EVE Search - Isn't it time for CONCORD to re-draw their map?

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Isn't it time for CONCORD to re-draw their map?

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Malcolm Gunn School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 0	Posted - 2011.12.14 15:38:00 - [31] - Quote It could be set up so that CONCORD has finite resources to maintain sec status in systems. IE: If sec status increases in one system yielding greater CONCORD presence, there should be a sec status decrease in at least one other less traveled system.
Farethria Perkone Caldari State 0	Posted - 2011.12.14 17:16:00 - [32] - Quote Damned interesting idea. It gets at a problem, which is access to low/null sec space through only a few choke points mean the carebears won't try. What we need is a thinner hisec, with a lot more tendrils and access into low and null sec space. The current system causes those (HED-GP) access points to low/null sec to be continuously camped, either by the large alliances or some gank gang, either way the carebears aren't coming. But what if nullsec had hundreds of openings, large alliances would be forced to actively protect their space, and when stretched thin they would have to make a decision on what to hold, and not be able to hold huge areas by holding a few key systems. A little bit more like real space also. How about the sov holder gets to set the sec level? wouldn't that be interesting - islands of hisec in nullsec.
Barakkus 1193	Posted - 2011.12.14 17:26:00 - [33] - Quote They should just reverse null and highsec systems one day with no warning...all of null becomes highsec and all highsec becomes null...just for a day...would be hilarious... http://youtu.be/yytbDZrw1jc
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 2059	Posted - 2011.12.14 17:38:00 - [34] - Quote GÇªsure, with the addendum that areas with high pirate presence become nullsec because, obviously, the pirates have taken the place over. This means constellations such as Suon,Santenpaa, Karnola, Perud, CoriaultGÇª you know, the usual spots? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ If not, contact Miss DSA to shed your wardecs.
Niamo Higate The Minutemen NEM3SIS. 13	Posted - 2011.12.14 17:41:00 - [35] - Quote While the idea of changing the sec status of already high security systems to adapt to what the players are doing is great, the fact that you mentioned changing some parts of null space makes this idea ridiculous.
Nova Fox Novafox Shipyards 601	Posted - 2011.12.14 17:54:00 - [36] - Quote Pod Pilots do not control the security of the space, Regular people do. And when regular people make that space very hazardous for other people to the point concord cant do anything about it or the empire police forces they stop bothering. Remember Concord doesnt have the ability to wft uber pwn anything else that doesnt have a capsuleer pilotining it. Special jovian pod jamming technology makes that possible. Nova Fox Shipyards Inventory
Taedrin Kushan Industrial 170	Posted - 2011.12.14 17:57:00 - [37] - Quote I have been wanting dynamic system sec status for a loooonnnnggg time now. Why should high sec always remain high sec? I was so looking forward to incursions shutting off CONCORD in a system.
Aeril Malkyre Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 46	Posted - 2011.12.14 18:11:00 - [38] - Quote Farethria wrote: The current system causes those (HED-GP) access points to low/null sec to be continuously camped, either by the large alliances or some gank gang, either way the carebears aren't coming. But what if nullsec had hundreds of openings, large alliances would be forced to actively protect their space, and when stretched thin they would have to make a decision on what to hold, and not be able to hold huge areas by holding a few key systems. A little bit more like real space also. This has always been the problem I've seen. Once you get out to the raggedy edge, suddenly you're taking a long bridge to low or null. the next bridge could be 10 systems over. I can only imagine they put these choke points in intentionally, to foment battle. But as was said, constant gate camps by seasoned PvPers now throws up a big roadblock for young players. The border needs to be more porous in those places. To the main idea: I'd love to see that sort of shake-up. High pod kill areas get Concord swarmed and their sec status raised dynamically. Hi-sec areas with little population or traffic lose Concord's interest, and start to lose security. Lo-sec ares with high traffic or market or POS's or whatever get security protection. Et cetera. It would make the game feel alive. When plotting your route, you'd have to actually pay attention to the current sec status. Long used routes would slowly change, and if you want to avoid the new lower sec systems, you have to find a new route. Adds a modicum of planning and tactics to something as mindless as freight hauling. Oases of hi-sec could start popping up in lo or null, providing brief havens for those wearied by the constant cold wars. Conversely, lo and null could creep into the edges of hi where few bother setting up. A constantly emergent universe that reacts based on player actions. It would be glorious. And it would cause a firestorm the likes of which might ignite the pants of the bloated, slothful lords of the dragon lands, who have long since slain all the beasts and claimed their hoards for themselves.
Averyia 2	Posted - 2011.12.14 18:14:00 - [39] - Quote Ankh wrote: Akirei Scytale wrote: lots of work, not so much reward. Is it really a lot of work for CCP? I was thinking a simple alogrythm, where sec status is derived from player generated statistics such as 'average number of pod-pilots in space during the last month', or something like that. Yes, it would mean a lot of work for some players. But then that's part of the purpose, to stir things up a bit. I would imagine CONCORD would make announcements about the changes well in advance. There is your mistake right their. You think that any change to fundamental game mechanics would "only" require a "simple" "algorythm". One, in a program as complicated as Eve, there is no such think as a "simple change". Two, your overall idea begs the question... why? Why should the large empires have Concord protect anything outside of their borders. Pod pilots knew what they were signing up for, near immortality for the freedom to do whatever they want. Except here, here, and here.
Xolve Epidemic. 122	Posted - 2011.12.14 18:23:00 - [40] - Quote Its a good idea, would just have to be part of something bigger; I don't think the larger alliances, holding vast tracks of Sov would be happy if their memberbase turned their truesec -1.0 into a 1.0 via carebearing. Leave nullsec alone, and the way it is; messing with this would just ** off most of the playerbase; and further cripple the Dominion Sov system (for example what would happen to outposts and other nullsec only stuff if it was 'suddenly empire'?). A reactive system sec status in high sec would be interesting, it would have to be a slow evolution, and handled at downtime or the acts of a few could seriously sway important systems.. For instance, Jita would practically instantly be 0.0 by your proposition, unless they would factor in bordering systems and their sec status to effectively change other systems. The Madmirillire and Niarja would also see over night drops in System Sec as well. I'm all for shaking things up a bit, but it would definitely need to be done properly.. have the negative aspects such as Ganking, Pods Destroyed, Aggression, Etc factor against Missions, Incursions, and Ratting. Have people that enjoy their highsec utopia have to work on defending it from the empire yarrbears. You could even work the individual security status of players that inhabit those systems play into it as well. This is a pretty great idea, just needs some thought, time and tuning. Lady Spank for C&P Moderator.**

Nullbeard Rager Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 7	Posted - 2011.12.14 19:20:00 - [41] - Quote Akirei Scytale wrote: Shivus Tao wrote: Except lowsec is the opposite of that. The rats are not "better enough" compared to level 4's to justify the risk of ganks. There are only a handful of systems dedicated for gud fites, even there it's a miracle when it's actually a good fight and not a bait and blob. Trade in the state of eve is a very small nice, and anyone that does trade runs through lowsec regularly likely does so in a blockade runner. Trust me, the farther out you go, the more profitable it gets. Out in null it can get ridiculous, I can make what I did in a day of lvl 4s in maybe 15-20 minutes, and I know people who went from basically broke to flying a brand new carrier in just under 2 weeks. The risk of ganks is always tiny if you are actually aware of your surroundings and know how to react properly. Perhaps you could start a thread to explain this to all the nullbears looking for welfare? They seem to think they are underpaid and unappreciated.
Alexa Coates LNTC 22	Posted - 2011.12.14 21:11:00 - [42] - Quote Op's idea is good. For the people trying to force everyone into null/low, go f'k yourself. People (like me) want to play our way, not yours. Love my Gallente Federation Navy ships!
Mistress Motion Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic 6	Posted - 2011.12.14 21:34:00 - [43] - Quote The problem would be ofcourse, how you would determine the sec status. Quick thinking about this: Nullsec sec status would slowly rise in systems where people rat a lot, and no pod kills happen. That would force ratters to move a bit every now and then. Because the majority of nullsec is mostly quiet, the sec status would drop down slowly due to pirate faction presence. That would actually buff nullsec in terms of single pilot income, and considering that majority of normal null 'grunts' don't even have any idea about moon goo and how much isk flows through it, it wouldn't necessarily be bad thing. It would ofcourse also mean that people would have to spread their ratting, and would be more vulnerable to PVP there. And ofcourse if there's a system which has lot of ratters, and constant player brawls, the truesec would remain low for those who want to risk it (a little bit more thinking needed for this, since no-one would go rat there as there would be so much low truesec everywhere). Highsec status would have to be affected by a number of things. Considering kills, the data is already there to see the average pilots and pod kills per last 24h, so for example Jita wouldn't lose its sec status since there's so much people there, and only that much kills. (Rough example would be avg pilots / kills = sec status change, so assume Jita 1500 pilots, and 200 kills makes 1500/200 = 7.5, compared to Uitra at the moment, 82 pilots / 285 kills = ~0.28. Should ofcourse be real averages, and numbers should be tweaked to see what are the boundaries where sec status starts to dive, or go up.) Ofcourse one great problem would be corp POS's in hisec (standings issues) and lowsec moon mining. POS's would also be a greater problem if the sec status could dive from 0.5 to 0.4. Just thinking about these, not necessarily a fine suggestions or anything.
Alistair Cononach The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance 68	Posted - 2011.12.14 21:36:00 - [44] - Quote If CCP is smart, the future of Sov. is reactive Sov., which changes dependign on not just shooting big hp-heavy structures, but based on ALL the activity and space infrastructure within that system. A sliding scale system of "influence control", not the current system of timers and shooting large hp-meatshields. A reactive system would encourage smaller holdings, and more active defense, and more living in the systems you own, i.e. works against afk empires and empty-but-owned systems. That kind of system would be hard to create, but worth it in the long run health of EVE. And best of all, it could be adapted to other purposes.....like Faction Warfare low-sec Sov. and change-over-time security status of low and null-sec systems, better or worse as player action drives it. But with that said, I don't support much change to CONCORD. Their mandate is protecting High-Sec, and that is the one section of space I'd not want to see change, for many reasons, gameplay and RP.
Xolve Epidemic. 127	Posted - 2011.12.14 21:46:00 - [45] - Quote I wouldn't mind seeing faction warfare actually fight to claim systems for their racial faction.. Have a something similar to the Caldari/Gallente war happen on all the border overlays with reactive Sov. There should more then definitely be a hard cap for how far a system could fall, and how quickly.. going from a 1.0/0.9 to .02 overnight would be extreme.. This would give a bit of immersion to the rise and fall of the NPC Corporations, Shifting regional factional territories and other dynamic occurances in High Sec. Make factions mean something other then 'Oooh Jump Clones and Loyalty points'; give the Amarr/Minmatar RP Tools something to actually fight about. A little fine tuning and this could be an amazing thing for the game itself. Lady Spank for C&P Moderator.
Bubanni SniggWaffe Band of Abos 43	Posted - 2011.12.14 23:56:00 - [46] - Quote I think a dynamic sec status would be better... my idea would not change high, low or null into different sec but just change the exact number based on activity Basicly all high sec systems would increase in sec status based on average people in system and pve done (decreasing the value but also making it more safe) if a system is not being used the sec status will drop down over time High sec system will only vary from 0.5-1 Low sec system only vary from 0.1-0.4 Null sec will be different since there is on concord and the player is their own police The higher the pve and average players in system the worse the true sec... will the less presence the better true sec... again, dynamic over time So a heavy ratted system will slowly become a 0.0 system, and a empty system will slowly become a -1.0 I think the change from one side to the other should take about a month, but the plus side is complete empty worthless regions will slowly become more valuable while others slowly become worth less All this in 0.0 will give a nice dynamic incentive to moving around a little more. Spread out more and such Roleplaying wise... you could say It's because the players are driving out the rats slowly, and they are taking foothold els were...
Xolve Epidemic. 129	Posted - 2011.12.15 00:32:00 - [47] - Quote Bubanni wrote: I think a dynamic sec status would be better... my idea would not change high, low or null into different sec but just change the exact number based on activity Basicly all high sec systems would increase in sec status based on average people in system and pve done (decreasing the value but also making it more safe) if a system is not being used the sec status will drop down over time High sec system will only vary from 0.5-1 Low sec system only vary from 0.1-0.4 Null sec will be same principal The higher the pve and average players in system the worse the true sec... will the less presence the better true sec... again, dynamic over time So a heavy ratted system will slowly become a 0.0 system, and a empty system will slowly become a -1.0 I think the change from one side to the other should take about a month, but the plus side is complete empty worthless regions will slowly become more valuable while others slowly become worth less All this in 0.0 will give a nice dynamic incentive to moving around a little more. Spread out more and such Roleplaying wise... you could say It's because the players are driving out the rats slowly, and they are taking foothold els were... Essentially what I was going for, but much better wording. Low-Sec would need a bit of a buff on the lower end to rats and what not, having the local rats jumbled about a bit wouldn't take to much of a stretch, but giving players a reason to go after it however would be great. Give low sec random duration static plexes (on everyone's overview), fixing gate guns to do damage based on ship type (make smaller then BC possible), combine the local residency's mean sec status average to the shifting of the system sec (a system full of pirates should send a system's sec plummeting)... so many possibilities.. Reactive Sov would be amazing.. Lady Spank for C&P Moderator.
Nicolo da'Vicenza Divine Power. Cascade Imminent 153	Posted - 2011.12.15 00:37:00 - [48] - Quote You guys really don't see where incentivising alliances to make large tracts of dead space is gonna lead?
Ankh Angel Constellation 11	Posted - 2011.12.15 10:30:00 - [49] - Quote Bumblefck wrote: hullo Ankhamasenkpth how are things in holland and how is the pirate bay party doing Wrong on all counts... there's quite a few Ankh~'s in the game, I'm not the ~numpty one. English, not Dutch. Veteran of Coalition of Free Stars Alliance (Senator) and The Big Blue. *Just because you can, doesn't make it right.*
Eyup Mi'duck Republic University Minmatar Republic 12	Posted - 2011.12.15 10:56:00 - [50] - Quote Malcom Dax wrote: Interesting idea. But many people would rage. Ohhh yes. Please! The game is far too static atm. Maybe CONCORD could pilot this idea in a small area, see what happens. I am me.-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á I am not you.-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-áI am happy with this situation.

Farethria Perkone Caldari State 0	Posted - 2011.12.15 17:13:00 - [51] - Quote Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote: You guys really don't see where incentivising alliances to make large tracts of dead space is gonna lead? If access to null sec isn't impossible, and the space itself has a very porous border, then I expect them to have to run patrols constantly to keep the area from being trespassed. They have the numbers, they can do it, and frankly I think they should be compelled to do so to hold large areas. However getting off their butt, and neglecting their fat rat kills will probably lead to a lot of whining.
Xolve Epidemic. 132	Posted - 2011.12.15 17:30:00 - [52] - Quote I still think its a great idea, and further pushes the envelope on the game being 'by the players, for the players'. Reactive Sov could lead to fixing other areas of low interest (i.e. Low Sec, FW) and would encourage more small gang pvp, more roaming, more time in ships, less in stations... and in general causes the players in those areas to visit the out of the way places and what not. More player movement is definitely a good thing. Lady Spank for C&P Moderator.
Jack bubu GK inc. Pandemic Legion 111	Posted - 2011.12.15 17:36:00 - [53] - Quote Ankh wrote: Bumblefck wrote: hullo Ankhamasenkpth how are things in holland and how is the pirate bay party doing Wrong on all counts... there's quite a few Ankh~'s in the game, I'm not the ~numpty one. English, not Dutch. Well your idea certainly is as terrible as hers where
Skippermonkey Tactical Knightmare 221	Posted - 2011.12.15 18:05:00 - [54] - Quote sec status should be dynamic and based upon how many 'npc's were killed heh... say goodbye to nulsec :p
Elson Tamar Lion Investments 68	Posted - 2011.12.15 18:24:00 - [55] - Quote What an actual change in geo political maps that reacts to players actions! My god that would be cool. CCP i'll do the data entry if it makes it happen.
Xolve Epidemic. 132	Posted - 2011.12.15 18:51:00 - [56] - Quote Skippermonkey wrote: sec status should be dynamic and based upon how many 'npc's were killed heh... say goodbye to nulsec :p System class should stay relatively stable, Highsec staying High, Lowsec Staying Low, and Null staying Null in most instances. The swap from .5 -> .4 or .1 to -0.01 or vice versa should happen after a concentrated series of incidents, suicide ganks, pod kills, and ratting/mission running can all affect this. Even undealt with Incursions could potentially lower system security ratings. The Null to Low swap should only happen in a system with no Sov Structures present, and has been unclaimed for some time. My main interest in reactive sov is that it would create a more mobile playerbase, with people traveling to get to the good systems, and possibly people defending/locking down the good systems, for their alliance or corp. Regardless of Hi/Low/Null this unlocks a variety of play style options, gives PvP and PvE players something to do, creates more oppurtunities for services (Exploration, Mercs, Transporting/Freight) and will remove the 'Jita is the center of New Eden' mentality. If nothing else it would create a bit more immersion, and generally satisfy everyone. Lady Spank for C&P Moderator.
yopparai ASTARTES CORP 5	Posted - 2011.12.15 19:09:00 - [57] - Quote Why should concord go protect some punk a$$ sov holders in null-sec?
Dr Karsun Coffee Lovers Brewing Club Care Factor 37	Posted - 2011.12.15 21:05:00 - [58] - Quote Move to F&I please. And +1 for elastic concord boarders! "Have you had your morning coffee?" -> the Coffee Lovers Brewing Club is recruiting! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=363976#post363976
Long John Silver Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 28	Posted - 2011.12.15 23:19:00 - [59] - Quote I like this idea. Some consequences need to be thought through eg: changing sec status and POS's , capital ships based in systems that change to hi-sec and busy moon goo places, but the idea of an evolving security pattern sounds great. Maybe keep the total number of hi-, low- and null-sec systems about the same, but let the distribution move about a bit to reflect changing player patterns. Long John Silver \| Pirate Alt-áand Forum Troll.
Kaylyis Aces wild mining corporation The I.D.E.A. 1	Posted - 2011.12.16 00:00:00 - [60] - Quote I think Null should stay null unless you introduce something like incursions where say, the amarr Empire decides to annex your **** due to the success of your alliance. Concord's mandate is the protection of the Empire space holdings, not nullsec. For concord to get involved you have to have negotiated the police/peacekeeper deal with concord. This isn't for players. But Nullsec should remain nullsec. Any nullsec system annexed by an empire faction should have the ability for a player corp/alliance to assault and retake/conquer the system. And as a counterpoint there should be a peppering of lowsec systems in the empires flagged as conquerable by player corps... Perfect for a corp that wants to go to war every week and have "rats" that are incursions by the empire that lost the space rather than the standard drone/gurista/sansha/shootmenow/etc. The only "security status" shifting should be wholly contained inside space claimed by the big four, to include things like the ammatar or khanid. Nullsec should never become 1.0 space. Just because you don't like nullsec doesn't mean the playstyles of (god help me) the Goonswarm should be invalidated. There must always be capturable territory And there should never be any way to manipulate the map to remove nullsec and make the entire EVE space carebear friendly. But some sovereignty fluidity would be nice.



Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.