open All Channels
seplocked EVE General Discussion
blankseplocked Bye Bye lucrative high sec activities.
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... : last (15)

Author Topic

Chrono Seeker
Posted - 2011.08.15 13:33:00 - [1]
 

Edited by: Chrono Seeker on 15/08/2011 13:43:44
Edited by: Chrono Seeker on 15/08/2011 13:33:49
Some activities that will no longer be available in High sec according to the dev blog:

Quote:
Sole source of ice and high-end minerals


No more Ice in high sec.

Quote:
Geared towards T2
Our current proposal is that hisec is for volume T1 goods, lowsec will be for meta/faction gear eventually, nullsec is for T2, and wormholes are for T3


Oops, sorry, but we don't want people in high sec doing anything but T1 industry. And no more Meta drops in missions!

Quote:
Best loot
The best loot in the game should come from nullsec. High-end loot's enforced rarity gives a strong "jackpot" moment and tends towards extremely high values, and nullsec should be where you go to get high-value payouts.


That Pithum C-type Medium shield booster won't be found in high sec sites anymore. Or any good loot for that matter.

Quote:
Best agents
For further discussion. The best agents in the game should all be in nullsec, in keeping with the "richest area in the game" theme. There should be a clear margin of value for nullsec agents that acts as an enticement for mission runners to move there.


No more lvl 4s in high sec it appears. Oops. Sorry mission runners.

So it appears that CCP is taking the most lucrative areas of the game and putting them only in null sec. But they deserve it right? No one but huge alliances should be making any sort of good ISK in this game right? Personally I'm going to start buying ICE and resell it all later.

Miss Rabblt
Posted - 2011.08.15 13:40:00 - [2]
 

risk vs reward

Vice Admiral Spreadsheet
Caldari
Posted - 2011.08.15 13:40:00 - [3]
 

Originally by: Miss Rabblt
risk vs reward

Colt Mitri
Caldari
State War Academy
Posted - 2011.08.15 13:40:00 - [4]
 

Makes sense, whats the problem?

Thorn Galen
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2011.08.15 13:43:00 - [5]
 

If this is true, if this happens, then it's game over for me.

But - What's the accuracy of these comments ?
Which Dev Blog is this coming from ?
Is everything which is mentioned in such a Dev Blog verifiable fact, or are these again just ideas ?
Maybe a link to the particular Dev blog ?

10qvm.

Smoking Blunts
Posted - 2011.08.15 13:43:00 - [6]
 

lol i doubt they will get rid of lv4 agents in empire.subs are dropping so fast they need teh bears to pay teh bills.

making production harder work is just a pita, but if they wanna break things that arnt broken it is just teh same ccp ive come to know over the last 6 years

Jovan Geldon
Gallente
Lead Farmers
Kill It With Fire
Posted - 2011.08.15 13:44:00 - [7]
 

I fail to see anything bad about any of this, other than the excessively whiny and self-entitled tone of your post.

Rikeka
Eye of God
Posted - 2011.08.15 13:50:00 - [8]
 

Finally!

No more EVE easy-mode.
Want the rewards, take risks.

Chrono Seeker
Posted - 2011.08.15 13:50:00 - [9]
 

Originally by: Jovan Geldon
I fail to see anything bad about any of this, other than the excessively whiny and self-entitled tone of your post.


Good thing I don't do any of those activities then.

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2011.08.15 13:50:00 - [10]
 

You're making a couple of awfully large assumptions about what counts as high-end/top-of-the-line in those predictions. Also…
Originally by: Vice Admiral Spreadsheet
Originally by: Miss Rabblt
risk vs reward

^^ That.

Iron Breaker
Posted - 2011.08.15 13:52:00 - [11]
 


If they do this CCP will likely lose half of their suscribers; the half who are not interested in PvP. All of the stuff that was discussed seemes to involve getting peole out into low & null sec. I, and a lot of other people are not interested in PvP, which seems to be something CCP cannot understand. Trying to force us to do something we do not want to do, and expecting us to pay $15 for it, seems like a poor business model. Rolling Eyes

Wilhelm Riley
Posted - 2011.08.15 13:53:00 - [12]
 

Edited by: Wilhelm Riley on 15/08/2011 13:54:00
Quote:
Geared towards T2
Our current proposal is that hisec is for volume T1 goods, lowsec will be for meta/faction gear eventually, nullsec is for T2, and wormholes are for T3


I don't like this, it seems a bit black and white. Feels like they're separating everything into different zones and rather than having one large sandbox, you'll have three or four small sandboxes. Confused

Edit: And one of the sandboxes wont have sand at all, it'll just be gravel dirt.

giddymochug
Minmatar
Oyster Colors
Posted - 2011.08.15 13:55:00 - [13]
 

Nothing like the smell of PLEX in the morning!Cool

Thorn Galen
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2011.08.15 13:56:00 - [14]
 

Edited by: Thorn Galen on 15/08/2011 13:56:20
Whoaaaa, just a minute.

@ the OP, damned stupid way of you putting across information. Just highlight the negative bits and leave out the very, VERY important footnote and I quote direct from the blog :

"We're doing these blogs now so we can get as much clear, well-argued feedback as possible before we commit to anything. Please feed us back!

Also, to repeat a thing from earlier in big letters, THIS WILL ALL TAKE A LONG-ASS TIME TO HAPPEN. Some of it will be changed or dropped before it ever gets implemented. Some of it will never happen. This is a roadmap, not a production schedule."


@ Op - if you do not see the relevance of that final paragraph, please stop posting half-facts which lead to confusion and disinformation.

'Nuff said.

Emiko Luan
Gallente
Posted - 2011.08.15 13:56:00 - [15]
 

Edited by: Emiko Luan on 15/08/2011 14:07:40
I have no problems with unsafe space but really the game is pretty much supported by the empire bears, I don't think it's wise to give them nothing to really aim for within the pve field. I was very annoyed at only finding meta 0 stuff when ratting in low sec though...

I think mining really needs more tools though, across all sec.

edit: according to the blog it seems the meta/faction in lowsec quote might be for crafting and not for looting - this would be awesome. being able to produce meta4 and faction would be fantastic.

Loving every plan for exploration, it's just what I want :) Probable outposts that you could dock or repair at would be nice for low/null sec exploration imo...

stoicfaux
Gallente
Posted - 2011.08.15 13:57:00 - [16]
 

Meh, I wouldn't be too worried about it in the short to medium term.

IMO, CCP doesn't have enough resources to implement anything but a tiny fraction of the null-sec ideas. Shifting existing resources/features around is "easy", but everything else would require serious re-work and follow up tweaking and balancing.


Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
Posted - 2011.08.15 13:58:00 - [17]
 

And in the previous blog they state that the null revamp will probably take upwards of five years as the other areas of Eve will need tending at the same time.

Guess how much can/will change in five bloody years!

PS: Paranoia and hurt feelings can both be medicated these days.

Miranda Nebail
Posted - 2011.08.15 14:00:00 - [18]
 

It's not ideal proposals, but is well intended...

Ideally, though, empire should be kept as it is... and 0.0 should be MUCH more profitable (yet, killing the moons profits), thus, making empire rewards (lvl4's, etc) insignificant in comparison.

Thus, carebears in empire will be happy, and 0.0 dwellers will be happy too.

I totally agree, though, ice should be removed of empire, though. Make it like, dunno, the empires hoarded it for themselves, or something. Not only helps the game... it fricking makes sense, story wise.


TharOkha
Posted - 2011.08.15 14:02:00 - [19]
 

I agree with that "risk vs reward" thing, but why everything to nullsec? Everybody knows that most of the null is napfest and the only "wild" and most dangerous space are lowsec and wormholes. Putting best stuff in null will only boost large alliances to be even more ritchier as they are now. If you add more non claimable null-sec regions (like great wildlands without any stations) and put best loot there, then im pro.

Bronden Neopatus
Posted - 2011.08.15 14:07:00 - [20]
 

Originally by: Iron Breaker

If they do this CCP will likely lose half of their suscribers; the half who are not interested in PvP. All of the stuff that was discussed seemes to involve getting peole out into low & null sec. I, and a lot of other people are not interested in PvP, which seems to be something CCP cannot understand. Trying to force us to do something we do not want to do, and expecting us to pay $15 for it, seems like a poor business model. Rolling Eyes


This, which means OP is full of bull. The devblog is about nullsec evolution, not about "let's tell half our suscribers that they can pretty much go play another game".

It's like the neverending "move X to lowsec" nonsense, or how risking 100 ISK to get 1 should be appealing to any carebear with half a functioning brain just because they tell you so.Rolling Eyes

Wanna see people in lowsec? Make those Lvl 5 missions worth 150 million a piece & have the agents hand out only 1 each 24 hours per corporation and/or player.

Emiko Luan
Gallente
Posted - 2011.08.15 14:09:00 - [21]
 

moving ice to grav sites only would probably be better than removing it completely... more mining options is always good.

Mokokan
Posted - 2011.08.15 14:11:00 - [22]
 

Edited by: Mokokan on 15/08/2011 14:28:33
Maybe this will help some of you understand. If you've ever played any version of SIM CITY, you know that no matter how much time and how much energy, creativity, and determination you put into building your masterpiece of a city.......you just can't resist turning Godzilla/Sansha loose on your creation. The next time it might be aliens or earthquakes. It's pretty obvious CCP likes to knock our buildings down every once and a while. We're their SIM CITY, their Ant Farm, their entertainment.

edit: and I'm not sayin thats a bad thing Cool

Stop thinking of CCP as warm fuzzy carebears, They're the Gankers of the MMO universe.

Zagam
Posted - 2011.08.15 14:14:00 - [23]
 

Originally by: Wilhelm Riley
Edited by: Wilhelm Riley on 15/08/2011 13:54:00
Quote:
Geared towards T2
Our current proposal is that hisec is for volume T1 goods, lowsec will be for meta/faction gear eventually, nullsec is for T2, and wormholes are for T3


I don't like this, it seems a bit black and white. Feels like they're separating everything into different zones and rather than having one large sandbox, you'll have three or four small sandboxes. Confused

Edit: And one of the sandboxes wont have sand at all, it'll just be gravel dirt.

uh... you DO realize that you can trade between hisec, lowsec, and nullsec, right?

Rikeka
Eye of God
Posted - 2011.08.15 14:18:00 - [24]
 

Clearly, some people want to keep playing EVE easy-mode, while getting all the rewards.

Sarmatiko
Posted - 2011.08.15 14:23:00 - [25]
 

Edited by: Sarmatiko on 15/08/2011 14:28:01
Originally by: Miss Rabblt
risk vs reward

Wait you mean bot Raven hunter/anomaly cleaner that lives in rented 0.0 system and warps out to POS in seconds after you show up in local, risking with something?
Did they just proposed to increase even more profits to all those illegal farmers that live now in nullsec?
Nullsec anomalies with expeditions unprofitable? Cap construction unprofitable? Nullsec pirate agents LP shops unprofitable?
Unprofitable my ass/

Seriously, lots of sweet dreaming in this blog.
It all end like they ruin lot of things first, then some new dudes from Team CleanTheMess will bear and fix the consequences of "null fixes". It's CCP after all.

Zagam
Posted - 2011.08.15 14:24:00 - [26]
 

Originally by: Rikeka
Clearly, some people want to keep playing EVE easy-mode, while getting all the rewards.

Exactly. They want to have their cake, and eat it, too. They also want a selection of cakes handed to them on a silver platter, free of charge, with exactly 42 sprinkles on top of each one, or they will quit EVE.

Thornat
Posted - 2011.08.15 14:24:00 - [27]
 

Most of these thing re-enforce the basic concept on which CCP was founded. Its a game for the bold. Hiding in a hanger in high sec is where we all start, its not where the game ends. Unfortunatly for so many out there the fear of risking something... anything at all, is overwhelming and what they are doing here is trying to discourage that kind of thinking.

Frankly I was suprised that some of these things aren't already as described, I didnt even know their where level 4 agents in high sec to be honest and I have been playing for 6 years.

Anywho, ya this will force people out of their nests if they want to continue with some of these activites and I think its a good thing. It might be kind of against the will to some extent but I mean frankly there are waaay to many people in this game that benefit from null sec and low sec activites but don't contribute to them in any way. And frankly I disagree with that approach. If you want to BIG score you need to go out and put something on the line for it. Risk vs. Reward, I'm behind that all the way.

Iron Breaker
Posted - 2011.08.15 14:26:00 - [28]
 

Originally by: Bronden Neopatus




Wanna see people in lowsec? Make those Lvl 5 missions worth 150 million a piece & have the agents hand out only 1 each 24 hours per corporation and/or player.


Level 5's would not get me to bother with the low-sec head aches. But I mightg risk a mining crewser out to low sec for a chance at better minerals. The way it is set up now is silly. Why would anyone risk a mining ship in low sec when the same minerals are aviable in high sec? Unless there is somehting out there I am unaware of; mining in low sec is a wast of time with all the gankers out there. If they want small timers like myself to venture to low sec. but small amounts of Zydrean and/or Megasite out there.

Signal11th
Posted - 2011.08.15 14:27:00 - [29]
 

Originally by: Miss Rabblt
risk vs reward



I know everyone keeps saying risk vs reward but to be honest to anyone who has lived in 0.0 like myself will tell you 0.0 is actually a very safe place to be.

RAW23
Posted - 2011.08.15 14:29:00 - [30]
 

Edited by: RAW23 on 15/08/2011 14:30:42
For all the risk vs. reward posters:

How much isk do you actually lose through combat and the threat of combat in a week?

My, admittedly limited, experience of null is that people will lose ships now and again, which is hardly surprising since people go to null SO THEY CAN PVP, but not with the kind of regularity that causes any serious financial impact (most fleet losses also get reimbursed by alliances from the vast isk flow from that ultra high risk activity, moon-mining). So, I can see the need to have some extra cool stuff in null to compensate for the limited risks. But the idea that people who want to spend their time PvPing should receive huge rewards for doing what they already want to do, and that all those who don't want to PvP should be penalised for wanting to play the game their own way seems like a steaming crock of **** to me.

Of course, if someone can enlighten me on the great burdens and sufferings that I neither experienced in null nor ever had mentioned to me by those friends of mine who have spent many years there, I would greatly appreciate the lesson. In my, again, limited experience the thing that nullsec dwellers tend to whine about are their alliance hierarchies and, demands and CTA's, not the risk.


Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... : last (15)

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