EVE Search - The creeping 'Civilisation' of 0.0 space and Anarchy in Empire

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

The creeping 'Civilisation' of 0.0 space and Anarchy in Empire

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Pistonbroke	Posted - 2005.05.27 08:25:00 - [1] Are there any plans for Concord to move the security status of systems depending on the amount of traffic/market/number of gankings etc.... it strikes me if we use the american 'wild west' as a parallel, unlawful areas were made lawful by settling and previously lawful areas became wild when the reason for people being there in numbers dried up (exploitable local resources etc) So could we see gradual waves of law and lawlessness sweeping across space, moving choke points, trapping goods in newly lawless areas, or just making them less secure i.e. lesss than 0.4. This would be (in my opinion) a great way of maintaining interest and giving a genuine feeling of a universe in the throes of change "Damn, have you heard? Concord have pulled out of Yulai again" "yeah, but on the bright side, ya can now get thru RF-94R and there's a run on Mega bearing minerals in a 0.3 sec system" Any thoughts on how this could be made to work? i.e. the triggers for the security statuses to slide - this could be an opportunity for genuine power stuggles between industrial, concord supported space expansion and the struggle of the anarchic element to reclaim areas from strangling by care bears.
Discorporation	Posted - 2005.05.27 08:31:00 - [2] Originally by: Pistonbroke Are there any plans for Concord to move the security status of systems depending on the amount of traffic/market/number of gankings etc.... it strikes me if we use the american 'wild west' as a parallel, unlawful areas were made lawful by settling and previously lawful areas became wild when the reason for people being there in numbers dried up (exploitable local resources etc)p Yeh, players are settling and making laws (that usually come to GET ORF MAY LAYND!) [Heterocephalus glaber]
Pistonbroke	Posted - 2005.05.27 09:22:00 - [3] Originally by: Discorporation GET ORF MAY LAYND! This is already happening in some areas, there are anti-pirate corps who are keeping areas clear of the lawless types - the question is, should Concord move in to support this, and the security status shift to reflect this? Likewise, areas where miners are ganked on a daily basis for mining in 0.4, 0.3 etc, and where groups of pirates tank the sentry guns, perhaps these should take a knock and become lower security to reflect their anarchic nature....?
Rod Blaine	Posted - 2005.05.27 09:28:00 - [4] Edited by: Rod Blaine on 27/05/2005 09:30:31 Originally by: Pistonbroke - the question is, should Concord move in to support this, and the security status shift to reflect this? Well, no. In empire, it might make some sense to do that, dynamic sec rating based on non- war agression. But in the end, all it would endus up with is 0.5+ systems there since in 0.5+ you can't bring the rating down anymore because agression is suicide. Unless of course suiciding alts have a big enough effect, in which case you will end up with all space < 0.5 because it'll become the next suicide alt fad to make it so. (I'm ofc overstating the actual effects, but you can see the point) It's got a big nightmare potential. For 0.0 space, definately not. Players must make the safety effort there. If there aren't enough player tools to do that with, ask for more. But don't ask for NPC intervention in 0.0 space because that goes directly against the whole idea of 0.0 space (and this game). So all in all, I doubt it would do us any good no matter the form. _______________________________________________ Yes yes, blogging is passÚ I know. Rod's Ramblingz on Eve-Online Solutions to your issues.
Discorporation	Posted - 2005.05.27 09:30:00 - [5] Originally by: Pistonbroke This is already happening in some areas, there are anti-pirate corps who are keeping areas clear of the lawless types - the question is, should Concord move in to support this, and the security status shift to reflect this? Hmm, no. 0.0 is space that's colonised by players. Concord shouldn't have a say in it, sicne they're not players Originally by: Pistonbroke Likewise, areas where miners are ganked on a daily basis for mining in 0.4, 0.3 etc, and where groups of pirates tank the sentry guns, perhaps these should take a knock and become lower security to reflect their anarchic nature....? I'd like that :0 [Heterocephalus glaber]
Kade Shaderow	Posted - 2005.05.27 09:30:00 - [6] Edited by: Kade Shaderow on 27/05/2005 09:31:14 CONCORD moving in would have to be with the consent of the Alliances. CONCORD isn't a ***** army, it's a police force, it only operates where it has jurisdiction, which is enshrined by treaties with sovereign nations**, not military might.
ollobrains	Posted - 2005.05.27 09:32:00 - [7] thats what 0.0 and player conqueorable stations are for the alliances ebb and flow in 0.0 space. Still an interesting idea for more dynamic movement within the universe
Pistonbroke	Posted - 2005.05.27 09:45:00 - [8] Originally by: Rod Blaine Edited by: Rod Blaine on 27/05/2005 09:30:31 in the end, all it would end up with is 0.5+ systems there since in 0.5+ you can't bring the rating down anymore because agression is suicide. quote] I take your point Rod - perhaps this could be mitigated by a shift in sec rating having a knock on effect on the surrounding regions, so that the empire/empire but not secure/ non empire boundarys are still maintained. It just strikes me as unrealistic that the security status of systems should remain set in stone as they currently are; the game is dynamic in so many other ways that this seems strange. A change of this nature could add real interest and content to the game.
Pistonbroke	Posted - 2005.05.27 10:00:00 - [9] Another thought strikes me... perhaps wars could also have an effect on the lawfulness / lawlessness of a system - if it's a constant battleground, then perhaps its time for that status to start sliding..........
ollobrains	Posted - 2005.05.27 10:02:00 - [10] perhaps something in addition to sec status dunno what - bring back concord agents make them dynamic based upon combat and other data. This theory could be applied to the dynamic pigs in space agent changes coming with COSMOS

Pistonbroke	Posted - 2005.05.27 10:14:00 - [11] PIGS IN SPAAAACE.
Rod Blaine	Posted - 2005.05.27 10:15:00 - [12] Quote: Another thought strikes me... perhaps wars could also have an effect on the lawfulness / lawlessness of a system - if it's a constant battleground, then perhaps its time for that status to start sliding.......... Well, that would hit playability alot I'm afraid. You see, the systems that would drop down to low sec first because of that would be the highway ones, since those see exceptional amounts of corporation warfare compared to other systems. There might be a way for empire systems to have dynamically determined security status, but it'll change a LOT, and take even more to be balanced right without leaving too much room for useless destructive tendencies. Originally by: ollobrains perhaps something in addition to sec status dunno what - bring back concord agents make them dynamic based upon combat and other data. This theory could be applied to the dynamic pigs in space agent changes coming with COSMOS Sorry Ollo, but you totally lost me again there. I thought you were like autralian ? Please phrase somewhat more clearly if you at least want me to attempt to understand what you write. _______________________________________________ Yes yes, blogging is passÚ I know. Rod's Ramblingz on Eve-Online Solutions to your issues.
Pistonbroke	Posted - 2005.05.27 10:33:00 - [13] Originally by: Rod Blaine Quote: Another thought strikes me... perhaps wars could also have an effect on the lawfulness / lawlessness of a system - if it's a constant battleground, then perhaps its time for that status to start sliding.......... Well, that would hit playability alot I'm afraid. You see, the systems that would drop down to low sec first because of that would be the highway ones, since those see exceptional amounts of corporation warfare compared to other systems. quote] Perhaps if this equation was balanced by the amount of traffic, or average number of pilots in system against the number of ship losses then you might gain a true picture of the average levels of shall we say "anti social behaviour" - Although wars are lawful, not everyone wants to live in a war zone - Think back to CNN footage the poor civvies living in Beruit, Palestine, Grozny or any other highly populated war zone - those that can move out move out, and the usual forces of law and order become ineffectual at maintaining peace while the armies (navies) of opposing factions are raining down fiery hell upon each other.
Discorporation	Posted - 2005.05.27 10:35:00 - [14] Empire sec status changes should be storyline related, not player traffic related [Heterocephalus glaber]
Pistonbroke	Posted - 2005.05.27 10:39:00 - [15] Originally by: Discorporation Empire sec status changes should be storyline related, not player traffic related Surely the long term ideal of an MMORPG is that WE make the stories?
Discorporation	Posted - 2005.05.27 10:46:00 - [16] Originally by: Pistonbroke Surely the long term ideal of an MMORPG is that WE make the stories? That's all marketig lingo :D Empire space = storyline driven content changes (with player influencing what happens, of course), 0.0 = people make their own stories [Heterocephalus glaber]
Pistonbroke	Posted - 2005.05.27 10:58:00 - [17] and never the twain shall meet eh? I like the idea of gray areas in between this mass of black and white. But thank you for your input.
ollobrains	Posted - 2005.05.27 11:00:00 - [18] The imput is good but i wonder how the NWO and COSMOS fit into this idea. CCP have their long term plans in place and are moving forward.
Discorporation	Posted - 2005.05.27 11:04:00 - [19] Originally by: Pistonbroke and never the twain shall meet eh? In an ideal world, the two would be merged, you'rte right Originally by: Pistonbroke But thank you for your input. No problem [Heterocephalus glaber]
GoGo Yubari	Posted - 2005.05.27 11:07:00 - [20] From the dev blogs, it seems they are considering this sort of thing already. I guess the controlling alliances would foot the bill and oversee it, though. Kinda like they do now, except with some embedded game-mechanical support. Implemented right, it sounds like a great idea.

Pistonbroke	Posted - 2005.05.27 11:08:00 - [21] Good point Ollobrains - perhaps we could get some Dev feedback on the subject - Does the NWO include any Dynamic changes to security status, or do they feel this would be just too upsetting to anyone who might find their stuff stuck in a sea of lawlessness / Poor poor pirates who might lose their favorite gank system?
Sergeant Spot	Posted - 2005.05.27 11:17:00 - [22] Dynamic system security might be interesting, but with some hard limits. 0.0 getting shrunk would be as bad as 0.5+ being shrunk. Still, some fluidity might interesting


Pages: [1] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last 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.