| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Private Pineapple
Tea And Sympathy Ltd. Liability
Reckless Ambition
380
   |
Posted - 2013.07.09 13:44:00 -
[1] - Quote
Title says it all.
Yesterday I realized that Ignoitton and Carrou are two lowsec systems in a sea of highsec systems. There are a few other lowsec pockets with highsec systems wrapping around that pocket. I marveled at the thought because as I thought it through, it did seem to sound more and more realistic as I applied it to life...
I walk to work through downtown everyday and I see all of these tiny alleyways that could be great "camping" spots for thugs and other lesser creatures. Those would be lowsec pockets in a sea of highsec since downtown cops are on every corner near the bus stops generally since most disturbances happen there. Then you have certain areas where there are just no one there and thus have very very few cops such as the wild west. The mountains of Utah, deserts of New Mexico, and so on apply to this... those would be lowsec systems. "True" nullsec systems IRL would probably be those places with no government such as Somalia. But that is not necessary knowledge to my point.
My point is that IRL there is a relative amount of security in proportion to the activity of one region. "Security" by definition in this post is the amount of cops, NOT the likelihood you will be attacked somewhere. This is to establish a relationship between IRL security and ingame Concord. Quiet regions with little to no traffic don't have many cops (lowsec and nullsec) while other regions with a huge amount of traffic have many cops (highsec).
So what if the security of systems ingame was based on how much traffic there is in a certain system? For example, Jita would obviously be 1.0 because everyone is there. The same goes for the areas near Jita and Amarr. Dodixie and Rens would probably be .9 or .8 in relation to Jita/Amarr. But there would be some limitations/technology to this feature:
- Only so much in game can be flipped to a highsec system. It doesn't make any sense that you could flip a 0.0 system to highsec just because 1000 people play there a lot. So basically all nullsec systems would remain intact. MOST lowsec systems would stay lowsec, but I think weGÇÖd lose a lot of highsec systems as a result because there are many uninhabited highsec systems. The remaining highsec systems would become a much more condensed, small blueberry jelly donut.
- Systems can only be flipped to highsec if they have an adjacent highsec system. This is to prevent a strangeness in the diversity of system security. There could be a highsec system wrapped around a sea of lowsec systems which makes no sense. Cops need to have a highsec chain going from somewhere to another.
- There needs to be some sort of an endurance system for flipping a system to highsec and lowsec. For example, a system can only be increased in security or decreased in security if it consistently (though with a degree of deviation) meets the requirements of a security increase/decrease over a period of time. This is to prevent a 1000 man fleet moving around flipping systems to highsec, which is just silly and unrealistic.
- A long chain of highsec systems in a sea of lowsec systems should be able to be broken, but there should be a weighing algorithm on these systems so that even if there are 10000 people living in the GÇ£lastGÇ¥ highsec system of that highsec system chain, the chains tying that system to a more condensed highsec space weaken and eventually flip these highsec systems one by one. I know there is a graph/matrix/tree algorithm that does this, I forgot what it was though. You could modify a DFS algorithm to detect these chains.
- Systems other than trade hub should have their own requirements for security increase/decrease. Because if Jita is 1.0, this doesnGÇÖt mean Kusomonmon is .3 because only 300 pilots play there. Trade hubs are special exceptions in this feature.
inb4 the annoying guy with sunglasses links me to F&I forum
Anyways, just a thought.
I am the Kingpin of the Crime and Punishment forum. |
Lors Dornick
Kallisti Industries
Solar Assault Fleet
573
|
Posted - 2013.07.09 15:42:00 -
[2] - Quote
F&I Subforum
Glad to be of service.
CCP Eterne: Silly player, ALL devs are evil.
CCP Fozzie: When Veritas describes a programming challenge as "very hard" I tend to believe him.
|
Xercodo
Xovoni Astronautical Manufacturing and Engineering
2490
|
Posted - 2013.07.09 15:54:00 -
[3] - Quote
I'll just leave it at "interesting".
The Drake is a Lie |
Private Pineapple
Tea And Sympathy Ltd. Liability
Reckless Ambition
380
|
Posted - 2013.07.09 16:26:00 -
[4] - Quote
Doc Fury is that annoying sunglasses guy who roleplays a forum vigilante for the ISD.
I am the Kingpin of the Crime and Punishment forum. |
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings
Point Blank Alliance
532
|
Posted - 2013.07.09 16:41:00 -
[5] - Quote
I dunno how interesting this really is, but there are some mechanics issues that would have to be dealt with.
FW would have to be fixed to accomodate it; either you'd end up with flippable highsec systems, or you'd have permanent lowsec systems for FW that are immune to flipping. This might make constructing a 'high sec chain' to certain areas problematic.
Along the same lines, there is no sov in high sec. What happens if someone actually is able to flip a player sov null system to high sec? What happens to capital construction in flipped high sec systems? New capitals are technically banned in high sec, but suddenly you'd have high sec pockets with capitals in them. You can't light cynos in high sec, so JF shipments to these systems would suddenly halt, meaning that you would have to crank up the old school freighter convoys through new high sec 'suicide gank' pipes.
Rifterlings Corporation is now recruiting pilots for faction warfare solo & small gang frigate PvP. Visit our website at www.rifterlings.com or join our in game channel weflyrifters to speak to a recruiter. |
Murk Paradox
Red Tsunami
The Cursed Few
429
|
Posted - 2013.07.09 17:25:00 -
[6] - Quote
I would think pod kills would have a much more relevant factor than just traffic.
If you think about it from a RP factor, Empire space is based on industrial development of the corp/faction that employs Concord and faction police to punish wrongdoers in their space.
Lowsec just has security measures but not personnel, and nullsec is open range territory to be governed by its' inhabitants.
"Never rub another man's rhubarb." -Joker in Batman (Jack Nicholson)
Just get a catalyst, blow him up and the post in local "Just a friendly reminder that I'm mining here and not you." -Abrazzar
|
Private Pineapple
Tea And Sympathy Ltd. Liability
Reckless Ambition
380
|
Posted - 2013.07.09 17:35:00 -
[7] - Quote
Domanique Altares wrote:I dunno how interesting this really is, but there are some mechanics issues that would have to be dealt with.
FW would have to be fixed to accomodate it; either you'd end up with flippable highsec systems, or you'd have permanent lowsec systems for FW that are immune to flipping. This might make constructing a 'high sec chain' to certain areas problematic.
Along the same lines, there is no sov in high sec. What happens if someone actually is able to flip a player sov null system to high sec? What happens to capital construction in flipped high sec systems? New capitals are technically banned in high sec, but suddenly you'd have high sec pockets with capitals in them. You can't light cynos in high sec, so JF shipments to these systems would suddenly halt, meaning that you would have to crank up the old school freighter convoys through new high sec 'suicide gank' pipes.
refer to
Private Pineapple wrote:- Only so much in game can be flipped to a highsec system. It doesn't make any sense that you could flip a 0.0 system to highsec just because 1000 people play there a lot. So basically all nullsec systems would remain intact. MOST lowsec systems would stay lowsec, but I think weGÇÖd lose a lot of highsec systems as a result because there are many uninhabited highsec systems. The remaining highsec systems would become a much more condensed, small blueberry jelly donut.
Current nullsec systems are not eligible for security increase/decreases. FW systems could be made the same way.
I am the Kingpin of the Crime and Punishment forum. |
Murk Paradox
Red Tsunami
The Cursed Few
429
|
Posted - 2013.07.09 17:42:00 -
[8] - Quote
Having FW be an element to raise or lower a security rating isn't a bad idea either.
"Never rub another man's rhubarb." -Joker in Batman (Jack Nicholson)
Just get a catalyst, blow him up and the post in local "Just a friendly reminder that I'm mining here and not you." -Abrazzar
|
Mara Pahrdi
The Order of Anoyia
367
|
Posted - 2013.07.09 18:16:00 -
[9] - Quote
Private Pineapple wrote:Doc Fury is that annoying sunglasses guy who roleplays a forum vigilante for the ISD.
Maybe sometime even Doc Fury needs a break.
Remove insurance. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
4346
|
Posted - 2013.07.09 18:26:00 -
[10] - Quote
In all fairness, although it would need to be fleshed out a bit (especially for Null Sec), this idea has merit.
EVE would more truly be shaped by it's players, and the changes in the map would be facinating to say the least.
To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors.
If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Murk Paradox
Red Tsunami
The Cursed Few
429
|
Posted - 2013.07.09 18:48:00 -
[11] - Quote
Except NBSI works against it.
Provi's NRDS is most likely the closest thing to changing security rating of a system truth be told.
"Never rub another man's rhubarb." -Joker in Batman (Jack Nicholson)
Just get a catalyst, blow him up and the post in local "Just a friendly reminder that I'm mining here and not you." -Abrazzar
|
Evei Shard
206
|
Posted - 2013.07.09 18:52:00 -
[12] - Quote
I'd love to see dynamic sec-status for systems. There have been a number of suggestions as to how it could be done, but CCP's never really moved on it. I wish they would.
Profit favors the prepared |
Andrea Griffin
541
|
Posted - 2013.07.09 18:59:00 -
[13] - Quote
I would also love to see dynamic security. Sadly, I don't think CCP has any real interest...
I know what the end result would be, anyway. A few systems would flip to low-sec, and any high-sec types would leave. The nearby systems would get less traffic and flip. Rinse, repeat. Soon everyone will be huddled together in the half dozen high-sec systems remaining.
Oh well. : <
CCP Sreegs is my favorite developer. |
DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
1148
|
Posted - 2013.07.09 19:48:00 -
[14] - Quote
Posting in a nerf HiSEC into lo/NULL SEC thread
An' then [email protected], he come scramblin outta theTerminal room screaming "The system's crashing! The system'scrashing!" -Uncle RAMus, 'Tales for Cyberpsychotic Children' |
Hessian Arcturus
S.W.O.R.D. Navy
264
|
Posted - 2013.07.09 19:57:00 -
[15] - Quote
Mara Pahrdi wrote:Private Pineapple wrote:Doc Fury is that annoying sunglasses guy who roleplays a forum vigilante for the ISD. Maybe sometime even Doc Fury needs a break.
Im pretty sure the guy breathes heavily down the mic just waiting for the moment to pounce and stike. The guy lives and breathes wannabe ISD. He doesnt take breaks. He's always there...watching...waiting...
And if someone beats him to it, he sacrefices a cat in the name of the overlords...
It's human nature to want to explore. To find your line and go beyond it. The only limit, is the one you set yourself. |
Private Pineapple
Tea And Sympathy Ltd. Liability
Reckless Ambition
385
|
Posted - 2013.07.10 03:47:00 -
[16] - Quote
Hessian Arcturus wrote:Mara Pahrdi wrote:Private Pineapple wrote:Doc Fury is that annoying sunglasses guy who roleplays a forum vigilante for the ISD. Maybe sometime even Doc Fury needs a break. Im pretty sure the guy breathes heavily down the mic just waiting for the moment to pounce and stike. The guy lives and breathes wannabe ISD. He doesnt take breaks. He's always there...watching...waiting... And if someone beats him to it, he sacrefices a cat in the name of the overlords...
So that random dude who beat Doc Fury caused a cat to die?
I am the Kingpin of the Crime and Punishment forum. |
Hessian Arcturus
S.W.O.R.D. Navy
265
|
Posted - 2013.07.10 04:20:00 -
[17] - Quote
Private Pineapple wrote:Hessian Arcturus wrote:Mara Pahrdi wrote:Private Pineapple wrote:Doc Fury is that annoying sunglasses guy who roleplays a forum vigilante for the ISD. Maybe sometime even Doc Fury needs a break. Im pretty sure the guy breathes heavily down the mic just waiting for the moment to pounce and stike. The guy lives and breathes wannabe ISD. He doesnt take breaks. He's always there...watching...waiting... And if someone beats him to it, he sacrefices a cat in the name of the overlords... So that random dude who beat Doc Fury caused a cat to die?
I know right. How inconsiderate!
It's human nature to want to explore. To find your line and go beyond it. The only limit, is the one you set yourself. |
Liafcipe9000
Smeghead Empire
8046
|
Posted - 2013.07.10 06:04:00 -
[18] - Quote
no traffix = nullsecks!
YOU'RE A GENIUS
tl;dr drugs are bad mkay
You may gain the knowledge, but you will lose your belief, with all its mystery and comfort. If there was proof, absolute and certain, there is an afterlife, why not quit this life, and be done with it?
Ponder about these things all your life, and you're a philosopher. Compress these ponderings into a couple of pages, and you'll go mad. |
Private Pineapple
Tea And Sympathy Ltd. Liability
Reckless Ambition
385
|
Posted - 2013.07.10 12:31:00 -
[19] - Quote
Liafcipe9000 wrote:no traffix = nullsecks!
YOU'RE A GENIUS
tl;dr drugs are bad mkay
I am unimpressed.
I am the Kingpin of the Crime and Punishment forum. |
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
2330
|
Posted - 2013.07.10 15:05:00 -
[20] - Quote
Confirming that the mountains of Utah and deserts of New Mexico are basically free-fire zones, as long as you avoid the gate guns at the Colorado border.
I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all. |
Ruskarn Andedare
Lion Investments
221
|
Posted - 2013.07.10 15:19:00 -
[21] - Quote
Cat Killer! |
Ace Uoweme
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
397
|
Posted - 2013.07.10 15:33:00 -
[22] - Quote
Murk Paradox wrote:Having FW be an element to raise or lower a security rating isn't a bad idea either.
Now that is a novel idea.
Something missing in EvE in the sense of fighting for something, not just Everybody versus Everybody (and the mindless direction of it)
How to you reward loyalty? How to you RP working for a corp with missing lore to even fight for?
FW is an mechanic that could change security status if enough of a faction "claims" territory. So all those evil Gallente Goons can meet all the Caldari and Amarr "freedom fighters", in a manner that is continual, not situational.
And added dimension in the game, and promotes the m-a-n-y self-interests in the game.
"In a world of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act."
~George Orwell
|
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
2331
|
Posted - 2013.07.10 16:37:00 -
[23] - Quote
Ace Uoweme wrote:Murk Paradox wrote:Having FW be an element to raise or lower a security rating isn't a bad idea either. Now that is a novel idea. Something missing in EvE in the sense of fighting for something, not just Everybody versus Everybody (and the mindless direction of it)
Yeah, it's a shame CCP hasn't thought of a way for players to fight over something meaningful like their own space to control and do with as they please.
I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all. |
Ace Uoweme
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
397
|
Posted - 2013.07.10 18:40:00 -
[24] - Quote
War Kitten wrote:Ace Uoweme wrote:Murk Paradox wrote:Having FW be an element to raise or lower a security rating isn't a bad idea either. Now that is a novel idea. Something missing in EvE in the sense of fighting for something, not just Everybody versus Everybody (and the mindless direction of it) Yeah, it's a shame CCP hasn't thought of a way for players to fight over something meaningful like their own space to control and do with as they please.
Especially in the blob way.
Gone is the individual can make a difference, replaced as faceless pointmen.
No back story.
No real cause to fight for.
No real consequence, considering the world doesn't change due to the actions.
In WoW when I step into Molten Front it's a green pasture among the fire. One of my alts sees it as starting to turn green. Another alt sees it still a barren hell hole. It's green to me for putting the time in the change to help the factions have a foot hold in that zone.
When I'm in the TBC lands, if I flag myself and turn towers and graveyards, my faction benefits with buffs.
When I'm in Tol Borad, when we defeat the Horde, we get extra quests.
And that's daily, not maybe once in 6 months or years.
It has meaning. It has a purpose. It even comes with lore.
"In a world of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act."
~George Orwell
|
Private Pineapple
Tea And Sympathy Ltd. Liability
Reckless Ambition
388
|
Posted - 2013.07.10 19:07:00 -
[25] - Quote
Ace Uoweme wrote:War Kitten wrote:Ace Uoweme wrote:Murk Paradox wrote:Having FW be an element to raise or lower a security rating isn't a bad idea either. Now that is a novel idea. Something missing in EvE in the sense of fighting for something, not just Everybody versus Everybody (and the mindless direction of it) Yeah, it's a shame CCP hasn't thought of a way for players to fight over something meaningful like their own space to control and do with as they please. Especially in the blob way. Gone is the individual can make a difference, replaced as faceless pointmen. No back story. No real cause to fight for. No real consequence, considering the world doesn't change due to the actions. In WoW when I step into Molten Front it's a green pasture among the fire. One of my alts sees it as starting to turn green. Another alt sees it still a barren hell hole. It's green to me for putting the time in the change to help the factions have a foot hold in that zone. When I'm in the TBC lands, if I flag myself and turn towers and graveyards, my faction benefits with buffs. When I'm in Tol Borad, when we defeat the Horde, we get extra quests. And that's daily, not maybe once in 6 months or years.It has meaning. It has a purpose. It even comes with lore.
During the days of the old honor system in Vanilla WoW, lowbie rogues could make a difference by sapping, stunning, or interrupting the various healers to turn the tides of the forever-ongoing Tarren Hill vs SS turf war. Good times.
I am the Kingpin of the Crime and Punishment forum. |
Erloas
Unorthodox Operations
5
|
Posted - 2013.07.10 19:24:00 -
[26] - Quote
It kind of makes sense but doesn't actually work that well when you expand the idea to more places. IRL a big city is on average much more dangerous then a small town even though there are more people in the big city.
Sure, in said big city you are much less likely to be mugged if there are 100 people around compared to if there is no one around. But in a small town it is likely to never happen regardless of the number of people around.
As far as gameplay though, it would probably make all of those common routes between high-sec hubs that now go through low-sec to then all be high-sec and make moving around high-sec a lot safer. The commonly camped low-sec systems would become high-sec. This would play havoc with setting up POSs and what could be where. Those nice low-sec systems a pirate corp decides to make their own and protect would suddenly become high-sec and screw the pirates over. All of those low-sec pipes from null to high sec would probably get bumped up to high-sec after not too long and then null-sec alliances would have an even easier time moving goods from their space to empire.
I think if anything this idea would kill low-sec space and specifically the people that currently make it their home. |
ASadOldGit
School of Applied Knowledge
199
|
Posted - 2013.07.11 08:32:00 -
[27] - Quote
An issue I have with this is your "exceptions for trade hubs" - what exactly is your definition for "trade hub"?
How would CCP programmatically detect this? (They didn't define Jita as a trade hub - player activity made it that way).
Top 5 systems with trading activity? Top 10? Some other arbitrary number? And what is "activity" - buy orders, sell orders, contracts?
If security status of surrounding systems is potentially changing, these hubs may well move around a bit, or a bunch of smaller ones may replace them. What if a system changes security level, and suddenly becomes a "trade hub"?
The rules defining when a system drops in and out of "trade hub" status sounds like it's going to complicate things.
I can type on the Internet, therefore I must be right. |
Amnesiaa Haze
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
45
|
Posted - 2013.07.11 08:40:00 -
[28] - Quote
I couldn't read it because your post beats around the bush too much... I didn't reach half way before it began to **** me off.
But my 2 cents on all topics such as this one...
It it lowers the security of systems, allows for more ganking and gatecamping... YES.
It it increases the security of systems, preventing ganking and gatecamping... NO. |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |