Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Liang Nuren
Parsec Flux
|
Posted - 2010.04.22 18:55:00 -
[1]
So, I've been doing some thinking about low sec, and I've noticed that the differences between 0.1 and 0.4 space are not in line with the risk associated with each space. Here is my reasoning: - 0.4 space is traditionally near empire - within a few jumps. However, contrary to what might be expected from its higher sec status - "entry lowsec" is regarded as some of the most dangerous space in the game. This is the source of the (correct) belief that low sec is extremely dangerous and chaotic. - The rewards from living in 0.4 space compared to 0.5 space are minimal - the plexes aren't that much better and neither are the mission rewards. However, the risks can be quite tremendous. This is the source of the belief that low sec is not profitable to live in. - There are entire regions that needlessly hover on the 0.3-0.4 boundaries - despite them being the home to pirate alliances and bored FW militias. This makes anyone that has contact with this space wonder why anyone would bother to live in low sec. - There are areas of deep low sec - 0.1 space for instance - that has massive quantities of Q20 agents... many of them even in the same system and station. These systems see use.
What I propose: - There's "high sec" - which is handled exactly as it is now. I do not propose to nerf or change high sec in any way. - There's "low sec" - which gets boosted. Specifically, the rewards for living in a 0.4 space become the same as the rewards of living in a 0.1 space - from plexing, mission rewards, belt rat spawns, moon mining, fighter assignment, etc. The risks are the same (and sometimes even more!) - so the rewards should be as well. - Universally increase agent quality for all low sec agents. There's no point in putting crappy agents in 0.4 space - because nobody will use them next to the Q19 next door in a 0.5! - Create some NPC corps that exist *solely* in low sec space - and then give them better LP stores. And I'm not talking about FW missions here - but marginally better offers which require fewer tags or something. - Make the FW LP store contain *all offers for all corps* - as well as the special FW offers. - Make FW space somewhat like sov space. The militia can anchor pirate detection which makes the space better - or something. As it stands, there's no incentive or benefit from "winning". - Please consider that low sec space is the front line of a war between the empires and pirate factions. There should be pirate agents in low sec. - Please consider adding pirate FW factions. :)
-Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire |
Sol Sigma
No Salvation War.Pigs.
|
Posted - 2010.04.22 19:16:00 -
[2]
Liang for lead developer.
|
B0X
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2010.04.22 19:51:00 -
[3]
Great ideas, me likes alot.
|
Zilberfrid
|
Posted - 2010.04.22 20:34:00 -
[4]
Supported
|
Aria Selenis
Minmatar Komrade Cactuar
|
Posted - 2010.04.22 20:51:00 -
[5]
I endorse this product and/or service. |
Teinyhr
Minmatar Nor'akho Matar
|
Posted - 2010.04.22 21:00:00 -
[6]
Only thing I would have a beef about is pirate agents in low-sec. I'm of the opinion that this is one of the benefits of controlling 0.0 and should stay that way. Others sound interesting ideas, altough I have a feeling I've seen them before. ------------------- This is Sig. Launch every Sig. For Great Justice. |
Hesperius
Parsec Flux
|
Posted - 2010.04.22 21:21:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Liang Nuren - Please consider that low sec space is the front line of a war between the empires and pirate factions. There should be pirate agents in low sec. - Please consider adding pirate FW factions. :)
I'm kinda with Teinyhr on that one, sorta. Leave the pirate factions as is, but introduce the pirate factions to the FW and put the FW agents in low sec.
|
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2010.04.22 21:30:00 -
[8]
Me spies some of my ideas from times past so me like
We had a massive boost pirate low-sec thread going some time ago with loads of interesting ideas. Can't be bothered to find it but worth a read if you can.
Something I would love, in addition to changing the overall profitability, is for the security benefit of low-sec rats to get a multiplier of 25-50% (or however high it can go without trumping null-sec). Having to go to null-sec to repair "light" sec. damage is idiotic since the rats are the same pirates and the space is even more lawless than ratting null.
|
Torothanax
|
Posted - 2010.04.22 22:33:00 -
[9]
Boosting FW I can support, but I'm biased.
The problem with boosting income for low sec, help the people that already live there. Then you face officer fit priates rather then what you have now.
I doubt it would ever happen, but it would be nice if low sec systems had thier sec status adjusted every week. Look at high sec, there is a tiny bit of difference from 1.0 to 0.5. Mostly in the concord responce time. Low sec though, is pretty much the same other then how much gankage goes one. A low sec system's "sec status" should reflect what goes on in a system, rather then be static number assigned years ago. Same as a players sec status should indicate play style other then "I pvp" or "I "Carebear", or "I live null". At least you can tell with a -10.0 that they blow up everything they come across.
Maybe then they could look at adjusting rewards in low sec every quarter or so depending play base actions. For a "player driven game" Eve is pretty static. Don't get me wrong, Eve is a very good game, but it could be better.
|
Liang Nuren
Parsec Flux
|
Posted - 2010.04.22 22:42:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Torothanax The problem with boosting income for low sec, help the people that already live there. Then you face officer fit priates rather then what you have now.
I would like to point out: - Not everyone who lives in lowsec is a pirate - I should know from experience as I have lived both in the pirate and anti-pirate camps. - Almost all pirates have alts to highsec mission with. The only difference you'd face is that the pirate's isk stream would actually be vulnerable now. - People that are willing to officer fit, as a rule, already do. - Why would it be bad if there were incentives to live in low sec? Is it really piracy just because it's lowsec NBSI? Does that mean that defending your territory in 0.0 is also piracy?
As to the idea of shifting security statuses.... I'm kinda ambivalent. I don't think it would add to the game noticeably, would be vulnerable to exploitation (I'm sure), and doesn't address the problem that highsec is far better the higher sec status low sec systems.
-Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire |
|
Torothanax
|
Posted - 2010.04.22 23:30:00 -
[11]
Edited by: Torothanax on 22/04/2010 23:30:55
Originally by: Liang Nuren - Almost all pirates have alts to highsec mission with. The only difference you'd face is that the pirate's isk stream would actually be vulnerable now. - Why would it be bad if there were incentives to live in low sec? Is it really piracy just because it's lowsec NBSI? Does that mean that defending your territory in 0.0 is also piracy?
As to the idea of shifting security statuses.... I'm kinda ambivalent. I don't think it would add to the game noticeably, would be vulnerable to exploitation (I'm sure), and doesn't address the problem that highsec is far better the higher sec status low sec systems.
-Liang
If pirates have high sec alts, how would increasing low sec rewards suddenly make thier high sec income vulnerable?
The way the game has evolved, highsec is for safety, Null is for income and freedom (if you are big enough), and low sec is for gankage, maybe pvp. People don't move to low sec to get rich. They move there to find easy targets. The problem is that the more successful the gankers are, the more players avoid the area. This is why low sec isn't populated.
I'm not saying you can't get rich in low sec, because you can do it. Look at B A N E alliance. They have a titan and a cap fleet. They have lots of targets because of the amarr and minmatar militias. The changes to moon mining HAVE boosted low sec income. Boosting low sec income further would make it less safe in the long run.
The only way to get more people into low sec, would be to provide a way for players to make it safer.
|
Liang Nuren
Parsec Flux
|
Posted - 2010.04.22 23:47:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Torothanax If pirates have high sec alts, how would increasing low sec rewards suddenly make thier high sec income vulnerable?
Because it encourages them - along with anti pirates and other people who already live in low sec - to try and make money from the space they occupy. At any rate, you're making a mountain out of a molehill.
Quote: Boosting low sec income further would make it less safe in the long run.
That's nonsense - and the reason for it is this: moon mining is essentially an in absentia form of making ISK. You don't have to live there. However, boosting the things that I suggested would boost individual incomes instead of corporate and alliance incomes. This brings people together and encourages the formations of microcosms of player made law - as per your next point.
Quote: he only way to get more people into low sec, would be to provide a way for players to make it safer.
You misunderstand my goal. My goal is not to get more people in low sec - my goal is to make it so that vast tracts of low sec aren't only more dangerous but also largely useless in all reasonable understandings of the word.
-Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire |
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War Monks of War.
|
Posted - 2010.04.22 23:47:00 -
[13]
Edited by: Fon Revedhort on 22/04/2010 23:48:49
Originally by: Torothanax Edited by: Torothanax on 22/04/2010 23:30:55
Originally by: Liang Nuren - Almost all pirates have alts to highsec mission with. The only difference you'd face is that the pirate's isk stream would actually be vulnerable now. - Why would it be bad if there were incentives to live in low sec? Is it really piracy just because it's lowsec NBSI? Does that mean that defending your territory in 0.0 is also piracy?
As to the idea of shifting security statuses.... I'm kinda ambivalent. I don't think it would add to the game noticeably, would be vulnerable to exploitation (I'm sure), and doesn't address the problem that highsec is far better the higher sec status low sec systems.
-Liang
If pirates have high sec alts, how would increasing low sec rewards suddenly make thier high sec income vulnerable?
The way the game has evolved, highsec is for safety, Null is for income and freedom (if you are big enough), and low sec is for gankage, maybe pvp. People don't move to low sec to get rich. They move there to find easy targets. The problem is that the more successful the gankers are, the more players avoid the area. This is why low sec isn't populated.
I'm not saying you can't get rich in low sec, because you can do it. Look at B A N E alliance. They have a titan and a cap fleet. They have lots of targets because of the amarr and minmatar militias. The changes to moon mining HAVE boosted low sec income. Boosting low sec income further would make it less safe in the long run.
The only way to get more people into low sec, would be to provide a way for players to make it safer.
I'm very sorry, but that's a total BS.
How the hell low-sec is supposed to be there 'for gankage' when there are no attractive features for the victims? Who is ganking who exactly? Calling low-sec a place for PvP and discarding proposals of boosting the income output on this sole reason is like calling 0.0 a farming place and prohibiting any aggresion
Why the heck would you want to make low-sec safer when there are no damned reasons to live there in the first place!? ---[center] Please resize your signature to the maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Zymurgist |
Torothanax
|
Posted - 2010.04.23 00:55:00 -
[14]
Edited by: Torothanax on 23/04/2010 01:02:45 Um, low sec is already more profitable then high sec. Not by a huge margins but it is. Find a semi safe system (they are out there) and you have huge roids of your pick rather then pebbles. LP rewards and mission payouts are higher in low sec. I already mentioned the changes to moon mining. Look around and notice quite a few null alliances have extensive moon mining operations in low sec now.
The problem is the risk in operationg there is much higher then in high sec, or even most null sec. This skews the risk vs reward ratio in the wrong direction.
The fact remains that most people go to low sec solely to get thier "pew pew" on. People just looking to make isk will stay in high sec or try and find a null sec alliance to take them. It's safer and way more stable.
|
Torothanax
|
Posted - 2010.04.23 01:14:00 -
[15]
Edited by: Torothanax on 23/04/2010 01:15:35
Look at it this way:
People hate losses and hate losing. If people have a high probablity of losing every time they go somewhere, they will avoid the area, reguardless of the rewards. High sec by definition is "safe". Null can be made "safe" by large stable alliances. You can't really with low sec. Low sec has too many restrictions on defending against known hostiles. Too many work arounds and short cuts in the player security status and bounty hunting systems.
The more successful pirates (and by pirates I mean people that will shoot and destroy indescriminately) are the more people avoid the area, the less targets they have.
Maybe if pirates offered reasonable ransomes, and could be trusted to keep thier word, they wouldn't drive as many people off. Even then players would only suffer being "taxed" so many times before moving on to less "expensive" areas. In the long run it's easier and more fun to just blow everything up, so that's what usually happens. "I like explosions and kill mails! YAR!!!!"
|
Mimiru Minahiro
|
Posted - 2010.04.23 01:32:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Torothanax Maybe if pirates offered reasonable ransomes, and could be trusted to keep thier word, they wouldn't drive as many people off.
Yes there are people who dishonor ransoms (and its sad because at one time people like that were usually hunted down by proper villains...unlike today where everyone laughs and shrugs thier shoulders)and they cause "customers" to shy away from ransoms in the future because of distrust...or just not enter the area at all.
But the number of "customers" who refuse to accept any ransom offer so as to "not encourage such behavior" (lolwut) has dramatically increased and eventually your "pirate" stops even bothering to offer them. Its easier and safer just to pop, lewt, and add to your Killboard.
|
Liang Nuren
Parsec Flux
|
Posted - 2010.04.23 01:43:00 -
[17]
Both of your posts are utterly incorrect, because the thrust of my post is not to compare low sec to highsec or to compare low sec to 0.0. The thrust of my post is to compare low sec to low sec - and to illustrate that there is a huge and completely needless disparity in the risk:reward ratio.
Hell - you hit the nail exactly on the head when you pointed out moon mining in low sec. Yet another thing that you can't do in certain parts of low sec. Can you please get informed about low sec - or hell go live there for a few years - before ship toasting in this thread?
-Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire |
Torothanax
|
Posted - 2010.04.23 02:03:00 -
[18]
Hello? Militia? Amamake, ever heard of it? Gank central since forever? I live in low sec and before that null. I've also been playing for 3 years and 10 months. I'm glad you think you know so much more about the game then me.
If you boost low sec rewards you will have the EXACT same problem null has had for years. The people that live there now will have a huge advantage from much greater income then people that live in high sec. This would make it nearly impossible for players that start later to get a foot hold. You end up with small groups of players with concentrated self perpetuating wealth locking everyone else out. End result? Stagnation.
Boost low sec enough and you'd also make null not worth the effort. You wanna boost null income as well to compensate? No, more income is not the answer. We've already seen the problems caused by one area of the game making significantly more then other areas.
I'm not even sure low population in low sec is a problem, but if CCP wants more people there, then there needs to be a way for players to make the area safer through thier actions.
|
Ackbarre
Minmatar The Greater Goon Clockwork Pineapple
|
Posted - 2010.04.23 03:09:00 -
[19]
The real problem with low sec is that people are used to the safety of high sec. And they forget the basic principles of survival without Concord being around. So they end up being ganked by players who are used to low and null sec. It's the facts that someone who enters a low sec system and is not seen as a regular instantly lights a fire in everyone in system to practically shoot them on sight. So watch local, scan frequently, and always be aligned. You can rat, mine, run missions, or complexes to your hearts content. The pirates and gankers aren't what keeps low sec from being populated. It's the players who want to play nice and be carebears who are afraid of low sec. The rewards are there if you are careful and alert. I normally live in null or low sec and I've been ganked a few times myself. And I've ganked people a few times as well. But I run missions and rat in null and low sec.
|
Hesperius
Parsec Flux
|
Posted - 2010.04.23 04:10:00 -
[20]
Get those paint chips out of your mouth Torothanax!
|
|
Liang Nuren
Parsec Flux
|
Posted - 2010.04.23 04:22:00 -
[21]
Quote: ...
Did you bother to read the OP? What makes you think that I am pushing for low sec to have better rewards than 0.0? Did I come raving at the mouth demanding the removal of all high sec L4 agents, or did I come asking for the absurdly ****ty "high" lowsec systems getting their rewards boosted to match the rest of low sec?
You are aware that missioning in a 0.4 system is about 5% better than missioning in a 0.5 system right - for millions of times the risk? I asked for some very reasonable boosts to low sec. I didn't ask for it to become uber 0.0, or risk free.
I further identified that there's some further broken mechanics in low sec - such as the militia LP store being outperformed by highsec LP stores and threw out a couple more ideas that would help bring people into the militias (like an actual honest to god reward for winning).
Honestly, all you're doing here is mindlessly trolling. Thanks for the bump.
-Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire |
Seriously Bored
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2010.04.23 05:57:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Torothanax
If you boost low sec rewards you will have the EXACT same problem null has had for years. The people that live there now will have a huge advantage from much greater income then people that live in high sec. This would make it nearly impossible for players that start later to get a foot hold. You end up with small groups of players with concentrated self perpetuating wealth locking everyone else out. End result? Stagnation.
I completely disagree. Low-sec isn't defensible like nulsec is. The improved income would be on a strictly individual level, and pirates would have the free reign to intrude on that, the same way they currently do.
If anything, the individual would benefit more from "herding": more people in lowsec means more targets for pirates, means a lower likelihood of getting ganked on a per-user basis. (You know. Unless the number of pirates goes up.)
Let's face it: lowsec is statistically the most underpopulated part of EVE. You can check any of the Quarterly reports for the evidence. And it's in desperate need of a buff.
I think the OP's ideas are a great start in fixing that.
|
Daenosa
Pineal Squeegee
|
Posted - 2010.04.23 08:34:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Torothanax stuff
how many threads do you want to be clueless in? first the cloak thread, now this 1. Going for a record?
Anyway as for the topic, With mineral prices as they are currently it's not even worth mining in low sec, last time i checked none of the low sec asteroids were worth more than high sec ones. That's a slice of madness, i know its not fixable as it depends on the market but its still borked.
Sorry if i read your post wrong but as you propose it there wouldn't be a difference between 0.4 and 0.1 at all?
Not disagreeing with the idea just curious. Anyway fully supported.
|
Liang Nuren
Parsec Flux
|
Posted - 2010.04.23 15:09:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Daenosa Sorry if i read your post wrong but as you propose it there wouldn't be a difference between 0.4 and 0.1 at all?
That's roughly the idea of it, yes. 0.4 space is some of the worst space in eve, because it comes with all of the penalties and risks of low sec and is fractionally better (~10% more LP translates to ~5% more profitable) than high sec for profitability.
There were a couple more ideas for things that I think are totally out of wack or don't make sense as well - such as some minor tweaks to FW to make it at least as profitable as high sec, give some tangible benefits for controlling a star system, and giving pirates a way to also do FW.
Those ideas are much, much less important than the one that low sec, as a whole, is dangerous - and the rewards of 0.3-0.4 are not at all commensurate with their danger.
-Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire |
Daenosa
Pineal Squeegee
|
Posted - 2010.04.23 15:31:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Liang Nuren
Those ideas are much, much less important than the one that low sec, as a whole, is dangerous - and the rewards of 0.3-0.4 are not at all commensurate with their danger.
-Liang
I don't think CCP would ever go for it, they seem to want to give off an illusion that 0.4 is more "secure/safer" then 0.1 and there for should have less rewards then 0.3 or lower. Your idea, while brilliant would toss that illusion right out of the window. Of course im just talking from observations, once CCP has something set up like that they rarely want to change it.
For them to go for it i believe there would need to be a distinguishing difference between the different low sec numbers. Currently you have concord response times (high sec only) and the various mission rewards (isk, LP). Obviously you can ignore concord response times for low sec and as you have pointed out having mission rewards as the variable isn't working as intended either.
So you would have to add a whole new feature to compensate, maybe tying that in with a method to control a star system, ie defending a 0.4 against pirates would be easier than defending a 0.1 system.
Anyway i could be completely wrong. Just my 2 cents worth.
|
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
|
Posted - 2010.04.23 16:13:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Torothanax Stuffs.....
You really have no idea at all do you, stop posting and making yourself look foolish.
Great ideas Liang, not sure it will ever happen mind.
|
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2010.04.23 16:38:00 -
[27]
Edited by: Hirana Yoshida on 23/04/2010 16:40:58
Originally by: Daenosa I don't think CCP would ever go for it, they seem to want to give off an illusion that 0.4 is more "secure/safer" then 0.1...
Not sure that is the case any more, I think they are just pulling blanks trying to create a system that doesn't seem too artificial.
They did take the first step when they introduced the scaling sec. loss based on system security .. essentially making 0.1 more dangerous than 0.4 (at least on paper). Unfortunately it only really applies to the pirate wanna-bes who care about their security so has had no real effect, but points towards intention.
That was partly why I suggested a higher sec. gain that is also scaled by system, combined with potential mission agents and better earning potential in general low-sec would become a lot more lively with pirates not having such a great need to use high-sec missions as income.
|
King Rothgar
Amarrian Retribution
|
Posted - 2010.04.24 00:19:00 -
[28]
I fully support Liang's proposal.
Thus far you shall read, but no further; for this is my sig. |
Torothanax
|
Posted - 2010.04.24 01:24:00 -
[29]
I think some of you are confusing the definitions of two words. "Unpopular" and "wrong" aren't synonyms.
Read this: Low-Sec Fix
Note the date. Not the thread I was looking for but good enough. It's not like you all are the first people to have ideas about low sec improvement. There are much older threads on the subject as well. Maybe dig a little before you go spouting off.
Bottom line is CCP has been monitoring the situation for a LONG time and has been making minor tweaks along the way.
|
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
|
Posted - 2010.04.24 02:07:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Torothanax I think some of you are confusing the definitions of two words. "Unpopular" and "wrong" aren't synonyms.
Read this: Low-Sec Fix
Note the date. Not the thread I was looking for but good enough. It's not like you all are the first people to have ideas about low sec improvement. There are much older threads on the subject as well. Maybe dig a little before you go spouting off.
Bottom line is CCP has been monitoring the situation for a LONG time and has been making minor tweaks along the way.
Oh my, thanks. If you had not have told us, we would never have known people have posted ideas on things before in this section. I for one am glad that intelligent people like yourself, take the time to point these things out for us lesser mortals.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |