Making Low-Sec more accessible to High-Sec players

(Ageanal Olerie) #1

I’d like to propose a means by which High-security players can more easily work their way in to Low-security space while having less of a cliff to fall off of going from 0.5 space into 0.4 space and lower.

And that is, to still be able to get a CONCORD response while in Low-security. BUT this will take some work on the part of the pilot.

As it stand hostile action against a pilot in High security space will elicit a response from CONCORD ranging from around 5 seconds in 1.0 space down to I believe 19 seconds in 0.5 space. Once you are in 0.4 space their response time is NEVER .

I would like to see a way to have CONCORD respond to hostile action against players in 0.4 to 0.1 space with an increased response time from 0.4 to 0.1 respectively.

But… this won’t be something a new player is born with. In order to get a CONCORD response in Low-sec systems one would need to increase one’s standings with either a local faction that controls that space, or perhaps one of the Empire Navy factions, or even based on one’s security status.

Here’s one example of how this might work using Security Status as the barometer (being a metric that could then apply to all Low-security space).

First there needs to be a means by which to raise one’s security status above 5.0 all the way up to 10.0. This would not be in the standard ways of gaining Security Status, but by participating in or doing various missions or other functions for CONCORD or some other entity (perhaps by some acitivity that pushes people into content, Faction warfare, Abyssal Space, Worm Hole diving, Incursions, etc…)

Also, security status above 5.0 can naturally decay back down to 5.0, so you would need to periodically do whatever activities are necessary to maintain your security status above 5.0.

Now… Once you get your Security Status up to 6.0 you will get a CONCORD response in Low-Security space, with a reduced amount of time the higher your Security Status up to 10.0. But keep in mind that they do need to come from further away, so it will be even slower than in 0.5 space.

In High-sec each point lower Security Space increases the response time of CONCORD as follows

0.9 & 1.0 - 5 seconds
0.8 - 7 seconds (2 seconds more than 0.9)
0.7 - 10 seconds (3 seconds more than 0.8)
0.6 - 14 seconds (4 seconds more than 0.7)
0.5 - 19 seconds (5 seconds more than 0.6)

Now in Low-Security space with a hypothetical 10.0 Security Status CONCORD Response times could be

0.4 - 25 seconds (6 seconds more than 0.5)
0.3 - 32 seconds (7 seconds more than 0.4)
0.2 - 40 seconds (8 seconds more than 0.3)
0.1 - 49 seconds (9 seconds more than 0.2)

Keep in mind this would be with a perfect 10.0 Security Status. Thus… for each whole number below 10.0 security status, you would add an additional second or two (or some multiplier of seconds) onto the CONCORD response time. So with a 6.0 Security Status you would add on say 4 more seconds (or 8 more seconds if it’s two seconds per each whole number security status) to each of the above response times.

So… this is just one idea that has a lot of room for alterations and modifications, as far as how it could work and how difficult it would be for a player to accomplish.

In any case, it would bring in some much needed elements for getting players to interact more with PvE factions and bring some more meaning to standings and status. And also then allow players to more easily and gradually dip their toes into PvP space.

(Nevyn Auscent) #2

We actually need longer concord response timers. not faster timers.

(Ageanal Olerie) #3

You can’t get longer than infinity (which is what it currently is in low-sec space).

1 Like
(Nevyn Auscent) #4

Yes, but longer timers in high sec reduce the cliff, while making ganking more uncertain, and less a maths equation.

(Dread Saboteur) #5

Low sec is pretty accessible however improvements to tracking down players as in scanning dscanning abundance of alts and proliferation of cyno drops have reduced the population of players to be hunted and left only the hunters that and the safety of 0.0 means you’d be a fool to establish in lowsec

1 Like
(Daichi Yamato) #6

Low sec isn’t as bad as many people think. HighSec players don’t need npc protection as much as they need to learn how d-scan works.

The response time by standings sucks as well. I can get my standings maxed out and then pretend to 1v1 people at the sun in my super tanky ship and wait for concord to come and kill everyone who touches me?

Concord in low sec space is a non-starter. Using the protection of concord to encourage players to go out and ‘pvp’ is a non-starter.

And ask yourself, who has higher sec status, the noob or the vet?

(Salt Foambreaker) #7

Just no.


The barrier to low sec is the same as the barrier to PvP, people lack the emotional strength to pick themselves up after a defeat and move on.

Death is certain, the character of the player is measured by what comes after.

Preventing death is pointless has a design goal.

1 Like
(Salt Foambreaker) #8

The best way to make lowsec more accessible is to give the caps and supers the boot!

Banned in Empire Space = True

(Sasha Viderzei) #9

That’s quite interesting to be honest, would force bigger alliance to secure a way for their capital and supercapital fleets to actually move anything around, even more if they don’t have access to low security systems.

That would prevent them for just doing the little summer trip from the south to the north like The Initiative did with their deployment near Hakonen and North Coalition’s systems. It could also solve the problem of the bait ship in lowsec just waiting for someone to attack him, light a cyno and reap an easy kill that require literally zero skill to achieve.

Although… it does come with problems however. This would just mean the death of capitals to a more solo PVP application (looking at you, Lasker Emanuel), since moving them would be a pain in the ass because of the jump timers.

(Salt Foambreaker) #10

It would give low sec PvP a huge shot in the arm, right now no one really commits to much because the end result is a cap/super hot drop.

If battleships were the top of the food chain PvP would be much more accessible to new players and would reward, not punish via hot drop, sub-cap teamwork.

From a lore standpoint what nation lets other nation park their (combat) capital ships in their territory?

(Sasha Viderzei) #11

That’s something I’d love to see : Battleships actually being meta.

Concerning the lore : I don’t know if any faction let another faction’s capitals just lingering around their own space lanes, but I’d say maybe the Gallente would allow the Minmatar’s capitals to spend some time in their space, since they are good allies and have somewhat similar ideologies.

Concerning Caldari and Amarr relations… I’m not too sure. Apparently, the Amarr Empire is the one with the biggest capital and supercapital fleet in the cluster (and actually the only empire with two models of Iapetan Titans), but I know little of Caldari-Amarr relation. Maybe they do like the Guristas and Sansha’s Nation and keep good relations just to create an opposition block to the Minmatar-Gallente alliance ?

(Qia Kare) #12

I don’t have sufficient experience to make a good suggestion, but what about something akin to CONCORD response in lowsec, but only for capital class ships?

Something that permits capitals to travel, but severely limits their ability to operate, except in self defense.

(Sasha Viderzei) #13

CONCORD shouldn’t be outside of highsec. I don’t spend enough time there to get an opinion if the reaction time need some tweaking, but really, we don’t need the OP response fleet in the space that is advertised as the entry point for PvP.

(Qia Kare) #14

The response would be limited to Capital class ships. Nobody entering PvP for the first time should be flying a capital. CONCORD is just a label for something that takes a capital ship from someone in lowsec. You can coin a different one, if you like, and is in any event more permissive than an outright ban on their existence anywhere in the same area.

A CONCORD like response to unprovoked aggression is less oppressive than a full on total ban, if you’re just trying to limit caps from snuffing out PvP in that area while still permitting them to travel through it.

You can call them the ‘department of no caps for you’ and just have them blow up any capital ship that fires first. Other than the use of the word ‘CONCORD’, is there an objection to the mechanic described?

(Sasha Viderzei) #15

Yes. It won’t happen, first. Second, CONCORD or The Carrot Hunters or whatever the hell you want have nothing to do in lowsec to prevent capitals from doing their thing.


(Teckos Pech) #16

No. Stop suggesting bad ideas that have already been suggested.

(Qia Kare) #17

I want an enumeration of the negative consequences of implementation. I am here for education as someone who’s unfamiliar with this particular perceived problem.

Your response does not give me any insight as to the ramifications. Your dialogue makes you seem open to the idea of battleships being the top of the food chain, but opposed to an option that would make that happen for reasons you won’t describe.

Also, if this suggestion has been tendered before and there is a prior discussion I can read with this information, someone please point me in that direction.

(Sepheir Sepheron) #18

It won’t ever happen but god damn do I want it to.

(Buoytender Bob) #19

I would add implementing 3 features:

  1. all gates entering HS have their gun firepower dramatically increase to reduce gate camping only at those gates. To get people to try LS, you must first not beat them to death the minute they step into LS.

  2. Have a Faction Frontier Navy as your reactionary response to aggression. Their strength/reaction time is based on some type of formulae based on : faction standing, sec of system, number of jumps away from HS system. Invisioned system would crate strong reaction near HS systems, poor or none at systems 3-5 jumps from HS. This makes the NPC tankable at certain levels and allows for the aggressors to,possibly survive their actions.

  3. Limit caps based on distance of nearest HS (can not be in adjacent systems to HS, for example)

Agree that LS needs some serious CCP love.

(Ageanal Olerie) #20

Oh wow… Sorry I didn’t mean to bring up a topic that had been discussed 6 years ago. I should have looked back that far for a similar topic. :smile:

That absurdity properly dismissed, that poster’s concept is completely different than the one I’ve proposed here.

As to being a bad idea, I have to suspect that you currently inhabit low sec and are pleased with the current state of affairs (aka… I benefit significantly from the current state of affairs and don’t want any changes that don’t increase that benefit even more).

Or you’re one of those people that like to shoot down any ideas that could potentially take time away from the Devs to work on whatever it is you are not suggesting, but demanding, they work on.

Or you’re just being a troll, in which case, I’m notorious for feeding them. It’s why I’m not allowed to go to the troll zoo anymore. :laughing: