These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

So, just a curiosity. What would happen if concord left 0.5 - 0.7?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Viktor Fel
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#61 - 2014-10-27 05:43:29 UTC
Desimus Maximus wrote:
For one, CODE. would only reside in 0.8-1.0

For another, it would be just like the rest of lowsec... boring, dead and full of 'leet' pirate pvpers gate camping trade routes.

What I want to know is what would happen if every Goon or PL member left the game forever...

You would have fun again. No coward agreements. Real fights would actually happen again.


Some one would replace us.

Who is Viktor Fel?

Killboard
Elsa Hayes
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#62 - 2014-10-27 07:07:38 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Although it should have been obvious to me that you didn't have a real argument anyway, given that you are posting as a worthless NPC alt.

Seems it's time to renew the "Ban NPC corps from posting in GD" movement again.



Oh the worthless NPC alt "argument", well your posting char is just as worthless for someone who talks big about pvp your killboard records are certainly lacking which would suggest a lot out of your behind talking. If you sit in the glass house you should not throw stones.

So by your own argumentation your very own opinion is worthless as well, since your kill board stats certainly indicate very little knowledge of pvp and more of a carebear yourself. Talking about self ownage put thats how any single argumentation of yours ends up, self contradiction and "If you do not play the game how I want go away" argument. Pitiful really.

However since there is something called free speech everyone may voice their opinion just stop "weighting" peoples opinion on forum avatars which is the dumbest thing ever since chars can be bought and transfered.
Luwc
State War Academy
Caldari State
#63 - 2014-10-27 07:43:34 UTC
Lots of tears and more unused low sec.

http://hugelolcdn.com/i/267520.gif
ashley Eoner
#64 - 2014-10-27 07:54:18 UTC
Vas Vadum wrote:
Yep, just what I said. Only now I'll be a little more descriptive of it.

What would happen, if concord left 0.5, 0.6, and 0.7 space for exactly one month? Then returned slowly, 2 weeks at a time to each one (1 month, then concord would enter 0.7 again, 2 more weeks 0.6, 2 more weeks 0.5.) With a small modifier that concord will remain in all main market hubs, just lowering it to min security level (0.5).

This is just a thought is all, and would likely have some interesting effects on the game. I mean, the loss of many ships and the restricted access of miners for a short while would likely make prices for things go up, the loss of many ships would also cause ship prices to go up for a while. It would show us who our true allies are, and likely give everyone some interesting lessons here and there.

I just thought it might be interesting, if an event was called into the game where suddenly concord had to go deal with some massive crisis situation that required them to pull back for a while, then slowly slip back into the systems to re-protect them. Not saying it SHOULD happen, but, we never have any real events that effect all of eve online like this. I mean, why not have some random event once a year that would cause all of eve to be affected? Not always having to be bad either. I could come up with a great many events really that could happen all throughout the eve universe that would certainly make it more fun and random.

Lots more empty space and substantially lower subscription rates.
knobber Jobbler
State War Academy
Caldari State
#65 - 2014-10-27 08:46:21 UTC
La Rynx wrote:
knobber Jobbler wrote:
Confirming I'm a coward...


Yepp, confirmed!

Hiiiiii former "DJ Entropie Ovaert"

Big smile
Blink

At least you sound like him!
Oh wait you also confirm you are a codie!

One sounds like a guys who was banned, but was bragging before, that he has "a lot of alts".
hmmm


Are you for real?
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#66 - 2014-10-27 09:59:55 UTC
Elsa Hayes wrote:

Oh the worthless NPC alt "argument", well your posting char is just as worthless for someone who talks big about pvp your killboard records are certainly lacking which would suggest a lot out of your behind talking.


Oh, I've always been upfront about that. This character has been little more than a locator and forum alt for a long while now. Hell he mostly flies logi for his corp.

I've been doxxed and had my life threatened by carebear scum before, so opsec is something I take quite seriously.


Quote:

So by your own argumentation your very own opinion is worthless as well


No. Because I've never really said anything about killboards. You made that leap yourself.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Steve Wingyip
Doomheim
#67 - 2014-10-27 10:05:33 UTC
There are two types of player in EvE. Those who like high sec, and those who don't. Those players that like "high sec" are the reason CCP gets a lot of income and can keep this game going.Insulting them is something I have never understood playing this game for so many years now.

This doesn't mean don't gank or kill them, it basically means don't personally insult people that prefer High sec. I played high sec for years before leaving and I loved it.
Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#68 - 2014-10-27 10:11:42 UTC
Syn Shi wrote:

Seems to me someone just wants their fun at the expense of someone else's fun.

CCP Falcon wrote:
I love EVE and the core of what the game stands for. That's why I've been dedicated to it and its community for over 11 years now.

Risk vs Reward is a huge part of that.

Honestly, if that changed, and the game started to soften out and cater to those who want to have their hand held all the way through their gameplay experience, I'd rather not be working on the project regardless of how many subscribers we had, than sell out the core principles that New Eden was built on.

That's a sentiment that I hear a lot around the office, because we are all invested in what makes New Eden so compelling - The dark, gritty, hard reality beneath the pretty ships and nebulas.

EVE is built on the core principle that you are never 100% safe, no matter where you go or what you do. When you interact with another player, you roll the dice on whether they're going to screw you over or not. That's a massive part of the social engineering behind the very basic underpinnings of the EVE Universe.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4964192#post4964192

Murderers of Negotiable Motivations

=]|[=
Vas Vadum
Draconian Empire
#69 - 2014-10-27 10:25:43 UTC
Zen Guerrilla wrote:
The thing most of the anti-carebear brigades do not get is this:

You can not force a carebear into lowsec/nullsec or even WHs. You will simply force him out of the game.

I don't understand what the obsession is with making highsec less safe. They're playing a different game there. Let em have it. It's not like they're hurting anyone.

I live in highsec (currently), lived in nullsec for about 2 years, and am going back to nullsec eventually. I am a 'carebear' as you would put it. I was simply speculating on how this would effect the game, a month where concord leaves certain systems. How would it effect the market, how would it effect the remaining highsec locations, would people move into deeper lowsec for a while, or even longer, etc.

But it seems everyone wants to talk about is how much pvp there would be. Sure it'd increase pvp for a short while, but I believe it would make the markets more empty for a while too and people would be busy refilling the markets.

Unezka Turigahl wrote:
Just inserting some new lowsec systems in between the empires would be interesting though... Would probably increase price differences of certain items across empires and make it more worthwhile to ship stuff between them.


I had a thought about that too. More so, having eve split up completely with null in the middle, and vast amounts of lowsec in between each faction. Which would actually make more sense really. Just posted about it too.

Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
If you are the kind of "player" who will quit the game if your near-absolute safety is lowered, you are not wanted in EVE. Pretty much every single part of this game has eaten a nerf over the course of EVE's history for the sake of the health of the game. But you say you should be immune to this, or you'll quit? Gtfo with that entitled bullshit. That's not reasonable, that's just childish and selfish.


I somewhat agree with the first sentence. But yea, I don't like that the game keeps nerfing things to make it safer and safer, at the same time some things should be nerfed, as it makes it more difficult and you have to find new strategies to do those same things. :P If this game were more like real life though, the crime rate in highsec would be much higher. :P

Commentus Nolen wrote:
An alien NCP fleet invades Null, destroying every thing in their path as they sweep thru systems. Even stuff stored in bases would be destroyed or unavailable for anyone who left anything behind. Chasing everyone into low sec and high.


An alien race would be interesting to see invade the game and cause mayhem for a while. xP

Serene Repose wrote:
The areas of space people don't use would get even bigger.

Oh, I know. This a stealth "low sec is lonely, how can I force people to come play with me" thread.


No this isn't one of those. Lowsec isn't lonely, it's actually pretty populated when I lived out there for 5 months. I've actually been around in the game, tried living in all areas, my favorite being nullsec. I'm in highsec right now though, in the systems I was even talking about. People use lowsec though, it's pretty popular. Don't assume it's not. :P Go out there for a while in pretty much anything, you'll find someone eventually. :P Or they'll find you.

--- Second post, coming up.
Vas Vadum
Draconian Empire
#70 - 2014-10-27 10:27:15 UTC
Zappity wrote:
As for the OP I don't think making lowsec larger will improve much. I'd very much like to see dynamic sec status (Uedama would be 0.4 in about three minutes) especially since this would result in a less contiguous highsec. And highsec pockets in deep null :)

But I don't really care if some people choose to play their game in the relative safety of highsec. I'm sure CCP appreciates the subs and I'd prefer more players than less.

I actually thought this'd be nice too, but implemented in a different way. Where you have missions that you can do for concord to raise system security, or missions against concord to lower it. But overall the game owuld limit how many systems could be made low/high, so there would be a minimum amount and maximum amount. Mission officers would simply say they don't have anything available when you hit those limits. :P But you could still do missions to increase the existing places from 0.5 to 1.0 even if at max on the amount of highsec systems. Or decrease status from 0.4 to 0.1 (practically 0.01), for lowsec end of things. Anyway, just my thoughts on how that would work, main market hubs should be harder to change, or fortified with concord making those missions more difficult, newbie systems should be impossible to change as well. Jita would also have to be made rock solid, could you imagine if Jita became lowsec? Good lord. The game would implode with every single person who plays eve flocking to that one system, all of null and low and high would empty into that one star system1 40,000 players online in one solar system. xP

Nevil Oscillator wrote:
quote=Yolandar]Security status a thing of the past. An outlaw in Caldari space could be a hero in The Federation. And you could let the FW peeps do hunting too, give em those LPs and standings for killing their enemies./quote]

I've been suggesting that too, got called a troll for it.
I haven't moved on to what to do with Concord because I think this one is a bit more tricky.

(have to limit text per post so most quote cut out - Also, had to break one of the quotes here.)
Welcome to the internet, where ideas get trolled or you are a troll for coming up with them! :P
Concord could just be deleted, or maybe they respond to people who violate things like exploits. If CCP were to know of an exploit they can't quite fix yet, but could make a detection for it, concord could move in and pop the violator. :P Faction police would take care of piracy that happens in their jurisdiction.

Hasikan Miallok wrote:
1) Being an open-PVP sandbox does not translate into the devs should change the rules to force everyone to PvP. That removes the sandbox.

This wasn't to exactly force pvp, but more so to cause a hit on the market that would effect the market for a duration of time. :P But anyway. Random events SHOULD happen in game.

Viktor Fel wrote:
Desimus Maximus wrote:
What I want to know is what would happen if every Goon or PL member left the game forever...

Some one would replace us.

Yep, someone would replace goons or PL. :P I don't really care, since neither of them really effect me all that much. I got bored one day and flew to the very back of goon space, touching half their starbases by bouncing off the shields, no one bothered me even in systems with 50 of them around, so I left and went back to highsec, nothing bad happened. Quite strange. :P
Guttripper
State War Academy
Caldari State
#71 - 2014-10-27 11:30:56 UTC
How influential the players would be in decreasing or increasing security status, followed by how quickly it would change, would be the biggest concerns that would be need to be fleshed out. A few days back, I was reading a newspaper article (Chicago Sun Times to be exact) talking about Gary, Indiana and how it went from being vibrant to a wasteland of vacant buildings and crime off the charts. Over the course of 60 to 80 years, the area fell into ruin. Obviously such a span here in Eve would not be acceptable, so perhaps days instead? The median income levels fell to the wayside too, and along with other factors, the area is what it is today - not a pretty place to visit.

For a gaming point of view, perhaps vacant towers idling around moons would be a factor into lowering security status. And towers used for manufacturing and research would give a positive increase; thus the cheaper it would be to create through the recent change with the cost index would also be a negative towards security. A total amount of ISK gained through rat bounties would influence the security - making the area "safer". All these factors (and others fleshed out) working against and with each other would influence the overall security rating of a system. And I would suggest not pushing this ~just~ onto high security space, but make it game wide.

Of course, with the fluctuation of security ratings, thought would have to be given towards what happens once a system drops or rises into a currently fixed system. Should a 0.5 system dropping to a 0.4 type start seeing battlecruiser and battleship rats, along with a small amount of Jaspet appearing in the belts? Should "home systems" in the Blue Donut rise into positive security areas and indirectly land locking their mother ships and titans into that system while their belts loose the high end mineral rocks? And exactly what would be done with worm hole space?

So players would not be taken by surprise after down time, I would suggest each system have a two decimal appearance so players would see if a system might change soon. That is, instead of the current 0.5 rating, they might see 4.50 where a bit more negative might push it to 4.49 which would revert it to a (current) 0.4 rating system. Seems CCP went from extending decimals years ago to cutting them down to one tenth at best.

Just some thoughts.
Nevil Oscillator
#72 - 2014-10-27 11:31:27 UTC
Steve Wingyip wrote:
There are two types of player in EvE. Those who like high sec, and those who don't.


There are two types of poster in RPG forums, those that posting constructively and those that just think

How would/wouldn't that make my character better off ?

I'm just kidding myself aren't I. I'm alone here

It's just me, no one else can detach from their character for more than 20 seconds
Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#73 - 2014-10-27 11:37:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Ralph King-Griffin
Narcissus wrote:
Steve Wingyip wrote:
There are two types of player in EvE. Those who like high sec, and those who don't.


There are two types of poster in RPG forums, those that posting constructively and those that just think

How would/wouldn't that make my character better off ?

I'm just kidding myself aren't I. I'm alone here

It's just me, no one else can detach from their character for more than 20 seconds

you forgot type 3

Murderers of Negotiable Motivations

=]|[=
Vas Vadum
Draconian Empire
#74 - 2014-10-27 12:02:28 UTC
Guttripper wrote:
How influential the players would be in decreasing or increasing security status, followed by how quickly it would change, would be the biggest concerns that would be need to be fleshed out. A few days back, I was reading a newspaper article (Chicago Sun Times to be exact) talking about Gary, Indiana and how it went from being vibrant to a wasteland of vacant buildings and crime off the charts. Over the course of 60 to 80 years, the area fell into ruin. Obviously such a span here in Eve would not be acceptable, so perhaps days instead? The median income levels fell to the wayside too, and along with other factors, the area is what it is today - not a pretty place to visit.

For a gaming point of view, perhaps vacant towers idling around moons would be a factor into lowering security status. And towers used for manufacturing and research would give a positive increase; thus the cheaper it would be to create through the recent change with the cost index would also be a negative towards security. A total amount of ISK gained through rat bounties would influence the security - making the area "safer". All these factors (and others fleshed out) working against and with each other would influence the overall security rating of a system. And I would suggest not pushing this ~just~ onto high security space, but make it game wide.

Of course, with the fluctuation of security ratings, thought would have to be given towards what happens once a system drops or rises into a currently fixed system. Should a 0.5 system dropping to a 0.4 type start seeing battlecruiser and battleship rats, along with a small amount of Jaspet appearing in the belts? Should "home systems" in the Blue Donut rise into positive security areas and indirectly land locking their mother ships and titans into that system while their belts loose the high end mineral rocks? And exactly what would be done with worm hole space?

So players would not be taken by surprise after down time, I would suggest each system have a two decimal appearance so players would see if a system might change soon. That is, instead of the current 0.5 rating, they might see 4.50 where a bit more negative might push it to 4.49 which would revert it to a (current) 0.4 rating system. Seems CCP went from extending decimals years ago to cutting them down to one tenth at best.

Just some thoughts.


I don't see how vacant towers would lower sec status of a system. It's not like they cause danger to the system. Perhaps, you could go with the logic that NPCs might be hiding out in those vacant places (criminal type NPCs), but anyway.

Positive industry would be good, police would pay more attention to the fact that there is industry going on and it would become harder to decrease the security of the system. However, I wouldn't say it pushes the sec status upwards. You can do industry just fine in null too. :P

As for changing sec status of systems, this could likely be something only done on a server reboot, so at scheduled downtime it would change. A warning in the system that is pending the change would display, so if someone wants to reverse the process, they have until downtime to fix it and erase the warning. These are things that can't be done by a single player, it should take a large quantity of players to change a system from one to another, or at least one player working a very long time to do (like a month practically. :P)

As for a system going from 0.5 to 0.4, well large ships would be able to jump in now, belts would spawn as if they were 0.4 systems, rats and such too.

0.4 to 0.5, those ships not allowed in highsec would be able to undock, but either their modules would be disabled completely until they get back to low, or concord escorts them to the nearest lowsec system by force. Or perhaps they have a time limit to get to the next gate before concord forces them out by taking control of their warp drives and such. This would be ore complex. Everything else would act like highsec now.

I don't think nullsec should change, it is null because concord can't go that far out, not enough police. That's why I suggested a min/max limit of highsec, making sure that the game has enough highsec and enough lowsec to go around.

Wormholes can't be monitored by police as well, those are always going to be -1, and should stay that way. Null and wormhole would be unaffected by all this.
Max Deveron
Deveron Shipyards and Technology
Citizen's Star Republic
#75 - 2014-10-27 15:14:46 UTC
Syn Shi wrote:


And forcing players who don't want to pvp, to pvp, isn't holding another payer hostage to benefit you?





You do realize competing to get rocks or ice before someone else does is PvP?
You realize geting the better sell/buy orders is PvP?
You realize infiltration even for simple Intel on business practices is PvP?
Having a better transport service than someone else is PvP?

Please I would like you to respond with a specific activity that is not PvP in this game and still be considered playing it.
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#76 - 2014-10-27 15:31:28 UTC
Max Deveron wrote:
Syn Shi wrote:


And forcing players who don't want to pvp, to pvp, isn't holding another payer hostage to benefit you?





You do realize competing to get rocks or ice before someone else does is PvP?
You realize geting the better sell/buy orders is PvP?
You realize infiltration even for simple Intel on business practices is PvP?
Having a better transport service than someone else is PvP?

Please I would like you to respond with a specific activity that is not PvP in this game and still be considered playing it.
You know it's the truth, I know it's the truth but you'll never convince some people that the things they see as PvE are actually PvP, or there to facilitate PvP.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack
Syn Shi
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#77 - 2014-10-27 15:55:23 UTC
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Max Deveron wrote:
Syn Shi wrote:


And forcing players who don't want to pvp, to pvp, isn't holding another payer hostage to benefit you?





You do realize competing to get rocks or ice before someone else does is PvP?
You realize geting the better sell/buy orders is PvP?
You realize infiltration even for simple Intel on business practices is PvP?
Having a better transport service than someone else is PvP?

Please I would like you to respond with a specific activity that is not PvP in this game and still be considered playing it.
You know it's the truth, I know it's the truth but you'll never convince some people that the things they see as PvE are actually PvP, or there to facilitate PvP.




All your statements assume the other person is competing with you. If I am there mining rocks while watching a movie there is no pvp. I'm just passing time. For all intent and purpose you don't exist. Same with all your other examples.
Both parties have to agree to compete against each other to have the vs part be true.

Its like those kids who race you off the line at the lights and think they won....won against who.....no one was racing against them.

And to answer the question...running missions.
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#78 - 2014-10-27 16:06:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
Syn Shi wrote:
Max Deveron wrote:

You do realize competing to get rocks or ice before someone else does is PvP?
You realize geting the better sell/buy orders is PvP?
You realize infiltration even for simple Intel on business practices is PvP?
Having a better transport service than someone else is PvP?

Please I would like you to respond with a specific activity that is not PvP in this game and still be considered playing it.


All your statements assume the other person is competing with you. If I am there mining rocks while watching a movie there is no pvp. I'm just passing time.
Wrong, just because you can't be arsed to be actively playing doesn't remove the PvP element, you're still competing with other players for the ore, which is a semi limited resource, regardless of whether or not you're AFK. It's most definitely PvP if someone ganks you while you're AFK too.

Quote:
Both parties have to agree to compete against each other to have the vs part be true.
Wrong again, you agree to compete with others the moment you select a character after logging in.

Quote:
And to answer the question...running missions.
Wrong yet again, running missions generates isk, modules, salvage, ammo and LP.

Modules and ammo are usually sold on the market, normally in their current state or as minerals after reprocessing.
LP is normally exchanged for ships, modules, implants etc, most of which end up on the market.
Salvage is either sold on the market or used to produce rigs, which are often sold on the market
The isk earnt through missions is often used to buy things via the market.

The common denominator is the market, which is very much a PvP environment, a particularly brutal one if you make a cockup.

The point stands, 99.99% of the activities available to you in Eve are either PvP or there to facilitate PvP.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack
Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#79 - 2014-10-27 16:12:12 UTC
Syn Shi wrote:

Both parties have to agree to compete against each other to have the vs part be true.

wrong

Murderers of Negotiable Motivations

=]|[=
Syn Shi
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#80 - 2014-10-27 16:37:35 UTC
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Syn Shi wrote:
Max Deveron wrote:

You do realize competing to get rocks or ice before someone else does is PvP?
You realize geting the better sell/buy orders is PvP?
You realize infiltration even for simple Intel on business practices is PvP?
Having a better transport service than someone else is PvP?

Please I would like you to respond with a specific activity that is not PvP in this game and still be considered playing it.


All your statements assume the other person is competing with you. If I am there mining rocks while watching a movie there is no pvp. I'm just passing time.
Wrong, just because you can't be arsed to be actively playing doesn't remove the PvP element, you're still competing with other players for the ore, which is a semi limited resource, regardless of whether or not you're AFK. It's most definitely PvP if someone ganks you while you're AFK too.

Quote:
Both parties have to agree to compete against each other to have the vs part be true.
Wrong again, you agree to compete with others the moment you select a character after logging in.

Quote:
And to answer the question...running missions.
Wrong yet again, running missions generates isk, modules, salvage, ammo and LP.

Modules and ammo are usually sold on the market, normally in their current state or as minerals after reprocessing.
LP is normally exchanged for ships, modules, implants etc, most of which end up on the market.
Salvage is either sold on the market or used to produce rigs, which are often sold on the market
The isk earnt through missions is often used to buy things via the market.

The common denominator is the market, which is very much a PvP environment, a particularly brutal one if you make a cockup.


The point stands, 99.99% of the activities available to you in Eve are either PvP or there to facilitate PvP.




There to facilitate pvp...not being pvp in itself...possibly being pve.

Happy we could come to an agreement.