Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Jack Dant
The Gentlemen of Low Moral Fibre
204
|
Posted - 2011.12.06 19:24:00 -
[1] - Quote
Many GÇ£fix lowsecGÇ¥ proposals revolve around how to encourage more carebears into lowsec. I believe that's a mistake. The strong point of lowsec is the small gang, casual, PVP. And we need more PVPers to realize its potential.
Lowsec has many good points to attract the more casual PVPer: it's very accessible. The combination of no bubbles and sentry guns discouraging small ships on gates make it easy to move around lowsec. With so many stations, it's easy to take a break pretty much anywhere.
However, if you PVP for any amount of time in lowsec, you'll get cut out of highsec. For the dedicated outlaw, that's not a problem: alts and corp-level logistics make it a non-issue. But it closes most of lowsec from the more casual, single account player. The one who would enjoy lowsec the most.
So I suggest, GÇ£what happens in lowsec stays in lowsecGÇ¥:
- Lowsec ship and structure kills can't bring your sec status below -2 (the point where travel restrictions kick in).
- To compensate, make anyone with negative sec status a valid target while in lowsec, with no GCC or sentry repercussions.
- Sec losses from highsec ganks remain untouched and so trigger travel restrictions.
- Optionally, allow pod kills in lowsec to lower your sec past -2. This lets people who want to be -10 for whatever reason become so.
- Optionally, rework killrights to either remove them, or make them only usable in lowsec.
People can now become part of a GÇ£lowsec fight clubGÇ¥ where they can shoot each other freely, without losing their highsec access.
For the current lowsec residents, pirate and anti-pirate alike, this would bring more fun targets from highsec, in the form of GÇ£weekend piratesGÇ¥ and highsec alliances trying to control lowsec systems and resources. Both of those have given me many enjoyable fights, but both are unsustainable in the face of sec losses.
I'm not sure I can think of a negative side to the change. What happens in lowsec, stays in lowsec, lowering the barrier to entry to lowsec PVP: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=476644&#post476644 |
Berendas
Clandestine Vector THE SPACE P0LICE
25
|
Posted - 2011.12.06 20:01:00 -
[2] - Quote
Not a bad idea, a lowered entry barrier and more incentives really are what low sec needs. You also might what to post this in the Features & Ideas Discussion forum though so it can be refined with more details. |
Crefakis
The Gentlemen of Low Moral Fibre
1
|
Posted - 2011.12.06 22:42:00 -
[3] - Quote
Damn sir, that is a fine idea.
I would like this - there seems to be no upside to locking pirates into lowsec anyway. Podkills and the like, aye that would make you unable to go into highsec but ship kills...
Aggression and GCC to stay the same.
I don't get why lowsec PVPers are the only ones who are penalised for wanting to shoot other people... |
Eoin Donovan
Almost Invisible Industries Pax Romana Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2011.12.06 23:17:00 -
[4] - Quote
Wow, I think this is an awesome idea
I like the idea of pods kills still make you go below -2.0, so if you want to be a real pirate and kill pods you can, but it makes alot of sense to make casual pvp possible |
Pere Madeleine
The Gentlemen of Low Moral Fibre
7
|
Posted - 2011.12.06 23:17:00 -
[5] - Quote
I agree too. Especially since CCP are going through a phase of trimming out all the unnecessary time consuming fat, such as making POS logistics easier, surely it makes sense to make a change that eases logistics for lowsec PVPers? As Jack says, it's something that's really not a problem for dedicated lowsec dwellers, just an unnecessary annoyance, and for the casual player it's a considerable barrier to entry. |
Katie Frost
Asgard. Exodus.
11
|
Posted - 2011.12.07 01:31:00 -
[6] - Quote
+1
This is a very good proposal.
Stops Belefag from ruining my precious sec status
|
Samillian
Trojan Trolls Controlled Chaos
45
|
Posted - 2011.12.07 08:50:00 -
[7] - Quote
Supported
Its good to see a suggestion that gets away from the general "force the Carebears in" and "more targets willing or not" attitudes you usually see when talking about LowSec and have one that focuses on encouraging the willing player/corp to join the fun. |
Sepheir Sepheron
Capsule Corporation
18
|
Posted - 2011.12.07 14:26:00 -
[8] - Quote
I like it! |
Raimo
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
38
|
Posted - 2011.12.07 15:17:00 -
[9] - Quote
I like it a lot, supporting.
Definitely needs to have the podkills for -10 to appease the "tough guy" roleplayers though.
Also I'd consider keeping sentry gun mechanics as is but just taking out sec hits below -1.99, this way small ships would still be relatively safe to travel in even if you were -1.99-0 sec and part of the "club", and it would differentiate the -10 crowd as one more gameplay style (They can get more fights by being an appealing target due to no sentry aggro to their attacker, OTOH they are stuck with hisec travel restrictions)
I'm sure the frigate crowd would still congregate to low sec belts et al much, much more than they do already. Good fights for all.
(An alternative to this would be to finally bring CONCORD bribery in to the game) |
Gavjack Bunk
Dark Nexxus S I L E N T.
73
|
Posted - 2011.12.07 15:41:00 -
[10] - Quote
We could call it Lowsec Arena. |
|
Takeshi Yamato
ALA Biomedical
26
|
Posted - 2011.12.07 15:46:00 -
[11] - Quote
Seems like a good idea. Most of lowsec is guys wanting to kill each other without having to deal with 0.0 stuff. Current game mechanics are nothing but an annoying obstacle to that. |
Jack Dant
The Gentlemen of Low Moral Fibre
217
|
Posted - 2011.12.07 15:54:00 -
[12] - Quote
Raimo wrote:Also I'd consider keeping sentry gun mechanics as is but just taking out sec hits below -1.99, this way small ships would still be relatively safe to travel in even if you were -1.99-0 sec and part of the "club", and it would differentiate the -10 crowd as one more gameplay style (They can get more fights by being an appealing target due to no sentry aggro to their attacker, OTOH they are stuck with hisec travel restrictions) Could do this, but on the other hand, sentry guns have a huge effect on fights with 2-10 people per side, which are the kind that should be encouraged in low. If you leave sentries in place for the majority of the casual pvp population, they will cause lots of mexican standoffs on gates and stations. What happens in lowsec, stays in lowsec, lowering the barrier to entry to lowsec PVP: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=476644&#post476644 |
Berendas
Clandestine Vector THE SPACE P0LICE
25
|
Posted - 2011.12.07 16:15:00 -
[13] - Quote
Jack Dant wrote:Raimo wrote:Also I'd consider keeping sentry gun mechanics as is but just taking out sec hits below -1.99, this way small ships would still be relatively safe to travel in even if you were -1.99-0 sec and part of the "club", and it would differentiate the -10 crowd as one more gameplay style (They can get more fights by being an appealing target due to no sentry aggro to their attacker, OTOH they are stuck with hisec travel restrictions) Could do this, but on the other hand, sentry guns have a huge effect on fights with 2-10 people per side, which are the kind that should be encouraged in low. If you leave sentries in place for the majority of the casual pvp population, they will cause lots of mexican standoffs on gates and stations.
This is true and while it won't make sentries less influential during fights, reducing GCC to 5 minutes rather than 15 might encourage more 'weekend pirates' to risk sentry fire over combat.
And if not, us lifetime pirates can show up to these standoffs and mess with both sides |
Tarunik Raqalth'Qui
The Kairos Syndicate Transmission Lost
6
|
Posted - 2011.12.07 16:36:00 -
[14] - Quote
Good philosophy. True carebears are going to avoid lowsec anyway, so why bother trying to prod them? |
Tahna Rouspel
BWE Special Forces Rage Alliance
23
|
Posted - 2011.12.07 16:47:00 -
[15] - Quote
This is something I want.
The security penalty is the reason I don't pvp in low sec. |
Xtover
Macabre Votum Against ALL Authorities
22
|
Posted - 2011.12.07 18:39:00 -
[16] - Quote
Pirate agents in lowsec would be nice though.
EDIT We were ganked 3 times while posting this message. |
Willl Adama
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
61
|
Posted - 2011.12.07 19:02:00 -
[17] - Quote
I like it very much
SUPPORTED Latest Video:-á-á Kill Will: Volume 4 |
Thredd Necro
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
71
|
Posted - 2011.12.07 19:23:00 -
[18] - Quote
Huzzah! Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so. - Douglas Adams |
BuckWyld
Targeted Aggression
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.07 20:00:00 -
[19] - Quote
I like it! this idea definitely has my support. It becomes annoying and too much trouble trying to fix your sec every time you get below -2 for high-sec travel abilities or keep it above -5 to remove KOS rights. Also what the hell is the idea w/a 15 min GCC timer or 10 min (standard) cynosural field timer. >.< |
Wolodymyr
Mando'a Navy Controlled Chaos
11
|
Posted - 2011.12.07 21:27:00 -
[20] - Quote
Jack Dant wrote:make anyone with negative sec status a valid target while in lowsec, with no GCC or sentry repercussions. This I can agree with. Why should the people living out there who are shooing each other see their sec status go down. |
|
Orakkus
The Fancy Hats Corporation Insane Asylum
16
|
Posted - 2011.12.07 21:36:00 -
[21] - Quote
+1
|
Zircon Dasher
Zirconia Trade Group
31
|
Posted - 2011.12.07 23:38:00 -
[22] - Quote
Looks like lowsec is really doing ok. Lets fix SOV 0.0 first.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=453560#post453560
|
Berendas
Clandestine Vector THE SPACE P0LICE
27
|
Posted - 2011.12.07 23:50:00 -
[23] - Quote
Low sec is certainly not doing fine. It's been ignored by the devs for years with the pathetic exception of FW. A lot of the kills from that dev blog are just lolcamps in Amamake and Rancer, not actualy PVP. |
Thredd Necro
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
71
|
Posted - 2011.12.08 00:05:00 -
[24] - Quote
Lol 0.0 is mostly what CCP worked on since EVE opened...move along...but here's a cookie Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so. - Douglas Adams |
Zircon Dasher
Zirconia Trade Group
31
|
Posted - 2011.12.08 00:48:00 -
[25] - Quote
Berendas wrote:Low sec is certainly not doing fine. It's been ignored by the devs for years with the pathetic exception of FW. A lot of the kills from that dev blog are just lolcamps in Amamake and Rancer, not actualy PVP.
The fact that it has been "ignored" is probably a good indication that it is not nearly as terribad as you want to make it out to be. Prioritization of resources and all.
I am not sure what exactly you mean by lolcamps nor the difference between lolcamps and any other type of camps found in other areas. Since you seem think it matters significantly, it would be helpful to clarify exactly what qualifications divide "players shooting other players" from PVP. I am sure that given a sufficiently myopic view you are right... I just dont know how tight I need to pull the blinders in order to see it.
Just in case you are insinuating that its all fluff numbers from smarty camps, structure shooting, and hauler kills I would suggest that you actually read the entirity of the thread. |
Berendas
Clandestine Vector THE SPACE P0LICE
27
|
Posted - 2011.12.08 01:11:00 -
[26] - Quote
Zircon Dasher wrote: The fact that it has been "ignored" is probably a good indication that it is not nearly as terribad as you want to make it out to be. Prioritization of resources and all.
There is no good reason for low sec going ignored for so long, that's the purpose of this thread and many other threads that have been asking for some well deserved dev attention.
0.0 has all it needs for the moment with regards to game mechanics. There is plenty to be gained by leaving high sec and going to null. Lots of incentives exists for making money, PVP, PVE, holding territory, ect. The reason people whine about 0.0 and why people don't want to go there is because what players have turned it into. People aren't willing to be worker bees or cannon fodder for big alliances that care little for them.
Low sec on the other hand, has no rewards proportional to the risks for people living there. People go to low sec to get kills against and get killed by pirates. Other than that, there's nothing unique about low sec that you can't easily do in high or null. |
Zircon Dasher
Zirconia Trade Group
31
|
Posted - 2011.12.08 02:12:00 -
[27] - Quote
Berendas wrote: 0.0 has all it needs for the moment with regards to game mechanics. There is plenty to be gained by leaving high sec and going to null. Lots of incentives exists for making money, PVP, PVE, holding territory, ect. The reason people whine about 0.0 and why people don't want to go there is because what players have turned it into. People aren't willing to be worker bees or cannon fodder for big alliances that care little for them.
Low sec on the other hand, has no rewards proportional to the risks for people living there. People go to low sec to get kills against and get killed by pirates. Other than that, there's nothing unique about low sec that you can't easily do in high or null.
SO lets see....
People can enjoy shoot-everything PVP without the hassles of 0.0 (ease of logistics,no bubbles, sentry guns making fast lock frigates difficult to use... these were things brought up earlier) and without the hassles of territory holding (CTA's, necessity of huge blobs, etc... your gripes).
But....
There is nothing unique about lowsec.
Now I would love it if I could have all the ISK printing of 0.0 with none of the hassle. Just because I would like it doesnt mean it is a good idea though. More importantly, a discussion of rewards in lowsec have nothing to do with the OP.
Anyway, back on topic.
OP should change the words "barrier to entry" to "barrier to exit". Technically there is very little barrier to entry, something he himself notes.
Second, OP has left out some of the consequences of allowing anyone who is -0.01 to be shot at with no gate aggression. This will decrease the amount of time highsec corps and "weekend warrior" type players spend in lowsec.
Not that I think the OP really cares about that in the first place... but maybe I am just being cynical |
King Rothgar
Autocannons Anonymous
55
|
Posted - 2011.12.08 03:51:00 -
[28] - Quote
Out of the myriad of "fix low sec" topics I've seen the past year, this is one of the few I actually like. You recognize the appeal of low sec and this idea should improve on what we already have there. I fully support it. |
Corina Jarr
Spazzoid Enterprises Purpose Built
79
|
Posted - 2011.12.08 03:59:00 -
[29] - Quote
I thought of something similar just last night.
+1 |
Jack Dant
The Gentlemen of Low Moral Fibre
223
|
Posted - 2011.12.08 09:50:00 -
[30] - Quote
Zircon Dasher wrote:OP should change the words "barrier to entry" to "barrier to exit". Technically there is very little barrier to entry, something he himself notes. If you want to get pedantic, it would be something of a "barrier to staying". Without alts, or the means/time to recover sec quickly, lowsec PVP becomes unsustainable in a short time.
Quote:Second, OP has left out some of the consequences of allowing anyone who is -0.01 to be shot at with no gate aggression. This will decrease the amount of time highsec corps and "weekend warrior" type players spend in lowsec. Because some people won't fight if they don't have NPCs on their side? Maybe, but those wouldn't GCC at all, and so wouldn't lose sec. But many would, more than now, and so the pure anti-pirate would have more targets available. Win/win.
Quote:Not that I think the OP really cares about that in the first place... but maybe I am just being cynical So, what's my hidden agenda, then? What happens in lowsec, stays in lowsec, lowering the barrier to entry to lowsec PVP: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=476644&#post476644 |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |