Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
La Gloria
Brave Newbies Inc.
0
|
Posted - 2013.04.14 23:26:00 -
[1] - Quote
Players who fly and PvP in low sec get punitive Security Status just by engaging in what is typically consensual PvP.
This is because the first of two players who "touch" a player or ship. In most cases, players not only are willing to engage, but consider risky behavior part of "why" they are in Low-sec.
So I recommend the following to reduce the number of Sec Reducing incidents:
- Dramatically increase the Suspect timer when performing an action in low sec. Like to 60 min.
This will make people who are engaging in PvP get much fewer sec status when brawling with other Pro-PvP players.
- Reduce the security status hit when someone has their Suspect Timer on. So for example they get a -0.1% hit if they engage when they are not currently flagged as suspect, but only -0.05%. This makes players who are planning on engaging in PvP a reason to proactively turn on the suspect timer.
- Provide a "Turn on Suspect" toggle and/or a "When in low-sec enable Suspect".
Because of the benefits of having suspect turned on, enable a way to keep your suspect timer turned on whenever you are in a low sec system.
Podding can still take a Sec Status hit.
What can happen is that Low Sec corps can institute a "Suspect Only" policy, allowing pvp among consenting players. This means that players can live and pvp in low sec without being forced into Pirate sec status by only engaging War Targets, Active PvP players and Pirates. |
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors Late Night Alliance
2209
|
Posted - 2013.04.15 00:10:00 -
[2] - Quote
Or... better yet... attack the plethora of -10s found throughout low-sec with impunity. No sec-status hit, no gate/station guns, no suspect timer.
You can also go -10 yourself and bait people into attacking you. Or attack them anyways (because most people are too skittish to attack you unless you are taking gate/station gun fire). Change isn't bad, but it isn't always good. Sometimes, the oldest and most simple of things can be the most elegant and effective. |
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
14704
|
Posted - 2013.04.16 22:22:00 -
[3] - Quote
ShahFluffers wrote:Or... better yet... attack the plethora of -10s found throughout low-sec with impunity. No sec-status hit, no gate/station guns, no suspect timer.
You can also go -10 yourself and bait people into attacking you. Or attack them anyways (because most people are too skittish to attack you unless you are taking gate/station gun fire).
Malcanis for CSM 8. Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless. |
Katie Frost
Asgard. Exodus.
156
|
Posted - 2013.04.17 01:53:00 -
[4] - Quote
ShahFluffers wrote:Or... better yet... attack the plethora of -10s found throughout low-sec with impunity. No sec-status hit, no gate/station guns, no suspect timer.
You can also go -10 yourself and bait people into attacking you. Or attack them anyways (because most people are too skittish to attack you unless you are taking gate/station gun fire).
Yeah, I gather that one of the points of this proposal was to save the inevitable sec-status hit that one would be faced with when engaging non -10 targets (or > -5.0) in low-sec GÇô thereby avoiding the limitations imposed on a character with low sec status (i.e. no high-sec entry).
I think that the overall idea of making changes to the current security status mechanics in low-sec PvP is worthy of further discussion. This could only improve the profile of engagements and available targets in this area and potentially reduce one of the barriers of entry to low-sec.
|
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
14705
|
Posted - 2013.04.17 10:11:00 -
[5] - Quote
Katie Frost wrote:Yeah, I gather that one of the points of this proposal was to save the inevitable sec-status hit that one would be faced with when engaging non -10 targets (or > -5.0) in low-sec GÇô thereby avoiding the limitations imposed on a character with low sec status (i.e. no high-sec entry). Being -10, doesn't mean 'no high sec entry'. Malcanis for CSM 8. Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless. |
Katie Frost
Asgard. Exodus.
156
|
Posted - 2013.04.17 22:37:00 -
[6] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Katie Frost wrote:Yeah, I gather that one of the points of this proposal was to save the inevitable sec-status hit that one would be faced with when engaging non -10 targets (or > -5.0) in low-sec GÇô thereby avoiding the limitations imposed on a character with low sec status (i.e. no high-sec entry). Being -10, doesn't mean 'no high sec entry'.
Thanks Mag's.
Poor choice of words there, I agree but I think that everyone is well aware of the limitations placed on -10 player in high-sec space, which was what I was getting at. I am also aware fully of ways to be > -5.0 and still function without any significant issues in low-sec (alts, neutral logistics etc.) but this is beside the point - I only mention it here to avoid the inevitable: "you can still be -10 and get ships etc out via (a), (b), (c)... from high-sec" argument. |
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |