These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Variable Lowsec - not the way you THINK though

Author
Everseeker
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1 - 2012-01-17 21:22:31 UTC
Once upon a time, long ago, I proposed a change to Low sec... it fell on deaf ears (or so I thought)
Recently though, I have begun to hear, on Podcasts and such, that the idea is getting some attention - but not the way I intended.
The current thought is to make it possible to "fight" a system into lower sec...
Take a .4 system, bring 5 metric gigatons of Pirates in, and let them pull the system to .1, reap benefits (?) possibly even making it possible to nibble at .5 systems.
My idea is pretty much the opposite, and is more based on reality.
If you were a member of a vast intergalacticacil super doper empire, and there was a kerfuffle in the badlands... you would NOT leave it be... you would send in the cops to deal with it...
So, here's my thought... If enough pirates operate in a system long enough, the sec level of that system will begin to raise... eventually getting to the point where pirating becomes EXPENSIVE (with conga lines of Concord ships as proof)
As a related note: When you get killed, the system looks at your sec level vs. the attacker’s level... If your sec is pretty-sparkly+10, and the attacker is -9.956 then you were one of the beautiful people, accosted by ruffians.... Concord has a chance to show up, even in low sec (the larger the delta, the better the chance, moderated by the truesec of the space you're in)
This would cause the pirates to need to MOVE AROUND, not permacamping low sec. They'd also have to choose their victims carefully
Eventually, you'd wind up with pirates living in small enclaves, where they did NOT fight (Thou shalt not **** in the food bowl), and more High sec peeps willing to risk putting a toe in... Knowing that if they died, there was a CHANCE that concord would show up to avenge them....
Camios
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#2 - 2012-01-17 23:00:25 UTC
You should clarify what is the mechanic by which the sec status of a system goes up. Weekly kills? This could be good only if the value of the system does not change. Agent, PI and exploration rewards should be the same.

I think that another possibility is this: since usually pirates are there to do PVP and not farming, in order to balance the risk vs reward dynamically I think that the profitability of any activity in a system should increase based on the economical value of items destroyed in the system.
E.g. in Amamake there are a lot of kills, it does not make sense to go there to make money; but if there were a mechanism that increases the rewards if a system is really dangerous, it would make sense.

In simple words, "variable lowsec" should include a two way mechanism that increases NPC (possibly concord) protection for kills, and increases the payout in a "violent" system (all based on the economical value of PVP losses in that system). But it should be really hard to change the protection and payout levels, so that these can't be exploited.







Blastil
Aideron Robotics
Aideron Robotics.
#3 - 2012-01-18 05:16:04 UTC
theres a reason why lowsec exists, concord CANT AFFORD to patrol all of it. I don't like the idea of dynmically changing sec status of a system, unless it was limited to turning .5's to .4's and vice versa. I veto the idea of concord invovlement at all. I think it would be cool to see a sov-type system in place, so if enough pirates put down sov beacons in a .5 system, then the sov is downgraded to .4. The inverse would be true as well, allowing highsec anti-pies place sov beacons to raise the sec status of a system from .4 to .5, thus allowing combat to ensue on both sides.

I would definately put some limitations on it though, because if it was allowed in all systems, you'd pretty quickly find chribba staking out entire regions of lowsec and turning them into highsec.

from what I gathered from the last CSM notes, CCP intends on letting factional warfare kind of take on a role of anti-piracy as well, having them stake out all lowsec systems (not just FW ones). This would hopefully make lowsec PVP more fun again.
admiral root
Red Galaxy
#4 - 2012-01-25 20:45:15 UTC
Blastil wrote:
I veto the idea of...


CCP Hilmar alt detected?

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff

Osabojo
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#5 - 2012-01-26 00:04:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Osabojo
The problem with lowsec is that there isn't enough reward to justify the risk. You want to lower the risk to match the reward, but there's already a ton of space like that, it's called highsec. What really needs to be done is raise the reward to match the risk, or better yet, reduce the reward for low risk activities in highsec.

Also, if you think people outside of highsec are worried about losing ships then you have failed to grasp the fact that they have left highsec. Losing a ship (and more often than not, getting podded) is a calculated risk and, generally, not a big deal.
Tallianna Avenkarde
Pyre of Gods
#6 - 2012-01-26 02:34:29 UTC
For sure, reduce lowsecs more! Make more nice safe place for bears :) Make sure pierats cannot has home, all with no effort from players at all!


If you want a system to be safer so you can use it, come out here and pew us to make it safer >.<

And a sudden plunge in the sullen swell. Ten fathoms deep on the road to hell.