Quintus Nolo
|
Posted - 2010.08.27 17:30:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Quintus Nolo on 27/08/2010 17:30:30 How long have you been playing? 3 years
Have you ever been in low sec? Many times
Do you run missions or complexes in low sec? I have run a few complexes in low sec.
If so, what is the appeal for you? Actually being able to find a quiet place for a few minutes and get the loot from the 4/10-6/10 plexes.
If not, why not? Missions ships with viable DPS are too easily scanned out.
Are rewards in low sec in line with the risk? Yes when it comes to plexes, no when it comes to mission running or mining.
Is the risk in low sec over-stated? Not really over-stated; it is very overwhelming when the best spots are normally the places that PvP happens or camps exist.
Would education from savvy players about how to mitigate risk in low sec encourage folks who didn't just want to AFK L4's to operate there? No education is not the issue, protection is.
What is the number one change to low sec that would cause you to considering doing missions and complexes there? (Be realistic! "Kick the pirates out!" is humorous but not realistic. ) A revamp of CONCORD intervention in low sec; we have 4 basic security systems in .4, .3, .2, & .1. I would like to see a more Advanced AI for gate guns/CONCORD ships in .4 systems than in .3 systems etc. having it scaling accordingly. The AI would then shoot at players with negative sec status û any time they are at the gate. Low security status players lost their right to ôsitö on a ôpublicö gate when they went negative (Keep the sec status system the same, and make fairly easy to gain the status back) and should not be allowed to sit on the gates and camp them in .4-.2 security systems. Only .1 should have minimal/no gate guns where pirates could sit all day without getting fired on by the authorities.
Along with the above idea, there needs to be a revamp of CONDORD responding to engagements. A large part of the danger is in going solo and having a blob scan you down and attack you. What would happen if a less dangerous version of a CONCORD ship showed up to give assistance to the ôtargetö? This may not give frigate/cruiser class ships a living chance, but it would be a big boon for BS sized ships. It is the BS size ships that are in more danger of being caught, with their low mobility and align time. By less dangerous for CONCORD, I mean a ship that could be tanked by aggressors, but would respond anywhere in low sec. Make them Ewar brutes, but with low DPS. Giving the ôtargetö a chance to get away, or at least fight on a more even playing field. This would not affect FW fights, or wars in any way, as CONCORD currently doesnÆt respond to those engagements anyways.
The last thing I have as a suggestion is to make warp disruptors not work in low sec. Warp scramblers and HIC/scripts would still be able to work in low sec, and here is the thought process behind this. Scramblers are short range, but have a -2 to warp strength. A potential ôtargetö has more chance in a non-cloaked ship to get away from a scrambler than a disruptor, if their distance separating them is greater than 10km on average. (I recognize the distance can be longer). It frees up a missioning ship from having to use a low slot for a warp core stabilizer to get away from a camp with disruptors (range) and fit more damage or tank for the mission.
Do you believe it is possible to make low sec changes that would allow both pirates and carebears to co-exist profitably without crippling either's play style to extinction? Why or why not? Yes I believe it is possible, but more than anything you have to give the ôcarebearö the appearance of safety in low sec, without actually providing too much of a safety net like in high sec.
|