These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

High-Sec vs. Low-Sec, Time for System Security to Evolve…

Author
Ash Katara
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1 - 2013-07-06 22:07:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Ash Katara
[TL:DR] Blur the line between High and Low security space within the Empire controller regions of space. Linking the time to respond and likelihood of a response to the system security rating. This would both allow for the possibility for more unsanctioned PvP in the more secure areas of space through creative player tactics and bring some small improvements to the security of current Low-Sec systems in an organic and believable way.

I do not like the current model for how System Security works. It feels too artificial and imposed, when it should be more organic and natural feeling, something that evolved over time as the empires rose to power and defined their areas of influence.

I think it would be interesting to blur the line between High and Low security space, but leave the line between Empire and Null Security space as this represents the no man’s land beyond Empire imposed control. Currently there are very different sets of rules for High and Low security space. I would like to see a more liner progression from 1.0 to 0.1 as I see them as part of the same space, Empire space, not two distinct zones.

Current Model:

High security systems, (1.0-0.5), will always have Concord response to unsanctioned PvP aggression, while in Low security systems (0.4-0.1), only sentry guns will act in response to unsanctioned PvP aggression. In Null security systems, (0.0), there are no rules and there are no NPC safeguards to help players.

New Model:

There is a Concord presents in every system inside Empire controlled space, (1.0-0.1). Their response is dependent on a few factors which vary based on the security rating of the system. The basic idea is that Concord will respond to every possible act of unsanctioned PvP aggression so long as there is a response team available. Concord will always conduct patrols so long as they have at least two response teams. Patrols will only visit gates and stations within a system and in a predefined pattern to allow players to learn and avoid them. This could also become part of the foundation for a smuggling mechanic as Concord would not always be at every gate and station all the time.

High security systems, (1.0) will have 10 response teams or active patrols and have the fastest response time, maybe 10 seconds before they are alerted and dispatched to deal with the incident. Now, as the security rating of a system goes down, the number of available response teams and their response times also drop. By the time you get down to a 0.1 system there will be but a single response team available and its response time will be rather slow say 90-120 seconds before they are alerted and dispatched.

Impact of Changes:

These changes have a few impacts to how Empire space is used. It opens up what is currently considered Low-Sec by bringing the protection of Concord in to those systems thus encouraging more players to venture there, while not providing completed security. It also opens High-Sec to increased pirate activity as a response from Concord is no longer a certainty for aggressive actions. It brings the level of Concord response more in line with the system security rating.

The touchy bit is that it will sift the desirable location for gate camps from 0.4 to 0.1 systems, since they will become the only systems which lack Concord patrols, while allowing gate camps to exist for varying lengths of time in higher security systems, through creative tactics such as keeping Concord busy with other calls for help or learning the systems patrol patterns and setting blockades up between patrols.

I feel that these changes or something like them would help address some of the issues many players currently have with the current model for High and Low sec space. What do the rest of you think?
Elizabeth Aideron
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#2 - 2013-07-06 22:20:04 UTC
how would they respond to actions not near gates or stations?
Ash Katara
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#3 - 2013-07-06 22:51:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Ash Katara
Currently they just warp in from no where when a non-sanctioned aggressive action occurs in a system. With a system like this they could be deployed from a dedicated station/outpost or one of the patrols could be tasked with the call and be re-routed from their patrol. There is no reason for them to float in space near stations or gates all day.
Evei Shard
Shard Industries
#4 - 2013-07-07 01:25:59 UTC
So what you really want is a way to prevent concord from spawning near rookie systems so you can freely shoot the new players who are still trying to figure out what all the clutter on the overview is. Great plan.

Profit favors the prepared

Ash Katara
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#5 - 2013-07-07 21:34:32 UTC
Pirates complain that they do not have enough opportunity to gank people. High sec players say they low sec is to dangerous. This idea is a means of addressing the concerns of both groups while at the same time making the transition from High-Sec to Nul-Sec more gradual. Currently is a three tier system. Even in a 0.5 system you would have to create 5 diversions to be able to gank another player with a high certainty to get away with it.

I am primarily a High-Sec pilot, don't go looking for looking for PvP, this change will put me at more risk then I currently have to face on a day to day basis. What this change would do is add a little more risk to what is currently considered High-Sec and bring a little more safety to what is considered Low-Sec and create a smooth transition in the level of danger from High to Nul sec.
Maldiro Selkurk
Radiation Sickness
#6 - 2013-07-07 22:01:00 UTC
A consequence you overlooked:

I have a 2000+ person alliance, i get 10 of them to go cause trouble in some high sec system in some locations im not interested in, thus occupying the time of all 10 security forces designated for this system, now i obliterate every other ship in the system without consequence.

I go on to nuke 99% of all vessels in Minmatar high sec and lick my chops at tomorrows misadventures in Amarr space, followed by the Gallente the next day and then i round out the week by destroying those i left for last because i loath the Caldari most of all and want them to suffer, "the knowledge of things to come", for the longest period of time.

Yawn,  I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.

Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris
Republic Military Tax Avoiders
#7 - 2013-07-07 22:03:42 UTC
Ash Katara wrote:
Pirates complain that they do not have enough opportunity to gank people. High sec players say they low sec is to dangerous. This idea is a means of addressing the concerns of both groups while at the same time making the transition from High-Sec to Nul-Sec more gradual. Currently is a three tier system. Even in a 0.5 system you would have to create 5 diversions to be able to gank another player with a high certainty to get away with it.

I am primarily a High-Sec pilot, don't go looking for looking for PvP, this change will put me at more risk then I currently have to face on a day to day basis. What this change would do is add a little more risk to what is currently considered High-Sec and bring a little more safety to what is considered Low-Sec and create a smooth transition in the level of danger from High to Nul sec.

The only correct way to fix transition from high to low is to grade 'piracy' level according to security status of pilot:

  • in 1.0 system anyone with SS < 0 is considered a pirate and can be freely attacked
  • in 0.9 system anyone with SS < -1 is considered a pirate and can be freely attacked
  • ........................
  • in 0.5 system anyone with SS < -5 is considered a pirate and can be freely attacked
  • in 0.4 system anyone with SS > -6 is not considered a pirate and attacking him will result in SS penalty, no concord
  • ........................
  • in 0.1 system anyone with SS > -9 is not considered a pirate and attacking him will result in SS penalty, no concord
  • in 0.0 system no one is a pirate, no SS penalty, no concord.


Pretty straightforward and logical system. Dunno why it isnt like this yet.

Opinions are like assholes. Everybody got one and everyone thinks everyone else's stinks.

Maldiro Selkurk
Radiation Sickness
#8 - 2013-07-07 22:12:18 UTC
Ash Katara wrote:
Pirates complain that they do not have enough opportunity to gank people. High sec players say they low sec is to dangerous. This idea is a means of addressing the concerns of both groups while at the same time making the transition from High-Sec to Nul-Sec more gradual. Currently is a three tier system. Even in a 0.5 system you would have to create 5 diversions to be able to gank another player with a high certainty to get away with it.

I am primarily a High-Sec pilot, don't go looking for looking for PvP, this change will put me at more risk then I currently have to face on a day to day basis. What this change would do is add a little more risk to what is currently considered High-Sec and bring a little more safety to what is considered Low-Sec and create a smooth transition in the level of danger from High to Nul sec.


1. I see what you are shooting for here and as a more general concept the removal of such hard lines between security levels is not in itself a concept that I find objectionable at face value but your methodology is seriously flawed as my previous post attests.

2. What you should have stated is that "Pirates complain they do not have enough opportunities to gank [defenseless] people", they have plenty of opportunity to gank people in low / null it is just they don't like the idea that those ships are being piloted by some of the best pvp'rs the game has to offer and are bristling with weapons that will nuke them to space dust.

Those pirates sorta prefer miners that have almost zero defenses, Freighters that take 10 mins to reach warp speed or noobie exploration vessels that can be one-shot by a reaper.

Yawn,  I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.

Caleb Seremshur
Naked Oiled Bodybuilders
Parasitic Legion.
#9 - 2013-07-07 22:23:19 UTC
Fixing the security system won't begin with introducing concord to lowsec.

The only actual low security systems in game are 0.6 and 0.5 systems, concord response times there are exaggerated already and offer enough time to complete a gank. The real villain here is those systems which are 0.4 to 0.1, "nullsec lite", they differ from nullsec in a couple of fundamental ways being loss of sec status (largely irrelevant to someone in lowsec) and not needing to grind out sov modules.

Lowsec as it is currently is fundamentally broken and the sec status system I have addressed in threads elsewhere. In addition to the points raised by others above I conclude your idea to be poorly thought out.
Vesan Terakol
Trollgrin Sadface
Dark Taboo
#10 - 2013-07-07 22:26:17 UTC
May I iterate on your idea a bit? Have the lowsec patrols not just roam within the system, but between systems in a predefined pattern, and have them being able to answer to ANY distress signal within a limited range - 1 or 2 jumps. this will make sense in terms of both realism and gameplay.

Also, the security status of a system (as well as the SS of the target) does affect the response time of concord right now.

Maldiro Selkurk, what you mentioned as a possible downside is already used in mass high sec gank events, like the last "Burn Jita" buying time for the fleet to blow up its target.
Maldiro Selkurk
Radiation Sickness
#11 - 2013-07-07 22:51:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Maldiro Selkurk
Vesan Terakol wrote:
May I iterate on your idea a bit? Have the lowsec patrols not just roam within the system, but between systems in a predefined pattern, and have them being able to answer to ANY distress signal within a limited range - 1 or 2 jumps. this will make sense in terms of both realism and gameplay.

Also, the security status of a system (as well as the SS of the target) does affect the response time of concord right now.

Maldiro Selkurk, what you mentioned as a possible downside is already used in mass high sec gank events, like the last "Burn Jita" buying time for the fleet to blow up its target.


Let me reduce the count then, i personally have 3 accounts and im sure somebody out there has more, thus for someone with enough accounts they could singly bring down the suggested security system, just ONE multi-boxer and that system's security is gone.

If it is already possible for a single mulit-boxer with let's say 10 accounts to bring down the entire security of a 1.0 level system then I proffer that the system is already broken and need of bolstering.

Yawn,  I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.