Cookies Disclaimer

I agree Our site saves small pieces of text information (cookies) on your device in order to authenticate logins, deliver better content and provide statistical analysis. You can adjust your browser settings to prevent our site from using cookies, but doing so will prevent some aspects of the site from functioning properly.

High sec hexes being low sec during PvP window?

Paddy Fitzpatrick
This was something on my mind before I took my hiatus and now it is something I have been thinking about even more since I've returned.

The security feature for holdings in hexes has been good but I feel it may have created an unintended side effect. It is too easy to make huge areas of the map completely immune to some of the most important aspects of the game. Since there is no extra cost to make holdings high security as opposed to low or medium there is no meaningful choice involved. Aside from role play reasons there really is only one real choice.

So if there will be no meaningful choice or cost to maintain the safety of hexes I propose making them low security during their PvP windows. I don't propose the entire company be vulnerable or that the hexes are vulnerable for takeover or any other mechanics change aside from that. It should just be low security during the owning settlement's PvP window. It still keeps the meaningful choice by syncing it with the PvP window, still keeps it in the spirit of sanctioned PvP, and still keeps in the spirit of settlements having to actually have a challenge from other players.

Seriously right now it is too unrealistic of a sandbox and has created a false sense of security. It removes any sense of struggle, challenge, and sense of genuine accomplishment when it comes to risk and reward. What kind of risk and reward system would allow people to run all over the map with the highest powered gear and not have to worry about any of the natural consequences that would otherwise be there? It is not good for the game both in the short and long term.
Paddy Fitzpatrick - Rí Ruírec of Fianna, roaming bands of noble warriors!
Member of Aragon Alliance and home of bandits, privateers, and anyone looking to get away from the shackles of law.
Find us on PFO Discord
Flari-Merchant
Seriously?

All you have to do is feud the particular group that you are after. Then you're good to go anywhere but TK.

Your idea would be alright and I wouldn't object to it if the game's focus was on uncontrolled PVP, but it isn't. The focus has always been on PVP for reasons worthy of at least feuding groups mostly, with some ways (a few small ones) to just kill for the sake of killing-to add some danger and risk elements.

I can understand that you want more options for unrestricted PVP but really, that wasn't in the original plan, nor is it what a majority of players here signed up for.
Paddy Fitzpatrick
Yes seriously.

It isn't even uncontrolled PvP as your fearmongering would seem to suggest. Just something to make it more challenging than just hiding behind a wall of high sec hexes all day. The PvP window's whole purpose is to control when a settlement and their assets can be open for attack. That window is chosen BY THE SETTLEMENT.

Ok so maybe instead of that, why not make maintaining high sec a coin or bulk cost instead? Make it a meaningful choice in some way cause feuding isn't enough. There's no day to day risk involved and it isn't like everyone is going to feud everyone else 24/7. The game was set up to explicitly NOT have 24/7 permafeuds going.

Either way it's like adding any PvP in any controlled setting is anathema to you. Sanctioned PvP is important but this game shouldn't just cater to your playstyle of hiding behind your PvP free wall to avoid any risk either. You should have to pay something extra for that kind of thing to be viable and not handed to you on a silver platter.
Paddy Fitzpatrick - Rí Ruírec of Fianna, roaming bands of noble warriors!
Member of Aragon Alliance and home of bandits, privateers, and anyone looking to get away from the shackles of law.
Find us on PFO Discord
Paddy Fitzpatrick
To put it a bit more bluntly it shows the flaws in the current system that can be (and have been in certain places) easily gamed.
Paddy Fitzpatrick - Rí Ruírec of Fianna, roaming bands of noble warriors!
Member of Aragon Alliance and home of bandits, privateers, and anyone looking to get away from the shackles of law.
Find us on PFO Discord
Flari-Merchant
Hmmm… I guess that you missed the thread wherein I agreed to an idea to add a cost for High Sec hexes. I just disagreed with Low Sec hexes getting an income bonus.

PVP isn't anathema to me at all. I champion for it all the time, especially better mechanics for both loot and banditry. I think that you know that or you do not retain your reading or you just don't read the forums. Will state again, as I always have, that the "open world PVP vibe" really isn't the intended structure of environment that The owners and developers want for the game, as far as I know anyway.

This "zone" type setting we have now is mostly beneficial to new players without developed skills. I gather almost exclusively in areas that are totally open to PVP at all times. IMO, your dissatisfaction with PVP is mostly a symptom of lack of players in the game. You find it hard to find them.

A little forethought and a feud could be one solution for you.
Fiery wind
I've yet to see what I consider to be a convincing argument that high security hexes are inherently advantageous to have over low-sec hexes, and I know bob has expressed that same doubt over the argument. On the one hand, in low-sec hexes, one group can more effectively assert control over the actions in a hex, while running the risk that someone else can control their own actions in the hex. In high security, while others can't prevent you from acting in a hex, you can't prevent others either. While I won't share specifics, I have envisioned many pvp scenarios where the defenders can be disadvantaged by having their hex be high security. It's already the case that the most valuable and interesting hexes are low-sec by default, so if you *really* want to be able to attack people in certain hexes, I'd say YOU should pay the cost of a meaningful decision by utilizing one of the existing systems, either by taking the holding in said hex and changing the security rating, or by issuing a feud.
MrGatherer
I think Medium Security should be the default and any adjustment away from that should come at a cost.
Who, me?
Paddy Fitzpatrick
The big advantage of high sec areas is the fact that they are set by the players. In Eve you have such areas set in stone. To get to the most interesting places the security areas are what they are and you HAVE to go through medium and/or null sec space for a significant timeframe before you re enter high sec. That is a proper risk reward system

Here you put a high sec inn right next to a monster hex and you dont have to make any real effort to get back to safety. No effort needed and no extra cost for that kind of comfort level. For the same cost as any other string of holdings I can make my entire trip risk free and avoid any of the other aspects of this game. What scenario could there possibly be a disadvantage to having a high sec hex? If someone can actually list any realistic scenarios maybe it would be worth considering. Having a high sec settlement means absolute safety unless someone is fanatical enough to declare a feud just to kill you (in which case you have an hour to run somewhere else or just log off). High sec holdings make it near absolutely safe since all the interesting stuff is in the low sec monster hexes. Sure no one can be attacked if you dont want them there but what is there to do other than stand there? Its not like any real damage can be done.

As for the patronizing answer of "just declare a feud", when you give it some forethought you realize people aren't declaring feuds for the same reasons no one is declaring a siege. It is pointless unless you are looking for the absolute destruction of the other side. The more nuanced territorial strategy game that was promised has not really panned out. So unless it does, this is just another well intentioned system that has been gamed (especially when considered in combination with the hex protection mechanic) and needs to be fixed before a larger population comes in.
Paddy Fitzpatrick - Rí Ruírec of Fianna, roaming bands of noble warriors!
Member of Aragon Alliance and home of bandits, privateers, and anyone looking to get away from the shackles of law.
Find us on PFO Discord
Paddy Fitzpatrick
High sec hexes should have infrastructure costs just like settlement buildings do. That way for the many advamtages you have to decide whether to allocate your resources to it and by how much. It also makes taking over or knocking down a holding far more significant. When there are more infrastructure costs, removing said infrastructure will force a settlement to make those tough decisions that would be am actual meangingful choice.

It also provides another tangible result from a territorial battle that isn't directed towards complete settlement destruction.
Paddy Fitzpatrick - Rí Ruírec of Fianna, roaming bands of noble warriors!
Member of Aragon Alliance and home of bandits, privateers, and anyone looking to get away from the shackles of law.
Find us on PFO Discord
Stilachio Thrax
I'd say no to this, as it seems more about getting free PVP so you don't have to pay influence to feud or you don't have expend time and energy hunting players in current Low sec hexes than being about High-sec doesn't have to pay anything for protection.

For the record, I believe there should be a coin cost for anything other than Med-Sec (High has to pay guards, Low has to bribe them to stay away).
Virtus et Honor

Steward of Ozem's Vigil, Lord Commander of the Argyraspides Iomedais
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post