| Author |
Topic |
Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
|
Posted - 2009.04.21 20:20:00 - [ 1]
Edited by: Herschel Yamamoto on 21/04/2009 23:57:21
The security status mechanic has many good aspects, but one thing it does that is less desirable is to make it difficult for people to establish and hold a presence in low-security space without ultimately finding themselves barred from highsec. This is not a problem for -10 pirates, but there are many other groups who could use lowsec to a far greater extent than they presently do if this problem were reduced.
As such, I'd like to propose an extension of the concept of occupancy of lowsec space, as it is currently used in Factional Warfare, to allow corporations to gain occupancy of non-FW lowsec systems and thereby reduce their sec status penalties for defending their space, as well as possibly also gaining other benefits. I know that the instantaneous reaction to this will either be "Pirates are just going to get free ganks!" or "Big alliances are going to take over everything!", but I believe that those problems can be addressed effectively while leaving the core of the idea intact, and making this a serious option for smaller corporations.
Here is one example of how this could be implemented. I do not claim that it is perfectly balanced, and it will certainly need significant review by CCP before it is implemented, but I believe that it should address most of the obvious concerns effectively.
Every lowsec system not used for factional warfare will gain a control bunker. This will not be attackable, but will instead be a control point. Every hour, the corporation with the most ship-minutes spent in the space around the bunker will gain one point. At each downtime, whichever corporation meeting the standings requirement has gained the most points in the last week will gain occupancy of the system. The standings requirements are the same as for anchoring a POS: 1.0 of corp standing to the faction holding sovereignty for every 0.1 of system sec, so to take a Minmatar 0.3 system you need 3.0 corp standing towards the Minmatar Republic.
Occupancy would offer the following benefits:
- A -25% fuel use for POSes in the system, the same as Sovereignty 1 provides.
- Any of your players may shoot a -0.1 sec player as if they were -10.0, without gaining a GCC or losing sec status.
- If any player gains a GCC in the system, your corp will gain kill rights on that player. This works best if one of the transferable kill right systems proposed is implemented, but it could be done even without such a system.
If a corporation in an alliance gains occupancy, the entire alliance gains the first two of the above benefits. However, the corporation must hold the system in its own right. As well, I would like to see some kind of cap on how many systems a single corporation can gain occupancy of, preferably a skill-based cap, though a hard cap could also work.
Flavourfully, the empires are busy with factional warfare, and are looking to pass off security duties in unimportant systems to trustworthy corporations. This is why unprovoked attacks on +sec players are still disallowed and why standings requirements are in place. However, it would in practice function much more as a set of options for corporations to defend their space more aggressively than is currently allowed, I expect. Alliances will take some systems, of course, but most major alliance corporations do not have enough standing to take anything, and the above bonuses will not likely convince them to try on a large scale.
I acknowledge that this is likely to be a controversial proposal, and that there may well be aspects of it that I have overlooked. The detailed proposal is intended as an example, not as the only way it can be done. However, I think that this idea, properly implemented, will revitalize lowsec and give new options to many corps who would otherwise stay in highsec, and that it is worth bringing forward to CCP. |
Drake Draconis
Minmatar
Shadow Cadre
Looney Toons. |
Posted - 2009.04.21 20:30:00 - [ 2]
I like where your going.
But there's still the nagging issue of the ever popular pirates that love to prey on most players in low sec.
Until there is a balanced solution to that problem.. most will not likely go there.
If there was a way to bring forth a police enforcement incentive much like a 0.0 alliance would provide in there own territorial areas that coordinates with the empire navy or CONCORD... it would be quite fun and a challenge.
Surely the pirates grow tired of one ended fights and camping.
We need some all out fights.
Fights that pirates are forced to fight... not the ones they pick. |
Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
|
Posted - 2009.04.21 20:45:00 - [ 3]
 Originally by: Drake Draconis
I like where your going.
But there's still the nagging issue of the ever popular pirates that love to prey on most players in low sec.
Until there is a balanced solution to that problem.. most will not likely go there.
If there was a way to bring forth a police enforcement incentive much like a 0.0 alliance would provide in there own territorial areas that coordinates with the empire navy or CONCORD... it would be quite fun and a challenge.
Surely the pirates grow tired of one ended fights and camping.
We need some all out fights.
Fights that pirates are forced to fight... not the ones they pick.
Lowsec piracy will never change, and lowsec will never be as popular as highsec. Those are basically unchangeable aspects of Eve, and they're not even bad ones at that. Lowsec isn't bad because it's dangerous. It's bad because it's dangerous with too little corresponding benefit to bring out the people who are willing to accept danger in search of profit - and yes, they do exist. This is why I keep proposing changes to lowsec. I'm not under some delusion that it will ever be half as popular as highsec, because it won't be. The number of players interested in it simply isn't as high. I just want it to be an environment that more people find to be worth dabbling in, maybe even moving residency to. It may never be as popular, but it can and should be made better and more popular. |
De'Veldrin
Minmatar
Special Projects Executive
The Obsidian Legion
|
Posted - 2009.04.21 20:56:00 - [ 4]
I agree with Herschel in this case (I know, shocking right?) -- the reason I don't really want to move to low sec is that it's not very attractive to me, from a purely profit vs loss standpoint.
In high sec I can make substantial amounts of money with very little risk (yes risk does exist, as our recent loss of a ship during a War Dec proves), but it is far less than what you encounter is low-sec, and this is the core reason why low sec is so unattractive. Null-sec really doesn't figure into the arguement, imo, since that's a completely different beast.
I like the idea behind the OP, so I will offer tentative support, though I think there's a lot of implementation that needs to be hashed out (as Herschel mentions in the OP himself). |
Drake Draconis
Minmatar
Shadow Cadre
Looney Toons.
|
Posted - 2009.04.21 21:11:00 - [ 5]
Originally by: De'Veldrin
I agree with Herschel in this case (I know, shocking right?) -- the reason I don't really want to move to low sec is that it's not very attractive to me, from a purely profit vs loss standpoint.
In high sec I can make substantial amounts of money with very little risk (yes risk does exist, as our recent loss of a ship during a War Dec proves), but it is far less than what you encounter is low-sec, and this is the core reason why low sec is so unattractive. Null-sec really doesn't figure into the arguement, imo, since that's a completely different beast.
I like the idea behind the OP, so I will offer tentative support, though I think there's a lot of implementation that needs to be hashed out (as Herschel mentions in the OP himself).
Yep... I'd have to agree with that... I'm just a bit hesitant as very few ideas in low sec are even possible let alone doable... Herschel is far better than most tho. |
Larkonis TrassIer
Trolls From Outer Space
|
Posted - 2009.04.21 21:58:00 - [ 6]
Originally by: Drake Draconis
If there was a way to bring forth a police enforcement incentive much like a 0.0 alliance would provide in there own territorial areas that coordinates with the empire navy or CONCORD... it would be quite fun and a challenge.
You mean like a local defence force/gang made up of Players. If you want to occupy your own space then you should be able to fight for it yourself. Interesting ideas but they need some work tbh. The OP clearly has no clue about lowsec agro mechanics etc etc, but some form of 'occupancy' by lowsec dwelling corps giving certain benefits might entice more people to lowsec. |
Drake Draconis
Minmatar
Shadow Cadre
Looney Toons. |
Posted - 2009.04.21 22:12:00 - [ 7]
Originally by: Larkonis TrassIer
Originally by: Drake Draconis
If there was a way to bring forth a police enforcement incentive much like a 0.0 alliance would provide in there own territorial areas that coordinates with the empire navy or CONCORD... it would be quite fun and a challenge.
You mean like a local defence force/gang made up of Players. If you want to occupy your own space then you should be able to fight for it yourself.
Interesting ideas but they need some work tbh. The OP clearly has no clue about lowsec agro mechanics etc etc, but some form of 'occupancy' by lowsec dwelling corps giving certain benefits might entice more people to lowsec.
<.< Gutsy for a whelp like you to say that about hersch. |
Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
|
Posted - 2009.04.21 22:44:00 - [ 8]
Originally by: Larkonis TrassIer
Interesting ideas but they need some work tbh. The OP clearly has no clue about lowsec agro mechanics etc etc, but some form of 'occupancy' by lowsec dwelling corps giving certain benefits might entice more people to lowsec.
The only assumptions I made in writing my proposal that I can imagine you're objecting to are that gate guns will fire on anyone at a low enough sec whether they've aggressed recently or not, and that shooting someone who is at a low enough sec status(I believe -5.0) will not lower you further. Are either of these assumptions wrong? Did I make an erroneous assumption somewhere else? I haven't played around with all the various sec status interactions, having never been a serious lowsec pirate, so it's possible I made a mistake somewhere, but I'd like to get a better explanation of what it is. I don't think I botched anything that fundamental, but if I actually have "no clue", I'd definitely like some enlightenment. Originally by: Drake Draconis
<.< Gutsy for a whelp like you to say that about hersch.
Assuming TrassIer is Trassler's alt, he's been playing a year longer than I have, and with more experience at lowsec PvP than me besides(given that he's -10.0 and I'm +4.2). If he has objections, I'd like to hear them. |
Drake Draconis
Minmatar
Shadow Cadre
Looney Toons. |
Posted - 2009.04.21 22:51:00 - [ 9]
I've never seen you say anything without researching or KNOWING about that one thing specifically. For someone to say you don't know what your talking about is like saying the sky is not blue but green. Well maybe not like that exactly and I'm not saying your infallible... but your rarely ever off key either. Which is why I stalk your posts...    |
Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
|
Posted - 2009.04.21 23:11:00 - [ 10]
|
Khamous
Neo Spartans
Laconian Syndicate |
Posted - 2009.04.21 23:15:00 - [ 11]
|
Larkonis TrassIer
Trolls From Outer Space
|
Posted - 2009.04.21 23:20:00 - [ 12]
Edited by: Larkonis TrassIer on 21/04/2009 23:20:50 Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
Originally by: Larkonis TrassIer
Interesting ideas but they need some work tbh. The OP clearly has no clue about lowsec agro mechanics etc etc, but some form of 'occupancy' by lowsec dwelling corps giving certain benefits might entice more people to lowsec.
The only assumptions I made in writing my proposal that I can imagine you're objecting to are that gate guns will fire on anyone at a low enough sec whether they've aggressed recently or not, and that shooting someone who is at a low enough sec status(I believe -5.0) will not lower you further. Are either of these assumptions wrong? Did I make an erroneous assumption somewhere else? I haven't played around with all the various sec status interactions, having never been a serious lowsec pirate, so it's possible I made a mistake somewhere, but I'd like to get a better explanation of what it is. I don't think I botched anything that fundamental, but if I actually have "no clue", I'd definitely like some enlightenment.
Originally by: Drake Draconis
<.< Gutsy for a whelp like you to say that about hersch.
Assuming TrassIer is Trassler's alt, he's been playing a year longer than I have, and with more experience at lowsec PvP than me besides(given that he's -10.0 and I'm +4.2). If he has objections, I'd like to hear them.
I am indeed, my main just recently joined the 90 day club. Quote:
- Your players will not be shot by gate guns simply for having a low sec status. They will still be shot if they have a GCC, however.
Sentries will never agress a player for simply having a low SS, they require you to have a GCC or be flagged somehow to the owning corp in the case of stations or the empire in the case of gate guns. I may have been a little harsh with my initial statement. I like the idea of tying this into standings but I can't see it working out too well tbqh, perhaps in lieu of this either some sort of cash bribe should be offered (isk sink) or once the bunker is taken a specific task is set which requires multiple people to carry out. |
Drake Draconis
Minmatar
Shadow Cadre
Looney Toons. |
Posted - 2009.04.21 23:21:00 - [ 13]
Edited by: Drake Draconis on 21/04/2009 23:24:35
Edited by: Drake Draconis on 21/04/2009 23:22:36
<--- read the name.
; O )
and I tend to defend hersch from the disrespectful people.
But since you where kind enough to withdraw... so shall I. |
Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
|
Posted - 2009.04.21 23:57:00 - [ 14]
Originally by: Larkonis TrassIer
Quote:
- Your players will not be shot by gate guns simply for having a low sec status. They will still be shot if they have a GCC, however.
Sentries will never agress a player for simply having a low SS, they require you to have a GCC or be flagged somehow to the owning corp in the case of stations or the empire in the case of gate guns. I may have been a little harsh with my initial statement.
I like the idea of tying this into standings but I can't see it working out too well tbqh, perhaps in lieu of this either some sort of cash bribe should be offered (isk sink) or once the bunker is taken a specific task is set which requires multiple people to carry out.
Seriously? Damn. Could have sworn I heard about sentries auto-aggressing for low sec status. Oh well, that was easily the least important of the bonuses anyways, doesn't matter too much if it's removed. I'll go edit the OP. As for the standings thing, that was part roleplay and part a way of dealing with the "Oh god, the Goons will conquer everything!" concerns people have whenever you mention anything about buffing lowsec in a way that doesn't expressly forbid alliances from participating(like FW). Personally, I've never really understood why people thought the big alliances would bother with lowsec space - yeah, that Vanadium moon is really going to bring down the ravenous hordes - but it's sensible on its own merits too. Even if players are gaining occupancy, they're not sovereign, and the owners won't let you have it if they don't like you. As for the details of conquest, I went through a few different ideas. I sort of liked the one about tying it into the wardec system - declaring a war with the stated objective of taking one particular system - but concerns about multiple aggressors, swapping it off to alts, and limits on how many could be gained/lost per week scuttled it. The proposal above was the simplest that I thought would work effectively. You can certainly elaborate on it from there, but I wanted to give people an idea of how it could work in practice without it being overwhelming(since I have a tendency to write too bloody much as it is, I don't need complicated ideas to make it worse). I'm not sure if I like your idea - control being contestable at any point appeals to me, as does the natural way it spreads out the contest to prevent alarm-clocking and other TZ issues. All that said, the proposal I want to go forward here is the concept, not the specific implementation I outlined. CCP can pretty it up later, but it's the general proposal I'm concerned with here. |
Valorous Bob
Locusts.
Event Horizon.
|
Posted - 2009.04.22 02:49:00 - [ 15]
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
Lowsec isn't bad because it's dangerous. It's bad because it's dangerous with too little corresponding benefit to bring out the people who are willing to accept danger in search of profit - and yes, they do exist.
Totally agree. Im one of those people that would take the risk, but not if it means making LESS money then i would be in highsec (which is the current situation). Btw the OP is well thought out and has good ideas. /signed |
Amish Juggernaut
Amish Heavy Missions |
Posted - 2009.04.22 03:37:00 - [ 16]
Not supported, this idea could easily be exploited to a high degree.
For example, any of the large alliances with a moon mining operation pulling r64 mats would put tons of cloaked, cov-ops alts in the system. That way whenever a POS bashing crew comes, the alliance with the POS and alts in the system has a definitive advantage, both in defence and in running the POS.
This would encourage meta-gaming to the extreme. |
Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
|
Posted - 2009.04.22 03:51:00 - [ 17]
Originally by: Amish Juggernaut
Not supported, this idea could easily be exploited to a high degree.
For example, any of the large alliances with a moon mining operation pulling r64 mats would put tons of cloaked, cov-ops alts in the system. That way whenever a POS bashing crew comes, the alliance with the POS and alts in the system has a definitive advantage, both in defence and in running the POS.
This would encourage meta-gaming to the extreme.
Maybe I'm crazy, but if I had a major alliance I would have far better things to do with my pilots than park gobs of them in covops to watch one system. One sucker on sentry duty, maybe, but "tons"? And if you're suggesting that the covops pilots would be collecting points for system control, I assumed it went without saying that cloaked ships don't count. Barring that, I really fail to understand how this proposal would change the status quo you describe in any way. Okay, so your dysprosium moon netting 20 mil an hour can spend 50k less in fuel costs, sure. Some people like their 0.25%, I suppose. But if you actually read the proposal, I think you'll find that you're worrying about nothing. |
Syreniac |
Posted - 2009.04.22 06:08:00 - [ 18]
Edited by: Syreniac on 22/04/2009 06:08:54LinkageI think that would be a better way of managing lowsec TBH |
Drake Draconis
Minmatar
Shadow Cadre
Looney Toons. |
Posted - 2009.04.22 06:52:00 - [ 19]
Originally by: Amish Juggernaut
Not supported, this idea could easily be exploited to a high degree.
For example, any of the large alliances with a moon mining operation pulling r64 mats would put tons of cloaked, cov-ops alts in the system. That way whenever a POS bashing crew comes, the alliance with the POS and alts in the system has a definitive advantage, both in defence and in running the POS.
This would encourage meta-gaming to the extreme.
Paranoid much? Some how I seriously doubt any self respecting alliance would do that. Maybe not on a grand scale.... but still... that's a bit far fetched at best. |
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.04.22 11:45:00 - [ 20]
I support the general idea, while the mechanic you suggest has at least one very exploitable hole and one big drawback:
- drawback: "the corporation with the most ship-minutes spent in the space around the bunker will gain one point". If this is meant literally the corporation would have pilots doing nothing beside orbiting the bunker to get the standing.
And this get us to the
- exploitable hole: alts, especially people with alts in shuttles (or noob frigates) orbiting the bunker at 100, 200 km or whatever is the maximum range where the bunker register the presence to get to control the system. Those alts will have a clear slate (no negative sec standing) and so firing on them would damage the standing of the people trying to get control.
If the bunker register all the people in system (or even better all the people outside a station, POS shields, not cloaked, not in shuttles, i.e. all the people that are at least potentially doing something related to using the system and not only the facilities there) it would be lesser exploitable, even if alts in safespots could still be a problem.
Even with the limits any idea leading to a more used low sec has merits, so supported.
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente |
Posted - 2009.04.22 11:47:00 - [ 21]
Originally by: Drake Draconis
Originally by: Amish Juggernaut
Not supported, this idea could easily be exploited to a high degree.
For example, any of the large alliances with a moon mining operation pulling r64 mats would put tons of cloaked, cov-ops alts in the system. That way whenever a POS bashing crew comes, the alliance with the POS and alts in the system has a definitive advantage, both in defence and in running the POS.
This would encourage meta-gaming to the extreme.
Paranoid much?
Some how I seriously doubt any self respecting alliance would do that.
Maybe not on a grand scale.... but still... that's a bit far fetched at best.
No Drake, you are not enough paranoid. To better protect a good moon in low sec any alliance would go to great length. |
Molock Saronen
|
Posted - 2009.04.22 12:31:00 - [ 22]
|
Amish Juggernaut
Amish Heavy Missions |
Posted - 2009.04.22 12:40:00 - [ 23]
Originally by: Drake Draconis
Paranoid much?
Some how I seriously doubt any self respecting alliance would do that.
Maybe not on a grand scale.... but still... that's a bit far fetched at best.
No, I'm not paranoid at all. Any alliance would go to that length to protect a moon that produces 15-20b isk per month in materials. You would see metagame alt-corps spring up just so alliances would have parking spaces for alts to sit in the system cloaked. A mechanic such as what was proposed is far to easily exploitable. |
Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
|
Posted - 2009.04.22 17:17:00 - [ 24]
Originally by: Venkul Mul
- exploitable hole: alts, especially people with alts in shuttles (or noob frigates) orbiting the bunker at 100, 200 km or whatever is the maximum range where the bunker register the presence to get to control the system. Those alts will have a clear slate (no negative sec standing) and so firing on them would damage the standing of the people trying to get control.
If the bunker register all the people in system (or even better all the people outside a station, POS shields, not cloaked, not in shuttles, i.e. all the people that are at least potentially doing something related to using the system and not only the facilities there) it would be lesser exploitable, even if alts in safespots could still be a problem.
I've always sort of expected that shuttles, pods, and noob ships wouldn't count - nothing below a T1 frigate, so that you at least lose a token amount when you get shot. The standings concern is a reasonable one, though I expect you could fix it by saying that all PvP around the bunker is legit - if you go there, it's for a fight, and so you don't need the protection of sec status penalties for your opponents. It's a bit clumsy, but something in that vein should work. The systemwide option is one I considered, but I don't like it - too easy to safe up and make it a fight of pure numbers, instead of numbers and skill like it ought to be. If you want the system, you should have to risk a fight, not just sit warping between safes. Originally by: Venkul Mul
No Drake, you are not enough paranoid.
To better protect a good moon in low sec any alliance would go to great length.
Originally by: Amish Juggernaut
No, I'm not paranoid at all. Any alliance would go to that length to protect a moon that produces 15-20b isk per month in materials. You would see metagame alt-corps spring up just so alliances would have parking spaces for alts to sit in the system cloaked.
A mechanic such as what was proposed is far to easily exploitable.
Yeah, good moons are worth a fantastically large amount of money, and alliances will want to protect them. Nobody denies that. The question I have is how this system will change that. You don't protect dysprosium moons with fuel use reductions or kill rights, you protect them with the ability to drop fifty dreadnoughts on anyone who comes to take it. And you hardly need alt corps or occupancy to put a cloaked scout into the system - you just get someone in a covops. You don't need any sort of special status for that to work, you just do it. |
Drake Draconis
Minmatar
Shadow Cadre
Looney Toons. |
Posted - 2009.04.22 20:32:00 - [ 25]
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
Yeah, good moons are worth a fantastically large amount of money, and alliances will want to protect them. Nobody denies that. The question I have is how this system will change that. You don't protect dysprosium moons with fuel use reductions or kill rights, you protect them with the ability to drop fifty dreadnoughts on anyone who comes to take it. And you hardly need alt corps or occupancy to put a cloaked scout into the system - you just get someone in a covops. You don't need any sort of special status for that to work, you just do it.
This. As I said... I don't deny the defense... but exaggeration to such a degree is laughable. If someone is in local your likely to locate them... if there's a problem... you call in the fire support. End of story as far as I am concerned. |
Amish Juggernaut
Amish Heavy Missions |
Posted - 2009.04.24 06:37:00 - [ 26]
Quote:
You don't protect dysprosium moons with fuel use reductions or kill rights, you protect them with the ability to drop fifty dreadnoughts on anyone who comes to take it. And you hardly need alt corps or occupancy to put a cloaked scout into the system - you just get someone in a covops. You don't need any sort of special status for that to work, you just do it.
I enjoy you cherry picking your own topic. Of course, getting kill rights or a fuel use bonus are not 100% defensive things. But, the ability to attack ANYONE who comes into your lowsec system and has a sec status less than -0.1 is very much a defensive advantage. That's the part of your post I've been focusing on. Yeah, congrats you can drop 50 dreads on a lowsec pos bashing fleet, but which is easier, the logistics, cost and time of 50 dreads assembling, jumping, fighting, hopefully not dying, jumping back and being refueled/rearmed? Or parking an ALT corp in a system in which you hold an R64 moon and letting it sit there. Then, when your spies hear rumblings of an impending attack, you blob the in-gate to that system with a BS heavy fleet. The first character in the attacking fleet that is below the security status gets wtfbbqed, but the no-one else in the attacking fleet can fire back because they'll draw a GCC and diaf even quicker. So where does your idea get us? Stagnation of lowsec moons and resources. Alliances that can pull off the meta-game are rewarded for it instead of punished. Still not supported. |
Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
|
Posted - 2009.04.24 16:55:00 - [ 27]
Originally by: Amish Juggernaut
I enjoy you cherry picking your own topic.
Of course, getting kill rights or a fuel use bonus are not 100% defensive things. But, the ability to attack ANYONE who comes into your lowsec system and has a sec status less than -0.1 is very much a defensive advantage. That's the part of your post I've been focusing on.
Yeah, congrats you can drop 50 dreads on a lowsec pos bashing fleet, but which is easier, the logistics, cost and time of 50 dreads assembling, jumping, fighting, hopefully not dying, jumping back and being refueled/rearmed? Or parking an ALT corp in a system in which you hold an R64 moon and letting it sit there. Then, when your spies hear rumblings of an impending attack, you blob the in-gate to that system with a BS heavy fleet.
The first character in the attacking fleet that is below the security status gets wtfbbqed, but the no-one else in the attacking fleet can fire back because they'll draw a GCC and diaf even quicker.
So where does your idea get us? Stagnation of lowsec moons and resources. Alliances that can pull off the meta-game are rewarded for it instead of punished. Still not supported.
Okay, one of us is missing something here. We are still talking about fleet combat in lowsec, right? The same lowsec that lets anyone shoot anyone for any reason? The same lowsec whose best form of defence for "innocent" players is some hundreds of DPS of gate guns? Do you seriously think that GCCs and sec status losses are going to dissuade anyone in a fleet fight from firing? When you're protecting dysprosium, you don't check sec statuses of people going through the gate to see who you can fire on and rely on the gate guns to pick off anyone else, you shoot them all. I'm not the slightest bit worried about a narrow interaction between my proposed aggro mechanics and dys/pro defence, because: a) the alliances won't care about this - they defend the moon, not the system, and they don't care about sec status when they do. b) most alliances won't really be able to use this even if, by some miracle, they do care. c) there are a whopping 20 lowsec systems in the game with valuable moons, and I intended this proposal far more for the 800 that don't than the 20 that do. |
Klyria
Minmatar
Agent-Orange
|
Posted - 2009.04.25 03:48:00 - [ 28]
I like this idea. I think that CCP would definitely need to look over this before anything would be implemented, but that is true of anything suggested here. |
|
All Channels
Lowsec Occupancy
Screenshots & Art
