open All Channels
seplocked EVE General Discussion
blankseplocked Victims of Their Own Success
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5

Author Topic

Abe Mnemeph
Minmatar
Posted - 2008.08.20 10:14:00 - [31]
 

weird, I am rather often in low sec (to probe: exploration is a good inventive to low sec) and never, ever, got camped. I even made several run in a industrial full (in war zones, even). The only ship I lost was to other explorers who got to a site before me.

So maybe I was lucky, or in the right part of low sec, but if you are careful, i dont see lowsec as that insecure...

(or its a lotka-volterra thing: less prey, so less predator, so more prey, ect...)

Kappas.
Galaxy Punks
Posted - 2008.08.20 10:18:00 - [32]
 

You forget pirates kill other pirates and anti-pirates in low sec.

Also people who try to sneak past in expensive ships or haulers Razz

Shevar
Minmatar
Target Practice incorporated
Posted - 2008.08.20 10:18:00 - [33]
 

Originally by: Somealt Ofmine
The number of threads devoted to varying schemes to get people to leave high-sec and go to low-sec is amazing.



Carebears whining about safety in high sec got what they wanted due to whining. So why not ebil piwats?

Not to even mention the fact that battleship spawns in high sec are just rather ******ed :/.

Jaketh Ivanes
Amarr
House of El
Posted - 2008.08.20 10:20:00 - [34]
 

Originally by: Akita T
Edited by: Akita T on 20/08/2008 09:54:52
Originally by: Somealt Ofmine
I don't think that would change much even if low-sec offered greater rewards.

And that's where you're wrong.

Would you go to lowsec if you could make 20 mil ISK/hour ? Of course not.
How about 40 mil ISK/hour ? Some might.
What about 100 mil ISK/hour ? A helluva' lot more would.
For 500 mil ISK/hour ? Who the hell would stay in highsec then ?

It's only a matter of how much more reward.


Yes, the potential is there to earn a lot of isk in low sec. But actual earnings are to low, due to pirate activity. Pirates drove the targets out of low-sec, so they can only blame themselves.

1 solution, using your concept, would be to make lvl 3 low sec mission give as much as a lvl 4 high sec mission. It is a lot easier to defend against both NPC's and Players in a lvl 3 mission, than a lvl 4 or 5.
Another solution could be, that pirates invading a mission, run a greater risk of NPC aggro. At present, only the runner has aggro.
Last solution is to make pirating so hard, that very few will indulge in it. At present, it's so easy that there are more pirating then mission running. Think of it like a military. You need a lot of farmers and producers for a few soldiers. Pirates need a lot of mission runners and miners, so the individual miner/runner can sustain a loss or 2 and not be locked down for unreasonable amounts of time.

I opt for the last solution. That way, there is no need to alter bounty payouts or move missions.

Saietor Blackgreen
Armored Saints
Posted - 2008.08.20 10:22:00 - [35]
 

OP is right if by "more rewards in lowsec" we'd mean just plain fatter rats, juicier asteroids and bigger rewards for missions.

This is stupid. Lowsec have different mechanics from highsec, thus the way rewards are aquired should be different.

We have a marvellous tool for that - scanning and deadspaces. There's so much to be done with them. Introduce plexes with high rewards (any type - loot, bounties, minerals) that have lockable gates, so it is possible to find one, move in the equipment and work inside without danger of being ganked any second. You will always be at risk during moving in, hauling stuff out, etc.

And if this example is too simple and leads to too low risk - this can be variated so much! Limited number of ships to go in, limited number of acceleration gate activations, timer on entry gates - I can think of a dozen different mechanisms to make reward-holding stuff in lowsec very good, obtainable, but not risk-free at the same time.

Problem of low-sec right now is that it has exactly same environments and key points as hisec, but it has completely different rules of engagement. That is the problem, not the bounties, loot or asteroid contents.

Saietor Blackgreen
Armored Saints
Posted - 2008.08.20 10:25:00 - [36]
 

Originally by: Jaketh Ivanes
Last solution is to make pirating so hard, that very few will indulge in it. At present, it's so easy that there are more pirating then mission running. Think of it like a military. You need a lot of farmers and producers for a few soldiers. Pirates need a lot of mission runners and miners, so the individual miner/runner can sustain a loss or 2 and not be locked down for unreasonable amounts of time.


That will cut down heavily on PvP. Game will become a community of grinders and farmers, which is not fun. PvE is too boring to be attractive for a significant time, and it doesnt promote cooperation of players.

No, its not a good variant, although maybe quite logical.

Jaketh Ivanes
Amarr
House of El
Posted - 2008.08.20 10:40:00 - [37]
 

Originally by: Saietor Blackgreen
Originally by: Jaketh Ivanes
Last solution is to make pirating so hard, that very few will indulge in it. At present, it's so easy that there are more pirating then mission running. Think of it like a military. You need a lot of farmers and producers for a few soldiers. Pirates need a lot of mission runners and miners, so the individual miner/runner can sustain a loss or 2 and not be locked down for unreasonable amounts of time.


That will cut down heavily on PvP. Game will become a community of grinders and farmers, which is not fun. PvE is too boring to be attractive for a significant time, and it doesnt promote cooperation of players.

No, its not a good variant, although maybe quite logical.


Yes, it will cut down on PvP for a while, until all the "carebears" realize they can actually make more isk in low sec, despite the losses. To make an analogy towards buisness, lowering the price sometimes means more profit.

NeoTheo
M'8'S
Posted - 2008.08.20 10:42:00 - [38]
 

id like to see roids seeded a bit better in low sec, really speaking only 0.1 is any cop in terms, id also like to see rats between 100 and 450k being the norm in low sec, this keeps it JUST LOWER than 0.0 and should help.

also 0.0 has sov and i know pos bashing is ****ing boring but there are rewards that come with sov that you dont and cant have in low sec, (ability to produces moms and titans, also jump bridges for easy travel etc etc).

i dont think it would hurt to make low sec rewards a little closer to 0,0 without sov and the 1 mill+ battleships you get in 0.0.

when the game was released this wasnt the way forward as 0,0 didnt have the advantages it does now, however as the game and 0,0 play has grown the low sec has stayed the same, and high sec has also grown lots as well.

/theo

Saietor Blackgreen
Armored Saints
Posted - 2008.08.20 11:03:00 - [39]
 

Originally by: Jaketh Ivanes
Yes, it will cut down on PvP for a while, until all the "carebears" realize they can actually make more isk in low sec, despite the losses. To make an analogy towards buisness, lowering the price sometimes means more profit.


No, it will not. If you reduce the amount of pirates in lowsec due to some economic changes (which is a whole can of worms BTW), you will reduce risks in lowsec by a factor. Say, it will become 75% less.

But it will still be ZERO in highsec.

Once again, you cant balance lowsec and highsec just by numbers, because the safety principles are fundamentally different.

Sergeant Spot
Galactic Geographic BookMark Surveying Inc.
Posted - 2008.08.20 11:20:00 - [40]
 

To the OP

I've been telling folks that for years, but they dont learn (or just dont want to accept it).

As stated many many times, folks aint going to go to low sec unless they make GOOD isk over the LONG HAUL, even after loses.

And BE WARNED: That unavoidable logic applies to more than low sec. It applies to pretty much all aspect of Eve.

There is a way to change it, but its one I've argued against for years. Make death in Eve painless. A very very bad idea.

Steve Hawkings
Posted - 2008.08.20 11:22:00 - [41]
 

just another paranoid tosser that assumes only reason people want u in low sec is to be a target lol.

Maximillian Bayonette
White Lion Manufacture and Salvage
Posted - 2008.08.20 11:22:00 - [42]
 

Originally by: Sergeant Spot
To the OP

I've been telling folks that for years, but they dont learn (or just dont want to accept it).

As stated many many times, folks aint going to go to low sec unless they make GOOD isk over the LONG HAUL, even after loses.

And BE WARNED: That unavoidable logic applies to more than low sec. It applies to pretty much all aspect of Eve.

There is a way to change it, but its one I've argued against for years. Make death in Eve painless. A very very bad idea.



Another way to change it is by lowering rewards in high sec, leading low sec rewards to be considerable more valuable, leading you to be able to make good money over the long haul. High sec becomes a trade zone and a place where newbies can grow up.

Siberys
Gallente
Experimental Horizons
Posted - 2008.08.20 11:24:00 - [43]
 

I go there for a few hours of nice moneymaking, usually by killing rats.
It's more fun than missions at least, because you get that thrill knowing you're in possible danger.

Sergeant Spot
Galactic Geographic BookMark Surveying Inc.
Posted - 2008.08.20 11:26:00 - [44]
 

Actually, on closer reading, I do need make one observation:

A buff to low sec earn potential can't hurt. I strongly favor such a buff.

However, I agree that buffed income potential or not, no one is going to play suicide monkey unless their cost is tiny, or the income so huge that it off sets it. But tiny cost (meaning they are flying cheaply fitted T1 frigates) will not be linked to big income, nor would such targets satisfy the suicide monkey seeking gankers. And income big enough to off set a continuous chain of HAC loses simply will not be introduced.

Sergeant Spot
Galactic Geographic BookMark Surveying Inc.
Posted - 2008.08.20 11:28:00 - [45]
 

This whole debate is so damned old....

I've got OLD OLD news for the foolish folks that are seeking more suicide monkeys: It aint gonna happen. Furthermore, if you find a way to make it happen, it will be nerfed.

You can dress up your arguments any way you like. The supply of suicide monkeys will stay stable at roughly its current % of players. And I don't anticipate and nerfing to high sec income anytime soon, and I ESPECIALLY dont see existing high sec income being tied to trips into low sec.

You can save yourself a LOT of stress by picking a target OTHER than forced suicide monkeys.

Sergeant Spot
Galactic Geographic BookMark Surveying Inc.
Posted - 2008.08.20 11:31:00 - [46]
 

As for Fleet Warfare....

Fleet warfare is great. It brings folks to low sec by offering entertainment. Its an offer, which is good, not a knife poking their back, forcing them to be suicide monkeys against their will, which would be knuckle dragging stupid.

Maximillian Bayonette
White Lion Manufacture and Salvage
Posted - 2008.08.20 11:32:00 - [47]
 

Originally by: Sergeant Spot
This whole debate is so damned old....

I've got OLD OLD news for the foolish folks that are seeking more suicide monkeys: It aint gonna happen. Furthermore, if you find a way to make it happen, it will be nerfed.

You can dress up your arguments any way you like. The supply of suicide monkeys will stay stable at roughly its current % of players. And I don't anticipate and nerfing to high sec income anytime soon, and I ESPECIALLY dont see existing high sec income being tied to trips into low sec.

You can save yourself a LOT of stress by picking a target OTHER than forced suicide monkeys.



Funny, because my ESP powers are just as developed as yours, and I see a nerf to high sec missions in the near future. This will be coupled with a slight buff to low sec PvE, especially exploration, and will solve the risk/reward factor that currently is severely tilted to high sec.

Amazing how we can see so different things in the future. I guess one of us might be faking his ESP powers.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2008.08.20 11:33:00 - [48]
 

Originally by: Sergeant Spot
However, I agree that buffed income potential or not, no one is going to play suicide monkey unless their cost is tiny, or the income so huge that it off sets it. But tiny cost (meaning they are flying cheaply fitted T1 frigates) will not be linked to big income, nor would such targets satisfy the suicide monkey seeking gankers. And income big enough to off set a continuous chain of HAC loses simply will not be introduced.

The FAIR solution is the solution that has everybody not liking it with equal force... a solution that everybody would love does not exist Twisted Evil

Sergeant Spot
Galactic Geographic BookMark Surveying Inc.
Posted - 2008.08.20 12:01:00 - [49]
 

Originally by: Maximillian Bayonette
Originally by: Sergeant Spot
This whole debate is so damned old....

I've got OLD OLD news for the foolish folks that are seeking more suicide monkeys: It aint gonna happen. Furthermore, if you find a way to make it happen, it will be nerfed.

You can dress up your arguments any way you like. The supply of suicide monkeys will stay stable at roughly its current % of players. And I don't anticipate and nerfing to high sec income anytime soon, and I ESPECIALLY dont see existing high sec income being tied to trips into low sec.

You can save yourself a LOT of stress by picking a target OTHER than forced suicide monkeys.



Funny, because my ESP powers are just as developed as yours, and I see a nerf to high sec missions in the near future. This will be coupled with a slight buff to low sec PvE, especially exploration, and will solve the risk/reward factor that currently is severely tilted to high sec.

Amazing how we can see so different things in the future. I guess one of us might be faking his ESP powers.



Wont work. Wont even come close to working. Not unless POWERFUL single player tools are added to game to allow players in low sec to avoid gankers while they do PvE. (Tools above and beyond what we currently have).

Otherwise the income boost wont be enough.

Shadowsword
The Rough Riders
Ares Protectiva
Posted - 2008.08.20 12:07:00 - [50]
 

Originally by: Mankirks Wife
OP makes some good points, doesn't really offer any suggestions on how to fix it though.

The main problem with lowsec is a complete inability to defend yourself in any meaningful way. In 0.0 you have sov, cyno jammers, NBSI without gate guns or sec hits, bubbles, etc.

In lowsec you have nothing. You can't even shoot the suckers unless you're prepared to take a sec hit and deal with gate gun fire.

So you end up with a situation where 0.0 is both safer and more profitable than lowsec. So most people skip it, unless they want to weekend-warrior it up. Which is what FW is for and I think the direction CCP is trying to take lowsec in.


There is an easy answer to that. Since pirates hunted prey into near extinction, what you need is to curb back the pirate population, harshly, into near extinction, long enough for the prey to repopulate low-sec, and then let the predator/prey ratio evolve naturally again.

How do you do that? You simply give a god-mode to gate sentries, enough for them to kill carriers and dreads. That will have several effects:

1/It curb the pirate population, and carebears dare enter low-sec again.

2/It drive piracy away from the gates, and back into the belts/deadspace pockets, where it belong. Small ships will become again viable for piracy. Ransoming will be viable again, since the prey won't have a gate to slow-boat to.

3/Miners and ratters will remain vulnerables in belts. mission-runners will remain vulnerables to probing. traders in T1 industrials, freighters, will remain vulnerables to bumping out of gate range, where they could be killed. Only traders in blockade-runners would remain largely invulnerables to dieing in low-sec, but it seems a small enough price to pay, to reach again a healthy balance in the predator/prey ratio.

imakillyooall
Posted - 2008.08.20 12:12:00 - [51]
 

Originally by: Maximillian Bayonette
Missions are going to get nerfed, one way or another. You might as well start adapting...



Got a link to this interesting fact? Or should ya have said "in my opinion". Or is it a rumour ya heard? Or did you just make it up?


Sandman 17
Caldari
Destry's Lounge
Posted - 2008.08.20 12:24:00 - [52]
 

People don't go to low sec? Then what did I shoot last night?

The Wounded
Gallente
Center for Advanced Studies
Posted - 2008.08.20 12:30:00 - [53]
 

Originally by: Sandman 17
People don't go to low sec? Then what did I shoot last night?


Ur corpmates

Mankirks Wife
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2008.08.20 12:31:00 - [54]
 

Originally by: Maximillian Bayonette
Another way to change it is by lowering rewards in high sec, leading low sec rewards to be considerable more valuable, leading you to be able to make good money over the long haul. High sec becomes a trade zone and a place where newbies can grow up.



If you nerf highsec too much though, the highsec huggers will either quit or join big 0.0 alliances. Sov space is and with current mechanics will always be safer and more profitable than lowsec.

Lowsec needs to change - as has been said it's been completely eclipsed by highsec and 0.0 for everyone except pirates, which has left them with very little to shoot (FW excepted)

Marie Trudeau
Gallente
Rouvenor Technologies Sarl
Posted - 2008.08.20 12:39:00 - [55]
 

Edited by: Marie Trudeau on 20/08/2008 12:40:28
Again, I don't think it's as simple as "nerf hisec rewards, it will force the bastards to go to lo sec to mission". This overlooks the reality that a goodly percentage of mission runners are, by outlook, very, very risk averse. They won't be bullied by changes like that into taking risks with their mission ships. In fact, even for the smaller % of mission runners who are cold-blooded cost-benefit-analysis people, you'd have to up the rewards a LOT in lo sec to compensate for the increased risk. And even if you did that (and if you did, then of course the 0.0 crowd would scream again because it would boost lo sec too much over 0.0), still the vast majority of the mission runners would stay in high sec and probably grind level 3 missions, or simply leave EVE -- or, yes I agree, go to 0.0, which in the context of an organized NBSI alliance, really isn't anything close to being as unsafe as lo sec is.

This is what people do not want to understand: the true core of carebears will avoid going into lo sec under almost any circumstances. You're not going to force them into lo sec by switching around the rewards. Yes, some people will migrate, but the vast majority will not. Empire has *always* been thus, even when Empire was less lucrative clearly than 0.0 was, like when I joined in 2004. People *still* crowded in Empire. You can't force carebears not to be carebears by changing the game mechanics. It's wishful thinking at its worst.

Jaketh Ivanes
Amarr
House of El
Posted - 2008.08.20 12:55:00 - [56]
 

Originally by: Saietor Blackgreen
Originally by: Jaketh Ivanes
Yes, it will cut down on PvP for a while, until all the "carebears" realize they can actually make more isk in low sec, despite the losses. To make an analogy towards buisness, lowering the price sometimes means more profit.


No, it will not. If you reduce the amount of pirates in lowsec due to some economic changes (which is a whole can of worms BTW), you will reduce risks in lowsec by a factor. Say, it will become 75% less.

But it will still be ZERO in highsec.

Once again, you cant balance lowsec and highsec just by numbers, because the safety principles are fundamentally different.


You missed the point of the analogy. What I'm stating is, you need to kill less to get more targets. There is a balance to be found, which all the pirates just don't want to find. Then CCP has to force that balance upon everyone.

If a mission runner can make 200 million in a week in low-sec, despite being casual, losing a BS and being camped 3 nights in a row, and only 100 million in a week in high-sec with effective missioning, he will go to low-sec. At present, breaking even can be very hard to achieve, so why go there?

Moving lvl 4 to low sec will still mean lvl 3's make more isk. Heck, even lvl 2's will be better than lvl 4's in low sec, despite you make about 3 times the isk and LP missioning in low-sec.

Doddy
Excidium.
Executive Outcomes
Posted - 2008.08.20 13:01:00 - [57]
 

Edited by: Doddy on 20/08/2008 13:16:42
Originally by: Somealt Ofmine
stuff



You make some good points. You make some assumptions however. More people would go to lo sec if the rewards were higher. There are already plenty of people in lo sec who take the risk to make that little bit more isk. The problem is that there isn't enough of them, and either making lo sec rewards a bit better or high sec rewards a bit less will help rectify this.

As lo-sec population rises the chance of atually getting pirated actually declines. The population of pirates would not rise as fast (the problem at the moment is that there are more pirates than non-pirates in some places).

Most low sec players or groups of players move on, many ending up in 0.0. At the moment they are not being replaced by players coming from hi sec as there is no real reason to do so. Low sec ore has been savagely devalued, so there is no point mining in low sec. Low sec belt ratting has always been of limited value in comparison to missions. Low sec moons tend to have been jumped on by 0.0 alliances. The only reasons to go to low sec are missions. Level 5 missions require team work or a capital, and as such are limited as to who wants to do them. so, level 4 missions are the only reason to go to low sec for a lot of people.

At the moment the calculation comes down to "is slightly better level 4 missions worth the risks of low sec?". Despite what you say for some people the answer is yes, and a change in comparitive value of those missions would make it yes for more people still.

I do not know what the situation is with low sec exploration. If you can find 0.0 ores and 6/10 plexes etc, then really there are more reasons to be in low sec and people are just being lazy. If not then ccp needs to take reponsibility for having nerfed low sec when they removed static plexes and allowed mid range ore values to plumit.

Davina Braben
Posted - 2008.08.20 13:03:00 - [58]
 

Originally by: Jaketh Ivanes
Originally by: Saietor Blackgreen
Originally by: Jaketh Ivanes
Yes, it will cut down on PvP for a while, until all the "carebears" realize they can actually make more isk in low sec, despite the losses. To make an analogy towards buisness, lowering the price sometimes means more profit.


No, it will not. If you reduce the amount of pirates in lowsec due to some economic changes (which is a whole can of worms BTW), you will reduce risks in lowsec by a factor. Say, it will become 75% less.

But it will still be ZERO in highsec.

Once again, you cant balance lowsec and highsec just by numbers, because the safety principles are fundamentally different.


You missed the point of the analogy. What I'm stating is, you need to kill less to get more targets. There is a balance to be found, which all the pirates just don't want to find. Then CCP has to force that balance upon everyone.

If a mission runner can make 200 million in a week in low-sec, despite being casual, losing a BS and being camped 3 nights in a row, and only 100 million in a week in high-sec with effective missioning, he will go to low-sec. At present, breaking even can be very hard to achieve, so why go there?

Moving lvl 4 to low sec will still mean lvl 3's make more isk. Heck, even lvl 2's will be better than lvl 4's in low sec, despite you make about 3 times the isk and LP missioning in low-sec.


Would they really though?

I'd imagine psychology would factor into that.

If they want to just log on, pootle about doing missions (or ruthlessly grind missions) and watch their wallet balance go up wouldn't playing in low sec completely bugger that?

Also I think your suggestion that they'd lose one ship a week and get camped two days a week is possibly a bit optimistic given the tonnage you sometimes see in Sarlacc pit like gatecamps. I guess if the agents were really well spread out so as to limit obvious Motsu-like hubs maaayyybe it'd reach that point when there were a lot of people to choose from but initially I'm pretty sure these hypothetical carebears would be getting gangganked every five minutes by pirates with splintery peg-dongs.

FlameGlow
Gypsy Band
Posted - 2008.08.20 13:03:00 - [59]
 

If lowsec was as non-NPC 0.0 with high true sec(>-0.1 or -0.2) in respect to minerals, rats and exploration stuff then I think there would be more ppl willing to take its risks(it's still worse then real 0.0 because it's harder to defend and doesn't allow sov).

Marie Trudeau
Gallente
Rouvenor Technologies Sarl
Posted - 2008.08.20 13:11:00 - [60]
 

Originally by: Doddy
stuff


Oh I agree that some people would migrate. But I don't think it would be a huge number. The people who have an appetite for risk are already migrating -- directly to 0.0. The vast majority of the folks who hug high sec empire space are much more risk averse than people who have a risk acceptance profile of the typical 0.0 dweller can imagine. So while I agree there would be some impact, I do not think that the impact would be great overall.


Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5

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