Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Camilo Cienfuegos
Earned In Blood
|
Posted - 2009.01.25 03:16:00 -
[1]
For the tl;dr crowd: move along, nothing to see here.
For the rest of you...
Problem: As has been discussed ad nauseam, there's something wrong with the security status system. The majority of undocked pilots move around in a minority of systems clustered in the centre of the galactic map with the space outside this largely unpopulated and I can't help but think this isn't an ideal situation for the health of the cluster. Clearly, the reason for this is security: players for one reason or another do not feel they can play this game the way they want to in the outlying systems, that the reward is not sufficiently high or that the risk is simply too great.
Proposition: Take the security status system right back to the drawing board. Instead of having a three tiered security system (high, low and no security) with little difference between the various degrees of security in each, have a proportionate police response to crimes depending entirely on the given security of a system and remove the entity known as Concord (though keep the Concord standings for the purposes of criminals), with their powers and response time changing depending on the security rating of a given a system. For example:
1.0 & 0.9 Security System: Faction police respond almost instantly (less than 1 second) to any given crime, dealing death where appropriate and serving as a deterrent for other crimes such as theft (more on that later).
0.8 & 0.7 Security System: Faction police respond very quickly (2-3 seconds) and in force to any given crime and deal slightly less damage than in higher security systems, though still enough to knock out a single tanked battleship within a few seconds
0.6 & 0.5 Security Systems: Faction police respond quickly (4-6 seconds) and in significant numbers to any given crime and deal slightly less damage than in higher security systems, though still enough to knock out a single tanked battleship within a five or so seconds
0.4 & 0.3 Security Systems: Faction police respond promptly (7-15 seconds) to any given crime and deal less damage than in higher security systems, enough to knock out a single tanked battleship within a ten or so seconds
0.2 & 0.1 Security Systems: Faction police will respond (within 30 seconds) to any given crime, though they lack the numbers to effectively police the area. The damage done could be sustained by a heavily tanked battleship.
Proportionate Police Response Basically, for lower end crimes (such as theft), the police would warp onto the grid but take no action. Should the thief be caught red handed, the police would open fire as with other criminal flagging offenses. If no crime happens within 10 minutes, the police would warp off the grid.
Effects This would have a dramatic effect on low security PVP, effectively moving it all to 0.2 & 0.1 systems, but adding the ability for large groups of highly organised criminals to raid into 0.5 & 0.6 systems for a time. Miners, manufacturers and mission runners could now start to propagate out as far as 0.3 space with little fear of reprisal.
Conclusion Whilst my numbers are at best vague and quite probably insufficient, it's more the principal I'm interested in. Any comments, suggestions or questions on this topic would be appreciated, though please don't address the numbers themselves, as these are merely a suggestion - it's the idea of a true sliding scale of security and the addition of further security in lowsec and the reduction of security in 0.5 & 0.6 that I'd like to cover, as well as the theory of proportionate response.
Thank you for reading.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.01.25 04:32:00 -
[2]
There is already a proportional response from concord based on sec status. You're just in favor of increasing its speed and extending it to low-sec?
What does that achieve?
|
Sir Substance
Minmatar MagiTech Alliance Inc. MagiTech Corp
|
Posted - 2009.01.25 07:27:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Goumindong
What does that achieve?
what he hopes to achieve is a system that allows miners to mvoe into low sec, but without preventing pirates from being able to foray into high sec.
the numbers are currently grossly in favor of the miners, but i like the sentement.
|
Gonada
Priory Of The Lemon Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.01.25 08:05:00 -
[4]
its just another attempt by some lame tard, with a tough corp name to make things more of a carebear paradise.
move along. failpost
|
Camilo Cienfuegos
Earned In Blood
|
Posted - 2009.01.25 11:55:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Goumindong What does that achieve?
The idea is to extend the current highsec space out as far as 0.3 systems whilst simultaneously extending the lowsec space in as far as 0.7 with a proportionate response from the faction navy in all systems between 0.1 and 1.0, with the player being entirely safe in the highest systems, somewhat safe in the middle systems and fairly unsafe in the lower systems.
It's also an attempt to rebalance low sec pvp from gatecamping in large ships to moving in fast in hard hitting ships then getting the **** out with the loot.
Originally by: Sir Substance what he hopes to achieve is a system that allows miners to mvoe into low sec, but without preventing pirates from being able to foray into high sec.
the numbers are currently grossly in favor of the miners, but i like the sentement.
Thank you, and you're right that my numbers are nonsense - I just grabbed something off the top of my head that wouldn't be too unattractive to the average bear. As you say though, the idea is to allow pvp players to raid into high security space but also provide police security to a larger degree in what are currently almost entirely unregulated systems (provided you stay away from the gates/stations).
Originally by: Gonada its just another attempt by some lame tard, with a tough corp name to make things more of a carebear paradise.
move along. failpost
Thank you for your confidence, and I'm glad you like our corp name. Did you know I'm a -10 pirate living in lowsec when you made this intelligent, insightful post? |
Element 22
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.01.25 12:33:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Camilo Cienfuegos Thank you for your confidence, and I'm glad you like our corp name. Did you know I'm a -10 pirate living in lowsec when you made this intelligent, insightful post?
Well, I'm no great judge of charecter, but a pilot belonging to the corp "Earned In Blood" does sound a like a pirate in a pirate corp. Well, that or a miner in a mining corp. |
Hugh Ruka
Exploratio et Industria Morispatia
|
Posted - 2009.01.25 20:09:00 -
[7]
you forgot sentries and gates in this. gates are needed for travel of said criminals and this will be the choke point for them. basicaly once faction police is spawned at a gate, they will readily eliminate any othre intrusion.
your numbers also favor battleships (you measure the police strength to BS tank) but you forget the smaller ships. you need a response type for frigate criminals and different one for BS criminals or one or the other will be always better for piracy.
the biggest issue with sec status is its rigidity. systems never change sec status. --- SIG --- CSM: your support is needed ! |
Kahega Amielden
Minmatar Suddenly Ninjas
|
Posted - 2009.01.25 20:21:00 -
[8]
So basically PVP turns into "Everyone get into a battleship and blob the **** out of your target so you can kill it before the faction navy arrives". No more small gangs (wouldn't be able to kill a target fast enough), no more small ships (Same problem, and would get annihilated by the faction navies).
**** no. |
Camilo Cienfuegos
Earned In Blood
|
Posted - 2009.01.25 23:35:00 -
[9]
Quote: you forgot sentries and gates in this. gates are needed for travel of said criminals and this will be the choke point for them. basicaly once faction police is spawned at a gate, they will readily eliminate any othre intrusion.
Only if the individual trying to travel through the gate is globally flagged and hangs around. No flag = no aggro. Likewise warping away on the other side would be no different than it currently is. Personally I would like to see the sentry guns completely removed, but I consider that this is outwith the scope of this thread.
Quote: your numbers also favor battleships (you measure the police strength to BS tank) but you forget the smaller ships. you need a response type for frigate criminals and different one for BS criminals or one or the other will be always better for piracy.
Whilst I do agree, a response proportionate to the ship type is far too easily exploited. However, the numbers I gave were purely for the purposes of demonstrating how such a system could work and much further thought would have to go in to how best to balance it; including whether webs and scrams and other EW would be deployed.
Quote: the biggest issue with sec status is its rigidity. systems never change sec status.
That's an idea that I was knocking about some years ago, but the reality is it would trash the current game mechanics far too much for your average bear to cope with.
Quote: So basically PVP turns into "Everyone get into a battleship and blob the **** out of your target so you can kill it before the faction navy arrives". No more small gangs (wouldn't be able to kill a target fast enough), no more small ships (Same problem, and would get annihilated by the faction navies).
You've simply looked at the numbers and not absorbed the principle behind them, so this is effectively a straw man attack. As I said in the original post, the numbers are there purely for demonstration purposes - how they are balanced is very much open for discussion. The way I originally envisaged this idea was that in the lowest security systems, the response would consist of a frigate appearing 50km away to see what the trouble was! |
Koyama Ise
Caldari Equestrian Knight Order of Lolicon
|
Posted - 2009.01.26 03:14:00 -
[10]
Edited by: Koyama Ise on 26/01/2009 03:17:33 The whole sudden 0.5 is mostly safe and 0.4 being as dangerous as sky diving into an alligator pit, on fire, thing isn't partitularly good. But if this was done you'd probably want to look at making the sec status of space high the more centralized to the home system of the empires and fan down at the borders So you wouldn't have a system that goes from 0.0 to 0.7 or 1.0 to 0.6 or even 8.0 to 5.0 that way the whole system is a little bit more grey and it actually makes the numbers mean something other than, If it's 0.5 or greater I'm very safe, in 0.4 to 0.1 I'm in imminent danger and in 0.0 it varies more than amount of dust particles in the EVE server.
Edit: Also, this has already been suggested before. |
|
Cinzano Bianco
|
Posted - 2009.01.26 04:00:00 -
[11]
what you think about trigger systems, the changed their sec stats by trafic: high traffic high sec, low traffic low sec.
for example: we have maybe 100 trigger systems or all 0.4 and 0.5 systems, and every downtime chance the security at the 10 highest and lowest to +/- 0.1
|
Camilo Cienfuegos
Earned In Blood
|
Posted - 2009.01.26 09:17:00 -
[12]
Quote: you'd probably want to look at making the sec status of space high the more centralized to the home system of the empires and fan down at the borders So you wouldn't have a system that goes from 0.0 to 0.7 or 1.0 to 0.6 or even 8.0 to 5.0 that way the whole system is a little bit more grey and it actually makes the numbers mean something other than, If it's 0.5 or greater I'm very safe, in 0.4 to 0.1 I'm in imminent danger and in 0.0 it varies more than amount of dust particles in the EVE server.
Given that 0.0 systems carry a "true sec" status (and presumably not all low sec systems were created equal either, and thus carry the same "true sec") it follows that a rework of the system would make sense to make it a sliding scale from 0.0 to 10.0 instead of 0.0 to 1.0 - this would allow for a greater degree of control over the response given by the faction navy/concord and more transparency to the player as to what reward you might expect from that system and what trouble you might get into.
Quote: Also, this has already been suggested before.
I couldn't find any threads on the subject that hadn't been locked due to 90 days inactivity.
Quote: what you think about trigger systems, the changed their sec stats by trafic: high traffic high sec, low traffic low sec.
for example: we have maybe 100 trigger systems or all 0.4 and 0.5 systems, and every downtime chance the security at the 10 highest and lowest to +/- 0.1
Some years ago I fervently supported this idea, but the reality is that it would probably be unworkable. |
Allen Ramses
Caldari Typo Corp
|
Posted - 2009.01.26 09:46:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Camilo Cienfuegos
Quote: Also, this has already been suggested before.
I couldn't find any threads on the subject that hadn't been locked due to 90 days inactivity.
Granted it's page 10.
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=973495
By the way, I let my thread die because the only people who wanted to respond were a pair of trolls. You will see nothing but more of the same. These are the EVE Online forums, after all. I suggest you let it drop because it's blatantly obvious you will only get flamed.
The vast majority here is nothing more than a bunch of monkeys flinging their fecile matter at everything they see. This is the second home of SA goons, after all. |
Hugh Ruka
Exploratio et Industria Morispatia
|
Posted - 2009.01.26 09:58:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Camilo Cienfuegos
Quote: you forgot sentries and gates in this. gates are needed for travel of said criminals and this will be the choke point for them. basicaly once faction police is spawned at a gate, they will readily eliminate any othre intrusion.
Only if the individual trying to travel through the gate is globally flagged and hangs around. No flag = no aggro. Likewise warping away on the other side would be no different than it currently is. Personally I would like to see the sentry guns completely removed, but I consider that this is outwith the scope of this thread.
Quote: your numbers also favor battleships (you measure the police strength to BS tank) but you forget the smaller ships. you need a response type for frigate criminals and different one for BS criminals or one or the other will be always better for piracy.
Whilst I do agree, a response proportionate to the ship type is far too easily exploited. However, the numbers I gave were purely for the purposes of demonstrating how such a system could work and much further thought would have to go in to how best to balance it; including whether webs and scrams and other EW would be deployed.
Quote: the biggest issue with sec status is its rigidity. systems never change sec status.
That's an idea that I was knocking about some years ago, but the reality is it would trash the current game mechanics far too much for your average bear to cope with.
Quote: So basically PVP turns into "Everyone get into a battleship and blob the **** out of your target so you can kill it before the faction navy arrives". No more small gangs (wouldn't be able to kill a target fast enough), no more small ships (Same problem, and would get annihilated by the faction navies).
You've simply looked at the numbers and not absorbed the principle behind them, so this is effectively a straw man attack. As I said in the original post, the numbers are there purely for demonstration purposes - how they are balanced is very much open for discussion. The way I originally envisaged this idea was that in the lowest security systems, the response would consist of a frigate appearing 50km away to see what the trouble was!
see there's the hole in your proposal. you say that you provided only example numbers but when presented with actual challenge you bail out.
the system HAS to work with both small and large ships as PvP/Piracy is not restricted to BC and BS. you seid yourself that scaled response by ship type can be exploited but you did nor present a viable alternative.
F&I (and ships & modules) is littered with such proposals ... they all state that something is wrong and something should be done but they fail to find a workable solution (I know it's hard, I tried several times and failed).
that's why I like to troll and poke holes in suggestions rahter than presenting constructive criticism :-) |
Camilo Cienfuegos
Earned In Blood
|
Posted - 2009.01.26 11:35:00 -
[15]
Quote: see there's the hole in your proposal. you say that you provided only example numbers but when presented with actual challenge you bail out.
the system HAS to work with both small and large ships as PvP/Piracy is not restricted to BC and BS. you seid yourself that scaled response by ship type can be exploited but you did nor present a viable alternative.
I'm not sure I entirely follow your reasoning here; are you suggesting that by not offering numbers for how such a system could work to allow smaller ships to partake in PVP that the entire theory of a scaled response based on the security rating of a given system is fundamentally flawed?
I do believe that a response scaled to the ship type is flawed and that the only "balanced" mechanic would have to remain similar to the current system security status mechanic. What this proposal is about is changing that mechanic so that people feel less safe in current high sec space, but more safe in current low sec space. It would force PVP further out into the deeper pockets of lowsec, but given that so much of the population are condensed into highsec and that we pirates make up a tiny fraction of the population, this only makes sense.
Quote: F&I (and ships & modules) is littered with such proposals ... they all state that something is wrong and something should be done but they fail to find a workable solution (I know it's hard, I tried several times and failed).
that's why I like to troll and poke holes in suggestions rahter than presenting constructive criticism :-)
Poking holes in ideas is just fine by me, as long as it's done using reason.
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |