| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Crepiscule
   |
Posted - 2003.07.03 16:53:00 -
[1]
This idea may have been brought up before, but with all the changes to guns around jump gates and stations and such I think it needs to be revisited.
All Empire space should just be set to 1.0 sec. It appears most people who don't want combat would like this. The stations in these systems would be controlled by their respective governments. You can place as many guns around the systems as you like. You can even put them in the asteroid belts if you feel like it.
Surrounded each of the Empire controlled areas is a "Neutral Zone". The neutral zone will consist of systems with sec ratings from .9 to 0. The higher sec systems will have an "Empire Presence" for example NPC traders, Military, ect. However, the stations within the neutral zone will be controlled by a variety of factions that one may raise or lower by doing missions or something of that nature. Combat between players is ignored by the empires.
Outside the neutral zone lay the lawless systems, where NPC Pirate corps run things. Faction may be raised or lowered in the same manner as in the Neutral Zones but you start out as KOS to begin with. Players with High sec ratings will be at a disadvantage because they will not be able to use the stations. Pirates don't want any do gooders in their stations, much like the empire don't want Pirates.
|
Nekayah
|
Posted - 2003.07.03 17:16:00 -
[2]
No, we wouldn't like it. Talk about sledgehammers!
The variation of security levels allows asteroids and NPC pirates to be scaled in the current system. That works fine.
I'll have to play the current setup more before I pass my judgment, but on the surface it doesn't look too bad. Pirates should be comfortable outside Concord spaces, but should be stressed in it. That is reasonable. They should have safer and less safe areas within it too. Those with true grit can dare to penetrate, at risk.
Speaking for myself, I don't want the elimination of PvP combat, nor the elimination of risk. I want them to make sense. It doesn't make sense for pirates to operate with impunity in what is purported to be empire controlled space (where an incautious actions gets the "law-abiding" types blasted to dust by the police). It makes sense that wandering out of that space is a high-risk activity. (And vice versa for the pirates.)
|
Crepiscule
|
Posted - 2003.07.03 17:25:00 -
[3]
You would have your NPC pirates scaled within the neutral zones much like they are now in the empire space.
It doesn't make much sense that there are currently NPC pirates in the Empire controlled asteroid belts but PC pirates are basically removed from any system .4 and over.
Perhaps they could remove the NPC pirates from the belts .45 and above that way giving players a reason to travel into the .4 and below sectors other than for the minerals.
What I am trying to accomplish with making Empire space 1.0 is create an environment where the people who don't want to PvP can exist.
|
Redundancy
|
Posted - 2003.07.03 17:29:00 -
[4]
I'm not sure that would be a good thing. a large amount of commerce happens in the empire space, if piracy there is impossible then it becomes a pretty pointless proffesion.
I'd rather see a situation where pirates can hunt in empire space and take advantage of some of the holes in coverage, but only with risk and only for a short while before they have to move on.
Redundancy |
Crepiscule
|
Posted - 2003.07.03 17:38:00 -
[5]
I'm not quite sure how that is different from the way things are now after today's patch.
If traders use the most secure route and Pirates HAVE to use least secure, never will the two meet except maybe a very very small percentage of the time. On top of that there isn't a real good way to stop the traders if we can't use the jumpgates as a place to stop them.
Unless I'm mistaken and that the sentry guns in .4 and below space won't fire on low security pirates that attack players at the gates.
|
BSOD
|
Posted - 2003.07.03 17:50:00 -
[6]
"I'm not sure that would be a good thing. a large amount of commerce happens in the empire space, if piracy there is impossible then it becomes a pretty pointless proffesion.
I'd rather see a situation where pirates can hunt in empire space and take advantage of some of the holes in coverage, but only with risk and only for a short while before they have to move on."
I agree. Unfortunately this past patch makes it nearly impossible.
The problem is that the majority of the playerbase is being punished for the actions of a few. (A certain 30-member corp comes to mind...)
Instead of constantly tightening down the security systems, CCP should be doing something about m0o's exploitation. (Esp. canlag.) If it weren't for canlag, m0o could be dealt with by players and not by changes in the security systems.
With the exception of NPC pirates, for all practical purposes we have three security levels now:
0.0
0.1-0.4
0.5-1.0
The police and sentry response in 0.5 space is *exactly* the same as it is in 1.0 space. Even the most minor offense results in a "terminate with extreme prejudice" police response.
Police response and sentry response should be modified by the following:
Offender's security status (Just like in the real world, first offenders usually are given leniency while habitual offenders serve much heavier sentences.) This way "accidents" and periodic offenders (blasting a can thief) aren't punished too severely.
System security status - Police in .5 systems should never warpjam or webify, and should take their time showing up. (Compare to the bad neighborhoods of L.A. - Police NEVER maintain a consistent presence there, they only go into the area if there's a major problem and so response time is long. L.A. is "empire space" - One of the largest cities in the United States. But you can be assured that a good chunk of that city is controlled by organizations OTHER than the police or any other government entity. (Hint: The controlling organizations have names like Crips and Bloods.) Meanwhile, police response in 1.0 systems should be "terminate with extreme prejudice" - Warp jamming/webification/more cops than in .5
Severity of the offense. Landing one or two hits on a ship should entail minimal police response (Frigates, no warpjamming), and even less response for webification. (Webify someone, and the "rookie cops" show up with popguns equivalent in strength to .8 NPC pirates.) Destruction of a ship should cause the police response to escalate significantly. (Cruisers show up, warp jamming or webification, not both). Podding = extreme response. (Multiple topend cruisers, WJ and webification, three strikes and battleships come.)
Sentry gun range and "memory" should also be modified by security status of the system. 75km range in 1.0, maybe only 25km in .5, and less in .4 and below. This new patch says that sentry guns will fire on "recent" offenders. I do not know how "recent" is defined (The 15 minute police timout?), but the length of "recent" should be modified by security status. (1 hour in 1.0, 15 minutes in 0.5, 5 minutes in 0.1)
----------------
Blue Screen of Death
CEO
Exodus Enterprises |
Crepiscule
|
Posted - 2003.07.03 20:48:00 -
[7]
BSOD,
I agree with a lot of what you say but I can't see many of the non-pvp players liking this.
The reason being that you would still have choke points where those holes are and they would cry bloody murder to get pirates out.
The general feeling I get from posters now is no pirate activity in Empire space period. I know there are some who do enjoy it but they seem to be the minority (other than pirates of course =) )
|
BSOD
|
Posted - 2003.07.04 00:47:00 -
[8]
My opinion: If you have pirates in a chokepoint, drive them the hell out.
Unfortunately, this was not possible due to canlag exploits. Rather than find a solution to canlag, CCP has been constantly working around the problem by utterly screwing up the security status system, punishing the majority of players for the transgressions of a very small minority. (m0o has about 30 members, and some of those could be alts. It seems like less than 10 that make headlines in any way.)
I am not a PvPer. I consider violence to be a last resort. But sometimes, you simply have no other option than to blast someone into oblivion. Everyone says "declare war" - The problem is that in the 48 hours it takes to declare (24 vote, 24 warning), the can***** is long gone.
----------------
Blue Screen of Death
CEO
Exodus Enterprises |
Crepiscule
|
Posted - 2003.07.04 02:20:00 -
[9]
To be quite honest, I believe the can lag issue to have been completely over blown.
Many times there are debris fields near the gate as well as NPC Pirates that drop absolute crap and not worth the ammo to do the clean it up for them.
When you are flying a frigate, there is only so much you can fit in your hold. They should have just removed the debris fields and the NPC pirates that were a joke to begin with.
I would get tells all the time with people yelling exploiter when it was a debris field.
I think too many people just liked to repeat what a few individuals experienced and made it seem like every gate under .5 sec was camped by pirates hidden behind 100's of cans.
I myself only ran into a pirate blockade once and that was because a GM put me in a dead end system with M0o after I became stuck. There were no canisters to be seen.
Back on the topic, I hope to get some more ideas and opinions on this issue.
|
BSOD
|
Posted - 2003.07.04 03:43:00 -
[10]
"Many times there are debris fields near the gate as well as NPC Pirates that drop absolute crap and not worth the ammo to do the clean it up for them."
Lasers don't take ammo. And one of the tiny crap lasers is more than sufficent for blasting cans.
Plus it was confirmed by Cornexant after their raid that there were cans present with 1 ammo each.
Maybe you don't exploit, but it was confirmed that m0o did exploit canlag, and honestly, m0o's actions are what we're all paying for with these insane security changes.
----------------
Blue Screen of Death
CEO
Exodus Enterprises |
Crepiscule
|
Posted - 2003.07.04 16:57:00 -
[11]
I don't want to turn this into a "M0o Exploit" thread. I don't want to use them as the yardstick as to how all PvPerÆs operates.
Let's leave M0o out of the discussion for now and focus on how to make it work for everyone.
Although from the lack of responses it seems most people could give a damn.
|
Helen Baque
|
Posted - 2003.07.04 17:43:00 -
[12]
NPC pirates are there just as economic lubrication. The heart of EVE, the original concept from the ground up, is the player-driven economy and the competition and co÷peration between players.
Any measures taken to "make PvP and Non PVP Players Happy" are missing the point.
--
Helen Baque
Baque Industries
|
BSOD
|
Posted - 2003.07.04 18:39:00 -
[13]
I've been specifically talking about m0o, because in my opinion, all of these patches have been targeted at them specifically.
If m0o hadn't abused every hole in the game, CCP wouldn't have screwed things for everyone. m0o are not "typical" pirates, nor are they typical PvPers. They are two things only: Exploiters and griefers. And I am firm in my belief that non-exploiting pirates should not be punished for m0o's antics.
----------------
Blue Screen of Death
CEO
Exodus Enterprises |
HomeBones II
|
Posted - 2003.07.04 18:55:00 -
[14]
Anyone who feels fine about the security changes in a 0.5, need only shoot a player once, to feel the full force of Concord. Utterly ridiculous. You can only attack a player without risk if they're -5. Not too many of those running about. Needless to say it wasn't a pretty sight. Warp Jammed into oblivion. In a 0.5. A little warning from CCP would have been nice. Like "hey, all you guys protecting your interests in a 0.5 better let the other players do what ever they want, steal cargo, etc., because if you attack, the entire fleet is going to show up and break your ship, and all yor friends ships in to tiny little pieces...have fun on Eve."
Thanks for nothing.
|
Doppelganger
|
Posted - 2003.07.05 16:45:00 -
[15]
Why not simply have it so that the turrets, by default, will not fire until a player opens hostilities on someone who is not of a certain negative security rating?
Of course the turrets should remember players who opened hostilites for a certain length of time...perhaps dependent on the security of the system.
postcount++ |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |