Shadowsword
COLSUP Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2007.02.23 22:24:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Shadowsword on 23/02/2007 22:22:20 Taken from the mission dev blog comments.
Originally by: Oveur
We are actually looking at low sec, that's one of the reasons for this proposal. We're not talking about 0.0 alliance space here for all this, we're talking about 0.1-0.4 security.
The problem is, those are far more complex to achieve than this proposal. This proposal can be achieved before Revelations 2. Adding something like Viceroys (Sub-sovereignty) where your corporation is the local sovereign on behalf of a empire. Or Vigilantes (License-to-kill-bad-people-for-rewards-mkay?) in low security is something we're looking at doing, making low-security more like a step between high-security and 0.0 rather than a huge cliff like it is today.
We want low-security to play a bigger part of EVE, we want it safer, but we'd like the players to provide that additional safety above what it has now, not us adding more police NPC and sentries.
In the Dev Blog, Oveur suggested that one answer to piracy was to put the mission runners in capital ships, or even better, groups of capital ships. But this possibility doesn't seem ok for me, because of the following:
- Pirates can get a group, too, and they also have capital ships. So whatever the mission runners bring, the pirates can bring more. All it does it up the stakes to the point that losing a ship to pirates is very hard to recover from.
- It leaves low-sec miners and npc hunters without any security increase.
Bounty-hunters, however, might be the answer. But it's a mightily difficult job to do, right now, because of several factors:
- There's lot of stations in low-sec, where a pirate can dock as soon as it see a group coming the other side of the gate he's camping.
- Anti-pirates end up with a negative security statut, which is confusing for neutrals. A lot of pirates claim they fight pirates, and protect neutrals, until they get a shot at you.
- They need to hold the pirates before the run away, so they get aggro from the sentries. Interceptors dies in seconds, and heavy ships tend to lock slowly.
Here's some ideas to make the task of bounty-hunters easier.
- No security statut hit when attacking negative SS people. And, to prevent some pirates to mass-farm NPCs with captital ships to get positive standings so they can pirate easily, increase the security standing hit for agressions. Choosing to turn pirate should be an important career choice, the kind that takes a lot of efforts to change after.
- Some high-slot module that allow a fast ship to warp scramble another ship without getting the sentries on his back (only effective in low-sec), OR interdictor bubbles in low-sec.
- Divide low-sec in two groups: empire low-sec and pirate low-sec. same set of rules for both, except that players with positive standing can't dock in pirate stations, and people with negative standing can't dock in empire stations. Agents on both side would never send a mission runner in a system controled by the other side. What this do is make pirates that want to kill things venture in a space where they can't dock if something able to fight back come their way. It's way more realist that way.
- Any bounty per pirate head would be abused by pirates killing themselves with alts. Reward pirate-hunters differently: make players with negative standings drop 80% of their loot, instead of 50%.
------------------------------------------ Every ship has a base 60-70% resist against the primary damage type of the race that is the least able to vary it's damage types. |