Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Mara Devortex
|
Posted - 2008.10.14 01:16:00 -
[1]
Here is an idea that i hope will add some neat content for mission runners and also perhaps (devilishly) please our pirates. Why not introduce escalating missions that during each step will bring mission runners deeper into low sec while at the same time deliver escalating rewards.Now these would be optional missions with a disclaimer that refusing the mission would not cause loss of standings ,however once it is accepted then if a player decides to cancel mission would cause a loss of standing.
|
Jin Labarre
|
Posted - 2008.10.14 14:52:00 -
[2]
This would not push highsec players into lowsec. It would just fill the wallet and toolboxes of lowsec players.
Bad trade. Eventually highsec players would only be more deterred from going lowsec.
Also the depth of lowsec is totally meaningless. The lowsec systems closest to highsec are usually the most dangerous and most camped. This would just increase and make things worse.
|
Drake Draconis
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2008.10.14 17:56:00 -
[3]
Low Sec wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't so greatly gate camped and pirated....
But it is... and no one will find a solution to that because chaos is vastly encouraged.
|
Jin Labarre
|
Posted - 2008.10.14 19:20:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Jin Labarre on 14/10/2008 19:23:01
Originally by: Drake Draconis But it is... and no one will find a solution to that because chaos is vastly encouraged.
Actually, there is a rather simple solution that would even underline what lowsec really is, instead of making it a 0.0 mirror.
Instead of Full Fleet and Concord presence in highsec and practically none in lowsec, CCP could just have Empire fleet groups randomly roam and patrol the lowsec systems. The higher the security rating, the more likely meeting a patrol until in 0.1 it will rarely ever happen. More chaos, even less predictable, yet less pirate friendly. They'd actually have to evade the law, instead of just not having to worry about it.
That is not the topic here, though.
|
Mara Devortex
|
Posted - 2008.10.14 21:10:00 -
[5]
i see your point..well back to the drawing board lol
|
Drake Draconis
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2008.10.14 21:28:00 -
[6]
Roaming Patrols of even CONCORD and Empire at random intervals would be intriguing.
you should post an idea on that.
It would discourage intense gate camping raise on high sec borders.
And anything nearer to .1 space would be overlooked as it borders on 0.0 space.
I like this.
I'll be keeping an eye out for that.
It kinda makes a nice transition from high sec being "safer" and low sec being..... less safer... as opposed the literally taking a deep dive into the unknown.
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.10.15 04:51:00 -
[7]
OP: Don't even try to get highsec missioners into lowsec. It'll fail.
Originally by: Drake Draconis Low Sec wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't so greatly gate camped and pirated....
But it is... and no one will find a solution to that because chaos is vastly encouraged.
Yes, if it wasn't for all that annoying PvP, the PvP-legal space would be pretty nifty. ------------------ Herschel's Lottery #1 - Win a Kronos! |
Jin Labarre
|
Posted - 2008.10.15 09:09:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto Yes, if it wasn't for all that annoying PvP, the PvP-legal space would be pretty nifty.
As nice and nifty as irony can be, it misses the point, unless someone had said PvP should be prohibited in lowsec. That is not the case, though.
As it is, the galaxy is more or less divided into:
99%-98% safe highsec 0% safe lowsec 0% safe 0.0
The thing that would make highsec players go into lowsec would be:
99%-98% safe highsec 90%-0% safe lowsec 0% safe 0.0
I think that this is much more what CCP had in mind when they made the distinction between high and low security space. They just underestimated player's fear to venture into the unknown. As it is, most of lowsec is more dangerous than most of 0.0 and that misses the whole sec-part in lowsec. It could as well be called nosec, added to 0.0 and be done with it.
It is likely true that it is bloody near impossible to lure players that normally wouldn't go into lowsec with some kind of glittering prizes. The reason for most not to go is not the lack of opportunities. It is the lack of safety.
While you can (almost completely) safely fly around highsec in a shuttle, even a short single-jump trip to 0.4 in a tanked battleship can be fatal with the relevant factor being nothing but bad luck. People don't put their faith in karma, though. Those who dislike losing don't go where the odds are completely unknown. If they were partly known and if they could rely on equalizing factors to at least some degree, some of them would venture forth.
And don't just say that something will fail, because fail will failingly fail to unfail...
There are many ways to skin a mink and if player psychology and game development were so easy to predict, a lot of game concepts would be completely different and at least 90% of all nerfs and buffs would never have been necessary in the first place. I leave it to those who do this stuff for a living to iron out the details of any potentially useful direction and since I have been in such a position myself before, I know that it is possible beyond what most on the outside may anticipate.
A thing that will always fail is any attempt to persuade a large amount of people to make a jump into the dark. Only few will make that jump, while most will hesitate first, or not do it at all. Making them jump into a slightly darker shade of grey is much easier, though. One step, then the next and the next and before they realize they will willingly fly where no searchlights penetrate the darkness anymore.
|
Octavinus Augustus
Amarr Auctoritan Syndicate Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.10.15 11:25:00 -
[9]
I dislike the idea of randomized CONCORD presence in lowsec very much.
If a pirate should attack a person, he would then be XX% likely to be instaganked by CONCORD. Seriously, not a good idea.
If you wish to go down this road I'd rather see permanent CONCORD presence in lowsec - but of far less effectivenes and response time than you see in highsec. So if, for instance a priate attacks a hauler in 0.4 he is set upon by a "standard" battleship rat and 2 cruiser rats but if he does the same in 0.1 he's only met by one rat cruiser. I'm still not in love with this idea though.
I'd rather actually make lowsec more rewarding compared to high sec. The problem with this is that making lowsec missions more rewarding would introduce a lot of extra isk into the game as well as potentially making lowsec more rewarding than 0.0. The answer is obviously to nerf mission rewards in both lp and isk in high sec at the same time as low sec is boosted.
Or you could go by Mara's original idea - with the slight change that only lowsec missions can escalate. This would still, of course, introduce additional iskies into the game, so a similar isksink would need to be introduced. My suggestion is to reduce mission rewards in high sec - but obviously even if this is necessary it's not going to happen.
Q: How do you make a disobediant Minmatar slave scream? A: Skin it and roll it in salt. |
Jin Labarre
|
Posted - 2008.10.15 12:24:00 -
[10]
That doesn't work out, because it will end up pouring money into the pockets of those who are there anyway, while it would lure only very little new people in.
Any kind of NPC presence that gets weaker in terms of firepower the further out it goes also makes no sense. Concord and the empire faction's fleet commands would have to be braindead, if that was the case. The more dangerous an area is, the harder you hit, if you do so in the first place.
Eventually, it would be like modern slums in Africa or South America. Little to no police presence, ever. But when they come, they come in full force. They come armed to the teeth and they shoot first, ask questions later. They will not do it often, though.
That is how lowsec should be. The slums of the Empire.
Keep the background of the game world in mind, not just the game mechanics. The mechanics have to fit the setting, not the other way around.
|
|
Ikonia
|
Posted - 2008.10.17 12:04:00 -
[11]
Hehe, nice idea. Problem is, that those players doing escalations then are nothing but cannonfodder. Of course i would love to have more chances to PVP and i would prefer that all of EVE is PVP area fully. But since the game engine isnt really developed for PVP this would just bring problems and would be kinda one-sided.
In general: PVP in Eve is in comparison to other games a bit boring. Pirates only attack when they have a safe win, else most flee. That brings up those Gankings, and Suicide Gankings from lowskilled players with just the wish to post a kill somewhere. High quality 1:1 exist maybe in the dreams of some developers but not ingame. As long as it is like that, it should remain as it is. I prefer PVP but not by being ganked when ever possible.
|
Another Forum'Alt
|
Posted - 2008.10.17 12:09:00 -
[12]
All that will happen is lowsec ones will get declined/ignored. This is not part of my sig.
...Or is it? |
Tempest Inferno
Davy Jones Locker Einherjar Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.10.18 14:11:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Jin Labarre Edited by: Jin Labarre on 14/10/2008 19:23:01
Originally by: Drake Draconis But it is... and no one will find a solution to that because chaos is vastly encouraged.
Actually, there is a rather simple solution that would even underline what lowsec really is, instead of making it a 0.0 mirror.
Instead of Full Fleet and Concord presence in highsec and practically none in lowsec, CCP could just have Empire fleet groups randomly roam and patrol the lowsec systems. The higher the security rating, the more likely meeting a patrol until in 0.1 it will rarely ever happen. More chaos, even less predictable, yet less pirate friendly. They'd actually have to evade the law, instead of just not having to worry about it.
That is not the topic here, though.
I agree with you. There should be random Concord patrols in low sec based on the security rating. Also, there should be some kind of marker that shows up either as a message broadcast to all players in system or a simple C added to the security rating (0.3C vs 0.3) that shows that concord is in system. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |