These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
123Next page
 

A plan to improve the game for both Gankers and Freighters
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Pirokobo
The Phoenix Reborn
RAZOR Alliance
#1 - 2016-09-18 23:22:50 UTC
This is an idea I pitched over on Reddit. The idea is to change high security space so that security level has a rest point at .5 and everything above that floats, recalculated every day at downtime.

Quote:
High Sec System Security Level = .5 + ( .5 * (system jumps last 24 hours / average 24 hour system jumps for the top # systems in New Eden) )

# starting out at say 100



The result is a high sec space where the high traffic trade routes are very high security, while the vast majority of high sec drops to .5. Consequently, miners, mission runners, and alliance jump freighter pilots moving in from lowsec are at much greater risk to ganking, but the ships on the main trade routes between hubs are very difficult to gank.

The result is the demise of fish-in-a-barrel style ganking we see in Uedama and Niarja, but an overall buff to gankers who actively hunt for targets or play the meta game.
Atomeon
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#2 - 2016-09-19 00:03:02 UTC
So what Sec lvl Jita or Amarr will have? i m bad at maths.
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#3 - 2016-09-19 00:03:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
Changing the security status of the choke points on a dynamic basis such as you suggest won't really change the amount of ganking that occurs in those systems; as long as people make themselves profitable or easy to gank, gankers will simply throw more ships at them as required.

TL;DR N+1 would negate such a change.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#4 - 2016-09-19 00:08:17 UTC
Do it the other way round.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Pirokobo
The Phoenix Reborn
RAZOR Alliance
#5 - 2016-09-19 00:11:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Pirokobo
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
will simply throw more ships at them.


Increasing the price of doing so and thus the point at which it ceases to be profitable.

Thus gankers who go slightly OFF the beaten path, to the feeder systems leading from lowsec to the hubs, will be rewarded by greater profitability over those who stubbornly insist on ganking on the main routes that have much higher security.

Atomeon wrote:
So what Sec lvl Jita or Amarr will have? i m bad at maths.


Well, the number of systems counted in the average for the divisor would have to be fine tuned, but the result should be that the trade routes will all be above the average and thus result in a security of 1.0.

Daichi Yamato wrote:
Do it the other way round.


That's basically how it is right now, if your route to nullsec isn't through Derelik. A provi pilot going through Tash-Murkon is .6 or better all the way to Amarr.
Faylee Freir
Abusing Game Mechanics
R-E-A-V-E-R-S
#6 - 2016-09-19 00:50:42 UTC
No youre wrong. The main ganking group, Miniluv has a threshold for what they will gank. Even in systems like Jita and Perimeter they are ganking because Jonah is right... People make it profitable for them to gank, even in worst case scenario situations.

Even though your change wouldnt effect a group like Miniluv much, it will make the smaller guys move around a bit more. I think a dybamix security status is a cool idea but I think it would be a bit tilted in the other direction to basically have these trade hub highways with 1.0 sec status.

With some more discussion this seems like a potentially cool idea.

HTFU
Pirokobo
The Phoenix Reborn
RAZOR Alliance
#7 - 2016-09-19 01:03:40 UTC
Faylee Freir wrote:
it will make the smaller guys move around a bit more


I'm going to interpret this as a backhanded acknowledgement that **** has gotten well out of hand with some groups blowing up freighters that are just on the breakeven line.

Faylee Freir wrote:
With some more discussion this seems like a potentially cool idea.


Thank you.
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#8 - 2016-09-19 01:42:29 UTC
I think the general idea has merit, but is tracking the wrong indicator of security and is the wrong way around.


Particularly in highsec, what makes a system risky is the amount of criminal activity occurring, not the amount of traffic passing through.

So it should be based on kills, not jumps.

Keep the trade hubs as they are and then change the sec status based on the number of losses in a system. Start high and then drop the sec status as the amount of PvP kills increase. An inverse relationship.

Then it's in the gankers interests to keep activity high and also in the haulers interest to avoid being ganked. Freighter pilots would not only be making themselves safer by flying safely, but they'd also be making it harder for gankers as the sec status of a system remains/returns to a high level.
Pirokobo
The Phoenix Reborn
RAZOR Alliance
#9 - 2016-09-19 01:51:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Pirokobo
Scipio Artelius wrote:

Keep the trade hubs as they are and then change the sec status based on the number of losses in a system. Start high and then drop the sec status as the amount of PvP kills increase. An inverse relationship.


I like where you're going, but there's just one problem.

To avoid JUST Niarja, takes the route from Jita to Amarr from 10 jumps to 46.

It is ALWAYS going to be a choke point. Faylee is correct that there are groups in EVE that can pull off a hit no matter what the security status is, and they will naturally congregate to the best hunting grounds, WHICH ARE THE CHOKE POINTS. And they will bring the security status down, increasing profitability to more groups, who bring it down further.

The security system you described turns ganking in chokepoint systems into a positive feedback loop, when what I was aiming for was to dampen it and force it to spread out more.
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#10 - 2016-09-19 02:03:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Pirokobo wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:

Keep the trade hubs as they are and then change the sec status based on the number of losses in a system. Start high and then drop the sec status as the amount of PvP kills increase. An inverse relationship.


I like where you're going, but there's just one problem.

To avoid JUST Niarja, takes the route from Jita to Amarr from 10 jumps to 46.

It is ALWAYS going to be a choke point. Faylee is correct that there are groups in EVE that can pull off a hit no matter what the security status is, and they will naturally congregate to the best hunting grounds, WHICH ARE THE CHOKE POINTS. And they will bring the security status down, increasing profitability to more groups, who bring it down further.

The security system you described turns ganking in chokepoint systems into a positive feedback loop.

Sure, but with the change in structure along these lines, all systems would start out at 1.0 or 0.9 sec status.

So gankers would have to work hard too, with the one major issue being sacrificial alts they could gank in order yo bring the sec status down. If there is an algorithm that could be used so the risk of that was minimised, then that would be a good thing.

In addition, people don't avoid Niarja now. Why would they under a new system?

Plus, gankers might find a different system more appropriate to try to bring down the sec status. Play all around and more at a meta level, which provides more challenge and varied play for everyone.
Pirokobo
The Phoenix Reborn
RAZOR Alliance
#11 - 2016-09-19 02:06:34 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Sure, but with the change in structure along these lines, all systems would start out at 1.0 or 0.9 sec status.


So what you're proposing is that instead of security starting out in negative numbers out in nullsec and gradually ramping up as you get closer and closer to dense civilization, that as soon as you cross out of low security it shoots up to 1.0 and then drops back down towards .5 as you get closer and closer to dense civilization?


You realize how ridiculous that sounds?
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#12 - 2016-09-19 02:11:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Pirokobo wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Sure, but with the change in structure along these lines, all systems would start out at 1.0 or 0.9 sec status.


So what you're proposing is that instead of security starting out in negative numbers out in nullsec and gradually ramping up as you get closer and closer to dense civilization, that as soon as you cross out of low security it shoots up to 1.0 and then drops back down towards .5 as you get closer and closer to dense civilization?


You realize how ridiculous that sounds?

No, that's a ridiculous interpretation.

Sec status now is not strictly tied to proximity and doesn't gradually ramp up.

Orvolle for example is highsec borderng nullsec.

You're talking about making highsec safer based on traffic. Nourvakaiken then could end up at sec status 1.0 right next to lowsec. Some of the starter systems at sec status 1.0 are 2 jumps from lowsec.

If you want to widen this so that proximity is included, then the whole idea is stupid because there is no guarantee with your system that 'density of population' has any match to proximity in relation to lowsec or nullsec.
Christopher Mabata
Northern Accounts and Systems
#13 - 2016-09-19 02:22:44 UTC
1. No
2. People gank succesfully in 1.0 so whats the point

Fixing sec level of the system doesn't fix stupid

♣ Small Gang PVP, Large Fleet PVP, Black Ops, Incursions, Trade, and Industry ♣ 70% Lethal / 30% Super-Snuggly / 110% No idea what im doing ♣

This Message Brought to you by a sweet and sour bittervet
Pirokobo
The Phoenix Reborn
RAZOR Alliance
#14 - 2016-09-19 02:22:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Pirokobo
Scipio Artelius wrote:
If you want to widen this so that proximity is included, then the whole idea is stupid because there is no guarantee with your system that 'density of population' has any match to proximity in relation to lowsec or nullsec.


You've started to illustrate why I worded it the way I did.

Set aside the starter systems. Automatic 1.0 for those; better paid police, whatever explanation you need.


So...

As I see it, ASIDE FROM THE STARTER SYSTEMS, there is no 1.0 space by default. Every system in high security space (aside from starters) has a resting point of .5 for security.

As player population increases (however you want to measure it) security increases. There are more people, ergo there are more eyes on things and more police.

This forces ALL behaviors (ratting, ganking, mining) to balance safety against return (or for gankers, certainty of prey vs profitability). But it dynamically adapts to the players behavior.
Old Pervert
Perkone
Caldari State
#15 - 2016-09-19 02:25:42 UTC
I actually see this being a very one-sided benefit for freighters.

They're rewarded for following the beaten path. It increases sec status, making ganking more costly. Gankers on the other hand are rewarded for avoiding the beaten path.

Net result is the gankers all end up where the freighters are not.

If you want to make it better, I would actually do the opposite. The more you use a route, the lower the security status goes. If you want an RP reason, you could think that the increased traffic makes security of the system more onerous and difficult, thus causing a lower response time.

With the sec status moving the other way, freighters are encouraged to forge their own path, spreading them and the gankers out. Seems a shame to have such a huge universe, and only use a small part of it.
Pirokobo
The Phoenix Reborn
RAZOR Alliance
#16 - 2016-09-19 02:38:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Pirokobo
Old Pervert wrote:

They're rewarded for following the beaten path. It increases sec status, making ganking more costly. Gankers on the other hand are rewarded for avoiding the beaten path.


I do believe you've grasped the basic idea. Except you're missing one key point.

THEY DON'T ALL LIVE ON THE BEATEN PATH.

What this does is incentivize gankers to spend more time trying to hunt alliance traffic moving in from lowsec with moon goo and moving out towards their jump freighter staging points.

As it is right now it's SAFER to move something from your jump freighter staging station to the closest hub than it is to move from one hub to another hub.
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#17 - 2016-09-19 02:43:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Pirokobo wrote:
Old Pervert wrote:

They're rewarded for following the beaten path. It increases sec status, making ganking more costly. Gankers on the other hand are rewarded for avoiding the beaten path.


I do believe you've grasped the basic idea. Except you're missing one key point.

THEY DON'T ALL LIVE ON THE BEATEN PATH.

What this does is incentivize gankers to spend more time trying to hunt alliance traffic moving in from lowsec with moon goo and moving out towards their jump freighter staging points.

With free clones coming in a couple of months, what this incentivises is people to roll lots of free accounts, placing the characters along the common hauling paths so those systems are always at high sec status.

Those characters never need to move, so even if 1 system was at a low sec status, players could I'll accounts and log characters off in system even if there's no station. Log them in the jump a few gates, or just leave them logged off if its population based and not jump based.

The server would see the system population/jumps increase and increase the sec status.

This would be easy to manipulate and players would do it.
Pirokobo
The Phoenix Reborn
RAZOR Alliance
#18 - 2016-09-19 02:45:33 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:


The server would see the system population increase and increase the sec status.

This would be easy to manipulate.


Which is why I proposed using jump traffic.
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#19 - 2016-09-19 02:46:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Pirokobo wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:


The server would see the system population increase and increase the sec status.

This would be easy to manipulate.


Which is why I proposed using jump traffic.

See my edit.

Can be manipulated either way.

On top of that, as jumps increase and sec status increases, more gankers are required to achieve the same gank; which of course means more jumps and a further increase in sec status, even where a lot of the jumps re by people wanting to make the system dangerous.

That's arse backwards.
Pirokobo
The Phoenix Reborn
RAZOR Alliance
#20 - 2016-09-19 02:53:53 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:

See my edit.

Can be manipulated either way.



You're correct that people could create traffic elsewhere off the paths to mess with the averages. However it would take A LOT of traffic.

Now, you could mitigate it by calculating the amount of mass moved... or ignoring alpha traffic for the calculation.
123Next page