These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Low-sec Hopes and Changes

Author
Salvos Rhoska
#101 - 2017-03-12 09:01:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Nat Silverguard wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:


A) The content in LS doesnt require caps to run. Its overkill.
B) Due to LS safety mechanics, such as no bubbles or smartbombs, cynos are not justified there.


hey mofo, are you not aware that citadels exist in LS as well?

about cynos, so bombers and blops are not allowed too? Straight


They are allowed. Just no cynos.

Cynos belong in NS, in systems with unrestricted engagement rules.

PS: Wtf calling me a mofo?
Nat Silverguard
Aideron Robotics
Aideron Robotics.
#102 - 2017-03-12 09:05:05 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Nat Silverguard wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:


A) The content in LS doesnt require caps to run. Its overkill.
B) Due to LS safety mechanics, such as no bubbles or smartbombs, cynos are not justified there.


hey mofo, are you not aware that citadels exist in LS as well?

about cynos, so bombers and blops are not allowed too? Straight


They are allowed. Just no cynos.

Cynos belong in NS, in systems with unrestricted engagement rules.

PS: Wtf calling me a mofo?


because i love you...

so what's the point of using SBombers and Blops if it can't be dropped?

Just Add Water

Lan Wang
Princess Aiko Hold My Hand
Safety. Net
#103 - 2017-03-12 09:08:42 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Nat Silverguard wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:


A) The content in LS doesnt require caps to run. Its overkill.
B) Due to LS safety mechanics, such as no bubbles or smartbombs, cynos are not justified there.


hey mofo, are you not aware that citadels exist in LS as well?

about cynos, so bombers and blops are not allowed too? Straight


They are allowed. Just no cynos.

Cynos belong in NS, in systems with unrestricted engagement rules.

PS: Wtf calling me a mofo?


i dont really get where this sort of idea comes from, i cant really put m finger on how this would benefit anything, no cyno's in lowesec just means you are nerfing a ton of content, as for capitals, they are a big part of pvp in lowsec so again i dont really see any sort of benefit to this change.

no cyno's but jump capable ships are allowed, thats pointless...who is going to use a blops when a t1 battleship ha more tank

Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel

Calm down miner. As you pointed out, people think they can get away with stuff they would not in rl... Like for example illegal mining... - Ima Wreckyou*

Salvos Rhoska
#104 - 2017-03-12 09:11:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Nat Silverguard wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Nat Silverguard wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:


A) The content in LS doesnt require caps to run. Its overkill.
B) Due to LS safety mechanics, such as no bubbles or smartbombs, cynos are not justified there.


hey mofo, are you not aware that citadels exist in LS as well?

about cynos, so bombers and blops are not allowed too? Straight


They are allowed. Just no cynos.

Cynos belong in NS, in systems with unrestricted engagement rules.

PS: Wtf calling me a mofo?


because i love you...

so what's the point of using SBombers and Blops if it can't be dropped?



You can still cloak and deliver your payload.
I lost a fail Muninn to a Panther once in LS.
Didnt require a cyno.
Salvos Rhoska
#105 - 2017-03-12 09:16:56 UTC
Lan Wang wrote:
i dont really get where this sort of idea comes from, i cant really put m finger on how this would benefit anything


Its not about benefiting anyone. Its about rationalizing the game systems/mechanics.
Nat Silverguard
Aideron Robotics
Aideron Robotics.
#106 - 2017-03-12 09:21:08 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Nat Silverguard wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Nat Silverguard wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:


A) The content in LS doesnt require caps to run. Its overkill.
B) Due to LS safety mechanics, such as no bubbles or smartbombs, cynos are not justified there.


hey mofo, are you not aware that citadels exist in LS as well?

about cynos, so bombers and blops are not allowed too? Straight


They are allowed. Just no cynos.

Cynos belong in NS, in systems with unrestricted engagement rules.

PS: Wtf calling me a mofo?


because i love you...

so what's the point of using SBombers and Blops if it can't be dropped?



You can still cloak and deliver your payload.
I lost a fail Muninn to a Panther once in LS.
Didnt require a cyno.


yes, because your single experience transcends all logic and rational, therefore game design and balance should solely revolve around that. Roll

Just Add Water

Salvos Rhoska
#107 - 2017-03-12 09:25:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Nat Silverguard wrote:


yes, because your single experience transcends all logic and rational, therefore game design and balance should solely revolve around that. Roll


Sarcasm and argumentum ad absurdum is not an argument.
I simply demonstrated cynos are not required.

The game design issue is in allowing cynos in Ls in the first place, whereas rationally they should only be allowed in sectors with unrestricted engagement mechanics (ie: NS)
Lan Wang
Princess Aiko Hold My Hand
Safety. Net
#108 - 2017-03-12 09:31:31 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Lan Wang wrote:
i dont really get where this sort of idea comes from, i cant really put m finger on how this would benefit anything


Its not about benefiting anyone. Its about rationalizing the game systems/mechanics.


no its about improving lowsec and removing 2 key features of the game which many lowsec groups use as main gameplay is not an improvment, there really is no rational excuse to remove cynos and caps from lowsec.

because no bubbles...we get by fine killing supers without bubbles

Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel

Calm down miner. As you pointed out, people think they can get away with stuff they would not in rl... Like for example illegal mining... - Ima Wreckyou*

Salvos Rhoska
#109 - 2017-03-12 09:33:42 UTC
Lan Wang wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Lan Wang wrote:
i dont really get where this sort of idea comes from, i cant really put m finger on how this would benefit anything


Its not about benefiting anyone. Its about rationalizing the game systems/mechanics.


no its about improving lowsec and removing 2 key features of the game which many lowsec groups use as main gameplay is not an improvment, there really is no rational excuse to remove cynos and caps from lowsec.

because no bubbles...we get by fine killing supers without bubbles


Whether its an improvement, is subjective to your own interests, not game design and rationality.

As an example:
-Explain to me why cynos and supers are not allowed in HS?
Nat Silverguard
Aideron Robotics
Aideron Robotics.
#110 - 2017-03-12 10:41:47 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Nat Silverguard wrote:


yes, because your single experience transcends all logic and rational, therefore game design and balance should solely revolve around that. Roll


Sarcasm and argumentum ad absurdum is not an argument.
I simply demonstrated cynos are not required.

The game design issue is in allowing cynos in Ls in the first place, whereas rationally they should only be allowed in sectors with unrestricted engagement mechanics (ie: NS)


you demonstrated and justified nothing, you just simply shared a personal anecdote, nothing more nothing less.

Just Add Water

Marcus Heth
#111 - 2017-03-12 10:42:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Marcus Heth
Orakkus wrote:
So, does everyone have their own idea about how to make low-sec good, or have certain ideas/concepts started to get favor with the mass of low-sec players?



1) change high sec so each faction is on its own high sec island with no-man's land low sec in between. This also makes logistics and hauling more of a specialisation and creates a stronger sense of belonging within each faction, choices suddenly matter more.

2) move some of the needed minerals to low sec only, make it so you can't get them from reprocessing. This creates a drive for the more adventurous miner (rewarding the non-afk ones) and will end up creating more well rounded groups that do both mining as pvp/defence and ofcourse more pvp as a whole

3) remove the sec status loss upon podding, lots of people who want to dabble in low sec are scared of the sec status loss.

4) no cynos in low sec. Radical concept but it leaves LS to the LS folks rather than the NS groups who just "have a peek" and projectile vomit their blobs all over the fricking place. It also makes NS logistics a lot harder which is good meaning it creates a drive for NS to produce their own materials and goods more. Lack of Cyno creates a more even playing field where people can just "have a go with normal pvp" and without having to fear blops/carrier/Scap blob drops. Leave those to NS.
DeMichael Crimson
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#112 - 2017-03-12 19:27:24 UTC
Mr Epeen wrote:
Orakkus wrote:
So, does everyone have their own idea about how to make low-sec good,
I don't know about everyone, but I do.

Get rid of it. All you need is lawful space and lawless space. No need for some in between space that makes no one happy.

Mr Epeen Cool

I agree, since low sec space is still owned by Empire Factions combine it with high sec and call it Empire Space. Null sec is Alliance Space.

Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Supercapitals banned from low-sec (no more transit through or operating out of).
CONCORD expanded to all low-sec systems (including FW systems). Players engaged in FW are legitimate targets for each other (but cannot attack neutrals without a wardec, and vice-versa).

Then I'm fine with relocating L4 agents and Incursions to low-sec. Without CONCORD anything is a deal breaker.

I agree and it would definitely get a lot more players going into 0.4 to 0.1 systems.

Since there's already plenty of lv 4 Agents currently in low sec space, all CCP needs to do is just remove lv 4 Agents from 1.0 to 0.5 systems.

No to having Concord active in FW systems. Those are battlefields, no man's land, enter at your own risk, all civilians are forewarned to stay clear. Just have the game issue a warning (option to disable) after setting destination if travel route includes a FW system.

Since 0.4 to 0.1 systems is Empire Space, Concord response time would be lower in each consecutive lower system security level. That would give suicide gankers plenty of killmails.

Gate Camping would be outlawed in Empire Space due to obstruction of traffic flow. Those loitering (camping) at Gates would incur Sentry Gun fire after a set amount of time has expired. Also Sentry Guns would no longer 'Fire & Forget' when flagged pilots jump out of range and back in again. Sentry Guns would also be updated with the new AI that will switch target to the biggest threat level on grid.

For those who want to do solo PvP action, just turn the Duel mechanic into a 'Death Duel' (pod kill allowed) that allows no outside interference from others and no security status change from Empire.

Anyway, it'll never happen but hey, one can dream, right ?



DMC
Lan Wang
Princess Aiko Hold My Hand
Safety. Net
#113 - 2017-03-13 07:31:01 UTC
DeMichael Crimson wrote:
Mr Epeen wrote:
Orakkus wrote:
So, does everyone have their own idea about how to make low-sec good,
I don't know about everyone, but I do.

Get rid of it. All you need is lawful space and lawless space. No need for some in between space that makes no one happy.

Mr Epeen Cool

I agree, since low sec space is still owned by Empire Factions combine it with high sec and call it Empire Space. Null sec is Alliance Space.

Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Supercapitals banned from low-sec (no more transit through or operating out of).
CONCORD expanded to all low-sec systems (including FW systems). Players engaged in FW are legitimate targets for each other (but cannot attack neutrals without a wardec, and vice-versa).

Then I'm fine with relocating L4 agents and Incursions to low-sec. Without CONCORD anything is a deal breaker.

I agree and it would definitely get a lot more players going into 0.4 to 0.1 systems.

Since there's already plenty of lv 4 Agents currently in low sec space, all CCP needs to do is just remove lv 4 Agents from 1.0 to 0.5 systems.

No to having Concord active in FW systems. Those are battlefields, no man's land, enter at your own risk, all civilians are forewarned to stay clear. Just have the game issue a warning (option to disable) after setting destination if travel route includes a FW system.

Since 0.4 to 0.1 systems is Empire Space, Concord response time would be lower in each consecutive lower system security level. That would give suicide gankers plenty of killmails.

Gate Camping would be outlawed in Empire Space due to obstruction of traffic flow. Those loitering (camping) at Gates would incur Sentry Gun fire after a set amount of time has expired. Also Sentry Guns would no longer 'Fire & Forget' when flagged pilots jump out of range and back in again. Sentry Guns would also be updated with the new AI that will switch target to the biggest threat level on grid.

For those who want to do solo PvP action, just turn the Duel mechanic into a 'Death Duel' (pod kill allowed) that allows no outside interference from others and no security status change from Empire.

Anyway, it'll never happen but hey, one can dream, right ?



DMC


Are you too scared to go to losec without concord?, it's about "fixing" lower, not turning it into highec, doesn't do anything for game apart from cater to higher carebears

Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel

Calm down miner. As you pointed out, people think they can get away with stuff they would not in rl... Like for example illegal mining... - Ima Wreckyou*

Salvos Rhoska
#114 - 2017-03-13 10:30:52 UTC
Lan Wang wrote:
it's about "fixing" lower


What, exactly, do you propose yourself towards that?
Mr Mieyli
Doomheim
#115 - 2017-03-13 10:37:40 UTC
IMO lowsec primarily needs a reason for people to be there. The types who live in lowsec are predators and they need prey. There needs to be some incentive to get out of highsec and into low. I also would agree that supers should be prohibited to prevent nullsec groups dominating lowsec as well. Lowsec should be sheltered from the big boys in null but provide a hunting ground for those looking for that style of play.

This post brought to you by CCP's alpha forum alt initiative. Playing the eve forums has never come cheaper.

Coralas
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#116 - 2017-03-13 11:15:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Coralas
Salvos Rhoska wrote:


You can still cloak and deliver your payload.
I lost a fail Muninn to a Panther once in LS.
Didnt require a cyno.


There is nothing stopping people counter dropping. ie after a while you should have an idea how much cloaky shite is going to come through on various droppers cynos, and you should have an idea whether your counter drop is sufficient for the kind of fight you want.

I also find lowsec works for me for pve content consumption (escalations generally), its a great replacement for the good ole days when every nullsec pvp pilot lived in one of about 5 systems (because of the stupid power projection), and I was able to rent a system for myself.
Salvos Rhoska
#117 - 2017-03-13 11:25:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Coralas wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:


You can still cloak and deliver your payload.
I lost a fail Muninn to a Panther once in LS.
Didnt require a cyno.


There is nothing stopping people counter dropping. ie after a while you should have an idea how much cloaky shite is going to come through on various droppers cynos, and you should have an idea whether your counter drop is sufficient for the kind of fight you want.

I also find lowsec works for me for pve content consumption (escalations generally), its a great replacement for the good ole days when every nullsec pvp pilot lived in one of about 5 systems (because of the stupid power projection), and I was able to rent a system for myself.

How did you get this ^ out of what I wrote.

Cynos dont belong in LS.
They belong in NS.

Cynos overstep, circumvent and perforate the safety mechanics of LS, especially those of gatecamps which are one of their few ways to prevent passing through their territory from the NS angle, or back out when returning to NS (especially laden with goods from HS).
Coralas
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#118 - 2017-03-13 11:27:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Coralas
Mr Mieyli wrote:
IMO lowsec primarily needs a reason for people to be there. The types who live in lowsec are predators and they need prey. There needs to be some incentive to get out of highsec and into low. I also would agree that supers should be prohibited to prevent nullsec groups dominating lowsec as well. Lowsec should be sheltered from the big boys in null but provide a hunting ground for those looking for that style of play.


Can't actually remember the last time I jumped in on 50 players in the 1 lowsec system. Usually when I saw that it was getting in and out of Vale (through Obe), and they were usually camped on the lowsec side of the null gate, not on the lowsec side of a highsec gate - ie a place that would not interdict anyone just doing lowsec content. I never died to them either, went through the camps many times with loot onboard.

My actual experiences with doing content in low, is pass through a small gatecamp, find small groups of 5 active players that get very prickly if you take their content, lots of 5.0s in stations, or running errands for goo towers, lots of newbies in scanning frigates, and the routine passage of scout/solos/small gangs. If you don't offer the scout much in the way of an obvious target, you just have to be patient and you'll get your content done.
Coralas
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#119 - 2017-03-13 11:33:50 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Coralas wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:


You can still cloak and deliver your payload.
I lost a fail Muninn to a Panther once in LS.
Didnt require a cyno.


There is nothing stopping people counter dropping. ie after a while you should have an idea how much cloaky shite is going to come through on various droppers cynos, and you should have an idea whether your counter drop is sufficient for the kind of fight you want.

I also find lowsec works for me for pve content consumption (escalations generally), its a great replacement for the good ole days when every nullsec pvp pilot lived in one of about 5 systems (because of the stupid power projection), and I was able to rent a system for myself.

How did you get this ^ out of what I wrote.

Cynos dont belong in LS.
They belong in NS.

Cynos overstep, circumvent and perforate the safety mechanics of LS, especially those of gatecamps which are one of their few ways to prevent passing through their territory from the NS angle.


I'm saying that people dropping cynos are not safe. ie the mechanism is self balanced and is fine in lowsec.
Nat Silverguard
Aideron Robotics
Aideron Robotics.
#120 - 2017-03-13 11:43:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Nat Silverguard
Salvos Rhoska wrote:

How did you get this ^ out of what I wrote.

Cynos dont belong in LS.
They belong in NS.

Cynos overstep, circumvent and perforate the safety mechanics of LS, especially those of gatecamps which are one of their few ways to prevent passing through their territory from the NS angle, or back out when returning to NS (especially laden with goods from HS).


you really must be trolling you mofo...

so you want JFs to slow boat and use gate from NS to HS and vice versa?

you want to kill the economy?

Just Add Water