open All Channels
seplocked Crime and Punishment
blankseplocked Should we get rid of highsec?
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2 3 4

Author Topic

Honest Jill
Posted - 2010.01.15 09:36:00 - [1]
 

Perhaps keep it around for starter systems and noob mission hub constellations, but the question must be asked: Should we get rid of highsec?

Lady Spank
Amarr
In Praise Of Shadows
Posted - 2010.01.15 09:38:00 - [2]
 

Nice line of reasoning to back up your query, I vote maybe.

Slimy Worm
The Skunkworks
Posted - 2010.01.15 09:44:00 - [3]
 

Nice troll.

Anyway, a better idea is to do the following:

1) Remove warp-to-zero but let haulers fit microwarpdrives. Maybe they can even get a reduced signature radius penalty similar to interceptors.

2) Create non-remote sensor dampeners that makes it take longer to target the ship that has them equipped.

3) Make vast swaths of lowsec in between all the major empires. The Minmitar are close already, but have a .5 link to Gallente space and a pipe through Derelik.

This wouldn't severely disrupt people that enjoy living in highsec, but would create more regional market variation so there'd be a stronger reward in shipping stuff between different markets.

Bellum Eternus
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2010.01.15 09:44:00 - [4]
 

Turn all 5.-.7 into lowsec.

Paknac Queltel
Baden's Army
Posted - 2010.01.15 09:47:00 - [5]
 

Originally by: Bellum Eternus
Turn all 5.-.7 into lowsec.
Or make it a new security class, mid-sec, policed by just the faction police.

John Caffeine
Fairlight Corp
Rooks and Kings
Posted - 2010.01.15 09:52:00 - [6]
 

Make Jita 0.4
Force players to go through lowsec to move from one empire to another.
Nerf Concord.
Move all l4 out of hisec.
Gimme a cookie.

Slimy Worm
The Skunkworks
Posted - 2010.01.15 10:07:00 - [7]
 

Edited by: Slimy Worm on 15/01/2010 10:08:26
Originally by: John Caffeine
Make Jita 0.4
Force players to go through lowsec to move from one empire to another.
Nerf Concord.
Move all l4 out of hisec.
Gimme a cookie.


The l4 can stay in highsec. Having agent quality change depending on how much the agent is used would break up mission hubs and provide greater rewards for missioning in lowsec (as would having mission rats retarget so that the 'bear stands a chance when his mission is invaded) but wouldn't ruin Eve for people who simply enjoy mission-running and don't want to deal with PvP very often.

Nerfing CONCORD isn't needed since ganking isn't very difficult anyway. If you want to pre-emptively shoot people then go to lowsec or nullsec. Automatically dieing is a risk of being in high-security space.

You definitely do deserve a cookie, though.

Originally by: Paknac Queltel
Originally by: Bellum Eternus
Turn all 5.-.7 into lowsec.
Or make it a new security class, mid-sec, policed by just the faction police.


Would the faction police warp to belts if a player aggresses another player, or would they just camp stargates and stations (and follow people with low security status and gank them if they stand still) like they do now?

Winterjack
Posted - 2010.01.15 10:10:00 - [8]
 

[sarcasm]What about forcing every new player to serve as prey for 3 months before getting access to fighting equipment?
You could put it in the EULA that you need to pay at least 3 months in advance, and that your online time must be at least one hour a day so the pirates have something to do.[/sarcasm]

EDIT: I like the idea of putting some losec zone between empires, but make it so that there are no chokes. If there's a choke, choke will be permacamped, which means no passing through will be possible unless you're smart, well fitted, lucky and experienced. Don't make it too hard on us noobs.

