Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
fukier
The Unpodable Supermen
|
Posted - 2011.02.07 18:52:00 -
[121]
Edited by: fukier on 07/02/2011 18:57:59 i think the best way to fix low sec it to make it somewhat safe for people to live in...
1. make the sec status a chance based number for a concord fleet to show up if someone is attacted...
example 0.4 space will have a 40% chance of a concord gang showing up to save the pod pilot... 0.3 will be a 30% chance with a reduced strength of the concord fleet...
2. make the concord ships use the sansha/sleeper ai...
as it stands its too easy to tank sentry guns... but it would be alot more difficult to tank a whole concord gang attacking you...
what this will do is give true flavour to low sec... make it so 0.4 is actually safer then 0.1...
also another idea would to make a special type of faction spawn that only comes into low sec...
the idea would be that these ships would fly is small gangs (about 2-3 ships) and have the sansha ai... they would be hiered mercs for the major npc corps in eve and when killed drop tech II bpc's for named gear... example a tech II bpc for a 800 rolled thungsten plate...
of coarse these spawn would be chance based...
do these two things and imo low sec will be packed with people...
|
Mashie Saldana
Minmatar Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2011.02.07 19:07:00 -
[122]
Originally by: Corozan Aspinall I really wish CCP would fix the sec status whack you get for fighting in low sec.
All it does is encourage -10 alts to live there and nobody else.
Nobody is going to risk their main being denied access to high sec.
Are you sure? I must either be insane or a 95m SP alt then...
|
Georgia Jones
|
Posted - 2011.02.07 19:13:00 -
[123]
You want to fix low sec? roll back to quantum rise.
|
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2011.02.07 20:03:00 -
[124]
Originally by: Corozan Aspinall ...0.2% gain for a level 4 mission that takes 20 mins...
First of all, refrain from podding people .. the ship aggression itself doesn't do much to security status whereas the pod is a one-way ticket to the disco.
Second of all, you are doing it wrong. Pick a bunch of Lvl4 missions, kill one BS in each and let them simmer. By far the most non-maddening approach .. just sayin'
At any rate, moving security gain activity to low-sec itself would make it a lot more accessible (and dangerous ) and makes a lot more sense .. no law in null, yet it is the best place to get ratings with the law ?
|
Space Tarantula Haklar
|
Posted - 2011.02.07 21:00:00 -
[125]
Edited by: Space Tarantula Haklar on 07/02/2011 21:03:31 We all can somewhat agreed that something is broken the way low sec works nowadays
But i'm feeling low sec don't need much changes, nore become more similar to high sec (more Concord protection), nore become more similar to null neither (having some kind of sovereignity rules). The main problem I see with low-sec is that the applied rules, even if not really attended (I hope), actually serves one purpose : to protect the "bad" guy.
Before calling for sacrilege, let's do a bit of Role Playing (you know, two of the others three letters often glued with the MMO ones) and see it from another point of view.
Let's suppose that I, as Space Bear, am willing to play the game as a lawful guy, you know, the "to serve and protect" paradigm, (I know it's kind of old-fashioned but meh... Space Tarentula would surely be another story, don't ever cross his path, hehehe)... That being set up, how can i get a a measure of lawfulness from a game point of view ? The main tool that comes in mind is... Yes! you said it : the Security Status... And things tend now to work for Space Bear that way: . a guy with a positive status is a guy that can be ignored as he's not representing an immediate danger... At least for now, he can walk his way in peace... . but a guy with a negative status is definitly to be considered a potential threat and being dealt as this. Well, sort of... It can be tolerated in high sec systems: Concord has its own rules. We not all agree with them but, meh... Everybody deserves a second chance, I guess...
Let's see how that will work in low sec.
Being assigned to the protection of some of my corpmates miners that were send to mine some of the shiny low-sec roids, I am now floating in low-sec space, in my combat ship, lazely looking at my monitoring tools to prevent any potentiel threat for near an hour now. Suddendly, I see in my scans, a small group of ships entering the system... Well, Ok! Time to wake up, gurls!... Rapid status check and... Damn'd! those guys are definitly not to trust... We have to take measures... The odds are somewhat even, we can engage to eventually force them leave the system... But ... oh wait:... Their Security status are not low enough: If we engage now, we will take a serious hit to our own security status... and near to be considered ourselves as pirates... Don't really worth it... Ok gurls, Sorry, time to dock and wait for them to leave the system...
See? it's that last part of my little story that needs to be dealt with...
|
Dro Nee
|
Posted - 2011.02.07 23:07:00 -
[126]
I really dont understand all the complaints about lowsec. I lived there from the time I was 1 month old till this past summer when I got stuck playing on a computer that gets 8-12fps sitting in station.
Population complaints are a sham. There are several systems that will support your desire for gang fights. There are many systems that hardly ever see a soul in local. And there are craploads of systems that are somewhere in between.
Reward complaints are also a sham. The rewards for many PVE activites (minus mining maybe... never done that so dont know)are comparable or greater than highsec. You can scream about the "risk" all you want, but your lack of testicular fortitude and/or ability to defend yourself is a personal problem and not one with game mechanics.
Security hit complaints are the only slightly realistic complaint I have seen so far, but even these are pretty lolworthy in the long run. The hit you get from shooting someone who shoots back is negligable, so if you run solo things are groovy. Rolling in gangs is really the only time sec hits start to hurt badly (that and podding), but if you are running around in gangs so often that your sec is dying too fast to keep up on, perhaps you should consider moving on to NPC 0.0.
Its my opinion that if you dont like lowsec's peculiarities, nobody forces you to play there... so sit down and stfu. Any type of direct boost to lowsec would dramatically diminish the unique opportunity lowsec presents in terms of playstyle. If you really want to boost lowsec...make 0.0 better so its the "cool" place to live again.
|
Hesperius
|
Posted - 2011.02.07 23:23:00 -
[127]
The way mining is designed right now is terrible. It invites macros and make it so only a fool would mine in low sec. It wouldn't be hard to fix mining to make it much better.
|
Swynet
|
Posted - 2011.02.08 01:19:00 -
[128]
I find always impressive to see low sec ice belts empty where in high sec sometimes you have dificulties on counting how mutch people are there. In fact I almost never cross miners in any kind of belt, wouldn't event target them if they were red or whatever just to see those systems get some life but i'm pretty sure I would be the only one. So much macro/bot threads rasing paranoia, you add all the killmail runners and you have empty belts has result. Pretty sad.
OC not all ice/ore belts are empty but the difference is really impressive.
|
Kalia Masaer
Amarr Border Defense Consortium
|
Posted - 2011.02.08 02:43:00 -
[129]
Well here we go on another idea after much reading, scale low sec bounties with sec status the lower your sec status the lower your rewards. This would only happen in low-sec and would allow a degree of buffing to occur to low sec rewards without directly feeding the pirates, yes they could have alts to make their isk but it isn't just, well no one is around lets run a level 5.
|
Mimiru Minahiro
|
Posted - 2011.02.08 02:58:00 -
[130]
Originally by: Kalia Masaer Well here we go on another idea after much reading, scale low sec bounties with sec status the lower your sec status the lower your rewards. This would only happen in low-sec and would allow a degree of buffing to occur to low sec rewards without directly feeding the pirates, yes they could have alts to make their isk but it isn't just, well no one is around lets run a level 5.
This is the greatest idea ever! Making it harder to live in lowsec is sure to make things better!
|
|
TharOkha
|
Posted - 2011.02.08 10:35:00 -
[131]
Lowsec is just fine as it is. But the main and only problem of lowsec are gatecamps. gates that leads from hisec to lowsec are camped 24/7. So nobody is alowed to come in, in anything bigger that cruiser. If you live in deep lowsec, you are relatively safe (if you are smart and know how to survive lowsec) so nerf lowsec gatecamps (ie. concord presence at gates). Let the people come in, not shoot them at entrance.
|
Savatar Mei
|
Posted - 2011.02.08 11:21:00 -
[132]
Originally by: Mr Opinions Edited by: Mr Opinions on 03/02/2011 22:57:47
Originally by: cytheras wrath
Low sec -Safe at gates and stations -open pvp everywhere else
QFT ... This is all it would take. Remove pvp (except suicides ofc) at the bottlenecks and lowsec would become a superhighway. Let people pvp everywhere else
this has some merit.
instead of concord, place more sentries at low sec gates and stations, enough for a pirate to need serious tankage to survive.
put level 4 agents at these stations.
engage pvp as normal out in open space.
the gates and stations become a little safer, while the new level 4 agents draw missioners in
|
Mashie Saldana
Minmatar Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2011.02.08 12:40:00 -
[133]
Originally by: Savatar Mei
Originally by: Mr Opinions Edited by: Mr Opinions on 03/02/2011 22:57:47
Originally by: cytheras wrath
Low sec -Safe at gates and stations -open pvp everywhere else
QFT ... This is all it would take. Remove pvp (except suicides ofc) at the bottlenecks and lowsec would become a superhighway. Let people pvp everywhere else
this has some merit.
instead of concord, place more sentries at low sec gates and stations, enough for a pirate to need serious tankage to survive.
put level 4 agents at these stations.
engage pvp as normal out in open space.
the gates and stations become a little safer, while the new level 4 agents draw missioners in
And the end result will be an even bigger blob sitting on the gate killing everything.
|
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
Amarr
|
Posted - 2011.02.08 14:38:00 -
[134]
Originally by: Savatar Mei
Originally by: Mr Opinions Edited by: Mr Opinions on 03/02/2011 22:57:47
Originally by: cytheras wrath
Low sec -Safe at gates and stations -open pvp everywhere else
QFT ... This is all it would take. Remove pvp (except suicides ofc) at the bottlenecks and lowsec would become a superhighway. Let people pvp everywhere else
this has some merit.
instead of concord, place more sentries at low sec gates and stations, enough for a pirate to need serious tankage to survive.
put level 4 agents at these stations.
engage pvp as normal out in open space.
the gates and stations become a little safer, while the new level 4 agents draw missioners in
Perhaps you didn't notice how Lvl5 agents are all in lowsec and as far as I know that hasn't helped to drive in any people, rather it has effectively pushed many missioneers away from Lvl5 since CCP "fixed" the ""bug"" causing some Lvl5 to happen in hisec.
|
MoonglumX
|
Posted - 2011.02.08 15:36:00 -
[135]
I think I may have a suggestion that doesn't involve our hopes sitting in a CCP back log. Again, this would involve us carebears slightly changing our play styles. However, from what I see some carebears want to go into low sec space, but they don't know how to accomplish that. Here are my suggestions:
1) Form a logistics channel for a low sec area (Heimatar-Metropolis Low Sec, for example). In this channel people can point out the camps, so that they can be avoided. The more people in the channel, the more people we save from gate camps, the less effective gate camps become. No need to worry about spies, as we will not post any re-routing information. Just say where the camps are, the rest is up to you.
2) Fight off the gate camps. Gate camps seem easily beaten. Can't we just warp to 100km off the gate and snipe the camp? They would probably scatter through the gate, into high sec (getting Concorded maybe?). This seems an easy thing for an FC to run.
One of the biggest problems in EVE is the "trust" system. Who do you trust? Most people that answer is NOBODY!. We as carebears could easily form up and fight, but the problem is that carebears either trust no-one (or are too greedy to get away from making our own isk). We could easily make a "Anti-Pirate Pact" and secure low sec passage and police certain systems. Low sec is supposed to be controlled by US, not CONCORD, the same as 0.0 is. There is no reason we can't do it.
So, I propose we make these channels. We form a pact. (We do NOT form an alliance. If we make an alliance we will be decked and everyone will leave our corps. If we are a group of corps, our members could easily hop from corp to corp to avoid any hi-sec grief wars.) We get all these 20 man corps, and NPC corp memebers together and secure the low sec content. Another of our biggest weakness is our disorganization. Our tactics could be so simple. With a a bit of work we could be pushing high sec into low sec on our OWN. It would in game content that WE create.
|
Liorah
|
Posted - 2011.02.08 15:56:00 -
[136]
Originally by: AlleyKat Changing the way the map has been drawn might help.
I created this illustration and put it in another thread that was related to this:
EVE Security System
Taking THIS idea as the base, then expanding on it, you have potential.
In the borderlands between empire hubs, you have FW-space. If an empire occupies a particular FW system, safety increases for those that particular empire likes (standings based). There is Naval response for the victim of aggression. You can hire a security and RR taskforce to protect you while you mine.
Also put space-based pirate faction agents in the systems, and the faction changes depending on which empire occupies the system. Lowsec should be the beginning of pirate association, not Nullsec. Nullsec should be where you go to for the higher ranks (L3+) of pirate faction interaction.
You can still have secure transit between empire hubs, but it's controlled by player action, not random allocation by CCP. "THE" market hub could change on a periodic basis, but it would depend on player action, not convenient routes arbitrarily set up by CCP and discovered by players.
|
Ravenal
The Fated E.Y
|
Posted - 2011.02.08 15:57:00 -
[137]
Compilation of several ideas: - 1400 more low sec systems ... so number of systems are high < low < null - More guns at gates and stations so people can actually get in to play. - lose and gain sec status only by shooting players (-sec for killing players that are not tagged as aggressors +sec for killing globally aggressed players) - make CORP agents, not station agents. People should be able to be anywhere in the universe, contact an agent and ask: "Hey, I'm in the middle of nowhere ... gimme something to do". Just placing lvl4 agents all over low sec is silly, that changes ninja salvagers to ninja gankers. You'll have groups of players hunting down solo missioners because they'll have problems camping the gates and stations.
just do it. .
|
Macmuelli
Gallente Meltd0wn
|
Posted - 2011.02.13 11:18:00 -
[138]
Edited by: Macmuelli on 13/02/2011 11:20:08 I personal think:
Adding a new profession, which make it difficulter to scan down Players in Missions, could increase the low sec a bit.
Like Scanning disrupting fields ( fuel based). Or lock down accelerator gates, and pirates had to hack them.
Combining a new technolgy level with low sec. Like Players houses (Within oorth clouds), where u could improve tech II moduls up to Tech III ones.
Bonuses could be all around the Sansha incursion or possible "excursion" one day. With thoose moduls u could also increase your bonuses in wormhole space. There could be also moduls , which could bring the effect like decreasing armor of the enemie etc..
Active hacking and overloading of enemie ship moduls/system could be a next step in Pvp.
Combined with producing such stuff in low sec would bring an effect.
eve since 2003
Do we need, Ice mining drones? |
betoli
|
Posted - 2011.02.14 08:19:00 -
[139]
Originally by: Ravenal Compilation of several ideas: - More guns at gates and stations so people can actually get in to play.
Seems an easy change. Guns should stay the same in 0.1, but a 0.4 you should need some serious kit to tank them.
|
Narisa Bithon
Caldari
|
Posted - 2011.02.14 17:21:00 -
[140]
best fix for low sec is to get rid of it.... make it npc 0.0 and people will populate it.
|
|
Mighty Dread
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2011.02.14 18:04:00 -
[141]
Some of the reasons I avoid low sec is that undocking in low sec is far more dangerous than passing through gates. Yes I know I can set up a BM front of the station but that takes considerable time, effort and risk. So maybe I'll just pay the extra isk and buy what I need/want in high sec and not risk loosing my ship. To be honest I never understood why there are stations in low sec at all. I mean, no one would set up a mall in an area people would have to risk their lives to go to. Why? Because the mall would fail as people choose safety over low prices.
I really think that what is known as "low sec" should be contestable. So lawful citizens can work to raise the sec status of a low sec system and the opposing criminal element can strive to keep things in their favor. Concord, Faction Navies and the Factions themselves should obviously support those capsuleers attempts to raise the sec status of a low sec system. I don't mean support in the same manner as in high sec systems but merely getting out of the way of those who wish to improve the sec status of a system. So then you'd have a flux of players in low sec trying to sway sec status one way or the other for their own needs/wants.
|
Swynet
|
Posted - 2011.02.14 18:42:00 -
[142]
Edited by: Swynet on 14/02/2011 18:46:05 The biggest problem of low sec is:
Killmails runners can have their dose with 0 risk in ingh sec, HS wardecs so funny
Scanning missioners (with nothing like T3 improb ship) is a 7 years old child difficulty game
You can mine poor minerals and get low isk in high sec from those but your losses will be close to 0 while in low sec mining is masochists occupation, you'll never be able to run a single cycle before you get blowned
Ganking is high sec is risk free instant profit, and most ridiculous insurance pays you bak.
What about someone put in here some links with global populations activity in high sec/low sec and ships lost in high sec/low sec, lets say for the last we?
All I can see after all those ideas/changes is: nothing has changed Ww hat about stop hiting the wall? ________________________________________________
Originally by: Goose99 In EVE, PVE can happen anywhere, anytime. Whenever you undock, you subject yourself to involuntary PVE.
|
Jaik7
|
Posted - 2011.02.14 18:59:00 -
[143]
the trouble with lowsec is that attacking guys there, no matter whether they obviously meant to attack you, will result in everything nearby shooting at you. nullsec and wh space is easier to defend because it is dependant on which gang is stronger.
anyone who sets up in lowsec needs to defend themselves aggresivly from the rampant piracy, which almost always results in low low sec status, which means a hisec bannage by concord.
personally, i like lowsec the way it is. it acts as a nice buffer zone between most of hisec and most of nullsec, where people can trick themselves with the illusion of security. by keeping the sociopaths there, where the blobs of 0.0 fence them in on one side and the concordokening fence them in one the other, they can merrily blow the crap out of each other while everyone else gets rich.
keep this system, it wins. lowsec is better as a mad max wasteland between the two pofitable areas.
|
Doctor Invictus
Gallente Zaneta Enterprises Inc
|
Posted - 2011.02.14 19:40:00 -
[144]
I think the major problem is that the incentives for lowsec PVP are completely one-sided, in the sense that there are financial/fun incentives to be a pirate, but no similar or equivalent incentive for people to specifically become anti-pirates/police.
One work-around, as included in my master plan for all things not-high-sec, is that we could let the the 'owners' of a given low-sec system (based on faction warfare) receive rewards (ISK/standings boost) for attacking/killing pilots with low sec-status in low-sec.
This means that...
1) Faction warfare pilots have an incentive to go after anyone that even looks like a pirate in their space.
2) PVPers/pirates, if they are so inclined, can get into fights with the faction warfare pilots.
3) Carebear/industrialists can have low-sec systems are theoretically guarded, but still higher risk than high-sec (no guarantees that anyone will come to your rescue).
One source of abuse might be for pirates to attack themselves with FW alts, but this could be countered either by having any resulting ISK pay-outs being taken from the wallet of the pirate (also gets rid of the potential ISK faucet created by such a mechanism), or by having the pay out be less than the base price of the ship hull.
|
Benjamin Hamburg
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.02.14 20:00:00 -
[145]
Originally by: Doctor Invictus
1) Faction warfare pilots have an incentive to go after anyone that even looks like a pirate in their space.
2) PVPers/pirates, if they are so inclined, can get into fights with the faction warfare pilots.
3) Carebear/industrialists can have low-sec systems are theoretically guarded, but still higher risk than high-sec (no guarantees that anyone will come to your rescue).
This is a great idea I think.
It could be like an automatic bounty systems based on the sec status. So if the player get -2.0 sec status he get a percentage of bounty proportional to his ships hull + a base price. As his sec status goes down, this percentage grows up and the base price also. Percentage could be (ss*-2) and base price (10 000 isk/per -1 increment after the -2 sec status retroactive) so a pilot in a 100 mil bs with a sec status of -10 get a bounty of 20 million for whoever manage to destroy him + a base bounty of 100 000 ISK. (The destruction remove 100 millions - insurance before injecting only 20.1 million). Rookie ship and shuttle arent concern by this bounty systems to avoid self killing with a alt.
This systems of bounty would only work in low-sec systems, cause 0.0 is'nt part of the Empire juridiction. (So they don't pay for something that will obviously happen one day). Also, there should be a limit to this, so that the same player is'nt killed over and over again only for his bounty. This could 1 bounty collected per day and per criminal. So if you want to make a living from that, you will need to go hunting and not just sitting in front of low-sec station.
For criminals, it gives a fugitive aspect that they wont appreciate, but give them a lot of potential fight. There are no limits to the majestic future which lies before the mighty expanse of Canada with its virile, aspiring, cultured, and generous-hearted people. Sir Winston Churchill |
Sheledra
|
Posted - 2011.02.15 04:59:00 -
[146]
I strongly agree about the rewards being one sided. There simply is no reward for being an anti-pirate. Unfortunately i see no universally acceptable solution for that (a few little ideas like rewarding players for taking on a concord like role themselves). In lieu of drafting players to the cause, perhaps npc police are the answer. I don't mean like the almighty rage of concord. What if they used the incursion mechanics to stage police raids. After all if pirates can invade empire space why cant the empire strike back (que orchestra).
P.S. one unintended consequence of this would be that soloing in a logistics ship would now be feasible. Just when the pirates think they have won an guardian warps in and starts repping the police fleet, finally sweet revenge.
|
Doctor Invictus
Gallente Zaneta Enterprises Inc
|
Posted - 2011.02.15 05:08:00 -
[147]
The problem with NPC ships is that whatever mechanic you introduce will either be guaranteed like CONCORD, or will be probabilistic, and therefore gamed by the pirates. I think the only way to get a good balance is to put some basic incentives in place and let the the players sort it out themselves.
|
Imigo Montoya
Hysterically Unforgiving Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2011.02.15 07:01:00 -
[148]
I would have to agree that player incentives are far more powerful, and useful in the context of an MMO.
So I'm going to add my suggestion to the mix.
|
C0mbat W0mbat
|
Posted - 2011.02.15 08:54:00 -
[149]
I have been missioning in unscan tengus in low sec for a long time now, have yet to loose a ship. Its 3 jumps from high sec, pirates visit 1-2 times during my play time. instas on the station, enough agents to never leave system its impossible to kill me
Only losses have been the ammo/loot runs.
Same applies to my low sec ice mining. Its easy to mine dark glitter in a dead end system, good profit over high sec, just the transport is a pain, even compressed ice is huge.
I don't want concord on low sec gates, though. Changes that would make me a happy panda: 1. If my secStatus > target sec AND target sec < 0.0 I should not get a sec hit if I pro-actively defend myself (read: attack him first ) 2. not must, but nice-to-have: Give players the chance to hire NPC merc groups. Those only help you in low sec They only can spawn on gate grids Group consists of 1 frig, 1 cruiser, 1 BS of sansha incursion strength You can buy up to 10 groups If you are attacked in low sec, you can select a ship from overview and have the group(s) spawn on the target (no need to target, damn you falcons) You cannot use this if you have a GCC on you One group costs... 100M isk.
So there is some risk for the pirate too. That lonely badger might have some nasty surprise waiting for you. And for a cost the victim can clear all the tacklers, or at least have some revenge
|
Forum Troll Trolling
|
Posted - 2011.02.15 09:19:00 -
[150]
my suggestion, have gateguns and station guns fire on people according to sec status and player sec status to the scale of which NPC police do. and have them try to pod the offending player too, including concord trying to pod people that go GCC in highsec, that should add some actual risk to players that suicide gank often
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |