EVE Search - System security rebalance, introduction of medium security space

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

System security rebalance, introduction of medium security space

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

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?
LHA Tarawa Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic 75	Posted - 2012.11.26 22:05:00 - [31] - Quote TharOkha wrote: Again. This thread is about gap removal between 0.5 - 0.4 To what end? Any place that it is possible to gank profitably, there will be lots of ganks, so it will be empty. This "gap removal" will not remove the "lots of ganks"/"not lot of ganks" gap. It will simply shift the level where ganks happen, meaning no one will be there.
Darth Gustav Interwebs Cooter Explosion Fatal Ascension 1822	Posted - 2012.11.26 22:05:00 - [32] - Quote TharOkha wrote: 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 No it's not. It's pretty clearly about making low-sec almost as safe and sterile as high-sec was before CCP buffed CONCORD. This is more of the same, "I want less risk in Eve Online but for the same (or greater) payout." Just call it what it is and move on. Working as intended. He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom
Ginger Barbarella State War Academy Caldari State 255	Posted - 2012.11.26 22:31:00 - [33] - Quote Working perfectly fine as intended. Next topic?
Mag's the united Negative Ten. 10733	Posted - 2012.11.27 02:18:00 - [34] - Quote Darth Gustav wrote: TharOkha wrote: 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 No it's not. It's pretty clearly about making low-sec almost as safe and sterile as high-sec was before CCP buffed CONCORD. This is more of the same, "I want less risk in Eve Online but for the same (or greater) payout." Just call it what it is and move on. Working as intended. This. 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.
Johan Civire Dirty Curse inc. 200	Posted - 2012.11.27 02:23:00 - [35] - Quote
KrakizBad Eve Defence Force Fatal Ascension 1150	Posted - 2012.11.27 03:37:00 - [36] - Quote TharOkha wrote: 1.0 - 0.7 - Highest security, instant concord response time, you cannot evade concord nor destroy them. Posting in yet another 'nerf gankers' thread. www.minerbumping.com - because your tears are delicious
Shederov Blood Wrecketeers 278	Posted - 2012.11.27 03:50:00 - [37] - Quote Secs, secs, secs, is that all you can think about?
Karrl Tian Yarrbusters 42	Posted - 2012.11.27 04:12:00 - [38] - Quote So...you want to extend highsec to 0.4 now? Btw, CC response time already goes down with sec status.
Ager Agemo Saturn Reaper 127	Posted - 2012.11.27 04:27:00 - [39] - Quote actually I would leave the system just the way it is right now with a very little change to 0.5 ,concord should be avoidable in this sec and not be absolute
Oopsy Bear Massively Masochistic Machos 12	Posted - 2012.11.27 04:30:00 - [40] - Quote TharOkha wrote: So this is my proposal how to rebalance system sec status (ver 2.0 here ) ... Constructive critics only. Leave your Troll-Hammer at home please. I get that not everyone likes hi-sec. I really do. I just wish the people who don't play there would stop trying to "fix" it.
TharOkha 0asis Group 150	Posted - 2012.11.27 05:58:00 - [41] - Quote Quote: It's pretty clearly about making low-sec almost as safe and sterile as high-sec Yes, because my proposal of removing sec status loss in lowsec will defintely make it safer. and about this... Quote: Posting in yet another 'nerf gankers' thread. Quote: This is more of the same, "I want less risk in Eve Online but for the same (or greater) payout." idiocy in GD is reaching astronomical levels . I have a proposal of removing gap between 0.5 and 0.4 finding some compromise between those "two worlds" and not just that, i have proposed to remove any security loss in lowsec BUT I !!! "want to make hisec safer". OK ISD, lock this thread. It seems that i will not find any reasonable disscussion here. . GÇ£If reality can destroy the dream, why shouldn't the dream destroy reality?GÇ¥
baltec1 Bat Country 2952	Posted - 2012.11.27 06:59:00 - [42] - Quote TharOkha wrote: Quote: It's pretty clearly about making low-sec almost as safe and sterile as high-sec Yes, because my proposal of removing sec status loss in lowsec will defintely make it safer. and about this... Quote: Posting in yet another 'nerf gankers' thread. Quote: This is more of the same, "I want less risk in Eve Online but for the same (or greater) payout." idiocy in GD is reaching astronomical levels . I have a proposal of removing gap between 0.5 and 0.4 finding some compromise between those "two worlds" and not just that, i have proposed to remove any security loss in lowsec BUT I !!! "want to make hisec safer". OK ISD, lock this thread. It seems that i will not find any reasonable disscussion here. . Thats because its a bad idea. You are effectivly removing low sec and the people who live there dont like that.
Herr Hammer Draken 165	Posted - 2012.11.27 07:18:00 - [43] - 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 (ver 2.0 here ) 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. I am going to have to say about 70% of the players that play eve already do not understand the current high and low sec security status game mechanics. Your proposed idea would only make this condition worse. I am also guessing your main idea to change this is to gain some access to 0.4 systems ore belts. If not that would become part of an unintended consequence of your idea. Which would then require a rework of the belts in 0.4 systems. Herr Hammer Draken "The Amarr Prophet"
TharOkha 0asis Group 150	Posted - 2012.11.27 08:24:00 - [44] - Quote Herr Hammer Draken wrote: I am also guessing your main idea to change this is to gain some access to 0.4 systems ore belts. why do you think so? Quote: If not that would become part of an unintended consequence of your idea. Which would then require a rework of the belts in 0.4 systems. Well i dont have a problem with that. if this change requires belts rework then let it be. Quote: Thats because its a bad idea. You are effectivly removing low sec and the people who live there dont like that. look at ver 2. There is no removing of lowsec. GÇ£If reality can destroy the dream, why shouldn't the dream destroy reality?GÇ¥
Ghazu 300	Posted - 2012.11.27 08:35:00 - [45] - Quote Um just no, no concord ever in a 0.4. http://www.minerbumping.com/
Darth Gustav Interwebs Cooter Explosion Fatal Ascension 1823	Posted - 2012.11.27 08:50:00 - [46] - Quote TharOkha wrote: Yes, because my proposal of removing sec status loss in lowsec will defintely make it safer. ...stuff... idiocy in GD is reaching astronomical levels . I have a proposal of removing gap between 0.5 and 0.4 finding some compromise between those "two worlds" and not just that, i have proposed to remove any security loss in lowsec BUT I !!! "want to make hisec safer". OK ISD, lock this thread. It seems that i will not find any reasonable disscussion here. . With CONCORD on the gates and stations, it's not like that will really matter. He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom
baltec1 Bat Country 2956	Posted - 2012.11.27 08:50:00 - [47] - Quote Quote: look at ver 2. There is no removing of lowsec. Given that most fights and traffic takes place at gates and stations this cant be seen as anything other than a nerf to the people of low sec.
TharOkha 0asis Group 150	Posted - 2012.11.27 08:57:00 - [48] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Given that most fights and traffic takes place at gates and stations this cant be seen as anything other than a nerf to the people of low sec. This change would affect 0.4 and 0.5. So it is not "nerf to lowsec people" but hisec people too. Its a little bit of nerf/buff to both 0.4 and 0.5. Quote: With CONCORD on the gates and stations, it's not like that will really matter. And if you read it again you will find that it will affect 0.4 and 0.5 only and we would call it medium sec. 0.4 would be a slightly more secure and 0.5 would be a slightly less secure. GÇ£If reality can destroy the dream, why shouldn't the dream destroy reality?GÇ¥
Mag's the united Negative Ten. 10735	Posted - 2012.11.27 11:38:00 - [49] - Quote TharOkha wrote: baltec1 wrote: Given that most fights and traffic takes place at gates and stations this cant be seen as anything other than a nerf to the people of low sec. This change would affect 0.4 and 0.5. So it is not "nerf to lowsec people" but hisec people too. Its a little bit of nerf/buff to both 0.4 and 0.5. Quote: With CONCORD on the gates and stations, it's not like that will really matter. And if you read it again you will find that it will affect 0.4 and 0.5 only and we would call it medium sec. 0.4 would be a slightly more secure and 0.5 would be a slightly less secure. You're basically nerfing mining and mission running in .5 and pirating in .4 systems. No thanks. 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.
TharOkha 0asis Group 151	Posted - 2012.11.27 13:49:00 - [50] - Quote Mag's wrote: You're basically nerfing mining and mission running in .5 and pirating in .4 systems. No thanks. Every coin has two sides. This "medium sec" would also buff piracy in 0.5 and buffing mission runing in 0.4 GÇ£If reality can destroy the dream, why shouldn't the dream destroy reality?GÇ¥
highonpop Eve Liberation Force Fatal Ascension 404	Posted - 2012.11.27 14:32:00 - [51] - Quote They just put training wheels on. You can actually have settings to keep you from shooting? Noob Pussies. Sorry, not sorry. Its part of the harshness of eve. Learning what you can and can't do, and where you can and can't do it and who you can and can't do it to. YOU HAVE TO CLICK A POP UP THAT SAYS THIS IS DANGEROUS! YOU KNOW THAT ITS DANGEROUS! IF YOU CLICK THE BOX TO NOT SHOW AGAIN ITS YOUR DAMN FAULT We shouldn't need settings on our ships to keep us from doing something stupid. http://www.soundboard.com/sb/Very%20best%20of%20Makalu%20Zarya R.I.P Vile Rat http://evemaps.dotlan.net/live/Outpost/Rename/2012-09-12
Warde Guildencrantz TunDraGon 305	Posted - 2012.11.27 14:45:00 - [52] - Quote instigating NPCs podding anyone ever totally breaks the meaningfulness of podding someone personally. Stop proposing it, podding is supposed to be a slap in the face from someone who hates you, or because you didn't pay ransom.
Mallak Azaria GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 1164	Posted - 2012.11.27 15:34:00 - [53] - 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 (ver 2.0 here ) 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. I'd just like to say that the following statement is not a troll: This is a stupid idea & you should feel stupid. Crimewatch 2.0: Protecting stupid people & rewarding lazy people. This hurts the smart & industrious people by making their intelligence & industry provide them with less benefit over the stupid & lazy people. ~ Ruby Porto
Flurk Hellbron Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 162	Posted - 2012.11.27 16:41:00 - [54] - Quote Nope

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.