I’m a new player, of some 6 months or so, therefore I doubt that this is a new idea, but it seems to me that low-sec could benefit from a more graduated threat to all, based on how low any given system is.
So, a 0.4 system would have a longer Concord response time than 0.5 in high-sec, and less robust one, allowing relative new players to make forays into 0.4 at some risk, but not excessively so. As security lowers into 0.3 and 0.2 it becomes more and more dangerous through longer response times of Concord and less robust concord reactions. The same might be done conversely in high-sec with regard to tolerance of criminality; so that a criminal is hit hard and rapidly in 0.9+ systems, and perhaps with a longer period of criminality after a gank the higher the security of the system.
My admittedly very small and lamentably terminal exploration of low-sec, seems to point to a design where low/high sec is much more binary. IE if you stay in systems 0.5 or above you’re very likely to not be attacked, but going from 0.5 to 10 doesn’t make you materially safer, and conversely, going from 0.4 or lower. is generally lethal, but there’s no apparent increased threat the lower the sec’.
Shirely a more graduated approach (in both directions) would be better, or am I missing something here?
What you’re proposing here is turning lowsec into highsec. No thanks.
This graduated response is already a thing, it’s just limited to the areas CONCORD controls, ie highsec. Reaction time in a .5 is 18 seconds, while in a .9 it’s just 6 seconds.
Nonsense. However I would make highsec-to-lowsec gates to spawn ships on both ends in same distance as when players changing regions. That would slightly nerf gatecamping high-to-low connections and give players some chance to survive gatecamps. Null-to-low is always different region, but high-to-low is often same one.
And also fix the bug that if you rewarp and return back the sentry guns ignore anything you do.
It’s always very funny when someone’s post follows the basic structure of, “I don’t actually know very much about the game or how it’s played, but I have some ideas about how it should be radically changed and I happen to think they’re excellent ideas! Obvious things, really, it’s surprising they haven’t already been done!”
You’re missing experience. The game does have graduated approaches, you just haven’t had enough experience with the game to be familiar with these approaches. So, your inexperience leads you to believe “it’s too sudden, too steep” or however you want to phrase it.
A much better way to think of the differing security levels, at least in my opinion, is this:
Highsec: probably won’t be hunted down, with the exception of obvious stupidity/greed. Obvious stupidity/greed tends to attract highsec “sharks”, be it of the blaster or scam variety.
Lowsec (you have a pop-up notice warning you of the danger the first time you enter): probably will be hunted down
Nullsec: will be hunted down, if noticed by the local “authorities”
J-Space (wormholes): you’re being actively hunted from the moment you enter by someone
And, when you’re playing EVE, no other player can tell if you are a legitimately new player 2 hours into the game, a legitimately inexperienced player (who played 4 hours 10 years ago), or a 20 year vet’s alt posing as a new player trying to smuggle or scam.
It’s pretty much “shoot first, ask questions later (if at all)”, , in every security space.
There is a huge difference between a long CONCORD response time and no CONCORD. The difference is that the attacker will always lose their ship if CONCORD ever responds. They put the “suicide” part in suicide ganking.
What do you mean by this? Once CONCORD attacks you you are instantly neuted and jammed. The only thing you can do is cap inject and smartbomb someone. You cannot fight CONCORD and win.
That said, it would be fun to mine with a rorqual under CONCORD protection. Horribly unbalanced but fun nonetheless.
I’d be quite happy for the general principle of a more graduated reaction from Concord to apply throughout “high sec” as well. That I’m suggesting it for low sec does not imply I’d not want to see it in high-sec as well.
Thankyou for the detailed explanation. My issue with lowsec is that it seems as if low-sec lacks a relationship between the security rating, and the risk of entering; rather that the mere fact it is low-sec that makes it dangerous, and not the security rating. Conversely, the risk in high-sec to criminals should be related to the security rating, and not the mere fact it is “high sec”?
I don’t think you’ve really understood what I was driving at. Functionally I see very little difference in regard to risk for high-sec players going into 0.4 sec or 0.1 sec, nor any difference the other way between 0.6 and 1.0 for criminals. There seems to be just lo-sec and hi-sec, with a marked changes in risk at 0.4 and 0.6, but little or no graduated risk as security reduces or rises thereafter.
