open All Channels
seplocked Features and Ideas Discussion
blankseplocked Consideration to make high sec safer
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic

Ruareve
Posted - 2011.02.07 11:05:00 - [1]
 

Edited by: Ruareve on 07/02/2011 11:05:19
This is not a post demanding some kind of fundamental change to high sec mechanics. This post is a question as to whether or not the game might be better off if high sec were made safer. Please, please read that last sentence twice before replying. Ok, I'll also add in some suggestions for potential changes, but those recommendations are not central to the main thrust of the post.


So, Should high sec be made safer?

Eve is a niche game where there is no completely safe area. Other MMO's have areas or servers that prevent PVP and provide a safe spot for people to play. I'm not saying these other games are better or worse, I'm simply pointing out that a segment of the gaming population desires these type of areas.

That said, would Eve be better off by making things somewhat safer and appealing to a broader population of gamers? Better off being more players to increase the in game economy, more players to increase the RL economy and overall providing more opportunity to let players feel better connected with the game.



I feel that the opportunity to venture into low sec and the ability to live in null sec provide sufficient PVP for anyone wanting to engage against other players. Providing a safe haven for people that want to enjoy the game without PVP would increase overall player base. Perhaps some of the high sec only PVP types would want to quit, but in the end CCP could gain more subscribers that prefer "blue" servers.

Some of the current PVP mechanics should remain in place; can flippig, ninja looting, and war dec'ing (with minor revision) all add some thrill to the game while being mostly controllable. I think the simplest change to making things safer would be a PVP flag when in .5 or higher. As long as the flag is off then a player can't be attacked by another player unless they deliberately commit an act that automatically changes their PVP flag. Entering into .4 or lower automatically turns the PVP flag on and permits anyone to attack under the current agro rules.

Maybe even a trial where some high sec regions have this type of restriction and others don't. That would be a great way to see how the population reacts and whether or not the concept has merit.

Such a change has the potential to increase population of low sec because high sec PVP'ers won't have as much business and will move into lower security for PVP, high sec dwellers would eventually want to try out PVP with preparation instead of accident, and the increased server population would provide more curiousity for PVP.

The strongest argument I can think of against this change would be "I like the constant thrill of knowing I'm never safe", to which I reply not everyone wants that feeling and anytime someone wants said feeling there is low, null and WH's where opportunity abounds to be at risk.

In the end this discussion will boil down to whether or not you think Eve should be solely about PVP or whether it should try to expand into a broader player base by offering more of a typical MMORPG PVE area. Neither choice is right or wrong, it's really just a matter of which one you personally prefer. Of course, considering most people that stick with Eve are comfortable with the PVP side I imagine most of these responses will be one sided. Which is a good reason to bring up the idea because there are alot of players that have quit or never tried that game which might find Eve more appealing if high sec was a bit safer.

Mike Voidstar
Posted - 2011.02.07 15:43:00 - [2]
 

I could see making 1.0 and maybe .9 sec space weapons locked.

However, then I would suggest they go and make sure that only tutorial missions and level 1 missions take place in that space, and once you are past the actual newbie stage you move out into wider and less safe space.


More work than it seems though, and probably not actually need or desireable. No one is ever supposed to be safe in space barring a few exceptions.

Ruareve
Posted - 2011.02.07 16:37:00 - [3]
 

Originally by: Mike Voidstar
I could see making 1.0 and maybe .9 sec space weapons locked.

However, then I would suggest they go and make sure that only tutorial missions and level 1 missions take place in that space, and once you are past the actual newbie stage you move out into wider and less safe space.


More work than it seems though, and probably not actually need or desireable. No one is ever supposed to be safe in space barring a few exceptions.


Why is no one supposed to be safe in space? If there are areas designed to remove safety, why not areas designed to provide safety? I'll go one step further and ask what would the game lose by providing safety in high sec and leaving low/null as the pvp areas?

I think safe areas should be out there because there is a segment of players that would enjoy those areas and it might increase overall subsciptions, just in case you wanted to pose my own question back at me.

Serge Bastana
Gallente
GWA Corp
Posted - 2011.02.07 16:39:00 - [4]
 

Thing is, if all they're going to do is hole up in some absolute security systems, as you ask for, do we really want those subscriptions?

Mashie Saldana
Minmatar
Veto Corp
Posted - 2011.02.07 16:44:00 - [5]
 

Edited by: Mashie Saldana on 07/02/2011 16:55:23
Exactly why do you need 100% safety? To protect the stupid?

Ruareve
Posted - 2011.02.07 16:58:00 - [6]
 

Originally by: Serge Bastana
Thing is, if all they're going to do is hole up in some absolute security systems, as you ask for, do we really want those subscriptions?


I would assume that most people would that prefer high sec would eventually try out low once they have established a routine. Some of those would then enjoy the PVP at their own pace. The end result would be more people participating in PVP because they always have a secure area to return to when they need a break. The constant "no where is safe" aspect probably caused many of the people that tried the game to leave. While some feel these subscriptions aren't necessary, I'd say that they would add to the economy and provide a larger market venue for people that are active in low/null and need buyers.

And again I ask, what would the game lose if it had secure areas?

Mashie Saldana
Minmatar
Veto Corp
Posted - 2011.02.07 17:10:00 - [7]
 

Originally by: Ruareve
And again I ask, what would the game lose if it had secure areas?

Everything in EVE is PVP, the ship shooting, the markets and the fight for asteroid belts.

The game has done just fine for nearly 8 years with the way it is and the day it turns into Hello Kitty in space a lot of existing customers will leave. High sec is safer, not safe. Play smart and nothing bad will happen to you.

I have yet to get suicide ganked after 5 years and my ship/cargohold has definitely been juicy enough many times to justify the effort.

Andreus Ixiris
Gallente
Mixed Metaphor
Posted - 2011.02.07 18:17:00 - [8]
 

I have never been (successfully) suicide-ganked in my entire career. If you died to a suicide gank you obviously weren't trying hard enough not to die, and that isn't my problem.

SFM Hobb3s
Vanguard Frontiers
Intrepid Crossing
Posted - 2011.02.07 18:34:00 - [9]
 

I wouldn't change the rules of engagement. What I would like to see, however, is for your insurance premiums to reflect your sec status, ie, hi sec status, low premium. No sec status? no insurance.

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2011.02.07 18:44:00 - [10]
 

Edited by: Tippia on 07/02/2011 18:49:09
Originally by: Ruareve
So, Should high sec be made safer?
No. It should be made less safe. Far too little stuff is getting blown up these days, and you can sit outside Jita 4-4 for hours without seeing a single gank. This is bad.
Quote:
In the end this discussion will boil down to whether or not you think Eve should be solely about PVP
It is solely about PvP. There are exactly two things you can do in the game that are not subject to competition from other players: clicking the "request mission" button and clicking the "complete mission" button. Everything else is PvP.
Quote:
I would assume that most people would that prefer high sec would eventually try out low once they have established a routine.
No. Most people would only want more highsec because they have established that routine and don't want to see it interrupted. This is evident by how fewer and fewer people go to lowsec once they've gotten used to the current (far too high) safely provided in highsec.

MarkyJ
Posted - 2011.02.07 19:19:00 - [11]
 

Ruareve, have you considered RiskVsReward?
The general idea is the more you stand to lose, the more you should stand to gain and vice versa.
Some would argue High-sec already unbalances this. Lvl4s are a massive isk faucet (a lot of reward), good traders can grow rich of other players and unless you make yourself a very attractive suicide-gank target or are stupid/ignorant of game mechanics it is very low risk. I think around about the level it is now is good for most areas of New Eden. The only part of Risk/Reward that is, to many people at least, unbalanced is low-sec but that's a whole different topic.

You would make High-sec keep it's rewards but make it NO RISK except from stupidity/ignorance?
I sort of agree with the second poster. Make no risk space 1.0 and contain only tutorial and lvl 1 missions (and learn the lesson of High/low-sec lvl 5s. No adjacent high level agents giving missions in the safe-space!). The rewards would be so pitiful for experienced players as to not unbalance RvR because there's sod all reward and it would be more newb friendly for the real new players with less than 1 million isk to their name.
You keep your safe system to retire to but don't ruin the majority of the New Eden sector because there is no way to turn a significant profit.
Maybe make the current major trade hubs 0.9 sec or lower but over time they might move to the new safe systems so additionally broker taxes might need to be higher when trading in 1.0 systems or something.
I admit, I don't know about the trade hubs.

What I do know is your suggestion should not be implemented in systems where significant quantities of ISK can be earned for no risk at all.

ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
Posted - 2011.02.07 20:15:00 - [12]
 

Since you came in here an posted your "idea" and subsequent responses without all the usual vitriol I will be nice.

Quote:
"Should high sec be safer?"


No, it shouldn't be. The biggest reason is as Tippa explained; once people get comfortable with a certain level of safety they do not wish to give it up... even in the face of diminishing returns on their activities in such areas and/or higher rewards in less 'safe' areas.

The idea behind the current system is that if people are not given a certain level of guaranteed safety to begin with they either learn to adapt (joining in the great cat-and-mouse games between PvPers and Carebears) or leave outright.

Quote:
Better off being more players to increase the in game economy, more players to increase the RL economy...


You are aware that the EvE economy is the closest we thing to RL in the game... right? More people dumping more commodities and resources on the market is not always a good thing (except to maybe the end buyer, but then where does he/she get his/her ISK from?).

More than that, if coupled with your "non-PvP-areas" idea the market would essentially have a seizure and crash. The way it is set up, the market is almost totally dependent on people buying ships, fitting ships, losing ships, and repeating the process over and over again.
If ships don't die, supply rises. When supply gets too high, prices drop. When supply and prices drop the industrialist cuts back production. When production is cut the miners make less ISK off their yields. And when miners make less ISK off their yields they come to the forums to ask for a new mining ship and/or that CCP "do something" to make mining worthwhile again.

It's a very vicious cycle. Sad

Quote:

Such a change has the potential to increase population of low sec because high sec PVP'ers won't have as much business and will move into lower security for PVP


I refer you back to my first point. Quite a few people would rather take "diminished returns" rather than "risk." A prime example of this would be the much maligned Level 5 missions.

Three expansions ago, Level 5 missions were the pinnacle of mission running. The incoming DPS and NPC neuts made it such that few ships could properly tank it. Their rewards were decent and people were happy. There was just once catch: Level 5 mission agents usually based out of systems that bordered low/null-sec. Often, the agent would try offer the player a mission that would take them into low/null-sec... and that offer would be quickly declined. The player would rinse and repeat this process until they got an offer that would keep them in high-sec.
Fast forward to two expansions ago. CCP states that Level 5 missions were never intended to be run in high-sec and changed them so that they would only spawn in low/null-sec. Much QQing and explosive emo-rage ensued. Carebears/Mission Runners absolutely refused to enter low-sec in their 'missioning ships' out of [rightful] fear of pirates. However, Carebears/Mission Runners couldn't get around the idea that they NEEDED such 'missioning ships' to do the mission in the first place.
CCP sat and thought up ways to make Level 5s more tempting. So they increased the rewards for Level 5 missions. The Carebears/Missions Runners rejected the reward increase saying that "nothing had changed." In their minds, no reward increase would ever be enough to compensate for the risk they'd be putting their ships into.

Magnus Orin
Minmatar
Wildly Inappropriate
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.02.07 21:12:00 - [13]
 

Get the fuck out of my Eve.

Ayieka
Caldari
Posted - 2011.02.07 21:16:00 - [14]
 

Jesus, the guy writes a good long explaination and people just **** all over it. way to be civil.

Ravenal
The Fated
E.Y
Posted - 2011.02.07 21:30:00 - [15]
 

Originally by: Magnus Orin
Get the fuck out of my Eve.

Sorry, this isn't a single player game.

Magnus Orin
Minmatar
Wildly Inappropriate
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.02.07 21:38:00 - [16]
 

Originally by: Ravenal
Originally by: Magnus Orin
Get the fuck out of my Eve.

Sorry, this isn't a single player game.


Eve should be solely about pvp.

If the end result is not player interaction, primarily encouraged to be competitive, it does not fit in Eve.

Mike Voidstar
Posted - 2011.02.07 22:01:00 - [17]
 

Originally by: Ruareve
Why is no one supposed to be safe in space? If there are areas designed to remove safety, why not areas designed to provide safety? I'll go one step further and ask what would the game lose by providing safety in high sec and leaving low/null as the pvp areas?

I think safe areas should be out there because there is a segment of players that would enjoy those areas and it might increase overall subsciptions, just in case you wanted to pose my own question back at me.



The simple answer is that it is just one of the games core concepts. They are attempting a a simulation of space where lawlessness abounds, because we have been freed from mortal restraints. In a real world, all the criminal types would be killed and therefore not come back to commit their crimes again. In EVE, we are demigods among the stars.

coolruningc
Posted - 2011.02.08 00:17:00 - [18]
 

The only realy thing that could be done that is fear to all. Is to increse the Penalty. e.g one kill on a unmaned ship like the noctis for excamle, Would result in some one with 5.0 droping down to 0.0 How ever some shooting a ecm shilded indey would only recive a 3.0 or 2.0 drop. so may be just class the Penalty on how helpess the ship realy is. Then every boady is happy.Cool

Ravenal
The Fated
E.Y
Posted - 2011.02.08 01:28:00 - [19]
 

Originally by: Magnus Orin

Eve should be solely about pvp.

If the end result is not player interaction, primarily encouraged to be competitive, it does not fit in Eve.

The end results of all activities is player interaction... through the market.

"solely about pvp" ... yeah it is. Avoiding pvp is pvp ...

As for the OP: No.

Belfelmalak
Posted - 2011.02.08 02:04:00 - [20]
 

Get rid of insurance. Without the free payback, gankers would either have to make money on each gank or be willing to take losses almost equal to their victems.

Without the ISK faucet minerals and other tradable items will grow in value.

Also, the risk affects everyone who undocks. No matter what you fly or if you mission, mine or fight a war your loss is for real.

Insurance is the biggest carebear feature in the game

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2011.02.08 02:21:00 - [21]
 

Originally by: Belfelmalak
Get rid of insurance. Without the free payback, gankers would either have to make money on each gank or be willing to take losses almost equal to their victems.
Why does ganking need to be nerfed?

Misanthra
Posted - 2011.02.08 02:48:00 - [22]
 

Edited by: Misanthra on 08/02/2011 02:49:25
Originally by: Belfelmalak
Get rid of insurance. Without the free payback, gankers would either have to make money on each gank or be willing to take losses almost equal to their victems.

Without the ISK faucet minerals and other tradable items will grow in value.

Also, the risk affects everyone who undocks. No matter what you fly or if you mission, mine or fight a war your loss is for real.

Insurance is the biggest carebear feature in the game


no insurance means they will try harder to get paid. Gankers are of varying skill levels. You got some really bad ones out there. take away their insurance they will get better real quick to makes sure you drop. with insurance you get some money back...mean the ametuers will give it a go and not put up 100% effective camps. Don't get paid insurance and the fish got away...they'll work harder to make sure the fish don't get away.


Insurance is also more for pvp to have poeple more likely to try it out. Good carebears stop losing ships as much in time in missions. And if they do its not stuff worth insuring. faction or t2 ships....not even worth insuring. CNR payout based on minerals....payout only a few isk above a plain ole t1 raven since mins almost the same (some more high ends iirc...still jsut a plain t1 build for all intents and purposes). Ishtar'ing it...t2 insurance game code ccp could pull for more streamlined code since no one uses it.


Di Mulle
Posted - 2011.02.08 03:43:00 - [23]
 

Edited by: Di Mulle on 08/02/2011 03:45:20
Originally by: Ruareve
Edited by: Ruareve on 07/02/2011 11:05:19


Eve is a niche game where there is no completely safe area.
This is bad, lemme fix it, I can't imagine things other way anyway




There comes your mistake, pretty common amongst your type of "idea generators".
EVE is a niche game, which is kinda correct. Now, you automatically assume that it is kind of a bad thing, what your wall of a text explicitly shows.

Here are news to you, it isn't. Taking a niche is a common and proven marketing strategy.

Now, if we will consider that a niche EVE has got considerably bigger than market pieces lots of "mainstream" games ever managed to carve for themselves...

Ruareve
Posted - 2011.02.08 05:44:00 - [24]
 

Originally by: Di Mulle
Edited by: Di Mulle on 08/02/2011 03:45:20
Originally by: Ruareve
Edited by: Ruareve on 07/02/2011 11:05:19


Eve is a niche game where there is no completely safe area.
This is bad, lemme fix it, I can't imagine things other way anyway




There comes your mistake, pretty common amongst your type of "idea generators".
EVE is a niche game, which is kinda correct. Now, you automatically assume that it is kind of a bad thing, what your wall of a text explicitly shows.

Here are news to you, it isn't. Taking a niche is a common and proven marketing strategy.

Now, if we will consider that a niche EVE has got considerably bigger than market pieces lots of "mainstream" games ever managed to carve for themselves...


I appreicate the majority of the responses, a few well reasoned arguments and a few insubstantial posts, but I take umbrage at Di Mulle's reply.

You change what I say then you provide a counter to an argument I did not make. I quite clearly stated that being a niche game is not bad. I'm not arguing that high sec requires a change. I'm looking for opinions on whether or not a change should be considered. Please next time try reading what was typed before you make a reply.

Swynet
State War Academy
Posted - 2011.02.08 06:24:00 - [25]
 

Edited by: Swynet on 08/02/2011 06:32:34
I like the idea.
The main reason being the one who could bring/keep more players how can it not be seriously considered.

Plus, your flag idea is somehow one possible answer to low sec status.
If so many grieffers and "pvp'rs" come in to high sec is not because of the pvp side, is just because they are safe using/abusing game mechanics while they would probably stay docked in low sec or move by groups.

If ther's some one's for who high sec must be less safer than it is now is for pvp'rs, not pve'rs.
This would make them return there where pvp is intended to be the biggest: low/null

Defenitivly like the concept.

Nora Skuld
Posted - 2011.02.08 07:35:00 - [26]
 

I don't think safety is an issue.

The problem is high-sec PvE. It encourages people to grind ISK to buy expensive ships that helps them grind faster to make more money to buy more expensive ships to make them grind even faster to make more billions of ISK to buy ships that only serve to run stupid missions.

People would have less reasons to whine if mission running would be worth doing in affordable ships using tactics similar to PvP. When you grind endlessly to afford shiny stuff, you don't want to lose it and when you do lose it it's the end of the world. And that's understandable.

High-sec culture must change but it won't change by spewing "go play wow" like morons each time someone complains about ganking.

Swynet
State War Academy
Posted - 2011.02.08 07:54:00 - [27]
 

Originally by: Nora Skuld
I don't think safety is an issue.

The problem is high-sec PvE. It encourages people to grind ISK to buy expensive ships that helps them grind faster to make more money to buy more expensive ships to make them grind even faster to make more billions of ISK to buy ships that only serve to run stupid missions.


Yet the bigest number of faction ships full faction fitted runing missions are in 0.0 sov's.

Yet the stupid missions giving 25M for let's say 30min, are far from what you get in your faction-BS-faction-fitted running stupid plex/anomalies

Quote:
People would have less reasons to whine if mission running would be worth doing in affordable ships using tactics similar to PvP.


I've never seen one thread about pve'rs saying they don't want this happen, i'm pretty sure most of them would like this happen.

Quote:
When you grind endlessly to afford shiny stuff, you don't want to lose it and when you do lose it it's the end of the world. And that's understandable.


One side farms stupid stuff for shiny stuff with some effort (grinding), on the other one you have killmails runners exploiting game mechanics with 0 risk 0isk loss and have no reason to do it in low/null sec.

So I think we've got a problem right here, for who's high sec is safer? -pve'rs? not for a second.

Quote:
High-sec culture must change but it won't change by spewing "go play wow" like morons each time someone complains about ganking.


I agree, and to go further I would submit these ideas:

-Make life so harder for pvp in high sec that they haveno choice but go straight to low/null sec, but also expensive and low profit for those choosing to stay in empire.

Or:

-make low sec like high sec, since all this space is empty and nobody whant to pvp in, then there's no reason that it shouldn't become under concorde's protection.
Mabe then low sec space deserves the software/hardware ressources employed in for peanuts ATM.

Serge Bastana
Gallente
GWA Corp
Posted - 2011.02.08 08:08:00 - [28]
 

Creating areas of increased safety will just increase the forum posts from people either wanting more and more safety or upset because they got caught outside the safety net, that's if they ever actually go beyond it into what is currently EVE. Some will become accustomed to pretty much zero risk and just as high sec is filling up compared to low and null, so will these havens of safety become full up compared to the rest of high sec.

One of the core tenets of EVE is that your actions have consequences and if people can either stay in these safe pockets or run to them when in danger then that removes some of the underlying premise of the game. EVE has been growing steadily for the whole of its time, 8 years now, which says to me that there are plenty of people out there who like and enjoy the game's edginess. Yes, some do feel that they should be safer, but to be honest they are indulged and have a bloated sense of entitlement generally and don't appreciate the game for what it is so wish to change it to suit themselves.

If we created these havens of total safety we would draw in more of these types of players and increase the forum whines further that the game doesn't suit their pampered play style. As mentioned above and in other posts asking for high sec to be safer, it would have adverse effects on the economy as more players fill up these safe areas and never risk or lose ships. Plus they would become a new target for gankers who would hang around the gates leading out of these areas providing more risk for those attempting to get out into the rest of the game, thus increasing the danger for those huddled up inside and possibly forcing them to become trapped as some players feel they are in high sec when they look at low sec. This mentality is bad enough as is without creating another level to deal with.

Caldari 5
Amarr
The Element Syndicate
Blazing Angels Alliance
Posted - 2011.02.08 08:25:00 - [29]
 

Originally by: Nora Skuld
The problem is high-sec PvE. It encourages people to grind ISK to buy expensive ships that helps them grind faster to make more money to buy more expensive ships to make them grind even faster to make more billions of ISK to buy ships that only serve to run stupid missions.

I guess we'll agree to disagree on this one, I see no problem with grinding to get more shiny stuff. My goal in eve is to be able to fly and have at least 1 of every ship in the game. The list of ships that I can't fly is shorter than the list of ships that I don't have at the current time. Which means that I still have a heap of grinding to do :P

Originally by: Nora Skuld
People would have less reasons to whine if mission running would be worth doing in affordable ships using tactics similar to PvP. When you grind endlessly to afford shiny stuff, you don't want to lose it and when you do lose it it's the end of the world. And that's understandable.

I would love to have a variety of different missions to do, I'm still waiting for a mission that requires a CovertOps to complete, Although that might require the introduction of an Acceleration Gate that you can activate outside of 2.5Km

Originally by: Nora Skuld
High-sec culture must change but it won't change by spewing "go play wow" like morons each time someone complains about ganking.

I currently do see any point to going into LS/0.0, there is no reason to go out there, unless you like the political drama queen FCs.

Nora Skuld
Posted - 2011.02.08 08:32:00 - [30]
 

"Make life so harder for pvp in high sec..."

If hi-sec gameplay is no more about hoarding ISK to buy ridiculously expensive and ultimately gimped ships, hi-sec dwellers will have no reasons to cry over the loss of their disposable ships. If there's no tears, there's no reasons to grief.

There's no need to make pvp harder than it already is.


Pages: [1] 2

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