Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Nadari Tamlin
Compound Interests
0
|
Posted - 2012.07.24 20:00:00 -
[1] - Quote
So I was thinking about low-sec and haphazardly brought this up with a friend of mine.
What I was thinking was that low-sec is labeled as faction space yet the factions don't seem to care about it. How about if the factions replaced CONCORD in low-sec. Now instead of being insta-popped by these NPCs make the groups of faction ships that show up scale with the victims faction standing along with the standing of the aggressor and the security rating of the system, they should be tankable in .5 systems if the aggressors are determined enough and equivalent to belt rats in .1.
The NPC roles could be filled by the militia corps which already operate in low on behalf of the faction. It would also make your Thukker or Mordu's standing worth something. |
mxzf
Blackened Skies
1970
|
Posted - 2012.07.24 20:06:00 -
[2] - Quote
This sounds like it would simply make small scale (solo/small gang) PvP virtually impossible in lowsec and encourage blobbing (because a blob with RR would be able to tank the faction NPCs). Seeing as lowsec is currently the small scale PvP haven, how would this be a good thing? |
Nadari Tamlin
Compound Interests
0
|
Posted - 2012.07.24 20:12:00 -
[3] - Quote
mxzf wrote:This sounds like it would simply make small scale (solo/small gang) PvP virtually impossible in lowsec and encourage blobbing (because a blob with RR would be able to tank the faction NPCs). Seeing as lowsec is currently the small scale PvP haven, how would this be a good thing?
Good point. It's why I was thinking of the scaling of NPC fleet based on faction. As I think about it though that wouldn't help unless there was some que for your intended victims standing. For instance if you have a neutral with Gallente then they send a frigate or two to defend you even in a .4 and if you have negative, well then, they just don't care. |
mxzf
Blackened Skies
1971
|
Posted - 2012.07.24 20:31:00 -
[4] - Quote
Nadari Tamlin wrote:Edit: What if the faction guards only had a chance of showing up and the chance is based on the victims standing with something like a 75% chance with a +9 standing?
It still sounds like it'd cause problems.
Here's a counter question, what (if anything) is wrong with lowsec ATM? If you're simply trying to suggest this for RP reasons, gameplay comes first. |
Nadari Tamlin
Compound Interests
0
|
Posted - 2012.07.24 21:05:00 -
[5] - Quote
mxzf wrote:Nadari Tamlin wrote:Edit: What if the faction guards only had a chance of showing up and the chance is based on the victims standing with something like a 75% chance with a +9 standing? It still sounds like it'd cause problems. Here's a counter question, what (if anything) is wrong with lowsec ATM? If you're simply trying to suggest this for RP reasons, gameplay comes first.
Personally the only thing I find wrong with low is that it effectively has nothing to encourage players to take the risk. Let's be clear that I don't want the danger removed. Just spread out more logically in the ".4-.1" framework CCP themselves created.
What I was originally thinking of is something that doesn't seem as intimidating but doesn't remove the danger all together. I included the RP aspects because there are actual usable gameplay mechanics behind them.
The fact that it "still causes problems" is why I started a discussion about it. |
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks The Marmite Collective
2022
|
Posted - 2012.07.24 21:12:00 -
[6] - Quote
If I were going to do anything to add a sense or security to lowsec, it would be something like this: each constellation gets a single concord patrol that moves between systems on a set patrol pattern. If they come across piracy, they would attack, but they would not fire on people with low sec status. The Skunkworks is recruiting. -áhttps://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1540711#post1540711 |
Nadari Tamlin
Compound Interests
0
|
Posted - 2012.07.24 21:27:00 -
[7] - Quote
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:If I were going to do anything to add a sense or security to lowsec, it would be something like this: each constellation gets a single concord patrol that moves between systems on a set patrol pattern. If they come across piracy, they would attack, but they would not fire on people with low sec status.
I like this idea. Makes me think of frontier homesteads and their cavalry patrols in America's old west. |
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
8878
|
Posted - 2012.07.25 07:22:00 -
[8] - Quote
No concord, end of.
Want in, bring friends or fly safe.
CCP Zulu..... Forcing players to dock at the captain's quarters is a form of what we actually wanted to get through, which is making Incarna a seamless part of the EVE Online experience. |
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
317
|
Posted - 2012.07.25 07:30:00 -
[9] - Quote
Nadari Tamlin wrote:mxzf wrote:Nadari Tamlin wrote:Edit: What if the faction guards only had a chance of showing up and the chance is based on the victims standing with something like a 75% chance with a +9 standing? It still sounds like it'd cause problems. Here's a counter question, what (if anything) is wrong with lowsec ATM? If you're simply trying to suggest this for RP reasons, gameplay comes first. Personally the only thing I find wrong with low is that it effectively has nothing to encourage players to take the risk. Let's be clear that I don't want the danger removed. Just spread out more logically in the ".4-.1" framework CCP themselves created. What I was originally thinking of is something that doesn't seem as intimidating but doesn't remove the danger all together. I included the RP aspects because there are actual usable gameplay mechanics behind them. The fact that it "still causes problems" is why I started a discussion about it.
Or they could just put some worthwhile resource there instead. |
Tomcio FromFarAway
Singularity's Edge
145
|
Posted - 2012.07.25 08:57:00 -
[10] - Quote
Nadari Tamlin wrote:[ Personally the only thing I find wrong with low is that it effectively has nothing to encourage players to take the risk.
- More profitable PI - Very profitable exploration, this is the main reason ( besides pvp ) to go into lowsec. - Better access to C3 wormholes - Better ratting - Cytoserocin gases ( important for people, who want to make boosters but aren't part of nullsec alliance )
Of course they could add some other things as well but it's not like it is not worth it to go there for other things than pvp.
As for the NPC bodyguards - no. There is no need for that really. It wouldn't make lowsec more attractive at all. |
|
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks The Marmite Collective
2027
|
Posted - 2012.07.25 13:47:00 -
[11] - Quote
Ganthrithor wrote:Or they could just put some worthwhile resource there instead.
This. If CCP tosses any notion of nullsec alliances being resource-independent (what a horrible idea), they could simply make some of the mid-level minerals exclusive to lowsec. Suddenly industry becomes impossible without lowsec mining, and that requires security and infrastructure. The Skunkworks is recruiting. -áhttps://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1540711#post1540711 |
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |