EVE Search - Fixing Empire Ganking & Low Sec all in one

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Fixing Empire Ganking & Low Sec all in one

» 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)
Eventy One Magellan Exploration and Survey Phoenix Rising Alliance	Posted - 2008.03.19 20:10:00 - [1] Edited by: Eventy One on 19/03/2008 20:17:00 In another thread Esmenet wrote: Originally by: Esmenet The issue is not highsec mission running but the problems of defending yourself in lowsec. Highsec has concord and 0.0 has player"police". Lowsec has nothing. Sure there are ways to stay safe but it will often dramatically lower your earning potential. So its not the middle ground between highsec and 0.0 like it is commonly seen as. I thought the issue of protection in high sec, low sec and 0.0 was an interesting perspective, and I think Esmenet is right on the money with why low sec is fundamentally broken. Add to this that people want to be able to gank, Concord or no, as evidenced by the empire ganking that is currently going on. This lead me to pose this suggestion: SUGGESTION What if we make it harder to gank in empire by increasing the Concorde forces that respond and deny insurance the right to compensate if killed by Concord BUT allow Concord to operate in low sec under given circumstances .. and allow the players the right to fight Concord when they do appear. In otherwords move the high sec ganking into low sec, by provide pseudo protection to SOME under given circumstances that can be defeated. THE HOWS Say, while in the process of engaging in level 4 or 5 mission running in low sec for a legitimate empire faction, Concord provide a security detail (for a cost) that provides protection to the person whose mission it is (i.e. you alone while in low sec). Make the low sec missions worth pay noticeably more than their high sec equivalents and if Concord is forced to come to you aid you are charged a set fee (based upon the value of your mission) to pay for the assistance. I wonder if that would make life more interesting. BALANCE ISSUES Considering balance, this solution would not make low sec into empire because the chance of running into protection or not, would be a crap shoot and having protection called upon would also incur a consequence for the person being protected; not every player would have Concord defense - so the risk for those with no other sanctioned purpose (no mission) would be still equally great. Similarly this solution would not make low sec into 0.0 as Concord would have the opportunity to intervene under given circumstances and it would cost the mission runner money (to pay for the aid). For the potential outlaw .. they can't tell if you are on legitimate Empire business or not, so their would be greater risk when attacking some victims over others. This would change the whole dynamic of low sec. Clearly people are currently willing to go against Concord as we can see from high sec ganking. Why not make lowsec the region where this is completely permissible. EXECUTION What does CCP have to do to make it happen: Low sec fighting Concord should not be deemed an exploit Turn on Concord protection for those with level 4 and 5 missions If Concord is called upon (i.e. the player is attacked) a fee is charged Increase the reward associated with level 4 and 5 low sec missions Increase Concord protection in high sec (more Concord, faster response) Deny those killed by Concord in high sec the right to Insurance payouts RISK VS REWARD? Players with legitimate business in low sec have a measure more of protection, however PvPers would still have the opportunity to attack everyone freely if willing to risk that some players may have a security detail working with them. Those being protected accept that this protection is not free, with a chance for greater reward (if not attacked while running missions)
Chainsaw Plankton IDLE GUNS	Posted - 2008.03.19 20:30:00 - [2] /me takes level 4 mission and sits on a gate.... waits to get shot. yay free loots! low sec has player police. if it doesn't, well then your lowsec area is full of pirates who aren't making as much isk as they could be, or theres nothing worth anything in that area. or it could just be incompetent anti pies, who get killed by other people for the lulz
Celot GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.03.19 20:35:00 - [3] is there a single part of this idea that isn't stupid and game-breaking?
Eventy One Magellan Exploration and Survey Phoenix Rising Alliance	Posted - 2008.03.19 20:42:00 - [4] Originally by: Celot is there a single part of this idea that isn't stupid and game-breaking? Is there any part of your response that is insightful or constructive? There's your answer.
Celot GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.03.19 20:51:00 - [5] that answer forms a paradox, dumbass
Eventy One Magellan Exploration and Survey Phoenix Rising Alliance	Posted - 2008.03.19 20:55:00 - [6] Originally by: Celot that answer forms a paradox, dumbass Does it? Try this one: Calling someone a dumbass is ad hominem and illogical. Illogical argument have no logical value. Hmm.
Tixxy Imperial Academy	Posted - 2008.03.19 20:58:00 - [7] god please no
Cpt Branko Surge. Night's Dawn	Posted - 2008.03.19 21:21:00 - [8] Originally by: Eventy One SUGGESTION What if we make it harder to gank in empire by increasing the Concorde forces that respond and deny insurance the right to compensate if killed by Concord BUT allow Concord to operate in low sec under given circumstances .. and allow the players the right to fight Concord when they do appear. In otherwords move the high sec ganking into low sec, by provide pseudo protection to SOME under given circumstances that can be defeated. No. Make Concord tankable rats (just like the other NPCs) and make faction police stop instalocking outlaws in high-sec. Cease running from faction police/concord being a exploit. A alternative approach that fixes risk/reward of highsec/low-sec/0.0 just nicely. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Surfin's PlunderBunny GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.03.19 21:28:00 - [9] I still hold to my original suspicion that Eventy One is Liz Kali Originally by: Avaricia look a goon lol
Hugh Ruka Exploratio et Industria Morispatia	Posted - 2008.03.19 21:30:00 - [10] no ... no concord but navy of he respective empire where the lowsec resides ... this way you won't avoid concord (exploit) and you will get faction hit when fighting the navy .. Waiting for the patch that patches the last patch ...
Niffetin Omni Research	Posted - 2008.03.19 21:32:00 - [11] Originally by: Celot is there a single part of this idea that isn't stupid and game-breaking? What he said. --- Teeheee! mematar's Video Archive
Soporo Tides of Silence Hydra Alliance	Posted - 2008.03.19 21:46:00 - [12] LowSec has been ******** (as far as keeping active miners and missioners and others, and a decent economy) for a looonnnnngg time. Sixty billion threads over the last couple years have detailed all it's faults and potentional in a myriad of ways. None of this has effectively changed LowSec in all that time. No major Dev discussion on it other than an offhand comment here or there, as far as I recall. Barring such silly and naive attempts to address LowSec issues by adding lvl 4 and 5 missions. Epic Fail of course. One can only assume that the Devs consider LowSec working as intended, or are completely mystified in how to change it. ________________________________________________ "We can't reimburse ships due to server meltdowns because our service is so frickin unstable we get thousands of reimburse petitions daily".
Cpt Branko Surge. Night's Dawn	Posted - 2008.03.19 21:53:00 - [13] It's probably working as intended. A lot of action/activity happens in low-sec, after all. It's quite bad when it comes to resupplying (as the local markets are quite bad), but that's preety much it. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Eventy One Magellan Exploration and Survey Phoenix Rising Alliance	Posted - 2008.03.20 03:20:00 - [14] Originally by: Hugh Ruka no ... no concord but navy of he respective empire where the lowsec resides ... this way you won't avoid concord (exploit) and you will get faction hit when fighting the navy .. You're right. I like this better.
Billy Sastard Life. Universe. Everything.	Posted - 2008.03.20 06:21:00 - [15] I am sick and tired of every other post in GD being someones great idea of how eve should be changed in order to bring it in line with their specific views in order to further their own personal agenda. Posts such as this belong in the development forum, not general discussion. Please accept this rant at face value. -=^=-
Dirk Magnum Spearhead Endeavors	Posted - 2008.03.20 06:42:00 - [16] Denying insurance to suicide gankers is completely logical and every day without this change is a day too long. Adding Concord, faction navy, pirate navy, or any other form of NPC protection to Low Sec is completely ridiculous and I seriously hope CCP never seriously entertains the idea of doing this. The only possible exception I could see is a limited pirate NPC response if you have an 8.0+ standing with that pirate faction and you get attacked by another player in that faction's territory. This would be a part of faction warfare I'd imagine.
Jack Jombardo The Last Samurais	Posted - 2008.03.20 07:49:00 - [17] Originally by: Celot is there a single part of this idea that isn't stupid and game-breaking? All you wannabe Pirates from low-sec are whining about a "broken low-sec". Year, it might be broken as there are to many of you. And this is the real game-breaking point ;). Less ganging = more players more ganing = less players There is nothink wrong with lowsec except ... all thouse 1000 Pirates who prefare to gang helpless miner/hauler with there over pimped killing machines. Close to sero risk for you and 100% profit = BROKEN BALANCE!
Dirk Magnum Spearhead Endeavors	Posted - 2008.03.20 07:57:00 - [18] Edited by: Dirk Magnum on 20/03/2008 08:03:08 WTF... you want industrials and miners to be able to match pirates blow for blow? If you want balance then that's exactly what you're asking for. **** that noise. Whenever someone complains about the combat balance between a barge and a pirate ship I get uppity. Also there are ways to fix Low Sec that don't involve removing pirates from it. For starters: 1. more diverse spawns of better NPCs with a wider range of bounties 2. random occurrences of rarer ore
Jack Jombardo The Last Samurais	Posted - 2008.03.20 08:04:00 - [19] Originally by: Dirk Magnum WTF... you want industrials and miners to be able to match pirates blow for blow? If you want balance then that's exactly what you're asking for. **** that noise. You don't get it, do you? Some days every second thread is about "buhaeae, lowsec is empty, bring more people to lowsec wich we can gang!!!!1111eleven". So if you realy like to get more people into lowsec you simply (yes, it IS simple) have to protect them better. And as it seams that you (the one who live in lowsec atm) aren't able or willing to provide this protection CCP has to introduce somethink to protect them. But no, you don't realy like more people out there ... you want free kills. Sheeps you can sloughter without ANY risk! You are a real pirate ... a real wannabe mini roxor Rambo .
Dirk Magnum Spearhead Endeavors	Posted - 2008.03.20 08:07:00 - [20] Edited by: Dirk Magnum on 20/03/2008 08:08:29 You're talking to a guy with five Low Sec kills. Also, people need to protect themselves and their corpmates in Low Sec. Low Sec is working as intended: a place with better rewards than High Sec and more risk. Apart from that, there are dozens of abandoned Low Sec systems that can be mined in with minimal risk. WTZ has allowed industrials to move through Low Sec with the greatest degree of safety ever. Also I don't see what the big deal is about pirates being pirates. They're supposed to make life miserable for people who handle expensive cargo. That's what they do.
Rawr Cristina Naqam	Posted - 2008.03.20 08:30:00 - [21] I like the idea about paying for protection/wingman for a price (a large percentage of the mission earning), so long as it's not the instaganking Hi-sec CONCORD we're all familier with (maybe some AI ships of varying effectiveness, which could also help with the mission itself) But there needs to be a compromise methinks. If missions had more inherent risk, such as more warp scramblers and beefed up NPC ships then it might work. Then again it's shifting the role of the defender to NPCs instead of Players (not that most missionrunners care about other players in any way to begin with) so it might be going against the spirit of EVE, but who knows? ...
techzer0 IDLE GUNS	Posted - 2008.03.20 08:34:00 - [22] So... you need to rely on NPC controlled things to play an MMO? That's pretty much fail. Become an effective anti-pirate and run the pirates off. It is a PVP isn't it? If you can't do it yourself, you don't deserve it. ------------ Originally by: CCP Mitnal It's great being a puppetmaster
Cpt Branko Surge. Night's Dawn	Posted - 2008.03.20 09:15:00 - [23] Originally by: Jack Jombardo All you wannabe Pirates from low-sec are whining about a "broken low-sec". Year, it might be broken as there are to many of you. And this is the real game-breaking point ;). Less ganging = more players more ganing = less players There is nothink wrong with lowsec except ... all thouse 1000 Pirates who prefare to gang helpless miner/hauler with there over pimped killing machines. Close to sero risk for you and 100% profit = BROKEN BALANCE! First off, you're being incredibly dumb. All the 'blah, low-sec' threads get started by CAREBEARS LIKE YOU, not pirates. All the proposed 'low-sec fixes' are from carebears who don't even live there, and 99% of the whining is whining from carebears. You are simply lying when you say pirates are whining about "broken low-sec". Carebears are whining about low-sec and suggesting outlandish changes. Also, close to 0 risk for pirates means you obviously have never, ever been to low-sec for any reasonable time frame. Originally by: Jack Jombardo Some days every second thread is about "buhaeae, lowsec is empty, bring more people to lowsec wich we can gang!!!!1111eleven". All the time every second thread is about buhahahae, low-sec is broken, pirates gank me, make concord/faction navy assist me, stop pirates from docking, delete them!!!!1111eleven. Look who starts the 'fix low-sec' threads. See any actual pirates starting the threads, eh? No, it's the carebears. I've started trolling every thread of theirs (and there is at least one per day about how low-sec needs to be fixed and the evil pirates gimped/deleted/castrated/shot/concorded) about how we should roll-back to tankable concord rats. In highsec. Me wanting to totally alter the space where they live is equally valid to them wanting to alter the space where I live anyway. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
techzer0 IDLE GUNS	Posted - 2008.03.20 09:18:00 - [24] Originally by: Cpt Branko Originally by: Jack Jombardo All you wannabe Pirates from low-sec are whining about a "broken low-sec". Year, it might be broken as there are to many of you. And this is the real game-breaking point ;). Less ganging = more players more ganing = less players There is nothink wrong with lowsec except ... all thouse 1000 Pirates who prefare to gang helpless miner/hauler with there over pimped killing machines. Close to sero risk for you and 100% profit = BROKEN BALANCE! First off, you're being incredibly dumb. All the 'blah, low-sec' threads get started by CAREBEARS LIKE YOU, not pirates. All the proposed 'low-sec fixes' are from carebears who don't even live there, and 99% of the whining is whining from carebears. You are simply lying when you say pirates are whining about "broken low-sec". Carebears are whining about low-sec and suggesting outlandish changes. Also, close to 0 risk for pirates means you obviously have never, ever been to low-sec for any reasonable time frame. Originally by: Jack Jombardo Some days every second thread is about "buhaeae, lowsec is empty, bring more people to lowsec wich we can gang!!!!1111eleven". All the time every second thread is about buhahahae, low-sec is broken, pirates gank me, make concord/faction navy assist me, stop pirates from docking, delete them!!!!1111eleven. Look who starts the 'fix low-sec' threads. See any actual pirates starting the threads, eh? No, it's the carebears. I've started trolling every thread of theirs (and there is at least one per day about how low-sec needs to be fixed and the evil pirates gimped/deleted/castrated/shot/concorded) about how we should roll-back to tankable concord rats. In highsec. Me wanting to totally alter the space where they live is equally valid to them wanting to alter the space where I live anyway. LOGIC!!! FINALLY!!!! Ah, there is my caps lock key. I see very very very few whines about lack of targets. I never complain even if I hunt people for 5-6 hours and get no kills. Lowsec might be empty sometimes, but I see no reason to change it. Think like a pirate when you're in lowsec and you'll have 100% better chance of living than if you try to play like you're still in 0.5 and above ------------ Originally by: CCP Mitnal It's great being a puppetmaster
Karanth GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.03.20 10:30:00 - [25] Don't mess with my lowsec, it's where I go when I don't want to be among mouth-breathers in empire, or dictors in 0.0. "Current Earth-Destruction Status"
Avaan Eclipse Genesis Accord	Posted - 2008.03.20 10:33:00 - [26] There's only one thing that needs to be done to fix low-sec, and that is making it possible to effectively defend a mining op. As it stands now it's flat out impossible to defend miners because the pirates will just warp in, gank the miners, and warp out again before the defenders can kill them. The only thing I'm proposing is a mechanic that allows the defenders of a mining gang to take the damage that's being dished out at the miners, they're sitting in the firing line or something. This, if anything, would be a huge step in the right direction, even if it wouldn't "fix" low-sec entirely. And as a footnote; it's pretty much impossible to "think like a pirate" when you are on a mining op, since pirates rely on staying on the move, and staying on the move is not really an option for a mining op.
Rawr Cristina Naqam	Posted - 2008.03.20 10:42:00 - [27] Originally by: Avaan Eclipse The only thing I'm proposing is a mechanic that allows the defenders of a mining gang to take the damage that's being dished out at the miners, they're sitting in the firing line or something. This, if anything, would be a huge step in the right direction, even if it wouldn't "fix" low-sec entirely. Sort of like extend it's shields around it or something? It's true that Mining Barges don't have anything in the way of a HP buffer. Even a log ship fails sometimes to save them inbetween rep cycles because they just pop. ...

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.