Slimy Worm
The Skunkworks
Posted - 2010.01.15 10:16:00 - [9]
 

Originally by: Winterjack
[sarcasm]What about forcing every new player to serve as prey for 3 months before getting access to fighting equipment?
You could put it in the EULA that you need to pay at least 3 months in advance, and that your online time must be at least one hour a day so the pirates have something to do.[/sarcasm]

EDIT: I like the idea of putting some losec zone between empires, but make it so that there are no chokes. If there's a choke, choke will be permacamped, which means no passing through will be possible unless you're smart, well fitted, lucky and experienced. Don't make it too hard on us noobs.


That's definitely important. I'm thinking of a "web" of lowsec existing in empire space, with many entrypoints and exits to highsec on each side so there's many possible routes. The highsec space will be islands in this web.

Lady Spank
Amarr
In Praise Of Shadows
Posted - 2010.01.15 10:16:00 - [10]
 

Solitude has the right idea, or what's the population like there again? Embarassed

You can put all the good ideas you like into the game, carebears will still ruin it.

Paknac Queltel
Baden's Army
Posted - 2010.01.15 10:21:00 - [11]
 

Originally by: Slimy Worm
Originally by: Paknac Queltel
Originally by: Bellum Eternus
Turn all 5.-.7 into lowsec.
Or make it a new security class, mid-sec, policed by just the faction police.


Would the faction police warp to belts if a player aggresses another player, or would they just camp stargates and stations (and follow people with low security status and gank them if they stand still) like they do now?
I was thinking have them warp in just like CONCORD, or have them patrol the belts one by one.

It's just a brainfart, though. Probably needs a lot of work.

Slimy Worm
The Skunkworks
Posted - 2010.01.15 10:25:00 - [12]
 

Originally by: Lady Spank
Solitude has the right idea, or what's the population like there again? Embarassed

You can put all the good ideas you like into the game, carebears will still ruin it.


They won't if CCP lets the highsec miners and mission-runners be. Most of them stick to Motsu (missioning) and Otela/etc. (mining) anyway. The only people that will dislike it will be people who market solo or in small corporations. It won't effect most carebears since they don't tend to move around that often.

Winterjack
Posted - 2010.01.15 10:27:00 - [13]
 

Originally by: Slimy Worm
Having agent quality change depending on how much the agent is used would break up mission hubs and provide greater rewards for missioning in lowsec (as would having mission rats retarget so that the 'bear stands a chance when his mission is invaded) but wouldn't ruin Eve for people who simply enjoy mission-running and don't want to deal with PvP very often.


This.

Quote:
Automatically dieing is a risk of being in high-security space.


Or being ganked. It's the state of facts, and it's cool.
But it's nice to not have to worry about HAVING to do pvp constantly whether you like it or not, just cuz someone else decided you should.
Increase risks and rewards for risking -> good.
Force everyone into a state where pvp is constant and unavoidable -> bad.
My opinion.

Originally by: Paknac Queltel
Or make it a new security class, mid-sec, policed by just the faction police.

I fail to see the implication of this - doesn't fac police just prevent very low standings players from entering? If that's the case, it would hardly be different than losec (except that you'd probably find only pirates from yer own faction :p).

Lana Torrin
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2010.01.15 10:33:00 - [14]
 

Originally by: Lady Spank
Solitude has the right idea, or what's the population like there again?

The clue is in the name...

Paknac Queltel
Baden's Army
Posted - 2010.01.15 12:24:00 - [15]
 

Originally by: Winterjack
Originally by: Paknac Queltel
Or make it a new security class, mid-sec, policed by just the faction police.

I fail to see the implication of this - doesn't fac police just prevent very low standings players from entering? If that's the case, it would hardly be different than losec (except that you'd probably find only pirates from yer own faction :p).
Faction police would take over from CONCORD in those systems. This would create an area that, while not as 'safe' as highsec, is not as 'unsafe' as lowsec. It would add a real, but managable risk to both carebearing and pirating in those areas.

Furb Killer
Gallente
Posted - 2010.01.15 12:32:00 - [16]
 

And why would you carebear there?

How about not making more low sec, but except starter systems we make all of eve sov 0.0 and see which player types go extinct first. A hint, it isnt the carebears.

Discrodia
Gallente
Symbiosis International
Moose Alliance
Posted - 2010.01.15 12:33:00 - [17]
 

Remove sec status loss for combat in lowsec below 0.3 and we'll all get along fine...

Signe Tesk
Posted - 2010.01.15 12:41:00 - [18]
 

It might be a good idea, if you'd ignore most players in this game. Instead, consider the large amount of low sec and null sec areas you already have at your disposal. It's of course nice to be able to rack up kills fast, but instead you most likely run into players with similar or more skill than you. Ouch, I know.

Paknac Queltel
Baden's Army
Posted - 2010.01.15 12:55:00 - [19]
 

Originally by: Furb Killer
And why would you carebear there?

How about not making more low sec, but except starter systems we make all of eve sov 0.0 and see which player types go extinct first. A hint, it isnt the carebears.
Because all the macro miners will move to 0.8-1.0 and the price of tritanium and pyerite will totally crash, thus sending more people after the .5-.7 ores? I dunno, it was more of a throw it out there kind of idea.

Full 0.0 would be very interesting as well. My bet would be on canflippers and ninja salvagers going extinct first.

Scrobes
Posted - 2010.01.15 12:58:00 - [20]
 

The problem with "removing" hi-sec is that it's currently already in the game, and everyone has been part of it in some fashion. You could possibly argue that it should never been instigated, and empire space should have only ever been 'low-sec' everywhere. But you can't go back and do this now as we're already down this particular path. I'm sure a lot of people see hi-sec as that remote island in shark infested waters. Once the island is there, it would be crazy to just remove it. Also the fact that it *is* there immediately makes convenient boundaries between areas of the game-world coalesce into existence, separating players, and allowing people to play 'safer' in that area.

No sense dwelling on that though. :)

Amy Platt
Posted - 2010.01.15 13:04:00 - [21]
 

you can turn high-sec off by war-deccing someone.

Paknac Queltel
Baden's Army
Posted - 2010.01.15 13:05:00 - [22]
 

Originally by: Scrobes
The problem with "removing" hi-sec is that it's currently already in the game, and everyone has been part of it in some fashion. You could possibly argue that it should never been instigated, and empire space should have only ever been 'low-sec' everywhere. But you can't go back and do this now as we're already down this particular path. I'm sure a lot of people see hi-sec as that remote island in shark infested waters. Once the island is there, it would be crazy to just remove it. Also the fact that it *is* there immediately makes convenient boundaries between areas of the game-world coalesce into existence, separating players, and allowing people to play 'safer' in that area.

No sense dwelling on that though. :)
True, you can't just sink it, unfortunately. It does need some eroding, though.

Lana Torrin
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2010.01.15 13:36:00 - [23]
 

Originally by: Honest Jill
Perhaps keep it around for starter systems and noob mission hub constellations, but the question must be asked: Should we get rid of highsec?


Oh.. Love your name BTW.. Forgot to say that earlier.

Forranz
Malice.
Tentative Nature
Posted - 2010.01.15 13:40:00 - [24]
 

Originally by: Amy Platt
you can turn high-sec off by war-deccing someone.


You can not wardec the NPC corps.Crying or Very sad

Winterjack
Posted - 2010.01.15 13:42:00 - [25]
 

Originally by: Paknac Queltel
True, you can't just sink it, unfortunately. It does need some eroding, though.


Endulge me: much as I'm _not_ opposing your ideas on the thread, at least not in principle, I'm wondering why you consider this to be important for the game.

As a noob (and I'm quite sure most of you don't really remember how it was to be a noob ;) ) it's reassuring to know I'm relatively safe in hisec and can potentially avoid some unwanted pvp.
In losec, I am easy prey. I'm poor, I'm not trained for combat, and I don't fly combat oriented ships. There's plenty of people fighting for the "lulz", the "tears" or what have you - even if I'm not a threat nor a source of income, I'll be taken down and maybe podded, losing a good half of my wallet between ship, modules and implants.
Am I a good fight? Hardly. Will I be after I get killed? Hardly, unless I start training combat skills, which I don't intend to, and unless I flew a combat ship, that was not my intention for now.

Removing hisec altogether just seems to me a way to drop everyone into pvp, like it or not. HAG has shown that hisec ain't this perfect shield. I'm wondering why you want the game to be less "safe".

Millie Clode
Amarr
Insert Cool Name Here
Posted - 2010.01.15 13:49:00 - [26]
 

Edited by: Millie Clode on 15/01/2010 13:50:07
I'd like to see lowsec starter systems. Players starting in them would get faster than the normal bonus skill training speed, but it would wear off really quickly unless they get involved in PvP. It would also wear off instantly the moment they set foot in highsec.

This would by necessity lead to some proper lowsec market hubs and a decent level of activity beyond the carebearing abomination that is FW

Simvastatin Montelukast
Empire of Collateral Damage
Posted - 2010.01.15 13:49:00 - [27]
 

My only issue with this topic, is that you are doing exactly what you accuse carebears of doing. Trying to make people play the game like you do.

Had this been a carebear talking about making space safer, everyone on here would have shot them down quick.

How about we keep the game as it is. Flame whiney carebears on forum (because CCP isn't going to change everything to their whims), Hulkageddon every couple of months to harvest, and keep blowing people up in low sec.

The game isn't perfect, never will be. However, it is as close to perfect for a large group of people as it ever will be. There is a great diversity in the game, and it is able to suit many different playing styles as it exists currently.

If we start asking for major changes to the game to fit our playing style, we are no better than the carebears.

James Tritanius
Posted - 2010.01.15 14:29:00 - [28]
 

No.

Originally by: Simvastatin Montelukast
My only issue with this topic, is that you are doing exactly what you accuse carebears of doing. Trying to make people play the game like you do.

Had this been a carebear talking about making space safer, everyone on here would have shot them down quick.

How about we keep the game as it is. Flame whiney carebears on forum (because CCP isn't going to change everything to their whims), Hulkageddon every couple of months to harvest, and keep blowing people up in low sec.

The game isn't perfect, never will be. However, it is as close to perfect for a large group of people as it ever will be. There is a great diversity in the game, and it is able to suit many different playing styles as it exists currently.

If we start asking for major changes to the game to fit our playing style, we are no better than the carebears.


This.

OP, you can preach your "Elite PvP'er" ideals somewhere else and be more tolerant towards other people's play style. Allow diversity; this is a sandbox.

Paknac Queltel
Baden's Army
Posted - 2010.01.15 15:25:00 - [29]
 

The simple fact (or my simple opinion, whatever Smile) is that the current set-up is wrong. System security comes in three flavours, completely secure, completely insecure and sov nullsec.

Nullsec is a bit of an odd duck, in that CCP actually seems to have got it sorta right. (Correct me if I'm completely wrong, please.)

high/low security, though, is completely unnuanced. 0.5+ = safe, 0.4- = unsafe. The different sec ratings have no real impact. I might be going about it the wrong way, but I'm merely trying to find a way to bring the complexity that this game is so good in to an area in which it's sorely lacking.

Andrea Griffin
Posted - 2010.01.15 15:30:00 - [30]
 

I would rather have a system where security is dynamic. It should be possible for .4 to flip up to .5, and .5 to jump down to .4. Perhaps there's a set of permanent high-sec systems where there's an empire stronghold, but their influence can only stretch so far for so long. Certain actions can be taken to push the faction navies and concord out of these systems, or encourage them to patrol elsewhere.

I dunno. More low sec would be fun, but ultimately it will just crunch the high-sec dwellers into smaller areas. You can make more low and null sec, but if people don't want to live there then they won't. I see no reason why they should be forced to do so. Instead, existing low-sec should have some unique features to make it attractive.


Pages: [1] 2 3 4

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