Assembly Hall

At 0.5% aggression penalty, plus 1.5% kill penalty, it takes just 11 ship kills to go from 0 sec to -2. You can get those kills easily in a couple gang fights if you are never primaried.

Getting those two points back by killing rats takes around 80 high bounty battleships. If doing that in highsec missions, where you can't switch systems after each rats, thats a minimum of 20 hours of mission grinding.

Structure kills are not significantly more expensive in sec status. Unless you mean fights around a structure.

Has anyone here heard of NPC 0.0 - Just a question? Maybe a rework of lowsec based on this might help?

Maybe remove lowsec entirely and turn it into NPC Pirate Claimed Territory with NPC Pirate missions or standings gains with them through navy rats in belts / around gates n stations. This would enable a whole new dynamic to evolve, players choosing either Empire NPC affiliation or Pirate NPC affiliation.... I personally would love to add a Guristas Pirate tattoo to my toon in customisation. Like 0.0 with caps (no supers), without sov n bubbles and and pvp could reduce empire standings (not sec) and increase pirate standings..... Now players can choose a full time pirate lifestyle with some benefits and income.


Could also make the various Navy rats drop the empire faction items thus putting some income to the pirates that choose this path and making the area more appealing.....



Just a thought,

AGREE or FLAME the choice is yours.....

So everyone that attacks a carebear would still be kicked out of high sec? Basically that would mean lowsec would stay exactly the same as it is right now.....



I believe there's a huge playground for carebears - it's called highsec. If you want the additional income, cope with the additional risk.



Again, as mentioned before, this change would invite many casual/smallscale pvpers, who just don't want to be kicked out of highsec for life.



Yay! Right in the face of every pvper.
"Go beg for your fights in Jita you dirty scum."
You could as well ask for secure 0.0sec because ratting and mining there is more profitable....


Anyways:
I really like Dant's idea +1

Thinking that people in low sec will not kill your pve ship because they do not want a security hit will just get you killed repeatedly. You should give up on that idea right away.

Anyone who goes to low sec now with any frequency already understands this. So this proposal will not deter anyone who already goes to low sec.

I want to make sure I get this right as this proposal is getting a great deal of press.

Joe Blow the 3 week player gets tired of mining or lvl 1 missions, and wants to try out some PvP. He's getting pretty bored with Empire. So he fits up some cheap frigates and has a few fights. But, if he fights too much he's going to encounter a problem; he drops to negative security status.

As he's flying from Dodixie (in his brand new frigate) to his favorite new fun spot Amamake for some more 'o' that PvP goodness, he jumps into Egghelende. Surprise: I was waiting in a quick lock Thrasher (or T3 for even extra survivability) on the gate at zero. Now that he's dropped below zero sec status (very quick trip for him as he doesn't really care for missions), I can pop his butt. And the good news is I'm pretty safe; I don't have to worry about sentry fire, I can sit at zero on the gate - anything ugly comes at me, I just jump to highsec. And I'll never lose sec status... it's a camper's dream!

Joe Blow now has two options; he can either go rat/mission to return to zero, or he can risk another frigate trying to enter lowsec. Personally, I think Joe's going to pick Option #3... he's going to become risk adverse and spend the rest of his life in Empire bitching about the ebil piwates and their dirty gatecamps. Note this was a player who originally wanted to PvP.

This is the problem I have with this proposal. Anything which restricts access past current standards will do more harm to the cause than good. Do not answer with "He should get a scouting alt"... that's horseshit, you and I both know it. Don't say "Der... MMO isn't for solo!". That's a cop-out too.

@Jack Dant: I think your underlying premise is fantastic... and honestly, in spirit, touches upon a real 'fix' for lowsec. But consider a more literal interpretation of "What Happens in Lowsec, Stays in Lowsec":

1.) Gates and stations, with their sentries, remain in their current form. Thus, Joe Blow can still get his frigate through.

2.) Remove the sec status hit for combat which is initiated 1000km from gates or stations. You can attack any ship in a belt and not take a security status hit. In other words, CONCORD doesn't have the manpower to watch the belts, planets, or POCO's... if you get nailed there, you're fair game.

3.) Pod kills anywhere in lowsec still apply as per current rules, allowing the truly evil to become -10.

Thank you for your reply. In our above scenario, I believe Joe Blow the new player is actually put at a severe disadvantage compared to the existing mechanics.

It currently takes a significant hardware investment to pull off a gate camp capable of snagging frigates. The common Villore/OMS camp is a good example; they're able to hit frigates, but only by risking a goodly deal of isk. The changes, as listed your original post, would make it easier to camp (dependent upon the camper keeping his sec status up and selecting targets with sec status below zero). Casual PvP'ers now have to worry about getting their frigate through the gate.

In effect, dropping even 1/100th of a point below SS zero now inflicts the full penalties of -5 on pilots seeking casual PvP. We're now punishing them even more than we do today. I do not feel this is a change that will promote casual PvP.

As a pirate, you've become used to operating this way... and I respect that. But I believe casual PvP'ers will be far less accepting of this new restriction. Already most Empire residents fear the 'Gatecamp Boogeyman' specter in lowsec; it's the main thing that keeps them away, and I advise constantly that it's really not that dangerous if you stick to small, agile ships. This would change were your proposal (as currently written) to go into effect.

I also rebel on a personal level against anyone making anyone else rat or mission to keep their SS up so that they may keep fighting while still having access to Empire. This is another barrier that casual PvP'ers have to cross, which I feel is not really needed. Why are we punishing people for wanting to PvP?

As mentioned in my post above, the simplest solution IMO seems to be to remove SS hits from belts, planets, and POCO's while keeping the entry routes to lowsec 'safe-ish' (but never, ever completely safe... the current mechanics in this small area seem fine to me).

Let 'em get in safe and find a fight. If you even bring up the chance of a gatecamp, or suggest they must rat/mission or suffer on the gates, they're going to stay away.


I'm not trolling. I am a solo casual PvP'er, who has advised and taught the pleasures of casual lowsec PvP for years.

Scenario: I'm flying my Rifter around lowsec looking for targets. I jump a gate and find a Tarannis before me. My sec status is -1, his is -7.4


Current mechanics: I can decide to engage or not. He cannot camp the gate against me unless I've dropped my SS all the way down to -5 Note that I can still run around Empire.

Proposed Changes: He can engage without any danger of sentries.



Replace the Tarannis with a Loki, Tengu, hell... just about anything. How does this entice more people to try lowsec PvP? You're raised the restrictions... not dropped them.


I'll tell you what it does offer (and holy crap I can't believe I'm actually saying this): it would provide more targets for those below -5... they would not have to worry about gate guns half as much as they do now.

Vaurion, thank you for your measured responses. We'll probably have to agree to disagree on this one.

If CCP is foolish enough to attempt to promote PvP by utilizing a system which further encourages any type of gatecamping, they deserve to reap what they sow.

I am not anti-pirate... hell, not anti-anything... and would be the very first to say lowsec needs some love. But this, IMO, is not the way. The solution is to remove the SS penalty in select areas (belts, planets, POCO's)... not adjust it to one group's advantage.

Again, thank you for the debate.

Plutonian, I completely understand where you are coming from. I did mention how sentries help keep lowsec sane by keeping inty/bomber/falcon gatecamps unfeasible.

I don't think that would be affected by my proposal, but I confess I'm not sure. There is no way to be. The pure camper loves kill numbers above all, so I expect they would keep engaging positive sec people and podding everyone. So they would still need heavier ships. Incidentally, the increase in outlaws would probably be followed by an increase in non-outlaws hunting them.

I proposed making negative sec players free targets, because as an outlaw, I welcome people who shoot first. If I'm roaming solo, in a fast ship, I cannot engage anyone on gates. Sentries are just too much of a handicap. So jumping into a gang that actually wants to shoot me is great. Well, as long as their tackle is not very good I wanted that to extend to more people coming to lowsec.

Raimo's suggestion in the first page would actually fix your problem better: cap sec loss, but keep sentry/gcc mechanics unchanged. Then us proper outlaws keep our chance to get fights without sentries, while gates are safe-ish for everyone else. My problem with that, is that I foresee more standoffs on gates as two gangs dare each other into aggressing first.

There might be a solution for this issue by introducing a more gradual alteration in security/sentry mechanics:

1.: Lower the sentry aggression barrier to -1.5 sec status - that will give the newbie a little buffer to play around in lowsec before he looses protection on gates.

2.: Sentry aggression will always be triggered on jump gates which are connected with high sec as long as the player is above -5 sec status, thus preventing solo camps on those gates. On other gates the camper would still have to face the risk of being popped by a gang jumping in.



Another possibility is connecting the sentry aggression directly to the systems sec status:

- in 0.4 only attacking everything above -5 will trigger sentry attack
- in 0.3 everything above -1.9
- in 0.2 everything above -0.9 a.s.o.
(just an example - these numbers aren't carved in stone)

This would provide a "safe" entry into lowsec for everyone, while with further advancement you'd get vulnerable on gates to solo pvpers depending on your own sec rating.