Scalable High Sec Systems & Profits

EVE Technology and Research Center Player Features & Ideas
1

Just an idea for the High Sec Players.

Is it a bad idea to introduce some High Sec Systems to auto scale different states of security level & the balance of profits to go with it for all activities.

E.g. High Sec System 0.5 escalates up and down right down to a null sec status to even wormhole status. The stations stay put where they are , it’s just the status that changes with the profits.

When the status drops down to wormhole status the system introduces wormhole activities/anoms and what not. Have these windows run every hour or two. No caps allowed and systems with limitations. E.g. not having a C6 when it the system changes to a wormhole state, max around c3 or 4.

The risk reward and fun will be there. It will also give high sec players a chance to enter those system states without the political side of the game stopping them enjoying all sec state’s without big corp politics.

Everything to scale from mining to missions and what not, the rewards increase per status level when declining from 0.5 to lower states. So when the status changes to Null Sec you get the everything in the system what you will naturally find in null sec with rats, mining etc.

Before i go and just to make sure it’s not a gank fest have many of these systems morph at random times to break the gank teams/corps just sitting at one system all the time waiting. As they say the more the better.

Enjoy

2

No.

Why don’t you just go to low, null, wh and poch?

There is already insurgencies messing with HS, that’s enough.

4 Likes
3

I actually think this is a great idea, although I would go a step further and make the security level of the system entirely activity-driven rather than simply having it randomly fluctuate.

If capsuleers are spending their time running missions, clearing anomalies, destroying pirate NPCs, responding to criminal activity, etc., the system should gradually become more secure. Conversely, a system that is neglected should gradually become less secure.

This would give us a really nice positive feedback loop where players are effectively responsible for maintaining the security of the space they live in.

I would also tie this directly into a Mission Risk Modifier, analogous to the existing Bounty Risk Modifier.

The basic principle would be:

More activity → higher security → lower risk → lower rewards.

A system like Osmon, for example, should eventually become an exceptionally secure place if thousands of capsuleers are continuously running missions there. Consequently, mission rewards should begin to decline as the system becomes increasingly safe.

And I don’t think it should necessarily stop at ISK/LP payouts. If a system becomes too secure, the actual mission pool could begin to contract.

After all, there are only so many damsels left to rescue when every pirate organization in the region has been systematically exterminated by several thousand bored capsuleers.

So you could have something like:

  • High mission activity: security increases and the Mission Risk Modifier decreases.

  • Low mission activity: security gradually declines and mission rewards increase.

  • Very high security: reduced mission payouts and potentially fewer available combat missions.

  • Very low security: increased rewards, more dangerous missions, more pirate activity and eventually access to the more exotic PvE content proposed in the OP.

  • Player activity is the driver: the system’s inhabitants literally determine what kind of space they have.

This would also make the proposed scaling considerably more interesting than simply having systems randomly change state every hour.

It creates an actual economic choice.

Do you want to make Osmon incredibly safe and convenient, knowing that you’re gradually destroying the profitability of the place? Or do you deliberately move your mission operation somewhere less secure where the rewards are better?

And importantly, it gives players a reason to spread out organically rather than CCP simply telling them that they should spread out.

The basic concept is already demonstrated by the Dynamic Bounty System: activity and perceived risk can be reflected directly in system-level economic modifiers, with the system rewarding people who are willing to operate where the circumstances are less comfortable.

I think applying that same philosophy to highsec would be considerably more interesting than simply turning a 0.5 system into a 0.0 system on a timer.

If we’re going to make highsec scalable, let the players actually be responsible for scaling it.

3 Likes
4

A few points against the idea.

  1. The system security depends on CONCORD’s activity, not capsuleers’.
  2. Changing the security level randomly does not make lore sense.
  3. If a system becomes less secure, exploration and cobat sites similar to those in low- and null-sec may appear with time but not straight away - this world is sci-fi, not magical.
5

exactly what was wanting. As the system transforms from high sec to e.g. null sec the rewards increase whilst the security decreases. I like what you said about making the players control the security level.

But if that does become the case wouldn’t it be a worry that it can stay one status all the time because you will have gangs controlling the status. This will break their will and enforce singularity instead of multiplicative numbers.

You will see massive corps again owning and controlling the system. My view was based on time because nobody controls time other than itself. It forces everybody big and small solo or gang and the space isn’t theirs, it’s nobody’s.

The enemy is time, based on what you want to achieve in the system. If it transforms to a null sec status then during that time e.g. you will see null sec asteroid belts, missions and what not.

They should have heaps of these systems spread around the empires, So again if the system changes to a wormhole state and if your in the system at the time. Then you decide you want to leave you will need to scan the stargates for the exit or park at the stations.

Many combinations and views, i like the feedback keep it coming.

6

It’s an interesting idea, and it could work if implemented as a proper systemic feature.
But the problem is that this kind of dynamic security‑status scaling would require deep changes to EVE’s core code.

Security status is not just a variable — it is tied directly into Crimewatch, NPC AI, spawn tables, missions, agents, CONCORD logic, faction police, cyno rules, capital restrictions, and the static map structure itself.

Changing it dynamically would mean rewriting multiple fundamental subsystems of the game.
And in its current form, EVE simply doesn’t have the underlying infrastructure to support this without risking major instability or unintended consequences.

So while the concept is good on paper, the level of engine‑level reconstruction required would likely do more harm than good.

7

Anything 0.5 and up should not be very profitable. Period.

1 Like
8

Didn’t realise it would be so complex. Oh well worth the view i guess.