to be honest, the issue is that low sec is just a no-mans land in terms of doing anything except looking for a fight.

i'm mostly a miner, and from my perspective mining in low sec is an idea as smart as using your manhood as a thermometer to check the boiling point of water.

the difference between low sec ore and high sec ore is roughly 360k per jetcan right now. so for 360k per jetcan you'll leave concord's warm embrace?
not to mention the logistical pain that is moving ore from low sec, to jita to sell it.

as for null sec, that's just a case of getting in to a corp/alliance so that local is full of blues, not so bad. however low sec is just a no man's land of pointlessness from a mining perspective.

Mining in low sec is easy, as you say it's just not worth the effort of scouting a hulk into an empty system, and your chances of finding a low sec corp with regular fleet boosted mining ops is :lol:

As for making resources scarce in high sec, seems kind of cool. How would you feel about allowing people to fight over those resources?

For example giving people a mechanic by which they can fight for research slots, or fight for control of a certain agent. Or a *real* way to fight miners out of their belts? (because let's face it, suicide ganking is dumb)

Might give high sec bears a reason to hire mercs, and if they start working together there might be a little less hate on the forums. (and a little more objectivity, I might add)

but if you can only mine a limited number of jet cans in hi-sec before it is stripped until the next respawn time. low sec suddenly looks better once hi-sec is stripped. Even if it is mining in a none barge, say a cruiser, some ore is better than no ore, and low-sec is now huge helping you "hide".

I think with the mining barge changes coming down the line, it will enable miners to venture into low sec/null sec. It will make me feel a bit better knowing that my ships hull is not made out of toilet paper.

you're going to sacrifice concord protection and the logistical issues that come with out of empire space for 500k isk per jetcan in lowsec?

i doubt you would.

You can't force a person that prefers PVE or prefers to not fight into low sec. That's not why they play and if you push them too hard they'll just find a new game that lets them play they want instead of conforming to someone else's opinion.

Right there. I sincerely wish people would grasp this concept yet it constantly falls on deaf null ears.

You cannot force other people to change their playstyle. It will not work. Period. People have different ideas of fun and if you take away what they find fun they'll just leave the game and go find another game that is fun for them. Any attempt to force a migration from high to null will only hurt the game's health.

No one has a problem with you wanting to improve null by itself. But these constant whines to improve null by punishing other players that don't share your playstyle is getting tiresome and undermining any support for your problems from your fellow players.

And that you clearly can force people to change their play style because the anomaly nerfs, along with the myriad of new high sec PvE features introduced over the years, have forced null sec players to create high sec alts.

You realise of course that null sec is designed to be more profitable than high sec, right?

And that you clearly can force people to change their play style because the anomaly nerfs, along with the myriad of new high sec PvE features introduced over the years, have forced null sec players to create high sec alts.

Ahh, I love it when people assume everyone doing PvE in high sec is doing it for the fun: http://www.evenews24.com/2012/03/16/expose-botwalk-empire-a-th3-untouchabl3s-insight/

Ahh, I love it when people assume everyone doing PvE in high sec is doing it for the fun: http://www.evenews24.com/2012/03/16/expose-botwalk-empire-a-th3-untouchabl3s-insight/

What did that have to do with anything?

Botting is the highest form of being AFK.

I think the summary is: Hisec is an (AFK-) ISK-making paradise. Being (semi-) AFK is fine, ISK-making in this concern is not (at least not in these huge dimensions compared to low and null). So, risk vs. reward.

Your point?

I can't believe I wasted five minutes of my life reading that article.

How many people simply quit playing the game because of the anomaly nerfs? CCP didn't force those players to change their style, they just forced them to look for a new game.

As for the other part of your statement, you think that because PVE in Eve has more features (interpreted as being more fun) then null sec players were FORCED away from null sec because the appeal of high sec was well... too high?

The corollary there is that your implied method to "fix" null sec is to nerf high sec thus taking away the PVE features (fun) and making people PVP or GTFO.

Maybe, just maybe, people do the PVE stuff because they like PVE and while Eve doesn't have the best PVE the combination of massive economy, complex game play, ability to PVP, and robust PVE system appeals to a lot of people that won't normally touch a pure PVP game.

As much as Eve has a reputation for being a hardcore PVP game there is still some good times to be had doing plain old PVE and it's rather sad that CCP doesn't embrace the PVE potential.

Botting is a completely seperate issue and one that needs to be addressed as such. I don't see what it has to do with trying to force people out of high sec.

My point: You think people have fun doing PvE in high sec. I demonstrate one of the best and most widely known examples of people PvEing in high sec purely to gain ISK to influence actions in null sec.
This is a common practice. Plagued by AFK cloakers? Can't defend your space? Don't want to buy upgrades? Screw it, high sec will give you everything for a nominal cut in payout, may as well PvE there.

Have you seen how proud CCP are of their player retention rates? Now... have you seen Eve's character distribution by average character skill points?
Guess what, those long-standing members of the Eve community are not in high sec. So you think it's a good idea for CCP to "force players to look for a new game", in order to cater to a theme park MMO crowd that barely stay long enough to get a toon past 5 million SP?
Look at all the other themepark MMOs on the market, they have a massive subscription base for a few years, then they die. Eve has survived so long because it has a die hard loyal fan base. Those die hard loyal fans are in null sec. Go figure.

Interpreted incorrectly.
And guess what, it's a sand box. PvP and PvE are intertwined. People PvE to fund PvP and people PvP to be able to PvE. High sec, with the current state of NPC alts, war dec evasion and infinite resources, breaks that concept.
The irony of you calling it a pure PvP game while arguing that people have the right to completely avoid PvP is priceless.
And CCP don't embrace themepark MMO game design because there are plenty of other themepark MMO games, and they do not have a reputation as long-lasting games. Eve is a niche product, which is why it's fan base is so loyal. Remove it from it's niche and the loyal fan base leaves, resulting in a short boom of player rates before the game dies.
As for the economy aspect, it's PvP driven. Cater to high sec demands too much and you get mudflation, which has already happened and CCP are desperately trying to combat it with meta0 and drone region changes.

Guess what, those long-standing members of the Eve community are not in high sec. So you think it's a good idea for CCP to "force players to look for a new game", in order to cater to a theme park MMO crowd that barely stay long enough to get a toon past 5 million SP?

Look at all the other themepark MMOs on the market, they have a massive subscription base for a few years, then they die. Eve has survived so long because it has a die hard loyal fan base. Those die hard loyal fans are in null sec. Go figure.

And CCP don't embrace themepark MMO game design because there are plenty of other themepark MMO games, and they do not have a reputation as long-lasting games. Eve is a niche product, which is why it's fan base is so loyal. Remove it from it's niche and the loyal fan base leaves, resulting in a short boom of player rates before the game dies.

Dear lord, have you even looked at these "themepark mmos" you speak of? Christ even Dark Age of Camelot is still running. You're talking out of your ass.

I bet you dark age of camelot has had relatively stable growth for 9 years running too, eh?

Where I choose to play in Eve is my business. Working as intended.

Now go die in a fire.

to be honest, the issue is that low sec is just a no-mans land in terms of doing anything except looking for a fight.

i'm mostly a miner, and from my perspective mining in low sec is an idea as smart as using your manhood as a thermometer to check the boiling point of water.

the difference between low sec ore and high sec ore is roughly 360k per jetcan right now. so for 360k per jetcan you'll leave concord's warm embrace?
not to mention the logistical pain that is moving ore from low sec, to jita to sell it.

as for null sec, that's just a case of getting in to a corp/alliance so that local is full of blues, not so bad. however low sec is just a no man's land of pointlessness from a mining perspective.

Buff low and null. Make them areas where more people want to go to. Move the population by showing them a carrot and leading them towards new points on the map. At the same time there is no reason not to also provide content and fun for the people that don't care to take the plunge into the harsher side of Eve. That doesn't mean make high sec immune to PVP, it just means offer the players more choices and soon you'll have more players... in all three security areas.

How about some system for lowsec where instead of a generic criminal flagging system we have a visual requirement system.

What is visual requirement?

Basically it is my idea that the sec loss and GCC flag only happen if there are CONCORD witnesses, in other words if you shoot me on a gate things function as is. However out in the belts or in a mission I can shoot first and only get an aggression timer with you and your corp(if you are not in an NPC corp) but no GCC and no sec loss.

This would give incentive IMO for low sec mining ops at least because now people can bring defenders who can actually defend and not wait for barges to go pop before they are allowed to shoot. It would also make that warning about no Concord defense that you get the very first time into Low Sec make more sense. the Fuzz do not have a full sensor net in place as such they only see what happens on the grids of guarded structures. (gates and stations).

this would also make it feel more like a middle ground between high and null, anywhere away from the NPC infrastructure would now work as NBSI, but on the gates "big brother is still watching".

I bet you dark age of camelot has had relatively stable growth for 9 years running too, eh?

How about some system for lowsec where instead of a generic criminal flagging system we have a visual requirement system.

What is visual requirement?

Basically it is my idea that the sec loss and GCC flag only happen if there are CONCORD witnesses, in other words if you shoot me on a gate things function as is. However out in the belts or in a mission I can shoot first and only get an aggression timer with you and your corp(if you are not in an NPC corp) but no GCC and no sec loss.

This would give incentive IMO for low sec mining ops at least because now people can bring defenders who can actually defend and not wait for barges to go pop before they are allowed to shoot. It would also make that warning about no Concord defense that you get the very first time into Low Sec make more sense. the Fuzz do not have a full sensor net in place as such they only see what happens on the grids of guarded structures. (gates and stations).

this would also make it feel more like a middle ground between high and null, anywhere away from the NPC infrastructure would now work as NBSI, but on the gates "big brother is still watching".

Currently the risk from high sec to low sec is almost binary: little to no risk in high sec vs. guaranteed death in low sec. Note that I'm a pirate by the way.

I've always been in favor of an exponential reward system. Let's leave miners alone in high sec. Leave it as it is. If they want to mine for scraps, go right ahead. Make low sec 1000x more profitable. That should fix the issue just fine. Make every hour you mine in low sec, everything else remaining the same, 1000x as good as the best high sec space. Carebears would flock to it in a second. Problem solved.

Mining in low sec is easy, as you say it's just not worth the effort of scouting a hulk into an empty system, and your chances of finding a low sec corp with regular fleet boosted mining ops is :lol:

As for making resources scarce in high sec, seems kind of cool. How would you feel about allowing people to fight over those resources?

For example giving people a mechanic by which they can fight for research slots, or fight for control of a certain agent. Or a *real* way to fight miners out of their belts? (because let's face it, suicide ganking is dumb)

Might give high sec bears a reason to hire mercs, and if they start working together there might be a little less hate on the forums. (and a little more objectivity, I might add)

EVE is small potatos. Period. You may not like it, but its the truth. It's a niche game. If you compare it up against "themepark mmos" it amounts to nothing in terms of market share. The elephant in the room here of course is WoW. The main "themepark mmo" everyone here rails against.

WoW's been around for 8 years now. Care to take a look at *it's* subscriber numbers?

Here, let me help.

Here's all the MMOs with over 1 million subs.

Notice EVE isn't even on the chart.

Here's all the MMOs with under 1 million subs.

You'll find EVE on there. Sitting at 350k. Even if you combine Tranquility with Serenity it still doesn't match up to Warhammer Online of all things.

What is so wrong about a niche game if it generates revenue and profit?

There is precedent. Most people I know who do FW are actually carebears in hisec who like pvp with a goal but hate the null metagame and politics.

Absolutely nothing. That's not what I was saying. I was specifically replying to Simi trying to prop EVE up against "Themepark MMOs" which by and large tend to be marketshare juggernauts compared to EVE.

Hell, I play EVE because its a niche.

Yep, that's pretty much the boat I'm in. I don't like pvp without some sort of goal and I'm not motivated purely by tears or loot. But nor do I have any interest in the drama and powerplocs of nullsec. Give me an objective or a team cause or something. Something to fight over or against and not something that discourages direct conflict in favour of ninja farming for LPs.

Frankly RvB seems to do high sec pvp vastly better than FW does.

Then why do you bring up the themeparks if you like not playing theme?

I agree FW needs to be tweaked, but I wouldn't go as far as say that.

However, we do agree on the need to introduce new mechanics for PVP in highsec that encourage emergent gameplay and are not related to either Null sov or low sec FW, but can lead to them. One of the reasons PvP is not popular in highsec is because people have little opportunity to gain experience in it without huge investments and without rewards from the mechanic. Hence missions are much more attractive than PvP in highsec.

Its not hard to be able to afford a stack of Tech 1 frigates to toss away in pvp. But one wrong move with your pod and you're out more ISK than you can likely afford to replace as a newb. Because you probably scrapped together money for learning implants or an older player gave you money for them. Making you super risk adverse right out of the gate.

"Fly what you can afford to lose" is a fallacy in the face of a nub with Learning implants in his head. The average newb gets a big ol' helping of risk aversion right out of the gate with them.

I didn't. Simi did. Read the thread. -.-

RvB allows designated areas for pvp that people know they can go to for a scrap and frowns on podkilling. They also focus on actual pvp combat and try for relatively even sides. That allows actual pvp experience with the risk of just your ship.

As opposed to low sec which is just random ganks of opportunity with as uneven a fight as can be found.

Its not hard to be able to afford a stack of Tech 1 frigates to toss away in pvp. But one wrong move with your pod and you're out more ISK than you can likely afford to replace as a newb. Because you probably scrapped together money for learning implants or an older player gave you money for them. Making you super risk adverse right out of the gate.

"Fly what you can afford to lose" is a fallacy in the face of a nub with Learning implants in his head. The average newb gets a big ol' helping of risk aversion right out of the gate with them.

Let me correct then. Why oppose Simi's allusion to themeparks if you basically agree with it? Simi's point, which is that certain changes make EVE stop being a niche and become a themepark you seem to share, yet you went out of your way to question it. I am pointing out your objection makes no sense to me, in particular of light of your reply.

RvYou don't fly in lowsec. Lowsec is not random ganks of opportunity. It is the skilled and patient hunting of the prey.

Highsec is random ganks of opportunity.

So your point in this respect is invalid: "Fly what you can afford to lose" is not a fallacy, but the only real rule. Just because people forget you don't only fly a ship, but also the pod with the clone that has the implants, it doesn't make it a fallacy.

There is point in which the handholding and lowest common denominator stuff has to stop, and that is when risk aversion is based on making stupid choices based on self-imagined progressions paths instead of engaging the community of the more experienced.

No, I'm opposing Simi's allusion to themepark MMOs being short term business failures and EVE being superior because its managed 9 years of stable growth. The market is dominated by themepark MMOs. Some of which are near as old as EVE.

RvYou don't fly in lowsec. Lowsec is not random ganks of opportunity. It is the skilled and patient hunting of the prey.

Highsec is random ganks of opportunity.

Yeah...no. Gatecamp ganking is not "skilled and patient hunting of prey".

My point is not invalidated by you playing semantics with the letter instead of the spirit of the law.

You can't have it both ways. Do you want more people PVP'n or do you want to keep holding up this silly elite hardcore attitude thats used to oppose suggestions to fix the situation?

There are so many hurdles in the way of a new player, espescially one that doesn't already have older players they know in game, that its a miracle EVE retains anyone at all.

Yet any attempt to remove or lessen the hurdles is met with this silly "HTFU" attitude.

It's just a game.