Quote:

---

I'd rather see system security level influenced by the number of missions being run in them and then the security level of the system influences the missions given. A high-sec system would never become a low-sec system and vica versa, but if 50 people run The Blockade in a system in a day, that system is going to be a lot safer and, as a result, the Security Level should rise accordingly. There would be cap, though, perhaps related to neighbouring systems. A 0.5 sec system would never become a 1.0 sec system and vica versa. Of course, a 0.5 sec system would sometimes send you into neighbouring 0.4 sec space, so it won't instantly bemuse a superior choice to a 1.0 sec system.

Over time, it would get to the point where a system is so secure that the best missions (reward-wise) aren't being given out, either in that particular system or in neighbouring systems. The number of courier missions given out will start to increase as well, making mission running less appealing. Mission runners will be forced to find corners of space with lower security levels, i.e. more dangerous systems which have more rats to kill. They'll finally get given The Blockade again!

Not only would this have an effect on mission runners, but, as a system rises from 0.8 to 0.9, the asteroids spawning in the belts would change, which would result in a movement of miners AWAY from mission hubs, in search of better ores to mine or larger asteroids because they're getting tired of their Hulks depleting a rock in half a cycle.

But because the mission runners have moved away from the (now) high security level systems, missions to purge the system of rats won't be run, so the rats will return and the security level will begin to drop again, meaning better missions start to be given again.

As you have said, traders will also have to react, so suddenly mission runners, miners and traders all have to move around to adapt to the dynamic universe.

I think the issue with LP rewards is it's hugely influenced by agent quality and only slightly influenced by the system security level that the agent is in. To quote some figures (accurate to ¦5%):

 | 1.0 | 0.8 | 0.6 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 
-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----| 
Q-20 | 100 | 127 | 154 | 180 | 207 | 234 | 
Q-10 | 138 | 138 | 174 | 248 | 285 | 321 | 
Q 0 | 200 | 254 | 307 | 361 | 414 | 468 | 
Q 10 | 288 | 345 | 441 | 518 | 495 | 672 | 
Q 20 | 400 | 480 | 614 | 721 | 828 | 935 |

That's the relative differences for the LP rewards given based on Agent Quality and System Security. As said, it's accurate to ¦5% and I'll have a look at it in a few weeks, once my exams are finished, to see if I can figure out a more accurate equation.

But, as you can see, the difference between a high-sec agent and a low-sec agent is really quite small and it's actually a linear relationship. I'd like to see quality have a smaller impact than system security, possibly altering the system security / LP reward relationship to an exponential one. That way, there's a much greater incentive to head out to low-sec than there is to sit in your high-sec carebear corner and even agents in 0.5 or 0.6 sec systems will send you out into low-sec, so you'll still be getting a boost if you're on the edge of empire, while contributing to low-sec life.


Of course, new missions for low-sec runners would be really rather nice!


-EDIT-

Oh ... and I'd like to see LP Reward influenced by the system the mission is in, not the system the agent is in.

---