A few small thoughts on how to make living outside of high-sec systems more viable

Communications Center General Discussion
, ,
1

I got a few ideas about how to possibly add actual security in lowsec systems which would enable them on greater scale for players, but will still keep them literal ,low security’’ space + some miscellanous ideas

-prevent any devices, deployables (from mobile depots to warp disruption field generators, everything except containers) to be placed up to 25 km from wormholes and disrupt targeting, d-scan, use of any devices/modules in ship (excluding engines and warpdrive) when ship flies to 15 km radius of wormhole, it would additionally effect ships trying to attack target which lies <15km from wormhole, because they wouldn’t be able to lock on it, just like the ship being <15km from wormhole isn’t able to lock on them nor anything else.
It would have quasi-scientific explanation written at the end of wormhole’s info window - ,Warning! extremely unstable nature of wormhole and strong anomalic influence it creates limits the use of technological devices in the area’’
When player warps to wormhole within less than ,warp within 30km’’, 25% chance exists that his ship will warp 12-25km behind or in front of wormhole - this would be part of wormhole’s anomalic effect disrupting ships’ navigation system, you would never be sure if wormhole’s disruptive influence doesn’t touch you. What’s more, you will be at constant risk of overwarping from wormhole’s ,disruption area’’ of 20km what would leave you defenseless against possible wormhole camp ;

-enable CONCORD to react on players’ criminal activity in form of using any covert module against other capsuleer near npc owned stations (in 150 km radius of each station) in LS with response time of:
0.4 - 25 seconds, 0.3 - 27 seconds, 0.2 - 29 seconds, 0.1 - 31 seconds. However, CONCORD would be able to chase criminals outside of station area, but if that criminal warps away from lowsec system he commited crime in to another lowsec system, CONCORD in adjacent lowsec system won’t attack him unless he warps to any station again up to 15 minutes after commiting crime.

-player owned stations would be able to rent CONCORD defense in lowsec systems in 150km radius. In order to do so, they would need to buy CONCORD Bureau Beacon, which could be placed 25-50km within the radius of player structure and would cost 2 000 000 000 ISK (it will self-construct itself in 24 hours).
CONCORD Bureau would bring exact same defense to player owned station as security status of each system tells (Bureau installed next to station in 0.4 sec will bring CONCORD response time appropriate to mentioned security status in this system, ex: CONCORD Bureau will provide 25 seconds response time of CONCORD when installed in 0.4 sec system player station, 27 in 0.3 sec etc.). This building would be dockable, like casual player station.
When player with criminal status warps to lowsec station owned by his corporation/alliance, he will automatically turn to suspect status, anyone who aids him (including his corpmates) will gain criminal status. Every criminal-made activity commited by player belonging to corporation within 150 km area of corporation-controlled station will give him criminal status regardless his corporation’s control over this station. The option with ,running away’’ to friendly station only works when player comitted crime outside of his corporation’s station and outside of system where this station lies (ex: pirate comitting a crime in system X with corp-owned station in it will not be able to run away there in order to gain suspect status and be safe from CONCORD offensive, however - comitting a crime in system V/Y/Z/G/B etc. and warping to X to hide in corp station should save him from death by the hands of CONCORD ships).
Rent cost would have to be paid monthly: 350 million ISK, otherwise, CONCORD Bureau will dectivate until rent cost is paid again.
It’ll also deactivate whenever player structure begins to be besieged. Bureau disappears when station is eventually destroyed.

Do you think these would be good ideas to make this part of gameplay in EVE, as well as the whole game overall more newbie-friendly and friendly towards all the players who want to explore and do their industry/trade/pve jobs at least a bit more safely but still reasonably comfortable towards those who oppose them (like gankers)?
I am not playing for very long time, so I propably didn’t understand many aspects of gameplay properly, but you can always improve these ideas, reject them wholly or maybe embrace them?

1 Like
2

So you want lowsec to be more like highsec?

I will say no…

6 Likes
3

Quite a bit safer than high-sec, in fact. At least in high-sec, you can still set safety to red and shoot players. But these low-sec changes would prevent you from even doing that.

When people are no longer whining and crying for high-sec to be more safe, and are moving on to giving “suggestions” for the other areas of space, it becomes quite clear that high-sec has reached peak safety. At this point, it would be wise for CCP to start recalling previous changes to high-sec in order to swing the needle in the other direction a bit. Removing structure requirements for war and slowing CONCORD response times by a few seconds are obviously very good changes with which to start.

3 Likes
4

No. All these ideas say you want to live in a no pvp land and you don’t understand how a lot of mechanics work. If you don’t want to live in low/nullsec then don’t. Already you can pretty much be completely safe as-is in so-called “dangerous space” with OP tools like local, etc. Already there are massive profits in null/low and it is plenty easy to make a living. If anything, space needs to be made less safe, not more safe.

5

tethering is stupid enought btw , red pulsating pirate IMMUNE in LOW AND NULL STOP DAT , i have the divine right to shot him

1 Like
6

No.

Get good.

More constructive: safety is corrosive to a good sandbox game. There are actually plenty of way to evade fights already. You don’t need NPCs to save you, you just need to learn how to avoid fights you don’t want to take. Remember, dying is part of the game. You will usually learn something from it so just don’t fly what you can’t afford to lose and embrace the pleasure of death. Learn from that, and then choose the fights you want. The best part of playing Eve is knowing that death is just a mis-click away - it makes even your trivial successes feel that much more rewarding!

Now again less constructively: seriously, just get good. At least try to get good before asking for changes to the game that make it harder for players to interact.

6 Likes
7

I think one of the cool things about the different security spaces is that their mechanics result in different play styles and metas -which results in more players being able to find something to suit their tastes and gives vets plenty of stuff to get into. Thus, I am against your proposal because I believe that it would undermine this amazing aspect of the game. It doesn’t improve upon low sec, but instead aims to turn it into some bastardized version of HS that is more conducive to low effort krabing. Moreover, LS already has plenty of players that have their own ideas for what LS is, and how to make it better. I mean, it’s the equivalent of a random Lowsec’er asking for ways to turn off the Concord response in HS in order to make it more like LS. I don’t know about you, but I’d prefer it if rando’s from other areas of space and play styles didn’t try to warp my content and play style into something else.

2 Likes
8

Lowsec for me currently feels to be kind of soft nullsec at much greater degree than highsec. I feel lowsec is even ironic name because in practice you cannot expect any level of security there, not even low.
My suggestions would only give minimal safety, as the only place people would not be destroyed without possible punishment would be stations. Gankers will just lose a few ways to kill someone among dozens of tactics many of them can use. And even in these ways (station camp) mayority of them (excluding complete amateurs) will eventually achieve goal, as concord pursuit wouldnt reach past single system. Gate camps will nevertheless be almost fully possible, traps in belts, traps in cs or data/relic sites. I meant to propose kind of ,spawn’’ for players to avoid so called ,spawn-kill’’. And we all know anyone who wants to make money has to go out of this ,spawn’’ anyway. Lowsec will continously be good space for pirates who need to be just fast enough to escape through stargate once, in fact, they dont need to, as killing outside of stations wouldn’t give any penalty.

I admit I went too far about wormhole ,disruption area’’. Let’s say ,no devices area’’ will lay on 15km, just like ,disruption area’’. And that would give truly risky element to this mechanic, because due to wormhole disruptive influence player warping to it would never know at which attempt he is going to warp past or before wormhole and whether he will warp close enough to this ,disruption area’’ or instead, will he warp up to 5 km away from that area straight into the hands of possible w-space pirates.

9

Low-sec doesn’t have bubbles. Why is this necessary? You can dock or warp away without any issues. If someone’s camping a station, you can use an in-line bookmark to escape 100% of the time.

10

you lose a shuttle to the dock workers them you write all that about low sec
bruh…

11

And reverse the logi changes in regards to suspects.

12

Well. I am slowly starting to manage how to efficiently run away from traps during mining runs in w-space or how to escape through gatecamp (I dont own interceptor atm so I cant safely go through ns just in case, so I move there only through wormholes), I have even run away from a few traps (including 1 wormhole blockade, although better equipment for faster movement on cloak is must-have) so far. But I am really tired that even considering the fact EVE space is rather vast (thousands of systems for sure isn’t small amount), I feel like I’m in cage with lion, because no matter if I am 2 or 20 jumps away from civilized systems, statistically 4-5 times a day during a couple hours trips I can expect someone who would eventually kill me somehow. At this point, EVE seems to be tight, there is no true ,desert’’ or ,void’’ in it. No matter where you are, you can always expect hunters’ eyes who will wait for you in literally 3/4 of places. I thought these modifications to gameplay would slightly decrease this risk to the point, where I wouldn’t die almost every single time I would go afk for a few minutes, just once per ~4-5 times. And this goes only to light ships, if I wanted to use anything bigger, this risk greatly increases due to number of issues like: slower align time, frigate/destroyer groups with electronic warfare wandering around, its easier to kill battlecruiser solo doing cs in c1 or in lowsec, weakened by npcs, than venture, endurance or astero which at least have a chance to make use of their agility and run away afterwards using cloaking device to hide from probes.

13

No.

This is already the case. No change needed. You can dock in any NPC Station no problem.

Criminal activity in lowsec is only when killing a capsule. This change would have no effect, because it’s simple to not kill pods.

14

All are very very good ideas! Thank you for writing them down, good read, really, and thanks for the thread.

The only problem I see is that those ideas would better be suited for another game, not EVE Online.
EVE is dog-eat-dog rat-eat-rat pew-pew kaboom baddabing-baddaboom.
If you have no ship to do what you want to do then you’ve lost, thank you for playing.
Fly safe!
o7

15

I have considered your ideas and rejected them.

Thanks for your input!

16

Lowsec is peacefull. Do you want it to become toxic like highsec?

17

Is entirely what this thread is about.

Go away

18

Well, sentry guns really are a joke but otherwise lowsec is perfectly fine as it is

19

I thought giving minimal presence of CONCORD limited to stations area and very limited pursuit range would make lowsec a bit more safe. During flying in lowsec I feel almost the same as flying in nullsec, in the aspect of survival, except there are no bubbles and differences in security status effects exist, but propably I am not flying for long enough, even though it would be nice to have actual level of security in systems that are not below 0.0 and not above 0.5. instead of ,softer nullsec’’

20

Then you underestimate how much of a hassle bubbles can be.
Also in LS there are no titans bosoning you to death, supercarriers wubbling you to death and bombers bombing you to death.

1 Like