Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Jas Dor
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2010.07.05 02:25:00 -
[1]
Right now the level of security falls off a cliff between 0.5 and 0.4. Here's a suggestion that a good percentage of folks won't like, but makes sense: why not have Concord in low sec ON THE GATES ONLY. Pirates can still do their thing in belts and probing down mission runners but can't shut down the entry points with gate camps.
|
Julienne Poirier
|
Posted - 2010.07.05 02:36:00 -
[2]
i like the idea but i'm sure there are some that make their living on .4 gates. It would get people into the systems though.
|
Jones Bones
Final Agony
|
Posted - 2010.07.05 02:41:00 -
[3]
This doesn't go far enough. We need haulers that can cloak. We need freighters that can jump. We need sentry guns on every gate and station.
Forget it. Just get rid of low sec and make all of Eve 1.0 security status. Only then will we be safe from the no skill pirates who inhabit the depths of low sec space.
|
Spurty
Caldari D00M. RED.OverLord
|
Posted - 2010.07.05 02:41:00 -
[4]
Ive been both sides of this issue.
Anything that lowers the desire for people to sit at a gate for 20 hours a day is worth thinking about,
Dont think it should be concord though. Faction navy sounds ok
NAPS: forcing you to play 'their' game |
Simply Human
|
Posted - 2010.07.05 02:45:00 -
[5]
Gatecamps are part of lowsec. If you take those away where will pvp happen in low sec?
Originally by: Julienne Poirier Edited by: Julienne Poirier on 05/07/2010 02:39:45 It would get people into the systems and might give mission runners/miners some sense that if they are paying attention they can warp to safety.
You can warp to safety now. But if you're not aligned to something, or not paying attention, whether there's someone there to help you out or not doesn't matter. If you don't make it to the gate you're screwed either way. |
buttesauce
|
Posted - 2010.07.05 02:52:00 -
[6]
whats the point then? its fine the way it is...
next thing you know people will want gate guns in 0.0
how about you stop being a little pansy and deal with some risk
|
Julienne Poirier
|
Posted - 2010.07.05 02:54:00 -
[7]
simply, i agree, i would vote for removing concord from .5 and putting concord response time neut, scramble, jam sentries on gates and stations
|
Hainnz
Imperial Academy
|
Posted - 2010.07.05 03:02:00 -
[8]
No Concord, but I like the idea of Faction Warfare Militias acting as deputized Concord agents. Anyone in the Faction Militia may legally engage any criminal (negative sec status or criminal activity in the last 24 hours) in their faction's low sec regions. That way corps could move into lowsec and actively defend their space w/o tanking their sec status.
To make things appealing to the pies, seed low-sec with NPC pirate agents with LP stores filled with nice pirate faction modules and ships. (Put "shady character" agents in low-sec stations maybe?) |
Brannor McThife
Caldari Brotherhood of the Ancients
|
Posted - 2010.07.05 03:10:00 -
[9]
Originally by: buttesauce next thing you know people will want gate guns in 0.0
Not a bad idea... Not faction or concorde based, but sovereignty based. You can fuel them with ammo, etc. Why should you have to camp your own gates all the time... Sure, they can be popped by a roaming fleet, but it'll keep out the scouting alts...
So a tackler could defend a gate against one or two enemy ships with the help of gate guns...
Then... you could pay for NPC mercs to camp your gates for you...and they could have built in AI to scoop loot and drop it off somewhere.
Right now... 0.0 gates are so... bleh.
-G
|
Caravan
Minmatar Clubs and Diamonds Crazy Rainbow Attack Ponies
|
Posted - 2010.07.05 03:23:00 -
[10]
Bunch of carebear, go play The Sims or Freelancer...
|
|
Voith
|
Posted - 2010.07.05 03:31:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Jones Bones This doesn't go far enough. We need haulers that can cloak. We need freighters that can jump. We need sentry guns on every gate and station.
Forget it. Just get rid of low sec and make all of Eve 1.0 security status. Only then will we be safe from the no skill pirates who inhabit the depths of low sec space.
You would have a point if CCP hadn't spent the last 6 years removing all consquences to piracy.
Back in the days of 1 Character per account and most people having 1 account not being able to go to Empire was a real penalty. Nowadays with alt characters and even accounts there is no penalty.
Back when a battlship was a rarity those Sentry guns hurt, nowadays they can be ignored.
|
digitalwanderer
Gallente DF0 incorporated
|
Posted - 2010.07.05 04:08:00 -
[12]
Edited by: digitalwanderer on 05/07/2010 04:13:15
To be honest,i've never understood the logic of the eve map at all,but that's basing myself on the example set by the real world,and yes,i know that comparisons between the game and real life shouldn't be made,but bare with me on this one. Low sec systems and 0.0 space,have the best mining belts,they have the richest moons(AKA promethium and disprosium)and the richest planets for PI production,so given those obvious economic incentives,why haven't the main empires,which are far more powerfull than any of the NPC pirate organisations,made attempts to annex the closest 0.0 territories to the regions they already control right now,in order to exploit them fully.
