this is the first unquestionably good idea i've seen about fixing lowsec in years, i'll yoink it and dump it in front of ccp.

lowsec: eve's vegas, but with more guns

I'm not sure if security status will entice the carebears into coming to low sec.

Might start first by not calling them carebears.

Also, how will this increase PvP? Because they don't have to grind sec? You have to do a lot of shooting to get below -2 if you're not shooting pods, and your suggestion does nothing for pods. Structures make a bit of sense, I could see dipping below the mark over shooting a POS. But then again, does structure bashing require us to make a such a drastic alteration to the security status rules of low sec?


How about graduated war declarations instead? Such as "This war declaration is only valid in 0.0 to 0.4 security status systems." You still get what you want, without the crazy "If this, then that" scenario you're painting.

Props to you for using your brain though, will still give you a +1.

Many GG#fix lowsecGG% proposals revolve around how to encourage more carebears into lowsec. I believe that's a mistake. The strong point of lowsec is the small gang, casual, PVP. And we need more PVPers to realize its potential.

Lowsec has many good points to attract the more casual PVPer: it's very accessible. The combination of no bubbles and sentry guns discouraging small ships on gates make it easy to move around lowsec. With so many stations, it's easy to take a break pretty much anywhere.

However, if you PVP for any amount of time in lowsec, you'll get cut out of highsec. For the dedicated outlaw, that's not a problem: alts and corp-level logistics make it a non-issue. But it closes most of lowsec from the more casual, single account player. The one who would enjoy lowsec the most.

So I suggest, GG#what happens in lowsec stays in lowsecGG%:

• Lowsec ship and structure kills can't bring your sec status below -2 (the point where travel restrictions kick in).
• To compensate, make anyone with negative sec status a valid target while in lowsec, with no GCC or sentry repercussions.
• Sec losses from highsec ganks remain untouched and so trigger travel restrictions.
• Optionally, allow pod kills in lowsec to lower your sec past -2. This lets people who want to be -10 for whatever reason become so.
• Optionally, rework killrights to either remove them, or make them only usable in lowsec.

People can now become part of a GG#lowsec fight clubGG% where they can shoot each other freely, without losing their highsec access.

For the current lowsec residents, pirate and anti-pirate alike, this would bring more fun targets from highsec, in the form of GG#weekend piratesGG% and highsec alliances trying to control lowsec systems and resources. Both of those have given me many enjoyable fights, but both are unsustainable in the face of sec losses.

I'm not sure I can think of a negative side to the change.

I'm not sure if security status will entice the carebears into coming to low sec.

Might start first by not calling them carebears.

Also, how will this increase PvP? Because they don't have to grind sec? You have to do a lot of shooting to get below -2 if you're not shooting pods, and your suggestion does nothing for pods. Structures make a bit of sense, I could see dipping below the mark over shooting a POS. But then again, does structure bashing require us to make a such a drastic alteration to the security status rules of low sec?


How about graduated war declarations instead? Such as "This war declaration is only valid in 0.0 to 0.4 security status systems." You still get what you want, without the crazy "If this, then that" scenario you're painting.

Props to you for using your brain though, will still give you a +1.

Also, how will this increase PvP? Because they don't have to grind sec? You have to do a lot of shooting to get below -2 if you're not shooting pods, and your suggestion does nothing for pods. Structures make a bit of sense, I could see dipping below the mark over shooting a POS. But then again, does structure bashing require us to make a such a drastic alteration to the security status rules of low sec?

This is such a phenomenally good idea that I'm going to be disappointed if it doesn't happen. Though I honestly don't think the elimination of kill rights is necessary. On the other hand, I don't see Concord handing a pass to kill a person in high if they have a negative sec.

Although I like most of the idea, there's one thing I don't like. I think you should still take a security hit when you attack someone with positive security status.

I don't care if pirates kill each other. But lowsec isn't just about pvp. It has asteroid belts, complexes, mission agents etc. for a reason. Your proposal would make lowsec even more dangerous for carebears like me.

It would be a wasteland.

If you want consensual pvp: put up a can in Jita, join RvB or whatever. Don't bother me with it.

Although I like most of the idea, there's one thing I don't like. I think you should still take a security hit when you attack someone with positive security status. I don't care if pirates kill each other. But lowsec isn't just about pvp. It has asteroid belts, complexes, mission agents etc. for a reason. Your proposal would make lowsec even more dangerous for carebears like me. It would be a wasteland. If you want consensual pvp: put up a can in Jita, join RvB or whatever. Don't bother me with it.

In effect, dropping even 1/100th of a point below SS zero now inflicts the full penalties of -5 on pilots seeking casual PvP. We're now punishing them even more than we do today. I do not feel this is a change that will promote casual PvP.

Scenario: I'm flying my Rifter around lowsec looking for targets. I jump a gate and find a Tarannis before me. My sec status is -1, his is -7.4


Current mechanics: I can decide to engage or not. He cannot camp the gate against me unless I've dropped my SS all the way down to -5 Note that I can still run around Empire.

Proposed Changes: He can engage without any danger of sentries.



Replace the Tarannis with a Loki, Tengu, hell... just about anything. How does this entice more people to try lowsec PvP? You're raised the restrictions... not dropped them.


I'll tell you what it does offer (and holy crap I can't believe I'm actually saying this): it would provide more targets for those below -5... they would not have to worry about gate guns half as much as they do now.

Vaurion, thank you for your measured responses. We'll probably have to agree to disagree on this one.

If CCP is foolish enough to attempt to promote PvP by utilizing a system which further encourages any type of gatecamping, they deserve to reap what they sow.

I am not anti-pirate... hell, not anti-anything... and would be the very first to say lowsec needs some love. But this, IMO, is not the way. The solution is to remove the SS penalty in select areas (belts, planets, POCO's)... not adjust it to one group's advantage.

Again, thank you for the debate.

I want to make sure I get this right as this proposal is getting a great deal of press.

Joe Blow the 3 week player gets tired of mining or lvl 1 missions, and wants to try out some PvP. He's getting pretty bored with Empire. So he fits up some cheap frigates and has a few fights. But, if he fights too much he's going to encounter a problem; he drops to negative security status.

As he's flying from Dodixie (in his brand new frigate) to his favorite new fun spot Amamake for some more 'o' that PvP goodness, he jumps into Egghelende. Surprise: I was waiting in a quick lock Thrasher (or T3 for even extra survivability) on the gate at zero. Now that he's dropped below zero sec status (very quick trip for him as he doesn't really care for missions), I can pop his butt. And the good news is I'm pretty safe; I don't have to worry about sentry fire, I can sit at zero on the gate - anything ugly comes at me, I just jump to highsec. And I'll never lose sec status... it's a camper's dream!