Player Features and Ideas Discussion

High Sec needs to be high sec for noobs. I'd be okay with this idea as long as there were caps. High Sec system fluctuated between .5 and 1.0, low sec between .4 and .1, etc. Null is sov based and therefore could be based off npc kills more than pvp, just like mining anom sized are dictated by the amount of ore mined.

I think adding restrictions to noob areas is fine. But the threshold would be set at a point where, at best, criminal elements would be able to lower it by 0.1 a day in one or two systems alone. I in no way want to see high sec become lawless space in total. It would only apply to systems where the threshold is achieved.

It is good to discuss the idea of a floor in terms of the range that a system can fluctuate, say no greater than 0.5 so only 1.0 systems would be completely immune from dropping to below 0.5.

I think a reversal of this notion that CONCORD responds to increases in criminal activity needs to go. It is neither fun nor immersive. I will say that it would be harder to downgrade a system like Jita at 0.9 than it would to flip Uedama at 0.5.

Or, as I've stated in another thread:

Those CONCORD pilots are people; people with families. The guy that flies that Polaris Battleship above the Perimeter gate in Jita retires in less than a month. At some point, I think CONCORD should say, "Look we'll leave the gate guns and station guns in place, but we didn't sign up for this ****."

It is important to note that the absence of CONCORD would very likely be temporary. In your example of Uedama. Imagine the system dropping from 0.5 to 0.4 because the threshold was met in that system. Freighters and haulers can either a.) find an alternate route (good luck), b.) brave the gate camp and hope for the best, or c.) park in the neighboring system and wait, undock a frigate and go shoot at the criminals in Uedama, or swap to another account (perhaps one parked in Uedama already and shoot those that chose option B.

In the end, the players have a real impact on their universe. Rather than having arbitrary designations for how fast CONCORD responds, have those numbers actually fluctuate based on player activity.

It also presents a double-edged sword to the criminal element. The moment Uedama goes low-sec, the criminals have a greatly reduced number of targets almost guaranteeing that the system will flip back to 0.5 at the next downtime (because there weren't enough targets to further drop the current sec status from 0.4 to 0.3).

And there may be truth in what you say. I present it only as an exercise in imagination. One in which the players in the game, in high sec, shape a more malleable and fluid universe.

There are players in this game that simply do not want to be in low sec, and those that do not want to be in high sec. CCP is smart enough to realize this and gives us 4 areas of space to play in, each area has it's own basic level of security or lack of it if you prefer so that each player can choose a basic level of security that they are comfortable with. Now you want to come along and screw that all up?
Who benefits?
How do the benefit?
Specifically with a system like Jita how would it's transition from high to low sec affect the economy of the game?
Everyone thinks about this from a high sec perspective, what would it do to low. If players are out running sites, ratting and maybe some missions to earn ISK what happens to them and their low personal standings when the sytem jumps to .5?

A lot of low sec corps use cap ships, what happens to those ships if they are in a system that transitions from a .4 to a .5?

Looking at nul sec, since you cannot hold sov in empire space what happens to a system there if it transitions to a .1 due to ratting and other activities?

While the idea seems to hold some promise for interesting game play the potential hassles associated with the idea do not make it worth it. So in the end I find myself in agreement with Elyia Suze Nagala it might be interesting if a high sec system could never go below .5 and a low sec system could never go above a .4 and nul could never go above 0.0.

As if your idea was anything close to imaginative or original. Use Google to search for similar thread.

As for the idea itself: No. Once Null sec and Low sec are filled to capacity with people, we could start thinking about reducing high sec or make its borders more fluid. Until then it is absolutely counterproductive to add any new content to High sec that takes away even more people from Null and Low sec; ie. the areas of space people should aspire to and progress towards.

Then your answer is not only no but hell no.
If this can only be used to drive the security of a system downwards that is terrible in a way that cannot even be described with words.

As Rivr points out the vast majority of low sec we have is virtually empty, what possible benefit is there to the game as a whole by increasing the number of empty systems? especailly when doing so carries significant risk of CCP losing subscriber base as a result.

And NO you cannot drive a dedicated high sec player into low or nul no matter what you do to the game, all you do is drive them out of the game and that is bad for everyone.

I don't think influencing the world is a bad idea.

Picture the capitals (Amarr, etc.) as nexuses of 2.0 (or 10.0) security. Security "influence" radiates out from there according to a decaying function.

The more missions are run and rats killed in hisec, the more concord influence expands into neighboring systems.

The more missions are run and rats killed and fw sites run in lowsec, the more influence contracts towards the capitals.

This can move lowsec/hisec boundaries. Systems close to capitals can not realistically have enough lowsec ratting done to ever make them lowsec, but if you're 20+ jumps from the nearest capital system, good luck.

The system has enough hard-coded influence to never lose hisec trade routes between the faction capital systems.

CONCORD will now pod people with insufficient security status. Same goes for faction police.

Capital ship presence in 0.5 will trigger immediate concord response, so you are welcome to use them along the borders, but be very careful about where you store them or log out. Even at safe spots, special detection arrays will detect your presence as soon as you log in, and you'll have just 30 seconds to cyno out to lowsec before they arrive.

Edit: This also means enough hisec activity will start to encroach on existing lowsec. This also means that (theoretically) the space for lowsec and hisec characters will self-regulate based on activity.

My intent was simply that ganking freighters in Uedama shouldn't reward the gankers (lowering sec status in systems to the point where they can jump into them) without there being a corresponding hisec-friendly mitigation mechanism. Given that most of hisec is PVE, it makes sense for the security influence to be based on PVE events.

I was also proposing no hard-coded min or max on systems. If a large organization wanted to "burn jita" and had the coordinated effort of 5000+ pilots, they could overcome the built-in standings mechanism and make jita a low-sec system for as long as they wanted to throw isk at sustaining the assault.

No you are making yourself very clear, however you are not able or you are not willing to understand how bad this would be for the game at a fundamental (meaning CCP's cash flow) level.
If a system full of high sec players logs out one day and everything is normal, they log in the next and they and all of their stuff is in low sec, they are now in a place they chose not to be in. So they face a decision, log out and do not play until the status comes back up, or risk trying to move everything they own to another location simply to lose it all in the process driving the status of the system even lower and you seem to think this is a good idea?

So again I ask the question you have so carefully side stepped who benefits from this idea?


What concerns me about those systems is the affect your idea has on those players that want to be in high sec for whatever reason. It is quite likely that they would tolerate this log out in high sec and log back in tomorrow in low once and then they would be gone from the game for ever. And no a taste of life in low sec will not turn them into low sec players, especially if it is forced on them in this manor. And do not even say it because you are wrong the game is not better off without these players, running a game like this with it's constant update cycle and bug fixes is an expe$ive operation and CCP needs all of the cash paying subscriptions they can get.

Gospadin your idea of fluid border regions is far from original but it has similar problems to the basic idea in this topic.
If you want fluid borders that are ever shifting based on the actions of the players then nul sec is where you need to be.
Looking at the borders between high and low sec, high and nul, or between low and nul they need to be fixed and not a moving target simply because. We have players that due to family or other life commitments cannot log in on a daily basis and they need / deserve the right to know that if they log off in a high sec system that it will be high sec when they log back in. What about the border regions between low and nul, would they move based on the actions of those on either side? Or do you propose that nul is some kind of special snowflake area and should not be subject to the actions of players from the bordering systems?