Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2008.08.16 07:39:00 -
[1]
2.0 = "TOTAL" security 1.0 -> 0.5 = "HIGH" security 0.4 -> 0.1 = "LOW" security 0.0 = "NO" security
This will help newbies understand the concept of HIGHsec better... that it's NOT TOTALLY safe
In 2.0 security, you can't fire smartbombs, and you can't lock player ships
_
THE APPRENTICE || mineral balance || nanofix
|
Viqtoria
Caldari Groping Hand Social Club
|
Posted - 2008.08.16 07:40:00 -
[2]
security 2.0
i like it! Please keep your signature on-topic.
|
Admiral Pelleon
Caldari White Shadow Imperium Burning Horizons
|
Posted - 2008.08.16 07:44:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Akita T
2.0 = "TOTAL" security 1.0 -> 0.5 = "HIGH" security 0.4 -> 0.1 = "LOW" security 0.0 = "NO" security
This will help newbies understand the concept of HIGHsec better... that it's NOT TOTALLY safe
In 2.0 security, you can't fire smartbombs, and you can't lock player ships
Carebear!
* gets the torches and wooden stake ________
My views represent the views of my corp, deal with it. |
Zeba
Minmatar Pator Tech School
|
Posted - 2008.08.16 07:44:00 -
[4]
Granted its the start of the weekend Akita but maybe you should slow down on swigging the hooch and pace yourself a bit?
inappropriate signature. ~WeatherMan |
Malcanis
We are Legend eXceed.
|
Posted - 2008.08.16 07:52:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Zeba Granted its the start of the weekend Akita but maybe you should slow down on swigging the hooch and pace yourself a bit?
It's always booze o'clock at Akita's!
Actually, I support making the starter systems non-PvP - with the following amendment: once you leave, you can't go back. Big modal popup window advice of this, non-removable: ONCE YOU LEAVE THIS SYSTEM YOU ARE VULNERABLE TO OTHER PLAYERS, AND CANNOT RETURN.
(Oh, and the tutorial should include can-baiting, suicide ganking and podding.)
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
Aragote
Gallente FinFleet Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.08.16 08:14:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Malcanis
It's always booze o'clock at Akita's!
Actually, I support making the starter systems non-PvP - with the following amendment: once you leave, you can't go back. Big modal popup window advice of this, non-removable: ONCE YOU LEAVE THIS SYSTEM YOU ARE VULNERABLE TO OTHER PLAYERS, AND CANNOT RETURN.
(Oh, and the tutorial should include can-baiting, suicide ganking and podding.)
And players who have never left high sec should also take the tour :P
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.08.16 08:18:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Aragote
Originally by: Malcanis
It's always booze o'clock at Akita's!
Actually, I support making the starter systems non-PvP - with the following amendment: once you leave, you can't go back. Big modal popup window advice of this, non-removable: ONCE YOU LEAVE THIS SYSTEM YOU ARE VULNERABLE TO OTHER PLAYERS, AND CANNOT RETURN.
(Oh, and the tutorial should include can-baiting, suicide ganking and podding.)
And players who have never left high sec should also take the tour :P
And you think that they haven't got that tour after a month of playing?
Sometime it seem 0.0 players know way less of how thing work than they think.
Originally by: Gamesguy
the suicide ganking is merely an isk farming activity.
|
Bruja Ry
Caldari Copperhead Arsenal
|
Posted - 2008.08.16 08:26:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Akita T
2.0 = "TOTAL" security 1.0 -> 0.5 = "HIGH" security 0.4 -> 0.1 = "LOW" security 0.0 = "NO" security
This will help newbies understand the concept of HIGHsec better... that it's NOT TOTALLY safe
In 2.0 security, you can't fire smartbombs, and you can't lock player ships
Can this 2.0 "TOTAL" security have as many holes in it as a new microsoft operating system just released to the public has?
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=807663&page=1 |
Dez Affinity
Ore Mongers Black Hand.
|
Posted - 2008.08.16 08:37:00 -
[9]
This is actually a good idea, a lot of people get concorded in newbie systems by accident and quit there and then, it might help. _______________
|
New ones
Caldari Koln united
|
Posted - 2008.08.16 08:40:00 -
[10]
Just make shure pepole are kicked out after they complete the tutorial. IF they do this sounds like a realy realy good idea
|
|
Aodha Khan
Minmatar The Paratwa FOUNDATI0N
|
Posted - 2008.08.16 08:52:00 -
[11]
burn the heretic!
Paratwa Recruitment |
Roy Batty68
Caldari Immortal Dead
|
Posted - 2008.08.16 10:53:00 -
[12]
Cheers!
So... this would be like a "time out" zone for non-noobs at war with each other as well?
Sig removed, inappropriate content. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2008.08.16 10:55:00 -
[13]
Originally by: New ones Just make shure pepole are kicked out after they complete the tutorial. IF they do this sounds like a realy realy good idea
Well, you don't need to kick anybody out... not much it CAN be done in newbie starter systems anyway. There's just one station, no agents, no noteworthy asteroid belts, no NPCs to farm. And with smartbombs disabled, plus the inability to lock any other player ship, there's no remaining method of any player attacking any other player in "2.0 security" systems, and at the same time, there's no incentive to remain there either.
However, the fact that you do have these 12 systems labelled as "2.0" will constantly remind people of the fact that indeed, "1.0" or for that matter the rest of highsec ISN'T totally safe, just safer than most others. I can see no significant drawback to this, but a lot of potential advantages.
_
THE APPRENTICE || mineral balance || nanofix
|
Roy Batty68
Caldari Immortal Dead
|
Posted - 2008.08.16 11:07:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Akita T
However, the fact that you do have these 12 systems labelled as "2.0" will constantly remind people of the fact that indeed, "1.0" or for that matter the rest of highsec ISN'T totally safe, just safer than most others. I can see no significant drawback to this, but a lot of potential advantages.
That's hardly a safe assumption given how people treat hisec right now. People seem to treat the hisec/lowsec line as more of a black & white, pvp on or off difference. Most don't acknowledge the gradual decline in security from 1.0 to 0.5 systems and tend to lump it all into the "hisec should be safe" basket.
About the only people that really think about these differences are the people who have done suicide ganks or have security ratings on the criminal side. The aggressive types. The "I just want to be safe and lazy" types don't seem to consider it.
I'm getting these generalizations from the numerous threads we've had on suicide ganking and other system security related topics. It's a noticeable trend.
So given that a large percentage of the potential victim set aren't really "getting" the system security scheme as it is, what makes you think one more safe zone will suddenly make the light bulb come on?
Sig removed, inappropriate content. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Kiki Arnolds
Caldari
|
Posted - 2008.08.16 14:50:00 -
[15]
First, will players be able to go back in to the 2.0 system once they left?
Why not to let them: Wardecs - you shouldn't be able to hide from wardecs in a system, even if it has nothing but veldspar
Why they MUST be allowed back: Newbs leaving items behind No ability for players to help newbs The MARKET would dry up in those systems
I think this is a bad idea in general. Full security teaches the wrong lesson, and thats that there are places in eve that are safe. The sooner players realize that eve is by design a dangerous place the less grief they will experiance when they do learn it, and the more likely they will be to stay... ç¦ |
Morgan Brykein
Gallente New Eden Worker's Union
|
Posted - 2008.08.16 15:41:00 -
[16]
Hey cool idea, maybe 2.0 sec systems could have CONCORD and Navy fleets everywhere, lol. Maybe this could be implimented with a change to CONCORD, where they don't auto-jump, so you're really only safe in 1.0 when they're within scanner range.
Maybe in 1.0, they could orbit around planets, and have scanner range within the planet's whole system (planet itself, moons, stations), as well as the respective nation's navy. There could be CONCORD police patrols around the whole place, I mean, just maybe a few officers in Asteroid belts and whatnot, which COULD be gank-able, but not easily gankable. In 2.0 sec, CONCORD Command ships (those big ones everyone recognizes) everywher.
|
Joey Meow
MURAKAMI INDUSTRIES
|
Posted - 2008.08.16 17:43:00 -
[17]
You know what... fine... this is great! Only the noob systems are "TOTAL SECURITY" that way we can tell all the whiners to STFU and go to 2.0 - if they want complete safety.
|
Ammon Skycloud
Caldari Matari Research Foundation
|
Posted - 2008.08.16 18:30:00 -
[18]
Better Idea, starter systems should be -1.0 sec status with one way gates, you start there, it's a complete free for all, no concord, once you leave you can not return, only basic weapons and ships on the market.
|
Xindi Kraid
Kraid Salvaging
|
Posted - 2008.08.16 21:07:00 -
[19]
2.0 seccurity: Where Concord shoots the perpetrator BEFORE the crime -So says Xindi Kraid
Caveat Emptor Caveat Venditor CAVEAT |
Spurty
Caldari D00M. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.08.16 21:59:00 -
[20]
I like this idea of 2.0 for new players. As long as these 4 systems have all of the 'isk making' activities turned off (have drone rats, no bounty) and no jump gates into the system (whats the point of these when you don't want ppl hiding in there ), sounds like a great sandbox experience!
Give the player a choice of agent to go start running missions for at the end of the tutorial and some CGI showing you warping off to it and dock. Mention that the new pilot training system is in dead space and hidden and you also explain away the lack of a gate in.
Can't see it upsetting anything in the game at all as no one in there will be affecting the World. Good idea OP Man goes to the doc, with a strawberry growing out of his head. Doc says "I'll give you some cream to put on it." |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |