Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
JetStream Drenard
EVE University Ivy League
2
|
Posted - 2014.02.08 18:10:00 -
[1] - Quote
I can not find any serious OP's about making High and Low Sec systems better or at least more dynamic. Other then some complaining about injustice and what not.
The Proposal Make high sec and low sec a player driven experience. Essentially this would use similar game mechanics to sovereignty and Faction Warfare.
- Create CONCORD Security Hubs which could be dropped in a system to establish CONCORD security, in order to keep high sec or even turn low sec into high sec.
- Create CONCORD Security Barracks which could be dropped anywhere in a CONCORD Hub system to put and keep CONCORD on grid with the Barracks at all times. (including stations, gates, belts, etc.)
- Nerf CONCORD but create a security driven escalation mechanic (up to and including titans) that ensures no groups could beat CONCORD indefinitely.
- Keep the CONCORD response time as similar to existing game mechanics for any grid that does not contain a CONCORD Barracks, but does contain a CONCORD Hub.
- Create System Security Blockade units which could be dropped in a system and used to diminish or drive out CONCORD and thereby turn high sec into low sec.
- Allow a game mechanic that would allow players to attack and destroy any of these new Security Control Devices (CONCORD Hubs and Security Blockade Units). This would be biased towards High Sec as the attack of a CONCORD Hub or Barracks would generate a CONCORD response.
- Make the Security Control Devices (Hubs and Blockades) upgradeable via the use of either ISK or LP, in order to tune the actual system security up and down the scale.
- Allow Titans back into High Sec.
- Make CONCORD equal to the best skills in the game, combined with the best mods and ships, combined with the best implants, combined with full Boosts. + a little extra on top of that to ensure that they are a realistic threat and not to be taken lightly.
- Make CONCORD use Scrams, Webs, EWAR, and weapons to ensure destruction of aggressors, instead of insta-killing machines. Maybe each CONCORD could have 3-4 30km scrams to make sure that aggressors had to deal with the police before running off.
- CONCORD would have the best AI algorithms in the game.
- Certain systems would be un-assailable high sec, such as newbie systems and 'maybe' some trade hubs
- In order to get the ball rolling on the release of these things, CCP would give every high sec system an appropriately upgraded CONCORD Security Hub, that would then be left to the players to keep, upgrade or destroy.
I think this might come close to solving problems with high and low sec, as well as, for both care bears and pirates. The care bears would be ensured protection from gank as long as they install, keep, and maintain the CONCORD infrastructure appropriately. It would also insure the care bears function cooperatively, as the MMO is designed, to keep their security in place. And it would also require them to participate in the game to a higher degree OR join / pay an corp / alliance to do it for them. The pirates could destroy most of high sec if they banded together, and/or force certain isolation's upon high sec areas. They could also surprise the care bears who did not maintain their security infrastructure, and or potentially escape with their ships intact after a gank.
I ask that you keep this a relevant and constructive exchange of ideas. If you dont like the idea or part of it, please explain why. And offer your own ideas on how to change the system security mechanics, or to just leave them as they are. This would revolutionize systems security as well as create a very useful ISK sink (and more CCP revenue) as ships are lost attacking concord, and Security contol devices are bought and deployed.
|
Mag's
the united SCUM.
16663
|
Posted - 2014.02.08 18:11:00 -
[2] - Quote
You'll find a similar idea on page one here. If you had bothered to look.
It's a no.
Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless. |
JetStream Drenard
EVE University Ivy League
2
|
Posted - 2014.02.08 18:11:00 -
[3] - Quote
reserved for cosolidation of other peoples great ideas |
JetStream Drenard
EVE University Ivy League
2
|
Posted - 2014.02.08 18:14:00 -
[4] - Quote
Mag's wrote:You'll find a similar idea on page one here. If you had bothered to look.
It's a no. obviously you didnt read it based upon your instant post. and yes i posted on that one too. but there were no suggestions to tie peoples thought together. |
Mag's
the united SCUM.
16663
|
Posted - 2014.02.08 18:21:00 -
[5] - Quote
JetStream Drenard wrote:Mag's wrote:You'll find a similar idea on page one here. If you had bothered to look.
It's a no. obviously you didnt read it based upon your instant post. and yes i posted on that one too. but there were no suggestions to tie peoples thought together. I did read it, you claim you are solving 'problems', yet do not list what they are. You also wish for sec status to be player driven, like the other thread.
It's far too open for abuse by large organisations, (like the other thread) and for that reason alone, it's a no.
Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless. |
Danika Princip
Freelance Economics Astrological resources Tactical Narcotics Team
2440
|
Posted - 2014.02.08 18:23:00 -
[6] - Quote
JetStream Drenard wrote:
Nerf CONCORD but create a security driven escalation mechanic (up to and including titans) that ensures no groups could beat CONCORD indefinitely.
We could and we would, and you know it. |
JetStream Drenard
EVE University Ivy League
2
|
Posted - 2014.02.08 18:37:00 -
[7] - Quote
Danika Princip wrote:JetStream Drenard wrote:
Nerf CONCORD but create a security driven escalation mechanic (up to and including titans) that ensures no groups could beat CONCORD indefinitely. We could and we would, and you know it. Honestly I dont know how you could without losing something. assuming that CONCORD keeps respawning and they have a ton of super long range scrams that ignore warp core stabs, then you are going to fight for hours to extract a few ships. And then if you did, good for you. Or at least that is how I envision it. you would be better off reducing or eliminating their infrastructure. I dont know how the complete mechanics would work its just a very rough outline |
JetStream Drenard
EVE University Ivy League
2
|
Posted - 2014.02.08 18:54:00 -
[8] - Quote
Mag's wrote:It's far too open for abuse by large organisations, (like the other thread) and for that reason alone, it's a no. The current system is already abused by powerful and wealthy corporations, that is part of the game and what makes it so good. And who is to say that industrial power blocs wont form to combat the powerful pirate blocs. I think it would be more dynamic, and would create more interesting game play. And yes, there are many similar threads but no one attempts to lay down a means of completing their stated objective, which is what I tried to do and what I try to encourage others to contribute to it, to fix its flaws and improve on its strengths. |
JetStream Drenard
EVE University Ivy League
2
|
Posted - 2014.02.08 19:03:00 -
[9] - Quote
oops |
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors Late Night Alliance
4863
|
Posted - 2014.02.08 19:08:00 -
[10] - Quote
JetStream Drenard wrote:Danika Princip wrote:JetStream Drenard wrote:
Nerf CONCORD but create a security driven escalation mechanic (up to and including titans) that ensures no groups could beat CONCORD indefinitely. We could and we would, and you know it. Honestly I dont know how you could without losing something. History tells otherwise.
When CONCORD was tankable (some 7 or 8 years ago) several "pirate" groups locked down various high-sec chokepoints and camped them for HOURS. CONCORD damage was buffed and the "escalation" mechanic was introduced... and they just brought more numbers with more remote repairs to compensate. NOTE: They never actually "beat" CONCORD... they just held CONCORD at bay.
People TRIED to take them on (while CONCORD still applied damage) and they all died miserably. It took GMs to scatter-teleport them around the map the break up the camps.
The lessons learned from this were...
- players are "extreme." - players will employ "extreme" tactics if they think it's fun/funny enough. - you can't force or even encourage players to behave a certain way without also resorting to equally "extreme" responses. - most players are lemmings that can't (or don't want to) defend themselves against vastly larger and more organized players. - some people just want to see the world burn... because they think it's fun/funny.
I would also like to remind you OP how powerful remote repair abilities are on capital ships (don't think I missed that in your OP)... 10 carriers/supercarriers remote-repairing a combined ~50,000 to 90,000 hp/sec along with jump capabilities and minimum 1.5 to 2 million EHP tanks makes them grossly overpowered for high-sec (as it currently is) and grossly abuseable combined with your ideas.
edit:
JetStream Drenard wrote:And who is to say that industrial power blocs wont form to combat the powerful pirate blocs. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA....
... oh wait... you're serious?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA... 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. |
|
Scuzzy Logic
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
135
|
Posted - 2014.02.08 19:16:00 -
[11] - Quote
CCP will start fixing CONCORD after they've fixed insurance contracts. (Seriously, Pend Insurance is likely staffed bt griefers and their ISK and noobship factories must run on tears.)
Anyone else think it's pretty stupid CONCORD shoots the offending ship to shreds but doesn't even bother repping the damaged ship? They just sit there...
All-in-all EVE has the worst legal system ever. Even the Divine laws of the Amarr probably aren't that ********. |
JetStream Drenard
EVE University Ivy League
2
|
Posted - 2014.02.08 19:18:00 -
[12] - Quote
ShahFluffers wrote:When CONCORD was tankable (some 7 or 8 years ago) several "pirate" groups locked down various high-sec chokepoints and camped them for HOURS. CONCORD damage was buffed and the "escalation" mechanic was introduced... and they just brought more numbers with more remote repairs to compensate. NOTE: They never actually "beat" CONCORD... they just held CONCORD at bay.
People TRIED to take them on (while CONCORD still applied damage) and they all died miserably. It took GMs to scatter-teleport them around the map the break up the camps.
I would also like to remind you OP how powerful remote repair abilities are on capital ships (don't think I missed that in your OP)... 10 carriers/supercarriers remote-repairing a combined ~90,000 to 100,000 hp/sec along with jump capabilities and minimum 1.5 to 2 million EHP tanks makes them grossly overpowered for high-sec (as it currently is) and grossly abuseable combined with your ideas.
I see your point, what would you suggest? You dont think that infinitely superior concord with boatloads of DPS and ewar, could eventually overpower any aggressor fleet?
ShahFluffers wrote:edit: JetStream Drenard wrote:And who is to say that industrial power blocs wont form to combat the powerful pirate blocs. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA.... ... oh wait... you're serious?HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA... Maybe not. But with the bias against destroying concord and hi sec, ya never know. I dont know, your probably right. guess it was just wishful out side the box thinking.
|
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors Late Night Alliance
4864
|
Posted - 2014.02.08 19:30:00 -
[13] - Quote
Scuzzy Logic wrote:Anyone else think it's pretty stupid CONCORD shoots the offending ship to shreds but doesn't even bother repping the damaged ship? They just sit there... They are there to punish (see: enforce a "cost" on) the offenders' actions... beyond that it is purely up to the individual player to protect themselves.
Scuzzy Logic wrote:All-in-all EVE has the worst legal system ever. Even the Divine laws of the Amarr probably aren't that ********. Well... this is a game based on a dystopian future after all (see: things are supposed to be "dysfunctional"). 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. |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
204
|
Posted - 2014.02.08 19:49:00 -
[14] - Quote
Is it really necessary to push highsec in particular and the game in general even deeper into the chaos? I have an idea: Let's do this for 2 weeks. 2 weeks. Let's change the game in this or the way the other page 1 topic suggested. CCP should change the game so that this whining stops and the other whining, the whining of those who want these changes start. I'm kind of fed up with these "more chaos, more deregulation" topics. It does not work in real life, it will never ever work in EVE. It's maybe time that those who want that, learn it the hard way. Unless they lack the brain to learn...
Btw. OP, you are in IVY. What about you come down to Syndicate and live through your suggestions first hand? Or are you too afraid. NOWAY and the other residents will gladly assist you in teaching you what your ideas will end in. |
JetStream Drenard
EVE University Ivy League
2
|
Posted - 2014.02.08 20:11:00 -
[15] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:Is it really necessary to push highsec in particular and the game in general even deeper into the chaos? I have an idea: Let's do this for 2 weeks. 2 weeks. Let's change the game in this or the way the other page 1 topic suggested. CCP should change the game so that this whining stops and the other whining, the whining of those who want these changes start. I'm kind of fed up with these "more chaos, more deregulation" topics. It does not work in real life, it will never ever work in EVE. It's maybe time that those who want that, learn it the hard way. Unless they lack the brain to learn... Btw. OP, you are in IVY. What about you come down to Syndicate and live through your suggestions first hand? Or are you too afraid. NOWAY and the other residents will gladly assist you in teaching you what your ideas will end in. I am not whining. And I am sick too. Sick of over winded blow hards categorically rejecting ideas, even good ideas out of hand, which maybe mine isnt. Just because they have the same rights as anyone else to post nothing but snotty drivel on these forums, does not mean any one cares, except of course other blow hards. IVY already has a strong presence in syndicate, but you probably already knew that. BTW, null sec has nothing to do with this thread, since you obviously did not read it. go away |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
204
|
Posted - 2014.02.08 20:31:00 -
[16] - Quote
JetStream Drenard wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:Is it really necessary to push highsec in particular and the game in general even deeper into the chaos? I have an idea: Let's do this for 2 weeks. 2 weeks. Let's change the game in this or the way the other page 1 topic suggested. CCP should change the game so that this whining stops and the other whining, the whining of those who want these changes start. I'm kind of fed up with these "more chaos, more deregulation" topics. It does not work in real life, it will never ever work in EVE. It's maybe time that those who want that, learn it the hard way. Unless they lack the brain to learn... Btw. OP, you are in IVY. What about you come down to Syndicate and live through your suggestions first hand? Or are you too afraid. NOWAY and the other residents will gladly assist you in teaching you what your ideas will end in. I am not whining. And I am sick too. Sick of over winded blow hards categorically rejecting ideas, even good ideas out of hand, which maybe mine isnt. Just because they have the same rights as anyone else to post nothing but snotty drivel on these forums, does not mean any one cares, except of course other blow hards. IVY already has a strong presence in syndicate, but you probably already knew that. BTW, null sec has nothing to do with this thread, since you obviously did not read it. go away
Null has everything to do with ideas like yours. Because this is what all of you guys want everywhere. This is not going to work. If you don't believe other forum members repeating the ever same answers over and over again, you should take some history lessons about EVE. Less CONCORD has been in the game before and people abused that to the extreme. Every single bullet point points directly into the same direction. Every. Single. One. You may call me a "blow hard", but you fail to realize that your idea cannot improve the game; m0o tried that already (I feel bad that I had to give you that hint and take the research effort from you, but well ...). So my invitation stands; experience your suggestions in Syndicate and then think about your idea. IVY may have a strong presence in Syndicate, but I don't care about that presence. YOU should be there and live there to see what YOUR idea is going to look like.
|
Britannica
Legion of Ghost
1
|
Posted - 2014.02.08 20:51:00 -
[17] - Quote
if this happens I can see pirate groups reducing newbie systems sec status as low as possible just to grief them. and if the newbie systems are exempt they'll do it to the connected systems instead to greif them as they leave = system abused |
Kaerakh
Obscure Joke Implied
120
|
Posted - 2014.02.08 21:14:00 -
[18] - Quote
ShahFluffers wrote:edit: JetStream Drenard wrote:And who is to say that industrial power blocs wont form to combat the powerful pirate blocs. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA.... ... oh wait... you're serious?HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...
Yeah, carebears are notorious for not defending themselves or saving themselves money by making the expenses to defend themselves. They're the most unreliable, divided, arguably unproductive, arguably most harmful group to the economy, and to top it off irrational groups in the game due to their aversion to any and all player driven content.
You can't rely on them for anything. |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
204
|
Posted - 2014.02.08 21:34:00 -
[19] - Quote
Kaerakh wrote:ShahFluffers wrote:edit: JetStream Drenard wrote:And who is to say that industrial power blocs wont form to combat the powerful pirate blocs. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA.... ... oh wait... you're serious?HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA... Yeah, carebears are notorious for not defending themselves or saving themselves money by making the expenses to defend themselves. They're the most unreliable, divided, arguably unproductive, arguably most harmful group to the economy, and to top it off irrational groups in the game due to their aversion to any and all player driven content. You can't rely on them for anything.
And here I thought there was a differentiation between carebear (mission runnder or Deklein anomaly farmer) and industrial people, who provide the tools for 101% of the "player driven" content. But this doesn't seem to be enough, they also need to take on the job of battling. Wonderful philosophy, really.
(Possible sarcasm wholly ignored) |
Ines Tegator
Towels R Us
362
|
Posted - 2014.02.08 21:42:00 -
[20] - Quote
Old idea is old.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2383599#post2383599
Me, Myself, I wrote:The way forward then is to make lowsec actually have Low Security- meaning some security at all. ... What lowsec is currently used for should be shifted out to NPC nullsec.
This low level of security should be put in place in a way that 1) interacts with players, and 2) is not guarunteed like CONCORD. The bait will be the increased profit opportunities of lowsec, which may need adjustment but for the most part already exist.
Read the rest. Theres some good discussion on making this about emergent gameplay and valid criticism as well. - Mission Overhaul - Bridging the PVP / PVE Gap - -áIf the game stops teaching people to fear lowsec, maybe people will start going there? |
|
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld White Mountain Coalition
1008
|
Posted - 2014.02.08 21:49:00 -
[21] - Quote
Scuzzy Logic wrote:CCP will start fixing CONCORD after they've fixed insurance contracts. (Seriously, Pend Insurance is likely staffed bt griefers and their ISK and noobship factories must run on tears.)
Anyone else think it's pretty stupid CONCORD shoots the offending ship to shreds but doesn't even bother repping the damaged ship? They just sit there...
All-in-all EVE has the worst legal system ever. Even the Divine laws of the Amarr probably aren't that ********.
The prize for the worst legal system goes to Italy, but yeah concord should act more intelligently and try to prevent abuses. Dumbing down of Eve Online will result in it's destruction... |
Katran Luftschreck
Royal Ammatar Engineering Corps
2302
|
Posted - 2014.02.08 21:53:00 -
[22] - Quote
Kaerakh wrote:Yeah, carebears are notorious for not defending themselves or saving themselves money by making the expenses to defend themselves. They're the most unreliable, divided, arguably unproductive, arguably most harmful group to the economy, and to top it off irrational groups in the game due to their aversion to any and all player driven content.
You can't rely on them for anything.
Except providing something like 70% of CCP's income...
Nullsec in a Nutshell: http://nedroid.com/comics/2006-08-24-2155-arrrdino.gif |
Kaerakh
Obscure Joke Implied
120
|
Posted - 2014.02.08 21:54:00 -
[23] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:Kaerakh wrote:ShahFluffers wrote:edit: JetStream Drenard wrote:And who is to say that industrial power blocs wont form to combat the powerful pirate blocs. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA.... ... oh wait... you're serious?HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA... Yeah, carebears are notorious for not defending themselves or saving themselves money by making the expenses to defend themselves. They're the most unreliable, divided, arguably unproductive, arguably most harmful group to the economy, and to top it off irrational groups in the game due to their aversion to any and all player driven content. You can't rely on them for anything. And here I thought there was a differentiation between carebear (mission runnder or Deklein anomaly farmer) and industrial people, who provide the tools for 101% of the "player driven" content. But this doesn't seem to be enough, they also need to take on the job of battling. Wonderful philosophy, really. (Possible sarcasm wholly ignored)
I didn't assert anything about what they should do, but the fact is that if they didn't exist the other player groups would adapt and fill the void because adapting to new gameplay is something that groups outside of what is classically defined as a carebear( a highsec dwelling player that avoids pvp at all costs even at their own expense) do extremely well and without much complaint. Carebears do not adapt and pour material and isk into the market without risk, which is one of the major contributing factors to the EVE economy today.
My only point is that you can't rely on them to do anything other than avoid loss. Loss of assets is what makes this game go round like it or not. |
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |