Burn the Sec system - Lets blur some boundaries!

[Lallante]

Background

I was re-reading the results of some of the old surveys CCP has run in the past (they are all on Evelopedia, and a good read as I'm sure there will be some you missed), and came across some nuggets that I'm sure are common knowledge to all:

The main reason people don't go to lowsec/0.0 is due to the perception of risk compared to highsec.

People who have lived, or do live in 0.0/lowsec don't perceive it to be as risky as those who have not.

The more "risky" someone's eve career is, the less frightened they will be of 0.0 and lowsec.

The received wisdom conclusion from all of this is that the way to get carebears into 0.0 and lowsec is to make the risk (or at least theperceived risk) lower. I will argue that this is wrong, and fundamentally misinterprets what keeps people out of low and 0.0 sec.

The premise

People avoid lowsec and 0.0 not because they are riskier per se, but because of the massive risk differential at the boundary between 0.5 and 0.4, and between 0.1 and 0.0 space. This is supported by another finding:

People who live in lowsec avoid going into 0.0 due to perceived risks.

After some thought you should realise this is ludicrous - lowsec has far more gatecamps, pirates etc than 0.0, which is largely empty at the gates (due to bridges / cynos) unless you are unlucky and meet a roaming fleet out of its territory.

The suggestion

What we need is not a change of the average risk of lowsec or 0.0 at all, but rather more granularity in risk spread over the different sec statuses. This also deals with a longheld bug-bear of mine, that due to the "escaping concord = exploiting" rule, 0.5 === 1.0.

The way it would work is as follows:

- The hard distinction between the concepts of lowsec and highsec would be abolished for the purposes of all mechanics.

- There would be a concord response, of sorts, in all sec status from 1.0 to 0.2 (Wait, hear me out!).

- The rules on escaping concord would change - escaping concord would now be not an exploit. The exploit rule was introduced when powerful new remote repping tactics allowed large groups to tank concord until the aggression timer had run out and then redock or jump. This is no longer needed as concord can now be given neuts, jammers etc and break such gangs.

- Concord response would be scaled from 1.0 to 0.3. In a 1.0 you should expect to see 6+ concord BSs, with excellent alpha as well as 2 - 3 neut and jam cruisers and 4+ tackling frigates PER criminal. If a large gang went GCC at the same time, Concord carriers launching fighters might turn up. In a 0.6 by contrast you might see a couple of BS, a neut cruiser and a couple of frigs. In a 0.3, you would see a cruiser (no ewar) and a frig. In a 0.2 it would be sentries only, and in 0.1 it would just be sentries on stations (not gates).

The main idea would be a bit more risk in 0.5 - 0.9, a bit less risk in 0.4 - 0.3, a bit more in 0.2 and the same everywhere else. Essentially, a lot finer granularity than at present.

I genuinely believe this would eventually lead to carebears getting more comfortable with risk rather than the reverse.

[Rynnik]

I was expecting something about making it so you could pew pew in lowsec without having to shoot red crosses in order to move through highsec. This is even better though, and I totally agree with the gist of your proposal.

I don't see the need to introduce Concord beyond where they currently go, however. Why not use the same scale of concord response you have discussed and just fit it between .5 and 1.0 space. Meanwhile make .1 space sentry free completely (basically nullsec without bombs and bubbles), .2 space with sentries on stations but not on gates and .3, .4 space as it is now with roaming gangs of faction police and stuff interacting with FW lowsec dudes and having 'semi-concord' responses in the shit easy to ignore state they are now with .4 having more then .3 of course.

[FatFreddy]

I would like some kind of roaming concord who rather randomly, though within pre-set parameters, go through lowsec and shoot at blinkies, rats etc.

It should be consistent though with the impression of concord being lazy slobs outside of hisec, so maybe some kind of concord-affiliated rent-a-cop NPCs with the lore that they are some rather ragtag group of outcasts, ex-cons etc. so you could make them rather nasty, but destroyable with a chance to drop some slightly special loot.
Would also give incursions a counterpart, bad guys set up bases and amarr cathredals in every mission but you never see concord outside of hi-sec, even though lore exists where they intervene.

[Sponk]

Post

I think you meant roaming faction police, not roaming CONCORD.

[Takon Orlani]

I like the concept of overhauling the system, but risk averse faggots will still be risk averse faggots.

[Cue1*]

I honestly don't see a need to change the system. It works perfectly fine as it is. Instead, I think the correct answer is to reduce the amount of ISK that lvl4's produce, limit highsec POSs to smalls, shrink high sec to a much smaller size(why exactly can i jump from Amarr controlled space to Minmatar controlled space without leaving highsec? that's wrong), and promote lowsec/0.0 carebearing with increased reward.

[Mfume]

I can only imagine it would be infuriating to get a rare goodfight in lowsec, then have CONCORD blunder in and smoke you like a cigarette.

[Ben Derindar]

I remember writing something similar to Lall's post years ago, somewhere on eve-o.

Back in 2004 when I started playing, it only took me a couple of months to realise that nullsec was safer than lowsec. As of the end of 2009 when I stopped, nothing had changed in that department and the very existence of this thread suggests that it's very much still the case now.

+1 to OP.

[Ophichius]

I honestly don't see a need to change the system. It works perfectly fine as it is. Instead, I think the correct answer is to reduce the amount of ISK that lvl4's produce, limit highsec POSs to smalls, shrink high sec to a much smaller size(why exactly can i jump from Amarr controlled space to Minmatar controlled space without leaving highsec? that's wrong), and promote lowsec/0.0 carebearing with increased reward.

I wouldn't completely disconnect the four empires. Just add a very small number of topologically-central highsec systems that link them all, so any highsec-only transit takes exceedingly long, since you have to go many jumps out of your way to avoid crossing lowsec.

-O

[Mfume]

One idea I had, less drastic than this, would be racial sentry guns, so there would be a counter to the general trend of omni-tanking and provide some more uncertainty when summing up lowsec fits.

[Sponk]

Hmm interesting. Might give too much advantage to low-sec residents vs high-sec ppl if they can load up on (t2) resists and give no fucks about gate guns. Expect a lot of Wolfs camping gates in Amarr lowsec.

[Mfume]

Hmm interesting. Might give too much advantage to low-sec residents vs high-sec ppl if they can load up on (t2) resists and give no fucks about gate guns. Expect a lot of Wolfs camping gates in Amarr lowsec.

Mild homefield advantage is fine. It would deffo lead to increased regional and maybe even local (in systems with a lot of off-racial stns) variety. Anything that makes players think through their fit is good and could potentially shift the metagame in all sorts of whacky directions.

[Sponk]

In that case, as long it's it's not retardedly 100% racial gate gun deeps, then I'm willing to give them a try.

[FatFreddy]

Post

I think you meant roaming faction police, not roaming CONCORD.

I mean whatever would be fitting from a gameplay and lore stance, could be faction police offsprings roaming their lowsec territories, could mean some concord subdivision providing extraterritorial policing. And from the lore, there has been at least one chronicle where concord goes to nullsec to take care of some dangerous sansha installation or someshit.

In any case, having pirates in every belt in every system, even warping around (kind of) and even scripted NPC haulers who move around, but NPC police only serving as gatekeepers doesn't really make much sense

I want to jump into a system and see cop NPCs duke it out with pirate NPCs. Just some little addition to give the universe more flavour, like incursions

[Alain Colcer]

I think the concept should be simpler:

1.0 -> 0.5
8x Sentry guns at station; 8x sentry guns at gates; CONCORD intervention against criminal acts; Empire faction trade control at gates when smuggling

0.4
8x Sentry guns at station; 8x sentry guns at gates; NO CONCORD intervention against criminal acts; NO Empire faction trade control at gates when smuggling; NPC empire faction frigs orbiting entry gate to HIGH-SEC

0.3
8x Sentry guns at station; 4x sentry guns at gates; NO CONCORD intervention against criminal acts; NO Empire faction trade control at gates when smuggling;

0.2-0.1
2x Sentry guns at station; 2x sentry guns at gates; NO CONCORD intervention against criminal acts; NO Empire faction trade control at gates when smuggling;

from 0.4 to 0.1
Players can sign up for CONCORD and hunt flashys with bounties (get paid ISK or concord LP)
Players can sign up for Pirate faction and hunt down CONCORD players for bounties (paid in ISK or pirate LP)

[Glyken Touchon]

I remember writing something similar to Lall's post years ago, somewhere on eve-o.

I did too. Got shouted down as a carebear proposal (even though it would enable pirates to operate in higher sec space). There's currently a massive psychological barrier between 0.5 and 0.4, reinforced with a pop-up message. This gets people into bad habits. Took me ages to break mine.

My post said basically that there should be a chance that there was a concord patrol in-system/nearby, with sec affecting the chance and the delay. If you were still at the scene of the crime when they arrived, then too bad - wtfbbq. 15ish mins later, they would warp off, so you could return to loot if you hadn't already.

[Jalif]

I'm lolling... good concept...

but then I see a retard posting that we need in 0.3 8x sentries instead of the 2 here... hahahaha

[Pattern]

FW militias should really be low sec concord, with notifications and LP rewards for pirate kills.

[Alain Colcer]

I'm lolling... good concept...

but then I see a retard posting that we need in 0.3 8x sentries instead of the 2 here... hahahaha

meh, just thinking to make station camping less appealing in low-sec, thats all. And if someone goes GCC with a carrier, it should hurt somewhat.

[Takon Orlani]

I still think the most effective route is to nerf high sec incomes.