| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
FireFoxx80
Caldari
E X O D U S
Imperial Republic Of the North
   |
Posted - 2009.01.20 22:42:00 -
[1]
Currently, the jump from high-sec to low-sec is a cliff, just like the jump from low-sec (or in some cases high-sec) to 0.0. Recent improvements to ship hitpoints and an increased number of T2 ships have meant that these cliffs are exaggerated, and more prevalent than they've been in the past.
Firstly, I propose that the damage of sentry guns is dependent on the security status of the system. This would be less of a cliff, and more of a slope into 0.0:
0.4: 150% of current damage
0.3: 100% of current damage
0.2: 50% of current damage
0.1: 25% of current damage
Secondly, I propose that sentry guns' damage increases over time, similar to the increasing Concord response. This would be a relatively slow increase, perhaps 5% every 60 seconds.
These changes have several effects:
It would mean that 0.4 is slightly safer than it currently is. Hopefully this will encourage more pilots into low-sec.
It would mean that 0.1 is closer to 0.0, although pilots are still at the mercy of sentry guns and security hits. Hopefully it would encourage alliance warfare to spill over into empire.
A disorganised gang/solo pilot would have to rely on a high initial alpha strike, whilst an organised gang could rely on logistics, spider tanks, or better ships. This becomes easier as the system's sec status decreases.
Piracy can still exist, and in fact is easier in the lower-sec systems.
A gang/pilot cannot simply camp a single gate for hours on end, eventually the guns would overwhelm a pilot and they would be forced to warp out.
|
Cedric Diggory
Perfunctory Oleaginous Laocoon Mugwumps
|
Posted - 2009.01.20 23:32:00 -
[2]
Not radical enough in my opinion, but /signed on the principle. 200% in 0.4 and scaling down as appropriate to 25% in 0.1 |
Jalif
Black Sinisters
|
Posted - 2009.01.23 12:37:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Jalif on 23/01/2009 12:41:20
/signed
I like the idea, but I would like to see it also signature based.
|
Santiago Fahahrri
Galactic Geographic
|
Posted - 2009.01.23 13:13:00 -
[4]
Not bad. Supported.
~ Santiago Fahahrri
Galactic Geographic |
Matrix Skye
|
Posted - 2009.01.23 15:01:00 -
[5]
Heh, good idea. But I'd probably make .4 200% instead of 150%. Other than that your idea is pretty damn sound. And could even spread gatecamps into more random systems instead of the same 'ol high sec-to-lo sec choke points. |
Jason Edwards
Internet Tough Guy
|
Posted - 2009.01.24 01:55:00 -
[6]
Low sec concord faction navy
My idea above has this is mind.
You see if you join fail warfare or are simply highly negative to the faction and you go to their space. 0.5 systems are quite tankable. 0.7 systems become hard to tank.
0.4 would spawn a concord spawn different then a 0.1
Obviously my idea extends all the way to 1.0 systems to replace the faction navies in cases where -10 pirates enter high sec.
Not to mention. Even in 0.4 systems. Gatecamps would have the ability to destroy the concord spawns, or lock them up so they dont even spawn on the gate. |
FunzzeR
Counter Errorist Unit
|
Posted - 2009.01.24 03:11:00 -
[7]
I generally don't camp gates, rather I like to hunt for my targets. However a fair number of my engagements occur at gates.
However I am going to play devils advocate for sec, What you are proposing would actually ecourage bigger and more organized gate camps with more remote repping and sensor boosting.
Either that or organized gangs would have cloaked alts sitting 1-2 jumps up and down the route watching for traffic, while the gang sits at a safespot withing a few thousand km off the gate.
Either way you suggesting things that does not do much to change the end result, while hurting small gang and solo pvp on gates.
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |