These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Variable Security Status (System-specific)
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
HTC NecoSino
ISEEU Corporation
Observatory Great Bear
#1 - 2015-02-09 15:28:22 UTC
I've never quite understood why the security status of a system is locked.

If capsuleers are willing to put in time and effort to run missions in the 0.5 sec system next door (and I mean, a lot), wouldn't that warrant Concord stepping up its presence and raising that system to a 0.6, and possibly raising the 0.4 next door to 0.5?

If capsuleers are willing to gank mission runners in that 0.5 system enough that mission runners back out of the system, it should drop to 0.4.

Discuss.
Zimmer Jones
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#2 - 2015-02-09 16:38:17 UTC
No, to easily gamed. Payouts are larger in lower security mission hubs. just start ganking alts until security drops, more profit for mission bears. Also people clearly want their easy routes through highsec, so .5 systems like uedama would become .4 or .3 in less time than you could imagine.

There are large groups in the game that would delight in messing with security stats, even to the point of swarming mission hubs to raise sec levels just to lower other peoples isk/hour.

Use the force without consent and the court wont acquit you even if you are a card carryin', robe wearin' Jedi.
HTC NecoSino
ISEEU Corporation
Observatory Great Bear
#3 - 2015-02-09 16:50:33 UTC
Right, that's kind of the point. This would be a conflict driver. Let's say you kill someone with a negative sec status in a HS system, that would push that system's sec status up.

We'd probably have to alter the criminal flagging system a bit, too, to allow those that work to lower a sec status to be killed without people getting concorded.

I'm also thinking this would be in incredibly slow process, taking multiple months to make a 0.1 change.
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#4 - 2015-02-09 17:00:37 UTC
If it took that long nobody would do it, any faster and it would be horribly abused. -1
Anhenka
The New Federation
Sigma Grindset
#5 - 2015-02-09 17:00:45 UTC
HTC NecoSino wrote:
Right, that's kind of the point. This would be a conflict driver. Let's say you kill someone with a negative sec status in a HS system, that would push that system's sec status up.

We'd probably have to alter the criminal flagging system a bit, too, to allow those that work to lower a sec status to be killed without people getting concorded.

I'm also thinking this would be in incredibly slow process, taking multiple months to make a 0.1 change.


No it's not a conflict driver.

It's about as much of a conflict driver as grass. Zebra eats grass, lion eats zebra. Lion cares not one bit about the grass. Grass is everywhere.

Trying to gank enough of the mission runners that people stop missioning there is a pointless task requiring many billions of isk in ganking ships, hundreds of hours spent ganking, and a near total loss since the loot from most missoners wont pay back the cost of the used ships.

And the result? One more lowsec system. Whoopdifuckingdo. It's not like we don't already have massive stretches of unoccupied or barely occupied lowsec that nobody bothers to use other than moon mining.
Discomanco
We pooped on your lawn
#6 - 2015-02-09 17:35:37 UTC
If anything, it would have to be the other way around.
The more suicide ganking and criminal activity there is in a system, the more CONCORD becomes aware of it and increases its security status.
The same then goes for where there is less criminal activity, and thus CONCORDs awareness in those system becomes less, and security status falls towards 0.1.

But still, -1, to either idea
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#7 - 2015-02-09 19:48:20 UTC
You have it backwards. Increased illegal activity should increase security status to make illegal activity more difficult. Decreased illegal activity should decrease security status to make it easier. This would prevent gaming the system and would promote player movement within empire space. There would now be more variation in what mission hubs are most popular, as some players will be fine with living on the edge of highsec while others will wish to avoid the chance their system becomes lowsec one day.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Van Beyus
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#8 - 2015-02-10 12:26:33 UTC
"The only reduntant threads are the ones I'm not in the mood to post BS on." - F&I

I'm not online most of the time, but I won't change this signature when I do just to make your life easier.
Gawain Edmond
Khanid Bureau of Industry
#9 - 2015-02-10 14:46:59 UTC
other than to blow pod pilots up concord don't really care what we want unless we pay them they're employed and set up by the empires to be intergalactic police (read: keep pod pilots in line). It's also the empires that determin if a place is high or low sec since it's the navies that look after their soverigne space not concord.
Graham Joyce
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#10 - 2015-02-10 15:07:06 UTC
I think that it's a cool idea. It would be difficult to implement and I think there should be some limits. I would say that the sec status can't go above or below a certain number from what it already is. Like a 1.0 system cannot go below 0.7 etc...
Otherwise Jita for example might become lowsec due to ganking!

I like the concept though. Might be worth exploring. :)
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#11 - 2015-02-10 15:25:37 UTC
HTC NecoSino wrote:
Right, that's kind of the point. This would be a conflict driver. Let's say you kill someone with a negative sec status in a HS system, that would push that system's sec status up.

We'd probably have to alter the criminal flagging system a bit, too, to allow those that work to lower a sec status to be killed without people getting concorded.

I'm also thinking this would be in incredibly slow process, taking multiple months to make a 0.1 change.


It wouldn't be a conflict driver. There would be no actual loss of space ships - at least not in a meaningful way.

When folks use the phrase "this would be a conflict driver" - it's rarely true. You're probably one of the guys that think 'market pvp' is a thing. You get 2 points for using buzzwords, but your idea is no good. It would create a number of messes.
Aqriue
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#12 - 2015-02-10 16:18:08 UTC
Just to be clear, System Status, and CONCORD....have no bearing on your ability to destroy a target even for a non-war dec. It means, grow some balls and gank without fear of retribution. The only thing holding you back, is your fear of non-highsec space and losing cheap ships unless its some shitfit mission ship that's going to lose anyway which is why most mission players run in highsec (aka, they are not stupid).

If you need some crutch to make things easier and create "dynamic" content that makes it easier to kill people then you are better off uninstalling the game. There are people already dwelling in non-highsec space, go attack them. Want to attack people in highsec, cause that's where the majority of them are, then take a loss and plan accordingly by calculating what you can afford to lose...most people are in highsec so that 99% of the time they cannot be hassled since highsec is ment as a limiter to prevent all out chaos (aka, highsec is fall back land where they lost it all else where, where you can hassle people but they can at least play the game without wasting their time/subscription sitting in a station as you camp them in)
Phaade
Know-Nothings
Negative Feedback
#13 - 2015-02-10 19:22:56 UTC
Aqriue wrote:
Just to be clear, System Status, and CONCORD....have no bearing on your ability to destroy a target even for a non-war dec. It means, grow some balls and gank without fear of retribution. The only thing holding you back, is your fear of non-highsec space and losing cheap ships unless its some shitfit mission ship that's going to lose anyway which is why most mission players run in highsec (aka, they are not stupid).

If you need some crutch to make things easier and create "dynamic" content that makes it easier to kill people then you are better off uninstalling the game. There are people already dwelling in non-highsec space, go attack them. Want to attack people in highsec, cause that's where the majority of them are, then take a loss and plan accordingly by calculating what you can afford to lose...most people are in highsec so that 99% of the time they cannot be hassled since highsec is ment as a limiter to prevent all out chaos (aka, highsec is fall back land where they lost it all else where, where you can hassle people but they can at least play the game without wasting their time/subscription sitting in a station as you camp them in)



What is this drivel I'm reading?

Someone against a dynamic game environment is... Of questionable intelligence.

This idea would be difficult to implement properly, but damn would it be fun.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#14 - 2015-02-10 19:47:55 UTC
Phaade wrote:

What is this drivel I'm reading?

Someone against a dynamic game environment is... Of questionable intelligence.

This idea would be difficult to implement properly, but damn would it be fun.

The 'drivel' you are reading is a person smarter than you.
This is a game environment. Not a real world. And as such some systems need to be static, otherwise they will be gamed to specific groups benefit with no long term planning for the sustained health of the game.
Also there is a lot more going on in the world that isn't visually simulated that affects the environment in lore also.
HTC NecoSino
ISEEU Corporation
Observatory Great Bear
#15 - 2015-02-10 19:48:04 UTC
Aqriue wrote:
Just to be clear, System Status, and CONCORD....have no bearing on your ability to destroy a target even for a non-war dec. It means, grow some balls and gank without fear of retribution. The only thing holding you back, is your fear of non-highsec space and losing cheap ships unless its some shitfit mission ship that's going to lose anyway which is why most mission players run in highsec (aka, they are not stupid).

If you need some crutch to make things easier and create "dynamic" content that makes it easier to kill people then you are better off uninstalling the game. There are people already dwelling in non-highsec space, go attack them. Want to attack people in highsec, cause that's where the majority of them are, then take a loss and plan accordingly by calculating what you can afford to lose...most people are in highsec so that 99% of the time they cannot be hassled since highsec is ment as a limiter to prevent all out chaos (aka, highsec is fall back land where they lost it all else where, where you can hassle people but they can at least play the game without wasting their time/subscription sitting in a station as you camp them in)


Thanks for the attempted troll. I live in W-space, and am far from pvp-averse. (Link to killboard)

I pitched this idea because it would truly shake things up and give capsuleers a real impact in the galaxy, molding entire regions to their will and would even give HS bears a reason to move around, and a reason to fight other than to get standings up.
Maya Xadi
Deep Space Recreational Resort
#16 - 2015-02-10 20:24:25 UTC
Personally, I like this idea, but I don't think system sec status should depend on ganks, average system population and jumps per day, for instance, are more valid metrics. And some systems, like new players hubs can be 1.0 permanently.