Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Nemesis Factor
Caldari RennTech BricK sQuAD.
|
Posted - 2010.02.27 09:34:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Nemesis Factor on 27/02/2010 09:34:25 As I'm sure its obvious to pretty much EVERYONE, there is an extreme gap in the sense of safety between .5 and .4 space. I have an idea that would slightly change that for some people.
Currently, the only means of protection someone has in lowsec are the gate guns. I suggest a light wing of faction ships patrolling .4 and .3. There would remain a complete absence of CONCORD ships in lowsec, but each faction would deploy a small peacekeeping unit in the higher level lowsec systems.
Here is that catch: This light peace-keeping wing will only assist players with high standings when they are attacked. For .4 you would need at least 3.0 with the faction, .2 you may need 6.0 standings. Of course you would have to force highsec faction NPCs to aid attacked players with high standings as well. Simply keep the curve so you need 9.0 standings with the faction for them to aid you in 1.0 space.
As CONCORD are the only NPCs with Jove technology, they wouldn't be able to assist players who are in deadspace pockets. And it takes just as long for them to warp around the system as any other player. They would also be able to be fought and destroyed, though for standard loot only. To prevent it from being a viable career, you would not get a bounty, you would lose sec and standings, and the ships would drop basic T1 fittings and Navy tags. ~/~ Sultan of Buruni |
DXYOC
|
Posted - 2010.02.27 15:44:00 -
[2]
How about removing concord from 0.5 , 0.6 and make that happen there, its not like lowsec needs more nerfs.
|
XXSketchxx
Gallente Remote Soviet Industries Important Internet Spaceship League
|
Posted - 2010.02.27 15:53:00 -
[3]
Originally by: DXYOC How about removing concord from 0.5 , 0.6 and make that happen there, its not like lowsec needs more nerfs.
I like this _____________________________________________
-Sketch, Certified Pharmacist
Need a Boost?
|
Dantes Revenge
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.02.27 17:25:00 -
[4]
Originally by: DXYOC How about removing concord from 0.5 , 0.6 and make that happen there, its not like lowsec needs more nerfs.
Depends how you define nerf. If it moves players from highsec into lowsec more often, don't you think that would be a boost rather than a nerf? If you're looking at it purely from a pirates point of view, it may seem to be a nerf but, in fact it would bring more targets for you to shoot at. Or are you scared that a couple of NPC's might pop you?
"I'm here for easy targets, I don't want to have them shooting back at me." Whine, whine.
|
Galega Ori
|
Posted - 2010.02.27 17:43:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Dantes Reven "I'm here for easy targets, I don't want to have them shooting back at me." Whine, whine.
^^ This
|
HELIC0N ONE
GoonWaffe SOLODRAKBANSOLODRAKBANSO
|
Posted - 2010.02.27 18:15:00 -
[6]
Not sure one way or the oher on this particular suggestion, but I think eventually the whole concept of highsec -> lowsec -> zerosec may be phased out in favour of something a little more gradual. The massive difference in safety stepping from 0.5 to 0.4 is hugely out of sync with every other step (even 0.1 to 0.0) and some moves towards blurring the edges, if done sensibly, would be welcome to see.
|
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
|
Posted - 2010.02.27 18:24:00 -
[7]
Originally by: DXYOC How about removing concord from 0.5 , 0.6 and make that happen there, its not like lowsec needs more nerfs.
This.
|
Dantes Revenge
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.02.27 18:34:00 -
[8]
Originally by: HELIC0N ONE Not sure one way or the oher on this particular suggestion, but I think eventually the whole concept of highsec -> lowsec -> zerosec may be phased out in favour of something a little more gradual. The massive difference in safety stepping from 0.5 to 0.4 is hugely out of sync with every other step (even 0.1 to 0.0) and some moves towards blurring the edges, if done sensibly, would be welcome to see.
It would be nice to see a gradual decrease from Highsec to Nullsec. At present, Lowsec is what Nullsec should have been. Nullsec in many places is as safe as Highsec now and Lowsec is the most dangerous place to be right now.
|
Reggie Stoneloader
JAFA Trade and Manufacturing Cooperative
|
Posted - 2010.02.27 21:23:00 -
[9]
I think it's fine the way it is. Dividing space into three clear varieties (Concord-Patrolled high-sec, criminal-flag-enforcing low-sec and free-for-all 0.0) makes the starmap intelligible and lets us easily determine what's going to happen in any given system. Adding in a bunch of gradual steps and different rulesets for each one will complicate the game unnecessarily and mess with established trade routes in ways that will have a lot of negative impacts on the game. People think "status quo" is a bad thing, but so much of EvE works, and is interwoven with so many of the game's dynamic, that throwing around rule changes will shake fundamental balances and cause serious repercussions.
The extreme gap between 0.5 and 0.4 and the gap between 0.1 and 0.0 is a good thing--a useful thing--and quite honestly I'd rather see the fancy sec ratings concealed, so systems just have green, yellow or red sec status, and you can look up the numerical value to estimate the quality of resources in the system.
Don't the gate guns already scale in number and power in different sec systems? That should be enough for setting them apart, like the change in Concord response time in high-sec. ======================
Crusades: Security Status |
Nemesis Factor
Caldari RennTech BricK sQuAD.
|
Posted - 2010.02.27 22:38:00 -
[10]
The idea was mainly to prevent gate camping in lowsec, not pirating. If you have to examine your target's faction standing, you won't be able to simply shoot any ship that comes through the gate. As it is, you would be an idiot to jump from high to lowsec without a scout or a blockade runner. I just don't think there should be such a dramatic change for a .1 difference between systems. You can still camp the .2 systems that are connected to .5 though? Would that make you happy? ~/~ Sultan of Buruni |
|
King Rothgar
Violent By Design
|
Posted - 2010.02.28 00:15:00 -
[11]
Edited by: King Rothgar on 28/02/2010 00:16:11 I support blurring the lines and yes, I'm a pirate. There have been many suggestions on this but the simplest is for concord to go away except in 0.8+ sec. Below that you have faction navies, their response time and size is determined via system security. With that in mind I'd like to see:
0.1 sec: no response, sentry guns only 0.2 sec: 2 minutes, 2-3 frigates 0.3 sec: 1.5 minutes, 1 cruiser and 2 frigates 0.4 sec: 1 minute, 2 cruisers, 4 frigates 0.5 sec: 45 seconds, 1 BS, 2 cruisers, 4 frigates 0.6 sec: 30 seconds, 2 BS, 2 cruisers, 4 frigates 0.7 sec: 20 seconds, 3 BS, 4 cruisers, 4 frigates 0.8 sec: Concorddokken'd
The navy npc's would be similar in power to player ships, not normal mission npc's or the epically overpowered faction police that currently chase us outlaws in high sec. Faction police would not chase outlaws to safe spots/missions unless a crime is committed there but would shoot on sight anytime they see you (like at a gate). The number of ships I gave above would spawn for each player who commits a crime. So if 3 pirates go after a mission runner in 0.5 sec, 3x BS, 6x cruisers and 12x frigates would spawn 45 seconds after their attack. All npc police would warp disrupt and all frigates/cruisers would web as well. -----------------------------------------------------
|
Julius Rigel
|
Posted - 2010.02.28 00:44:00 -
[12]
Actually OP, this is already a feature in-game. It's called "anti-piracy". You should try it some time if you think there's a shortage of police in low sec.
|
Dantes Revenge
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.02.28 03:14:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Julius Rigel Actually OP, this is already a feature in-game. It's called "anti-piracy". You should try it some time if you think there's a shortage of police in low sec.
If you don't mind the sec hit for PK's yourself. IMO, if you take out someone who is lower sec standing than you, you should be rewarded with a sec gain proportional to the difference between your standing and theirs, not a sec hit.
|
Omara Otawan
|
Posted - 2010.02.28 08:56:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Dantes Revenge
If you don't mind the sec hit for PK's yourself.
There is no sec hit for shooting outlaws, or people with active criminal timers.
|
Sharon Anne
|
Posted - 2010.02.28 11:24:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Omara Otawan
Originally by: Dantes Revenge
If you don't mind the sec hit for PK's yourself.
There is no sec hit for shooting outlaws, or people with active criminal timers.
I don't think that is widely known in hi-sec community maybe some sort of missions in shooting pirates and gankers is needed
|
Ospie
Core Impulse
|
Posted - 2010.02.28 11:35:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Sharon Anne
Originally by: Omara Otawan
Originally by: Dantes Revenge
If you don't mind the sec hit for PK's yourself.
There is no sec hit for shooting outlaws, or people with active criminal timers.
I don't think that is widely known in hi-sec community maybe some sort of missions in shooting pirates and gankers is needed
Yes, please make there be missions that make highsec carebears come into lowsec to hunt me down!
|
King Rothgar
Violent By Design
|
Posted - 2010.02.28 12:23:00 -
[17]
Mmm, bounty missions. Lvl4 agent in dodixie informs you that the dread pirate King Rothgar must die. 10M isk reward for popping his ship, 100M isk + 100k LP if you pod him too. You have 48 hours. -----------------------------------------------------
|
Alchemist's Alt
Gallente Hysteria Nexus
|
Posted - 2010.02.28 12:27:00 -
[18]
Originally by: DXYOC How about removing concord from 0.5 , 0.6 and make that happen there, its not like lowsec needs more nerfs.
+1 FIRST!! |
Catheryn Martobi
|
Posted - 2010.03.01 02:12:00 -
[19]
Originally by: DXYOC How about removing concord from 0.5 , 0.6 and make that happen there, its not like lowsec needs more nerfs.
It would only make it safer for a quarter of your targets. And only relatively so, from certain death to 'maybe you will be all right just passing through.'
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |