These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Middle-sec
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1 - 2012-01-11 01:17:45 UTC
In-between lowsec and highsec, with security but less. Have a set of naval ships with a powerful armament show up to an illegal action instead of an omnipotent CONCORD ship.
Pros: more potential risk/reward for anyone living in highsec
Cons: having to adjust to the new system, expensive ships may be "confined" to a smaller part of space

tl;dr ^

This wasn't my idea exactly, but I have long wanted the change from highsec to lowsec to happen much more smoothly. I was toying around with ideas of slowing CONCORD response time or making them defeat-able in lower sec systems, when someone popped the idea of middle-sec. Basically, the idea is for systems with security status 0.4 through 0.6 to be called "middle-sec" and instead of having CONCORD respond to illegal attacks, naval ships would arrive and quickly begin fighting back. Their potency in combat would of course be adjusted based on the sec status of the system, so in 0.6 the naval response force would feel almost as powerful as CONCORD even though they aren't using Jovian weapons on you. But in 0.4 space, the naval response force wouldn't be all that big of a threat to a pilot who was prepared for them.

I was thinking that for each participant in an illegal attack, the navy would send three ships initially; an interceptor frigate, a cruiser fit like a combat recon, and a short-range dps/active tank battleship. The frigate would have a warp scrambler and webifier, and would actively target and shoot (and quickly destroy) any small or medium drones that get near it. The cruiser would have some cap neutralizers in addition to weapons, and also a warp disruptor, target painter, and some racial electronic warfare modules. It would fire at any medium or large drones that get within firing range. The battleship would have a warp disruptor, but the rest of its setup would be all fast-repair tank and dps with tracking boosts. And every 30 seconds if the criminal's ship and the naval ships haven't been destroyed and the criminal hasn't escaped, more naval ships would arrive.

That's probably the setup that 0.6 space would have, and 0.5 would be a little more forgiving to the attacker, and 0.4 maybe won't even have all that electronic warfare. So when you attack someone, all these naval ships warp in instantly, the battleship at about 40km, the cruiser at about 15km (needs to be within neutralizer range), and the frigate about 7.5 km. The frigate would lock you first (of course), followed by the cruiser, and finally the battleship. It would be based on their scan resolution, so the larger your ship is, the faster it'll get locked. So it's much easier to get away with a small ship, which makes sense because they don't gank as hard.

Thoughts, comments, questions, suggestions?

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."
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#2 - 2012-01-11 01:20:22 UTC
There's Empire and Nullsec.

Lowsec is the Middlesec.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Luba Cibre
Global Song Setup
#3 - 2012-01-11 01:23:50 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
There's Empire and Nullsec.

Lowsec is the Middlesec.

pretty much that.

"Nothing essential happens in the absence of noise." 
Frank Truck
ACME Mineral and Gas
#4 - 2012-01-11 01:24:43 UTC
What he said, when you delve deeper there are key differences between null and low that make it easier to survive. For example the exclusion of fields and certain ships.
That Handsome Frog
A Random Corporation
#5 - 2012-01-11 01:29:18 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
There's Empire and Nullsec.

Lowsec is the Middlesec.


We are the 99%! We must not allow John McClane to keep us down! Strengthen the middlesec! The 1% highsec (lawl) have kept us down with their greed and money.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#6 - 2012-01-11 01:31:10 UTC
This topic is about empire space. If you don't use it, then quite frankly you don't need to be commenting on it.

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."
That Handsome Frog
A Random Corporation
#7 - 2012-01-11 01:33:48 UTC
D: Just kicked a beehive... with his ****.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#8 - 2012-01-11 01:37:52 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
This topic is about empire space. If you don't use it, then quite frankly you don't need to be commenting on it.


If you don't use nullsec, it is no longer part of the game and you don't use any of its resources. Rite?

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#9 - 2012-01-11 01:40:07 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
This topic is about empire space. If you don't use it, then quite frankly you don't need to be commenting on it.


If you don't use nullsec, it is no longer part of the game and you don't use any of its resources. Rite?


Nullsec gives highsec ALL of its shiny stuff. But that's not a part of this discussion. It's off-topic.

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."
Lady Spank
Get Out Nasty Face
#10 - 2012-01-11 01:51:07 UTC
Aside from the other poorly thought out elements of this, you are suggesting removing VAST areas of low security space and introducing greater security. NO

(ಠ_ృ) ~ It Takes a Million Years to Become Diamonds So Lets Just Burn Like Coal Until the Sky's Black ~ (ಠ_ృ)
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#11 - 2012-01-11 01:51:52 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
This topic is about empire space. If you don't use it, then quite frankly you don't need to be commenting on it.


If you don't use nullsec, it is no longer part of the game and you don't use any of its resources. Rite?


Nullsec gives highsec ALL of its shiny stuff. But that's not a part of this discussion. It's off-topic.


You have suggested an idea. You have not explained what problem it solves.

Hisec = Concord, Sec Hits, Gate Guns
Lowsec = Sec Hits, Gate Guns
Nullsec = Bubbles, No Sec Hits, No Gate Guns, Sov Mechanics, etc.


If you want to propose a middlesec, you'd logically put it between the biggest differences in mechanics. Low and Null. But it doesn't need it.

Hisec also happens to be differentiated by Concord response time in Hisec.

Finally your Pro is:
Quote:

Pros: more potential risk/reward for anyone living in highsec


Assuming you don't mean "More Risk for the Same reward" ( you did describe a ratio there and more of a ratio means more of the top number when represented fractionally), then where's your accompanying mechanic to increase rewards for this middlesec band, and how will you make it different without screwing lowsec over even more?

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#12 - 2012-01-11 02:08:24 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
This topic is about empire space. If you don't use it, then quite frankly you don't need to be commenting on it.


If you don't use nullsec, it is no longer part of the game and you don't use any of its resources. Rite?


Nullsec gives highsec ALL of its shiny stuff. But that's not a part of this discussion. It's off-topic.


You have suggested an idea. You have not explained what problem it solves.

Hisec = Concord, Sec Hits, Gate Guns
Lowsec = Sec Hits, Gate Guns
Nullsec = Bubbles, No Sec Hits, No Gate Guns, Sov Mechanics, etc.


If you want to propose a middlesec, you'd logically put it between the biggest differences in mechanics. Low and Null. But it doesn't need it.

Hisec also happens to be differentiated by Concord response time in Hisec.

Finally your Pro is:
Quote:

Pros: more potential risk/reward for anyone living in highsec


Assuming you don't mean "More Risk for the Same reward" ( you did describe a ratio there and more of a ratio means more of the top number when represented fractionally), then where's your accompanying mechanic to increase rewards for this middlesec band, and how will you make it different without screwing lowsec over even more?


Simple, increasing the risk of a reward makes it greater to the fewer who pursue it. It costs more because it is harvested less and more money goes into its harvest operations. And I don't think adding in a bit of a naval protection force to 0.4 space constitutes "screwing over lowsec" as you say. Also there is just as much difference between highsec and lowsec (if not more) as there is between lowsec and nullsec. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it isn't there. For one thing, lowsec is rather stagnant. Carebears avoid it like the plague, and sovereignty holders can't own it, so it's populated almost entirely by pvp groups who do nothing other than pvp with other pvp groups. And that's not anything like nullsec sovereignty.

So with middle-sec, there would be less space for highsec fraidy-bears to hide in. The more daring carebears would venture out into middlesec to take advantage of its richer resources, such as better anomaly spawns, greater abundance of ice fields, abundant asteroids higher than veldspar and scordite, better PI rates, and higher mission pay. It would also make macroing/botting more difficult, thus reducing their impact on the market, especially in minerals. So the price of mexallon, isogen, and nocxium would rise, as would prices of all the other things you get only or mostly in 0.6 or lower.

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."
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#13 - 2012-01-11 02:09:19 UTC
Lady Spank wrote:
Aside from the other poorly thought out elements of this, you are suggesting removing VAST areas of low security space and introducing greater security. NO


If 0.4 space constitutes vast areas of lowsec, then yes.

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."
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#14 - 2012-01-11 02:19:43 UTC  |  Edited by: RubyPorto
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:

Assuming you don't mean "More Risk for the Same reward" ( you did describe a ratio there and more of a ratio means more of the top number when represented fractionally), then where's your accompanying mechanic to increase rewards for this middlesec band, and how will you make it different without screwing lowsec over even more?


Simple, increasing the risk of a reward makes it greater to the fewer who pursue it. It costs more because it is harvested less and more money goes into its harvest operations. And I don't think adding in a bit of a naval protection force to 0.4 space constitutes "screwing over lowsec" as you say. Also there is just as much difference between highsec and lowsec (if not more) as there is between lowsec and nullsec. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it isn't there. For one thing, lowsec is rather stagnant. Carebears avoid it like the plague, and sovereignty holders can't own it, so it's populated almost entirely by pvp groups who do nothing other than pvp with other pvp groups. And that's not anything like nullsec sovereignty.

So with middle-sec, there would be less space for highsec fraidy-bears to hide in. The more daring carebears would venture out into middlesec to take advantage of its richer resources, such as better anomaly spawns, greater abundance of ice fields, abundant asteroids higher than veldspar and scordite, better PI rates, and higher mission pay. It would also make macroing/botting more difficult, thus reducing their impact on the market, especially in minerals. So the price of mexallon, isogen, and nocxium would rise, as would prices of all the other things you get only or mostly in 0.6 or lower.


First, if Lowsec and Nullsec are stagnant, what do you call Hisec? Tectonic speed mode?

See all of those improvements currently exist in Lowsec. Better mission pay, better yaddayadda yadda, and nobody listens there because there is a high premium placed on safety. Lowsec is proof that "Better" industry is not enough reason to accept more risk. You need fundamentally *different* resources.

Hisec thrives on safety, that's its resource. Safety allows the markets to function efficiently, allows research to be done easily. Safety allows low prices on resources primarily collected in hisec to flourish. LP, Low end mins (including lowsec mins in grav sites), Ice.

Nullsec thrives on unique resources. Moon Goo, Farmable Ark etc, Anomalies, Pirate LP, high end modules. Oh, and Sov. Some people seem to think that's a big deal.

Lowsec has nothing unique to it. The only thing that can be built more efficiently in Low than anywhere else are Carriers, Dreads, and Rorqs. And that's all because of its proximity to high.

Middlesec would take away from the last vestiges of lowsecs advantages over high (unless you want to nerf incomes in +.7 systems further, there's really no space between Low and Hisec income for another band)

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Cyzlaki
SEAGULL ENJOYMENT AUTHORITY
S0ns Of Anarchy
#15 - 2012-01-11 02:28:16 UTC
take this braindead crap to the correct forum
Lady Spank
Get Out Nasty Face
#16 - 2012-01-11 02:36:09 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Lady Spank wrote:
Aside from the other poorly thought out elements of this, you are suggesting removing VAST areas of low security space and introducing greater security. NO


If 0.4 space constitutes vast areas of lowsec, then yes.


Then yes.

(ಠ_ృ) ~ It Takes a Million Years to Become Diamonds So Lets Just Burn Like Coal Until the Sky's Black ~ (ಠ_ృ)
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#17 - 2012-01-11 02:42:11 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:


First, if Lowsec and Nullsec are stagnant, what do you call Hisec? Tectonic speed mode?

See all of those improvements currently exist in Lowsec. Better mission pay, better yaddayadda yadda, and nobody listens there because there is a high premium placed on safety. Lowsec is proof that "Better" industry is not enough reason to accept more risk. You need fundamentally *different* resources.

Hisec thrives on safety, that's its resource. Safety allows the markets to function efficiently, allows research to be done easily. Safety allows low prices on resources primarily collected in hisec to flourish. LP, Low end mins (including lowsec mins in grav sites), Ice.

Nullsec thrives on unique resources. Moon Goo, Farmable Ark etc, Anomalies, Pirate LP, high end modules. Oh, and Sov. Some people seem to think that's a big deal.

Lowsec has nothing unique to it. The only thing that can be built more efficiently in Low than anywhere else are Carriers, Dreads, and Rorqs. And that's all because of its proximity to high.

Middlesec would take away from the last vestiges of lowsecs advantages over high (unless you want to nerf incomes in +.7 systems further, there's really no space between Low and Hisec income for another band)


I didn't say nullsec is stagnant, I said lowsec is stagnant. You just agreed with me on that point anyway.

I've done a lot of thought on how lowsec could be improved, such as giving it unique resources as you have said. I like mining a lot personally, so I have noticed that lowsec seems to have nocxium ores as its selling point. Only problem with that is that pyroxeres (a highsec ore) yields over half as much nocxium as hedbergite or hemorphite. This propels the value of pyroxeres up high so it gets mined in great amounts, and prevents the price of nocxium from going up. If pyroxeres' nocxium yield were reduced by, say, 75%, then people would be drawn to mine in lowsec.

Also, part of the reason that the higher reward is not enough to get people out to lowsec is because the danger is extreme to anyone not flying in a pvp ship. Any industrial ship can easily be demolished by a single pvp ship anywhere in lowsec, even at the stargate with the gate guns firing at it. In my middle-sec example, ganks would not necessarily entail the loss of the ganking ship, but they would still be fairly difficult to pull off. A well-tanked industrial ship, for instance, would stand a good chance of getting away unless the ganker fit for an all-out gank and was willing to lose their ship. Also, mission ships are fit differently from pvp ships, so a lot of pilots don't like to mission in lowsec since the fits that will keep them safe out there have a much lower isk-generation rate. It's also dangerous to get attacked by a pirate while you have a swarm of rats steadily depleting your tank and you're trying to kill those rat interceptors that have you webbed and scrambled.

I think that level 4 missions maybe shouldn't be available in highsec, though I always feel kind of iffy on that one. But if there was middle-sec, I would say that level 4 missions could definitely be eliminated from highsec and available only in middle-sec and down. It wouldn't be that unsafe to run level 4 missions solo in middle-sec, even better with a partner, and the income from level 4s is quite a bit higher than level 3s.

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."
Lady Spank
Get Out Nasty Face
#18 - 2012-01-11 02:46:21 UTC
LOL

(ಠ_ృ) ~ It Takes a Million Years to Become Diamonds So Lets Just Burn Like Coal Until the Sky's Black ~ (ಠ_ృ)
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#19 - 2012-01-11 04:16:53 UTC
Lady Spank wrote:
LOL


QFT

OP You don't quite get what the Carebear crowd do when presented with risk of violenced boats, and that without exploit-if-you-survive-CONCORD, a suicide gank loses the "suicide" part.

Also, Nocx (or any mineral except trit and py) prices are not particularly affected by mining activity of any area of space.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#20 - 2012-01-11 05:10:46 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Lady Spank wrote:
LOL


QFT

OP You don't quite get what the Carebear crowd do when presented with risk of violenced boats, and that without exploit-if-you-survive-CONCORD, a suicide gank loses the "suicide" part.

Also, Nocx (or any mineral except trit and py) prices are not particularly affected by mining activity of any area of space.


You think that there is a fundamental difference between the risk in highsec and the risk in lowsec, and that they are not simply on different parts of a smooth scale, because you have seen a huge divide between the safety of highsec and the lack thereof in lowsec, and your limited imagination cannot conceive that it could possibly be for any other reason than that it is considered an exploit to survive a suicide gank.

The reason you can survive other NPC situations almost without fail is not because you are some superhuman player who has mastered EVE and no programming will stand against you if there is the slightest glimmer of hope for your survival, rather every other NPC situation has been carefully scripted with a very broad margin of survival if played correctly. Those NPCs could easily be scripted to be much more dangerous. They could be built so that some players would pull off careful stunts and thwart them somewhat, while other players would fail at them every time. Add in an element of randomness, and nobody can make a profit putting their expensive toys at risk to said NPCs. Net result: there will be more ganks in middle sec than in highsec, but not so much as for the risk to overwhelm the reward. It won't be like lowsec, in which there is NO protection aside from gate and station guns.

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."
12Next page