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.

make anyone with negative sec status a valid target while in lowsec, with no GCC or sentry repercussions.

Looks like lowsec is really doing ok. Lets fix SOV 0.0 first.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=453560#post453560

Looks like lowsec is really doing ok. Lets fix SOV 0.0 first.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=453560#post453560

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.

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.

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

Without alts, or the means/time to recover sec quickly, lowsec PVP becomes unsustainable in a short time.

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.

So, what's my hidden agenda, then?

False.

anti-pirates. srs?

Mimiru has basically pointed to the reason why highsec dwellers will have to spend more time in highsec. They will have to keep thier sec rating positive.

Explain how.

Are you kidd.......... ooooh i see. You got me.

8/10.

2) Get rid of the inefficient refineries in lowsec stations. We lost a LOT of minerals when we finally gave up trying to import ore into highsec for refining and did it out there. There's no point in those penalties and they're just a hindrance to industrial efforts.

3) yet they can magically prevent you from setting up a POS without the proper standings and licenses?

You are terible at presenting any sort of point.

This.



lolWut?



1) Glad to see I have such articulate company.
2) NO U (in case the presentation of point 1 was too hard to understand)

Don't bother responding to Zircon, he's made it clear he's just a mindless nullbear who thinks EVE is all about his playstyle.
.

I live in nullsec. I simply think that this is a good idea. Where someone resides in a vidya game has zero weight on their opinion. Zircon is a moron on his own accord.

Second, why does everyone insist that low sec needs more pvp? It already accounts for 30% of PVP in the game, hotzones already rival the 0.0 hotzones in terms of average kills/day, and even the quiet systems see more traffic than the quietest 0.0 systems. All the verifable data says that low is doing just fine, even though all the forum warrior data tells a different story.

As being someone who lived 2+ years as -10 it isnt hard to supply yourself without an alt. Yes I had a hauler, but I can count the number of times I used it to bring me supplies on one hand. Maybe I was lucky though. I was able to keep stocked from loot, the occasional foray onto the market, and working out deals with friends. Then again, I set up some nice relationships after ransoming a few haulers.... not everyone honors ransoms though so maybe they don't get that benefit.

When I decided to leave low it sure was a PITA grinding up sec. Would not having to bother with that been nice? Sure. If I had not been lazy I would have never been in that position in the first place. It is pitifully easy to keep your sec up if you are not camping gates for haulers and you work solo. The sec hit you get from fights where the other person shoots back is minimal. That is why I am not sure there is any real incentive for weekend warriors. Those players tend to be running around solo or in 2-3 man gangs.

TBH I think there are two questions I have not seen brought up though.First, why would making more people flashy boost PVP when people can't or won't shoot red flashies already? The gate guns wont shoot you if you make a move on a red flashy, nor do you get a sec hit. But almost nobody engaged me when I was -10 that wouldn't have engaged me if I +5. Making a mechanic that nobody takes advantage of seems kind of pointless so maybe I am missing something.

Second, why does everyone insist that low sec needs more pvp? It already accounts for 30% of PVP in the game, hotzones already rival the 0.0 hotzones in terms of average kills/day, and even the quiet systems see more traffic than the quietest 0.0 systems. All the verifable data says that low is doing just fine, even though all the forum warrior data tells a different story.

lolWut?

I live in nullsec. I simply think that this is a good idea. Where someone resides in a vidya game has zero weight on their opinion. Zircon is a moron on his own accord.

Last I heard, lowsec still required starbase charters and empire standings to anchor a POS, the same as 0.5 - 0.7. I've always wondered...who enforces that, since there are no patrols by the empire?

Last I heard, lowsec still required starbase charters and empire standings to anchor a POS, the same as 0.5 - 0.7. I've always wondered...who enforces that, since there are no patrols by the empire?

but Zircon is just one of those bleating lambs who wants the devs' attention to be on all null sec, all the time. He came into a thread about a low sec fix trying to champion 0.0 buffs

Maybe if you read the the link you would have figured out the obvious. Low sec doesnt need to be fixed. All this thread wants is consequence free pvp without going to 0.0.

If this thread asked for something reasonable, like decreasing the granularity in the multiplier, I would have supported it.

This idea is ******** though. It is not in keeping with EVE philosophy,

it does nothing to incentize the groups it claims to incentivize,

and gives the "I want EVE to be FPS" crowd cookies.

Oh, finally you gave something ressembling a reasoning.

I'd argue why lowsec should have those consequences, and not highsec wardecs

Do elaborate, please .

Why does EVE philosophy apply to lowsec, but not highsec or 0.0?

Removing a punishment is pretty much the same as adding an incentive.

This was only in 0.4, not in deeper lowsec, and it was removed 2-3 expansions ago.

With the exception of me calling troll the reasons are there. Are you suggesting that I need to spoon feed more? I still call troll btw. Plenty of people live/ PVP in lowsec without relying on alts to feed them ships and modules.

What part is unclear?

The gradual diminuation of severity as system security decreases is constant. So what are you on about?

So if there was no social stigma to being a gay male you would rush right out and slob'a'knob? Your argument is flawed. Try again.

I have given the reasons why it's not feasible. Prove me wrong.

Let's start with the granularity of which multiplier

It's not really constant. In highsec, you lose ship and sec, in lowsec you lose sec and risk losing your ship (try engaging in a frig under sentries), in 0.0 you get neither

Excellent analogy. A hundred years ago, being homosexual risked not just social stigma, but serious discrimination and, in many places, criminal prosecution. As a result, there were few, if any, openly gay males. These days, the most they can suffer is your so-called "social stigma", so we get a yearly gay pride parade. Either removing the punishments brought them out of the closet, or they put something in the water

but some of the closet PVPers who run back to highsec every time they approach -2 will stay in lowsec.

You replied to a post that showed how ffs. Loot, market, industrial corps and traders, friends.

So you agree then that removal of the punishment did not make more straight people gay? I am glad we could agree that removal of punishment does not equate to an incentive then.

This seems like a strange justification. If they are running back to highsec because thier sec status is low, but would stay if thier sec status was not in danger, then I can only surmise that you think they are going back to highsec to gain sec. No doubt some people will, but only because they do not know it is faster to grind in lowsec. It seems more probable that they are going back to highsec because they think they can make more ISK there. If this is correct, then they will not stay in lowsec any longer than they already do.

On the whole, I think this is a good idea. However, it does feel like a bit of a slap in the face for those who are currently -10 as a result of actions that would be effectively decriminalised under the new system.

That's a different point, but the way sec and aggression works is unbalanced. It only works in 1v1. With two gangs shooting each other, only 2 primaries will be taking fire at any given time. So anyone who is not primaried will get the full sec hit.

Friends is just someone else's alts.

Try it sometime, you'll see how it goes.

Unless the primary in your gang is flashy the entire opposing gang is able to be aggressed without penalty. Since the people who bounce between high and low are by definition those who are not -5 this is not an issue in small gang fights so much.

In regards to the statistics I mentioned, I do not know for sure about how many are camps. I tracked average kills/ day for about two month using DOTLAN info. I kept both a log of random systems and standard hot systems (HED, Amamake, etc). Obviously the FW areas saw an increase over non-FW, but the randomized system list showed that low sec was pretty competative.

P.S- speaking from experience ratting sec up in low sec is way faster than doing the L4 mission tour if you spend 10min setting things up right in a series of connected systems.

Actually I have been profiting off it for about 2 years now. Thanks

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.

This is great, have my bump.

EDIT: read through the thread, here are a couple points I think need to be answered (quotes are paraphrased but accurate)


Who cares? This isn't about changing where PvP happens. This is about making low-sec not ****. If consequentially more people PvP in low-sec, so be it.


False. Club Bear is a good counterexample. Plus, you're basing your experience on what you see in low-sec, which is a bit myopic seeing as the people this would apply to AVOID low-sec in its current state due to being limited to flashies.


Where x is some form of grinding. Alts, hauling, scouring the stocks of the low-sec market, ratting sec from time to time. It's all some form of grinding. We're aware that it's possible to do that, we just don't like it, hence the OP. Just stating what the game is like ATM and going "deal with it" isn't constructive.


The crux of the issue.
You're misconstruing Eve's harshness into a stone-wall "Want to make Eve quote unquote easier, more accessible? Baby, go play Hello kitty online / wow / cowadooty".
OP wants to change the way in which low-sec is harsh, not remove the harshness. Instead of stupid mechanics and grinding, lack of sentries and player-caused danger. If you think this is against Eve's philosophy, then you think Eve is about grinding, and you're the one who should be playing Wow. Not arena though, just leveling blacksmithing all day.

BTW, even for all the die-hard grindfest fans, at least acknowledge the stupidity of sec status making low-sec further removed from high-sec than 0.0 is...

If non-flashies caught one of us at a gate, the rest of the gang couldn't do anything to help without being torn apart by sentries

seeing as the people this would apply to AVOID low-sec in its current state due to being limited to flashies.


Where x is some form of grinding. Alts, hauling, scouring the stocks of the low-sec market, ratting sec from time to time. It's all some form of grinding.

Get rid of all sentries and security loss in lowsec.

You could adjust flagging mechanics to reduce sentry effects on gang PVP. For example, if you shoot a flashy, you could get a "global anti-criminal flag" and lose sentry protection for 15 minutes: "You have taken the law into your own hands, the police can't help you now".

But that would be a different topic.

*snip*

So I suggest, GÇ£what happens in lowsec stays in lowsecGÇ¥:

• To compensate, make anyone with negative sec status a valid target while in lowsec, with no GCC or sentry repercussions.

AFAIK, this is already the case. you can shoot -5 to -10 in hi sec as well as low sec without any form of Concord retaliation (ships in hi sec, sentry guns in low sec)

as for the rest, meh.

Sounds like putting rainbows and unicorns in low sec.

w/e

Not seeing it. Why should the law allow for rampant drive-bys in the suburbs?

Sounds like you want to play with the big boys in LS (ie. the fun pew) but keep your bunk at the high-sec hostel you call home.

Put forward proposals to increase population in LS rather than merely making it into a tourist attraction/hunting reserve and we can discuss specifics, but this is just too silly. Killing anything within the sphere of 'civilization' (read: Here be Cops!) should cost one dearly.

This thread has now become the "Jack Dant for CSM" thread. Jack is really the only scoundrel scoundrel enough to represent low sec while at the same time maintaining meticulous spreadsheets and proper smugness and the class of a true gentleman down on his luck.

Thank you for your kind words, Titus. But I hereby deny any intention to run for CSM now or in the future. I will, however, lend my full support to the "Dirty Protagonist for CSM" campaign

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.

AFAIK, this is already the case. you can shoot -5 to -10 in hi sec as well as low sec without any form of Concord retaliation (ships in hi sec, sentry guns in low sec)

as for the rest, meh.

Sounds like putting rainbows and unicorns in low sec.

w/e

Spent four hours in a frig looking for a fight last night. And not in a backwater region either...

I simply cannot imagine any game which could be marketed on the basis of "do really boring stuff for four hours and you might get 52 seconds of fun." And that's not including logistics grind. If it weren't for my love of space ships, I'd not play this horrible, horrible game.

Supported... though I think Eve needs much, much more to promote combat.

I want to see a dev's opinion on this. Because I honestly don't see why this shouldn't be implemented.

Low sec has been ignored by CCP since the game started.

There aren't any real incentives for people to move to low sec other than small group pirating or FW. Both also very ignored by CCP.
I keep advocating the same thing over and over.
Get rid of the ridiculous station games. It's utterly absurd that a station manager of a NPC station would allow someone who just engaged someone else outside his station to dock up after a very short amount of time.
Atleast not without letting them pay a very hefty fee, but even that after quit some diliberation.

You want to shoot someone at an Empire controlled station then fine, but the concequence is that they will keep you unable to dock at the station, you chose to fight at, for 15 minutes.
Standings with the corporation which owns the station or the faction can decrease the timer somewhat till maximal 5 minutes unable to dock.
If you want to dock anyways after the old 30 second waiting time you pay a fee. Fee depends on your shiptype but should reflect a substantial part of your hulls + modules market value.

Same should go for gates.

Next to that put some more incentives in low sec to attract more people willing to risk to venture there for a certain advantage which they are unable to get in high sec or null sec.

Add certain minerals needed for certain production to low sec or make it more attractive for factional war to hold certain parts under their control because then the stations in the controlled part have certain advantages for the side holding them.

CCP created a game where corruption by players is part of the game, yet there is no way to bribe a factional relieve for a longer or shorter amount of time. Only thing you can do is grind your arses off to get standing or security gain.
Now why isn't there a corrupt way to gain those standings for a certain time?
Just looking at the lore of all factions I know for a fact that corruption is one of the engines the empires thrive on.

Factional or security standing gain for a limited amount of time due to bribery should be possible. Depending on what you plan to do or for howlong the price varies. Depends on howmany channels have to be temporarely altered and then ofcourse even that isn't a guarantee that your cover holds as long as you paid for because next to being able to be bribing there is also the possebility you get uncovered by someone who is specialising in locating and fighting corruption and bribes.

There are many options to make low sec get more layers of experience and thrills.

99% of this is unrelated to the proposed fix, it also fails to address most of the issues brought up in this thread. The idea of this thread is that we're not trying to attract carebears to lowsec, we're trying to make people who would like to PVP in lowsec able to do so without the unworkable highsec penalties associated with that. I'd much rather have willing people to get a legitimate fight out of rather than carebears who will get continuously ganked, regardless of any added benefits to carebearing in lowsec. Just saying "there are many options" doesn't accomplish anything.


TL;DR, let's stick to the proposed topic and work around that, shall we?

And limiting yourself to only one variable accomplishes anything?

Blah blah blah you stationcamp with supercaps, etc.

99% of this is unrelated to the proposed fix, it also fails to address most of the issues brought up in this thread. The idea of this thread is that we're not trying to attract carebears to lowsec, we're trying to make people who would like to PVP in lowsec able to do so without the unworkable highsec penalties associated with that. I'd much rather have willing people to get a legitimate fight out of rather than carebears who will get continuously ganked, regardless of any added benefits to carebearing in lowsec. Just saying "there are many options" doesn't accomplish anything.

if low sec only stays a shoor em up place for a few then you yourself exclude yourself from way too much of the game

So it should be a shoot em up place for everyone, and it shouldn't exclude you from the rest of the game.

Are you afraid that the numbers would all of a sudden be against you?

As it is low sec is under populated. And instead of making it more attractive only for pirates and gankers it should be widen't up more than just kill some and then squeeze easy back to high sec.

Low sec isn't just to cater the wannabe nullbear who either hasn't the time nor the inclination to be one of the nullbear herd of sheep.
More people venturing to lowsec also means more people will get attrackted to PvP. But I can understand why some oppose that so darn much.

Just imagine you actually get what you want, pvp with people who shoot back, then the fun isn't fun anymore because they would learn and adapt and eventually overcome.

And as for me being excluded from parts of the game, you have no idea what parts of the game I have been in nor will you even scratch the surface of it.

Are you afraid that the numbers would all of a sudden be against you?

Just imagine you actually get what you want, pvp with people who shoot back, then the fun isn't fun anymore because they would learn and adapt and eventually overcome.

As it is low sec is under populated. And instead of making it more attractive only for pirates and gankers it should be widen't up more than just kill some and then squeeze easy back to high sec.

Low sec isn't just to cater the wannabe nullbear who either hasn't the time nor the inclination to be one of the nullbear herd of sheep.

And as for me being excluded from parts of the game, you have no idea what parts of the game I have been in nor will you even scratch the surface of it.

The PVE proposals for lowsec generally ask for: 1) Safer PVE, 2) More rewarding PVE.

But there's safe in PVE in highsec already. You can't compete with that without completely nerfing lowsec PVP. This is where all the suggestions about stronger sentries, concord-like NPCs, etc, go wrong..

So we increase the rewards. But there is already a place with much higher rewards than highsec in exchange for a nominal risk. It's called 0.0. But 0.0 is secured by alliances and is pretty safe. So to compete with that, you'd need very high rewards in lowsec. What's to keep those same alliances from taking over the lowsec PVE, then?

Those two options just turn lowsec into a highsec clone, or a 0.0 clone. While ignoring the population that is already there because they don't want to be in either highsec or 0.0.

Funny expression for someone whose average kill has 50 people on it. But why not? Why shouldn't lowsec be the one (almost) pure PVP area of the game? We already have an (almost) pure PVE area, highsec.

Do you even read? I meant being excluded from parts of the game via sec status. But that particular char of yours has no lowsec history to speak of. So excuse me if I assume you are posting on your main and have no clue about lowsec.

Ah, so suggesting to increase the time it takes to being able to dock after shooting someone decreases people shooting at eachother. Sorry if that wasn't clear to me.

And it never even occured to you that the rewards can be designed in such a fashion that the only true benefit would be for the same region of space as you can aquire it, namely low sec.
null sec has it's own "advantages" from the sov mechanics. Why not some mechanic to have something in that line (though more fun to play than sov warfa"re) in low sec.

You might feel like the low sec population that's already there get's ignored in my suggestions. Fact however is that I want to get a lower threshhold for people to venture there but at increased risk than it is currently. Or do you think prolonged docking denial is decreasing risk?
On the other hand make it worthwhile for people to take that route.
Low sec has the same issue as null sec. The risk versus reward is completely off balance.

Excuse me, but did I miss the part where you didn't get the choice to lower your sec status? And if this were my main I am not entitled to an opinion in a forum section where opinions are gathered?

Once again, I am not against changes in the system that adresses the issues with the sec status loss and gain. But by saying "ow let's just pop ships but not pods anymore in low sec so we don't drop below -2"is ridiculous.
You create a whole new area of abuse then and without differentiation I for one do not support the idea.

this is the first unquestionably good idea i've seen about fixing lowsec in years, i'll yoink it and dump it in front of ccp.

lowsec: eve's vegas, but with more guns

I'm not sure if security status will entice the carebears into coming to low sec.

Might start first by not calling them carebears.

Also, how will this increase PvP? Because they don't have to grind sec? You have to do a lot of shooting to get below -2 if you're not shooting pods, and your suggestion does nothing for pods. Structures make a bit of sense, I could see dipping below the mark over shooting a POS. But then again, does structure bashing require us to make a such a drastic alteration to the security status rules of low sec?


How about graduated war declarations instead? Such as "This war declaration is only valid in 0.0 to 0.4 security status systems." You still get what you want, without the crazy "If this, then that" scenario you're painting.

Props to you for using your brain though, will still give you a +1.

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.

I'm not sure if security status will entice the carebears into coming to low sec.

Might start first by not calling them carebears.

Also, how will this increase PvP? Because they don't have to grind sec? You have to do a lot of shooting to get below -2 if you're not shooting pods, and your suggestion does nothing for pods. Structures make a bit of sense, I could see dipping below the mark over shooting a POS. But then again, does structure bashing require us to make a such a drastic alteration to the security status rules of low sec?


How about graduated war declarations instead? Such as "This war declaration is only valid in 0.0 to 0.4 security status systems." You still get what you want, without the crazy "If this, then that" scenario you're painting.

Props to you for using your brain though, will still give you a +1.

Also, how will this increase PvP? Because they don't have to grind sec? You have to do a lot of shooting to get below -2 if you're not shooting pods, and your suggestion does nothing for pods. Structures make a bit of sense, I could see dipping below the mark over shooting a POS. But then again, does structure bashing require us to make a such a drastic alteration to the security status rules of low sec?

This is such a phenomenally good idea that I'm going to be disappointed if it doesn't happen. Though I honestly don't think the elimination of kill rights is necessary. On the other hand, I don't see Concord handing a pass to kill a person in high if they have a negative sec.

Although I like most of the idea, there's one thing I don't like. I think you should still take a security hit when you attack someone with positive security status.

I don't care if pirates kill each other. But lowsec isn't just about pvp. It has asteroid belts, complexes, mission agents etc. for a reason. Your proposal would make lowsec even more dangerous for carebears like me.

It would be a wasteland.

If you want consensual pvp: put up a can in Jita, join RvB or whatever. Don't bother me with it.

Although I like most of the idea, there's one thing I don't like. I think you should still take a security hit when you attack someone with positive security status. I don't care if pirates kill each other. But lowsec isn't just about pvp. It has asteroid belts, complexes, mission agents etc. for a reason. Your proposal would make lowsec even more dangerous for carebears like me. It would be a wasteland. If you want consensual pvp: put up a can in Jita, join RvB or whatever. Don't bother me with it.

In effect, dropping even 1/100th of a point below SS zero now inflicts the full penalties of -5 on pilots seeking casual PvP. We're now punishing them even more than we do today. I do not feel this is a change that will promote casual PvP.

Scenario: I'm flying my Rifter around lowsec looking for targets. I jump a gate and find a Tarannis before me. My sec status is -1, his is -7.4


Current mechanics: I can decide to engage or not. He cannot camp the gate against me unless I've dropped my SS all the way down to -5 Note that I can still run around Empire.

Proposed Changes: He can engage without any danger of sentries.



Replace the Tarannis with a Loki, Tengu, hell... just about anything. How does this entice more people to try lowsec PvP? You're raised the restrictions... not dropped them.


I'll tell you what it does offer (and holy crap I can't believe I'm actually saying this): it would provide more targets for those below -5... they would not have to worry about gate guns half as much as they do now.

Vaurion, thank you for your measured responses. We'll probably have to agree to disagree on this one.

If CCP is foolish enough to attempt to promote PvP by utilizing a system which further encourages any type of gatecamping, they deserve to reap what they sow.

I am not anti-pirate... hell, not anti-anything... and would be the very first to say lowsec needs some love. But this, IMO, is not the way. The solution is to remove the SS penalty in select areas (belts, planets, POCO's)... not adjust it to one group's advantage.

Again, thank you for the debate.

I want to make sure I get this right as this proposal is getting a great deal of press.

Joe Blow the 3 week player gets tired of mining or lvl 1 missions, and wants to try out some PvP. He's getting pretty bored with Empire. So he fits up some cheap frigates and has a few fights. But, if he fights too much he's going to encounter a problem; he drops to negative security status.

As he's flying from Dodixie (in his brand new frigate) to his favorite new fun spot Amamake for some more 'o' that PvP goodness, he jumps into Egghelende. Surprise: I was waiting in a quick lock Thrasher (or T3 for even extra survivability) on the gate at zero. Now that he's dropped below zero sec status (very quick trip for him as he doesn't really care for missions), I can pop his butt. And the good news is I'm pretty safe; I don't have to worry about sentry fire, I can sit at zero on the gate - anything ugly comes at me, I just jump to highsec. And I'll never lose sec status... it's a camper's dream!

Raimo's suggestion in the first page would actually fix your problem better: cap sec loss, but keep sentry/gcc mechanics unchanged. Then us proper outlaws keep our chance to get fights without sentries, while gates are safe-ish for everyone else. My problem with that, is that I foresee more standoffs on gates as two gangs dare each other into aggressing first.

The rules need to be simple. Both the current ones, and the ones I suggested are: you see the target on overview, you see the background color, you know whether the sentries will open up if you shoot. If it depends on where the gate leads, the exact sec status of people involved, or the system sec, it will only cause confusion and frustration. Hell, you'd be surprised how many times I've jumped into highsec by accident.

