Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Doctor Invictus
Gallente Zaneta Enterprises Inc
|
Posted - 2011.02.19 15:18:00 -
[1]
Proposals to 'improve' low-sec usually involve adding CONCORD or other game-mechanic-based security improvements, but these are rejected because low-sec is supposed to be dangerous and because they would interfere with PvP.
An alternative a few of us came up with over at F&I was to have a player-based security mechanism instead. This proposal would put CONCORD bounties on pilots with negative sec status while they are in low-sec (amount calculated from the base price of their hull, like insurance). Other players would then have an incentive to go into low-sec to hunt pirates (thus balancing out the incentives for pirating vs. anti-pirating). So this proposal would...
1) Make low-sec slightly safer for industrialists/miners without giving them any guarantee on safety.
2) Promote PvP between pirates and anti-pirates (and with carebears, to the extent that more move to low-sec).
Thanks for reading.
|
Lilith Velkor
Minmatar Heretic Army
|
Posted - 2011.02.19 15:52:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 19/02/2011 15:55:59
So basically I could buy a ship, insure it, and then kill it with my alt to make a profit?
Proper way to do it would be to fix the bounty system. Pay bounties for ship and pod kills from the total bounty pool that is set to the player, where only the market value of destroyed items or implants is paid out.
|
Dro Nee
|
Posted - 2011.02.19 15:54:00 -
[3]
There is no evidence that supports the conclusion lowsec needs improvement. Second your proposal is totally exploitable.
Not Supported.
|
Doctor Invictus
Zaneta Enterprises Inc
|
Posted - 2011.02.19 16:14:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Lilith Velkor So basically I could buy a ship, insure it, and then kill it with my alt to make a profit?
No, because the lost ship (taking into account insurance) costs more than the bounty. Alternatively, the bounty could either be taken from the wallet of the pirate or out of the insurance compensation, the neutralizing any exploitability.
|
Davader
|
Posted - 2011.02.19 16:52:00 -
[5]
Carebears must suffer. What else safety do you expect from lows? It's dangerous territory, you can set some positive standings with local pirates and not to have any problems with them (for a price of course). Not supporting.
|
Goose99
|
Posted - 2011.02.19 17:51:00 -
[6]
How would bounty payout amount be affected by how many people shoots the pirate? Only person who dealt final blow collects, or everyone collects? Make it pay full share for everyone who dealt dmg, out of the rat's wallet, incursion style, and I'll support. Lowsec pirates are usually alone and fail. I'd love to farm them, but it's not worth the effort if bounty's divided among the blob to nothingness.
|
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2011.02.19 18:01:00 -
[7]
High-sec is Downtown with police, law&order and small time crooks. Null-sec is the untamed wilds where the group/individual forges their own destinies.
Low-sec should be in between. It should the Chinatowns and Little Italy's of Eve where crime syndicates duke it out for supremacy, making money from skimming off the various business endeavours conducted on their turf. Protection becomes player based, pirates tending "their flocks" while preying on the neighbours.
Keep Concord restricted to gates/stations and let the players handle everything else.
|
Laechyd Eldgorn
Caldari draketrain
|
Posted - 2011.02.20 11:07:00 -
[8]
When you realize that people don't go to low sec for killing pirates and it's relatively safe for industrialists, you're on right track there.
Game mechanics already encourage fighting combat fitted ships (aka evil griefers) instead of haulers or miners because of general loot value, which is ridiculous.
|
Hesperius
|
Posted - 2011.02.20 20:58:00 -
[9]
Ivy League and Electus Matari seem to do just fine being anti-pirates in low sec without this. Seems to me it might be a mental block as all research has indicated.
|
sabre906
|
Posted - 2011.02.20 21:31:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Hesperius Ivy League and Electus Matari seem to do just fine being anti-pirates in low sec without this. Seems to me it might be a mental block as all research has indicated.
Citing the exception instead of the rule proves the exact opposite point.
|
|
Hesperius
|
Posted - 2011.02.20 22:44:00 -
[11]
Ivy and EM are examples not exceptions. There are many anti-pirates running around these days.
If you really want to make it so I can sit there and farm an alt endlessly to get all the ISK I could ever ask for, then I'm all for it.
Even if it did work to get more anti-pirates, and even if there had not already been 3 consecutive years of anti-pirate game tweaks in every patch, this would not get people to the belts mining in low sec.
|
TimMc
Brutal Deliverance Gypsy Band
|
Posted - 2011.02.21 02:46:00 -
[12]
Originally by: sabre906
Originally by: Hesperius Ivy League and Electus Matari seem to do just fine being anti-pirates in low sec without this. Seems to me it might be a mental block as all research has indicated.
Citing the exception instead of the rule proves the exact opposite point.
wut
|
Helicity Boson
Amarr The Python Cartel. The Defenders of Pen Island
|
Posted - 2011.02.21 10:29:00 -
[13]
To fix bounty hunting, simply make killrights transferrable, either directly to other players -or- to an NPC bounty office which then spawns missions to kill the criminal in question, with the reward paid by whoever gave them the killright.
job done.
|
Doctor Invictus
Gallente Zaneta Enterprises Inc
|
Posted - 2011.02.21 12:33:00 -
[14]
The downside of the transferable kill rights method is that, as I understand it, it would only apply to a single pilot, rather than to anyone wanting to become an anti-pirate more generally. As an incentive structure, I don't think it would make that much of a difference.
|
Lilith Velkor
Minmatar Heretic Army
|
Posted - 2011.02.21 18:29:00 -
[15]
Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 21/02/2011 18:33:08
Originally by: Doctor Invictus
Originally by: Lilith Velkor So basically I could buy a ship, insure it, and then kill it with my alt to make a profit?
No, because the lost ship (taking into account insurance) costs more than the bounty. Alternatively, the bounty could either be taken from the wallet of the pirate or out of the insurance compensation, the neutralizing any exploitability.
You realize that piracy has this making money by killing ships component, right?
What do you think will happen when the bounty comes out of the pirate wallet? It is simple, the pirate needs to reduce the risk of losing ships to around zero, and the best way to do that is by using overwhelming force and avoiding a good fight like the plague.
The same thing that happened when FW hit lowsec will happen again, the current pirate entities will combine forces to reduce risk and hire more personnel.
Less fighting, more ganks. And even more overfarming the 'carebears' population because there are now more mouths to feed.
Bad idea overall, you should probably try to live in lowsec for a while before you propose anything.
|
Doctor Invictus
Gallente Zaneta Enterprises Inc
|
Posted - 2011.02.21 18:40:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Lilith Velkor You realize that piracy has this making money by killing ships component, right?
One would hope.
Originally by: Lilith What do you think will happen when the bounty comes out of the pirate wallet? It is simple, the pirate needs to reduce the risk of losing ships to around zero, and the best way to do that is by using overwhelming force and avoiding a good fight like the plague.
There's already an incentive to behave in this fashion. In any kind of profit-seeking PvP, that kind of incentive (i.e., to gain more than you lose) will always exist.
Originally by: Lilith Less fighting, more ganks. And even more overfarming the 'carebears' population because there are now more mouths to feed.
By that logic, hi-sec must be a pretty dangerous place.
|
Lilith Velkor
Minmatar Heretic Army
|
Posted - 2011.02.21 19:31:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Doctor Invictus
Originally by: Lilith Less fighting, more ganks. And even more overfarming the 'carebears' population because there are now more mouths to feed.
By that logic, hi-sec must be a pretty dangerous place.
No, you just dont get the logic. In hisec the prey population is strong compared to the hunter population. The risk for the individual is still there, but the chance that it hits another animal in the herd is big.
In lowsec the opposite is the case. And if you scale up the required K/D ratio to keep a profit, the pirate has to adjust to meet that ratio. The obvious way to do this is to kill more ships with less losses, and losses are avoided best by making sure the victim does not even have a remote chance to fight back.
The anti-pirates that you assume will come to lowsec are just more prey at the end of the day, and the pirates will scale up their numbers to ensure minimal losses according to the required K/D ratio.
Again, go live in lowsec for a while before making proposals that concern lowsec.
|
Doctor Invictus
Gallente Zaneta Enterprises Inc
|
Posted - 2011.02.21 19:42:00 -
[18]
Edited by: Doctor Invictus on 21/02/2011 19:42:38
Originally by: Lilith Velkor No, you just dont get the logic. In hisec the prey population is strong compared to the hunter population. The risk for the individual is still there, but the chance that it hits another animal in the herd is big.
In lowsec the opposite is the case. And if you scale up the required K/D ratio to keep a profit, the pirate has to adjust to meet that ratio. The obvious way to do this is to kill more ships with less losses, and losses are avoided best by making sure the victim does not even have a remote chance to fight back.
But that's the whole point; attracting more pilots (combat and non-combat) to low-sec.
Originally by: Lilith The anti-pirates that you assume will come to lowsec are just more prey at the end of the day, and the pirates will scale up their numbers to ensure minimal losses according to the required K/D ratio.
And the more pirates there are in low-sec, the more of an incentive there is for increasing numbers of anti-pirates enter low-sec.
|
Mimiru Minahiro
|
Posted - 2011.02.21 20:31:00 -
[19]
Will the ISK/Hr be better than L4's after accounting for risk?
If not then people dont have a reason to go to lowsec anymore than they have now.
|
Anna Lifera
6....
|
Posted - 2011.02.22 18:22:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Lilith Velkor
No, you just dont get the logic. In hisec the prey population is strong compared to the hunter population. The risk for the individual is still there, but the chance that it hits another animal in the herd is big.
In lowsec the opposite is the case. And if you scale up the required K/D ratio to keep a profit, the pirate has to adjust to meet that ratio. The obvious way to do this is to kill more ships with less losses, and losses are avoided best by making sure the victim does not even have a remote chance to fight back.
The anti-pirates that you assume will come to lowsec are just more prey at the end of the day, and the pirates will scale up their numbers to ensure minimal losses according to the required K/D ratio.
Again, go live in lowsec for a while before making proposals that concern lowsec.
^this^. and to expand on it, even if the low sec pirates don't have the numbers at the time, they'll just simply dock up/safespot til they do have the numbers again. in reality, they're just as risk-averse, if not more so, than any carebear, only it's all reward and no risk.
so op, if u really want to fix low sec, cut down on their risk-aversion, such as no docking/gate jumping/safespotting/cloaking during gcc because the fact is no amount of incentive will catch a risk-averse pirate, which is pretty much all of them. u want them to be hunted, make it so they can be caught, which means preventing them from running at the slightest hint of risk. --- You're an asset to the community Anna. Thank you for your clear concise remarks. - Draek |
|
Imigo Montoya
Hysterically Unforgiving Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2011.02.22 21:38:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Mimiru Minahiro Will the ISK/Hr be better than L4's after accounting for risk?
If not then people dont have a reason to go to lowsec anymore than they have now.
It's not about the ISK/Hr, it's about having fun - and pew is fun (far more than missions).
At this point I'd like to point out my proposal here. It details a bit more behind the reasoning/working for this kind of proposal.
The thought is to take players who would normally be carebearing in Empire and avoiding PvP at all costs and give them an incentive to get a group together and go out hunting pirates, particularly if they wouldn't otherwise. If this worked, it would give pirates more targets to shoot, and make more pew happen, making more ships go boom and more loot drop. Sure there are pirate hunters out there already, but this should encourage more, and possibly rich inexperienced ones at that
Tying it to insurance payouts would ensure that it couldn't be exploited.
To be perfectly honest, pirates should be on the run from the law - otherwise where's the excitement?
|
Mimiru Minahiro
|
Posted - 2011.02.22 22:20:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Imigo Montoya It's not about the ISK/Hr, it's about having fun - and pew is fun (far more than missions).
I understand what your saying, but I do not think that you have thought it through completely. As you note the people you are trying to reach are players who avoid PvP at all costs. By supplying an ISK faucet the OP is trying to entice those players out of highsec, however there is no financial reason to leave highsec unless the ISK/hr is greater once you calculate ship/time loss. And if you are unwilling to ensure bounty hunting makes more ISK/hr than highsec L4's, then it is pointless to offer a financial incentive to achieve your goal. They would still be better off running missions in highsec for ISk, and then coming to lowsec for pewpew (fun). As i said, however, the pewpew (fun) incentive is already there. Therefore, there is no new/more reason to go to lowsec than what is currently the case.
Adding an ISK faucet does do one thing though- it makes it easier for people who wish to shoot everything that moves to stay operational financially. Meaning that those who have, by some peoples accounts, "overfished" lowsec are being rewarded.
|
Imigo Montoya
Hysterically Unforgiving Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2011.02.23 03:57:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Mimiru Minahiro By supplying an ISK faucet the OP is trying to entice those players out of highsec, however there is no financial reason to leave highsec unless the ISK/hr is greater once you calculate ship/time loss. And if you are unwilling to ensure bounty hunting makes more ISK/hr than highsec L4's, then it is pointless to offer a financial incentive to achieve your goal. They would still be better off running missions in highsec for ISk, and then coming to lowsec for pewpew (fun). As i said, however, the pewpew (fun) incentive is already there. Therefore, there is no new/more reason to go to lowsec than what is currently the case.
This is true, but on the flip side of the same coin, while the fun factor is there regardless, the loss factor is also there regardless. This proposal is to mitigate the effect of the loss factor so it makes less of a contribution when deciding whether or not to go out to pew. Tipping the balance just a little you could say.
So not just about making money from pirate hunting (although making that more of a possibility), but losing less to encourage people to try it out. Once people start the pew pew, they'll wonder why they didn't earlier, and that's what this is trying to promote.
Or maybe I'm just evangelising pew so much I am missing that carebears will always be carebears. Surely not though, surely people just need to see the light (of lasers and explosions).
|
Doctor Invictus
Gallente Zaneta Enterprises Inc
|
Posted - 2011.02.23 13:49:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Mimiru Will the ISK/Hr be better than L4's after accounting for risk?
If not then people dont have a reason to go to lowsec anymore than they have now.
This is true, but assumes that weÆre trying to equalize low-sec with hi-sec on purely financial terms. This change wouldnÆt do that, but would at least close the gap between the two, to some degree (i.e., I donÆt think low-sec will be as populated as hi-sec, but that it would be more populated than it is now, especially by PvP pilots). This may or may not have the knock-on effect of making low-sec safer for miners and industrialists in low-sec, and thereby increasing the overall population further.
Originally by: Anna Lifera so op, if u really want to fix low sec, cut down on their risk-aversion, such as no docking/gate jumping/safespotting/cloaking during gcc because the fact is no amount of rewards will catch a risk-averse pirate, which is pretty much all of them. u want them to be hunted, make it so they can be caught, which means preventing them from running at the slightest hint of risk. this alone will be an incentive for anti-pirates who have at least similar numbers as the pirates because now they have a real chance of killing them, instead of putting up with the usual run & hide crap.
That's a fair point. Would it be over-powered to have the anti-pirate incentive be paired with restrictions on docking for pilots with low security status during the GCC? That way pirates will either have to render themselves inert (cloak/hide), leave the system, or be vulnerable to anti-pirates.
The danger, of course, is that we don't want to effectively 'ban' low-sec pirating, just balance it out a bit.
|
Frank Shitlitz
|
Posted - 2011.02.23 17:31:00 -
[25]
This will be great right up to the point that:
1)The highsec dwellers are baited and gang raeped a few times. Then the losses will outwiegh the gains again.
2)"Pirates" no longer have negative sec status due to having a perfectly safe null system to rat it back up.
The more "sucessful" your plan is in the short term, the faster it also burns itself out in the long term.
Bounty hunting changes will not "fix" low-sec (low-sec doesnt even need fixing by many peoples opinion).
|
Barron Hammerstrike
Minmatar Intergang
|
Posted - 2011.02.23 19:26:00 -
[26]
Edited by: Barron Hammerstrike on 23/02/2011 19:26:56 As a player who prefers low sec to high I would have to say that IMHO it doesn't really need "fixing". Population wise I think it's how it should be which is quieter/less crowded than high sec. Not to burst bubbles, but players that don't venture into high sec due to ganks, loss gain aversion, or whatever, will never really be enticed to check it out. They are not there because they don't want to be there. It doesn't matter what rewards are there. Some (perhaps many) players just don't like loss and stay out of low sec for that reason alone.
|
Lilith Velkor
Minmatar Heretic Army
|
Posted - 2011.02.23 20:29:00 -
[27]
Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 23/02/2011 20:30:38
Originally by: Frank ****litz
(low-sec doesnt even need fixing by many peoples opinion).
This is the simple truth. Lowsec is perfectly fine as it is, and with minimal social and/or mercantile skills it is easy to live there as a pve/industrial player.
You will have to be on good terms with the local pirates and the militias, but that is not an issue as long as you can give something in return. If you arent prepared to give something in return, then dont expect it to be the hello kitty adventure club...
We got a few industrialists we have set blue, they actually make good profit by selling to us, and ontop enjoy having protection available on call plus very little competition.
They want to get their freighter in and a neutral battleship is sitting at entry gate with them? Call your pirate/militia friends and jump, the 20 friendlies sitting on the other side gonna solve that problem for you.
POS under siege by some random asshats? Call in your friends and laugh.
Want to trade in t2 modules? Strike a deal for loot sales with your local pirates, they all want to get rid of the stuff quick. Profit.
|
Anna Lifera
6....
|
Posted - 2011.02.24 04:28:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Doctor Invictus
That's a fair point. Would it be over-powered to have the anti-pirate incentive be paired with restrictions on docking for pilots with low security status during the GCC? That way pirates will either have to render themselves inert (cloak/hide), leave the system, or be vulnerable to anti-pirates.
The danger, of course, is that we don't want to effectively 'ban' low-sec pirating, just balance it out a bit.
well, the pirates who r willing to take risk won't be "banned" at all because i don't think anyone suggested to nerf their gank so they'll still have the same amount of killmails as before. it's only their ability to escape their consequences that will be affected. so actually, only the risk-averse ones, aka the ones afraid of taking one loss compared to all their easy blob ganks, would effectively "ban" themselves from this. and it's those same ones that will still remain unaffected no matter how many rewards u throw at anyone for killing them. because even if there was a blob of anti-pirates, the risk-averse pirates will just run and hide even harder simply because they can; that's why atm, it's not worth it to chase them down because u'll get nothing out of it since they can't be caught. --- You're an asset to the community Anna. Thank you for your clear concise remarks. - Draek |
Maxsim Goratiev
Gallente Imperial Tau Syndicate
|
Posted - 2011.02.24 21:59:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Lilith Velkor
Lowsec is perfectly fine as it is
That's where i stopped reading.
|
Lilith Velkor
Minmatar Heretic Army
|
Posted - 2011.02.25 01:21:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Maxsim Goratiev
Originally by: Lilith Velkor
Lowsec is perfectly fine as it is
That's where i stopped reading.
You should have stopped posting as well.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |