| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
TharOkha
0asis Group
149
   |
Posted - 2012.11.26 09:22:00 -
[1] - Quote
Ok, there is a lot of talk about system security status. Does not matter if you are PvP camper or victim, but you all have to agree that there is a huuuuge gap between 0.5 and 0.4.
This gap is based on what you can do in 0.4 (instalocking, Smartbombs, indestructible "trash" arround gates to prevent cloaky ship pass through) and what you cannot do in 0.5 (certain death for aggresor, unable to evade concord).
So this is my proposal how to rebalance system sec status
1.0 - 0.7 - Highest security, instant concord response time, you cannot evade concord nor destroy them. (as it is now)
0.6 - 0.4 - Medium security - concord response time 5-20s. you can evade concord but when they spawn, you cannot destroy them nor survive their superior DPS//scram/ECM/etc... also for evading concord there should be big sec status loss.
0.3 - 0.1 - Low security - gates and stations are the only "secure" space, (on asteroid fields there will be none concord spawns also no sec status loss). response time 30s-60s. Evading them will not affect secstatus. Also those concord spawns are not so powerfull as hisec version they can be destroyed.
0.0 - lawless space (as it is now)
Benefits of this proposed change
-chance to survive suicie gank in medium sec space
-no security status loss in low sec asteroid fields, good for those who would like to PvP but they are affraid of secstat loss and who dont want to join blob bubble party in null.
- Spread of PvP fights arround the whole space, not just on gates.
Constructive critics only. Leave your Troll-Hammer at home please. 
GÇ£If reality can destroy the dream, why shouldn't the dream destroy reality?GÇ¥ |
Alice Saki
21274
|
Posted - 2012.11.26 09:23:00 -
[2] - Quote
[Constructive critics only] No ^_^
All You're Likes Belong to Me. |
Destination SkillQueue
Are We There Yet
3009
|
Posted - 2012.11.26 09:36:00 -
[3] - Quote
The current system is simpler and better. |
March rabbit
Aliastra
267
|
Posted - 2012.11.26 09:51:00 -
[4] - Quote
TharOkha wrote:
0.6 - 0.4 - Medium security - concord response time 5-20s. you can evade concord but when they spawn, you cannot destroy them nor survive their superior DPS//scram/ECM/etc... also for evading concord there should be big sec status loss.
...
-chance to survive "suicie" gank in medium sec space
victim: how come?
ganker: yes, they would have chance. Do we need them to have this chance?
TharOkha wrote:
0.3 - 0.1 - Low security - gates and stations are the only "secure" space, (on asteroid fields there will be none concord spawns also no sec status loss). response time 30s-60s. Evading them will not affect secstatus. Also those concord spawns are not so powerfull as hisec version they can be destroyed.
this would make things more interesting. However knowing Eve players i don't think some want this. Usually pvp-ers prefer easy mode. |
Irya Boone
Escadron leader
67
|
Posted - 2012.11.26 10:05:00 -
[5] - Quote
Yeah i think it would be great i thought about the same thing based on color of the sec status
Blue ( 1.0 to 0.8= instant pop of concord and 15 sec status Loss and concord POD pirates
green(0.8 to 0.6= 10 to 20 sec pop of concord and 10 sec status loss) concord pod pirates
yellow ( 0.5)=30sec for Concord and 5 points loss of sec
light orange ( 0.49 to 0.3) no concord anywhere, big really big firepower of sentry at gate and stations NO sec loss
orange (0.3 to 0.1) no sentries no concord , no blob) no sec loss
Improve C2 class WH More anos more signs ...RENAME null sec system With the name Of REAL Universe Stellar Name like KOI-730 etc etc It xill be awesome-á |
Bump Truck
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
17
|
Posted - 2012.11.26 10:16:00 -
[6] - Quote
Personally I think this is rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, failing to confront the real issue.
71% of players live in High Sec when, IMO and only IMO, the game is much more intense, real and engaging in Low and Null. This is the thing that needs fixing.
Bounties, Sec Status changes, issues with concord, none of t it really matters, what matters is encouraging people to get out there and take more risk and giving them a good reason to.
Personally I think the new changes to bounties will make High Sec safer and no one who doesn't want to fight will have to.
I don't think it matters where you have Sec Status boundaries. You need to get people to engage more. |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
1550
|
Posted - 2012.11.26 10:23:00 -
[7] - Quote
Bump Truck wrote:Personally I think the new changes to bounties will make High Sec safer and no one who doesn't want to fight will have to.
lol no.
(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) |
Rico Minali
Sons Of 0din
Dark Therapy
1083
|
Posted - 2012.11.26 10:39:00 -
[8] - Quote
So.. Concord everywhere except nullsec right? No.
Trust me, I almost know what I'm doing. |
Romvex
172
|
Posted - 2012.11.26 11:00:00 -
[9] - Quote
Post with your main |
Esha Ditrix
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
16
|
Posted - 2012.11.26 11:15:00 -
[10] - Quote
what is this madness...... i dont even......
......WHY ?
Its not an exploit, if the game lets you do it... |
Gillia Winddancer
Shiny Noble Crown Services
127
|
Posted - 2012.11.26 11:27:00 -
[11] - Quote
Where is the suggestion where CONCORD isn't involved whatsoever? Or at least isn't involved as a "finger of God" entity. Anything that has "insta-pop" in it is bad. Plain bad. Makes the whole "butterfly effect" deal look like North Korean propaganda.
Whilst understandable (like always) why CONCORD is the way it is, it is still pretty darn bad. |
Holy One
295
|
Posted - 2012.11.26 11:30:00 -
[12] - Quote
The answer is dynamic security status based on actual emergence and player action/inaction.
All of low sec should be mutable allowing the player base to actually shift sec status over time.
I'd make all low security space mutable tbh. It'd be awesome to see pockets of high sec emerge, new routes, new markets. New danger spots. I don't think it would 'break' the game and you can't 'abuse' a system that is entirely intended to be player controlled. |
Fatbear
Starwinders
The Unwilling.
11
|
Posted - 2012.11.26 11:38:00 -
[13] - Quote
Bump Truck wrote:
Personally I think this is rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, failing to confront the real issue.
71% of players live in High Sec when, IMO and only IMO, the game is much more intense, real and engaging in Low and Null. This is the thing that needs fixing.
Bounties, Sec Status changes, issues with concord, none of t it really matters, what matters is encouraging people to get out there and take more risk and giving them a good reason to.
Personally I think the new changes to bounties will make High Sec safer and no one who doesn't want to fight will have to.
I don't think it matters where you have Sec Status boundaries. You need to get people to engage more.
|
Peter Fajl
Dirty Bastards
23
|
Posted - 2012.11.26 11:39:00 -
[14] - Quote
stop whining mr. PVE |
TharOkha
0asis Group
149
|
Posted - 2012.11.26 11:57:00 -
[15] - Quote
Bump Truck wrote:
71% of players live in High Sec when, IMO and only IMO, the game is much more intense, real and engaging in Low and Null. This is the thing that needs fixing. ...........................I don't think it matters where you have Sec Status boundaries. You need to get people to engage more.[/
Thats why im proposing new system which could remove this huge gap, thus getting more ppl from hisec to medium /low sec 
Quote:So.. Concord everywhere except nullsec right? No.
If you have better idea you can propose it here, not just with one word "NO". Maybe 0.3-0.1 dont need any concord at all. Just write here your suggestion.
Quote:dynamic sec staus- I'd make all low security space mutable tbh. It'd be awesome to see pockets of high sec emerge, new routes, new markets. New danger spots. I don't think it would 'break' the game and you can't 'abuse' a system that is entirely intended to be player controlled.
I like this idea
to all others... this is not "whining thread". Im just pointing at huge gap between 0.5 and 0.4 and trying to find good solutions for both sides (hisec and lowsec dwellers). For example removal of sec status loss in low sec would be great reason to go for occasional PvP. Introduction of "low level" concord to low sec gates/staions would bring some stir to gatecampers. Also concord evading in medium sec would be great news for gankers and greater risk for freighters, miners, etc.
...and please, stay on topic, we all know how ISDs are sensitive for off-topic posts
GÇ£If reality can destroy the dream, why shouldn't the dream destroy reality?GÇ¥ |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
10447
|
Posted - 2012.11.26 12:02:00 -
[16] - Quote
Nah. Far too safe.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan. |
Morrigan LeSante
The Lost and Forgotten Troopers
76
|
Posted - 2012.11.26 12:20:00 -
[17] - Quote
The basic premise is that people don't go into low because they don't want to get shot.
Low sec folks want more people there because they want more people to shoot yet ardently oppose any measures which may result in more targets at the expense of slightly harder kills.
One day you will realise you're going to have to meet in the middle and whilst any measures to 'force' people out of high sec will work, it will not be how you expect: They'll go from high sec to another game. Why? Because if they wanted to go into low, they would. Of course, some will argue no loss, that is their right. Sticks work in the real world, not in games. Games need carrots.
Frankly I find it constantly amusing that in one of the biggest sandboxes going, a common viewpoint (of any sec dwellers) seems to be "if you're not playing it my way, you're doing it wrong and I demand CCP take action to make people play how I do" |
TharOkha
0asis Group
149
|
Posted - 2012.11.26 12:22:00 -
[18] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Nah. Far too safe.
And what about current mechanics? isnt 0.5 far far far far too safe? and 0.4 far far far too dangerous?. It is obvious that in speak of balancing, there would be some drawbacks to 0.4 but at the same time there are also drawbacks to 0.5.
GÇ£If reality can destroy the dream, why shouldn't the dream destroy reality?GÇ¥ |
Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility
Casoff
458
|
Posted - 2012.11.26 12:29:00 -
[19] - Quote
I like it all except making 0.3-0.1 space safer and killing fights on gates, makig 0.4 space into highsec, making 0.5 and 0.6 space safer with a '5-20' second response time, and making 0.7-1.0 space SAFE FROM EVERYTHING EXCEPT ALPHA
Actually I hate it |
Sentient Blade
Walk It Off
526
|
Posted - 2012.11.26 12:30:00 -
[20] - Quote
It would make no difference. Gankers can already operate with impunity through a manipulation of the existing game mechanics, such as moving about in pods, boarding ships in safe spots, neutral alts, and grinding sec status to just be high enough to do their next gank.
The system is entirely broken because it lacks "memory". The same offence is treated the same every time, ship destroyed, security status hit. Yet if you show up on an attack point on same gate 30 minutes later in the same type of ship and start behaving in the same way and nothing happens.
In our existing punishment systems as they are today, being "reformed" would grant benefits, while being a "repeat offender" would ensure your punishment was much more severe and lasted longer.
The only way it's going to be brought under control is lock people out of systems for a particular time duration when they commit a certain action there. This would not apply to pods but would prevent traversing, boarding or undocking in a ship. If they repeated their offence the duration would become longer.
I think ganking is a valid part of gameplay, but the risk / reward for it is skewed 100% in favour of the ganker, and a skilled and knowledgeable pilot is in no way inconvenienced by their actions. |
SaKoil
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
8
|
Posted - 2012.11.26 12:40:00 -
[21] - Quote
TharOkha wrote:
1.0 - 0.7 - Highest security, instant concord response time
lol |
Shmoogle Kuni Osukami
Celestial Serenity Incorporated
0
|
Posted - 2012.11.26 15:53:00 -
[22] - Quote
What would happen if CCP turned off God mode for CONCORD?
Like actually have them work more like sleepers rather than indestructible objects with 5000 death lazorz? |
Mag's
the united
Negative Ten.
10733
|
Posted - 2012.11.26 15:57:00 -
[23] - Quote
TharOkha wrote:0.6 - 0.4 - Medium security - concord response time 5-20s. you can evade concord but when they spawn, you cannot destroy them nor survive their superior DPS//scram/ECM/etc... also for evading concord there should be big sec status loss.
0.3 - 0.1 - Low security - gates and stations are the only "secure" space, (on asteroid fields there will be none concord spawns also no sec status loss). response time 30s-60s. No thanks.
Most of the fights in low sec occur on gates and stations, which makes your idea terrible. Let alone the idea of having concord in low, which is equally bad.
CCP Zulu.....
Forcing players to dock at the captain's quarters is a form of what we actually wanted to get through, which is making Incarna a seamless part of the EVE Online experience. |
Destination SkillQueue
Are We There Yet
3012
|
Posted - 2012.11.26 15:58:00 -
[24] - Quote
Shmoogle Kuni Osukami wrote:What would happen if CCP turned off God mode for CONCORD?
Like actually have them work more like sleepers rather than indestructible objects with 5000 death lazorz?
Permanent camps in highsec, that would disrupt the game so badly, that eventually CCP would have to forcefully disperse them. |
Mag's
the united
Negative Ten.
10733
|
Posted - 2012.11.26 16:01:00 -
[25] - Quote
Destination SkillQueue wrote:Shmoogle Kuni Osukami wrote:What would happen if CCP turned off God mode for CONCORD?
Like actually have them work more like sleepers rather than indestructible objects with 5000 death lazorz? Permanent camps in highsec, that would disrupt the game so badly, that eventually CCP would have to forcefully disperse them. This.
Although Concord is a pain, it's also a necessity.
CCP Zulu.....
Forcing players to dock at the captain's quarters is a form of what we actually wanted to get through, which is making Incarna a seamless part of the EVE Online experience. |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
6
|
Posted - 2012.11.26 17:49:00 -
[26] - Quote
TharOkha wrote:Ok, there is a lot of talk about system security status. Does not matter if you are PvP camper or victim, but you all have to agree that there is a huuuuge gap between 0.5 and 0.4. This gap is based on what you can do in 0.4 (instalocking, Smartbombs, indestructible "trash" arround gates to prevent cloaky ship pass through) and what you cannot do in 0.5 (certain death for aggresor, unable to evade concord). So this is my proposal how to rebalance system sec status 1.0 - 0.7 - Highest security, instant concord response time, you cannot evade concord nor destroy them. (as it is now) 0.6 - 0.4 - Medium security - concord response time 5-20s. you can evade concord but when they spawn, you cannot destroy them nor survive their superior DPS//scram/ECM/etc... also for evading concord there should be big sec status loss. 0.3 - 0.1 - Low security - gates and stations are the only "secure" space, (on asteroid fields there will be none concord spawns also no sec status loss). response time 30s-60s. Evading them will not affect secstatus. Also those concord spawns are not so powerfull as hisec version they can be destroyed. 0.0 - lawless space (as it is now) (sec status or response time can be variable - please dont respond to this thread just with "LOL" only if you dont like those numbers) Benefits of this proposed change -chance to survive "suicie" gank in medium sec space -no security status loss in low sec asteroid fields, good for those who would like to PvP but they are affraid of secstat loss and who dont want to join blob bubble party in null. - Spread of PvP fights arround the whole space, not just on gates. Constructive critics only. Leave your Troll-Hammer at home please.
It's a new game, a game most people will not like, the same being vocal about high sec far too secure, the same being vocal about eve economics and putting apples with oranges side to side and compare them with bananas because in the deepest fail of most explanations there's only one reason for such argumentation: do not make pvp actions complicated and have real consequences or the character gaming abilities, do not make FPS in space more complicated than reload and shoot, do not make "I win buttons" for any one else than "me" and etc. etc.
This is a game where choices should have consequences, real consequences and not the joke it is but it's impossible to implement.
You're told to make a choice for your character career but in fact it's a lure, nothing else. You can do anything you like and you wish with no matter the security status because of your previous or future actions, it has absolutely no real impact on your ability to do said things but only how: alts, Orca exploit etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc.
It's not really a sandbox but more of a gravel box in need to be refined, but this is not ready to happen. |
Theodoric Darkwind
PonyWaffe
Test Alliance Please Ignore
195
|
Posted - 2012.11.26 18:49:00 -
[27] - Quote
I think a small adjustment should be done.
highsec - no change from current.
0.4-0.3 - current lowsec mechanics of sentry guns and sec status loss
0.2-0.1 - no sentry guns and no sec status loss, but still disable bubbles and bombs
Also reshuffle the sec status to more accurately reflect the distance from highsec, with systems near highsec being .4-.3 and systems near nullsec being .2-.1. On the same theme of increasing/decreasing empire control make the FW sov systems the border systems closer to highsec and the "pirate" lowsec systems the ones closer to nullsec.
Keep PvE activity in the 0.3-0.4 systems around the current level and make FW the best way to make isk in 0.3-0.4 space.
Buff PvE activity in 0.2-0.1 systems to rival that of nullsec to encourage people to live out there full time, basically a nullsec-lite for those who want to live away from highsec but dont want to be part of the nullsec sov game. |
TharOkha
0asis Group
149
|
Posted - 2012.11.26 21:22:00 -
[28] - Quote
okay and how about this
1.0 - 0.6 - as it is now
0.5 - 0.4 - vulnerable (but powerfull) concord on gates/stations, sec status loss. On asteroid belts, plex etc, no concord, no sec status loss.
0.3 - 0.1 - as it is now, but without sec status loss
Again. This thread is about gap removal between 0.5 - 0.4
GÇ£If reality can destroy the dream, why shouldn't the dream destroy reality?GÇ¥ |
Ditra Vorthran
State War Academy
Caldari State
112
|
Posted - 2012.11.26 21:57:00 -
[29] - Quote
CCP doesn't know what to do with the Low Sec they already have, and you want to create another 'Just-Above-Low Sec.'
"Miners mine so I don't have to." ~Metal Icarus |
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
75
|
Posted - 2012.11.26 22:03:00 -
[30] - Quote
Why do you want 0.1 to 0.6 to be empty, instead of just 0.1 to 0.4 being empty as we have now?
Hard to gank profitably = people there.
Easy to gank = no one there except roving bands of PVPers hoping to run into a smaller roving band of PVPers.
The current low sec = easy to gank, so not one is in 0.1 to 0.4. Your system it would be easy to gank in 0.6 and down, so no one would be there. So, again I ask, why do you want 0.6 and down to be empty instead of just 0.4 and down as we have now?
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |