Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Paige Turner
|
Posted - 2008.04.01 00:24:00 -
[1]
Here's a concept... Since it is called LOW security and not NO security add SOME security...
In addition to the Sentry guns, which everyone knows is a joke, add some NPC police that will respond. Not Concord, but actual NPC ships that can be tanked and destroyed. Make it so that they respond slightly slower than Concord as well.
|
Erotic Irony
|
Posted - 2008.04.01 00:30:00 -
[2]
that is tortuously complex and unnecessary;
simple answer: better npcs and better ore, no need for new mechanics ___ Eve Players are not very smart. Support Killmail Overhaul
|
Kahega Amielden
Legacy Syndicate space weaponry and trade
|
Posted - 2008.04.01 00:58:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Erotic Irony that is tortuously complex and unnecessary;
simple answer: better npcs and better ore, no need for new mechanics
New mechanics would be awesome. There's a lot of cool **** they could do with lowsec.
however, yes, boosting NPCs, ore, and level 5 missions would fix lowsec.
|
EnslaverOfMinmatar
Imperial Academy
|
Posted - 2008.04.01 01:04:00 -
[4]
i give you 1/10 for this troll
|
umop 3pisdn
|
Posted - 2008.04.01 01:07:00 -
[5]
Edited by: umop 3pisdn on 01/04/2008 01:09:37 Yep, same ore/rats as 0.0 Worse exploration opportunity's No large POS allowed (same should be for empire tbh...) No POS would be preferable but there is no alternative for now and it would disrupt the 0.0 economy (with POS's being used as jump points for capitals)
That'd pretty much do it... gate camps aren't hard to get around unless you are incompetent, sorry to say.
Another good idea would be to make NPCing less time intensive, shorter, harder battles against less NPCs would be good and more PVP like.
Missions should not be so hard to find, exploration sites should be warpable complexes like static complexes once found.
|
Dirk Magnum
|
Posted - 2008.04.01 01:07:00 -
[6]
If anything either remove sentry guns, or just have a single one at the gates. Please visit your user settings to re-enable images. |
Trix Rabbit
|
Posted - 2008.04.01 01:11:00 -
[7]
EVE is a pvp centered game. I'm sorry but its true. Low security space is there as a jumping off point to 0.0. Adding concord/concord-lite is contrary to the purpose of low security space. If low security space was safe there would be no reason to be in high security space since both ore and rats are better in low security space.
Besides, you are just wrong in your assumptions. The real protection in low security space is the inability to use a warp bubble.
Please visit your user settings to re-enable images. |
Kahega Amielden
Legacy Syndicate space weaponry and trade
|
Posted - 2008.04.01 01:17:00 -
[8]
Quote:
Besides, you are just wrong in your assumptions. The real protection in low security space is the inability to use a warp bubble.
And the fact that large ships have to be used to lock/attack a target first due to sentries, and the fact that there are many more stations in lowsec...
|
Zeba
Pator Tech School
|
Posted - 2008.04.01 01:23:00 -
[9]
Faction police would ruin gate camps so I vote no. Let the poor buggers who make a living off the morons of eve who blindly jump into low sec with billions in isk in their untanked t1 indys cargo hold well, make a living.
Originally by: Malcanis Too many people confuse "Waah, I didn't get my own way" with 'poor customer service'.
|
Ard UnjiiGo
|
Posted - 2008.04.01 02:45:00 -
[10]
When are you going to post the "intelligent" part of your fix for low-sec?
Please visit your user settings to re-enable images. |
|
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2008.04.01 02:57:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Zeba Faction police would ruin gate camps so I vote no. Let the poor buggers who make a living off the morons of eve who blindly jump into low sec with billions in isk in their untanked t1 indys cargo hold well, make a living.
Well, most pirates complain about the lack of targets in low sec because most people are hip to the notion that taking their untanked indys with billions of cargo is a Bad IdeaÖ.
In order to do this there need to be different mechanics. Not saying the OP's ideas are it but we have been around this block many times on the forums and some good ideas have popped out. If you leave it so jumping into a camp pretty much = death no one will go there. If you find ways to give other players a real chance at flying around out there then yes, pirates will not kill absolutely everything but with more targets it should even out. One would think that would be a lot more fun for all parties.
Making low sec more valuable is a waste of time without a change of mechanics. You could put arkonor out there and it would not be worth mining (better off sneaking into 0.0 to ninja mine there).
-------------------------------------------------- "Of course," said my grandfather, pulling a gun from his belt as he stepped from the Time Machine, "there's no paradox if I shoot you!"
|
Vasili vonHolst
Gargamel's Lair
|
Posted - 2008.04.01 03:21:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Ard UnjiiGo When are you going to post the "intelligent" part of your fix for low-sec?
this ------------------------------------------------ Movie: + Trillion ISK damage to Care Bear community |
Overwhelmed
Center for Advanced Studies
|
Posted - 2008.04.01 03:22:00 -
[13]
Yet another thread?! Sonofacocksuckingmother*******pieceof****cumguzzlingchrist****ing****mongling*****ass***** STFU ------------------------------------------------ Disclaimer: This is a meta-game alt for meta-game discussions. |
Nyabinghi
Re-Awakened Technologies Inc Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2008.04.01 03:24:00 -
[14]
Yeah low-sec as it stands now adheres to no logic. As I've said before you don't build fancy-shmancy multi-billion (trillion?) isk stations in a solar system without some form of stability and order in said system.
***
|
Ioci
Ioci Exploration Apotheosis of Virtue
|
Posted - 2008.04.01 05:16:00 -
[15]
Some logic to the low sec might help. I am thinking of a system in essence. It's a .4 surrounded by .7 secs. Has one base, 8 or so belts, is like every other system in all respects except it is .4 sec.
Why? |
Dirk Magnum
Spearhead Endeavors
|
Posted - 2008.04.01 05:24:00 -
[16]
Then add an NPC police presence (that can be tanked, killed - i.e. not a CONCORD replacement) around stations in Low Sec. I'd be for that. It is a logical addition, and it doesn't break station-adjacent PvP.
|
techzer0
|
Posted - 2008.04.01 05:28:00 -
[17]
Edited by: techzer0 on 01/04/2008 05:30:06
Originally by: Ioci Some logic to the low sec might help. I am thinking of a system in essence. It's a .4 surrounded by .7 secs. Has one base, 8 or so belts, is like every other system in all respects except it is .4 sec.
Why?
Decon?
Originally by: Ard UnjiiGo When are you going to post the "intelligent" part of your fix for low-sec?
This. We don't need no more stinkin NPCs, you can stay in 0.5 and above since the rewards aren't good enough in lowsec for you now, adding some crappy NPCs won't make them any better.
Lowsec is like 0.5, except you get the occasional battlecruiser spawn ------------
Originally by: CCP Mitnal It's great being a puppetmaster
|
Ioci
|
Posted - 2008.04.01 05:35:00 -
[18]
You guys are making em feel old here.
There was actually a time when Sentry guns didn't attack in low sec. That was added to provide the 'low' instead of 'no' sec feel. Since then tanking has increased by large amounts and it's possible to ignore them for the most part. PvE needs a revamp. We are engaging the same stuff we engaged back when they introduced battleships to the game. I think they have a few plans on the table, they just don't advance them. If you follow the evolution of drones in Eve, it implies that there might some day be an intelligent drone and it might invade all of Eve. We don't know though. |
Drizit
|
Posted - 2008.04.01 05:40:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Erotic Irony that is tortuously complex and unnecessary;
simple answer: better npcs and better ore, no need for new mechanics
Sigh We've been over this so many times.
You would have to make the ore better than 0.0 to make it viable. No matter how good teh rats are, you will not get people to move there until something is done about the game mechanics.
ATM, Sovereignty makes it much easier to defend and hold 0.0 areas. Since sov is not possible in lowsec, this limits the defenders quite considerably. Hence the reason why lowsec is actually more dangerous than 0.0 in most cases.
-- Please visit your user settings to re-enable images. Freighters need a tank |
techzer0
IDLE GUNS
|
Posted - 2008.04.01 05:59:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Drizit
Originally by: Erotic Irony that is tortuously complex and unnecessary;
simple answer: better npcs and better ore, no need for new mechanics
Sigh We've been over this so many times.
You would have to make the ore better than 0.0 to make it viable. No matter how good teh rats are, you will not get people to move there until something is done about the game mechanics.
ATM, Sovereignty makes it much easier to defend and hold 0.0 areas. Since sov is not possible in lowsec, this limits the defenders quite considerably. Hence the reason why lowsec is actually more dangerous than 0.0 in most cases.
Well... lowsec is like NPC 0.0 regions, without sentries or sec loss for piracy.
People still live in NPC 0.0 regions, and even live there where they don't have access to stations and everything is brought in by carrier runs. This is because the rewards outweigh the risks of living there, lowsec does not have the rewards that an NPC 0.0 region has and is rather useless for anything other than shooting the first person you see. You will pretty much never see people making carrier trips to a stationless lowsec system and living out of a POS hanger, because it's just not worth it. ------------
Originally by: CCP Mitnal It's great being a puppetmaster
|
|
Cpt Branko
|
Posted - 2008.04.01 06:49:00 -
[21]
Edited by: Cpt Branko on 01/04/2008 06:49:55
Originally by: Paige Turner Here's a concept... Since it is called LOW security and not NO security add SOME security...
There is some security. There's sentries preventing the use of interceptors/etc/etc on gates and the 330ish DPS they deal is noticeable for small camps.
I also don't see any bubbles and such in low-sec. Which would make it, like, really insecure
Originally by: Imperator Jora'h
Well, most pirates complain about the lack of targets in low sec
No they don't. Most carebears whine about how low-sec is insecure. Just look who's making the most posts about 'low-sec fixes' and crap.
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Shakuul
O RLY corp YTMND.
|
Posted - 2008.04.01 07:09:00 -
[22]
I wouldn't mind it if they gave alliances who controlled a constellation at a certain sovereignty level the ability to hire NPC police to cover their region. This would have a number of advantages: 1) Makes 0.0 feel less empty (when traveling between gate camps, you'd have one more enemy to avoid) 2) Adds immersion to the game (it doesn't really make sense that you can roam through hostile territory without anyone caring) 3) One more ISK sink (woohoo)
|
Hugh Ruka
Exploratio et Industria Morispatia
|
Posted - 2008.04.01 07:28:00 -
[23]
simply ban all capital ships from lowsec (except dreads) ...
add neut and ecm sentries to gates/stations ...
Waiting for the patch that patches the last patch ... |
Tippia
School of Applied Knowledge
|
Posted - 2008.04.01 08:35:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Cpt Branko
Originally by: Imperator Jora'h
Well, most pirates complain about the lack of targets in low sec
No they don't. Most carebears whine about how low-sec is insecure. Just look who's making the most posts about 'low-sec fixes' and crap.
Actually, the pirates whine plenty about it, and suggests various hairbrained schemes to "lure" empire players into low-sec with the promise of high potential rewards.
|
Gaven Blands
interimo
|
Posted - 2008.04.01 09:11:00 -
[25]
Allow Stealth Bomber bombs to be pushed through stargates... you'll probably get your bomber concorded, but oh the laughs...
--
and with this Post, I scent this thread. Biased moderators are on the way. |
Cpt Branko
Surge. Night's Dawn
|
Posted - 2008.04.01 09:33:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Tippia Actually, the pirates whine plenty about it, and suggests various hairbrained schemes to "lure" empire players into low-sec with the promise of high potential rewards.
Rubbish. Just look at who's making all the threads.
It's not pirates, I can tell you that.
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Inertial
The Python Cartel
|
Posted - 2008.04.01 09:50:00 -
[27]
April fools?
Anyways. What I would prefer (that is with the exception of removing high-sec ), is that gatecamping became impossible. Allow bubbles in low-sec, but they would be popped at gates, and so would any other ship, including titans. Instead the bubbles could draw people out of warp, midwarp. This was suggested in another thread, and I really like this. No need for meta gaming with alts, and a new tactical environment would come out of this.
|
Cpt Branko
Surge. Night's Dawn
|
Posted - 2008.04.01 09:55:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Inertial April fools?
Anyways. What I would prefer (that is with the exception of removing high-sec ), is that gatecamping became impossible. Allow bubbles in low-sec, but they would be popped at gates, and so would any other ship, including titans. Instead the bubbles could draw people out of warp, midwarp.
"Remove gatecamping. Then make gatecamping 12321321 times more reliable/safer to do."
lolwhat? Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Belch Verbyl
|
Posted - 2008.04.01 09:57:00 -
[29]
I like the OP's idea
/signed
|
Reem Fairchild
Shadow Forces Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.04.01 10:16:00 -
[30]
Low-sec is fine. You want security, pick a system, take your corp there and add the security yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |