0.5 to 1.0 systems. Where EVE currently ranges between -1.0 to +1.0

Security being based on the distance away from 1.0 systems. Or actually, that's what I came up with going through maps.

So....

Whats up with this limited scope? Security is either dynamic in EVE or its not right?


See OP's point 3. All the suggestions would affect are CONCORD response times. The suggestions are simply irrelevant to 0.0 space. I personally would see more merit to adding a region in which systems can change the full range (including things like rat and anom quality) treating -0 values as NPC nullsec.
Vyl Vit
#33 - 2014-09-04 17:24:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Vyl Vit
I think you're onto something but I also think you demonstrate a huge misconception even the management has fallen for. It's not that CONCORD would decide anything. They're under contract. It's that the sovereign states would HAVE CONCORD do certain things.

If CONCORD is deciding where to dispense the power, then CONCORD would have sovereignty, and this Amarr, Caldari, Gallente, MINMATAR stuff would be useless window dressing using up unfathomable bandwidth just to print all the meaningless text...no, wait....

But, yeah. It would seem a more fluid movement of CONCORD assets to meet existing needs would reflect the modernity and high-tech aspect this "world" is supposed to have. It's kind of stupid to have a fleet of cop ships one system over from an equal sec status system being over run by childlike GANKERS with only three ships responding.

Overwhelming force is a sign of control. Sovereignty is another term for CONTROL. CONTROL is not STATIC.

I do get the underlying point. Apparently CCP can't grasp these concepts...maybe it's an Icelandic thing...all alone on that little island with only volcanoes threatening you...Jaeger and a comfortable rock...don't get me started.

Paradise is like where you are right now, only much, much better.
Abrazzar
Vardaugas Family
#34 - 2014-09-04 17:29:15 UTC
I'd base it on system activity, some index from jumps/average population/kills. A high index will increase the sec status and a low index will reduce it. No system can skip a threshold going for example from high-sec to low-sec or vice versa. Deviation from the original security should not be more than 0.1-0.2. This would also affect pirate activity, exploration, agents, asteroids and CONCORD response.

Biggest difficulty in creating such a system would be establishing the numbers for the index and how high or low activity needs to be for a change to happen. A casual look at the map shows that those numbers vary widely.

Sovereignty and Population

New Mining Mechanics
Charax Bouclier
Silvershield Universal
#35 - 2014-09-04 17:31:07 UTC
OoooOO...exciting. My corp got wardecked and it will be active in 10 hours. Now THIS will change things up! :D
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#36 - 2014-09-04 17:32:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Remiel Pollard
Abrazzar wrote:
I'd base it on system activity, some index from jumps/average population/kills. A high index will increase the sec status and a low index will reduce it. No system can skip a threshold going for example from high-sec to low-sec or vice versa. Deviation from the original security should not be more than 0.1-0.2. This would also affect pirate activity, exploration, agents, asteroids and CONCORD response.

Biggest difficulty in creating such a system would be establishing the numbers for the index and how high or low activity needs to be for a change to happen. A casual look at the map shows that those numbers vary widely.


On a serious note, I think the problem with that is, all the pipes could become 1.0 and stay that way by virtue of activity. Suddenly, there's nothing dynamic about those areas. So what happens is, everyone flocks there, and no one goes anywhere else, and then the dynamic system you put in place is no longer dynamic at all. It becomes a victim of its own success. Just like BoB.

EDIT: Me no read good tonight. Me miss your note about limited deviation. Me wonder if that would just make dynamics redundant from the get go, but me weigh out now.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Ramona McCandless
Silent Vale
LinkNet
#37 - 2014-09-04 17:33:15 UTC
Charax Bouclier wrote:
OoooOO...exciting. My corp got wardecked and it will be active in 10 hours. Now THIS will change things up! :D


Let me know if you need anything

I like the cut of your jib

"Yea, some dude came in and was normal for first couple months, so I gave him director." - Sean Dunaway

"A singular character could be hired to penetrate another corps space... using gorilla like tactics..." - Chane Morgann
Aralyn Cormallen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#38 - 2014-09-04 17:34:11 UTC
Christopher AET wrote:
I would say yes and have it tied to system activity. Ie the more people mining or missioning in a system the more CONCORD invests in a system and the higher the sec status. This should be balanced with the mission rewards and asteroid belts reflecting that also, even more so than now. I think there should be a much steeper gradient of reward between 0.5 and 1.0 with 0.5 about right where it is but with rewards trailing off dramatically as you go up through 0.7 with 0.9 and 1.0 systems being almost worthless to people more than a few months old.

It also means that the underutilised systems would increase in reward...and probably gankers too, which is a marvellous thing as to get the better rewards you get more player interaction.


This is the version I could get behind - if one systems rats are getting hammered more than those a few jumps away, why wouldn't all the decent rats/missions jump ship to those systems that are "safer" for them. We do it, why wouldn't they.
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#39 - 2014-09-04 17:38:37 UTC
Charax Bouclier wrote:
OoooOO...exciting. My corp got wardecked and it will be active in 10 hours. Now THIS will change things up! :D


10 hours? That was before this thread went up so it wasn't the result of anyone here me thinks.

Mail me in game. I'll refund you the 1 mil CSPA charge for it but, I need you to mail me because I will not remember that I wanted to check and see how I might be able to assist you when I wake up in the morning with a splitting hangover. I have guns and PVP and friends with more guns and PVP. Anyway, mail me so I have a reminder when I log on. If you want some help that is. I offer war assists for free because the pew pew is its own reward.

If I incur any costs, I can extort them from your aggressors in the surrender demands.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Abrazzar
Vardaugas Family
#40 - 2014-09-04 17:40:05 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Me wonder if that would just make dynamics redundant from the get go, but me weigh out now.

It would at least adapt the current landscape to the realities of the game, even if some systems would become static within the new dynamics.

Sovereignty and Population

New Mining Mechanics