These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
12Next page
 

More gradual security status scale

Author
Drez Arthie
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#1 - 2015-02-15 22:38:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Drez Arthie
There are many players who never or very rarely venture out of high security space. One reason may be that the hisec/losec boundary is such a steep transition in risk; an unprovoked PvP attack in 0.5 is suicide due to CONCORD protection, but in 0.4 there is no CONCORD response at all. At the same time, 0.4 space offers only slightly better rewards than 0.5.

The situation might be improved by a more gradual scale of CONCORD response, such as:

High Security (0.7 to 1.0): a CONCORD spawn of two cruisers and one battleship respond to any illegal attack in 6-10 seconds, depending on system security status. If the attacker evades destruction of their ship by CONCORD, it is considered an exploit. (same as current rules)

Medium Security (0.4 to 0.6): CONCORD will respond to illegal aggression in 15-25 seconds, depending on security status, but only if the defender has not returned fire. The CONCORD spawn has two cruisers only, they do not warp scramble, and they will press their attack on the aggressor only while the defender remains on grid and has not returned fire. It is NOT considered an exploit for the aggressor to avoid ship destruction in these systems.

Low Security (0.1 to 0.3): CONCORD will respond to illegal aggression in 30-60 seconds, depending on security status, but only if the defender has not returned fire, and only in the vicinity of stargates and stations. The spawn has only one cruiser, it does not warp scramble, and will press its attack only while the defender remains on grid and has not returned fire. It is NOT considered an exploit for the aggressor to avoid ship destruction in these systems.

Popup warnings would appear at both the high-medium and medium-low boundaries, explaining the change in CONCORD protection in the destination system.

EDIT: no CONCORD warp scramble in medium/low security systems
Mag's
Azn Empire
#2 - 2015-02-15 23:01:35 UTC
Ahh it's another 'I want Concord in low sec' thread. How original.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.

Drez Arthie
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#3 - 2015-02-15 23:05:09 UTC
Mag's wrote:
Ahh it's another 'I want Concord in low sec' thread. How original.


Yes, but it also severely nerfs CONCORD in much of high sec.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#4 - 2015-02-15 23:06:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Lugh Crow-Slave
Please brush up on CONCORD mechanics before posting about them.


as well I can already kill a ship and warp off well b4 concord shows up in a .6 all this dose is have LS start at .6 rather than .4 and puts slow insta poping gate guns everywhere rather than just on gates. Why insta popping you ask? because thats how CONCORD weapons work


your change just puts favor on large alpha ganks and removes most risk in preforming a hostile action below .7

as well your post is redundant



EDIT:

Drez Arthie wrote:

Yes, but it also severely nerfs CONCORD in much of high sec.


no it makes them almost useless in most of HS

your change just moves the drop off to entering .6 systems rather than entering .4
Mag's
Azn Empire
#5 - 2015-02-15 23:16:41 UTC
Drez Arthie wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Ahh it's another 'I want Concord in low sec' thread. How original.


Yes, but it also severely nerfs CONCORD in much of high sec.
Please. You've merely move a few goal posts up to .6 and looked at nerfing play styles in low sec.

We do NOT need more NPC hand holding. It's detrimental to player interaction.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.

Drez Arthie
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#6 - 2015-02-15 23:18:18 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:

as well I can already kill a ship and warp off well b4 concord shows up in a .6 all this dose is have LS start at .6 rather than .4 and puts slow insta poping gate guns everywhere rather than just on gates. Why insta popping you ask? because thats how CONCORD weapons work


I thought only the CONCORD battleship had "insta popping" fire, not the cruisers.

Quote:
your change just moves the drop off to entering .6 systems rather than entering .4


Yes, but not as steep a drop off as we have today.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#7 - 2015-02-15 23:18:50 UTC
Mag's wrote:
]Please. You've merely move a few goal posts up to .6 and looked at nerfing play styles in low sec.

We do NOT need more NPC hand holding. It's detrimental to player interaction.


IDK everyone who currently lives in .5-.6 would have to move up to 1.0-.7 i'm sure that would cause a bit more interaction right?Straight
Lugh Crow-Slave
#8 - 2015-02-15 23:20:28 UTC
Drez Arthie wrote:


Quote:
your change just moves the drop off to entering .6 systems rather than entering .4


Yes, but not as steep a drop off as we have today.



no it's just as steep it goes from "can't be killed freely" to "can be killed freely"
Drez Arthie
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#9 - 2015-02-15 23:22:00 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:



no it's just as steep it goes from "can't be killed freely" to "can be killed freely"


Then you believe there can be no middle ground between these extremes?
Anhenka
The New Federation
Sigma Grindset
#10 - 2015-02-15 23:30:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Anhenka
Drez Arthie wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:



no it's just as steep it goes from "can't be killed freely" to "can be killed freely"


Then you believe there can be no middle ground between these extremes?


Basically. Highsec is already the middle ground between "Can't be killed" and "Can be killed freely" with it's absolutely ship destruction rule.

As to your idea, always ask "How would the EVE playerbase break my suggestion, and what would the result be?"

Being able to get away from concord without it being an exploit just means that as long as you have enough people to kill it in the 15-25 second window, you can kill anything, then warp away to a POS and not lose your ship. Then rinse and repeat in 15 minutes somewhere else in system to draw concord to that location, then back to site A to kill someone else. Rinse and repeat.

Hence why your suggestion for .5 and .6 space is useless. Anyone with a handful of friends and some Talos's could interdict all the traffic they wanted to as long as they had enough people to kill a freighter in 15 seconds.

So Niarja? An Eudema? Might as well be lowsec to freighter pilots and bowhead pilots, and anyone in a ship that looks like it might we worth the ammo and piddling sec hit. So all haulers and missioning ships and all faction ships.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#11 - 2015-02-15 23:35:08 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Mag's wrote:
]Please. You've merely move a few goal posts up to .6 and looked at nerfing play styles in low sec.

We do NOT need more NPC hand holding. It's detrimental to player interaction.


IDK everyone who currently lives in .5-.6 would have to move up to 1.0-.7 i'm sure that would cause a bit more interaction right?Straight
Yes ganking is player interaction, but we already have that in high. This change does nothing but screw over low and increase ganking in high. But not in a good way.

Concord is a necessary evil in high sec. It should remain there only.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.

Lugh Crow-Slave
#12 - 2015-02-15 23:35:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Lugh Crow-Slave
Anhenka wrote:
Drez Arthie wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:



no it's just as steep it goes from "can't be killed freely" to "can be killed freely"


Then you believe there can be no middle ground between these extremes?


Basically. Highsec is already the middle ground between "Can't be killed" and "Can be killed freely" Always ask "How would the EVE playerbase break my suggestion, and what would the result be?

Being able to get away from concord without it being an exploit just means that as long as you have enough people to kill it in the 15-25 second window, you can kill anything, then warp away to a POS and not lose your ship. Then rinse and repeat in 15 minutes somewhere else in system to draw concord to that location, then back to site A to kill someone else. Rinse and repeat.

Hence why your suggestion for .5 and .6 space is useless. Anyone with a handful of friends and some Talos's could interdict all the traffic they wanted to as long as they had enough people to kill a freighter in 15 seconds.

So Niarja? An Eudema? Might as well be lowsec to freighter pilots and bowhead pilots, and anyone in a ship that looks like it might we worth the ammo and piddling sec hit. So all haulers and missioning ships and all faction ships.


as well as any shuttle or noob frig that just happens to pass someone bored.

currently the jump from HS to LS isn't as extreem as it is made out to be there are only a few more skills you need to learn b4 you start using it to move across and then just a tiny bit extra to start living there.

the "steep curve" is mostly phantom the only major change is going from AFK to actvily watching D-scan and learning what ship can kill you and what ships you can kill.

Your idea just makes things more annoying for those who live in LS and limit the systems of those who won't live outside of LS
Drez Arthie
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#13 - 2015-02-15 23:53:01 UTC
Anhenka wrote:


Being able to get away from concord without it being an exploit just means that as long as you have enough people to kill it in the 15-25 second window, you can kill anything, then warp away to a POS and not lose your ship. Then rinse and repeat in 15 minutes somewhere else in system to draw concord to that location, then back to site A to kill someone else. Rinse and repeat.

Hence why your suggestion for .5 and .6 space is useless. Anyone with a handful of friends and some Talos's could interdict all the traffic they wanted to as long as they had enough people to kill a freighter in 15 seconds.

So Niarja? An Eudema? Might as well be lowsec to freighter pilots and bowhead pilots, and anyone in a ship that looks like it might we worth the ammo and piddling sec hit. So all haulers and missioning ships and all faction ships.


That doesn't sound so terrible. It would take more effort to set up an interdiction in "medium sec" than it does currently to set up a gate camp in low sec, and the high sec residents would have more incentive to respond with a fleet of their own, or provide their freighters and bowheads with a strong combat escort. Isn't that the kind of game we want?
Lugh Crow-Slave
#14 - 2015-02-15 23:59:58 UTC
Drez Arthie wrote:
Anhenka wrote:


Being able to get away from concord without it being an exploit just means that as long as you have enough people to kill it in the 15-25 second window, you can kill anything, then warp away to a POS and not lose your ship. Then rinse and repeat in 15 minutes somewhere else in system to draw concord to that location, then back to site A to kill someone else. Rinse and repeat.

Hence why your suggestion for .5 and .6 space is useless. Anyone with a handful of friends and some Talos's could interdict all the traffic they wanted to as long as they had enough people to kill a freighter in 15 seconds.

So Niarja? An Eudema? Might as well be lowsec to freighter pilots and bowhead pilots, and anyone in a ship that looks like it might we worth the ammo and piddling sec hit. So all haulers and missioning ships and all faction ships.


That doesn't sound so terrible. It would take more effort to set up an interdiction in "medium sec" than it does currently to set up a gate camp in low sec, and the high sec residents would have more incentive to respond with a fleet of their own, or provide their freighters and bowheads with a strong combat escort. Isn't that the kind of game we want?



no it doesn't it just means you would need larger more tanked ships such as high buffer cruisers or BBs to camp a gate rather than basic cruisers. and all transport would just be done in JFs. your idea works in a game where no one has friends or alts but not in eve
Anhenka
The New Federation
Sigma Grindset
#15 - 2015-02-16 00:05:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Anhenka
Drez Arthie wrote:
Anhenka wrote:


Being able to get away from concord without it being an exploit just means that as long as you have enough people to kill it in the 15-25 second window, you can kill anything, then warp away to a POS and not lose your ship. Then rinse and repeat in 15 minutes somewhere else in system to draw concord to that location, then back to site A to kill someone else. Rinse and repeat.

Hence why your suggestion for .5 and .6 space is useless. Anyone with a handful of friends and some Talos's could interdict all the traffic they wanted to as long as they had enough people to kill a freighter in 15 seconds.

So Niarja? An Eudema? Might as well be lowsec to freighter pilots and bowhead pilots, and anyone in a ship that looks like it might we worth the ammo and piddling sec hit. So all haulers and missioning ships and all faction ships.


That doesn't sound so terrible. It would take more effort to set up an interdiction in "medium sec" than it does currently to set up a gate camp in low sec, and the high sec residents would have more incentive to respond with a fleet of their own, or provide their freighters and bowheads with a strong combat escort. Isn't that the kind of game we want?


No. You are inventing from whole cloth the legions of organized high sec players who want to provide huge escorts to freighters and mission runners large enough to prevent people from shitting all over all freight traffic.

If they had that level of cooperation on that scale, THEY WOULDN'T BE IN HIGHSEC.

No, what would happen is groups like Marmite or nullsec daytrippers would camp .5 and .6 systems and trash everything that moved, until all highsec activity was clustered around the very upper end of the scale. The highsec economy would collapse, and it would become a massive pain in the ass to do anything, as you couldn't pass through .5 or .6 space without a massive escort, and hiring people to escort you around would remove any profits.

Oh and friends? Don't count on them. Escorting freighters over long distances is about the most boring activity in the game, up to and above solo highsec mining.

Highsec players don't magically organize into groups of players willing to escort freighters around with 30 man support fleets.

You know what they do when subjected to massive oppression? They Quit.
Nariya Kentaya
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#16 - 2015-02-16 00:06:47 UTC
Anhenka wrote:
Drez Arthie wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:



no it's just as steep it goes from "can't be killed freely" to "can be killed freely"


Then you believe there can be no middle ground between these extremes?


Basically. Highsec is already the middle ground between "Can't be killed" and "Can be killed freely" with it's absolutely ship destruction rule.

As to your idea, always ask "How would the EVE playerbase break my suggestion, and what would the result be?"

Being able to get away from concord without it being an exploit just means that as long as you have enough people to kill it in the 15-25 second window, you can kill anything, then warp away to a POS and not lose your ship. Then rinse and repeat in 15 minutes somewhere else in system to draw concord to that location, then back to site A to kill someone else. Rinse and repeat.

Hence why your suggestion for .5 and .6 space is useless. Anyone with a handful of friends and some Talos's could interdict all the traffic they wanted to as long as they had enough people to kill a freighter in 15 seconds.

So Niarja? An Eudema? Might as well be lowsec to freighter pilots and bowhead pilots, and anyone in a ship that looks like it might we worth the ammo and piddling sec hit. So all haulers and missioning ships and all faction ships.

Niarja isnt already lowsec?

i kid, i kid, but seriously, buddy of mine loses a freighter or bestower EVERY SINGLE TIME he goes into niarja
Lugh Crow-Slave
#17 - 2015-02-16 00:09:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Lugh Crow-Slave
Anhenka wrote:


Highsec players don't magically organize into groups of players willing to escort freighters around with 30 man support fleets.

You know what they do when subjected to massive oppression? They Quit.



this isn't true me and my friends are gunna get together and start an alliance that ganks gankers and provides mining and freighter escorts trust me in just a few months CODE will just give upRoll

Nariya Kentaya wrote:

Niarja isnt already lowsec?

i kid, i kid, but seriously, buddy of mine loses a freighter or bestower EVERY SINGLE TIME he goes into niarja



Shocked sounds like that guy needs to learn what a web is and how to scout
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#18 - 2015-02-16 04:49:25 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Anhenka wrote:


Highsec players don't magically organize into groups of players willing to escort freighters around with 30 man support fleets.

You know what they do when subjected to massive oppression? They Quit.



this isn't true me and my friends are gunna get together and start an alliance that ganks gankers and provides mining and freighter escorts trust me in just a few months CODE will just give upRoll

Nariya Kentaya wrote:

Niarja isnt already lowsec?

i kid, i kid, but seriously, buddy of mine loses a freighter or bestower EVERY SINGLE TIME he goes into niarja



Shocked sounds like that guy needs to learn what a web is and how to scout

Or stay the hell out of Niarja.


People do not go to low sec because they do not want to be there and the transition of low to high has nothing to do with this.
There would still be gate camps on the most often used routes between high and low.
Your idea simply destroys the play style in two regions of space, a play style that many enjoy. And for this destruction of playing styles all you offer is to make the player in .5 and .6 systems even larger and easier to gank targets.
On gets the feeling from this idea that your real motive here is to increase the number of gank trargets and to make ganking them easier while giving you the ability to avoid the punishment for doing so.

-1
Sean Parisi
Blackrise Vanguard
#19 - 2015-02-16 04:53:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Sean Parisi
Congratulations, you've just killed EvE.

So all of us who go into FW space looking for fights - We will get popped for engaging in fights? I already have to deal with penalties for being the aggressor on gates and stations, let alone security status hits. Now, if I want to be successful - all I have to do is tank my ship, get someone to attack me and watch them die? That sure sounds like fun.

Yes there can be a greater disparity between the security status levels, however - this idea will literally ruin Lowsec on all levels.
Claud Tiberius
#20 - 2015-02-16 04:58:34 UTC
Mag's wrote:
We do NOT need more NPC hand holding. It's detrimental to player interaction.

Coalitions or mega corps/alliances are also detrimental to player interaction. NPC intervention (generally speaking) could spice things up.

Once upon a time the Golem had a Raven hull and it looked good. Then it transformed into a plataduck. The end.

12Next page