CONFRIMIGN I AM LIKE IDEA VER MUCH,.

I AM THINKIGN WHEN I AM GET ON CSM, WE AM NEEDIGN TO TALK TO GET THESE IDEA INTO WIDRE FRAMEWORKS FOR REVEIWS OF ALL DEC / SEC \ BOUNTY SYSTIMS. THESE MAY BECOMIGN PART OF MINE PLATFORM MOVE FORWARDS.

KEEP UP GOOD THINKIGN !

This is something I want.

The security penalty is the reason I don't pvp in low sec.

Well done, Jack. This accounts perfectly for 99% of people's problems with lowsec pvp -- the sec status and travel restrictions. Would love to see this implemented, hope CCP is listening.

If it was to be 'locked' at -2.0 you are essentially making LS pew a 100% consequence free activity which goes against everything real and virtual .. drop it to -3.5 (attacked in 0.7 systems) and it would still make RP sense, still allow people access to high-sec but bar them from polite society (read: hubs, trade lanes).

My biggest problem with low sec PvP is the use of a vast amount of alts to scout and gather intel risk free. Toss in the local chat and cloaky T3's and you have a stage set for by far the most risk adverse players that have ever played any game. Always running at the first sign that one of them might take a round of antimatter.

Another example of what happens when far too much information is available with no risk for players to use. "Wait what? You mean it wont be a 100% risk free gank?! **** that ****. EVERYONE WARP OUT AND GET SAFE NOW!!!" - 99% of EVE Online Players

Do you think null sec is better?

If so, do you think there is a mechanic that null sec has that makes it better?

If you think wormholes are better for pvp I can only say the actual facts the of amount of pvp per player in wormholes versus low sec proves that is not true.

I don't think null is better. The issue comes down to the fact there is no more unknown when it comes to PvP. I am not saying the OP's idea is bad, I think it has a lot of merit, but it will not be enough to get more players to want to come out of high sec. Movement in this game is by far too easily tracked. Which forces anyone to join a large entity to have a chance.

Then explain to me how highsec mission griefing or trade channel scamming would be tolerated in 'polite society'.

There is a rather big difference between tricking money from gullible people (scam), throwing banana peels in front of people (mission grief) and then premeditated murder (pew). While the two former are frowned upon, causes some raised eye-brows or a slap on the wrist (depending on severity) the latter will 'normally' be against the law and involves severe sanctions.

We are immortal in eve so there is no murder. Pew is basically criminal damage to property.

And arguably there was consent to it when you pressed undock.

There is a rather big difference between tricking money from gullible people (scam), throwing banana peels in front of people (mission grief) and then premeditated murder (pew). While the two former are frowned upon, causes some raised eye-brows or a slap on the wrist (depending on severity) the latter will 'normally' be against the law and involves severe sanctions.

Second, why does everyone insist that low sec needs more pvp? It already accounts for 30% of PVP in the game, hotzones already rival the 0.0 hotzones in terms of average kills/day, and even the quiet systems see more traffic than the quietest 0.0 systems. All the verifable data says that low is doing just fine, even though all the forum warrior data tells a different story.

Until someone can answer the last question I won't support any BOOST LOW SEC!!!111 thread.

Second, why does everyone insist that low sec needs more pvp? It already accounts for 30% of PVP in the game, hotzones already rival the 0.0 hotzones in terms of average kills/day, and even the quiet systems see more traffic than the quietest 0.0 systems. All the verifable data says that low is doing just fine, even though all the forum warrior data tells a different story. ...

Having to get a pod kill to get a Bounty is STUPID. loosing Security Status for killing Pirates is STUPID. If they want to fix Low-sec, this is at least a good start.

I really like the Idea though of Pirates having bounty's on them that you get just for killing their ship, and people that hunt Pirates get Bounty's from NPC corps, both from killing rats, and from killing Player Pirates in their space.

make it so titans cant bridge into lowsec or use their bridge's in....lowsec fixed

make it so titans cant bridge into lowsec or use their bridge's in....lowsec fixed