EVE Search - Should we get rid of highsec?

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Crime and Punishment

Should we get rid of highsec?

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
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 Sekret Kool Klubb	Posted - 2010.01.15 09:38:00 - [2] Nice line of reasoning to back up your query, I vote maybe. ~
Slimy Worm Vivicide Vivisection.	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 Death of Virtue MeatSausage EXPRESS	Posted - 2010.01.15 09:44:00 - [4] Turn all 5.-.7 into lowsec. -- Bellum Eternus Inveniam viam aut faciam. Tier 5 Battleships
Paknac Queltel Standards and Practices	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 Empire Assault Corp Dead Terrorists	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 Vivicide Vivisection.	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 Vivicide Vivisection.	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 Sekret Kool Klubb	Posted - 2010.01.15 10:16:00 - [10] Solitude has the right idea, or what's the population like there again? You can put all the good ideas you like into the game, carebears will still ruin it. ~

Paknac Queltel Standards and Practices	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 Vivicide Vivisection.	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? 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 Minmatar Republic Military Skool	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... What happened to my AF boost?
Paknac Queltel Standards and Practices	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 Experimental Horizons	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... Originally by: CCP Zymurgist Locked, thread is filled with trolling.
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 Standards and Practices	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 Standards and Practices	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 Minmatar Republic Military Skool	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. What happened to my AF boost?
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.
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 Standards and Practices	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 ---------- Sig Page 1 Snipah YOU CANT MINE SO YOU KILL
Simvastatin Montelukast Qui dormit non peccat	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 Standards and Practices	Posted - 2010.01.15 15:25:00 - [29] The simple fact (or my simple opinion, whatever ) 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 5 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.