|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
MailDeadDrop
The Collective
   |
Posted - 2010.07.13 00:39:00 -
[1]
 Originally by: Thoraemond
How about this as a middle ground?: Substantially increase the length of high-sec routes between the major hubs, ensuring that there are much shorter (e.g., 5+ shorter) low-sec routes between the same hubs.
IMHO that won't help. As long as there is a highsec route, there will be autopilot freighters (some perhaps even augmented with warp-to-zero autopilot external programs).
MDD
|
MailDeadDrop
The Collective
|
Posted - 2010.07.13 06:27:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Varo Jan
Lowsec is a wasteland.
Agreed. And I believe I know why: it's too predictable. "WHAT?!!" you exclaim. Hear me out.
Those bent on "involuntary PvP" (a/k/a "pirates") *know* that Concord will not get involved in lowsec. They *know* the damage they will get from gate & station guns. They *know* how much of a security status hit they will take (and how log they will have to rat to undo the damage, should they so choose).
Those who'd rather obliterate computer-controlled pixels (a/k/a "carebears") *know* that in lowsec they are up against *both* the pirates *and* the NPCs. They *know* that a ship fitted for best performance against NPCs would be handicapped versus a pirate, and a ship fitted for best performance against pirates would be underwhelming versus NPCs.
And guess what: very similar "rules" apply in highsec, too. The pirates know how long Concord takes to respond, and they work out where they can gank successfully (hello, Hulkageddon!). Carebears cry that this is unfair and that pirates should be denied insurance for such attacks.
And finally, CCP bemoans the distribution of characters, with gobs in highsec, somewhat lesser numbers in 0.0, and lowsec being a ghost town.
Clue stick time: Make the transition from highsec to lowsec less clearly defined. I propose that Concord's response *probability* and *time* be functions of:
1. system security. Concord responds faster in higher security systems than in lower security systems (no change). The probability that Concord responds *at all* is also partially a function of system security.
2. difference between aggressor and "victim's" security status. Concord's likelihood of responding is higher when the -10.0 pirate attacks the 5.0 carebear than it is when the 0.0 pirate attacks the 2.5 mission runner. And when the 1.0 carebear chooses to aggress the character-with-a-lower-secstatus? Heh.
Result: lower highsec systems are a bit more dangerous. Higher lowsec systems are a bit less dangerous. High sec status carebears can wander into higher lowsec with some confidence that *maybe* Concord will come to their rescue. Or maybe not. Pirates can polish their sec status and then prowl the lower highsec systems looking for the next big target, knowing that they get more useful time engaging, and might get away scott-free.
Overall, make Concord's security status effects more of a continuum instead of the dichotomy they are now.
MDD
|
MailDeadDrop
The Collective
|
Posted - 2010.07.13 13:55:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Caleb Ayrania
Creating a barrier between empires might sound nice, but I would like to point to Tornsouls reply and expand on it.. Better than the OP suggestion would be to have a more dynamic respond system to aggression.
Ahem.
MDD
|
MailDeadDrop
The Collective
|
Posted - 2010.07.13 16:01:00 -
[4]
Edited by: MailDeadDrop on 13/07/2010 16:04:39
I'm not convinced that driving people towards POSes is a good thing. For starters, POSes are corporate assets, not personal assets. The roles interface is already a mess; imagine how much worse (Eve) life will be when you push more people to have to deal with it. Actually, I think you (SencneS) owe a fine for even suggesting such an idea. (Pay Chribba; he'll see that it is properly disbursed to a worthy charity.) But I get what you're trying to do (introduce more racial effects into the markets), and agree that appears to be a worthy goal.
But, I believe that the NPC seeding of racial items should be addressed. And from a programmatic point of view, it seems like a trivial change for CCP. It has the added effect of stimulating more player-run economies (skillbook & blueprint trading).
MDD
(Edit: Correct spelling of SencneS' name. Sorry 'bout that.)
|
|
|
| |
|