Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Desdemona Neptune
|
Posted - 2010.04.23 16:00:00 -
[1]
Hello - I've seen many posts & suggestions about why lowsec is disappointing to many EVE players.
I tend to agree, it's not all that interesting: the rewards to be found there aren't significantly higher than high sec, while the risks are considerably higher due to pirate pvper's.
How about this: instead of CONCORD not responding at all to aggression in lowsec, what if their response time was delayed by semi-variable amounts of time, based on the level of lowsec security?
For example - in 0.4 security, CONCORD does show up, but only 20-30 seconds after the aggression. The delay time increases at lower security levels, maybe up to 90 seconds in 0.1 security space.
The "story logic" behind this is quite reasonable, even obvious: these areas are considered "low security" due to the lack of security resources CONCORD allocates. It's easy to imagine that CONCORD does not have a limitless supply of ships and crews; less populated areas receive fewer CONCORD patrols, bases, etc, resulting in slower response times.
So 0.4 security space would really be only slightly less safe than high sec: if you can survive for 20 seconds or so, CONCORD will come to the rescue. In 0.1 space, you'd better be prepared to fight for a full minute or more -- but again, CONCORD will eventually arrive.
Obviously, increasing the rewards for each lower level of security would be needed in order to make this worth while.
|
Hebby
|
Posted - 2010.04.23 16:22:00 -
[2]
Concord + Low Sec = HighSec.
No thanks.
|
Liang Nuren
Parsec Flux
|
Posted - 2010.04.23 16:24:00 -
[3]
I think that the same idea should be applied to wormholes and 0.0. If a fight goes more than 3-4 minutes Concord will show up and kill everyone. Also, put sentry guns around worm holes to prevent people from gate camping.
-Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire |
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
|
Posted - 2010.04.23 16:29:00 -
[4]
So you're suggesting CCP kills lo-sec?
|
Desdemona Neptune
|
Posted - 2010.04.23 18:35:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Mag's So you're suggesting CCP kills lo-sec?
No. I'm suggesting that lowsec becomes increasingly more dangerous the deeper you go -- i.e. the lower the sec status.
Lowsec is sort of pointless right now -- its just a pirate's fight club. At least if it gets progressively more dangerous (i.e., it takes longer and longer to get CONCORD protection) it's a little more interesting. Maybe when one gets to 0.1 there's only a random chance that CONCORD shows up at all.
Otherwise why have progressive levels? From both pvp and pve perspective, 0.4 to 0.1 is exactly the same: the penalties for piracy never change, and players who don't want to go into lowsec don't care what level it is, because they run the same risk.
|
Liang Nuren
Parsec Flux
|
Posted - 2010.04.23 18:59:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Desdemona Neptune Otherwise why have progressive levels? From both pvp and pve perspective, 0.4 to 0.1 is exactly the same: the penalties for piracy never change, and players who don't want to go into lowsec don't care what level it is, because they run the same risk.
Awesome, why don't you go look at my thread on "Observations on Low Sec" for a proper set of ideas for fixing this. Your idea will do nothing but turn low sec into high sec with a longer amount of time on the suicide gank.
-Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire |
Desdemona Neptune
|
Posted - 2010.04.23 19:40:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Liang Nuren
Originally by: Desdemona Neptune Otherwise why have progressive levels? From both pvp and pve perspective, 0.4 to 0.1 is exactly the same: the penalties for piracy never change, and players who don't want to go into lowsec don't care what level it is, because they run the same risk.
Awesome, why don't you go look at my thread on "Observations on Low Sec" for a proper set of ideas for fixing this. Your idea will do nothing but turn low sec into high sec with a longer amount of time on the suicide gank.
-Liang
I did read it, before I wrote mine. Your suggestion is "put better stuff in lowsec!"
Awesome -- and totally original, just like the dozens of other posts that have all suggested the same thing over the years!
Lowsec missions already pay more than hisec ones, and level 5 missions are only found in lowsec. (You might not know this if you haven't completed the tutorial yet.)
The value of the rewards is not my point -- it's the purpose of having different levels of lowsec security, and making lowsec pvp more dynamic. Sorry if I hurt your feelings by making a suggestion different than yours. Would a hug make you feel better?
|
Liang Nuren
Parsec Flux
|
Posted - 2010.04.23 19:43:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Desdemona Neptune The value of the rewards is not my point -- it's the purpose of having different levels of lowsec security, and making lowsec pvp more dynamic. Sorry if I hurt your feelings by making a suggestion different than yours. Would a hug make you feel better?
The only effect that your suggestion would have would be to lower the number of ships required for a freighter gank. THAT'S IT. Otherwise, low sec becomes high sec, and you better get a war dec to PVP someone else you lose your ship.
-Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire |
Desdemona Neptune
|
Posted - 2010.04.23 19:59:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Liang Nuren
Originally by: Desdemona Neptune The value of the rewards is not my point -- it's the purpose of having different levels of lowsec security, and making lowsec pvp more dynamic. Sorry if I hurt your feelings by making a suggestion different than yours. Would a hug make you feel better?
The only effect that your suggestion would have would be to lower the number of ships required for a freighter gank. THAT'S IT. Otherwise, low sec becomes high sec, and you better get a war dec to PVP someone else you lose your ship.
-Liang
Please read more carefully.
In higher-level lowsec, the space is almost -- but not quite as -- safe as hisec. CONCORD will respond, but only after a short delay.
In lower-level lowsec, the space is almost -- but not quite as -- dangerous as 0.0. CONCORD will come after a lengthy delay, or perhaps not at all. Personal security standing penalties still apply to the aggressor.
This allows players to scale their pvp experience. In 0.4 space, chances are good that you'll survive a pirate attack, even with limited skills. In 0.1, the chances are much lower -- a mining gang for example had better be prepared to defend themselves for much longer.
The whole concept is a lot more realistic than the current one, in which CONCORD instantly appears at any point in hisec the moment someone is attacked, but does not appear at all anywhere in lowsec. Why do they assign different levels of security if they don't provide different levels of protection?
By the way, nothing I'm suggesting contradicts your suggestion that lowsec rewards be enhanced; I think rewards should also be scaled to lower security.
No need to get huffy about it.
|
Liang Nuren
Parsec Flux
|
Posted - 2010.04.23 20:06:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Desdemona Neptune
In lower-level lowsec, the space is almost -- but not quite as -- dangerous as 0.0. CONCORD will come after a lengthy delay, or perhaps not at all. Personal security standing penalties still apply to the aggressor.
This allows players to scale their pvp experience. In 0.4 space, chances are good that you'll survive a pirate attack, even with limited skills. In 0.1, the chances are much lower -- a mining gang for example had better be prepared to defend themselves for much longer.
It doesn't matter how long they defend themselves for because Concord will still come and kill the aggressor - win or lose. Thus, the only effect would be that I run with T1 fit battleships ganking as many hulks as I can until Concord shows up and forces me to dock for 15 minutes, and then go visit 0.0 until I get my sec status back high enough to enter "low sec" (lol) for more miner ganks.
-Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire |
|
King Rothgar
Amarrian Retribution
|
Posted - 2010.04.23 22:18:00 -
[11]
I don't think you understand what concord is dude. Concord CANNOT be evaded. You may actually get banned for exploiting game mechanics if you do. Your proposal makes low sec high sec as only suicide ganking would be possible. And in regards to concord response times, there is a difference within high sec. In 0.5 sec you have about 5 seconds to suicide gank someone before concord/navy shows up. In 1.0 it's basically instant. So no, not only is your proposal terrible, you don't even understand what it is you're asking for.
Thus far you shall read, but no further; for this is my sig. |
Ephemeron
Retribution Corp. Initiative Associates
|
Posted - 2010.04.23 22:26:00 -
[12]
I would like to take that suggestion and apply it to high sec instead
Who's with me?
|
Di Mulle
|
Posted - 2010.04.23 23:21:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Ephemeron I would like to take that suggestion and apply it to high sec instead
Who's with me?
CCP is with you.
They actually applied that suggestion from the very beginning.
|
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2010.04.24 06:54:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Desdemona Neptune The value of the rewards is not my point -- it's the purpose of having different levels of lowsec security, and making lowsec pvp more dynamic...
If by dynamic you mean completely absent then yes, introducing certain death for breaking the law is the way to go. Remember that Concord cannot be avoided, doesn't matter what kind of delay you impose on the spawning .. if they can spawn you are dead .. period.
Apart from a handful of low-sec entrances that attract the pod s****pirate camps you are actually pretty "safe" if you keep an eye open at all times and don't linger anywhere for long periods, at least when on your own. Many of the mission hubs have defence agreements between the citizenry which essentially acts like Concord ..
If low-sec is to be worth anything we have to sprinkle carrots and not sticks, it is not meant to be safe but if you cannot even make ends meet then something is off.
|
Receg
Caldari Navy Runners OWN Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.24 08:22:00 -
[15]
Ratter flies alt/primary to lowsec belt(s). Ratter alt shoots primary thus spawning concord (even though they show up late). Ratter can now rat in peace knowing that concord are actively watching the belts.
Welcome to high sec :)
Unless concord despawn after a set amount of time, then this will not work. -----
We all have a photographic memory, it's just some of us don't have film. |
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |