These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Wolodymyr
Breaking Ambitions
#81 - 2011-12-21 18:55:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Wolodymyr
Jack Dant wrote:

You could adjust flagging mechanics to reduce sentry effects on gang PVP. For example, if you shoot a flashy, you could get a "global anti-criminal flag" and lose sentry protection for 15 minutes: "You have taken the law into your own hands, the police can't help you now".

But that would be a different topic.

Yeah I think the turrets are mainly there just to protect noobs and highsec carebears that wander into lowsec. Not some outside force to screw up fights on gates.

I honestly think PoCo based sov is a good idea https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1417544

Leela Sirene
Peoples Liberation Army
Goonswarm Federation
#82 - 2011-12-29 17:09:49 UTC
Could have a great effect, especially for newcomers and carebears alike. Supported.
Miss Lina
Stellar Investments
#83 - 2011-12-30 21:22:17 UTC
+1

I think this is the best idea that I've seen so far, related to improving low-sec.
Kunos01
Dark Negative Antisocial
#84 - 2012-01-02 08:18:47 UTC
+10

Good idea!
Mars Theran
Foreign Interloper
#85 - 2012-01-02 10:02:28 UTC
For whatever reason.. +1

Never really liked Killrights anyway, and Security losses in Lowsec seem sort of redundant; not to mention they hinder PvP
zubzubzubzubzubzubzubzub
Takara Mora
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#86 - 2012-01-02 18:07:26 UTC
+1 for support of the general idea of removing much of the security status hit for dipping into losec for casual PVP ... currently it's just not worth the security status hit to go "get a taste" of PVP ...
Mashie Saldana
V0LTA
WE FORM V0LTA
#87 - 2012-01-04 01:19:25 UTC
I like this idea, a lot!
Katie Door
the united
#88 - 2012-01-04 07:13:22 UTC
Jack Dant wrote:
*snip*

So I suggest, “what happens in lowsec stays in lowsec”:

  • To compensate, make anyone with negative sec status a valid target while in lowsec, with no GCC or sentry repercussions.



AFAIK, this is already the case. you can shoot -5 to -10 in hi sec as well as low sec without any form of Concord retaliation (ships in hi sec, sentry guns in low sec)

as for the rest, meh.

Sounds like putting rainbows and unicorns in low sec.

w/e
Jack Dant
The Gentlemen of Low Moral Fibre
#89 - 2012-01-04 09:25:49 UTC
Katie Door wrote:
Jack Dant wrote:
*snip*

So I suggest, “what happens in lowsec stays in lowsec”:

  • To compensate, make anyone with negative sec status a valid target while in lowsec, with no GCC or sentry repercussions.



AFAIK, this is already the case. you can shoot -5 to -10 in hi sec as well as low sec without any form of Concord retaliation (ships in hi sec, sentry guns in low sec)

as for the rest, meh.

Sounds like putting rainbows and unicorns in low sec.

w/e

Negative means "less than zero", not "less than five". So under my proposal, people with status in the 0 to -2 range would be free targets in lowsec, but still able to go to highsec freely.

I don't see the unicorns, maybe you could elaborate?

What happens in lowsec, stays in lowsec, lowering the barrier to entry to lowsec PVP: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=476644&#post476644

Tankn00blicus
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#90 - 2012-01-06 05:48:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Tankn00blicus
Agreed. These changes won't really change the problems with sentry guns, though; instead of being at a disadvantage for being flashy/being at an advantage for being not flashy, you'll be at a disadvantage for having negative sec/be at an advantage for having positive sec, so that particular issue will still persist. Also, "no loss of sec status" (in cases where your sec is above -2) obviously cannot be part of not having repercussions for shooting any negative sec pilot or else the mechanics aren't gonna work.
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
#91 - 2012-01-06 08:17:19 UTC
Not seeing it. Why should the law allow for rampant drive-bys in the suburbs?

Sounds like you want to play with the big boys in LS (ie. the fun pew) but keep your bunk at the high-sec hostel you call home.

Put forward proposals to increase population in LS rather than merely making it into a tourist attraction/hunting reserve and we can discuss specifics, but this is just too silly. Killing anything within the sphere of 'civilization' (read: Here be Cops!) should cost one dearly.
Titus Veridius
Calamitous-Intent
Feign Disorder
#92 - 2012-01-06 08:41:24 UTC
This thread has now become the "Jack Dant for CSM" thread. Jack is really the only scoundrel scoundrel enough to represent low sec while at the same time maintaining meticulous spreadsheets and proper smugness and the class of a true gentleman down on his luck.

With proper Sard Caid funding this will happen. Also, vote Ron Paul in 2012 while your at it.
xxxAlloxxx
Minmatar Death Squad
Broken Chains Alliance
#93 - 2012-01-06 09:25:52 UTC
+100 to this idea.... And I also support Jack Dant to Low sec CSM position!!

TetraHydroC https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=453962

In Game Chat: 420 Pub chat

Jack Dant
The Gentlemen of Low Moral Fibre
#94 - 2012-01-06 10:49:18 UTC
Hirana Yoshida wrote:
Not seeing it. Why should the law allow for rampant drive-bys in the suburbs?

RL comparisons don't really work. For example, IRL the law would try to intervene if two criminals were shooting each other. But in lowsec, the sentries just stand aside if two flashies fight. But can you imagine a situation where police ignores violence between gangs in the suburbs, but arrest any gang member that sets foot outside them?

Anything can be explained or discarded on pseduo-RP terms. The important thing is, is it good game design? Will it hurt the game or improve it?

Quote:
Sounds like you want to play with the big boys in LS (ie. the fun pew) but keep your bunk at the high-sec hostel you call home.

And that's bad why? Why should people be punished for PVPing in lowsec? But in any case, personally I haven't lived in highsec in two years, and I have the alts and resources to easily supply my outlaw lowsec main. But others don't. They are the newer players, the single account players. Why should they be punished?

Quote:
Put forward proposals to increase population in LS rather than merely making it into a tourist attraction/hunting reserve and we can discuss specifics, but this is just too silly. Killing anything within the sphere of 'civilization' (read: Here be Cops!) should cost one dearly.

This is the point, increasing the PVP population and increase PVP engagements, not the carebearing population (never going to happen). I want to build on the strong points of lowsec, not trying to turn it into some parody of highsec or sov 0.0.

What happens in lowsec, stays in lowsec, lowering the barrier to entry to lowsec PVP: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=476644&#post476644

Jack Dant
The Gentlemen of Low Moral Fibre
#95 - 2012-01-06 10:51:16 UTC
Titus Veridius wrote:
This thread has now become the "Jack Dant for CSM" thread. Jack is really the only scoundrel scoundrel enough to represent low sec while at the same time maintaining meticulous spreadsheets and proper smugness and the class of a true gentleman down on his luck.

Thank you for your kind words, Titus. But I hereby deny any intention to run for CSM now or in the future. I will, however, lend my full support to the "Dirty Protagonist for CSM" campaign Lol

What happens in lowsec, stays in lowsec, lowering the barrier to entry to lowsec PVP: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=476644&#post476644

Dirty Protagonist
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#96 - 2012-01-06 16:54:12 UTC
Jack Dant wrote:
Titus Veridius wrote:
This thread has now become the "Jack Dant for CSM" thread. Jack is really the only scoundrel scoundrel enough to represent low sec while at the same time maintaining meticulous spreadsheets and proper smugness and the class of a true gentleman down on his luck.

Thank you for your kind words, Titus. But I hereby deny any intention to run for CSM now or in the future. I will, however, lend my full support to the "Dirty Protagonist for CSM" campaign Lol


i'll be running on the "drunken disorderly pirate" platform~

buttes~

Firebolt145
The Hatchery
#97 - 2012-01-06 18:03:04 UTC
Best suggestion I've ever read regarding lowsec and possibly EVE. Fully supported.
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
#98 - 2012-01-06 18:03:09 UTC
I think this is a great idea.

I also like the idea of nullsec NPC kills not giving sec status, and only having lowsec/highsec rats give sec status.
masty
Commonwealth Mercenaries
BLACKFLAG.
#99 - 2012-01-06 18:23:09 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Phantom
+1

I like it. We are looking at encouraging more pvpr's into LS not bears - although they are always welcome as they are delicious and refreshing.
A cap at sec status penalties will encourage those who want to pvp to come in and will still be able to go back to high sec when they choose. They dont have to live in the area the full time, we just want more gangs to be willing to roll through looking for fights and i can see this encouraging those who are very dependant/attached to their sec.

The sentry issue is more complicated i think. Free for all on those below 0.0 sec status sounds like an improvement but i would like a way to add some survivability to t1 cruisers and below under gate guns. tracking is probably not the answer as i forsee fights going down at 0m on the guns Big smile although its partner will still be able to hit i suppose?
xxxAlloxxx
Minmatar Death Squad
Broken Chains Alliance
#100 - 2012-01-06 18:50:36 UTC  |  Edited by: xxxAlloxxx
Seeing as Jack graciously turned down the possibility to run for CSM, I therefore change my support to Warlord Protagonist who has humbly accepted to run. Also I fully indorse and support Mr. DP's platform of "drunken disorderly pirate"!!

TetraHydroC https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=453962

In Game Chat: 420 Pub chat