These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Concord and dynamic resources
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Raymond Moons
Parallactic Veil
#1 - 2015-02-12 14:43:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Raymond Moons
Op deleted.

I had a better idea. Why not remove secuirty status and replace it with a Concord index. It occurs to me that empires have their own navies to defend their own ****. Why would they also defend immortal capsuleers?

Players in all systems should be able to spend security LP from killing pirate NPC's on upgrding a systems Concord index. LP's are automatically applied to the system they were earned in. The Concord range would be from "no presence" to "obliterated in 5 seconds". As the index increases bounty rewards, LP and mineable resources would deteriorate so completley safe systems are also as good as worthless.

Concord index would be viewable on the map as Present or Not Present (blue highlight) and when queried would return a basic level gauge, for example lvl 1 - 5. 5 Being safest, 1 being not very safe, 0 being null sec.

Concord index deteriorates over time as they naturally expend LP resources. They expend LP faster when they are called into action.

This would mean anywhere that a lot of mining or other PvE takes place would become a safe and worthless system forcing players that want income to less safe systems. I think this would lead to a lot of 0 - 1 systems that flip daily because players will want the most income with minimal safety. Ganking would be easier in lower index systems but since ganking causes Concord to expend LP this would also keep bounties and mineable resource values up.

This is basically the same idea as my previous one, but simpler.

Noob starter systems could have a permanent Concord presence paid for by the empires.
Raymond Moons
Parallactic Veil
#2 - 2015-02-12 15:09:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Raymond Moons
Rewards per index lvl:

0.0 Mining yield 1x, Bounty 100%
Lvl 1 Mining yield 0.5x, Bounty 50%
Lvl 2 Mining yield 0.4x, Bounty 40%
Lvl 3 MIning yield 0.3x, Bounty 30%
Lvl 4 Mining yield 0.2x, Bounty 20%
Lvl 5 Mining yield 0.1x, Bounty 10%
Nariya Kentaya
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#3 - 2015-02-12 17:28:00 UTC
Raymond Moons wrote:
Rewards per index lvl:

0.0 Mining yield 1x, Bounty 100%
Lvl 1 Mining yield 0.5x, Bounty 50%
Lvl 2 Mining yield 0.4x, Bounty 40%
Lvl 3 MIning yield 0.3x, Bounty 30%
Lvl 4 Mining yield 0.2x, Bounty 20%
Lvl 5 Mining yield 0.1x, Bounty 10%

so incursioners all deposit their vast swathes of LP (because their is no better LP farm) into this thing so that miners/missioners cant maek money in ANY highsec system, but incursioners can be perma-safe to bear away because incursion payouts arent missions (and still give decent isk even with the LP reduction)
Raymond Moons
Parallactic Veil
#4 - 2015-02-12 17:53:11 UTC
Incursion LP and all other income will be effected by the same percentages.
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#5 - 2015-02-12 18:27:05 UTC
5 Steps is way to broad. 10 levels is more appropriate. And 0 would not be Null sec, it would be what today is known as Low sec. Also: What about capitals? Drug towers? Moon Miners? L5 missions?

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
Rosal Milag
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#6 - 2015-02-12 18:41:44 UTC
Dynamic sec status is bad. So many things that exist outside of high sec would need to be reworked. Anchored bubbles on a gate before downtime in a - 0.1 system, after, it's 0.5...

Not to mention that this idea would destroy industry as you know it. Travel lanes for freighters are mind-numbing at best of times. Add in variable sec status, not only are you creating unstable routes (sec status changing during the trip, need a scout to make sure the next system is still high sec) with the potential to strand ships in high sec islands, you make the nullsec empires able to run freighters through a cherry picked path to Jita, highsec all the way.
Gawain Edmond
Khanid Bureau of Industry
#7 - 2015-02-12 18:42:04 UTC
concord is their to enforce the peace on the 4 empires not the immortal capsulears (they're there to keep us in our place until they are bribed)
Raymond Moons
Parallactic Veil
#8 - 2015-02-12 22:18:19 UTC
Bubble and bomb restrictions could still apply. Empire space could still restrict those items and sentry guns could act as they currently do to keep the flavour of low sec. If a bubble was anchored in no security space and the system flipped at downtime to lvl 1, then Concord would kill the bubble as soon as someone was disrupted by it.

Moon mining and drug lab restrictions could be removed entirely. Moon mining yields would follow the percentages and drug labs could have increased manufacturing cycles in a similar way. These things are only restricted at the moment to try and get people out of high sec.