Examples would be like the gallente empire controling syndicate and even fountain and cloud ring,while the caldari get their hands on vale of the silent or even tribute,the minmatar get geminate and the great wildlands,while the Amarr would get providence and even catch itself.....Basically all 4 aliances would get enough into 0.0 territories to still be able to actively defend those interests since jump drives exist and they all have large capital ship fleets that could make the trip in a single jump.
Only the deeper areas of 0.0 might realistically still belong to independant organizations or player aliances,since the logistics to defend those by the main empires is problematic to say the least,even with jump drive technology(multiple cynos and jumps required to move large fleets),and i'm not even posing the logical question of where did all the gates in every system of 0.0 space get installed,and who's actually operating and maintaining those gates fully functional,as i doubt it they can be operated/maintained simply with robots,and more to the point,requires a phenominal amount of time and money to build them in the first place,and there's thousands of them in 0.0 space.
Those issues have always left me wondering,even after all the years i've spent playing the game,especially given the emphasis on CCP to make the game as realistic as possible(politics,greed,wars,etc),even if it's set into a far future environment...
|
Brutor42
Tropa de Elite Vera Cruz Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.07.05 04:09:00 -
[13]
sounds ok if you drop the level of concord in 0.5 to 0.9 to make easy killing haulers and hulks in empire space
or you idea works only to favor carebears instead combat?
|
Magnus Orin
Minmatar United Systems Navy Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2010.07.05 04:46:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Jas Dor Right now the level of security falls off a cliff between 0.5 and 0.4. Here's a suggestion that a good percentage of folks won't like, but makes sense: why not have Concord in low sec ON THE GATES ONLY. Pirates can still do their thing in belts and probing down mission runners but can't shut down the entry points with gate camps.
/signed
But instead of low sec, apply this to .7 .6 and .5 space only.
Great idea! Sarcasm - Because i'm too far away to strangle you. |
Adunh Slavy
|
Posted - 2010.07.05 04:48:00 -
[15]
Get rid of the gates.
The Real Space Initiative - V6 (Forum Link)
|
Magnus Orin
Minmatar United Systems Navy Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2010.07.05 04:52:00 -
[16]
Originally by: digitalwanderer
Low sec systems and 0.0 space,have the best mining belts,they have the richest moons(AKA promethium and disprosium)and the richest planets for PI production,so given those obvious economic incentives,why haven't the main empires,which are far more powerfull than any of the NPC pirate organisations,made attempts to annex the closest 0.0 territories to the regions they already control right now,in order to exploit them fully.
The justification is rather simple. In Empire space, pod pilots are not the only ones harvesting moon minerals, asteroids and planetary extracted goods.
It's not that those planets have less resources on them, it's that there is far more competition from the NPC entities in the game (factions, general population, npc corporations etc).
In 0.0 it is only pod pilots and the odd NPC pirate corporation that are using the resources.
If anything it is very realistic. Sarcasm - Because i'm too far away to strangle you. |
Kesta Valkorin
Minmatar Republic University
|
Posted - 2010.07.05 04:52:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Hainnz No Concord, but I like the idea of Faction Warfare Militias acting as deputized Concord agents. Anyone in the Faction Militia may legally engage any criminal (negative sec status or criminal activity in the last 24 hours) in their faction's low sec regions. That way corps could move into lowsec and actively defend their space w/o tanking their sec status.
I like this. It makes low security safer while simultaneously increasing the amount of PvP.
|
Tribunia
|
Posted - 2010.07.05 04:53:00 -
[18]
Some really nice ideas in this thread. Faction navy in lowsec at gates and stations and factional warfare pilots defending their own lowesec as well would be great additions. Pirate agents and pirate LP stores with more unique versions of ships and gear.
Low sec and 0.0 remains underdeveloped and uninteresting areas of the game that still needs a lot of love.
The whole map and it s logic is also questionable as someone above already stated. The number of systems are way to low but that wont change any time soon since we all know what it entails to add solar systems to TQ.
There should be atleast twice the number of systems but I wouldnt mind seeing a tenfold increase or even a hundredfold to make it feel like you actually were hitting the frontier and a real sense of exploration. Maybe even the majority of added systems should be without stargates and introduce a 'slowtravel' method to reach them for true explorers, taking weeks to reach by means of special exploration vessels meant for interstellar travel the 'traditional way'. Once at a system, a it can be linked into player owned jumpbridge networks
|
Tokp Lotas
the united
|
Posted - 2010.07.05 05:37:00 -
[19]
I full support this idea Staff Member of www.eve-online.es |
|
CCP Applebabe
|
Posted - 2010.07.05 05:46:00 -
[20]
Moved from EVE General Discussion.
Applebabe Community Representative CCP Hf, EVE Online Contact us |
|
|
Shin Dari
|
Posted - 2010.07.05 08:07:00 -
[21]
Removing the low sec gate camps, will increase traffic into low sec.
Support
|
Illwill Jill
Gallente Nifelhem
|
Posted - 2010.07.05 08:13:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Adunh Slavy Get rid of the gates.
...and introduce those instead.
|
steave435
Caldari Final Agony B A N E
|
Posted - 2010.07.05 11:38:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Magnus Orin
Originally by: Jas Dor Right now the level of security falls off a cliff between 0.5 and 0.4. Here's a suggestion that a good percentage of folks won't like, but makes sense: why not have Concord in low sec ON THE GATES ONLY. Pirates can still do their thing in belts and probing down mission runners but can't shut down the entry points with gate camps.
/signed
But instead of low sec, apply this to .7 .6 and .5 space only.
Great idea!
Supported
|
Flying ZombieJesus
|
Posted - 2010.07.05 15:10:00 -
[24]
How about you need to file a petition to activate any module on another player? Send a dev a little message explaining why you're going to shoot this guy, and maybe they'll let you. Of course, to make it fair, not every dev should let you shoot. There should be dev's that like violence (lazors don't kill people, pew pew kills people), and devs that encourage non-violent solutions (if you want to shoot someone because you have no isk, the government will give you a handout to not shoot people. It will get the isk to support the handout by placing a hefty tax on all corporations, forcing them to move to jove space to avoid the mandatory tax.)
|
Macvombat
|
Posted - 2010.07.05 16:42:00 -
[25]
Originally by: digitalwanderer Edited by: digitalwanderer on 05/07/2010 04:13:15
To be honest,i've never understood the logic of the eve map at all,but that's basing myself on the example set by the real world,and yes,i know that comparisons between the game and real life shouldn't be made,but bare with me on this one. Low sec systems and 0.0 space,have the best mining belts,they have the richest moons(AKA promethium and disprosium)and the richest planets for PI production,so given those obvious economic incentives,why haven't the main empires,which are far more powerfull than any of the NPC pirate organisations,made attempts to annex the closest 0.0 territories to the regions they already control right now,in order to exploit them fully.
Examples would be like the gallente empire controling syndicate and even fountain and cloud ring,while the caldari get their hands on vale of the silent or even tribute,the minmatar get geminate and the great wildlands,while the Amarr would get providence and even catch itself.....Basically all 4 aliances would get enough into 0.0 territories to still be able to actively defend those interests since jump drives exist and they all have large capital ship fleets that could make the trip in a single jump.
Only the deeper areas of 0.0 might realistically still belong to independant organizations or player aliances,since the logistics to defend those by the main empires is problematic to say the least,even with jump drive technology(multiple cynos and jumps required to move large fleets),and i'm not even posing the logical question of where did all the gates in every system of 0.0 space get installed,and who's actually operating and maintaining those gates fully functional,as i doubt it they can be operated/maintained simply with robots,and more to the point,requires a phenominal amount of time and money to build them in the first place,and there's thousands of them in 0.0 space.
Those issues have always left me wondering,even after all the years i've spent playing the game,especially given the emphasis on CCP to make the game as realistic as possible(politics,greed,wars,etc),even if it's set into a far future environment...
Why Empire is so thin in materials is explained in some of the eve RP story thingies.. simply all of the valuable ore is long gone due to excessive harvesting of said materials
Also - a slight correction, even before calculating the risk/isk factor low-sec mining is ALOT less lucrative than high-sec is - after taking the risk into account you just dont want to even think about putting yourself into a mining barge in low-sec.
As for the topic at hand.. i dont like it..
I do like the idea of adding more systems though :P especially the "be the first to come here and set up a warp gate" idea is kinda sexy in some odd way The Mac has arrived |
digitalwanderer
Gallente DF0 incorporated
|
Posted - 2010.07.05 17:20:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Magnus Orin
Originally by: digitalwanderer
Low sec systems and 0.0 space,have the best mining belts,they have the richest moons(AKA promethium and disprosium)and the richest planets for PI production,so given those obvious economic incentives,why haven't the main empires,which are far more powerfull than any of the NPC pirate organisations,made attempts to annex the closest 0.0 territories to the regions they already control right now,in order to exploit them fully.
The justification is rather simple. In Empire space, pod pilots are not the only ones harvesting moon minerals, asteroids and planetary extracted goods.
It's not that those planets have less resources on them, it's that there is far more competition from the NPC entities in the game (factions, general population, npc corporations etc).
In 0.0 it is only pod pilots and the odd NPC pirate corporation that are using the resources.
If anything it is very realistic.
I undestand that fully and it makes sense,but what stops the empires from taking over the closest 0.0 systems using their large fleets in the first place?...
Even today,right here the ball of dirt we live in,there are hundreds of sites being explored for oil prodution for instance,but that doesn't stop goverments and oil companies from projects where they know they have oil reserves there,but it's harder to exploit(deep water oil drilling,oil sands,the huge oil deposits in the artic circle)....They're still looking for more,and don't care if it's pretty harsh environments either.
The idea i had in mind in my last post,would also be a huge boost to faction warfare,since the major NPC aliances have a vested interest in controling as many areas of 0.0 space,so pilots from each aliance would be fighting other pilots of eve along those 0.0 borders,thru the entire eve map of course,and be rewarded depending on their performance of course,allowing pilots to setup POS's and deploy TCU's and hubs to upgrade the system so that they take also have an economic incentive to do so,without an aliance kicking them out at a whim when they're no longer needed,which happends far too often.
Put it this way...The central systems in eve would accomodate new players and those that don't wish to take part in more rewarding events in lower security systems,while lower sec empire systems and closer 0.0 systems would be a full faction warfare playground with everyone working for the respective main NPC aliance,and the farthest 0.0 systems would be completely player run as they are today,and players would have a choice between all 3.
|
digitalwanderer
Gallente DF0 incorporated
|
Posted - 2010.07.05 17:30:00 -
[27]
Edited by: digitalwanderer on 05/07/2010 17:31:32
Originally by: Macvombat
Why Empire is so thin in materials is explained in some of the eve RP story thingies.. simply all of the valuable ore is long gone due to excessive harvesting of said materials
Also - a slight correction, even before calculating the risk/isk factor low-sec mining is ALOT less lucrative than high-sec is - after taking the risk into account you just dont want to even think about putting yourself into a mining barge in low-sec.
As for the topic at hand.. i dont like it..
I do like the idea of adding more systems though :P especially the "be the first to come here and set up a warp gate" idea is kinda sexy in some odd way
One more reason why the main NPC aliances would be interested in the closer 0.0 systems to their main territory....Access those rare minerals/compounds and with enough protection(most of the time),to allow pilots to explore those systems in more safety than is the case today...Heck,they could even try to stabilise sleeper wormholes and do the same in sleeper space too.
NPC aliances got that big,because they're always expanding their territory to have access to more resources,in order to be able to sustain an ever larger population for food,power,jobs,homes,clean water,you name it,the demand gets higher over time.
|
Jones Bones
Final Agony
|
Posted - 2010.07.05 19:43:00 -
[28]
I think you overestimate the capabilities of the NPC navies.
/me puts on his wizard robe and cap.
A single Gallente MS suicides into a station and it's a HUGE storyline event for Eve.
Large 0.0 scoff at your single mothership. Hell, some low sec alliances will scoff at your single mothership. If you want "realism" you'll see us evil pirates and null sec empires coming to your empire space to stomp in your sand castles and demand tithes!
|
Macvombat
|
Posted - 2010.07.05 19:55:00 -
[29]
Originally by: digitalwanderer
One more reason why the main NPC aliances would be interested in the closer 0.0 systems to their main territory....Access those rare minerals/compounds and with enough protection(most of the time),to allow pilots to explore those systems in more safety than is the case today...Heck,they could even try to stabilise sleeper wormholes and do the same in sleeper space too.
NPC aliances got that big,because they're always expanding their territory to have access to more resources,in order to be able to sustain an ever larger population for food,power,jobs,homes,clean water,you name it,the demand gets higher over time.
If the NPC alliances should be able to expand into null-sec surely the alliances already claiming SOV there should have the ability to fight back and even take over sov in current empire space. you cannot take away what people have fought to get as it would only hit part of the player base, it would simply not be fair to the smaller alliances whom may only be holding sov in 1 or 2 constellations - maybe even a couple of systems.
I see your point though :P The Mac has arrived |
Sephiroth CloneIIV
Section 8 Industries Looney Toons.
|
Posted - 2010.07.06 00:20:00 -
[30]
why not have concord in low sec, but be increadably slow to respond to anything (and not unrealistic strong).
Between the instapoping in high sec, and nothing in low sec maybe have more of a gradient in responses, depending on security status.
Signature removed for having inappropriate content. Zymurgist |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |