| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Raymond Moons
Parallactic Veil
22
   |
Posted - 2015.02.12 14:43:10 -
[1] - Quote
Dynamic security status isn't a new idea but i was approaching this suggestion more from a "gankers are pirates" perspective. In the real world pirates were able to operate because there wasn't a competent security force with the resources to always stop them. They would probably have operated from lawless areas and would venture no further than they needed to to capture prizes.
There is a thread in GD about ganking nerfs and how it has been made more difficult or less profitable. As I'm not a ganker I coudn't care less about ganker tears but it does make me think that Concord in high sec is a problem. They are always there and they always see everything. They have an abundance of resources and the only thing that varies is their response time.
What if Concord's resources were finite and they couldn't be everywhere at once? What I'm thinking is something along the lines of:
1. Players kill pirate NPC's and get bounty and security LP.
2. Expend security LP on Concord for increased presence and strength which increases system security status.
3. NPC bounties and LP reduce as the system security status increases.
4. Players migrate to lower security status systems to regain income from killing pirate NPC's
Security status could also have an impact on mining. High secuirty systems get mined so much that it's more difficult to extract raw ore and yield decreases. Lower secirty systems give better yield as they are mined less.
Obvioulsy there would need to be a base line for 0.1 - 1.0, so that at 0.1 it is still better to be in null sec.
The system security status would deteriorate over time as Concord expends LP, and the destruction of property and podding would require more Concord action expending LP faster.
In high sec (maybe systems <0.8) any player being attacked would have to call for Concord assistance. Giving gankers a boost versus afk and semi-afk players. Concord's response time and strength would be dependent on available system LP.
What would be good about this is that you wouldn't be able to stay entrenched in one location forever anymore as your surroundings would change over time. Everybody would have to look where they are going and there would be more gate travel and non-afk players in space. Removing the static safety blanket of high sec might encourage more NPC corp players to band together for safety, in their own corps, and venture out in to low-sec.
I know the dev's hate it already but what do you think? |
Raymond Moons
Parallactic Veil
22
|
Posted - 2015.02.12 15:09:09 -
[2] - Quote
I suppose there would need to be a fine or cooldown timer for the Concord batphone to limit abuse, although calling the feds as a decoy wouldn't be unheard of. Also systems like Jita that are totally lagged out at times might make ratting/mission running hard so I guess you could pay for Concord upgrades at massive expense. |
Nariya Kentaya
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
1793
|
Posted - 2015.02.12 17:28:00 -
[3] - Quote
Raymond Moons wrote:Rewards per index lvl:
0.0 Mining yield 1x, Bounty 100%
Lvl 1 Mining yield 0.5x, Bounty 50%
Lvl 2 Mining yield 0.4x, Bounty 40%
Lvl 3 MIning yield 0.3x, Bounty 30%
Lvl 4 Mining yield 0.2x, Bounty 20%
Lvl 5 Mining yield 0.1x, Bounty 10%
so incursioners all deposit their vast swathes of LP (because their is no better LP farm) into this thing so that miners/missioners cant maek money in ANY highsec system, but incursioners can be perma-safe to bear away because incursion payouts arent missions (and still give decent isk even with the LP reduction) |
Raymond Moons
Parallactic Veil
22
|
Posted - 2015.02.12 17:53:11 -
[4] - Quote
Incursion LP and all other income will be effected by the same percentages. |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
The Kadeshi
1212
|
Posted - 2015.02.12 18:27:05 -
[5] - Quote
5 Steps is way to broad. 10 levels is more appropriate. And 0 would not be Null sec, it would be what today is known as Low sec. Also: What about capitals? Drug towers? Moon Miners? L5 missions?
Station Tab :: Agent Shuffling :: Double Standing Gain
|
Rosal Milag
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2015.02.12 18:41:44 -
[6] - Quote
Dynamic sec status is bad. So many things that exist outside of high sec would need to be reworked. Anchored bubbles on a gate before downtime in a - 0.1 system, after, it's 0.5...
Not to mention that this idea would destroy industry as you know it. Travel lanes for freighters are mind-numbing at best of times. Add in variable sec status, not only are you creating unstable routes (sec status changing during the trip, need a scout to make sure the next system is still high sec) with the potential to strand ships in high sec islands, you make the nullsec empires able to run freighters through a cherry picked path to Jita, highsec all the way. |
Gawain Edmond
I aint payin npc tax
Rock Paper Lasers
174
|
Posted - 2015.02.12 18:42:04 -
[7] - Quote
concord is their to enforce the peace on the 4 empires not the immortal capsulears (they're there to keep us in our place until they are bribed) |
Raymond Moons
Parallactic Veil
22
|
Posted - 2015.02.12 22:18:19 -
[8] - Quote
Bubble and bomb restrictions could still apply. Empire space could still restrict those items and sentry guns could act as they currently do to keep the flavour of low sec. If a bubble was anchored in no security space and the system flipped at downtime to lvl 1, then Concord would kill the bubble as soon as someone was disrupted by it.
Moon mining and drug lab restrictions could be removed entirely. Moon mining yields would follow the percentages and drug labs could have increased manufacturing cycles in a similar way. These things are only restricted at the moment to try and get people out of high sec. |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |