These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

"Grey" System Security Status
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Bob Niac
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1 - 2012-03-20 17:17:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Bob Niac
Security status has not changed in years. I think CCP should have a look at it and make it much more then what it is now

Problem: Its far too black and white

EVE is all about making choices. Choices that affect everyone in the game. So let's see how we can make choices change security status

Firstly, we can add another rating to Security status: Factional Influence

How much influence does your faction hold in the area? Can they enforce the laws of the land? Can they govern the planets fully in that system? This may seem like a purely care-bear idea, but it has consequences for all. Having a poor standing with a faction where they have a commanding presence means they will field more resources to remove you as a threat

Which brings us to the next point: Player Sovereignt

Sov mechanics go hand in hand with this. If Amarr were to have an iHub (why doesn't it, btw?) .. most likely they would be fully upgraded. Their stability and military independence raises the security of the system. So what is to stop player's sov from doing the same

Finally, CONCORD security

CONCORD is an organization that mainly polices capuleers. They have no real pull on factions and normal day to day life of non-"immortals." So let's make that prevalent in their rating of security status.

[u]I <3 Logistics:[/u] Pilot of all  T2 logi and my shiny Archon [deceased.] Also a Chimera which may or may not be horrid. I don't make games, I play them. I get that ppl are passionate about change. I post here to plant seeds. You see your idea as is? Holy **** you win! So let's post, and see what the DEVs and our peers use.
Bob Niac
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#2 - 2012-03-20 17:18:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Bob Niac
So ... Let's break this down.

CONCORD vs. Player

Current sec mechanics. Integral for PvP combat.

  • +0.1 to +0.5


Factions vs. Faction

Factions' / Players' influence on the system vs assaulting entity. This is primarily an NPC metric


  • Adds 0.1 to 0.5 security
  • Presence of enemy detracts this.


Sovereignty

Strength of your infrastructure.


  • This could be a player only thing.

[u]I <3 Logistics:[/u] Pilot of all  T2 logi and my shiny Archon [deceased.] Also a Chimera which may or may not be horrid. I don't make games, I play them. I get that ppl are passionate about change. I post here to plant seeds. You see your idea as is? Holy **** you win! So let's post, and see what the DEVs and our peers use.
Bob Niac
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#3 - 2012-03-20 17:18:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Bob Niac
Rats

Allowing pirate factions into belts, etc lowers the security status. Having your own / freindly police NPCs in belts and at gates increases it, etc.

No More NPC 0.0

Think about this. Outlaw factions may be dangerous because they are less .. moral. But they still have a policing force. That coupled with the fact that most / all NPC space has at least one station that anyone can dock at, regardless of standings, means there is actually security in NPC 0.0.

CONCORD

The amount of response CONCORD puts out gives a system it's base sec rating. CONCORD puts stronger forces where there is more danger from immortals hurting normal people. Thus highly populated planets and cultural centers are a priority.

Sovereignty

In player space, this replaces CONCORD's metric. Gained normally.

Standings

Standings are tricky. They can be a very useful tool in this mechanic. Popping a player would cause an automatic standings decrease, podding more so. Having high sov could make it so standings get hit more, like high sec PVP.

Standings can be set as they are now, at a corp / alliance level. I would imagine an "ignore standings modifications" checkbox would have to be put into play.

[u]I <3 Logistics:[/u] Pilot of all  T2 logi and my shiny Archon [deceased.] Also a Chimera which may or may not be horrid. I don't make games, I play them. I get that ppl are passionate about change. I post here to plant seeds. You see your idea as is? Holy **** you win! So let's post, and see what the DEVs and our peers use.
Bob Niac
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#4 - 2012-03-20 17:58:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Bob Niac
Iterating Player Sov

Sec status could become a very important part of taking a system. Currently, having your infrastructure disabled and assets seized are the primary determining factors in taking a system. Sound familiar

So, when the sec status of a system falls below 0.0 (per the current true-sec model) the system becomes unclaimed

War

So what I don't understand .. Why aren't we wardec'ing the people we are attacking? This would make life a whole hell of a lot easier to track for server side mechanics. Sov holders flipping SBUs? No more.. anchoring a device like an SBU is considered and act of war, and thus can only be done when war is declared

Adding Incursion / FW mechanics

Dropping a FW bunker

A PVP bunker is your beach head. It gets anchored to a planet, and disables the iHub. It acts as a war chest for forward deployment of supplies, with large amount of storage for ammo and modules. Having this online adversely affects the sec rating of the system

Dropping a bunker also starts the incursion timer. I know what your saying. Something along the lines of "WTF?" But hear me out. This gives a time limit on how long one has to take a system. Let's call it a POS that cannot be refueled

SBU

Similar mechanics to as it is now. Allows the TCU to be target-able. Thinking TCU has to die before station can get shot .. but I don't know if that is a wise change

So
Station +0.2
TCU + 0.2
iHub +0.2

Disabling iHub also removes bonuses to effective security, potential gate guns, merc rats in belts, etc.

Also: sec status increase beyond those three items is in way a 'must have.' For instance, iHub upgrades like belt security replace rats with rent-a-cops. This is a give and take. Belts now are safer to mine in, but isk potential for ratting decreases

There is also the posibilty of removing the hard cap of upgrades for iHubs. Instead each upgrade would be given a security rating. If this were tied to true-sec, -1.0 systems could be highly coveted, as they would be most highly fortified.

[u]I <3 Logistics:[/u] Pilot of all  T2 logi and my shiny Archon [deceased.] Also a Chimera which may or may not be horrid. I don't make games, I play them. I get that ppl are passionate about change. I post here to plant seeds. You see your idea as is? Holy **** you win! So let's post, and see what the DEVs and our peers use.
mxzf
Shovel Bros
#5 - 2012-03-20 18:14:09 UTC
Why? What 'issue' in the game are you trying to fix and how does this do that?
Bob Niac
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#6 - 2012-03-20 18:28:19 UTC
just brain storming. its not so much an issue as an iteration.

[u]I <3 Logistics:[/u] Pilot of all  T2 logi and my shiny Archon [deceased.] Also a Chimera which may or may not be horrid. I don't make games, I play them. I get that ppl are passionate about change. I post here to plant seeds. You see your idea as is? Holy **** you win! So let's post, and see what the DEVs and our peers use.
Buzzy Warstl
Quantum Flux Foundry
#7 - 2012-03-20 18:34:25 UTC
mxzf wrote:
Why? What 'issue' in the game are you trying to fix and how does this do that?

Does everything need to have an immediate purpose?

If you don't like someone's idea, and can't coherently express why you dislike it, just be quiet.

http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm Richard Bartle: Players who suit MUDs
Bob Niac
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#8 - 2012-03-20 19:17:10 UTC
Edits are up.


Can some one give me a few systems I can use as examples?

[u]I <3 Logistics:[/u] Pilot of all  T2 logi and my shiny Archon [deceased.] Also a Chimera which may or may not be horrid. I don't make games, I play them. I get that ppl are passionate about change. I post here to plant seeds. You see your idea as is? Holy **** you win! So let's post, and see what the DEVs and our peers use.
Aqriue
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#9 - 2012-03-20 20:40:10 UTC
Bob Niac wrote:
EVE is all about making choices. Choices that affect everyone in the game. So let's see how we can make choices change security status.

Yeah, but EVE also has risk and harsh as well. Sec status is fine as is, cause if you have Stat Jock playing EVE like a CoD clown, blasting the crap out of everyone without sec status to force him to pull back going "Whoa! Reached my limit!" cause life is difficult with NPC regulations...Stat Jock would be blasting the crap out of everyone with no reppercusions to himself while the victims just end up dealing with their "risk" and being left with the cold "harsh" fact that EVE wasn't fun anymore so they just cancel their subscriptions. True story on that one (early EVE), harsh and risky don't play well for both sides of Hunter and Victim if one is left in the dust with nothing but being the tissue paper the other is jerking off in.
mxzf
Shovel Bros
#10 - 2012-03-20 20:45:13 UTC
Buzzy Warstl wrote:
mxzf wrote:
Why? What 'issue' in the game are you trying to fix and how does this do that?

Does everything need to have an immediate purpose?

If you don't like someone's idea, and can't coherently express why you dislike it, just be quiet.


Yes, it does. Changing things just to see what happens is pretty stupid and ends up screwing up the game in the end.

And I didn't say that I disliked it (or liked it for that matter) at all. I simply asked that the OP better clarify what he was trying to do with this proposal and think through the reasoning behind it.
Fredfredbug4
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#11 - 2012-03-20 20:55:51 UTC
Buzzy Warstl wrote:
Does everything need to have an immediate purpose?



Maybe not immediate but there should be some reasoning behind it. It's usually bad to do something just because it sounds cool. In fact the reason why some inventions you see on TV are big successes and why others fail are because the successes generally solve a problem or fill a gap.

Watch_ Fred Fred Frederation_ and stop [u]cryptozoologist[/u]! Fight against the brutal genocide of fictional creatures across New Eden! Is that a metaphor? Probably not, but the fru-fru- people will sure love it!
Ocih
Space Mermaids
#12 - 2012-03-20 21:12:37 UTC
The trouble with EVE is alot of the mechanics try and suck and blow at the same time.

It's null sec, there is no law, there is no concord, there are no empires but you pay concord to keep your TCU and I-Hub. The reason war dec was never tied to TCU is, they weren't in the game not that long ago. You didn't need any of the stuff you have now to claim and hold Sov. You needed a POS and the willingness to make sure nobody else had one.

Concord over stepped its boundaries when TCU was added. It became a part of Null.

You will see me every now and then saying, EVE died with Dominion. That's what I mean. Null sec became an add on to Empire, it was no longer uncharted. Your Idea's are as good as any, simply because old traditions are gone and have been since Dominion.
Buzzy Warstl
Quantum Flux Foundry
#13 - 2012-03-21 00:05:31 UTC
mxzf wrote:
Buzzy Warstl wrote:
mxzf wrote:
Why? What 'issue' in the game are you trying to fix and how does this do that?

Does everything need to have an immediate purpose?

If you don't like someone's idea, and can't coherently express why you dislike it, just be quiet.


Yes, it does. Changing things just to see what happens is pretty stupid and ends up screwing up the game in the end.

And I didn't say that I disliked it (or liked it for that matter) at all. I simply asked that the OP better clarify what he was trying to do with this proposal and think through the reasoning behind it.

With your usual cut-n-paste "end the discussion here" post.

Yaright :roll:

http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm Richard Bartle: Players who suit MUDs
Bob Niac
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#14 - 2012-03-21 03:48:26 UTC
The idea began with, "Why does outlaw / pirate space have to be 0.0?" And expanded from there. I am tryign to figure out if security status and sov can be combined in a way that is both dynamic and so that it makes sense.

Comprendé?

[u]I <3 Logistics:[/u] Pilot of all  T2 logi and my shiny Archon [deceased.] Also a Chimera which may or may not be horrid. I don't make games, I play them. I get that ppl are passionate about change. I post here to plant seeds. You see your idea as is? Holy **** you win! So let's post, and see what the DEVs and our peers use.
Bob Biac
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#15 - 2012-03-21 14:02:39 UTC
Alt bump!

If you were to make a different security system.. What would you do?
Buzzy Warstl
Quantum Flux Foundry
#16 - 2012-03-21 14:45:04 UTC
It is certainly an interesting take, and what looks like a viable method for tying in the FW mechanic with sovereignty transfer.

It does need a couple of examples for clarity, however. How would M-MD3B look, for instance?

http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm Richard Bartle: Players who suit MUDs
Bob Niac
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#17 - 2012-03-21 15:19:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Bob Niac
M-MD3B

CONCORD 0.0

This system is somewat isolated. With 2 stations, it would most likely be a 0.5 overall, at most. I haven't been there in a while, but from memory..

Unless the sov holder can keep the local pirate factions at bay, this would be a low sec system.. no question about it. Its isolation and minimal investment to infrastructure make it a poor candidate for casual play. Looking at empire for a reference, this system would be around a 0.3.

[u]I <3 Logistics:[/u] Pilot of all  T2 logi and my shiny Archon [deceased.] Also a Chimera which may or may not be horrid. I don't make games, I play them. I get that ppl are passionate about change. I post here to plant seeds. You see your idea as is? Holy **** you win! So let's post, and see what the DEVs and our peers use.
Bob Niac
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#18 - 2012-03-21 15:35:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Bob Niac
Now let's look at another example, PR- in delve. This system is one of the major hubs there. It has massive amounts of trade and good infrastructure / security. Although the amount of players in the area may make it take a hit. This system is 0.7 or higher.

Also please note.. This system still has CONCORD listing it at 0.0. You will not be penalized for engaging in "criminal" activity from them. The Blood Raiders might have a problem with it, though. Even the mafia has to keep the peace, albeit in their own special way.

[u]I <3 Logistics:[/u] Pilot of all  T2 logi and my shiny Archon [deceased.] Also a Chimera which may or may not be horrid. I don't make games, I play them. I get that ppl are passionate about change. I post here to plant seeds. You see your idea as is? Holy **** you win! So let's post, and see what the DEVs and our peers use.