EVE Search - The Security Gradient 1.0 to 0.1

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

The Security Gradient 1.0 to 0.1

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Saul Elsyn	Posted - 2008.02.19 17:25:00 - [1] There's something thats always irritated me about the way security status and concord behavior don't really seem to relate very well to each other. Concord responds and is deployed almost identically in 1.0 to 0.5, but when you get to low-sec... Where'd concord go? I can understand that low-sec is meant for PvP and Piracy but you'd think there'd at least be an occasional Concord frigate at a gate. Once again, there's no change in deployments for law enforcement in 0.4 to 0.1. So what am I suggesting? I'm suggesting that concord respond differently at each security level, and continues to respond (Albeit Poorly) in low-sec space. Like any police force, concord has different response times... Additionally the ships that concord sends are an inversion of the way ships are deployed by NPC pirate corporations. (Concord sends her battleships and cruisers after you in 1.0-0.6, Cruisers and frigates in 0.5-0.3, and frigates in 0.2-0.1) In fact here's a quick way to calculate response times and give a real gradient (I think adding a modifier based on your security status also makes a lot of sense). 1.0 = Concord responds to combat within 1 minute of its occurance. 0.9 = Concord responds in 1 minutes and 14 seconds on average. 0.8 = Concord responds in 1 minutes and 33 seconds on average. 0.7 = Concord responds in 2 minutes and 2 seconds on average. 0.6 = Concord responds in 2 minutes and 46 seconds on average. 0.5 = Concord responds in 4 minutes. (Border with low-sec, fairly dangerous, as it should be.) 0.4 = Concord responds in 6 minutes and 15 seconds on average. 0.3 = Concord responds in 11 minutes and 7 seconds on average. 0.2 = Concord responds in 25 minutes on average. 0.1 = Concord responds in 1 hour and 40 minutes on average. (Like a slum in a big city, it takes FOREVER for the police to respond) (Negative security status with the aggressor increases the speed of concord's response, a -10 security rating results in near instantaneous response. A positive rating decreases speed of the response as well.) I'd also like to see the removal of the restrictions to capital ships. I know that the only reason they're not allowed in hi-sec is that they can tank concord. The answer to that is simple, give Concord her own capital ships. Someone is stupid enough to use a titan's superweapon in 1.0, Concord should call on the help of the empire navies and get their own Titans out and show the aggressor the stupidity of their ways.
Saul Elsyn	Posted - 2008.02.19 17:25:00 - [2] There's something thats always irritated me about the way security status and concord behavior don't really seem to relate very well to each other. Concord responds and is deployed almost identically in 1.0 to 0.5, but when you get to low-sec... Where'd concord go? I can understand that low-sec is meant for PvP and Piracy but you'd think there'd at least be an occasional Concord frigate at a gate. Once again, there's no change in deployments for law enforcement in 0.4 to 0.1. So what am I suggesting? I'm suggesting that concord respond differently at each security level, and continues to respond (Albeit Poorly) in low-sec space. Like any police force, concord has different response times... Additionally the ships that concord sends are an inversion of the way ships are deployed by NPC pirate corporations. (Concord sends her battleships and cruisers after you in 1.0-0.6, Cruisers and frigates in 0.5-0.3, and frigates in 0.2-0.1) In fact here's a quick way to calculate response times and give a real gradient (I think adding a modifier based on your security status also makes a lot of sense). 1.0 = Concord responds to combat within 1 minute of its occurance. 0.9 = Concord responds in 1 minutes and 14 seconds on average. 0.8 = Concord responds in 1 minutes and 33 seconds on average. 0.7 = Concord responds in 2 minutes and 2 seconds on average. 0.6 = Concord responds in 2 minutes and 46 seconds on average. 0.5 = Concord responds in 4 minutes. (Border with low-sec, fairly dangerous, as it should be.) 0.4 = Concord responds in 6 minutes and 15 seconds on average. 0.3 = Concord responds in 11 minutes and 7 seconds on average. 0.2 = Concord responds in 25 minutes on average. 0.1 = Concord responds in 1 hour and 40 minutes on average. (Like a slum in a big city, it takes FOREVER for the police to respond) (Negative security status with the aggressor increases the speed of concord's response, a -10 security rating results in near instantaneous response. A positive rating decreases speed of the response as well.) I'd also like to see the removal of the restrictions to capital ships. I know that the only reason they're not allowed in hi-sec is that they can tank concord. The answer to that is simple, give Concord her own capital ships. Someone is stupid enough to use a titan's superweapon in 1.0, Concord should call on the help of the empire navies and get their own Titans out and show the aggressor the stupidity of their ways.
Draconus Lofwyr Eternal Guardians Corp. The Covenant Alliance	Posted - 2008.02.19 19:24:00 - [3] Edited by: Draconus Lofwyr on 19/02/2008 19:24:57 o/ Signed with one change, The standings should be based on the level of the victim, not the aggressor. Sort of the heres someone who does good and is rewarded for it. so those with low or negative standings don't have the reward of extra protection. I agree with the capital restriction lift, but understand the reasons for it, a basic carrier pilot can tank station guns for hrs, it will lower the overall safety in high sec systems for new players. Also, imagine Jita with 25 carrier pilots outside 4-4 all releasing full drones on a 1000+ day? can we say node death? allow capitals with the caveat of no use of capital bonuses ( dreads cant siege, carriers drop to 5 drones, Titans cant use the DD but CAN use the jump bridges). And Concord Capitals will respond to Capital Crimes. DL
Thenoran Caldari Frontier Economics	Posted - 2008.02.19 20:19:00 - [4] Edited by: Thenoran on 19/02/2008 20:19:26 /Signed Low-sec is currently dead in most aspects due to the fact that pirates can simply kill any player doing any kind of job, be that mining, missions, exploration or whatnot. Low-sec should be dangerous, don't expect to mine in a Retriever there or run a mission in a frig, but it shouldn't be the deathtrap it is now (atleast not in 0.4 and 0.3) Also, escaping or surviving (or even killing) CONCORD in low-sec should be not be considered to be an exploit, only in high-sec. ------------------------ Mining over 4000m3 per cycle...with a Rokh
d3vo Amarr The Core Doctrine Covenant of Prophecy	Posted - 2008.02.19 20:50:00 - [5] /signed the idea, not the specs in low sec, battles last long sometimes once concord comes, everyone is screwed plus high sec should be faster, especially 1.0
Draconus Lofwyr Eternal Guardians Corp. The Covenant Alliance	Posted - 2008.02.19 20:57:00 - [6] Originally by: d3vo /signed the idea, not the specs in low sec, battles last long sometimes once concord comes, everyone is screwed plus high sec should be faster, especially 1.0 This is why I recommended the reversal of the standings effect. 2 -10 standings pirates slugging it out is not likely to get the polices attention, while a -10 jumping a 5.0 standing individual is likely to get the attention of the individuals "buddy" in concord. This will more approximate the effect of standings in real life and bring a long needed "reason" for positive sec status. The response times are probably subject to adjustment with a linear curve to make times seem like an eternity and keep low sec still a wild lands with a minor law on the old west feel, theres always the "chance" the sheriff happens to walk in the saloon! DL.
Coluumnator MD	Posted - 2008.02.19 20:57:00 - [7] Signed
Koyama Ise	Posted - 2008.02.19 21:41:00 - [8] Cool idea. But these times are a bit sloppy, people can gank freighters in in high-sec systems in a few seconds so if it took a few minutes for CONCORD to arrive it would be almost like lowsec. And for lowsec CONCORD in it's normal state would be to powerful. So you need to scale down the strength of CONCORD as well so you can actually shoot in lowsec without getting completely owned in your dreads when you have that mother-ship in structure. -------- Yes, I know I'm an alt, what are you going to do about it?
Verys The Black Ops Black Core Alliance	Posted - 2008.02.19 21:50:00 - [9] Speed up the needed time especially in 1.0 it should be almost instantly seeing as the ship are concord drones. I like the idea though why else would there even be a sec system, to drop gradually from 1.0 to 0.0? ----------------------------------------------
Saul Elsyn Sturmvogel Squadron	Posted - 2008.02.19 23:10:00 - [10] Great ideas guys, I agree that making it the victim's security status that effects concord's arrival time makes more sense than my original suggestion. I see that the high sec response time needs to be adjusted. I'm not sure how short we should make it...

Cailais Amarr VITOC	Posted - 2008.02.19 23:22:00 - [11] Edited by: Cailais on 19/02/2008 23:22:16 NOT signed. There's no reason to make low sec 'easier' and this is a blatant kick in the teeth to pirates everywhere. As someones sig says 'concord provides consequences not security - only you can do that'. A far better solution imho is to adjust your local scan range as the security rating drops - effectively increasing the amount of 'unknowns' as you drop deeper down the system sec levels (see the link on my signature). That way you get a real degredation of 'security' as the sec level drops. C. Improved Low Sec Idea!!
Cpt Branko Surge. Night's Dawn	Posted - 2008.02.19 23:39:00 - [12] Edited by: Cpt Branko on 19/02/2008 23:42:14 Originally by: Cailais There's no reason to make low sec 'easier' and this is a blatant kick in the teeth to pirates everywhere. As someones sig says 'concord provides consequences not security - only you can do that'. This. Of course, I suppose carebears will be asking for the hax concord ships to support them in 0.0 next. It requires brain usage to survive in low-sec. This thread reminds of the miner we just popped in Tama (of all the places!) trying to mine in like the fifth most dangerous low-sec in EvE and whining about gankers (I mean, everyone goes to Tama to gank other people, it's the point of a four-belt system with a station which spews you out of dock range). On the other hand, there's 99% empty systems like three jumps away, and nobody bothers. It's like someone complaining he can't rat in Amamake, which is like pirate Jita really. Just redicilous ;) Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Draconus Lofwyr Eternal Guardians Corp. The Covenant Alliance	Posted - 2008.02.20 00:32:00 - [13] I was thinking balancing it so technically, with the right standings, you could pirate as high as 0.7 systems, kind of spreading the danger high and low, adding to the uncertainty, instead of a set line in space, you weren't sure if 0.5 was safe, or 0.4, or 0.6. Making a not so solid demarcation line to where the danger runs. DL
Saul Elsyn Sturmvogel Squadron	Posted - 2008.02.20 03:16:00 - [14] Thats really what its meant for if you read the full post. If concord doesn't respond for several minutes in a 0.7 or 0.6 due to low security rating on the victim of the attack (Like a low-sec character lugging a ton of goods in a indy or freighter to sell em) then an attack on that character could be quite successful without the loss of the attacking ship. This also makes bounty-hunting a much easier profession because you won't have concord on your ass immediately if you nail some target in 0.8. At the same time I'm sick of "Pirates" (I use the quotes because no self respecting real world pirate operates in the same way as some of EVE Pirates) being able to attack ships in low-sec without risking their own vessels. Piracy should be a much riskier business then it is now. Plus we're talking about probably 20 minutes or more response time for concord in deep low sec, and they're not sending their really heavy battle wagons but their little boys that a good pirate can easily fend off.
Daallie	Posted - 2008.02.20 09:08:00 - [15] Edited by: Daallie on 20/02/2008 09:17:52 Also I would say in addition to the response times the response strength of Concord should be different. The whole idea of concord instantly arriving in a huge fleet is a silly idea. Honestly, when was the last time you heard of a 911 call bringing in the 23rd Armored Division as its first response. So in addition to the time changes there should be a size difference. It would be most realistic to have roaming Concord Fleets but I don't want to put that on CCP to code and manage. A gradient of attack strength would be a nice bonus, because as it the benefit to mining in 0.5 is much larger than that of 1.0 but does the change in risk is minimal compared to the gains. So, by adding the small possibility of Concord not being able to help in time or help adequately should be an added risk to miners, inevitably making life as a pirate better and making 0.5 a more measurable risk compared to it gain from 1.0. Also I understand that pirates in EVE do have a nice tack of being very dishonorable but to be honest when safe sec is considered 0.5 and thats the middle of the road for the security standings its really pathetic. If you add more elements like response time and response strength then safe sec is not so safe and also it would force more gangs and people operating together to even do things like shipments would make the game much more realistic as to any real situation. As dramatic as this change would be it would help very much in stabilizing the market would create more markets because all of sudden it isn't the safest option to truck it to Jita, Rens, Oursuleart, or Amarr. It would let the smaller corporations get a little more into the game and also all of a sudden you would see a huge increase in mercenary corps and transport corps because all of a sudden transporting is more than just setting autopilot to avoid low sec and walking away. There is the risk of getting jumped in empire. This kind of idea is what would make the game more playable and also lead to more specialized corporations and cooperation in alliances making it a greater economic requirement to be in an alliance rather that just a requirement for 0.0.
Cpt Branko Surge. Night's Dawn	Posted - 2008.02.20 10:22:00 - [16] Originally by: Saul Elsyn If concord doesn't respond for several minutes in a 0.7 or 0.6 due to low security rating on the victim of the attack (Like a low-sec character lugging a ton of goods in a indy or freighter to sell em) then an attack on that character could be quite successful without the loss of the attacking ship. It's a exploit to evade Concord in any way. You MUST lose your ship. Originally by: Saul Elsyn At the same time I'm sick of "Pirates" (I use the quotes because no self respecting real world pirate operates in the same way as some of EVE Pirates) being able to attack ships in low-sec without risking their own vessels. Piracy should be a much riskier business then it is now. Pirates risk their own vessels (just like everyone else, even more given they're free to attack anywhere) whenever they change systems or are in space with anything hostile in space, which is just 99% of the time. The number of times I almost lost my ship is, well... huge. I must've evaded being ganked about 100-200 times already by being attentive and acting fast. On the other hand, some of the nicer kills I made were jumping on top of other pirates killing someone, double profits Originally by: Saul Elsyn Plus we're talking about probably 20 minutes or more response time for concord in deep low sec, Given that in some of the more pirate infested systems there's a crime going on all the time (Amamake,Egghelende,Tama,Rancer,...) concord would be having a pernament residence. Furthermore, it's a exploit to avoid Concord, and we don't need any more pirate nerfs at any rate. The 'stick in system (preferably safespot/docked) for 15 minutes' nerf known as GCC is bad enough. Originally by: Saul Elsyn and they're not sending their really heavy battle wagons but their little boys that a good pirate can easily fend off. Concord hax. Which means, you're not fending any of it away. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Cpt Branko Surge. Night's Dawn	Posted - 2008.02.20 10:32:00 - [17] Originally by: Daallie Also I would say in addition to the response times the response strength of Concord should be different. The whole idea of concord instantly arriving in a huge fleet is a silly idea. It's irrelevant. Concord hax (permajam, etc etc) so wether they bring a frig or a dread is quite irrelevant, and it is a exploit to avoid getting killed by concord. Originally by: Daallie Honestly, when was the last time you heard of a 911 call bringing in the 23rd Armored Division as its first response. So in addition to the time changes there should be a size difference. It would be most realistic to have roaming Concord Fleets but I don't want to put that on CCP to code and manage. Again, size of Concord response is preety much irrelevant outside of suicide ganking. Originally by: Daallie A gradient of attack strength would be a nice bonus, because as it the benefit to mining in 0.5 is much larger than that of 1.0 but does the change in risk is minimal compared to the gains. So, by adding the small possibility of Concord not being able to help in time or help adequately should be an added risk to miners, inevitably making life as a pirate better and making 0.5 a more measurable risk compared to it gain from 1.0. You can already suicide barges and stuff in 0.5 before concord arrives. Originally by: Daallie Also I understand that pirates in EVE do have a nice tack of being very dishonorable but to be honest when safe sec is considered 0.5 and thats the middle of the road for the security standings its really pathetic. Tons of industrial pilots thinking 0.5 is safe end up whining on the forums about losing 200M in their itty V ;) It's safer, not safe. The concord response speed difference helps suiciders. On the other hand, pirates don't go to 0.5 sec because, well, when you jump in a 0.5 system, faction navy practically instalocks you in anything bigger then a shuttle and then you die. Originally by: Daallie If you add more elements like response time and response strength then safe sec is not so safe and also it would force more gangs and people operating together to even do things like shipments would make the game much more realistic as to any real situation. Safe sec is not so safe anymore anyway, suiciders often hang out in 0.5 systems and hunt for industrials/etc. Originally by: Daallie It would let the smaller corporations get a little more into the game and also all of a sudden you would see a huge increase in mercenary corps and transport corps because all of a sudden transporting is more than just setting autopilot to avoid low sec and walking away. There is the risk of getting jumped in empire. People who do that now with any valuable cargo very often get to cry about it on the forums because, well, setting autopilot to avoid low-sec and going AFK to haul any more then 50ish M in a T1 industrial is a good way to lose it. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Cailais Amarr VITOC	Posted - 2008.02.20 11:13:00 - [18] Originally by: Saul Elsyn Thats really what its meant for if you read the full post. If concord doesn't respond for several minutes in a 0.7 or 0.6 due to low security rating on the victim of the attack (Like a low-sec character lugging a ton of goods in a indy or freighter to sell em) then an attack on that character could be quite successful without the loss of the attacking ship. This also makes bounty-hunting a much easier profession because you won't have concord on your ass immediately if you nail some target in 0.8. At the same time I'm sick of "Pirates" (I use the quotes because no self respecting real world pirate operates in the same way as some of EVE Pirates) being able to attack ships in low-sec without risking their own vessels. Piracy should be a much riskier business then it is now. Plus we're talking about probably 20 minutes or more response time for concord in deep low sec, and they're not sending their really heavy battle wagons but their little boys that a good pirate can easily fend off. As I thought that (highlighted) is your real complaint. Youre making the mistake that you percieve pirates as somehow 'invulnerable when they engage targtes in low sec: which they are not. Indeed aggroing a target in low sec makes the 'pirate' vulnerable to everyone, including sentry guns. Piracy simply isnt as 'easy' as youre implying and if youve been killed by players in low sec then its because youve been lazy, failed to read the warning signs and failed to protect yourself adequately. What youre asking for is for a game mechanic to protect you, so you dont have to bother - and I cant support that. C. Improved Low Sec Idea!!
Daallie	Posted - 2008.02.20 11:26:00 - [19] Originally by: Cpt Branko Originally by: Daallie It's irrelevant. Concord hax (permajam, etc etc) so wether they bring a frig or a dread is quite irrelevant, and it is a exploit to avoid getting killed by concord. OK, do you honestly think we are proposing this idea and thinking that concord would be made to be no longer invulnerable either. Thanks for being stupid but honestly making concord like a normal police force and able to be fended off would be perfect. Meaning that the size of the fleet does matter not just whether or not they show up.
Morcam	Posted - 2008.02.20 14:46:00 - [20] Personally, I'd just go with random concord patrols in lowsec to break gatecamps. It wouldn't stop gatecamping altogether, nor would it stop pirating altogether, but it would get more players into lowsec by not getting killed on their first jump out into lowsec.

Cpt Branko Surge. Night's Dawn	Posted - 2008.02.20 15:32:00 - [21] Originally by: Morcam Personally, I'd just go with random concord patrols in lowsec to break gatecamps. It wouldn't stop gatecamping altogether, nor would it stop pirating altogether, but it would get more players into lowsec by not getting killed on their first jump out into lowsec. Personally, I'd just go with pirates (-5.0 sec status people) being able to enter 0.5/0.6 sec status systems without being shot at by faction navy and having and concord requiring 1 minute and two minutes to get to said belts, plus concord evasion not being a exploit there. How's that for 'middle-sec'? ;) Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Knoppaz Rens Nursing Home	Posted - 2008.02.20 16:03:00 - [22] Should be more like.. 1.0 = instant (it's newbie area afterall) 0.9 = 10s 0.8 = 25s 0.7 = 45s 0.6 = 1m 10s 0.5 = 1m 45s 0.4 = 3m 0.3 = 5m 0.2 = 10m 0.1 = 20m Everything above that doesn't really make sense imho. Support Cailais' idea of LowSec MKII
Thathys	Posted - 2008.02.22 08:43:00 - [23] Nice ideas! I¦m impressed with your thaughts. I think the game play would improve alot.If there were Concord responce in all systems. Ok,i can se the problem with 0.0 space and think it should be of limit for concord. (we need some wildlands after all) Concord responding with time bonuses regarding faction standings!? YES PLZ!! There would be a reason to have a nice standing. And pirate camps? we all hate to end up on the wrong end of one! But oooh so fun on the other end.
Newbear	Posted - 2008.02.22 09:06:00 - [24] In accordance with Need For Speed, ccp should get rid of concord all together and boost the damage output of sentry guns. For 1.0 insta-pop and it takes longer to kill as system sec decreases. Should also add energy neut, warp scram, and web batts to guard gates. Maybe get rid of sentry guns as well and arm the gates themselfs with internal batteries. Concord and other police ships circling around gates drike up the vaulable node juice. Would be more fun to have low sec. system security status fluctuate based upon actions of players. Have newbs fly supply missions of fuel and ammo to stations and gates (sends ppl to low sec). If too many fail then sec status drops. Or pirate missions in low sec to destroy concord to lower sec in neighboring systems. A smaller version of the pos wars that new players can enjoy. Click here for my High Security POS Service


Pages: [1] :: 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.