| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
DasNara Aethelwulf
Blackwater Syndicate
VENOM Alliance
   |
Posted - 2008.02.20 01:59:00 -
[31]
I really like this idea, so I'm going to keep bumping this every once in a while till CCP tells me to stop.
My left is in retreat, my center is giving way; situation excellent, I attack - Joffe 1916 |
MezX
|
Posted - 2008.02.20 05:44:00 -
[32]
very nice
/signed.
|
Cailais
Amarr
VITOC
|
Posted - 2008.02.20 11:18:00 -
[33]
 Originally by: DasNara Aethelwulf
I really like this idea, so I'm going to keep bumping this every once in a while till CCP tells me to stop.
Heh, I thought this thread had died to the 90 day rule  .
CCP have in fact noticed this - if you check my link which has the idea in a more basic form on the general discussions forum you'll see CCP Atropos has responded and has (I hope) forwarded it on to the game design department.
In this thread Ive added more detail (at another players request) so that those who are really interested can pick it apart and provide more ideas in a better context.
C.
Improved Low Sec Idea!! |
El Mauru
Amarr
Nexus Analytics
Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2008.02.20 12:41:00 -
[34]
I like this. esp. the fog of war and station ideas. Not sure about the t-3-stuff.
-
 |
Morcam
|
Posted - 2008.02.20 14:50:00 -
[35]
Why not add in random Concord patrols to lowsec? They would only go 1-2 jumps from empire, but would break gatecamps where they go. New players wouldn't have to worry about getting obliterated, but pirates could still pirate. They would simply have to look around to find players, not wait for them at gates. (More people in lowsec ftw)
|
Cailais
Amarr
VITOC
|
Posted - 2008.02.20 17:48:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Morcam
Why not add in random Concord patrols to lowsec? They would only go 1-2 jumps from empire, but would break gatecamps where they go. New players wouldn't have to worry about getting obliterated, but pirates could still pirate. They would simply have to look around to find players, not wait for them at gates. (More people in lowsec ftw)
CONCORD is often seen as a 'deux ex machina' solution, or in other words 'I cant do it, so I expect the game to provide a solution for me'.
Whilst that might sound a bit of a harsh criticism what is needed is a process whereby Players can effectively 'police' low sec themselves. My prefered option in this regard is that the more a corporation invests in a systems infrastructure, the greater freedom that corp is allowed with respect to security in that system.
For example if Corp A 'renovates' a ruined station by adding a laboratory (for example) that is accesible to all, then that corps 'soveriegnty' of the system increases - achieve a high enough rating and that corp might be treated as 'blue' by sentry guns within that specific system.
Such a process could equally benefit the 'pirate corp' but then its not CCPs task to determine moral values of corps: simply to provide the means for players to sculpt their own environment.
C.
Improved Low Sec Idea!! |
Katanaha
Gallente
Infinitus Odium
The Church.
|
Posted - 2008.02.21 11:14:00 -
[37]
Edited by: Katanaha on 21/02/2008 11:14:01
/signed
i like this, makes lowsec allot more "intresting" 
_______________________
Please CCP pimp my sig!
orly?! |
Reviera
|
Posted - 2008.02.21 19:00:00 -
[38]
my first thought is that it is a nice idea.
but without reading the hole thread i also think that this wont be possible as it will make low sec even more frightening/harder for all ppl that live in high sec.
and afaik CCP want ppl to leave high sec?
am i missing something?
|
Esiel
Caldari
|
Posted - 2008.02.21 21:43:00 -
[39]
Edited by: Esiel on 21/02/2008 21:44:10
This sounds great, I would love to see low sec as more than a place to avoid except when you have to. However the way security status works needs to be changed. It has been mentioned in this The Security Gradient 1.0 to 0.1
I think it would be a great way to further enhance what you suggested. If in .4 systems there are still active stations why not still have active Concord. Not the same Concord that is in empire space but a weaker version, one that is possible to defeat.
In .4 space it would require gang of several ships to tackle Concord while in .2 a single ship could fight off Concord. (Concord ships would repopulate at the same rate rats do) in .1 space well all that is left are the guns.
(think of it this way in .4 space Concord presence is equivilant to that of ships found in level 4 missions, in .3 a level 3 .2 a level 2 mission)
Pirates whine about this because they want a place to kill carebears and carebears whine because they want to be able to see low sec and have a chance. Well let it work for both of them, pirates can still kill carebears but now they have a harder time the higher the sec. This will make the carebears happy as they will feel safer in .4 systems and will venture out more.
Off with your head |
Knoppaz
Rens Nursing Home
|
Posted - 2008.02.21 22:02:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Reviera
my first thought is that it is a nice idea.
but without reading the hole thread i also think that this wont be possible as it will make low sec even more frightening/harder for all ppl that live in high sec.
and afaik CCP want ppl to leave high sec?
am i missing something?
It would work if the black market gives a high profit for those that accept the high risk and are cautious..
Support Cailais' idea of LowSec MKII |
Cailais
Amarr
VITOC
|
Posted - 2008.02.21 23:14:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Knoppaz
Originally by: Reviera
my first thought is that it is a nice idea.
but without reading the hole thread i also think that this wont be possible as it will make low sec even more frightening/harder for all ppl that live in high sec.
and afaik CCP want ppl to leave high sec?
am i missing something?
It would work if the black market gives a high profit for those that accept the high risk and are cautious..
Exactly. Yes low sec, for the ill prepared is frightening, I think really its supposed to be that way. I dont think the answer is completely 'look heres more ISK, come and get it' - after all if youre that desperate for high ISK returns, you might aswell leap into 0.0. Rather I think Low Sec should be tantalising to players because it offers something a bit different.
Its a bit like dipping your toe in the water. I wouldnt expect legions of players to flock into low sec under these ideas and stay there, but instead more would venture in for short periods. Perhaps to make use of the black market, or via smuggling gates and the reduce 'local' effect to gain a little bit of proection.
Coupled with exploration style asteroid belts (as proposed by the Devs) I think this might work rather well - certainly in the less frequented low sec systems.
The comparative lack of 'dockable' stations might actually make the pirates life a bit harder in some respects as they in turn have fewer places to 'hide up' in whilst that fleet swoops through.
C.
Improved Low Sec Idea!! |
Cailais
Amarr
VITOC
|
Posted - 2008.02.21 23:19:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Esiel
Edited by: Esiel on 21/02/2008 21:44:10
This sounds great, I would love to see low sec as more than a place to avoid except when you have to. However the way security status works needs to be changed. It has been mentioned in this The Security Gradient 1.0 to 0.1
I think it would be a great way to further enhance what you suggested. If in .4 systems there are still active stations why not still have active Concord. Not the same Concord that is in empire space but a weaker version, one that is possible to defeat.
In .4 space it would require gang of several ships to tackle Concord while in .2 a single ship could fight off Concord. (Concord ships would repopulate at the same rate rats do) in .1 space well all that is left are the guns.
(think of it this way in .4 space Concord presence is equivilant to that of ships found in level 4 missions, in .3 a level 3 .2 a level 2 mission)
Pirates whine about this because they want a place to kill carebears and carebears whine because they want to be able to see low sec and have a chance. Well let it work for both of them, pirates can still kill carebears but now they have a harder time the higher the sec. This will make the carebears happy as they will feel safer in .4 systems and will venture out more.
Rather than CONCORD Id suggest NPC pirate faction rats (it is Low Sec after all), although instinctively Im against providing just more security for players who cant be bothered to provide their own. I still prefer the concept of explorable smuggling gates for those who take the time and effort to get a safer route through low sec, but perhaps dont have the back up of a large gang to 'force' their way in.
C.
Improved Low Sec Idea!! |
Johli
Caldari
AWE Corporation
Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2008.02.21 23:39:00 -
[43]
/signed.
I really don't agree with the t3 thing though.
|
Cailais
Amarr
VITOC
|
Posted - 2008.02.22 09:11:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Johli
/signed.
I really don't agree with the t3 thing though.
Im glad you like the ideas overall - what is it about the T3 concept that doesnt appeal - could you be more specific?
C
Improved Low Sec Idea!! |
Hugh Ruka
Caldari
Exploratio et Industria Morispatia
|
Posted - 2008.02.22 11:07:00 -
[45]
Edited by: Hugh Ruka on 22/02/2008 11:08:57
however nice the idea is, this will never have much effect.
the deeper into system security status you go below 0.5, it takes more planning ahead in RL and more player cooperation (and more player skill).
this works against the casual gamer habits of instant content available at logon and not much planning involved (highsec missions and such).
so even if it would attract some new players, only those with more dedication to the game will ever venture past 0.5 regularly.
in the last QEN, about 19% of the eve population lives in 0.0. I think that number is about correct and reflects the division of attitudes in the palyer base.
EDIT: btw every ship scanner has a max range of 14.5AU, yet you are reducing local availability to 10AU in the extreme case. That has no logic at all. It simply does not work together.
Originally by: Aravel Thon
Originally by: Nith Batoxxx
Hi my alt just leanred to fly the ferox...............
I am so so terribly sorry...
|
Cailais
Amarr
VITOC
|
Posted - 2008.02.22 11:59:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Hugh Ruka
Edited by: Hugh Ruka on 22/02/2008 11:08:57
however nice the idea is, this will never have much effect.
the deeper into system security status you go below 0.5, it takes more planning ahead in RL and more player cooperation (and more player skill).
this works against the casual gamer habits of instant content available at logon and not much planning involved (highsec missions and such).
so even if it would attract some new players, only those with more dedication to the game will ever venture past 0.5 regularly.
in the last QEN, about 19% of the eve population lives in 0.0. I think that number is about correct and reflects the division of attitudes in the palyer base.
EDIT: btw every ship scanner has a max range of 14.5AU, yet you are reducing local availability to 10AU in the extreme case. That has no logic at all. It simply does not work together.
Yes, the AU range of the scanner does have a range of 14.5AU, but it provides very different information than local - for example it only shows the ship type, not the pilot or any details about him or her. In this case your ship scanner is still very valuable but only provides a partial picture, and no picture at all if the vessel youre looking for is cloaked.
Whilst I agree with you that the casual player might not venture into low sec / 0.0 because high sec content is more accesible its important to recognise that about 29% (based on the last QEN) have transited through non-high sec space: thats a suprisingly large % of the player base when we consider the 'anti low sec' sentiment described on these forums.
The addition of smuggling gates provides the means for players to access low sec space whilst potentialy avoiding the classic 'gate camp'. The Black Market (and my other ideas) provides some of the incentive to do so. The Reduced Local effect provides the capability to remain 'unnoticed' whilst entering or operating in Low Sec (which works both ways of course - for both hunter and prey).
I think its important to recognise that Im not aiming for some sort of 'mass exodus' from high sec space, instead to make Low Sec more appealing in 'gaming terms' for those that already operate their and perhaps achieve a small migration of players who would be attracted to that element of the game if they had the opportunity to do so.
C
Improved Low Sec Idea!! |
Hugh Ruka
Caldari
Exploratio et Industria Morispatia
|
Posted - 2008.02.22 12:26:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Cailais
Originally by: Hugh Ruka
Edited by: Hugh Ruka on 22/02/2008 11:08:57
however nice the idea is, this will never have much effect.
the deeper into system security status you go below 0.5, it takes more planning ahead in RL and more player cooperation (and more player skill).
this works against the casual gamer habits of instant content available at logon and not much planning involved (highsec missions and such).
so even if it would attract some new players, only those with more dedication to the game will ever venture past 0.5 regularly.
in the last QEN, about 19% of the eve population lives in 0.0. I think that number is about correct and reflects the division of attitudes in the palyer base.
EDIT: btw every ship scanner has a max range of 14.5AU, yet you are reducing local availability to 10AU in the extreme case. That has no logic at all. It simply does not work together.
Yes, the AU range of the scanner does have a range of 14.5AU, but it provides very different information than local - for example it only shows the ship type, not the pilot or any details about him or her. In this case your ship scanner is still very valuable but only provides a partial picture, and no picture at all if the vessel youre looking for is cloaked.
Whilst I agree with you that the casual player might not venture into low sec / 0.0 because high sec content is more accesible its important to recognise that about 29% (based on the last QEN) have transited through non-high sec space: thats a suprisingly large % of the player base when we consider the 'anti low sec' sentiment described on these forums.
The addition of smuggling gates provides the means for players to access low sec space whilst potentialy avoiding the classic 'gate camp'. The Black Market (and my other ideas) provides some of the incentive to do so. The Reduced Local effect provides the capability to remain 'unnoticed' whilst entering or operating in Low Sec (which works both ways of course - for both hunter and prey).
I think its important to recognise that Im not aiming for some sort of 'mass exodus' from high sec space, instead to make Low Sec more appealing in 'gaming terms' for those that already operate their and perhaps achieve a small migration of players who would be attracted to that element of the game if they had the opportunity to do so.
C
heh I do understand your goal fully. and I do agree on most of your ideas (especialy the R&R stations look nice). the market change not so much.
anyway the loss of local as security/intel channel is more of a hindrance than a boon to your goal. it is ok for 0.0 (where I would fully support this), but in lowsec it limits exactly the instant content I wrote in my initial post.
I would modify your idea a bit.
A POS module could transmit local info with a system scanning array anchored to the owning corp/alliance (depends on settings) in both lowsec and 0.0. this would be a more elegant solution. let's say it has a 60 second scanning cycle. then your buoies (sp ?) at gates would transmit gate activation to the anchoring corp/individual again.
EVE lacks serious sensor warfare and refined scanning/intel gathering abilities to replace the local channel. scanner has limited range and as you mentioned, does display only a certain information. probes are cumbersome to use and require dedicated modules and skills. no anchorable scanning systems do exist (or at least that I know about). also there are no counter-measures (like anchorable "fog" generators).
but this again adds to the complexity of lowsec/0.0 logistics and would deter(sp ?) the average player.
what you can add to the game to enhance lowsec/0.0 in the same time adds complexity and depth which works against the average gamer enjoyment.
so I would support your idea for the most part, but it will not accomplish what you seek.
Originally by: Aravel Thon
Originally by: Nith Batoxxx
Hi my alt just leanred to fly the ferox...............
I am so so terribly sorry...
|
Cailais
Amarr
VITOC
|
Posted - 2008.02.23 15:10:00 -
[48]
It depends on how we view the 'average gamer'. If its someone who plays infrequently (say once a week) but does so for several hours then youre quite correct theyre likely to stick with 'what they know' and prefer not to take any risks whatsoever (their once a week 'eve hit' is too precious).
If however its a player who logs on 3 or 4 times a week for short bursts of an hour or two (Im sure thats the majority of us) then Smuggling Gates offer a chance to enter Low Sec and travel around it with increased 'security' (by being stealthy).
If once in that Low Sec hes harder to find, and can reach explorable content such as asteroid belts then that players chance of survival is at least a little higher.
We might envisage modules that make it harder to find your ship through scan probes (like stealth materials) - say a hp weaker 800mm plate that reduces your sig radius to scan probes.
If we then adjust some of the low sec rewards up ever so slightly we get a compounding of effects, improving the chance that a 'average player' spends time in Low Sec.
Certainly thats not the whole solution. Mission Generic ship fits to handle NPC spawns need to be looked at - especially the disparity between the MWD and AB. The closer the mission runner, or miners, "set up" vs the classic PVP ships in terms of capability the better. If we can give PVE players a more even footing against the highly spec'd PVP player then their chance of survival increases, and so the risk drops in proportion.
C.
Improved Low Sec Idea!! |
Esiel
Caldari
|
Posted - 2008.02.27 08:18:00 -
[49]
Originally by: Cailais
It depends on how we view the 'average gamer'.
If you read the latest quarterly economic report you can see that the average player does not venture in low sec, in fact 50% of the population won't go near it.
I would really love to see it change, so more people would want to try and branch out. Having some content that attracted people out is a good start but it will never truely happen untill low sec is a bit more safe. I don't think it should be as safe as empire space, but people need to have some chance to live when attacked.
Right now it is more dangerous to fly in low sec than 0.0 space. 0.0 space should be the most dagerous place to be, and low sec should safer than 0.0 but not as safe as empire, it should be a middle ground. With the way pirating is in lowsec the average player stands no chance. Untill this change is made I am willing to bet you will never see the shift that would let more people try out low sec and then eventaully 0.0.
(If they did make a change where pirating was harder in low sec than it is now I garantee the pirates would whine endlessly about having to move to 0.0 space. They want to kill without having to worry about being killed.)
Off with your head |
Mehos Spun
|
Posted - 2008.02.27 09:25:00 -
[50]
i like the idea of black market hubs
but just for drugs and boosters
i dont linke
the 3 tech Idea
|
Dogfighter
|
Posted - 2008.02.27 12:31:00 -
[51]
Edited by: Dogfighter on 27/02/2008 12:33:35
Congratulations Cailais, excellent idea of yours.
Nowadays, the transition from 0.5 to 0.4 is abrupt. 0.5 is full of CONCORDS, 0.4 is outlaw. Although the use of some ships is limited in low secs while it is not in 0.0, the impression that new players have is that there is not so much difference between these systems' rules. Lets make this transition soft and interesting for the players.
I agree with your ideas and I would like to add this: CONCORD is unbeatable in 0.6 or above, but this starts to change as you go from 0.5 to 0.1 systems. Random CONCORD "rats" appear in the gates, and they become easier to kill as the sec status of the system fall. Different kind of loot can be collected from CONCORD (lets say some contrabands they had in their cargo or their special ship fittings).
It is just an idea, since I remeber of some NPC fights in that old game called "Privateer" between pirates and militias, or confed versus kilrathi. I didn't find this inside EVE, and I also miss the EVE NPC conflicts out of the missions. Maybe we could see some amarrians fighting minmatars in the gates, or even CONCORD/customs getting killed by Guristas.
Thanks for your dictionary of ideas Cailais.
|
Cailais
Amarr
VITOC
Hedonistic Imperative
|
Posted - 2008.02.28 01:46:00 -
[52]
Originally by: Esiel
Originally by: Cailais
It depends on how we view the 'average gamer'.
If you read the latest quarterly economic report you can see that the average player does not venture in low sec, in fact 50% of the population won't go near it.
I would really love to see it change, so more people would want to try and branch out. Having some content that attracted people out is a good start but it will never truely happen untill low sec is a bit more safe. I don't think it should be as safe as empire space, but people need to have some chance to live when attacked.
Right now it is more dangerous to fly in low sec than 0.0 space. 0.0 space should be the most dagerous place to be, and low sec should safer than 0.0 but not as safe as empire, it should be a middle ground. With the way pirating is in lowsec the average player stands no chance. Untill this change is made I am willing to bet you will never see the shift that would let more people try out low sec and then eventaully 0.0.
(If they did make a change where pirating was harder in low sec than it is now I garantee the pirates would whine endlessly about having to move to 0.0 space. They want to kill without having to worry about being killed.)
If you see 10 ships on gate in Low Sec blowing people up theyre 'pirates', if you see 10 ships on a gate in .0 blowing people up theyre an Alliance 'defending their territory': its all a matter of perspective.
Granted you can usually try and reason with a .0 alliance, get standings and so forth as they are protecting their assets deeper in. Get past the doorman and .0 is pretty safe. Low Sec dwellers have no vulnerable 'assets' per se, and plentiful recourse to stations to sit in if the heat gets to much. In this regard the Low Sec pirate has no interest in what you do if you get past them and fly 8 jumps furher on - wheres as an Alliance might.
Giving players assets to 'protect' (such as limited low sec sov) would mean a need for more co-ordination with others and a less nomadic way of life for the Low Sec player. By protecting those assets so a quasi "police force" occurs: and thats what you see in .0.
C.
Improved Low Sec Idea!! |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |