These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Jack Dant
The Gentlemen of Low Moral Fibre
#141 - 2012-01-31 10:09:47 UTC
Killer Gandry wrote:
Are you afraid that the numbers would all of a sudden be against you?

I ask for more PVPers in lowsec, you think I expect them all on my side?

Quote:
Just imagine you actually get what you want, pvp with people who shoot back, then the fun isn't fun anymore because they would learn and adapt and eventually overcome.

Well that's the fun. Fighting people who adapt, figuring out how to counter them. The trap and countertrap, the narrow escapes and the times you don't escape. It's a game, I don't mind losing ships, especially if I can take something with me.

Quote:
As it is low sec is under populated. And instead of making it more attractive only for pirates and gankers it should be widen't up more than just kill some and then squeeze easy back to high sec.

It is indeed under populated. But populating it with bears will fix nothing.

The PVE proposals for lowsec generally ask for: 1) Safer PVE, 2) More rewarding PVE.

But there's safe in PVE in highsec already. You can't compete with that without completely nerfing lowsec PVP. This is where all the suggestions about stronger sentries, concord-like NPCs, etc, go wrong.

So we increase the rewards. But there is already a place with much higher rewards than highsec in exchange for a nominal risk. It's called 0.0. But 0.0 is secured by alliances and is pretty safe. So to compete with that, you'd need very high rewards in lowsec. What's to keep those same alliances from taking over the lowsec PVE, then?

Those two options just turn lowsec into a highsec clone, or a 0.0 clone. While ignoring the population that is already there because they don't want to be in either highsec or 0.0.

Quote:
Low sec isn't just to cater the wannabe nullbear who either hasn't the time nor the inclination to be one of the nullbear herd of sheep.

Funny expression for someone whose average kill has 50 people on it. But why not? Why shouldn't lowsec be the one (almost) pure PVP area of the game? We already have an (almost) pure PVE area, highsec.

Quote:
And as for me being excluded from parts of the game, you have no idea what parts of the game I have been in nor will you even scratch the surface of it.

Do you even read? I meant being excluded from parts of the game via sec status. But that particular char of yours has no lowsec history to speak of. So excuse me if I assume you are posting on your main and have no clue about lowsec.

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

Killer Gandry
The Concilium Enterprises
#142 - 2012-01-31 12:25:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Killer Gandry
Jack Dant wrote:
The PVE proposals for lowsec generally ask for: 1) Safer PVE, 2) More rewarding PVE.

But there's safe in PVE in highsec already. You can't compete with that without completely nerfing lowsec PVP. This is where all the suggestions about stronger sentries, concord-like NPCs, etc, go wrong..


Ah, so suggesting to increase the time it takes to being able to dock after shooting someone decreases people shooting at eachother. Sorry if that wasn't clear to me.

Jack Dant wrote:
So we increase the rewards. But there is already a place with much higher rewards than highsec in exchange for a nominal risk. It's called 0.0. But 0.0 is secured by alliances and is pretty safe. So to compete with that, you'd need very high rewards in lowsec. What's to keep those same alliances from taking over the lowsec PVE, then?


And it never even occured to you that the rewards can be designed in such a fashion that the only true benefit would be for the same region of space as you can aquire it, namely low sec.
null sec has it's own "advantages" from the sov mechanics. Why not some mechanic to have something in that line (though more fun to play than sov warfa"re) in low sec.

Jack Dant wrote:
Those two options just turn lowsec into a highsec clone, or a 0.0 clone. While ignoring the population that is already there because they don't want to be in either highsec or 0.0.


You might feel like the low sec population that's already there get's ignored in my suggestions. Fact however is that I want to get a lower threshhold for people to venture there but at increased risk than it is currently. Or do you think prolonged docking denial is decreasing risk?
On the other hand make it worthwhile for people to take that route.
Low sec has the same issue as null sec. The risk versus reward is completely off balance.

Jack Dant wrote:
Funny expression for someone whose average kill has 50 people on it. But why not? Why shouldn't lowsec be the one (almost) pure PVP area of the game? We already have an (almost) pure PVE area, highsec.


Sorry for taking my job as logistics pilot too serious and actually have logistics drones aswel instead of killmail hoarding by bringing light drones just to farm killmails.
The few times I actually used other ships was mainly because at that moment no logistics was available.
Sorry for being part of an alliance who has to work together and has to bring bigger fleets to counter bigger fleets and as a result has more than a few people on a killmail.

Mostly I am sorry for your complete ignorance and assuming that that has anything to do with the underlying problem.

Jack Dant wrote:
Do you even read? I meant being excluded from parts of the game via sec status. But that particular char of yours has no lowsec history to speak of. So excuse me if I assume you are posting on your main and have no clue about lowsec.


Excuse me, but did I miss the part where you didn't get the choice to keep your sec status? And if this were my main I am not entitled to an opinion in a forum section where opinions are gathered?

Once again, I am not against changes in the system that adresses the issues with the sec status loss and gain. But by saying "ow let's just pop ships but not pods anymore in low sec so we don't drop below -2"is ridiculous.
You create a whole new area of abuse then and without differentiation I for one do not support the idea.
Jack Dant
The Gentlemen of Low Moral Fibre
#143 - 2012-01-31 12:55:40 UTC
Killer Gandry wrote:
Ah, so suggesting to increase the time it takes to being able to dock after shooting someone decreases people shooting at eachother. Sorry if that wasn't clear to me.

Station games are dumb. But they are 100% consensual PVP, you are never forced to fight at a station if you don't want to. Even more so in lowsec with no bubbles (just instaundock away) and after the recent session timer changes (dock if insta fails). They are a minuscule part of lowsec PVP, and not really the problem at all.

Quote:
And it never even occured to you that the rewards can be designed in such a fashion that the only true benefit would be for the same region of space as you can aquire it, namely low sec.
null sec has it's own "advantages" from the sov mechanics. Why not some mechanic to have something in that line (though more fun to play than sov warfa"re) in low sec.

If you have an idea on how to do that, make your own thread about it.

Quote:
You might feel like the low sec population that's already there get's ignored in my suggestions. Fact however is that I want to get a lower threshhold for people to venture there but at increased risk than it is currently. Or do you think prolonged docking denial is decreasing risk?
On the other hand make it worthwhile for people to take that route.
Low sec has the same issue as null sec. The risk versus reward is completely off balance.

I find the risk vs reward of lowsec to be just fine. The reward is high: solo to small gang PVP in tight groups of people I know. The risk is low: I can lose my ship at a fight, but I have a decent chance to avoid fights I don't want, and I can save my pod 99% of the time.

About denying docking? Docking games do need some fix, but that's not lowsec-specific, and it would need another thread. But anything that makes GCC more annoying than it already is, is a bad idea, so it should be approached carefully.

Quote:
Excuse me, but did I miss the part where you didn't get the choice to lower your sec status? And if this were my main I am not entitled to an opinion in a forum section where opinions are gathered?

Of course, I chose to lower my sec. In fact, I welcome being outlaw because it gets me fights without sentries. You still don't understand my reasoning:

  • Life as an outlaw is fun.
  • Life as an outlaw would be more fun if there were more outlaws.
  • People don't become outlaws because with a single account, being an outlaw sucks for logistics.

So let's make it possible for those people to enjoy the lowsec side of being an outlaw, without losing their highsec logistics.

Quote:
Once again, I am not against changes in the system that adresses the issues with the sec status loss and gain. But by saying "ow let's just pop ships but not pods anymore in low sec so we don't drop below -2"is ridiculous.
You create a whole new area of abuse then and without differentiation I for one do not support the idea.

Ok so you don't agree. Can you reason why? What abuse would it create?

