open All Channels
seplocked Features and Ideas Discussion
blankseplocked The Problem with low sec
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Author Topic

ViolenTUK
Gallente
Demolition Men
Posted - 2010.09.09 19:39:00 - [1]
 

Edited by: ViolenTUK on 09/09/2010 19:47:37
The Problem.

I would like for you to understand some of what the problem really is. Why donít people go to low sec? Well firstly players do go to low sec. What can happen often is a pvp pilot will fly either by himself or a group for a short tour of a few systems to find that there are no targets that are willing to participate or they may be hopelessly outnumbered. The pvp pilots will leave since for them there is no reason to stay.

Missions in low sec do pay out a great deal more than high sec but there is massive risk for any pilot mission running in low sec. You are simply not fitted to deal with pvp pilots since you are fitted to run missions. Itís not just that itís the fact that you are sitting target. It doesnít matter if you have some friends with you in fact it doesnít matter if you have allot of friends with you as this Intel is noted in local. Whatever number you bring to that mission will be counted by enemy players. I am well aware that there are players that do run missions in low sec and indeed I can speak from experience myself since I have run missions in low sec and as a pvp pilot. There is a great deal of risk involved. Not that this is a bad thing as such since this can introduce a conflict that is welcome by all parties but please remember you do want to earn isk in low sec right? Difficult if you are being attacked.
Courier missions. Sometimes I feel sorry for a courier pilot aligning to a station after he has jumped in to allow sec system. Why? He has me or many other pilots who are going to uncloak and kill him before he as any clue what his happening. To make matters worse for him I am going to steal his mission cargo loot. The mission runner may not be able to replace that loot very easily since mission cargo is often or possibly solely unique. If he can find a replacement on contract which is unlikely it will cost more than the hauler that has been destroyed. The likelihood is that he will have to decline the mission in progress at a massive standing cost to him. It is possible this standing loss may be enough to lose the ability to talk to this agent.
There is simply no reason for anyone realistically to run missions in low sec. I can imagine some of you thinking oh well you all need to team together. Well itís not always going to work that way is it? As a matter of fact why should they? Some players donít want to work in a big team. I donít think they need to be forced to.

What can happen.

So what about casual pilots strolling into low sec looking for some fun? Sure perhaps they can forget about the fact that NPC pirates are barely worth shooting at but they will shoot them to attract some attention. They might get into a fight. It might be fun. So letís say that fight made them take the pod express home. So Time for another ship? Ok. Well heís not going to mission run in low sec because of what just happened. So he can do some mining? Or perhaps run some missions? Well a budding pvp pilot he will more than likely have poor industry skills but better pvp skills right? And no Iím not advocating everyone needs 2 accounts. Some people choose to but we shouldnít need to should we? So they are running missions. Perhaps they want a new battleship? Well ok they start missions which may go well. Letís say they didnít die although there is some risk in high sec mission running although this can be minimized to negligible. So they get a courier mission to low sec? They decline it considering the risk involved. Understand that this is an option Iím aware that many pvp options are taking. Decline the mission. Unless you move to 0.7 space and above you will be sent to low sent to run missions. Even at higher security levels you are still sent from time to time on the occasional courier mission to low sec. Please understand that these pilots want to go to low sec. Itís important to understand. They are not going to go to low sec to run a mission. They are not stupid.

ViolenTUK
Gallente
Demolition Men
Posted - 2010.09.09 19:42:00 - [2]
 

Edited by: ViolenTUK on 09/09/2010 19:44:36
What they want is to be left alone in high sec to earn isk. If you let them do that they will come back. You are not going to encourage players to pvp if you take their money away from them.

Eve is a sandbox.

So Eve is a sandbox? My young nephew. He is 2 &1/2 years old. He really does have a sandbox in our garden. It is 10 ft long by 6ft wide. He has a number of toys in there. He will play with whatever he chooses to. This is important. It is so important I will repeat. He will play with whatever he chooses to. His favourite is this small bucket and spade. His mother bought him this small scaled JCB type tractor. I think it cost her about £150. Guess what? He wonít play with it. If we try to put him on the JCB he just gets off it and says ďNO. Bucket & Spade!Ē There is nothing you can do. He wonít play with it. We would never take a toy off him without a very good reason. We did take the bucket and spade off him once and all he did was throw a tantrum and then refused to play with anything.

Do you see how eve is a sandbox? Do you get it yet? This analogy is my nephew will play with a £1.99 bucket and spade and wonít play with a £150 scale tractor. Nothing you can do will make him play with the tractor. Nothing. All you can do is put toys in the sandbox and see what he plays with. If there are any that he wonít play with they can be discarded or given to someone else. To finish this analogy. Do you think we are going to take that bucket and spade off him? ABSOLOUTELY NOT! Why? he wonít play. Taking the bucket and spade off him wonít make him play with the tractor. The only thing we can do is provide more toys within reason of course and hope he plays with them.

You would have thought CCP would have learnt this in their sandbox when they were younger wouldnít you? It doesnít seem that way.
So what am I saying? Eve is that sandbox in my garden. You canít take high sec missions from the players. Why? They wonít play. If anything mission rewards should be increased. The way I see it is that if you give the high sec dwellers more isk they are much more liable to risk isk in low sec.
Low sec does need more toys I agree. More toys in low sec will attract players to go there. Not force them since we know you canít force them.

Low sec missions.

Low sec missions could work. The way I see it is that they need to be specific to low sec. In high sec if it took you 2 hours to finish a mission it typically wouldnít matter. Itís not just that. In low sec there are relatively few people there so probing low sec mission runners out is made that much easier since there are fewer possibilities. Try probing out a war target in a system where 350 players in system and you donít know their ship type and you didnít see where they warped to. Yes it can be done and no it isnít easy and it is certainly much easier in low sec.

One possible way is that low sec missions should be designed to be completed in a relatively short period of time. Balancing would need to be paramount here. There is a risk that if the missions are too short that rewards would be stacked up very quickly. Why shouldnít a mission be completed in 5 minutes? Again the reward must be balanced to reflect this.


ViolenTUK
Gallente
Demolition Men
Posted - 2010.09.09 19:44:00 - [3]
 

Considering the risk involved the rewards for a low sec mission would be higher than its high sec counterpart. A dedicated pirate could probe out a mission runner very quickly but he would have to be fast to coordinate an attack. This would give the mission runner a chance to succeed. Sleeper rats can switch targets if another player warps in. Iím not saying that sleeper rats should be in low sec missions but why not have rats that switch targets? That would add spice to attacking a mission runner.

How could you balance a low sec combat mission so that it could be completed in a matter of minutes? Fewer NPCS or possibly just one npc. Yes this npc should be very difficult to kill. This Npc should be as tough as a 2003 player but it shouldnít be certain death either. It would be fun if this npc could switch to a target that just warped in. Would be pirates would be forced to kill the rat and finish the mission for the player :P.

There is the matter of mission specific items becoming destroyed during missions particularly in low sec in similar ways to what I have described earlier. It is my opinion that for non courier missions these items probably shouldnít be introduced.

There are many ideas floating around about what you can do for low sec to make it worthwhile. I believe it can be done without taking anything from high sec.

Alara IonStorm
Caldari
Posted - 2010.09.09 19:48:00 - [4]
 

How bout we asplode Concord

Then everyone wins!

Cept Concord, Newbs, Carebears, Haulers, Miners and CCP's Wallet!

Also whats your idea could you sum it up, walls of text hurt my eyes!

ViolenTUK
Gallente
Demolition Men
Posted - 2010.09.09 19:54:00 - [5]
 

Sum it up? Ok. Leave high sec missions alone since they are the isk sources for many low sec pvp pilots.

Low sec missions are rather silly as they are since they make you a flying target. So reinvent low sec missions specifically for low sec to make them a reasonable alternative. Yes I love shooting things.

Scoundrelus
The Black Fleet
Posted - 2010.09.09 19:54:00 - [6]
 

I agree with this. Low sec rewards need to be buffed considerably seeing as how low sec is more dangerous than NPC 0.0 space. Battleship NPCs should spawn more often, more and better ores, low sec should become so profitable that even 0.0 alliances will want a piece but when they come to get a piece the pirates will be there for the feast. Twisted Evil

Alara IonStorm
Caldari
Posted - 2010.09.09 20:02:00 - [7]
 

Originally by: ViolenTUK
Sum it up? Ok. Leave high sec missions alone since they are the isk sources for many low sec pvp pilots.

Low sec missions are rather silly as they are since they make you a flying target. So reinvent low sec missions specifically for low sec to make them a reasonable alternative. Yes I love shooting things.


I would like to see roaming Lo-Sec Agents with unique LP stores, Like those mercenary Frigs and Cruisers in lvl 1's and 2's, also new mods and Implants. Also remove gate guns from 0.3-0.2 and down and disallow super caps. The last one is just opinion, but frig fights on gates without bubbles would be nice!

darius mclever
Posted - 2010.09.09 20:05:00 - [8]
 

i think one of the problems is that at some point a new type of pirates showed up, who didnt honor ransoms anymore, kill everything no matter what. I really love wormholes for getting into lowsec, you can nicely avoid the camps in the entry areas and happily plex in the deeper systems.

and given the whine on the forums ... the survival rate of unprobable t3 ships for mission running seems be quite high.

as for the hauling, i think with transport ships CCP solved that problem quite nicely for lowsec. sure you need a few more runs in a viator compared to an iteron 5. but you get in and out easily. for the stations having insta undock bookmarks is a must have of course.

last but not least ... people who might just want to run a mission, will find it much easier to do the same in highsec because the chance is much less likely that they loose their shiny ship or that they get camped into the station.

Ronald Raygunn
Amarr
Inferi Legion
Posted - 2010.09.10 04:56:00 - [9]
 

While I understand what is being said, I have to say that doing any of that only creates an escalating and self-perpetuating problem. Increase the rewards, more people come to lolsec, which in turn draws more pirates to gates to camp. Enter emorage, and rewards get increased, drawing more to go to lolsec which in turn draws more pirates, more gatecamps, more emorage, and so on and so forth.

The problem is lolsec itself and how it tries to be just like nulsec first and empire second, but can't commit to either. You have to take away from both sides of gate, so to speak. Create a way to protect the lolsec entry points so people have a better chance of getting in while giving something to the blobs that would prey on those players. As it stands, lolsec isn't worth the time or effort to bother with otherwise.

Sketchers
Posted - 2010.09.10 07:37:00 - [10]
 

Edited by: Sketchers on 10/09/2010 07:41:42
Just make low sec like NPC 0.0

Make systems without a station an alliance can claim

Boost the rats a bit. To atleast a triple cruiser spawn.

And move the BPO market (from NPC's) there.

where high lvl agents can only be found. And where some of the really nice items in LP store can only be accessed by that agent in low sec.

And change the jump routes so you have to pass through low sec to get to the next region.

Any one of these changes would make alot of people move there...

ViolenTUK
Gallente
Demolition Men
Posted - 2010.09.10 14:05:00 - [11]
 

I hoped that my post showed a way in which low sec could be boosted. I also hoped you could see why making any changes that remove something from high sec just wouldnít work. Eve is a Sand box.

darius mclever
Posted - 2010.09.10 14:19:00 - [12]
 

Originally by: Sketchers
Just make low sec like NPC 0.0
Make systems without a station an alliance can claim


what would be the incentive to get sov in lowsec? and why at all? you really want to get the crappy sov warfare in lowsec aswell?

Quote:
Boost the rats a bit. To atleast a triple cruiser spawn.


there are even battleship spawns in lowsec nowadays.

Quote:
And move the BPO market (from NPC's) there.


industry should be easily accessible also to starter. otherwise this would be the only basic career that requires you to go into lowsec.

Quote:
where high lvl agents can only be found. And where some of the really nice items in LP store can only be accessed by that agent in low sec.


i could still farm my LP in highsec and go to lowsec just to get the item? otherwise you basically described the faction warfare lp store stuff. lots of lowsec activities that give you LP for special items or cheaper items.

Quote:
And change the jump routes so you have to pass through low sec to get to the next region.


there are plenty of short cuts between regions/empires through lowsec already, but those are mostly camped already. if you would make them mandatory ... the camps wouldnt just move away.
you would basically obsolete all slower haulers and move interregion hauling to blockade runners.

Quote:
Any one of these changes would make alot of people move there...


I dont think so.

Urgg Boolean
Posted - 2010.09.10 15:48:00 - [13]
 

Originally by: Alara IonStorm
<snip>Also whats your idea could you sum it up, walls of text hurt my eyes!<snip>

In summary: EvE players have the mentality of a toddler in a sandbox.

Kidding aside, I think the OP's analysis of player mentality is correct, in that when PvP is cheap, more players are willing to get involved. If losses are high, like blowing away 3 months of ISK grinding, players are very reluctant to engage is such risk.

How to fix it such that players want to engage in PvP? There is no political will to do so, and as such, CCP will introduce worthless changes that keep the current pirate community happy, but will fail to make any meaningful change.

Basically, most gamers do not find it fun to be constantly on the look out for gank squads. In this context, it is not fun to try and focus on PvE, while responding immediately to PvP threats. This is, in fact, much of what makes EvE a niche game. Any changes to mitigate PvP threats, which would make it more fun for the mission runners, but would fundamentally change game philosophy, making it less fun for pirates and murderers. There is no political will to do this.

How do we crack this nut? I like the OP's idea of improved rat AI. Some of the PvP scenarios in STO do this, where NPCs are tossed into the PvP, and both PvP factions must include strategies to deal with NPCs as well as their PvP opponents. Really fun IMHO (that is, when enough Klingons show up to make the PvP real).

But in EvE?!?!? To solve this, I think SOMEBODY is going to be unhappy.


Matthias Howe
Posted - 2010.09.10 16:36:00 - [14]
 

Originally by: Urgg Boolean
Originally by: Alara IonStorm
<snip>Also whats your idea could you sum it up, walls of text hurt my eyes!<snip>

In summary: EvE players have the mentality of a toddler in a sandbox.

Kidding aside, I think the OP's analysis of player mentality is correct, in that when PvP is cheap, more players are willing to get involved. If losses are high, like blowing away 3 months of ISK grinding, players are very reluctant to engage is such risk.

How to fix it such that players want to engage in PvP? There is no political will to do so, and as such, CCP will introduce worthless changes that keep the current pirate community happy, but will fail to make any meaningful change.

Basically, most gamers do not find it fun to be constantly on the look out for gank squads. In this context, it is not fun to try and focus on PvE, while responding immediately to PvP threats. This is, in fact, much of what makes EvE a niche game. Any changes to mitigate PvP threats, which would make it more fun for the mission runners, but would fundamentally change game philosophy, making it less fun for pirates and murderers. There is no political will to do this.

How do we crack this nut? I like the OP's idea of improved rat AI. Some of the PvP scenarios in STO do this, where NPCs are tossed into the PvP, and both PvP factions must include strategies to deal with NPCs as well as their PvP opponents. Really fun IMHO (that is, when enough Klingons show up to make the PvP real).

But in EvE?!?!? To solve this, I think SOMEBODY is going to be unhappy.




I hate to say this, but the cost of losing ships is just too damn much. We live in the 21st century and have much fewer hours of free-time than those who came before us in the past few decades. There simply isn't enough time for even a semi-hardcore player to replace these kinds of losses and still have any kind of fun in the game. Not even in Shadowbane was there this kind of massive penalty for death.

The game is about pvp combat, but most players end up spending most of their time making up losses. Insurance policies need to be more flexible to include modules and implants. Nobody gets an insurance policy that would only cover a Honda Civic if they are driving a Porsche made out of solid gold. Pay more for the policies, but get a better return on your money. Also, paying 10 million isk for an insurance policy on a 30 million isk ship is ridiculous. I don't even think Lloyds of London has those kinds of exorbitant rates. Eve is a sandbox with an overinvolved parent (CCP) setting the rules to stack the deck against semi-hardcore and casual players by making ship losses too great to continue the risk of pvp and low-sec mission running. There are no rules in a true sandbox aside from the rules the occupants of said sand box make. CCP is making the rules in this case so REALLY, this isn't sandbox at all...unless the sand is sentient, making money on subscription fees and slapping down those toddlers who have to go to soccer practice instead of sitting in a sandbox all day. Hell's bells, if you want to make a true sandbox then have a commodities market where players sell insurance policy, not some all knowing, all seeing insurance megacorp that controls the universe and the insurance rates with no competition in rates.

Valandril
Caldari
Ex-Mortis
Posted - 2010.09.10 16:45:00 - [15]
 

Originally by: Matthias Howe
Originally by: Urgg Boolean
Originally by: Alara IonStorm
<snip>Also whats your idea could you sum it up, walls of text hurt my eyes!<snip>

In summary: EvE players have the mentality of a toddler in a sandbox.

Kidding aside, I think the OP's analysis of player mentality is correct, in that when PvP is cheap, more players are willing to get involved. If losses are high, like blowing away 3 months of ISK grinding, players are very reluctant to engage is such risk.

How to fix it such that players want to engage in PvP? There is no political will to do so, and as such, CCP will introduce worthless changes that keep the current pirate community happy, but will fail to make any meaningful change.

Basically, most gamers do not find it fun to be constantly on the look out for gank squads. In this context, it is not fun to try and focus on PvE, while responding immediately to PvP threats. This is, in fact, much of what makes EvE a niche game. Any changes to mitigate PvP threats, which would make it more fun for the mission runners, but would fundamentally change game philosophy, making it less fun for pirates and murderers. There is no political will to do this.

How do we crack this nut? I like the OP's idea of improved rat AI. Some of the PvP scenarios in STO do this, where NPCs are tossed into the PvP, and both PvP factions must include strategies to deal with NPCs as well as their PvP opponents. Really fun IMHO (that is, when enough Klingons show up to make the PvP real).

But in EvE?!?!? To solve this, I think SOMEBODY is going to be unhappy.




I hate to say this, but the cost of losing ships is just too damn much. We live in the 21st century and have much fewer hours of free-time than those who came before us in the past few decades. There simply isn't enough time for even a semi-hardcore player to replace these kinds of losses and still have any kind of fun in the game. Not even in Shadowbane was there this kind of massive penalty for death.

The game is about pvp combat, but most players end up spending most of their time making up losses. Insurance policies need to be more flexible to include modules and implants. Nobody gets an insurance policy that would only cover a Honda Civic if they are driving a Porsche made out of solid gold. Pay more for the policies, but get a better return on your money. Also, paying 10 million isk for an insurance policy on a 30 million isk ship is ridiculous. I don't even think Lloyds of London has those kinds of exorbitant rates. Eve is a sandbox with an overinvolved parent (CCP) setting the rules to stack the deck against semi-hardcore and casual players by making ship losses too great to continue the risk of pvp and low-sec mission running. There are no rules in a true sandbox aside from the rules the occupants of said sand box make. CCP is making the rules in this case so REALLY, this isn't sandbox at all...unless the sand is sentient, making money on subscription fees and slapping down those toddlers who have to go to soccer practice instead of sitting in a sandbox all day. Hell's bells, if you want to make a true sandbox then have a commodities market where players sell insurance policy, not some all knowing, all seeing insurance megacorp that controls the universe and the insurance rates with no competition in rates.
If you can't afford to pvp, you are doing it wrong. Either you have a great job (so you push XX extra hours to make more moneyz) so you can afford a plex every now and then and/or you are smart and know how to make cash ingame (which is very easy).

Matthias Howe
Posted - 2010.09.10 18:21:00 - [16]
 

Edited by: Matthias Howe on 10/09/2010 18:21:46

If you can't afford to pvp, you are doing it wrong. Either you have a great job (so you push XX extra hours to make more moneyz) so you can afford a plex every now and then and/or you are smart and know how to make cash ingame (which is very easy).


I have both a good job, have bought 4 billion in plex, and feel like I'm wasting my cash. I'm not talking about difficulty, I'm talking about TIME. That's the second time you've tried to undermine my posts with a non-sequitor argument. Argue the point not your narrow point of view that allows you to gank new players. Empire Assault Corp indeed. Assault this.Twisted Evil

By the way, I have a real job with a salary so I don't have to work "extra" hours. Thanks again for the career advice though.

X Gallentius
Quantum Cats Syndicate
Posted - 2010.09.10 22:25:00 - [17]
 

Then fly cheap ships. Problem solved.


Valandril
Caldari
Ex-Mortis
Posted - 2010.09.10 22:31:00 - [18]
 

Originally by: Matthias Howe
Edited by: Matthias Howe on 10/09/2010 18:21:46

If you can't afford to pvp, you are doing it wrong. Either you have a great job (so you push XX extra hours to make more moneyz) so you can afford a plex every now and then and/or you are smart and know how to make cash ingame (which is very easy).


I have both a good job, have bought 4 billion in plex, and feel like I'm wasting my cash. I'm not talking about difficulty, I'm talking about TIME. That's the second time you've tried to undermine my posts with a non-sequitor argument. Argue the point not your narrow point of view that allows you to gank new players. Empire Assault Corp indeed. Assault this.Twisted Evil

By the way, I have a real job with a salary so I don't have to work "extra" hours. Thanks again for the career advice though.
Let's see, i spend about 20minutes daily ingame to make money and i can pvp in capitals. You have time issues and can't afford 30m ship.
Meh, i'm doing it wrong.

Matthias Howe
Posted - 2010.09.10 22:44:00 - [19]
 

Originally by: Valandril
Originally by: Matthias Howe
Edited by: Matthias Howe on 10/09/2010 18:21:46

If you can't afford to pvp, you are doing it wrong. Either you have a great job (so you push XX extra hours to make more moneyz) so you can afford a plex every now and then and/or you are smart and know how to make cash ingame (which is very easy).


I have both a good job, have bought 4 billion in plex, and feel like I'm wasting my cash. I'm not talking about difficulty, I'm talking about TIME. That's the second time you've tried to undermine my posts with a non-sequitor argument. Argue the point not your narrow point of view that allows you to gank new players. Empire Assault Corp indeed. Assault this.Twisted Evil

By the way, I have a real job with a salary so I don't have to work "extra" hours. Thanks again for the career advice though.
Let's see, i spend about 20minutes daily ingame to make money and i can pvp in capitals. You have time issues and can't afford 30m ship.
Meh, i'm doing it wrong.


Rolling Eyes

Bhattran
Posted - 2010.09.10 22:53:00 - [20]
 

Came expecting another BS post about lowsec where no real change except nerfing highsec or boosting lowsec through ridiculous subsidies would be spoken of.

Leave seeing good points about lowsec specific missions that can be completed easier/quicker perhaps even utilizing PVP fits instead of typical mission specific ones, ideas about allowing entry/exiting of systems through keeping gates cleared, boosts to belt rats to maybe make killing them worth the time/trouble.


Dred Control
Posted - 2010.09.10 23:12:00 - [21]
 

Edited by: Dred Control on 10/09/2010 23:14:39
Edited by: Dred Control on 10/09/2010 23:12:27
Quote:
Let's see, i spend about 20minutes daily ingame to make money and i can pvp in capitals.


BS.

And if you are at that point, it is because you spend 3 hours a day grinding to get there.

Valandril
Caldari
Ex-Mortis
Posted - 2010.09.10 23:16:00 - [22]
 

Edited by: Valandril on 10/09/2010 23:19:01
Originally by: Dred Control
Edited by: Dred Control on 10/09/2010 23:14:39
Edited by: Dred Control on 10/09/2010 23:12:27
Quote:
Let's see, i spend about 20minutes daily ingame to make money and i can pvp in capitals.


BS.

And if you are at that point, it is because you spend 3 hours a day grinding to get there.
Or because i'm printing BPCs money for which i got through investment.
Also for some time i was working with my friend running quite nice ipo, my part was PR (which didn't took more than 20-30minutes every day and loaded my wallet with cash).

Urgg Boolean
Posted - 2010.09.11 04:19:00 - [23]
 

Originally by: Valandril
Edited by: Valandril on 10/09/2010 23:19:01
Originally by: Dred Control
Edited by: Dred Control on 10/09/2010 23:14:39
Edited by: Dred Control on 10/09/2010 23:12:27
Quote:
Let's see, i spend about 20minutes daily ingame to make money and i can pvp in capitals.


BS.

And if you are at that point, it is because you spend 3 hours a day grinding to get there.
Or because i'm printing BPCs money for which i got through investment.
Also for some time i was working with my friend running quite nice ipo, my part was PR (which didn't took more than 20-30minutes every day and loaded my wallet with cash).


You guys are kinda looking at the financials without taking into account human factors like "confidence". Many real world market analysts have tried to quantify "confidence", and have never really hit the mark, despite application of exotic math and logic.

Confidence is a weird parameter that drives spending. If you have no confidence, you do not spend money, even if you have boat loads of it. If you have high confidence, you will open your wallet freely, even if it's your last few pennies.

The same phenomenon occurs in-game. Whether or not players can recoup losses, if their "confidence" is low, they consider risk to be too high, whatever the risk may be.

Now take some stupid noob who only has limited methods to generate income :: confidence is automatically low. Any risk seems too high == risk avoided.

A veteran player usually has many modes of income generation. Confidence is high. Any risk seems easy to compensate if the outcome is negative == risk accepted.

Bottom line :: newer players or players who do not broaden their perspectives, see massive risk in everything. Telling them they are stupid noobs does not help, and only serves to increase their perception of risk. Players with broader perspectives, i.e. exposure to low/null sec + multiple income streams, can't understand why noobs will not accept the risk.

The OP actually nailed it : you can't force people to accept risk. You must change their perspective to get them to accept risk, which is a very difficult proposition. Part of that change in perspective is realizing that losses are (actually) easily recouped, if you get yourself set up to do so.

So the problem is not a lack of funds, rather, the perception that the funds are difficult to recoup, regardless of ability (or lack of it) to generate income.

Ronald Raygunn
Amarr
Inferi Legion
Posted - 2010.09.11 04:20:00 - [24]
 

Not everyone is at the point in the game to be able to print money using BPCs. You can talk about how easy it is to make money, but until you start giving pointers, all it is is talk. We're all happy that your in-game financial matters are secure, but that isn't everyone. Contribute something useful or move along because there is nothing here for you.

I think there is some confusion as to how the letters PvP are being interpreted as well. We aren't talking about people looking for PvP, we are discussing players that are PvEing and find themselves inadvertantly involved in a Player Vs People situation. Cheap ships aren't good for PvE when you are talking about L4s, so that's a pretty ignorant suggestion. Quite frankly, this is exactly what I briefly touched on...you won't be able to please both sides.

Given that it is a pretty prevalent thought that CCP is all about PvP combat, ultimately the Gankers are going to get their wishes. More power to them, but what happens when there are no more juicy carebears to force the pew on? Then you gotta turn inwards, most likely forcing out those least capable of PvP. On and on it will go, over the months and years, until the worst case scenario becomes reality. Sure, it's a grim prediction that may not come true, but if the gankers think long term, they would do well to throw some support to their carebears. Eve imitates life in many aspects, and in this case, when the predators have no more food, the ecosystem will suffer. The fact that people are complaining about the relative emptiness of lolsec should be enough to prove the theory true.

ViolenTUK
Gallente
Demolition Men
Posted - 2010.09.11 05:14:00 - [25]
 

I am grateful for your replies. What I have seen in your replies is part of the sand box I have described. I personally have no isk issues. I have purchased, fought, lost and repurchased capital ships. Some people can make isk more easily than the others. This doesnít necessarily equate to they are better, more simply they different. They choose to play the game a different way to other people. I have described to people in the past different ways to make isk. They are not always followed. Not due to competence but due to lack of interest. I understand that this is their choice.

King Rothgar
Autocannons Anonymous
Posted - 2010.09.11 05:24:00 - [26]
 

Edited by: King Rothgar on 11/09/2010 05:28:32
TBH, I'm starting to think that low sec is working as intended. It could use a few minor changes (better belt rats, 0.1 sec and 0.4 sec should have same mission rewards, yada yada yada) but as a whole it works fine. I've been living there for nearly two years now as an outlaw. I started with pirating but I've done exploration, missions and FW. The resources are there to make a very good living and they aren't too difficult to secure for a group of 50 or so pvp'ers (5-10 on at any given time).

The problem lies in that no one wants to be prey. No amount of isk will draw the carebears there and without them the pirates will never be happy. The ones you can draw out are those who do both pvp and pve and guess what, they already live there. They are also next to impossible to gank. They know the mechanics, most of them have extensive pirating backgrounds so they know all the tools of the trade. The pirates just can't catch them very often, they need easier targets since the game mechanics favor the defender.

Of course, those pvping missioners who live there typically won't shy away from a fight. You won't gank their mission ship but you may very well get a real fight out of them. In fact if you stick around a few minutes, you'll probably be leaving in your pod. Those corps who control the more valuable sections of low sec are incredibly well armed for their size.

General Domination
Posted - 2010.09.11 08:00:00 - [27]
 

Dear CCP,

I would agree with the remap of the low/null sec missions, but you shouldnīt harm the highsec players, the are also a part of a game. And Singleplayers and High-Sec-Players also got right to become somebody in EvE.

Mindnut
Posted - 2010.09.11 13:19:00 - [28]
 

Edited by: Mindnut on 11/09/2010 13:21:30
I agree with the above. High sec missions are ok, if we were introduced with higher rewatds it would just make the prices go up.

I think that a small change in low sec would do the trick. I'd introduce Concord \o/
As it's said it a low seecurity space. Low sec means there is some security but very low right? It's not 0.0 and gate sentries are not enough.

What if concord was to respond to a limited number of attacks due to limited Forces? Just a few ships that would increase the chance of mission runner(s) survival. You could also ramdomize the Concord squads. At some point 3 cruisers and a tackling frig spawn and another time you might get just 2 e-war frigs come along.

Also if the respond was not purely by random but based on a number of accuring responds it would also make the whole situation a bit more dynamic. Let's say that there are active responds in the system and all concord forces are busy. Then the chances of Concord coming and helping the mission runner would be lowered.

I think that a lot of good would come from this change...

1. Pirates would have to take chances aswell. They would have to be aware of the Concord activity atm. If it's a pirate corp they may want to add some strategy. For example; have the Concord respond to 1 or 2 attacks on smaller ships they found in the system so that it would increase thir chances on a 3rd attack they want to perform on a battleship... This would also limit the number of pirates that could take part on the assult on the battleship and increase the pilots chances of survival.

2. The chances of survival would be increased. If the Concord is using e-war ships: jamming could give the pilot a chance to warp out, scrambling would give the mission runner a chance to pop the pirate, web would give him a chance to move away from the pirate so that his long range weapons can hit the target.

3. The increased chances of survival may bring more people to low sec.

4. Pirates wouldn't be able to work solo without having grater risk involved.

I know that there are ways to tank the Concord or get rid of it to proceed with the attack on the mission runner but in general it will buy him some time and make the yarr'ing a bigger challange.

Maldurleon
Posted - 2010.09.11 13:25:00 - [29]
 

How about a new kind of 'rat' is created. One that spawns in a station undocks in an easy kill ship carrying some inoccuous cargo and travels to lowsec where it either makes it to a staion and out again and despawns or gets destroyed by pvp players who can laugh and make jokes. The rat when attacked can spout some smack in local just like a real victim. PVP/NPC victim. PVPers will hate this idea because the idea that they have 'hurt' another human being is integral to their enjoyment of harrassing other players. I just tonight have realised why so many find eve unplayable. I have always understood eve to be a game of great depth due to the fact that players are creating the story line and history. Players build nad interreact in the economy. However if one decide's that one doesn't with to participate by being the victim and has no wish to pursue the 'prize' of being the persecutor one has just disallowed the entirety of Eve's 'depth' and hit a glass wall. Eve becomes depthless, 2D.

Utari G'Denoik
Gallente
Posted - 2010.09.12 03:27:00 - [30]
 

Edited by: Utari G''Denoik on 12/09/2010 03:29:59
I believe a buff in rewards and/or loyality points with new items would be great, but then you get the typical pirate corp who owns the system. They gets the rewards, they keeps the rewards, they kills with the rewards.

It's low sec, CCP should have some kind of localized response for mission runners on the mission's grid at the time assistance is required. The gates have guns, for assistance. The local racial navy should respond, and that response potency could be calculated on the mission runner's standings with that navy or the system standings, maybe even the quality of the agent or all those factors combined.

Any requests for help should come at a cost.

A request for assistance should require a beacon, so a high slot module might be activated against or even assinged to a target that has aggressed, similar to a carrier's fighter response. Maybe the high slot module drops a beacon only FW members can see and the attacker appears as a war target for whom they receive LP for killing. That'd be a riot.

The mission runner making the SOS should lose some aspect of the mission.... the money, the bonus or the standings, or maybe a percentage of all.

Utari



 

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only