Fundamentally, as soon as one enters lo-sec, the risks of entering lo-sec climb rapidly, and conversely for criminals and suspects entering hi-sec likewise become much more dangerous at 0.6 and above. It seems to me this could work better if rather than it operating akin to a light-switch: very risky/nearly completely safe, it might work better in a more analogue fashion, like a dimmer-switch if you will, so entry into lo-sec becomes progressively more risky the lower the sec rating goes, and therefore less and less risky for PVP players attacking others; and conversely, the criminal players would getter a progressively nastier response from Concord the higher the security of the systems they’re attempting to move through.
I’m in no way suggesting “lo sec be turned into hi-sec”, but rather there be a smoother curve as it were between the two, and, it follows from this, between null-sec and lo-sec.
There’s every possibility that there are other issues that would preclude this, however, it does seem a pronounced dividing-line, perhaps un-necessarily so?
Either there is an unbeatable CONCORD response or there isn’t. If there isn’t (Low-Sec), players will make any “graduate” security mechanisms obsolete by just overpowering them. Add more guns, they will bring more tank. Add NPCs, they will bring fleets that will totally obliterate them.
CONCORD in HS even only works because it is mechanically unbeatable and even declared an exploit to to beat them if you would find some way to do.
As long as players can freely shot at each other, any 0.4 will always be as dangerous as any 0.0 or even -1.0 for that matter. If you get tackled by someone with a bigger gun than you, you are just dead. And no system security will help you.
If you have specific ideas that can efficiently adress that without making PvP completely impossible on the smaller scale, go for it, I am interested.
Many thanks for the considered reply, rather than taking rimshots at a newish player. You’ve given me something to think about there. When I wrote about “graduated risk”, it was only the concord response time, and strength of the concord response I was considering. (In high sec it would be the response to criminal or suspect status. an of course ganking). So I envisaged that in say 0.2 sec, concord would only eventually arrive, and in very little force, easily destroyed. And so on.
I like the idea of a more graduated threat increase as security level decreases from 0.4 to 0.1. Currently I think it is just the NPCs that get a bit stronger as sec level decreases, e.g. the clone soldiers that roam 0.1 systems are a bit stronger than those that roam 0.4 systems.
Some ideas for a more interesting graduation:
A delay in the time between someone entering a system and their name appearing in local chat, with the delay increasing as sec level decreases.
A time delay to lighting a cyno in system, with the delay decreasing as the system sec level decreases.
Stronger gate guns, but becoming weaker as sec level decreases.
I’m starting to wonder if you’re just ChatGPT. CONCORD does not respond to suspects, and ganking is what gives you a criminal timer.
Except you can’t beat CONCORD. They are invincible. Triggering a CONCORD response and not dying is considered an exploit.
I get that there’s a big dropoff in safety between 0.5 and 0.4, but you don’t seem to understand the basic mechanics of the systems you want to change.
Instead of CONCORD in lowsec, a better solution might be to add empire security patrols that warp around to points of interest such as stations or belts randomly and attack people with suspect or criminal timers or low sec status. I’m not convinced it’s a good solution but it won’t draw as much ire as adding CONCORD to lowsec.
Problem is - which most Highseccers don’t understand - People go to LowSec to learn and have PvP. And randomly appearing ‘Police NPCs’ just ruin every Fight you might get.
Highsec really is large enough for those wanting to be left alone. Fly a cheap and agile ship and absolutely no one will mess around with you. Hundreds of solar systems to explore, what is there to complain?
However I am not so sure about local chat delay. Because if you add it to lowsec then it needs to be added to nullsec. And when you do that, you get the blackout boycott again I think. But I guess it would help. As a hunter I would love that, as a farmer I would hate it .
I do agree that gate guns could be stronger in 0.4 and perhaps weaker in 0.1. But without fixing the bug where if you warp out and return, gate guns no longer shoots at you it is actually pointless.
Do they? FW systems aside, majority of the kills are “ganks” where the killed player didn’t want to fight at all, just farm rats or mine rocks in peace. Hunters rarely fight each other. Or get caught in a fight they didn’t want to take.
, in every security space.
.