These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Assembly Hall

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[PROPOSAL] What happens in lowsec stays in lowsec – Lowering the barrier to entry to lowsec PVP

Author
Diamaht Nevain
EVE University
Ivy League
#221 - 2012-03-07 21:05:29 UTC
Fantastic idea! Don't see a downside
Maximillian Bonaparte
Interstellar Booty Hunters
#222 - 2012-03-07 23:01:32 UTC
Vasya Kosyakov wrote:
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.....


Well the problem here is that lowsec is still Empire space supposedly - some technology from concord is still big brother - watching you and pulling your sec status down as you commit criminal acts. It as if the law still applies, but there is no one there to enforce it! That is what is broken.

But otherwise, sure! Players should be able to work for these NPC pirate groups and maybe get a tatoo. :D But also stand to profit from doing work for them.
Maximillian Bonaparte
Interstellar Booty Hunters
#223 - 2012-03-07 23:13:42 UTC
Plutonian wrote:

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).




I am with you except for the above - hmm. So this means that ratters and miners will be far more deterred from lowsec.
Yah know your scaring off all my sheep and I don't like it one bit!!! It might work if....if... see my solution about distress calls 2 - 3 posts back...
Ephemeron
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#224 - 2012-03-07 23:15:52 UTC
This change would benefit the gameplay of casual PvP

Even tho such changes would go against the EVE story/RP background, those things should never get in the way of good gameplay in MMO. The story part has to revolve around gameplay, not other way around
Maximillian Bonaparte
Interstellar Booty Hunters
#225 - 2012-03-07 23:35:54 UTC
The Mittani wrote:
this is the first unquestionably good idea i've seen about fixing lowsec in years, i'll yoink it and dump it in front of ccp.

lowsec: eve's vegas, but with more guns


I am just a noob nobody compared to you. But you of ALL people cannot see the flaw of this? I've heard you say at the last CSM debates on Eve-Radio that mining (although miners are at the bottom of the food chain) is one of the most important aspects of the game.
And I beleive you were one of those who beleives the reward for missioning and mining needs to be increased in lowsec. This proposal will destroy the prospects of new miners coming to low, even if the rewards were increased.

Now, since I am newbish - can someone please assuage my concerns?? I feel as if I am standing in front of a stampede that is about to run off a cliff.
Diamaht Nevain
EVE University
Ivy League
#226 - 2012-03-08 01:26:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Diamaht Nevain
I guess the question I would have is why are we worried about low sec mining? You could put low refineries at 900% output and the life expectancy of a Hulk in low sec would still be about 5 seconds.

I think he addresses the real issue: People don't spend a lot of time in low because fighting back at any length means not going back to high sec. Not everyone wants to spend tons of time managing sec status. Eliminating this worry will encourage casual pvp.

Edit: If anything giving people more freedom to fight will encourage them to even try mining since they are allowed to protect themselves
Maximillian Bonaparte
Interstellar Booty Hunters
#227 - 2012-03-08 03:33:27 UTC
Diamaht Nevain wrote:


Edit: If anything giving people more freedom to fight will encourage them to even try mining since they are allowed to protect themselves


If a miner or missioner doesn't agress of course they can protect themselves just as things are now (they just can't jump or dock for 1 minute). And if its a criminal, they can even shoot first. I see no problem with this now.

And yes, the current state of the game has no benefit to lowsec mining. For that you have to go to nullsec. I would bet that this will be fixed in the near future. This will diversify lowsec and provide targets for real piracy (occasional greedy miner), and large mining operations for the well organized miners.

This proposal is great for PvP, certainly it is! But if the goal is to bring a diversified group into lowsec (as the CSM's have stated over and over is an agenda) then this will not do it.

If this goes through, I hope I am wrong. And if you can tell me why I am wrong, then maybe I will not be so concerned.
Diamaht Nevain
EVE University
Ivy League
#228 - 2012-03-08 05:51:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Diamaht Nevain
You're right about the mechanic as it stands now, there is nothing particularly broken.

The issue is making it appealing to as many people as you can. Changes to mineral quality will only get so many people to enter low sec (that are not already there) since any mining op would need enough protection to fend off any amount of pirate attacks. Very few corps could or would be willing to pull that off given how saturated low sec is with pirates. Someone like AAA could match anything you put out there and would love doing so, it would just be a loss

If you start eliminating the major objections people have to spending real time in low sec, you will begin to see more people there. You will also dilute the danger posed by aggressors simply because there are a lot more targets, which will make things like industry and mining more feasible to more corporations creating even more targets

You can already make a lot more isk in low sec than you ever could in high sec through mission running, exploration and PI. That still doesn't bring people in. Doing something with the security status hit will IMO
Macon Chalaise
VNM Biological Survey Corps
#229 - 2012-03-09 01:33:33 UTC
Bumped.

If Hans gets a seat he will no doubt look more into this.

Here's to fire. Not the fast and furious kind that burns down shacks and shanties, but the slow, seductive kind that takes down pants and panties - Irish Toast

Syekuda
Little Builders
#230 - 2012-03-10 03:08:12 UTC
This is very good idea,

/signed

I hope the devs have the same thoughts on this. They should take notes of this topic.
X Gallentius
Black Eagle1
#231 - 2012-03-10 15:17:45 UTC
Maximillian Bonaparte wrote:
Plutonian wrote:

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).




I am with you except for the above - hmm. So this means that ratters and miners will be far more deterred from lowsec.
Yah know your scaring off all my sheep and I don't like it one bit!!! It might work if....if... see my solution about distress calls 2 - 3 posts back...


At a minimum drop GCC for plexes and anomolies.

Anybody ratting, and hanging out at a planet is asking for trouble anyways. They are either looking for a fight, or are going to get ganked by somebody if they aren't careful.

I guess I would follow the suggestions here and keep sec status hits to points of transit - stations and gates.

POCOs... POS... If you're not going to not implement GCC at POCOs, then don't implement it at a POS. I would prefer to keep GCC for structure attacks since they "theoretically" encourage low sec economic developmnet.

But this is all details. Great idea overall!
Lucas Schuyler
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#232 - 2012-04-19 19:16:17 UTC
Zircon Dasher wrote:
Looks like lowsec is really doing ok. Lets fix SOV 0.0 first.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=453560#post453560



Because Sov 0.0 is a much, much more complex system and cannot be "fixed" in any way that would be as simple as showing some love to Losec?
Vaurion Infara
Doomheim
#233 - 2012-05-08 19:44:16 UTC
Friendly bump.

this is it

Malice Redeemer
Kenshin.
Fraternity.
#234 - 2012-05-20 02:20:03 UTC
I love this, ccp do this
Roldanus
Black Anvil Industries
#235 - 2012-05-20 03:01:08 UTC
Very good idea.
+ 1
ReebKing
The Anarchists Nightclub
#236 - 2012-05-20 16:05:41 UTC
This needs to happen !

+1
Mike Whiite
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#237 - 2012-05-21 10:32:25 UTC
You people do realise that this would copletly destroy all effort that has been done for FW right now.


Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#238 - 2012-07-23 17:48:28 UTC
Any csm interested in this?

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815

Strider Hiryu
Insane Shadow Boxers
#239 - 2012-08-05 12:14:56 UTC
This is an excellent idea. Implement it as is, right now! MOAR PVP!!!!
SmarncaV2
Doomheim
#240 - 2012-08-05 12:48:24 UTC
Mike Whiite wrote:
You people do realise that this would copletly destroy all effort that has been done for FW right now.





In what way?