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

Vaurion Infara
Doomheim
#144 - 2012-01-31 16:02:41 UTC
Killer Gandry, this is the fundamental problem with what you're saying. You're posting in a thread about a specific solution to a specific problem, but you're adding nothing to the discussion. If you want to make your own thread about your own idea of a solution to a partially related problem, you are welcome to do so. But here you're just muddying the waters and causing confusion. You aren't offering ideas for or against this proposal. This thread is not about station games, which you oddly seem to believe plays a much larger role in lowsec than it does, nor is it about bringing carebears to lowsec. Please formulate a position, on the specific solution that's been proposed, and post that. Or start your own thread.

this is it

Tressin Khiyne
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#145 - 2012-01-31 17:46:34 UTC
Fully support this proposal. A fantastic addition to sec status rules which boosts lowsec and overall pvp at the same time without draining any other styles of play (highsec loses nothing while gaining more access to lowsec)
Karthwritte
Trouble Seekers Incorporated
#146 - 2012-02-01 00:42:44 UTC
You sir made one of the best ideas that could really improve my EVE lifestyle
+1
Harrigan VonStudly
Stay Frosty.
A Band Apart.
#147 - 2012-02-01 00:53:01 UTC
Jack. I hope you don't mind me linking to this in my humble Eve blog. I gave you credit for the idea. I just wanted to share it and get it out there. I hope to bring more recognition of it via the #tweetfleet and any other means I can.

Again, great idea. Jack Dant for CSM7????

Pirate Harri out
Lady Spank
Get Out Nasty Face
#148 - 2012-02-01 01:09:15 UTC
Thumbs up

(ಠ_ృ) ~ It Takes a Million Years to Become Diamonds So Lets Just Burn Like Coal Until the Sky's Black ~ (ಠ_ృ)

Clyde ElectraGlide
Zankilim Regiment
#149 - 2012-02-01 03:33:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Clyde ElectraGlide
Totally agreed, 10/10.

In Need of a New Signature

Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#150 - 2012-02-03 15:29:07 UTC
This proposal makes allot of sense. Skimming through I didn't see any significant downsides either.

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

Souchek Lehman
Doomheim
#151 - 2012-02-03 19:15:52 UTC
Hello EVE
As a newer player I really like this idea. I recently have got more into pvp in general, been mostly running missions. I went on two roams and got a little lucky, it dropped my sec status surprisingly fast. All targets were other people roaming looking for pvp as well. Not an impossible barrier or anything but seemed slightly crazy how long it would take to raise the sec back up through even lvl4s.
TLDR: +1 from a youngin.
S.L.

TEN THOUSAND YEARS - Recruiting chill dudes for exploration! In game channel - 10k lounge

Jayem See
Perkone
Caldari State
#152 - 2012-02-03 19:40:55 UTC
+1 I like this proposal.

It came up somewhere in the middle about sentries not having tracking - I think they should.

It might allow for limited frig engagements on gates where the aggressor will decide if they can make a kill fast enough and then GTFO.

Good luck with the proposal - I hope we see some CSM involvement in the thread at some point.

Aaaaaaand relax.

Hanoch Wheel
Free Wheeling Industries
#153 - 2012-02-03 19:43:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Hanoch Wheel
+1 Supported.

Initially on reading the subject and imagining what the proposal would be like, I thought that it would be just one of those typically insane simple solutions to a perceived problem that would actually make things much worse. I avoided reading it for a while just on that basis.

After actually reading it: this is a great idea! It would increase fluidity between hi and lowsec (and probably possibly out in to low as well).

I think the GFs would increase significantly and even carebear pinata runs. Fight clubs nearer to Hisec? Brilliant.

I like both your optionals as well. The killrights bit probably needs some more development, but keeping the podding penalty would make it more likely that casuals and carebears spend more time in lowsec. Which should make pirates "happy campers", although it may benefit them to be discriminating about their targets.

Hard to see who wouldn't be pleased by this (although there's always someone, right Zircon?).
The Mittani
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#154 - 2012-02-03 20:05:09 UTC
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

~hi~

Vaurion Infara
Doomheim
#155 - 2012-02-03 20:31:54 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


Wow, this is an unexpected turn of events. Also, inb4 sh*tstorm.

this is it

Jack Dant
The Gentlemen of Low Moral Fibre
#156 - 2012-02-04 01:40:00 UTC
Seleene also confirmed he was bringing it to CCP in his own thread a few days ago. It's great to see the idea picking up momentum. Even if CCP then does it in a completely different way, just getting them to look at lowsec from the right angle is good.

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

Jonas Xiamon
#157 - 2012-02-04 06:45:59 UTC
I think this is a terrible idea, but am too lazy to argue the point.

I usally write one of these and then change it a month later when I reread it and decide it sounds stupid.

IIIAsharakIII
The League of Extraordinary Assholes
#158 - 2012-02-05 00:48:38 UTC
I'm not sure if security status will entice the carebears into coming to low sec.

Might start first by not calling them carebears.

Also, how will this increase PvP? Because they don't have to grind sec? You have to do a lot of shooting to get below -2 if you're not shooting pods, and your suggestion does nothing for pods. Structures make a bit of sense, I could see dipping below the mark over shooting a POS. But then again, does structure bashing require us to make a such a drastic alteration to the security status rules of low sec?


How about graduated war declarations instead? Such as "This war declaration is only valid in 0.0 to 0.4 security status systems." You still get what you want, without the crazy "If this, then that" scenario you're painting.

Props to you for using your brain though, will still give you a +1.
Vaurion Infara
Doomheim
#159 - 2012-02-05 01:08:21 UTC
IIIAsharakIII wrote:
I'm not sure if security status will entice the carebears into coming to low sec.

Might start first by not calling them carebears.

Also, how will this increase PvP? Because they don't have to grind sec? You have to do a lot of shooting to get below -2 if you're not shooting pods, and your suggestion does nothing for pods. Structures make a bit of sense, I could see dipping below the mark over shooting a POS. But then again, does structure bashing require us to make a such a drastic alteration to the security status rules of low sec?


How about graduated war declarations instead? Such as "This war declaration is only valid in 0.0 to 0.4 security status systems." You still get what you want, without the crazy "If this, then that" scenario you're painting.

Props to you for using your brain though, will still give you a +1.


How will it increase pvp? Did you read the post at all? The idea is that they don't have to go below -2 if they don't want to. Podding will get it below -2. I think you're missing the intent of the idea.

this is it

VonKolroth
Anarchist's Anonymous
#160 - 2012-02-05 11:31:36 UTC
Jack Dant wrote:
Many “fix lowsec” proposals revolve around how to encourage more carebears into lowsec. I believe that's a mistake. The strong point of lowsec is the small gang, casual, PVP. And we need more PVPers to realize its potential.

Lowsec has many good points to attract the more casual PVPer: it's very accessible. The combination of no bubbles and sentry guns discouraging small ships on gates make it easy to move around lowsec. With so many stations, it's easy to take a break pretty much anywhere.

However, if you PVP for any amount of time in lowsec, you'll get cut out of highsec. For the dedicated outlaw, that's not a problem: alts and corp-level logistics make it a non-issue. But it closes most of lowsec from the more casual, single account player. The one who would enjoy lowsec the most.

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

  • Lowsec ship and structure kills can't bring your sec status below -2 (the point where travel restrictions kick in).
  • To compensate, make anyone with negative sec status a valid target while in lowsec, with no GCC or sentry repercussions.
  • Sec losses from highsec ganks remain untouched and so trigger travel restrictions.
  • Optionally, allow pod kills in lowsec to lower your sec past -2. This lets people who want to be -10 for whatever reason become so.
  • Optionally, rework killrights to either remove them, or make them only usable in lowsec.

People can now become part of a “lowsec fight club” where they can shoot each other freely, without losing their highsec access.

For the current lowsec residents, pirate and anti-pirate alike, this would bring more fun targets from highsec, in the form of “weekend pirates” and highsec alliances trying to control lowsec systems and resources. Both of those have given me many enjoyable fights, but both are unsustainable in the face of sec losses.

I'm not sure I can think of a negative side to the change.


This is such a phenomenally good idea that I'm going to be disappointed if it doesn't happen. Though I honestly don't think the elimination of kill rights is necessary. On the other hand, I don't see Concord handing a pass to kill a person in high if they have a negative sec.

Sent from my Gallente Erabus Titan on -FA- SRP