This has been discussed before, the potential rage quitting make it probably not going to happen

This has been discussed before, the potential rage quitting make it probably not going to happen

This.
Also to incentive low sec activity, you need to add new content to actually hook people interest to get in there.
Not taking one content and taking to low sec.
Adding new ships that stuffs comes from Low sec?(just throwing random ideas)

I know, it's been batted so many times, but things are looking up to making it happen. I could care less about the AFK guy with his 4 alt accounts, he's afk anyhow not playing so why is he upset that he won't be playing what he doesn't play?

derp.

This is a terrible idea......more pvper want mission fits on their kb's blah blah blah.

make isk in high sec running L4s, so you can afford the damn ships to pvp in.

Learn to play, not AFK.

Generalizing everything kinda kill your purpose and your support :P.
Maybe he needs that isk to be his safe income to finance his pvp activities?


Also "balancing" you need a purpose.
But according to your argument, people only do lvl 4 to afk and then afk?
So moving lvl 4 will do nothing.
Actually you will force people to go Null sec in safe heaven corps.
Just pay a tax and you are good to go.

Learn to play, not AFK.

Learn to not suggest terribad ideas. I never AFK.

Level 4's would then make a better investment due to risk vs reward. The game is ran by things blowing up. Without destruction (as noted during CCP's EVE FEST 2012) the cogs won't turn in the world of eve.

Low-Sec doesn't have a current purpose other than being there. Creating a reason to be there gives low* sec a purpose. There's still safety of Local chat and no Warp disruptions. Thus "Learn to Play" instead of your safety net of High Sec where trading should be the main purpose.

Terrible in what regard. Terrible in the fact you can't cope?

And like I said previously , if you want Low sec to be given a purpose besides gate camping, you need to add actual content that makes it flow with life.
This balance will only bring unsubs and even you know it.
Unsubs= not good, we want to see the game expand.

Terrible in what regard. Terrible in the fact you can't cope?

At this point it would be easier to simply create a new isk pipe in lowsec than it would be to move the ones sitting in highsec.

At this point it would be easier to simply create a new isk pipe in lowsec than it would be to move the ones sitting in highsec.

Just make LO SEC incursions obscenely profitable.

Just make LO SEC incursions obscenely profitable.

They used to be :v

Also to incentive low sec activity, you need to add new content to actually hook people interest to get in there.

Just make LO SEC incursions obscenely profitable.

sending all Level 4's to Low-sec.

This would indeed make things better :)

We've seen incursions get nerfed.
We've seen the drone goop nerf.
Inferno is leading up to a good hit, but the one that would knock it out of the park to making EVE a true sensation would be sending all Level 4's to Low-sec.

This would indeed make things better :)

We've seen incursions get nerfed.
We've seen the drone goop nerf.
Inferno is leading up to a good hit, but the one that would knock it out of the park to making EVE a true sensation would be sending all Level 4's to Low-sec.

This would indeed make things better :)

peopel woudl simply not do it. Level 4 require battleships most of time and they are too slow to be useful in low sec. CCP could make that change only if the missiosn were more like FW missiosn, fast kill a single target and get the #!@# out of the field.

We've seen incursions get nerfed.
We've seen the drone goop nerf.
Inferno is leading up to a good hit, but the one that would knock it out of the park to making EVE a true sensation would be sending all Level 4's to Low-sec.

This would indeed make things better :)

Sorry I want the MMO to be a sandbox, not a kiddie pool.

Level 5's got moved to Lowsec for good. (no more agents giving you highsec missions)

Look how well that turned out.

Unsubs= not good, we want to see the game expand.

I agree if you need to camp mission runners in low sec well you can. All of the level 5 content is already in low sec.
They have much better rewards and more value than level 4's. So what is the problem? Lots and lots of juicy targets in low sec doing level 5's. What a target rich environment!

We've seen incursions get nerfed.
We've seen the drone goop nerf.
Inferno is leading up to a good hit, but the one that would knock it out of the park to making EVE a true sensation would be sending all Level 4's to Low-sec.

This would indeed make things better :)

Level 5's got moved to Lowsec for good. (no more agents giving you highsec missions)

Look how well that turned out.

I know, it's been batted so many times, but things are looking up to making it happen. I could care less about the AFK guy with his 4 alt accounts, he's afk anyhow not playing so why is he upset that he won't be playing what he doesn't play?

derp.

Stop trying to make eve enjoyable for a minority.

I mean, all you lose is what you fly, why so scared?

We've seen incursions get nerfed.
We've seen the drone goop nerf.
Inferno is leading up to a good hit, but the one that would knock it out of the park to making EVE a true sensation would be sending all Level 4's to Low-sec.

This would indeed make things better :)

sorry if some of us disagree with your assessment that finding ways of bringing in truckloads of wow trash is good for the game

Have all mission agents work on a supply and demand principle where the more players are running a particular agent's missions, the more he can lower his payouts to take advantage of the labour surplus, and vice versa.

This would do wonders for restoring risk/reward balance as the more daring mission runners ventured out to take advantage of little-used agents in unused corners of lowsec and npc 0.0.

What makes people so risk-averse, that they cannot leave hisec?

This is such an incredibly awesome virtual world, and you hisec people miss out on 90% of it.

I mean, all you lose is what you fly, why so scared?

Where all your bored little bees will be waiting ? No thanks

Tal

I know, it's been batted so many times, but things are looking up to making it happen. I could care less about the AFK guy with his 4 alt accounts, he's afk anyhow not playing so why is he upset that he won't be playing what he doesn't play?

derp.

Oh no the mission runners might have to take some basic precautions while they make money

Oh no the mission runners might have to take some basic precautions while they make money

I dont play the game to give the bored 0.0 nubs their entertainment, I do it for mine.


I'm not here to let you ruin my game, I'm here to have fun in mine.


Cheers


Tal

Well, we can't have that can we? We have to keep L4 out of the Risk vs Reward EvE Balance.

We have to keep their risk free ISK fountain going.

Good exemple of a Theme Park MMO playstyle.

Lol at you and your poor trolling skills.

Tal

They are only two possibilities, you're either a troll or you are just insanely ignorant on this subject.

But then again, Theme Parkers are known for this, they don't have a clue about Sandbox MMO's, so you are probably just being ignorant.

Poor child

Indeed, sucks to be you. I would be mad too if i was playing world of warcraft thinking it was a Sandbox MMO.

Simply not going to happen because a recent offical survey issued by CCP has made clear that only 25% of players are interested in pvp.

Have all mission agents work on a supply and demand principle where the more players are running a particular agent's missions, the more he can lower his payouts to take advantage of the labour surplus, and vice versa.

This would do wonders for restoring risk/reward balance as the more daring mission runners ventured out to take advantage of little-used agents in unused corners of lowsec and npc 0.0.

After giving this more thought (mostly on my hour-long commute to work) I'm less confident in my earlier "magic feather" statement. I'm now convinced that this idea (and especially more loot) will not motivate risk-averse players to low/null.

And I think the proof this is true can be found in Incursions.

Not only do incursions offer increased isk and dynamic gameplay, but they appear in high sec and actually disrupt the lives of the risk-averse. Tanked rats appear in the systems these guys normally mine and mission in - totally inconveniencing all.

So if CCP brought the party to the risk-averse, gave them access to increased isk, and penalized them for inaction - and they still didn't fight - well, lvl 4s in low sec sure won't do the trick either.

For a diametric shift of any sort to occur, there has to be a concerted, designed effort to change the ways mining and pvp are utilized in this game. They are too incompatible. Ships with dual mining and pvp functions may be necessary. Random rats may have to start popping up in belts and outside stations. Safety from crime shouldn't translate to safety from the universe. I think people could survive a cruiser rat every now and then in 0.5s.

Maybe CCP could also spawn more gravimetric sigs in certain sec systems and have various rat spawns pop up every few minutes instead of every 15. Increase variation in the minimal risks the risk-averse do face on a daily basis. The risk-averse may bite on new high sec rocks to mine and would need protection while they mine the site.

Ideas need to be generated which cause mining and pvp to overlap in novel ways, offering incentives to miners to engage in pvp - but perhaps not on the massive scale of Incursions. And if the incentive is great mining in high sec with increased risk from pve elements, it might start the ball rolling. And then in a graduated way, you move more of the playerbase away from 100 percent risk-aversion and toward less apprehension to exploration with additional updates.

I may not support the risk-averse being offered up as scooby snacks for risk takers' gaming pleasure but I also recognize that a huge, stagnant, risk-averse playerbase is not conducive to the longevity of this game.

Yonis Kador

You're also supersilly, missing the forest for the trees. You assume that every *high sec dweller* is exclusively that. Get a clue kid!

Simply not going to happen because a recent offical survey issued by CCP has made clear that only 25% of players are interested in pvp.

So - call it ragequit, or call it another way - CCP is simply not cutting incomes just to please 1/4 of their player base

Simply not going to happen because a recent offical survey issued by CCP has made clear that only 25% of players are interested in pvp.

So - call it ragequit, or call it another way - CCP is simply not cutting incomes just to please 1/4 of their player base

This.
Also to incentive low sec activity, you need to add new content to actually hook people interest to get in there.
Not taking one content and taking to low sec.
Adding new ships that stuffs comes from Low sec?(just throwing random ideas)

Good work. But a thought occured to me. Are you working under the assumption that the risk averse are that way continuously? I ask because I believe a lot of players that start out in high sec leave the game after about 6 months or less.
Long before they ever get to the point of wandering out of high sec. They get replaced by newer high sec players.
I think high sec is a constant rotation of new players with only a few that stay on past 6 months. That few are spread out all over the spectrum some going to nul some going to low and some going to industrialists in high. But the majority is turn over.
So while you see a lot of players in high I think that is mostly constant turn over. Perhaps the key to more low and null sec population is simply longevity. Get the player base to stay with the game longer. That is my take on it anyway.

Maybe he needs that isk to be his safe income to finance his pvp activities?

Lvl5 in low sec never made mission runners go there, moving lvl4's will only make some already bored with high sec broken/bad content leave definitively.

If they are bored, why don't they leave hisec? EVE is really exciting out there, every day.

It's quite simple really. Most people are not fighters. They would rather be protected then do the protection. The human race has always been that way. You expect people to pretty much change their nature in a virtual world?? Most people really are not capable of the idea of sacrifice. Plus, add in the fact that the human race has kind of teched itself out of having to struggle to survive. That is in most places.

Making the most active part of the game less enjoyable to play in is a silly business move. Making the less active parts more enticing to play in would be excellent.

To those thinking the solution to all problems is to keep nerfing Hisec - come up with ways to make the rest of the game more interesting instead. That would do much more for the game than cutting of its nose to spite its face.

Tell you what lets remove 0.0 sovereignty from the game, add more NPC stations to 0.0 all regions, and open up all player 0.0 stations to anyone who wants to visit . You would immediately see the 0.0 population grow.

Tal

If they are bored, why don't they leave hisec? EVE is really exciting out there, every day.

I would like to see a survey that shows for every 1,000 new players that start the game;

How many are still playing after 1 month and where are they? High , low, null?
How many are still playing after 2 months? etc...
How many after 3 months?
How many after 6 months?
How many after 9 months?
How many after 1 year?
How many after 2 years?


Get a handle on turn over rate?

Rest of the game is already several magnitudes more interesting. There is nothing in hisec that could keep a normal person interested for more than a month.

I would like to see a survey that shows for every 1,000 new players that start the game;

How many are still playing after 1 month and where are they? High , low, null?
How many are still playing after 2 months? etc...
How many after 3 months?
How many after 6 months?
How many after 9 months?
How many after 1 year?
How many after 2 years?


Get a handle on turn over rate?

We already know the turn over rate is high. EVE is a niche game & being anything but would turn it in to something else completely.

For better or worst?

I'm inclined to think some major changes to game mechanics would make it a lot better place for real pvp fans better place for industrial fans and a much better place for PVE fans.

However you will never ever get the old rabble population incapable to adapt to those changes, they will not accept easy ganking changes, they will not accept you have to pay one year sub with real money before you can pay with plex (because easy biomass gank alts would suffer) and they will certainly not accept high sec interdiction under -5 SS.

They just can't adapt and make a better game for everyone. They live in the past of an Eve that has nothing to do with the one they new back in time, changes are good for others the moment they don't get their tralala touch, if they do they will simply quit.

Ganking has been changed many times already, more than any other singular activity.

We've adapted every single time, you have not.

Not more than any other activity and only proves previous changes were badly implemented.



Yes tell me how difficult and tedious it is to circumvent rules that only restrain other players play style but never yours.

Also tell us all how elite you are in null/low sec at the point you are bored like that

The only rule in regard to suicide ganking is that you can't recycle alts to avoid the sec penalties.

You can, yo know it and you do it

Level 4's would then make a better investment due to risk vs reward. The game is ran by things blowing up. Without destruction (as noted during CCP's EVE FEST 2012) the cogs won't turn in the world of eve.

Low-Sec doesn't have a current purpose other than being there. Creating a reason to be there gives low* sec a purpose. There's still safety of Local chat and no Warp disruptions. Thus "Learn to Play" instead of your safety net of High Sec where
trading should be the main purpose.

"CCP making progress to a better EVE"

ROFLMAO!!!!

We've seen incursions get nerfed.
We've seen the drone goop nerf.
Inferno is leading up to a good hit, but the one that would knock it out of the park to making EVE a true sensation would be sending all Level 4's to Low-sec.

This would indeed make things better :)

It's not new content, it's called balancing.

Because said survey was obviously completed by every single player.

You can't force someone to do what they don't want to do, for some is pve in low/null.
Others will claim and cry oceans of tears if you force them to pvp in low/null they'll leave, but it's only because high sec grieffing is safer for them, if you force them to only wardec of faction warfare they will also leave.

So why don't we start pushing to low/null players that already claim to luv peeveepee or force them to join faction warfare?

There is but you just can't understand or even try it.

Simple, start a new toon from the scratch, don't ever transfer isk or whatever, start really from the scratch. Then come back telling again you've done everything in high sec in one month and I'll tell you it's a lie.

I need l4 isk so I can PvP. Running l3s for isk is just not worthwhile. Also, someone mentioned dynamic agents where they reduce payouts and stuff? Seriously, why are you guys so worried about hisec? Hisec is fine. Run along now.

No, because CCP - as any other company - makes surveys in order to know his customers opinions. And the players that did not want to spend some minutes to answer the survey will have nothing to complain about if their opinion is not taken in consideration by CCP.

It's not new content, it's called balancing.

And the players that did not want to spend some minutes to answer the survey will have nothing to complain about if their opinion is not taken in consideration by CCP.

Simply not going to happen because a recent offical survey issued by CCP has made clear that only 25% of players are interested in pvp.

So - call it ragequit, or call it another way - CCP is simply not cutting incomes just to please 1/4 of their player base

We've seen incursions get nerfed.
We've seen the drone goop nerf.
Inferno is leading up to a good hit, but the one that would knock it out of the park to making EVE a true sensation would be sending all Level 4's to Low-sec.

This would indeed make things better :)

This.
Also to incentive low sec activity, you need to add new content to actually hook people interest to get in there.
Not taking one content and taking to low sec.
Adding new ships that stuffs comes from Low sec?(just throwing random ideas)

A lot of people run multi-billion isk ships and your mentally challenged if you think they would take them anywhere near low-sec.

What you would see is unprobable tengus flying all over low-sec so you would have to QQ about that.

>Implying you would invest that many skillpoints into a prober to find a missions runner when he is just going to warp away when he sees the probe because he is almost unprobeable.

No, because CCP - as any other company - makes surveys in order to know his customers opinions. And the players that did not want to spend some minutes to answer the survey will have nothing to complain about if their opinion is not taken in consideration by CCP.

No, because CCP - as any other company - makes surveys in order to know his customers opinions. And the players that did not want to spend some minutes to answer the survey will have nothing to complain about if their opinion is not taken in consideration by CCP.

The latest eve newsletter has a link to the April survey results, also given here

http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/EVE_playing_behaviour?utm_source=newsletter77&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter77

Why do people start playing eve? The winners were a complex Sci Fi game with space exploration, with around 70%+ picking those.

And down at 25%? PvP.

It would appear that the survey takers were not drawn to eve by "the hard core PvP" but because its a Sci Fi game.

If CCP wants to attract more players, what should they concentrate on......

From an earlier survey: What people enjoy doing. This one was screen shot from a fanfest video so its hard to read. But the categories are, top to bottom:

Very much like
Somewhat like
Neither/nor
Somewhat dislike
Very much dislike

http://eve-files.com/dl/255173



Interestingly, here PvP is the one activity with the highest like rating. But even mining has more than 50% of the respondents liking it to some extent. Mining also has the highest dislike rating. FW had the lowest like rating, but the survey was pre-inferno.

Also these results indicate that many like to do both mining and PvP.

Good work. But a thought occured to me. Are you working under the assumption that the risk averse are that way continuously? I ask because I believe a lot of players that start out in high sec leave the game after about 6 months or less.
Long before they ever get to the point of wandering out of high sec. They get replaced by newer high sec players.
I think high sec is a constant rotation of new players with only a few that stay on past 6 months. That few are spread out all over the spectrum some going to nul some going to low and some going to industrialists in high. But the majority is turn over.
So while you see a lot of players in high I think that is mostly constant turn over. Perhaps the key to more low and null sec population is simply longevity. Get the player base to stay with the game longer. That is my take on it anyway.

For example I have tracked 2,000 new toons (many or some could be alts) come through the sisters of eve epic arc in the last 30 days. If the game was growing by 2,000 new players per month our player base would be getting huge over time. But it is not so how many are also leaving every month? Just about as many as start or constant turn over.

We've seen incursions get nerfed.
We've seen the drone goop nerf.
Inferno is leading up to a good hit, but the one that would knock it out of the park to making EVE a true sensation would be sending all Level 4's to Low-sec.

This would indeed make things better :)

crys the dude that is not on the recieving end.
let me get this straight: you want to be able to facerollkill pve carebears even more easily?

watch out, we got a badass over here!

Remove gate entry

Remove local

Move level 4's to low-sec

Suddenly low and null-sec will become a lot more populated.

The things that keep people away from these systems is in fact gate camping and local freebie intel that campers and such take advantage of. Having a free choice of where to enter in a system (exit would still have to be point specific like it is now) as well as no freebie intel would make a lot more people daring.

Of course, ways of tracking/finding ships would require a slight rework/boost.

Right now the gate system (and local intel), whilst logical in some ways, is also a hell of a double-edged sword. If people really want to see low and null-sec much more populated then they better start looking at the core problems that keep people away from said systems. Excuses like "use alts to scout" and such does not hold in the long run - not everyone is as "hardcore" as the people who suggest these meta-strategies.

In an ironic way I'd also say that the hardcore mentality of the people that want to see said systems more populated is also a small contributing factor as to why people want to avoid these systems. Think about that.

I actually like this idea, or a majority of it.

Definitely make ships have a random spawn entry point in system after going through jump gate.

Local chat could be set up like this :

High sec = stays the same as it is now
Low sec = only shows outlaws with negative sec status, FW members and any player who talks.
Null sec = only shows members of Alliance controlling SOV and any player who talks.
W-space = stays the same as it is now

No need to move level 4 agents / missions to low sec. Just add some more agents that offer a new type of mission. Like Bounty Hunting and Smuggling, of course CCP needs to fix the mechanics pertaining to those first.

Have NPC's in Null sec start laying siege to the player owned starbases and outposts in Null sec.

I hope CCP will stop listen to "EVE is about null-sec and group PvP" minority so we won't see EVE+CCP floating belly up but instead WiS, better/more content for hi-sec, and hundred(s) of thousands of new players.

Pretty much this. Highsec's been pretty neglected.

Also, OP's pretty stupid in every regard. I find it pretty hard to AFK in a burst-tank Astarte with no drones.

In conclusion, Ban OP, close his account, and go to his house and kick his ass.

I'm not sure why I hate myself for saying it, but DMC might have something here.

But I'd like to see an addition of overview/scanner filters for known entities, if this were implemented.

To those thinking the solution to all problems is to keep nerfing Hisec - come up with ways to make the rest of the game more interesting instead. That would do much more for the game than cutting of its nose to spite its face.

Pretty much this. Highsec's been pretty neglected.

Also, OP's pretty stupid in every regard. I find it pretty hard to AFK in a burst-tank Astarte with no drones.

In conclusion, Ban OP, close his account, and go to his house and kick his ass.

Remember that CCP is a commercial company dealing with a struggling economy like Iceland's one. So - despite public declarations - what CCP wants first of all is EVE to be profitabile for them. So it makes perfectly sense that they keep telling you that they want the "big PVP dreamland", but then - to survive - they must look first at numbers. And raw numbers imply leaving highsec mission running "enough safe" for carebears, since - like it or not - mission runners are a substantial part of the real money income of CCP.

1) CCP saw that shifting lvl 5 missions in low meant one thing: no more lvl 5 missission running. But lvl 5 mission were the very high-end of PVE, hardly soloable in some specific iper pimped faction ship, taking forever to complete the mission. In other words: loosing missions that were not affordable for the mass of mission runners did not impact on the gameplay of the large basis of the mission runners community.

2) Apply the same pattern of 1) to Lvl 4 missioning, which is the backbone of ISK making for almost all the PVE oriented players (and this goes even for some PVPers that make on mission running alts the ISK they spend on their "badass pirate" in low-sec). As I said: apply the pattern and conclude that it's reasonable to expect the outcome would be very different: a huge negative impact on mission running community, then - eventually - a potential loss for CCP.

3) null sec dwellers sell their high valuabe (faction, officer) loot to high sec carebears that use them to solo lvl 4 missions. No one with a mind would ever fit anymore such a loot for mission running in low sec.. So, shifting lvl 4 missions in low sec, will affect in a negative way even null sec players.

4) fact is that players actually have just now the "total sandbox" where they can show bravery or skill: it's called 0.0. Is null sec so boring that there are not enough targets? Of course not: the real point is that in nullsec there there are not enough DEFENSELESS targets. So - basically - asking to shift lvl 4 missions in low is not adding "more sandbox" but just adding "easy mode preys" for a particular subclass of PVPers consisting in the ones who like only to fight preys that can hardly fight back. Why don't these guys go pew pew in null then? They'd be shocked about the number of null-sec carebears they will find ratting, plexing and mining in belts! Oh wait ... but down there there are big bad alliances and a lot of real PVPers! So it's too dangerous attacking someone that can invoke a revenge! Of course I understand the point of pirates, but they should therefore undestand the point of carebears too. thay both want to avoid risks that thay deem to be excessive. So, why should CCP prefer pirates' point and not carebears' one?

Summarizing: shifting all lvl 4 missions in low sec would be good only for one particular class of players: the pirates that do not have enough bravery/isk/organization to roam in null sec and/or to suicide gank missioners in high sec. Is it enough to induce CCP to risk a substanital quit from mission runner community?

It's not new content, it's called balancing.

Yes.

You know there's something fundamentally wrong when the only way people can think of to promote the "best" part of the game is to make everything else suck more.

Can you tell me what I missed?

Dunno what you are talking about, many lvl4s are already in low-sec. Do you actually play EVE?

The Agents aren't in low-sec, true (apart from a very few) but there are many lvl4 Agents who give missions in nearby low-sec space, and one already has to accept a high risk/reward ratio to do them (cat and mouse with the pies who live there). When I'm feeling bold and adventurous, I do them, 2 of my JCs are in such areas.

It was more evident when we had "Agent Quality" and no Agent Finder. In those days, to get the best missions you had to actively look for them - check some websites and do some calculations - and inevitably the best-paying missions - again, not the agents who gave them, but the missions themselves - were in low-sec.

And there have always been even a few lvl4 agents in low-sec too - again, in ultra-low-sec (0.2) systems that are heavily camped.

This gives a nice spread I think. It's good to have a "safe" mission hub to fall back to, but it's also good to have the option of excitement and a bit higher reward when you're up for it.

Everything you haven't done.

Exploration: high sec WH, radar/magneto sites because you didn't had the skills for

Mining: simply because the only thing you could do is mine with a civilian mod

DED sites, simply because you'd get blown before you ever finish the first room = lack of skills

And I can go on and on, you got bored not because you've done it all, you've got bored because you couldn't do most of the available content.

I know, it's been batted so many times, but things are looking up to making it happen. I could care less about the AFK guy with his 4 alt accounts, he's afk anyhow not playing so why is he upset that he won't be playing what he doesn't play?

derp.

I'll reply to the decent posts later when I have more time, now just quickly deal with this troll:



I specifically mentioned all those activities, because I did them, except "hisec WHs" which don't exist on Tranquility, all w-space is -1.0 sec status.

You can do 4/10s with full meta fit cruiser, except if you are a carebear, in which case you need a T3 and a manual which rats to shoot and what to tank.

Considering that L4s are one of the main sources of income for casual players, this isn't going to happen. Half an hour of shooting at red boxes and you got yourself a enough iskies for a T2 fitted BC. Besides, there's far more lucrative stuff in low sec, it just takes more time/luck to get it.

Nerf the LP rewards from L4s for lulz though. I'm all for that.

Moving L4s to lowsec is bollocks, and CCP knows it (I don't do L4s btw).

What lowsec needs is new PVE content that can be done in proper pvp fits, and don't take ages to complete.

+1

Genius idea. And it's not as if the concept is unknown to CCP - the pirate epic arcs are predicated on PvP fits doing PvE content. Just spread the idea a bit more to low-sec.

Everyone knows that anyone trying to "entice" PvE-ers to low-sec is just looking for easy targets, since a PvE-fitted ship (which has to be PvE fitted because of the nature of the sustained DPS in PvE missions) will 9/10 times hilariously DIAF to a PvP-fitted ship.

However, as a carebear, I do mission in low-sec sometimes - but if I do, my main concern so far as PvP goes is to try and avoid it. The only reason for doing lvl4s in low-sec atm is the adventure, the feeling of "cat and mouse", not the reward (which is good, but stupidly risky in low sec); i.e. I will certainly be in low-sec, but I will be trying to avoid a fight whenever possible (although my KB shows that isn't always possible )

However, the idea above would, I think, be more likely to entice players like me (who are sort of semi-adventurous PvE-ers who quite enjoy PvP even though they're crap at it). If I could do a PvE mission in a PvP-fitted ship, I'd probably do it more often, as at least then I'd have a fighting chance if it's only one or two guys after me.

It would also be a good "stepping stone" for PvE-ers to stick their toes in the PvP waters.

Yes, I like this idea a lot.

But moving lvl 4s in and of itself, would change nothing. They'd just run lvl 3s then. CCP needs ways to make risk-averse players want to go to low sec/null.

Bolded the part which has flown over the heads of anyone who thinks lvl4's should be moved to low-sec.

The reason for moving lvl4's to low-sec does not outweigh the reason for either losing players due to 'ragequit' or having absolutely zero impact due to lvl3's in high sec.

What it would do is lower the amount of isk entering the market, and increase the cost of certain ships and modules popular to lvl4 mission running.

Then, after that, instead of running lvl3's, they work out you can mine and make a significant amount of isk per hour versus lvl3's and then people will say 'move mining to low sec! - it's not fair that someone can run 4 accounts and have a mining empire in high sec!'

Then the 'we-are-for-and-against-the-game alliance' will use some arcane logic normally reserved for children, to have a permanent anti-mining fetish and somehow, it'll be considered okay and once again no one will get the point, and trying to explain it to anyone is the figurative equivalent of trying to teach a dog the French language.

Guys, Gals, let this mother fuckin' argument rest - 2005 was long time ago.

AK

CCP needs ways to make risk-averse players want to go to low sec/ null.


Yonis Kador

Why? Why is there this desire for some people that every EVE player be pushed to low/null? What's wrong with having some players that enjoy high-sec? Just curious - because it baffles me that people feel the need to compel others to move to another part of space when they're apparently enjoying where they're at now.

Having diversity in the player base is good.

They are obsessed with imposing their style of play upon others to pad their killboards. Pay them no mind.

Balance in EVE is now and will always forever be a necessary subject of player debate.

If you presuppose that EVE is a pvp sandbox, which has been confirmed by CCP, and if then that your goal was to increase overall volume of player-generated content, and thus the quality of the game, to better the game per se, then increased fluidity in the playerbase solves a lot of problems. This shouldn't really be a game where the risk-averse are just victims cultivated for risk-taker target practice anyway.

I'm not advocating for one philosophy's superiority. Exist in the construct how you choose. I believe that with the aforementioned presuppositions that giving players the incentive to build balanced characters at creation (tell them its a pvp sandbox - guns first please) and then tools that bring a pvp balance to industrial engagements would be a first step at reducing risk-aversion overall. I also do not think that safety from crime should mean safety from the universe. Most people in high sec face no real danger except from other players. Missions are routine. The routine is routine. It's too damn routine.

So I also think pve elements need some love. When I go into a forest, there's a reasonable expectation that I won't be axed down by a serial killer, not impossible but unlikely - but there's a plethora of creatures that could end me at every turn. Compared to that, our universe is pretty safe from everything but other players.

To the larger point, reducing risk-aversion in game, in any way, increases the quality of collective gameplay in a pvp sandbox, regardless of how one pvps, imo.

Yonis Kador

Learn to play, not AFK.

Players are given an initial choice to become herbivores (industrialists - producers, little to no offensive capability) or carnivores (pvp'ers - consumers, little to no industrial capacity,) and CCP is then tasked with trying to balance player movements based on that dichotomy. Herd animals almost always find safety in numbers and stay near available resources. And they tend to avoid places where they know they'll be slaughtered. Pack animals track these herds, find individuals separated from groups, and consume their (in this case) podded ships as a resource.

It then seems to me, the question is how do I get a herd of wildebeest to willingly jump into crocodile-infested waters? In nature, the answer is almost always resource availability. But that won't work in the game. If you nerf high sec to the extent necessary to create that kind of migration, the subscription losses would cripple or end EVE.

So I've been working under the hypothesis that the answer may lie in a hybridization of the two.

Put simply, the herbivores have no teeth. They're big marshmallows. If this is a pvp sandbox, then allowing players to choose professions with such minimal pvp capability is creating victims by design. Pvp'ers have no trouble adapting to changes in the pvp sandbox because they're better suited to the environment. But industrialists are allowed (even encouraged) to train defenseless characters. There are no tutorials teaching new players to build balanced characters and the certificates an industrialist may base his training queue upon doesn't include combat skills. CCP should probably place some emphasis on that start to slow the marshmallow inflow, but it won't help the thousands of players like that already in game. A cacaphony of HTFUs isn't going to do it.

At minimum, we need to increase the variation in the pve elements the risk-averse are exposed to on a gradual basis. You've got to H them the F Up yourself in a measured way. Perpetual gankathons wont bring about any kind of paradigm shift - in fact, its probably counterproductive and deepens the divide. Industrialists are going need tools that will allow them to start defending themselves in situations of increasing complexity and risk. There will be those who will say they can already tank, but so can turtles and clams - and neither is migratory. For my proverbial wildebeest to want to cross that crocodile-infested river...

...they need to become pythons.

Yonis Kador

The industrialists would eventually risk going to null to sell their wares at a profit...

Herr Hammer,

I do not agree.

Risk-averse players aren't going to drift anywhere. They're risk averse. They're not going to drift into risk. Ameobas drift. Maximizing player fluidity on a large scale requires a paradigm shift - not hoping players discover low sec by accident.

You can't whip them out nor tempt them out. Neither has worked so far.



lol I doubt that. I'm guessing they'd sooner whip out an Excel spreadsheet, an abacus, and a ouija board and perform a seance to calculate what they could still manufacture for the most profit in high.

If the goal is to maximize player-generated content, then altering the game's economics doesn't address the correct issue.

Yonis Kador

Remember we're talking about 1mth old character.

Please explain to me how someone AFKs a lvl 4 mission?

Please explain to me how someone AFKs a lvl 4 mission?

Dual-boxing a Droneboat and repper.

Droneboat triggers entire stage/room/level/spawn and unleashes the drones, then repper warps in.

/repeat

Well I tend to think your wrong on your approach as well. But in the end CCP decides. We do not. And I suspect they will let the game develop and let the players direct it. It is more or less a free market. And the players do influence it a lot. And at the moment IMHO the gankings are making high sec even more profitable than it has ever been. And is also increasing the demand for more industrialists. In fact I bet most null sec players have an alt industrialist in high sec making a killing right now. Maybe so much in fact that they spend more time in high than they do in null. The game shapes its own path with the ebb and flow of the players in it. That included the turn over rate.

I would say you are far better off if you can figure out how to manipulate the game to get your end result as opposed to getting CCP to change the game for you. The sandbox idea works for everyone not just the null sec crowd. This getting people to move is also a PvP driven event and not a CCP issue IMHO.

Because said survey was obviously completed by every single player.

We've seen incursions get nerfed.
We've seen the drone goop nerf.
Inferno is leading up to a good hit, but the one that would knock it out of the park to making EVE a true sensation would be sending all Level 4's to Low-sec.

This would indeed make things better :)

[quote=Herr Hammer Draken]Well I tend to think your wrong on your approach as well. But in the end CCP decides. We do not. And I suspect they will let the game develop and let the players direct it. It is more or less a free market. And the players do influence it a lot. And at the moment IMHO the gankings are making high sec even more profitable than it has ever been. And is also increasing the demand for more industrialists. In fact I bet most null sec players have an alt industrialist in high sec making a killing right now. Maybe so much in fact that they spend more time in high than they do in null. The game shapes its own path with the ebb and flow of the players in it. That included the turn over rate.

I'm not trying to "change the game for myself." I'm debating balance and the dichotomy of risk averse vs risk taking players in a pvp sandbox. Writing about ways to reduce risk aversion and consequently maximizing player-generated content is beneficial to the whole of EVE. It's relative to the game's longevity. I am opinionless on what anyone "should" do. They should do whatever they wish.

Increasing player fluidity increases opportunities in game (at any given time) as a result of that movement causing more player interaction. Player fluidity is analagous with EVE's blood flow. It's a big universe and it benefits from player circulation. Blockages aren't good for the old girl. It leads to consolidation of power.

Currently high sec is EVE's big, fat heart and her arteries are being kept from collapse with gankathons, mineral speculation, and even Incursions. But these things don't really address what causes the viscosity breakdown. They're superflous. The issue is risk aversion. Half the players here spend most of their EVE time in ships with no guns in a pvp sandbox. Usually the only favorable outcome for an industrialist is escape. Of course those players are avoiding you.

I'm not advocating terrorizing players who would rather mine in peace. And I'm not saying they shouldn't have the option. It's my opinion though that depressing a huge player segment increases aversion in game. So as a matter of balance, if we began instructing new players directly about pvp engagement - not how the modules work , how guns first is necessary, its a pvp sandbox - and then also giving all players more ways to engage, less designed tactical avoidance should lead to a less risk averse population. A less risk averse player population should then be beneficial to player fluidity. And that player movement and the increased interactions it facilitates is then beneficial to the overall quantity and quality of player generated content at any given time.

When you write something like gankathons are "increasing the demand for more industrialists," which since mining was down 50 percent in high sec, I find oddly perplexing, is a positive, you submit that increasing the number of risk averse players and risk aversion generally in game is somehow a good thing for the game's quality. And on that I cannot agree. While I do agree the choice of what to do with your time in game is yours to make, that doesn't mean sustained unprovoked engagements or personal, uninterrupted, non-engagement games are either necessarily good for the health of EVE.

Yonis Kador

Bludd,

When you mine minerals, you reduce the amount available to others. That's pvp.

When you manufacture items and sell them on the market, beating the lowest available price, that's pvp.

When you trade items, buying low and selling high, that's pvp too.

Because of the way all we are all interconnected in the single-shard sandbox, every activity you do affects everyone else in some way. When you log in, and do anything but sit in your station, you provide opportunities to other players.

That's pvp.

Combat pvp may seem more overtly pvp-ish to you but all of these activities involve you competing with others.

EvE is a pvp sandbox. There's just no way around that.

YK