Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
AtheistOfFail
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.12.25 09:20:00 -
[1]
All right, i've been a reading a lot about low sec and it seems that there's a few things wrong with it.
1) Noone wants to go there (unsafe) 2) People can perma-tank the sentries in a decent enough battleship/battlecruiser and perma-camp gates. 3) Noone wants to run missions there (very unsafe in a PvE ship)
So here's the LOL changes.
Concord has devised a new way to command more remote forms of safety in a system. Along with the new modules, the following changes have gone into effect. The LOL turret facility has been deployed to low sec systems near you with the most powerful ones being in the 0.4 systems. Due to the required investment these have not been installed in high sec (because the OMGWTFBBQ fleet is already there). The new system comes with a new array to detect GCC characters that is transmitted to the turret facility for turret deployment and redirection.
1) Turrets have been removed from stations and gates. 2) Reduce DPS on sentry guns to 100 DPS each. This would be an overall decrease of about 1/4. 3) Reduce god-like tracking (make it speed tankable). 4) Warp-capable sentry guns will warp to an area where piracy has occured (based on sec status) Example: I agress in a 0.4 system but not on a station/gate. It takes 10 seconds for the initial wave to show up (2 turrets), then every 10 seconds (increases with sec status) 2 more turrets join the fight. 5) Turret facilities have a flat 10% to 25% (not sure which one would be best) chance of spawning as an EWAR turret (warp scram/web/ecm/sensor damp/neut). The turret type of ECM is chosen randomly (so that passive drake will probably not care about a neutralizer as opposed to that dramiel will worry about a web/scram turret) 6) Turrets WILL not follow you around system (so safespots are cool as long as you haven't aggressed anyone there) 7) Turrets can be destroyed (Frigate EHP for each). Doing so will not incur a faction standing or extra GCC. They will not drop any loot. 8) Turrets will target switch individually (no primary). Drones may also be locked by the turrets. 9) Turrets will auto-warp back to the turret facility as soon as all GCC personnel in area have been dispatched or have warped out.
End result - No more endless gatecamps (buffer ships will have to warp while active tank ships will be capped out or overwhelmed) - Missioning can be attempted in relatively safe system (a well prepared fleet can still destroy you)
Pros - More targets for pirates that are up to the task. - More ISK making for all indy/missioners.
Cons - Logistic ships will have a harder time keeping a fleet alive during this mayhem (no primary).
Basic turret stats Damage type: 500 of each damage type Firing rate 5.00 sec Scan res: 5000 ms (insta-lock) EHP: 5k or so would be appropriate Tracking: Between medium and small turrets (good enough to track cruiser but might lack against frigates) Range: 150km. Warp speed: 9 AU/s Turrets will have a flat 25 strength in the ECM side so it is possible to free your little pirate friend/alt from that scram by jamming it.
|
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2010.12.25 09:57:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Hirana Yoshida on 25/12/2010 09:59:26 Adding more secutirty in the hopes of attracting mission runners might increase activity in the short-term. Once people realise they are still dying every other day and that their actual income after expenses is much lower they'll bugger off again leaving a ridiculous wet blanket over low-sec that we residents have to live with.
Low-sec needs thematic mechanics to support the "other side of the tracks" lifestyles of piracy, drug manufacturing and the like. Make the space worth fighting over and people will not only come but stay and the wet blanket becomes a nice warm sweater albeit drenched in blood.
|
Fenren
Minmatar Bure Astro Photography
|
Posted - 2010.12.25 14:18:00 -
[3]
how will the addition of instalocking gatecamps help missionrunners in lowsec?
|
Vertisce Soritenshi
O.W.N. Corp OWN Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.12.25 16:47:00 -
[4]
How about we just make a system where you have to pay for protection in low sec.
10 million for 0.4 per character for 24 hours and Concord will protect you in the same way they do in high sec. 20 mill for 0.3, 30 for 0.2 and 40 for 0.1.
There...now you can be safe in low sec. And the best part about it is the pirate gankers will have to think twice about attacking you because they won't know if you purchased protection or not.
Sig.Learning skills vote. |
Tatus Divinatus
|
Posted - 2010.12.25 17:24:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Vertisce Soritenshi How about we just make a system where you have to pay for protection in low sec.
10 million for 0.4 per character for 24 hours and Concord will protect you in the same way they do in high sec. 20 mill for 0.3, 30 for 0.2 and 40 for 0.1.
There...now you can be safe in low sec. And the best part about it is the pirate gankers will have to think twice about attacking you because they won't know if you purchased protection or not.
Can be fun ^^ And instead of a C. fleet you may be protected by one Concord carrier (cheapest for them and more adapted to low sec)
|
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2010.12.25 17:31:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Vertisce Soritenshi How about we just make a system where you have to pay for protection in low sec.
10 million for 0.4 per character for 24 hours and Concord will protect you in the same way they do in high sec. 20 mill for 0.3, 30 for 0.2 and 40 for 0.1.
There...now you can be safe in low sec. And the best part about it is the pirate gankers will have to think twice about attacking you because they won't know if you purchased protection or not.
Go all the way and let you buy protection from the local pirates themselves, an organized protection racket if you will. If they break the contract the result is a high-sec scale concord response.
Could be a beautiful part of a pirate centric low-sec revamp.
|
12433412
Freemason Core
|
Posted - 2010.12.25 17:40:00 -
[7]
I ask myself: will this be more beneficial to solo/small gangs or blobs? Not sure there should be more emphasis on blob warfare in lowsec.
_____________________________________________________ Beware of what you want, it might want you more! |
ISpydeRI
|
Posted - 2010.12.25 20:35:00 -
[8]
No. Fail. Bad carebear/carebearlover, go home.
|
el alasar
|
Posted - 2010.12.25 23:41:00 -
[9]
sounds like one more nice idea to change lowsec mechanics for the better. also hiring temporarily concord sounds interesting. CCP, please make some changes...
Originally by: ISpydeRI No. Fail. Bad carebear/carebearlover, go home.
a lovely and very differentiated answer. also very helpful comment. thanks for that!
|
Spazdaro
|
Posted - 2010.12.26 02:42:00 -
[10]
so you want some sort of auto protection in 0.4 to 0.1 systems? the protection you will need to be safe from pirates will make low sec no different from high sec. and if you get that then you will cry that you should be able to go mission in 0.0 cause that is where you can make more money and want th same protection there. missioners like to fly thier pimped faction bs's so they can grind faster and are scared of any risk in losing that ship so unless they have full concord protection they will not mission in a system and the only way to give full protection is to make it high sec.
|
|
Tiberu Stundrif
Waking Nightmare Inc.
|
Posted - 2010.12.26 03:54:00 -
[11]
Edited by: Tiberu Stundrif on 26/12/2010 03:54:50
Originally by: Vertisce Soritenshi How about we just make a system where you have to pay for protection in low sec.
10 million for 0.4 per character for 24 hours and Concord will protect you in the same way they do in high sec. 20 mill for 0.3, 30 for 0.2 and 40 for 0.1.
There...now you can be safe in low sec. And the best part about it is the pirate gankers will have to think twice about attacking you because they won't know if you purchased protection or not.
W...T...F... No. ---------------------------------------
|
Jason Travers
Space 1999
|
Posted - 2010.12.26 04:06:00 -
[12]
Quote: missioners like to fly their pimped faction bs's so they can grind faster and are scared of any risk in losing that ship so unless they have full concord protection they will not mission in a system and the only way to give full protection is to make it high sec.
The same could be said about the pirates in low sec. They want a duck shoot without any real chance of someone fighting back that would stand a chance. Something needs to be done and a compromise needs to be made. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. Mission-runners are willing to make a compromise but most of the pirates do not want to. so as it currently stands the missioners choose not to go into low-sec and the pirates sit at the gate camps with their thumb up their bumm waiting for something that will probably never happen. Mommy that mean ole bear just dukied in my sandbox. :( |
Tiberu Stundrif
Waking Nightmare Inc.
|
Posted - 2010.12.26 04:38:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Jason Travers You cannot have your cake and eat it too. Mission-runners are willing to make a compromise but most of the pirates do not want to. so as it currently stands the missioners choose not to go into low-sec and the pirates sit at the gate camps with their thumb up their bumm waiting for something that will probably never happen.
This person does not live in low-sec, never has, and with this attitude, should stay in high-sec. (that was a lot of commas, wow)
Jason, please stop talking... its hurts the heads of those who actually know what they are talking about. ---------------------------------------
|
Thyme Wasted
|
Posted - 2010.12.26 05:02:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Hirana Yoshida Go all the way and let you buy protection from the local pirates themselves, an organized protection racket if you will. If they break the contract the result is a high-sec scale concord response.
Could be a beautiful part of a pirate centric low-sec revamp.
I thought, this isn't such a bad idea... but then I realized that it's already what we have in 0.0 without the headache of having to figure out lowsec's version of "sov" / whatever "breaking contract" means.
|
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2010.12.26 09:57:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Thyme Wasted I thought, this isn't such a bad idea... but then I realized that it's already what we have in 0.0 without the headache of having to figure out lowsec's version of "sov" / whatever "breaking contract" means.
What headache? You take money for a promise not to shoot a client, if you do shoot him you have broken it .. can't get much clearer than that .. old school protection racket. We already have it, or had at one point, in an informal e-honour way .. but as the pirates of old are all but gone and replaced with hot-dropping, gate-camping, can-flipping generic sociopaths e-honour is no longer a strong enough encouragement for trust.
As for the "sov" thing; Lots of options available, being discussed elsewhere though and not really the topic of this thread.
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |