open All Channels
seplocked EVE General Discussion
blankseplocked Lowsec repopulation and Ore redistubution
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Author Topic

Radamathadus
Radical Technologies
Posted - 2007.06.11 11:18:00 - [1]
 

Due to the ever present miner farmers certain rock types seem to qualify for endangered species status in much of empire. Due to this and lag issues CCP has already seen fit to remove certain roids and indeed all belts from certain sec's and systems. CCP has in the past introduced trace high end minerals into empire roids.

I think that a further rebalancing of ore and minerals redistribution could aid the repopulation of low sec. This would have to be drastic though to match the risk and reward ethos as the currently the rewards come nowhere near the risk low sec presents to the average empire dweller.


I propose the following measures:

Remove all ice from 0.5 - 1.0.

Remove all Omber from 0.5 - 1.0

Introduce Zydrine roids fully into lowsec.

Introduce trace Megacyte into lowsec.


Removing ice and Omber from high sec would be the most contentious change not least due to increases in pos running costs and increased Isogen prices. However given the fact that both ice and Omber are highly farmed, moving them to low sec where farmers don't fair so well would give genuine player miners massive profit potential. Omber in particular is often a rarity in highsec these days as witnessed by the mining gangs hastily assembled by my corpmates when a few decent omber roids turn up in an agent mission.

The introduction of the new regions has already seen Zydrine prices crash so introducing zydrine into lowsec would not have the same crashing effect we have already witnessed although the price would likely drop further. Introduction of trace megacyte would provide the extra incentive to get mining and industrial corps to dip there toes into lowsec.

I believe these changes could contribute to low sec becoming useful and occupied again and provide a nice profitable niche for organised mining empire corps. The market for Isogen and ice would be the catalyst for repopulation rather than the ever popular nerf bat.

Amarria Black
Clan Anthraxx
Posted - 2007.06.11 11:33:00 - [2]
 

By "genuine player miners" you mean "big fat bullseyes", don't you?

Niivvy
Caldari
Posted - 2007.06.11 11:34:00 - [3]
 

i agree. Also the rats in low sec should be boosted.

the odd 1mill isk bs spawn would make low sec really interesting.

as it stands just now i cant think of one reason i would want to go to low sec. unless its to fight with other pie-rats

Niivvy
Caldari
Posted - 2007.06.11 11:38:00 - [4]
 

Originally by: Amarria Black
By "genuine player miners" you mean "big fat bullseyes", don't you?


i think the op means macro miners / isk farmers

Ares Lightfeather
Gallente
Posted - 2007.06.11 11:45:00 - [5]
 

There have been lots of thread stating that forcing people into low sec is a bad idea. Why start a new one with an even worse base than the other one ?

You can't fix the risk / reward of low sec like that. Reasons are as follow :
high sec -> risk factor : low, rewards : average
low sec -> risk : very high, rewards : good
0.0 sec -> risk : low to high, depending on the local alliance owning the place, rewards, great whatever the place.

Now, take a guess. Raising low sec rewards to "great" will bring more people to low sec ?

Get a clue...

Jeff Anderson
The IMPERIUM of LaZy NATION
Posted - 2007.06.11 11:54:00 - [6]
 

Scordite should be removed from high sec instead of omber, atm, scordite per m3 is worth more than any other high sec ore, even omber. And all real miners know that we mine by the m3 so its more profitable to mine scordite in high sec.

Drone regions is whats killing mineral prices not high sec miners, its the high sec miners who suffer with lower profits and under valued minerals. Tritanium and Pyerite are the only minerals who's prices haven't changed much since drone regions opened because the corps out there aren't picking up the lower compounds because its less profitable for them to do so.

Hari Markkus
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2007.06.11 12:11:00 - [7]
 

With exploration there is Gneiss in low sec. But I don't see people rushing to exploit it. Because, as has been pointed out, it is not the reward side of the the risk/reward equation that is out of whack in low sec.

Either up the risk in 0.0 or lower the risk in low sec.

Thuul'Khalat
Gallente
Veto Corp
Posted - 2007.06.11 12:22:00 - [8]
 

Increased population = less risk

Radamathadus
Radical Technologies
Posted - 2007.06.11 12:49:00 - [9]
 

Originally by: Ares Lightfeather
There have been lots of thread stating that forcing people into low sec is a bad idea. Why start a new one with an even worse base than the other one ?

You can't fix the risk / reward of low sec like that. Reasons are as follow :
high sec -> risk factor : low, rewards : average
low sec -> risk : very high, rewards : good
0.0 sec -> risk : low to high, depending on the local alliance owning the place, rewards, great whatever the place.

Now, take a guess. Raising low sec rewards to "great" will bring more people to low sec ?

Get a clue...



By your reckoning the Risk in low sec is the highest in Eve? But the rewards are far below the risk taken? I agree. Boosting the rewards there to match its risk is logical and in keeping with the Risk vrs Reward ethos. These changes would not make low sec more profitable than 0.0 not even close. They do not make low sec less risky by further nerfing Pirates who make the place interesting.

WTZ has made life in lowsec immeasurably safer and easier. Pirates have been nerfed to the nth. All that is missing is a profitable reason for corps to organise and go there.

Currently mining both ice and omber (and scordite - tnx Hari) is dominated by farmer operations who run 23/7. Regular players do not get a fair look in at the mining and selling of the resulting ores and mins. Farmers mining operations do not do well in low sec. Empire player corps that are organised in terms of mining, hauling and defence would have highly profitable access to important resources on the doorstep of high sec.

This is not about forcing players to lowsec. This is about improving finacial rewards dictated by the market drawing brave, bold and organised people to low sec. Those who like their safe high sec lives would still have their missions and fields a plenty of Veldspar to harvest at their leisure.


Ares Lightfeather
Gallente
Posted - 2007.06.11 14:35:00 - [10]
 

Edited by: Ares Lightfeather on 11/06/2007 14:38:47
Edited by: Ares Lightfeather on 11/06/2007 14:35:30
This is about forcing them to low sec. Else, what is the point of raising the rewards of low sec mining, while lowering high sec ? You contradict yourself completely with this statement. As for it to be 'rewarding brave people', just no. the objective of this post no other than bringing people to low-sec gate ganks.

As I said, you seem to badly misunderstand the view of low sec danger... but most pirates looking for juicy, easy to gank target seem to do that.

The rewards in low sec, as long as they are not superior to 0.0 sec, will never attract people. Even if they are, most won't come. Look at the map ! People are organised by risk. Most of them are in high sec, then 0.0 sec, finally low sec. If rewards were enough to bring them, low sec would be more populated than 0.0 sec.

That is the reason your base hypothesis are wrong. You overestimate the importance of reward in the risk / reward equation. The most important factor is risk.

Let's go over you 'risk' argument : You claim that low sec is less dangerous then before, yet it doesn't even contradict my argument : it still is more dangerous than 0.0 sec. WTZ isn't even an argument, as it protects you the exact same way everywhere, and since most people had bookmarks anyway.

The rewards of low sec are already considerably higher than high sec, but that comparison, on which you base your post, is completely irrelevant ! It is the comparison to 0.0 that makes low sec what it is now : useless.

Quote:
Those who like their safe high sec lives would still have their missions and fields a plenty of Veldspar to harvest at their leisure.

And actually, I shouldn't have answered. That pitiful statement shows you already are convinced you should impose your way of playing the game to others, without even caring about the obvious :
- Mining isn't the main source of minerals and equipment, it's ratting and mission
- you have no clue what high sec nor mining is.

The fact that you didn't even know that scordite is currently the most profitable high sec ore is just sad, and show how little your opinion matters. How you disregard the drone loot and other loot influence on the mineral market (and therefore mining) is also sad.

Furthermore, if the mining market really was dominated by macro miner, would high sec ore really that profitable ? Macro mining, by definition, put a lot of ore in the game, which lowers the price of minerals. However, the price of minerals taken from scordite stays fairly high compared to the minerals taken from low sec and 0.0 space. Therefore, obviously, even the person with a minimum economical knowledge would agree : either macro miners in high sec are not the big economic bending force that people fear (in other word, they are insignificant), or they are completely integrated in the system, and removing them would raise the price of the associated minerals (and therefore boost high sec).

CCP has been adding more and more content and rewards to low sec and 0.0 sec, but it didn't make people go in low sec. The only thing it did was make the people that can afford to stay in 0.0 even richer. I say, "can afford" because not anyone is dedicated enough to join an alliance and either defend it, or get enough money to pay the rent.

By your own account, people mining in low sec don't do well. Why is that, is it because of the payout of ore (better than in high sec) ? Or because of the fact that 1 out of 5 to 10 expedition ends with the complete destruction of the mining group ?

You want to populate low sec ? Make it as safer then no-sec would be a start.

As I said in my first post, get a clue, learn about how the game works. When you do, post again, discussing with knowledgeable people is interesting.

Erfnam
Offworld Miners and Fabricators Guild
Rising Orbit Free Trade League
Posted - 2007.06.11 14:56:00 - [11]
 

All of this sounds reasonable as long as you significantly increase the sentry DPS in all low sec systems. The DPS increase would need to be enough to force motherships to warp out after a few minutes.

If CCP removes all ice and omber from high sec, the following will happen.

- More towers will be offlined resulting in higher prices for all t2 items and longer research queue times. Net effect, higher costs for PVPers and more time of grinding missions to replace ships.
- Everyone will stop mining omber and shift to another roid, which then people will whine about having that asteroid removed from empire. Net effect, higher prices for everything, except trit, pye and mex (the new empire minerals).
- Better ores in low sec will probably grow very large since adding the cost of a new barge and lasers is not covered by the increased profits compared to mining veld in empire.

Also, by your logic that these changes should be made due to farming, the following aspects of the game must also be removed.

- all missions, since they are farmed.
- all complexes, specifically cosmos
- all belt rats

Bienurdau Hywoaf
Minmatar
Matari Holo News Network
Posted - 2007.06.11 16:04:00 - [12]
 

Nerfing Empire is no the solution. It will only lead to lost subscriptions.

As Erfnam says, folks will just move to another ore/plex/missions. I also agree that without ice in Empire you would see a lot of folks leaving the game, a lot of POSs going offline (even some in 0.0 since some alliance choose to use alt corps to mine ice in empire then jump it from low sec to 0.0 bases)

Now there was a blog some time ago, few months I think that said they were looking into removing all static belts and complexes. Personally I think that's a mistake as well, I think it will basically force the casual gamer out of EVE.

The best solution to the farmers is to stop their source of customers. If folks wouldn't buy the isk from them, then they would have no customers, no source of supporting themselves and they would leave the game. So I suggest that everyong kick out of their corps/alliances anyone that admits that they have bought isk.

Radamathadus
Radical Technologies
Posted - 2007.06.11 16:33:00 - [13]
 

Quote:
This is about forcing them to low sec. Else, what is the point of raising the rewards of low sec mining, while lowering high sec ? You contradict yourself completely with this statement. As for it to be 'rewarding brave people', just no. the objective of this post no other than bringing people to low-sec gate ganks.



I am not in favour of forcing people to go anywhere. I do not for example think the mandatory moving all l4 agent to low sec is a good idea but the fact is that some mission runners still choose to mission in low sec for the better rewards. I do how ever think that moving needed resources to low sec provides good finacial motivation for people to choose to follow those resources.

Are people forced to play in 0.0? No they choose to play there as they can access resources unavailable elsewhere. I am looking for a reason for people to choose to go to low sec. Organised corps can provide security even in low sec if they have due cause and reason. This is about getting people into low sec long term not about getting gate ganks!

Quote:
The rewards in low sec, as long as they are not superior to 0.0 sec, will never attract people. Even if they are, most won't come. Look at the map ! People are organised by risk. Most of them are in high sec, then 0.0 sec, finally low sec. If rewards were enough to bring them, low sec would be more populated than 0.0 sec.
That is the reason your base hypothesis are wrong. You overestimate the importance of reward in the risk / reward equation. The most important factor is risk.

The rewards of low sec are already considerably higher than high sec, but that comparison, on which you base your post, is completely irrelevant ! It is the comparison to 0.0 that makes low sec what it is now : useless.



Are you suggesting low sec has no place in eve then? Thats alot of space to write off in terms of whats available.

0.0 should be and is inherinetly more dangerous than low sec. It has no sentries, no penalties for shooting first and has great assests. But yet its safer because players organise inorder to control the space the assests are in. Actually it is those REWARDS not the risk that have brought that relative safety to 0.0.

If low sec was occupied to the same extent as 0.0 in terms of population and retained the senties and penalities that make it low sec would it be more or less dangerous in your opinion? Would organised corps bring security with them?
Would corps organise and populate low sec to gain greater rewards - yes.

Risk might be the over whelming factor for you but it is not for all - 0.0 shows that. Many have argued that the rewards of high sec are to high and thats why most stay there. Increasing the rewards in low sec would encourage many to move.

Quote:
Therefore, obviously, even the person with a minimum economical knowledge would agree : either macro miners in high sec are not the big economic bending force that people fear (in other word, they are insignificant), or they are completely integrated in the system, and removing them would raise the price of the associated minerals (and therefore boost high sec).



I agree totally and with the second hypothesis mostly - removing the farmers would be a massive boost to high sec and mineral prices would rocket. The current macro / farmer situation has provided a massive false economy.

Quote:
By your own account, people mining in low sec don't do well. Why is that, is it because of the payout of ore (better than in high sec) ? Or because of the fact that 1 out of 5 to 10 expedition ends with the complete destruction of the mining group ?

You want to populate low sec ? Make it as safer then no-sec would be a start.



Your reasoning is again sound - the risk vrs reward is unbalanced. Your suggestion to remove the risk just turns it into high sec which we have plenty off already. I suggest upping the rewards to give incentive for corps to settle there.

Ares Lightfeather
Gallente
Posted - 2007.06.11 16:54:00 - [14]
 

Edited by: Ares Lightfeather on 11/06/2007 16:55:29
Edited by: Ares Lightfeather on 11/06/2007 16:54:29
... you misunderstand my post. I don't want to bring people to low sec. I just said that if you want to bring people in, raising the rewards won't work, but lowering risk will.

Let's look at 0.0 space to compare : if raising rewards worked, there would not be any undefended place in 0.0 space. However, there is. A lot of space there is nearly empty, even if the rewards there are as good as anywhere else in 0.0 space. How do you explain that ? My explanation is that they are more dangerous than other places. If your explanation was right, those place would be crawling with people fighting each other. However, they are not - they are just, basically empty.

Which leads me to the following answer : which places are "full" in 0.0 space ? the protected ones, not the one with the greatest rewards. Just looking at low-sec proves your point of view (raising low sec rewards will bring more people) is just not going to achieve anything.

Now, apply the same reasoning to a corp. This corp has the necessary means to protect itself (low or no sec). Where to go ? low sec, where danger nearly equal to no sec ? or no sec, where the rewards are greater ?

Try again with a player wanting to solo : go to low sec, where pirates roam in bands ? or no-sec, getting better rewards in hiding in 0.0 deserted space with a cloak ?

If I had to put a scale from one to ten, I'll give those notes to the low sec dangers and rewards :
Rewards -> high : 1, low : 5, no-sec 10
Risks -> high : 1, low : 8, no : 10 in a warzone, 3 outside a warzone.

You're saying that raising the low-sec rewards to 6 and lowering even more the rewards in high sec brings people in ? Well, the problem is that my opinion may or may not reflect the real opinion of gamers around, some kind of survey is needed to get the real idea. However, I don't have much doubt that I'm closer to the truth than you are. Just reading the other answers around would give you the same idea.

My opinion about lowering high sec ? as said above, it would just bring people out of the game.

Finally, I'm not really in favor of a change. Low sec may have been designed to be a dangerous pirating zone between NPC-controlled zones and player-based empires. I don't assume it's not suppose to, and therefore see nothing wrong with low sec being completely useless for making profit.

Derovius Vaden
Posted - 2007.06.11 16:57:00 - [15]
 

Originally by: Radamathadus
Due to the ever present miner farmers certain rock types seem to qualify for endangered species status in much of empire. Due to this and lag issues CCP has already seen fit to remove certain roids and indeed all belts from certain sec's and systems. CCP has in the past introduced trace high end minerals into empire roids.

I think that a further rebalancing of ore and minerals redistribution could aid the repopulation of low sec. This would have to be drastic though to match the risk and reward ethos as the currently the rewards come nowhere near the risk low sec presents to the average empire dweller.


I propose the following measures:

Remove all ice from 0.5 - 1.0.

Remove all Omber from 0.5 - 1.0

Introduce Zydrine roids fully into lowsec.

Introduce trace Megacyte into lowsec.


Removing ice and Omber from high sec would be the most contentious change not least due to increases in pos running costs and increased Isogen prices. However given the fact that both ice and Omber are highly farmed, moving them to low sec where farmers don't fair so well would give genuine player miners massive profit potential. Omber in particular is often a rarity in highsec these days as witnessed by the mining gangs hastily assembled by my corpmates when a few decent omber roids turn up in an agent mission.

The introduction of the new regions has already seen Zydrine prices crash so introducing zydrine into lowsec would not have the same crashing effect we have already witnessed although the price would likely drop further. Introduction of trace megacyte would provide the extra incentive to get mining and industrial corps to dip there toes into lowsec.

I believe these changes could contribute to low sec becoming useful and occupied again and provide a nice profitable niche for organised mining empire corps. The market for Isogen and ice would be the catalyst for repopulation rather than the ever popular nerf bat.



I don't care what you do with the minerals, but keep your grubby pirate paws off my ice.

T'Laar Bok
Posted - 2007.06.11 18:01:00 - [16]
 

Nothing in your post will get me back to low sec mining. If you want me back in low sec mining then I have to be able to at least mine long enough without harassment to replace ship losses and that hasn't been possible for a good 12 months.

Cromm Cruaich
Posted - 2007.06.11 18:14:00 - [17]
 

Originally by: Erfnam
significantly increase the sentry DPS in all low sec systems. The DPS increase would need to be enough to force motherships to warp out after a few minutes.



Bingo. Forcing ganking or pirating away from low sec gates and stations would significantly reduce the risk of low sec. I am willing to bet that 50% of all low sec deaths are gatecamps by 3-4 people, and this is just lazy. Infact I would say it is positively destructive to the game.

Low sec should not be safe by any means, but simply entering a low sec system and travelling between gates in a 0.4 system should not require the same level of intel and precautions as travelling through hostile 0.0 space.

People should die in the belts in 0.0, and if they die by the buckload, sucks to be them. I have no problems with natural selection where there is actually hunter and prey.

Camping low sec gates in an adequate ship requires less player interaction than level 4 missions. The sentry guns purely in my opinion should be the stationary concorde of low sec. Absent from belts, planets etc. but providing instant death for aggression at gates.

Boost the sentry guns and the risks to travellers, explorers and prospectors simply travelling is vastly reduced. The risks to those who enter the belts remains the same. Now we have gangs of 2-3 newb corp friends taking cruisers into low sec for ratting, small groups of miners looking for some good isogen ores, and those looking for a fight have to learn to use the scanner and how to setup a ship that can tackle.

Win-win for the newbs on all sides of the coin.

Low sec gate camping needs to be removed.

Qaed
Posted - 2007.06.11 20:07:00 - [18]
 

Originally by: Thuul'Khalat
Increased population = less risk


Don't be too sure about that. I'm betting the pirate population would explode if a lot more people spent time in low-sec.

shady trader
Posted - 2007.06.15 23:31:00 - [19]
 

The problem with low sec is not a result of the ore. Its the over hunting of prey. The PVP'ers (pirates) have been too effective in hunting their natural prey (carebears), to the point were they are facing extintion in there natural habitat (low Sec). Why there is plent of poor there, only those that say is the protected reserves (high Sec) servive.

The only way that prey can be reinstroduced to its natural habitat is for it to be protected, this can be done via several methods.

1) Cull the preditors so that the number of prey killed drops below the natural population growth.

2) Relocate the preditors and take steps to stop them returning so the prey can be reintroduced and stand a change for its population to grow.

3) Introduce a permit system limit the number of prey killed so that the prey population can grow.

This all require game keepers (concord) to keep poachers from killing endangered creatures.

The main reason that carebears do not go into low sec is that its to high a risk of someone killing there ship, if there were less pirates operating in low sec the risk would drop so more people might try it and there will be more prey per pirate. Also the ease with which a non combat ship can be pop'ed by a PVP fitted battleship does not help as all that carebear can do is run as soon as a pirate enters local as that is there only viable defence.

Eve addapts to people's play style and the lack of prey in low sec is a result of the pirates play style.


 

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