These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Jita Park Speakers Corner

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Fluctuating sec status

Author
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1 - 2011-12-16 15:10:42 UTC
I propose each system , instead of having a fixed security status, should have a base security status but the actual number would change over time due to certain circumstances. Players could see an additional decimal point so they would know if a system is going in a particular direction and could even take measures to alter it. Systems that have little criminal activity would gradually go down in sec status, slowing down as they get further below their base sec level. More criminal activity would increase their sec status, and would have the strongest effect on systems much lower than their base, with very little effect if the sec status goes too much higher. So it would mostly maintain an equilibrium, but over time systems would change a little bit. Each system would only change its effective sec status at downtime.

Notable impact this would have in EVE:
1. lowsec 0.4 or 0.3 systems with a lot of ganking may sometimes become highsec temporarily.
2. highsec systems with little activity may become lowsec.
3. some highsec systems on the outskirts may become temporarily stranded, or highsec islands may have a path out open up
4. players afraid of lowsec would want to ensure they base in systems 0.7 base sec status or higher
5. bored players in 0.5 or 0.6 systems will find a change of pace from time to time.
6. lowsec won't necessarily be so dangerous - as the sec status changes all the time, other players are less likely to know or expect your system to be lowsec, thus the chance of gankers in system may be reduced.
7. macro players will have to reconfigure or face the consequences (won't that be funny to watch)
8. Dodixie will almost always be 1.0 instead of the 0.9 we're used to
9. forum rage
10. systems temporarily at lowsec status will spawn some lowsec anoalies/asteroids/rats, while lowsec systems that became highsec temporarily will have reduced lowsec anomalies/asteroids/rats but still some present. If the system stays at either low or highsec for too long, all of its anomalies, asteroids, and rats will convert. This gives advantage to players who move around and keep an eye on the ever-changing world around them.

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."

Bumblefck
Kerensky Initiatives
#2 - 2011-12-16 17:51:38 UTC
This is a rather complicated proposal and I dont think you want Bumble confused

Perfection is a dish best served like wasabi .

Bumble's Space Log

Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#3 - 2011-12-16 23:06:04 UTC
Bumblefck wrote:
This is a rather complicated proposal and I dont think you want Bumble confused


tl;dr - my idea is system sec status go up or go down kinda random-like, and it make New Eden more interesting and changey-like.

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."

Max Kolonko
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#4 - 2011-12-16 23:32:33 UTC
numbers and specifics can be worked out, bu I agree with basic concept
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
#5 - 2011-12-17 03:58:20 UTC
I like the idea in principle, but the idea needs to be fleshed out a lot more, and players have to be able to influence the scale both up and down some way, not entirely random. I suggested something similar just for systems in High Sec that had a Sansha incursion. Basically the longer the incursion was left incompleted by players the lower the security of the system would become. Once the Incursion was defeated the system would return to it's original Sec status.
Jalmari Huitsikko
Molden Heath Angels
#6 - 2011-12-17 10:44:04 UTC
while i like idea of dynamic sec status it should be focused on hi sec systems as we hopefully all know that low sec isn't that dangerous.
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
#7 - 2011-12-17 10:52:41 UTC
Whatever you do, hisec systems must always remain hisec and never, under no circunstance, should become lowsec or nullsec.

Roses are red / Violets are blue / I am an Alpha / And so it's you

Ya Huei
Imperial Collective
#8 - 2011-12-21 10:55:39 UTC
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:
Whatever you do, hisec systems must always remain hisec and never, under no circunstance, should become lowsec or nullsec.


Ye because that would be interesting gameplay and noone wants that surely ?
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#9 - 2011-12-21 11:13:57 UTC
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:
Whatever you do, hisec systems must always remain hisec and never, under no circunstance, should become lowsec or nullsec.



I disagree. I think there should be a possible mechanism for a long term project like CVA in Providence to change the status of systems. Obviously it needs to be a lengthy, time consuming and expensive mechanism requiring sustained commitment by a large number of players, but it should be possible in principle.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016