Rework System Security Rating and Crime Reaction

EVE Technology and Research Center Player Features & Ideas
1

So going from my first goal in my CSM campaign (here) I decided to do them slowly over posts to get feedback, see what people want or perhaps better ideas. Who knows, may current CSM will grab some and we can see positive changes sooner! Of course, my ideas won’t be liked by all. Some will make a decision off a certain change or trigger phrase and not read everything. Some won’t agree simply because they don’t know me. (whereas if their CEO suggested, they would be all for. has happened to me before on other game forums, all good) And all that.

I’m going to do more bullet point here, as that seems to be less a mess for my thoughts. I also will say that much of what I am going for, I am thinking along the ideas

  1. New player training and retention
  2. Does is make ingame sense, lorewise
  3. Will it save or add game depth

Anyways, here goes the idea.

  1. CONCORD responds only in CONCORD systems and rookie systems.
    -These become the only 1.0 systems and security rating will never change
    -Only tutorial and career agents/missions can be found in them
    -No anchoring structures or jettisoning allowed
    -No Orcas or Freighters (ships larger than BS) allowed

  2. All faction systems have navy responses to crime
    -The strength of the response depends on the security rating of the system
    -Higher systems (0.8-0.9) would have a strong response that is nearly impossible to survive
    -Lower systems would be slightly weaker until in systems 0.4-0.5 could be managed by a prepared fleet

  3. Docking in faction space would be disallowed when pilot security status or faction standing rating get too low
    -Docking in pirate faction space would be disallowed when faction standing is too low as well

  4. Faction space security rating is no longer static
    -Increased crime in a system will raise the security rating, as more security is called in
    -When security rating of a system is raised, systems of the same faction 3-5 jumps away begin losing security rating (their security is sent to help, adjacent systems retain their security in case the crime spreads)
    -Increased population in a system decreases the security rating of the system (the more people security need to monitor, the less secure a place is)
    -Killing faction navy in their system, lowers the security rating of a system. A well prepared and organized fleet could thoroughly disrupt a system by launching an attack, killing navy fast enough that even as the security rating rises due to increased crime, it falls due to security death
    -Pilots with positive security status receive a notification in The Agency when navy faction in a nearby system is killed, allowing them to fly and help the navy.

  5. All pirate space, whether low or null sec, becomes NPC null sec
    -Gate/station guns are placed. High security pilots be warned when engaging those with lose security status
    -LP modules for tractor beams, mobile tractor units and other type items that would make looting the wreckage of victims to be easier/allowed

  6. All non-pirate NPC null (ORE/Interbus) becomes low security with 0.1-0.3 ratings
    -Gate/station guns in place
    -Security fleets are “assembled” when crime happens. These are mercenary fleets of random strength with far slower response times than navy space

  7. Gate/station guns would have their range greatly increased
    -Lore reasoning. Law enforcement keep having law abiding citizens shot by those just outside their range? I think they’d risk the complaints of criminals and get longer shooting guns

  8. Anything jettisoned by a person with suspect/low security flag will be marked as free-for-all
    -Lore reasoning. Yes, no more can flipping. Attack the schmuck properly. But stealing from a thief seems like a petty thing to allow someone to be killed for!

That’s what I have. Is it perfect? Not likely. The feel I am going for is a pirate vs faction space type thing. Pirates should own pirate space and make incursions in faction space. Faction space should have security that isn’t moronic. Currently it’s like a gang planning on attacking a public venue. Everyone knows it’s happening, but they’re not going to stop it until the first civilian is shot. It’s foolishness.

Oh, and they hide out in the police station until they choose to actually start shooting.

That being said, I want pirates and their corporations who want to make runs into high sec to have that ability to. And reward planning on their part by allowing them to affect security rating changes in systems. Attacking one system to lower ratings in their target. Give them opportunities in congested systems to force players to spread out. Give them a chance to take on the NPC navies, so they can sit in the fight and keep at it. Right now, cheap, disposable ships are the go to. There’s no real reason to train expensive ships to sit and tank out a target in high sec. When CONCORD comes you’re dead. But if pirates come prepared, much like an incursion fleet. Tank, dps, logistics, E-War, to make high sec feel their presence. It should be rewarded. Pilots should have to pay attention to the happenings of a system. Let them set a pirate MTU to looks their ill-gotten gains. It’s a hacked piece of machinery. It’s diabolical and awesome.

Of course there would have to be balance planning. A section of high sec currently being occupied by a large pirate force would be unique and invigorating. Where counter forces of players might have to actually band together if they want to free Jita from occupation and help the NPC navy out? Awesome. The entirety of high sec being taken over would not.

Anyways, perhaps there are good ideas in there. Perhaps there are bad. Or it could just be a long-winded ramble. When you work from home you have a lot of time to ponder. Time to see if my pondering is at all decent.

And while I think it would be a big change to how things “have always been done.” I don’t think it would be the biggest CCP has done. As for my three goals.

  1. New player retention is hard to say. I think something like this could help new players realize the dangers of EVE. When you see a security rating of a system start being messed with, it should wake you up to how things are working. I do think it will stop spur of the moment ganks that aren’t thought out and focus ganking to more organized events. Which might help

  2. Lore-wise I think it makes sense. When crime happens, there should be an effect. And CONCORD seems to be more to prevent large-scale warfare between the factions, than the beat cops. Leave it to the navies.

  3. I don’t think any depth would be loss. If anything, it’s trying to add too much, than too little. It’s almost like adding a FW that’s pirates vs law enforcement. But potentially larger scale. Hopefully.

Anyways, hitting create topic before I ramble more. Please be gentle!

2

History lesson.
Concord used to be tankable. Someone managed to make an at the time unbreakable blockade on certain gates, set up to perma tank concord and gank literally every single ship that jumped through.

What you are talking will turn 0.9 into death space, because people will work out how to tank them, and then use that to kill everything. This is not a desirable outcome and this is why concord is untankable and unavoidable.

Frankly they should just change concord to be a remote override forced self destruct or something. Would be more lore appropriate in a way representing their control over our pods and would avoid the weirdness of concord spawns hanging out ignoring NPC pirates attacking people right next to them.

But anyway, your idea is simply terrible for the above reasons.

5 Likes
3

So an entire idea idea is terrible because one point in eight used to be part of the game, but gankers found a way to beat it? Glad we figured out which type of poster you are.

The dynamic security system, making a legitimate effort to increase PvP through a navy vs pirate theme, and more are all invalid because of an old problem issue that is actually lessened by the system proposed?

Firstly, most “choke point” systems can be bypassed by adding flight time. Meaning, your issue isn’t an issue. If Uedema is suddenly a 0.4 security system, people will naturally avoid it. Secondly, if nearby faction low sec has their security ratings raised, because all the crime is happening elsewhere, that creates more routes as well.

There could potentially be some systems cut off with this proposal, but no major hubs. And as they’re not major hubs, the likelihood of gangs large enough to hold one of these less traveled choke points is small.

If you get a fleet of anti-pirates to attack, you could drive the enemy away. Keeping in mind that you will have constant Navy NPC reinforcements helping you as well with what I’ve put forward. Gaining strength until it reaches a power I flat out state is “near impossible.” At worse it means introducing a module for NPC Navies that disrupt remote reps in an area. But largescale, impromptu, subcap PvP should be a no because it might make you have to fly seven extra jumps?

No sorry, doesn’t make sense.

If you actually read things through, your response could be CONCORD in 0.8+ systems. And security rating goes up with crime, regardless of the amount of Navy faction killed. Meaning, eventually CONCORD does show up and do their thing. Heck, call 0.4-0.7 Medium security. Make it not confusing to newbros who are flying through a 0.5 “High Sec” system, who are suddenly jumped and CONCORD doesn’t come for 15 seconds.

4

There are no other high sec routes.
As soon as a system is low sec it’s now in the pirates domain and super easy for them to keep that way.

Already proven false by history.

Now actually go and search the forums, this whole dynamic security idea has been brought up before, this whole ‘well players can go fight them’ has been brought up before, this whole ‘lets remove concord’ has been brought up before.

It’s not going to work like you think, we know it’s not going to work like you think. It’s just going to turn EVE into a dead ghost town.

1 Like
5

I like parts of your idea, but as a whole I think the idea if pretty much broken. It’s far too sweeping of a change that doesn’t actually fix any particular issue. A few things in no particular order:

  1. Hisec response should always be CONCORD-like, and it should always work the way it does now. As Nevyn said before me, tankable hisec police response to criminal activity, be it FacPo, FacNav, or CONCORD, is a bad idea. The whole point of hisec is that criminal activity gets punished swiftly (how swiftly depends on where you are) and, more importantly, unavoidably. Actions have consequences, and the consequence for going criminal in hisec is you being relieved of your ship.

  2. I like the general idea of security status of systems in Empire space being fluid in principle. Let sec status fluctuate based partly (but not entirely) on player behavior, rather like industry indices fluctuate now, and have CONCORD response times fluctuate accordingly. But in practice I think it would cause problems without actually solving any. Ore distribution? Agent distribution? The actual boundaries between hisec and everywhere else? There’s a whole lotta things that would need to be accounted for and any one of them could end up fundamentally broken.

  3. I’ve always thought it was bonkers that you can dock in stations where your corp/faction NPC standings are tanked. At the very least, if your standings with the station owner are bad enough you shouldn’t be able to access any station facilities and/or have to pay a fee to access them (or maybe even to dock/undock). (Note, this is different from sec status, although since your sec status is effectively your standing with CONCORD, this would apply to CONCORD-owned stations.)

  4. The linking of a player’s suspect/criminal status to their non-player objects in space (i.e. stealing loot from a suspect player wouldn’t flag you, nor would shooting a deployable of someone who’s flagged) is a neat idea in principle, but, again, in practice I think it would create issues without solving any. Would all cans/wrecks/deployables start sharing their suspect/criminal/security status with their owner? And how would that impact server load?

Overall, I like where your head is at. You’re thinking big. But a lot of the little details of what you’re proposing kill the whole.

6

There are no other hisec routes right now. As security status of systems fluctuates, other routes could open. Plus, as the OP described it, the more criminal activity there is in a system, the higher the system’s sec satus gets, not the other way around. So if Uedama suddenly did go 0.4 and lots of folks started getting ganked there, it wouldn’t stay 0.4 for very long.

(Note, I’m not on-board with the idea in general for a few other reasons (see my post above this), but in this specific example I think it would be okay.)

Correct. The best that anti-gankers can do is to counter-bump the bumpers to le the target get away before the gank fleet arrives or provide logi support to their target so it takes more DPS to bring it down. Neither of these things would be changed by what the OP is proposing. When you’re dealing with a high DPS suicide fleet that’s specifically intended to deal with CONCORD-level DPS, bringing more DPS to the field simply doesn’t work.

7

There are so many bad points and I don’t have time to argue each one.

This is just terrible.

-1

8

Your idea as stand’s is unfeasible because it can be abused, but the concept is good because it makes high sec this huge area of the map where ton’s of people are inhabited much more dangerous, so the question is how do you counter the weak point’s of your idea.

Escalation: If player’s start tanking npc’s the npc’s depending on security status slowly bring in more and more heavier ship’s greater dps and e-war to counter the player fleet, so that no one can permanently abuse the game like moo did back in the day’s, I think that was the only time in the history of eve that CCP themselves had to step in and physically interact with player’s.

For the idea to be more feasible and to piss less people off, it would be advised to have this only apply to current high sec, so that people who do not like the idea are not forced to have to deal with it in every part of eve, there is a reason every part of space is different.

P.S. Not many people seem to realize what the creative process is, take the good amplify it, take the bad find the reason’s not only for 1 type of player group but them all and counter it, just becuase something has bad point’s doesn’t mean that its GG game over throw it away xD lol…

9

Here’s what i’d like to see in a campaign

General

  • Gas clouds now have permanent locations like ice belts, and are now linked to a system not a specific constellation. Additionally leaving the current spawns there would be nice.
  • Concord needs to go from policing protection of places faction specific polices
  • Aggression and podding should both remove 1.0 point in high security space
  • Improved gate gun damage
  • Concord will now instantly spawn if a player -5 gets in a ship (or remove the get in ship feature while in space completely; I’d favor that more)

University Systems

  • a new “weapons safety setting” called “weapons lock” that prevents suicide from taking place.

High Security Systems

  • Veldspar, Scordite, Plagioclase, Pyroxies, Omber, being converted to high security ore (remove the others from high sec)
    • this includes removing “empire specific” ore types

Low Security Systems

  • Spudomain, Kernite, Jaspet, Gnesis, Dark Ochre, Hedbergite becoming standard ores in all low security space
  • Removal of high sec ores from low security space
  • Additional Ice mining locations in low security space ( as well as null)
  • Additional gas mining systems in low security space (as well as null) (significantly increase this to x10 its current rate)
  • Low security space having police in them, but ones that are weaker then the normal high security versions
  • Low security space should gain spud as a primary ore type.
  • Low Security space
  • Pirate entities should take over some npc space
  • Pirate factions should also police their own space
  • Added complexes and encourters in low security space
10

Already is true as a note (At least if they steal and then drop it in a can while suspect, not 100% sure about if they drop the can then go suspect)

But they wouldn’t start getting hordes ganked there, because people aren’t going to drive haulers through low sec, what it does is suddenly kill the entire hauling route.
So if it goes 0.4 it’s going to stay that way. And it’s going to be easy for them to make it 0.4 by mass killing the NPC’s, while the people who need it high sec are in basically unarmed haulers and sure aren’t already set up in organised combat fleets.
You would need to 24/7 camp a system to try and protect NPC’s to stop it, while the attackers can simply gank it down to 0.4 whenever they want. It’s a free for all for the pirates, and the counter systems simply require vastly more player hours to be put into it.

So why should veterans be safe in these systems?

11

because pleb, ccp make it illegal to do anything like that in these systems.

12

Why? What is your reasoning for that?

13

what part of ccp made it aganst the rules dont y ou understand?
if you go suicide gank in university systems, you get banned, why dont you get it?
do you understand the englsh lannguage?

14

You obviously don’t.
It’s not illegal to suicide gank in those systems. It’s illegal to suicide gank rookies. Vets are targettable all you want.

1 Like
15

English language"

16

Well, you were right on one account. I didn’t need to read very far before i hated your idea entirely.

Players must NEVER gain the kind of control over security status of a system as you propose, the result is total game disaster. Large power blocks will control every aspect of game play and the rest of us lose out. The power block thing is already hurting EVE in a serious and fundamental way (csm as example) and giving them more power will be disastrous.

After your idea nullsec will endlessly be screwing around with security status of areas of highsec not for profit but just out of the sheer and unbridled hatred they have towards highsec game players.

17

Hey that’d be AWESOME indeed totally a really bad idea!

Mhm!

Absolutely!

:blush:

18

Major power grab by people that apparently suck at ganking and pvp.

19

This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.