| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Grey Stormshadow
   |
Posted - 2011.03.04 23:59:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Grey Stormshadow on 05/03/2011 00:01:24
Ok... I try to keep this short and simple. The bottom idea of this suggestion is to promote non hisec space and give hisec carebears way to get used to lower security with smaller steps ("soft landing"-approach).
Midsec space would be basically "high lowesec" where stations and gates would be heavily protected by concord or gateguns or whatever. The key is that gates and stations would be "safe" to fly even in some exhummers, but all other area in system would be free for all.
0.4 could be this kind of "mixed security" place for example.
Prolly needs some more brainwork but I bet it would make more people go out there and try how they do. Also would promote pvp in the end I think.
|
Vak Keelin
|
Posted - 2011.03.05 04:47:00 -
[2]
I actually like the idea. It would prevent gate and station camping of non war targets but make the belts, missions etc very dangerous.
There would need to be a large number of such systems or they would quickly fill with pirates and then nothing would change.
One other point. There really is a need for a larger combat mining ship that, used in numbers could protect themselves. Something like a BS but that changed 2 high slots for strip miners and a larger cargo hold.
|
SGT FUNYOUN
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.03.05 05:56:00 -
[3]
Ah yes... another "I'd like my cake and I want to eat it too..." suggestion.
Look while I am all for making the learning curve for new players a little less steep, the fact of the matter is this:
EVE is based on outer space Sci-Fi and as such it is a harsh learning curve. Space is harsh and a game based around space is going to be harsh. Your idea of reducing low sec would just get the same thing as before... except now the Pirates who frequent these systems are hopping the belts instead of gate camping. I don't know... maybe it would be a good idea. It would sort of change the dynamics of the game a bit. 
Yargh.  I be SGT Funyoun. King of the Pirates!!! |
Grey Stormshadow
|
Posted - 2011.03.05 07:14:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Grey Stormshadow on 05/03/2011 07:15:30
Yes it would at least put the bad guys and good guys to same system... And both would prolly feel like they can live there. Thats the main idea.
At the moment many carebears are too scared to even visit lowsec because they have heard all the horror stories about gate camps...
And I'm not neccessarily say that lowsec need to be reduced. As well parts hisec could be nerfer...
This was just general idea to throw ball with.
|
Joe McAlt
|
Posted - 2011.03.05 08:49:00 -
[5]
To me a big part of the problem with Eve is that it is simply to easy to find people. The map shows you if someone is in a system even if there is no one else around for 5 jumps. Local tells you right away if someone is in a system. D-scan will tell you in seconds where they are.
All of this together means that unless you are part of a major allaince you cant live in null and unless you have a gang of buddies you cant do anything in Low Sec.
Even with this sugestion it is likely that any bear who dares low will be found and destroyed in short order and unless there is some change that will allow a bear some chance to go undetected while he mines or missions it is unlikely that bears will go there.
The truth is not everyone wants to Pvp. If they did, high sec would not be so crowded and low would not be empty. If Eve wants to encourage Bears to go into low, they will have to give them a chance to survive there without having to fight the entire time they are there.
|
Kieron VonDeux
|
Posted - 2011.03.05 09:05:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Kieron VonDeux on 05/03/2011 09:09:08
 Originally by: Grey Stormshadow
Edited by: Grey Stormshadow on 05/03/2011 00:01:24
Ok... I try to keep this short and simple. The bottom idea of this suggestion is to promote non hisec space and give hisec carebears way to get used to lower security...
There is a big flaw in your thinking right there. You are assuming that all the players who choose to operate in HiSec and avoid LowSec are doing it out of fear when it's simply a calculation of how much one can make versus how much can one loose while operating there.
Making the Gates/Stations more safe may help with travel through systems, but won't do anything for missions, minning, and etc in those specific systems. It won't change anything and the "dense" pirates(not all pirates are) will still cry about not having enough targets. It's kind of like a hunter crying on the second day of hunting season when all the prey has "gone to ground" and not understanding why.
The smart prey went to ground the day before. 
I would propose Faction Navy rats similiar to Factional Warefare rats to spawn in .4 and .3 systems like Concord does in HiSec. Give the pirates a chance to defeat the spawning NPCs while also giving the PvEer a fighting chance as well.
The only time PvEers have a chance in LowSec now is when the Pirates make a serious mistake or are simply very dumb, hense the smart PvEers(prey) don't go there.
|
Mecinia Lua
Galactic Express
Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2011.03.05 09:10:00 -
[7]
What is currently referred to as low sec is really mid sec.
Hi sec is Hi Sec
Low Sec is Mid Sec
0.0 is Low Sec
The draw for hi sec carebears is that on average a Hi Sec system can entertain hundreds of individuals at the same time while all can make a decent wage.
In theory Mid Sec (current low sec) systems with agents could likewise but the rewards of doing so is not as strong to make up for added danger so they don't do it. Revamping the Agent system and not removing the ones from high sec but doubling payout for ones in Mid Sec (Current Low Sec) would entice folks to chance it. Again no nerfing of the high sec agents just increased payouts from low sec agents (Kinda like danger pay).
Sadly Low Sec (0.0) systems if lucky can only support a dozen individuals and is the main reason you've never seen a majority move there. More belts, mini sites, anomalies etc are needed in order to entice more folks out to these systems.
Thoughts expressed are mine and mine alone. They do not necessarily reflect my alliances thoughts.
[orange]Your signature is to |
Kieron VonDeux
|
Posted - 2011.03.05 09:36:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Joe McAlt
To me a big part of the problem with Eve is that it is simply to easy to find people...
That is exactly right. LowSec PvPers want targets to shoot. The problem is that in order for solo PvEers to be willing to go there they would have to be able to survive the vast majority of the time. Not becasue the system is empty, but because it is that hard to get tracked down.
I would only go to LowSec solo in a T2 fitted T1 hull to solo PvE if it cost me on average about 10%-15% more than operating in HiSec and also had a great chance to take some of the Pirates out. Of course we all get lucky sometimes but that normally only happens when Pirates make significant mistakes.
I spent a little over a year as a LowSec pirate myself.
That means if I make an average 15m isk a mission and it costs me 50m to fit a ship, I would need to be able to do 20-25 missions for every one that I get destroyed. That means I need to have a 95% survival rate and have a good chance to take some guys out on my way down. I wouldn't do it if I'm simply a clay pigieon for pirates.
I think Faction Navy spawns with stronger gate/station guns would go a long ways to do that and lvl 4 missions need to support PvP fit PvEers.
Getting to LowSec is frequently the hardest part to do Solo. Especially when pirates can tank the guns a lot longer than it takes for you to get destroyed.
|
Kieron VonDeux
|
Posted - 2011.03.05 09:43:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Kieron VonDeux on 05/03/2011 09:44:02
Originally by: Mecinia Lua
Revamping the Agent system and not removing the ones from high sec but doubling payout...(to low sec missions)
Note: I added what is in brackets so players don't get confused in regard to what you think it should be versus what it is.
Increasing the payout risks making it worth it for large organizations to take over and farm those payouts. Something that nearly all agree would be worse than what is now in LowSec.
Also, NullSec is not LowSec, as you said, since empire doesn't control anything in NullSec.
Securty Status is based upon how much influence the NPC Empires have in a current system, not the relative safety of a system.
|
Mecinia Lua
Galactic Express
Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2011.03.05 10:22:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Kieron VonDeux
Edited by: Kieron VonDeux on 05/03/2011 09:44:02
Originally by: Mecinia Lua
Revamping the Agent system and not removing the ones from high sec but doubling payout...(to low sec missions)
Note: I added what is in brackets so players don't get confused in regard to what you think it should be versus what it is.
Increasing the payout risks making it worth it for large organizations to take over and farm those payouts. Something that nearly all agree would be worse than what is now in LowSec.
Also, NullSec is not LowSec, as you said, since empire doesn't control anything in NullSec.
Securty Status is based upon how much influence the NPC Empires have in a current system, not the relative safety of a system.
Then you'll never entice the 'carebears' out of high sec, because what you do will and can be controlled by a large organization. CCP I'm sure is well aware of what is needed to really draw folks out of high sec, but they are also aware that the servers can't take it and is why its never been implemented.
I don't see a need for midsec in essence low sec now is mid sec meant to be a stepping stone between high and null. The problem is that the payouts are to low for the increased risk. Already most low sec systems are camped by local pirates or controlled by large null sec alliances to secure supply routes, nothing much would change there. Unless you double payouts and make it possible to make twice the money they can in high sec they'll never migrate to low sec. You need the much higher payout so that they can afford to lose a few ships.
Same thing with 0.0. When systems can only really support from about 3 to at most 12 pilots at a time, that's your impediment to more traffic. Systems have to be able to support hundreds of pilots in order for you to get the Alliances to shrink their space and allow more folks into 0.0. Alliances maintain huge swaths of space because its needed to keep their members happy not because they enjoy paying sovereignty on 30 or more systems.
Thoughts expressed are mine and mine alone. They do not necessarily reflect my alliances thoughts.
[orange]Your signature is to |
Marchocias
Snatch Victory
|
Posted - 2011.03.05 13:42:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Grey Stormshadow
Edited by: Grey Stormshadow on 05/03/2011 00:01:24
Ok... I try to keep this short and simple. The bottom idea of this suggestion is to promote non hisec space and give hisec carebears way to get used to lower security with smaller steps ("soft landing"-approach).
Midsec space would be basically "high lowesec" where stations and gates would be heavily protected by concord or gateguns or whatever. The key is that gates and stations would be "safe" to fly even in some exhummers, but all other area in system would be free for all.
0.4 could be this kind of "mixed security" place for example.
Prolly needs some more brainwork but I bet it would make more people go out there and try how they do. Also would promote pvp in the end I think.
Yes, yes, yes...
I actually suggested almost exactly this a few years ago, but it seemed to mostly get ignored so I dropped it. I would like to see 0.6, 0.5 and 0.4 become mid-sec like this.
They'd have to modify the map a bit... Ideally, the core of the empires would be islands of hisec, surrounded by losec, with corridors of mid-sec between them.
Also such a system would provide a nice basis for later adding dynamic-sec, whereby mid-sec systems vary in sec status, and can be pushed up to 0.7 (temporarily becoming hisec) or down to 0.3 (temporarily losec), depending on local crime rates. But thats another matter.
----
I belong to Silent Ninja (Hopefully that should cover it). |
Suiginryou Hitaiga
Caldari
|
Posted - 2011.03.05 19:47:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Marchocias
Midsec space would be basically "high lowesec" where stations and gates would be heavily protected by concord or gateguns or whatever. The key is that gates and stations would be "safe" to fly even in some exhummers, but all other area in system would be free for all.
These puffers don't fly.
Expect a 40% fall in overall eve population, 'cause 90% of hisec bears will leave if they're left with only a few systems not requiring a gang to just fly through.
___
Remove insurance payouts for concord kills
Make wardecs expensive and declinable
Make SS go -1.0 per offense
Remove L4 agents from hisec
Allow non-corp hisec POS and moon mining |
Illucius Thantium
|
Posted - 2011.03.06 01:19:00 -
[13]
Why not create a more smoothed out system. Instead of having High, Low, and 0.0, just have a game mechanic where defense decreases with rating. This could be implemented in the way you described and with something like an increasing response time to crimes from concord. Make it so there is a slowly dwindling amount of defense as you travel further out, so that there is still risk, but daring carebares canpush the limits of their need for safety.
|
Mnengli Noiliffe
|
Posted - 2011.03.09 07:02:00 -
[14]
put a covert alt near the station, make proper insta undock bms and you are perfectly safe near station and gates.
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |