Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Gneeznow
Minmatar Ship spinners inc
|
Posted - 2010.05.14 21:45:00 -
[121]
AND MY AXE
|
Sa'haira
Overload Everything Mortal Destruction
|
Posted - 2010.05.14 23:50:00 -
[122]
Edited by: Sa''haira on 14/05/2010 23:50:49 You know what would fix low sec for me? Give gate/station guns tracking analogous to tracking everywhere else in the game. i.e gate guns can still hit frigs that mess up transversal, or are stupid, but you can give the gateguns tracking issues through proper flying.
That'd just about fix low sec as far as i'm concerned.
|
Proxyyyy
Caldari The Tuskers The Tusker Bastards
|
Posted - 2010.05.15 00:41:00 -
[123]
Im with (Cpt Branko) on this one. Low sec is fine!
|
Elmerus Juniorus
|
Posted - 2010.05.15 06:31:00 -
[124]
I have just made the move into low-sec recently, mostly to get away from the overpopulation in hi-sec and the constant scammers that prey on the noobs (and yes I am a noob to EVE just having broken the learning bonus recently). The private corp I belong to base ourselves out of nullsec and have a carebear division in hi-sec, so I am familiar with the attitudes of both camps (PvP vs Carebear).
I have read this whole thread through, mostly in the desire to further educate myself about the unique environment that is low-sec and refine what I call my 'swivel complex' (plus make note of all of those professing to be true unrepentant low-sec pirates so I can add your names to my addressbook and avoid you like the plague :)). With that in mind, I have read this thread through and thought about all the suggestions made and have come to the conclusion none of the changes suggested will help increase the population or traffic in low-sec. What they will do, for the most part, is benefit the current population (ie pirates for the most part) with increases in ISK potential for no real disadvantage. Why is that? Because no matter the increase to the reward, the risk will never matter without a corresponding increase in a feeling of security. Low-sec has rewards, but it also has something that even nullsec does not have - pirates (nullsec has blues and those you shoot at. The non-blues - aka the enemy - will just kill you. They will not kill you and screw your corpse and then invent a way to revive you so it can happen all over like low-sec pirates).
I am not advocating eliminating piracy. What I am surprised with tho is why no one has been able to provide a suggestion when there are two prime historic examples on how to secure areas so that trade can flourish. The Spanish Main and the Java Straits (from the South China Sea to the Indian Ocean) were both major trade routes AND major hotbeds of pirate activity. That activity was not curtailed until the presence of a major military power (in this case, the British Royal Navy). What I am suggesting is simulate the Royal Navy to have a temporary change upward to system sec status to a maximum of 0.5 for all low-sec (and only low-sec) systems. Much like a sovereignty change, this sec status change would be initiated by and dependent upon the actions of the system population.
For example, a small corp or gang of independents band together and move in to a low-sec border system (0.4 for the sake of this example). They begin to do positive actions in the system like run missions, rat, mine, plex and especially eliminate pirates (as defined by those with negative sec status - -5.0 or less for example). In a short time, the sec level of the system changes to 0.5 and Concord ships are assigned as per normal. The rewards of the prior low-sec system will remain (diminish with time as compared to when it first changed over so as to not skew the market but not completely disappear). As I mentioned earlier, the sec change is only temporary and will require that 'good' actions continue or the system will revert back to its original low-sec state. 'Lawless' actions will also further this decline along (for instance can tipping of minerals).
This provides your incentive and reward for groups rather than just singletons to move in to low-sec, putter around and quickly move on to nullspace. The reward itself is the safety from the pirates (temporarily with some effort that is).
PS.. eliminating local as a suggestion is just a left hand/right hand shell game to provide one more advantage to pirates in low-sec. Yes, it will mean that probing will be needed to stalk targets, but THAT is already done for missions pockets. Who probes where the miners are in the belts and pops them when it is easier and more cost effective to just warp in using the drop down?
|
Don Pellegrino
The Tuskers
|
Posted - 2010.05.15 22:14:00 -
[125]
Elmerus, your idea cannot work (thus is terrible) because:
- If I log for the night in a 0.4, I could wake up in a 0.5 and have all my stuff stuck there
- within a few weeks, there won't be lowsec anymore because it would be impossible to drag the security status down once it reaches 0.5 . Suicide ganking is a high sec activity and it is so RARE (less than 20 suicide ganks per day in all of eve) that it would never go back to 0.1-0.3, especially since piracy is impossible in 0.5 due to Concord.
|
Elise Randolph
Habitual Euthanasia Dystopia Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.05.15 22:55:00 -
[126]
Originally by: Terra Mikael Edited by: Terra Mikael on 14/05/2010 05:21:56
Low sec is lame, because it has very little griefing potential.
Totally disagreeing with you on this, I grief people in lowsec on a daily basis. I mean, someone in this thread even claimed I griefed their corp out of low-sec.
Quote:
The Spanish Main and the Java Straits (from the South China Sea to the Indian Ocean) were both major trade routes AND major hotbeds of pirate activity. That activity was not curtailed until the presence of a major military power (in this case, the British Royal Navy). What I am suggesting is simulate the Royal Navy to have a temporary change upward to system sec status to a maximum of 0.5 for all low-sec (and only low-sec) systems
I see where you're coming from, but really I don't like this idea. Effectively it'd just make low-sec isk missions high-sec missions. Not to mention the fact that someone like me would just train a throwaway alt, jettison 100 noob ships, and smartbomb them to make the system "dangerous" again. We agree that the risk vs reward of lowsec isn't right. However I don't want to make low-sec less risky, I want to make it more rewarding. --- Vote me for CSM. Low-sec? I got that. Delayed local? You know I got that. Industry love? Oh baby I'm gonna blow.
|
Trish Stratus
|
Posted - 2010.05.15 23:38:00 -
[127]
So in summary of the last 40 threads and hungreds of pages is that no matter how many carrots you dangle no one is going to low-sec until its secure. Pies forget people are extremely social and risk avert by nature. We take confort in security and numbers and that will never change. This is not computer generated content where a hauler can be coded to jump mindlessly for your enjoyment. Its a game yes but a game where people are the writers AND actors. (Thats the appeal of the game remember?) You say eve is harsh carebear if you dont like it quit!!! I think you are mistaken. Eve is a game of choices and no one plays for your enjoyment. And if you dont like it you know what to do.. |
Cpt Branko
Retired Pirate Club
|
Posted - 2010.05.15 23:46:00 -
[128]
Originally by: Trish Stratus no one is going to low-sec
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Trish Stratus
|
Posted - 2010.05.16 00:03:00 -
[129]
Originally by: Cpt Branko
Originally by: Trish Stratus no one is going to low-sec
That about sums it up lol. It just boils down to people wanting to turn eve into a action space shooter when people simply just dont want that. While some may get there jollies from eve others see it as a relaxing escape from the bs you put up with in rl (that is to my human point)
|
Elise Randolph
Habitual Euthanasia Dystopia Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.05.16 00:14:00 -
[130]
Originally by: Trish Stratus So in summary of the last 40 threads and hungreds of pages is that no matter how many carrots you dangle no one is going to low-sec until its secure.
Well that's partially true, not everyone is going to low-sec. People in 0.0 will likely spend the majority of time in 0.0, perhaps occasionally roaming through lowsec as they do now, people who hate the thought of low-sec and enjoy mining, missioning, building, and chatting with people will stay out of low-sec (and I frankly don't want them there, since they won't enjoy it anyway), but there are hundreds of corps that wanted to go to low-sec and left because they couldn't rationalize staying somewhere that was so unprofitable. Those are the groups that I'd like to return, and dangling the carrot of spacegold will bring them back - because that's part of the reason they came in the first place. I mean, it's effectively the same reason people move to w-space, why would it be any different? --- Vote me for CSM. Low-sec? I got that. Delayed local? You know I got that. Industry love? Oh baby I'm gonna blow.
|
|
Trish Stratus
|
Posted - 2010.05.16 00:35:00 -
[131]
First I would like to say phrases like everybody,anybody,etc. should not be used so for that I apologize.
Second, I believe the very name low-sec is a dooming factor. The system in my belief is supposed to work in a step by step fashion with the purpose of getting everyone out into null sec where you can reap the rewards, and failures of others.
As far as WH space goes it is as safe as empire and 0.0 to an extent. POC(Point of control) can be maintained by a cloaked ibis and the profit more than makes up for any losses.
Third. The problem is the messengers. You hear a advocate of change to low sec with clear and concise views that may make you nod your head in agreement only to see said person 2 threads down bragging about the hauler gank in amamake. That raises doubt and puts forward a motif for said advocate then people are turned off by the entire idea. If you want lo-sec a pvp haven thats fine. but for it to truly flourish you would have to ential every aspect of eve into the fold or it will just turn into another fw.
|
Lisa Amber
WEPRA CORP Circle-Of-Two
|
Posted - 2010.05.16 02:58:00 -
[132]
Originally by: Lubomir Penev
Currently accepting quite a a few missions in lowsec require a strong death wish, or an empty local.
You risk more undocking a pimped Golem in Irjunen tbh... A 10-15 in local is perfectly manageable. When you live in a system you get to know who lives there with you and what they're usually doing. You can make lots of easy ISK running lvl4's in lowsec thanks to a much better reward than in highsec with increased agent effective quality. So imo they're already appealing enough as it is. They cannot be more profitable than NPC 0.0 missions. Also with the feeling of "unsafety" actually makes the grind less boring. Most like it boring though.
Now I see 2 things I think easy to implement that CSM could propose to CCP: - Dispatch a few more lvl4 agents around lowsec (by moving those few from highsec?). The lowsec hubs with n Q18-Q20 agents have corps/alliances settled in. So just one Q15 here and there, far from high-sec entries: make it not interesting enough for big groups to establish their operations there, thus allowing smaller entities, even lonesome pilots to try. Also it would give pirates more waypoints in the daily roams. - Make so that the lowsec agent never sends you out of his system. For pirates to catch you they'll have to get you at station (instawarps or dock back) or probe you (pay attention to local/scan). Mission runner stands a chance to escape as well as pirates to catch their prey.
Lowsec is pretty much fine as it is. It already had its expansion everybody is asking, it's called Factionnal Warefare. Fix it if needed. Now the real problem of lowsec imo is capital ships hotdropped in what could otherwise be a good fight. All efforts should be in directions of attracting small corps and small scale pvp.
Elise I hope you make it for CSM. Your serious and realistic approach about the role of CSM got you my votes.
|
Elmerus Juniorus
|
Posted - 2010.05.16 06:25:00 -
[133]
Originally by: Don Pellegrino Elmerus, your idea cannot work (thus is terrible) because:
- If I log for the night in a 0.4, I could wake up in a 0.5 and have all my stuff stuck there
And? Not to sound callous (or maybe I am taking the same tone that some have used when reference to carebear tears comes up), but maybe one should not dock and log in a system where that potential could happen. How are you as a -5 or less pirate any different than the player that gets stuck in a station for the day as a pirate corp runs ops in the system u were unlucky enough to pass through?
Originally by: Don Pellegrino - within a few weeks, there won't be lowsec anymore because it would be impossible to drag the security status down once it reaches 0.5 . Suicide ganking is a high sec activity and it is so RARE (less than 20 suicide ganks per day in all of eve) that it would never go back to 0.1-0.3, especially since piracy is impossible in 0.5 due to Concord.
It is not a permanent change, as the trend is to drop to its 'natural' original security rating. This would mean it would require regular work on the part of those that wish it to stay above 0.4, and no work for those that wish it drop back, or if they wish it to drop back sooner, some work but not as much as maintaining it above 0.5.
|
K1RTH G3RS3N
Haunted House
|
Posted - 2010.05.16 08:31:00 -
[134]
you got my vote Death to all parrots. If it *moves*, it dies. Shadow Signature removed. It needs to be EVE related. Zymurgist NOOO WHYYYY!??? BRING HIM BACK *sniff* |
small chimp
|
Posted - 2010.05.16 14:15:00 -
[135]
level4 missions should be in lowsec because i hate carebears and i want to gank them
If level4 mission were in lowsec all carebears would in lowsec thus many easy ganks?
|
Dariah Stardweller
Gallente The Knights Who Say Pew
|
Posted - 2010.05.16 14:50:00 -
[136]
Low sec. Biggest joke in EVE....
|
Lee Dalton
RUSSIAN PRIDE POWER HONOUR JUSTICE Perihelion Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.05.16 15:07:00 -
[137]
The problem with risk-reward is that no matter how much you increase lowsec rewards, the risk increase for lowsec vs. highsec is always perceived as too much.
What lowsec needs is something that gives it a distinct purpose and character.
I would suggest making low-sec the *only* place with ice belts and seing how population changes.
*** I AM A RUS HON SUPERSTAR |
Olleybear
I R' Carebear
|
Posted - 2010.05.16 21:52:00 -
[138]
Originally by: Elmerus Juniorus ...no matter the increase to the reward, the risk will never matter without a corresponding increase in a feeling of security.
...(from the South China Sea to the Indian Ocean) were both major trade routes AND major hotbeds of pirate activity. That activity was not curtailed until the presence of a major military power (in this case, the British Royal Navy).
You are correct about the feeling of security. The saftey issue when in missions and plexes is something that keeps people out of low-sec. You cant make isk, you go where you can make isk. Simple.
Molden Heath used to have something like a military power. It was the players, and not npc's, that took it upon themselves to do what they could to protect Molden Heath. Molden Heath prospered as a resuilt.
What happened? The ability to make isk disappeared. How? Missions became easily scannable, pop went the carebear loot pinata's, the carebears left low-sec, and the protection they provided to that space disappeared. Low sec Molden Heath population plunged and has never been the same since.
You gain control of an area by preventing people from making isk and harvesting resources. They cant make a living, they go elsewhere. Again, simple.
Yes, FW has a lot of medium sized gangs roaming, and I do understand how any solo pvp'er does not want to see the rest of low sec that way. But we are talking about carebear mission runners, not FW guys who pew pew all day.
<<< Just because your pet likes you, that does not mean you are a good person. >>> |
Arvano
|
Posted - 2010.05.16 23:05:00 -
[139]
Lowsec needs no love, only problem with lowsec are the people in it who kill indiscriminately. They have made empire dwellers avoid it as though it were the plague.
There's lots of good stuff in lowsec. Good stuff to be scanned down, good stuff to be mined, good rats to be ratted. Know why nobody is there? Because the people who are there are ********s. They kill everything that moves, regardless of whether it's worth killing or not.
So, stop complaining about the mess you've made for yourselves. Lowsec doesn't need fixing, it needs leaving exactly how it is, and I and the rest of the empire dwellers will keep on avoiding it. :)
|
Yonneh
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2010.05.16 23:47:00 -
[140]
|
|
X Kent
Respect Legionnaires
|
Posted - 2010.05.17 12:31:00 -
[141]
Edited by: X Kent on 17/05/2010 12:32:12 I think WH space is safer than lowsec, there is less chance that you may get killed in WH if you are careful.
The other problem in lowsec is the SS hit, that what prevents me from living there in my case. I don't want to get -10 as I want to enter highsec and therefore I am kinda forced to be NRDS in lowsec(which is annoying). To only shoot back when someone shoots me or shoot blinky... I think you get the point.
|
Tiberizzle
|
Posted - 2010.05.17 15:30:00 -
[142]
Buff lowsec: get rid of yarrtard gankers
I mean seriously, that's why people don't go to lowsec. Bad fights, bad attitudes, bad players. Nothing they do to lowsec is going to turn it into a kill factory for unskilled prepubescents to "harvest tears" in, and any changes that actually draw more targets to lowsec will probably run a large part of this crowd straight back to ninja salvaging and highsec ganking...
my 2 cents
|
Elise Randolph
Habitual Euthanasia Dystopia Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.05.17 17:50:00 -
[143]
Originally by: Lee Dalton The problem with risk-reward is that no matter how much you increase lowsec rewards, the risk increase for lowsec vs. highsec is always perceived as too much.
What lowsec needs is something that gives it a distinct purpose and character.
I would suggest making low-sec the *only* place with ice belts and seing how population changes.
The perception may be that low-sec is so risky that no reward can justify it, but most people in this thread know that is a ridiculous assertion. With perception being so far removed from reality, people will still venture to low-sec and eventually the perception will change.
I agree that giving low-sec something unique will be cool, the "wormhole model" as I call it clearly works. Removing ice belts from high-sec, however, won't do it; especially since I don't want to fix low-sec by throwing unwilling bodies into it. For it to truly be a success the people in low-sec have to want to be in low-sec.
--- Vote me for CSM. Low-sec? I got that. Delayed local? You know I got that. Industry love? Oh baby I'm gonna blow.
|
Olleybear
I R' Carebear
|
Posted - 2010.05.17 22:48:00 -
[144]
Heres a thought.
Faction Warfare missions. A lot of them are a bit different than the normal carebear missions in that you have a single objective to complete before the mission is over. FW missions even have a gate anyone and their brother can warp to, yet I feel safer in those than flying a loot pinata in a normal hi-sec mission, let alone low sec.
For example: Just last night I did a level 4 Faction Warfare mission. The objective? Kill 1 single BS ( the field commander ) then gtfo. Easy as pie without a lumbering, faction/officer fit loot pinata.
If most of the normal missions that a carebear gets had one single objective like this then gtfo, it would improve the feeling of saftey even with current scan probe mechanics. Currently, normal missions have objectives where you must kill everything in the mission, which takes time, and increases the likelyhood that you will be scanned out.
Again, it all comes down to perceived saftey. Well, and time/resources for hundreds of new carebear missions to be rewritten........
( cue the nerf low-sec rewards to bring people into 0.0 threads )
<<< Just because your pet likes you, that does not mean you are a good person. >>> |
Grikath
Caldari SWARTA
|
Posted - 2010.05.17 23:57:00 -
[145]
As mentioned above , the sec standing hit in lowsec is a problem to the extent that it discourages a lot of players to pirate-hunt, since actively defending a lowsec "territory" against pirate gangs means you get tarred with the same brush, and as a consquence soon find yourself unable to enter highsec anymore.
Which may not be a problem for people who use alts like candy wrappers, but there's a large amount of players with only one , or at most two accounts, with only a primary toon in each, quite often not associated in game, or with totally different roles. And those people cannot afford to lose a connection with highsec.
A rather minor, but potentially effective change would be a change to the sec rating hit in lowsec to a situation where you can shoot freely at anyone with a secrating of -1 or lower, and not get a standing hit. This will cause a polarisation between the pirates, and the "carebears", and will make it possible to actually defend yourself without having to wait for that first alpha strike and hope you survive. Then again, the Piwates will then start crying they are being singled out and griefed... For the real pirates this may make life a lot more interesting, and for their professed playing style, a lot more rewarding.
|
Ophelia Ursus
|
Posted - 2010.05.18 03:51:00 -
[146]
Originally by: Grikath As mentioned above , the sec standing hit in lowsec is a problem to the extent that it discourages a lot of players to pirate-hunt, since actively defending a lowsec "territory" against pirate gangs means you get tarred with the same brush, and as a consquence soon find yourself unable to enter highsec anymore.
Just FYI, the overwhelming majority of pirates have a sec status below -5.0. Fire at will, Gridley.
Also, the guy talking about faction warfare missions being a good thing is...uh... not someone I would agree with in any way. Lowsec PvE is supposed to be associated with risks; introducing a class of missions doable in stealth bombers that only need to decloak for a minute or two to complete the mission removes essentially all of that risk. While it may be effective at bringing people into lowsec, doing so by nullifying the 'risk' part of risk-reward isn't the way to do it.
|
Aralyn Cormallen
Caldari Red Federation
|
Posted - 2010.05.18 09:44:00 -
[147]
Edited by: Aralyn Cormallen on 18/05/2010 09:47:34 Edited by: Aralyn Cormallen on 18/05/2010 09:44:49
Originally by: Ophelia Ursus
Also, the guy talking about faction warfare missions being a good thing is...uh... not someone I would agree with in any way. Lowsec PvE is supposed to be associated with risks; introducing a class of missions doable in stealth bombers that only need to decloak for a minute or two to complete the mission removes essentially all of that risk. While it may be effective at bringing people into lowsec, doing so by nullifying the 'risk' part of risk-reward isn't the way to do it.
The thing is, its a case of trying to mitigate some of the risk.
Someone missioning in Low still needs to get through gate camps and warp to and from stations (which granted, isn't difficult if you know what your doing, but the people who know what they are doing arent the majority ;)), still needs to make a kill (or two) in the open, and be susceptable to hunters (since they will likely be working for a select few agents, and therefore be operating in only a few systems). All this gives a skilled or determined hunter a chance to track them down.
What mission runners find unacceptable is that most missions force them to remain in a single place for 30+ minutes, whilst engaged with a dozen or more ships (forcing them to fit in a manner to resist this constant pounding). Which means, when they get jumped (which becomes more likely the longer the mission runs), they are sub-optimally fitted for fighting off their attacker, whilst already taking significant incoming damage from npc's (who may even be webbing and scramming them too, doing half the pirates job for him).
The idea of missioning in Low isn't outright repugnant. But if missioners could: 1) Do it in a ship that was fitted to have a fighting chance. 2) Not be forced to fight the pirate and all the NPC's at the same time. 3) Not be a sitting duck for up to an hour. Then they would probably consider the risks worthwhile.
It isn't all one way though. In a hypothetical scenario where missioners were able to do short Low-sec missions in pvp fits, against either small NPC groups, or ones that re-assess their targets when a new target jumps into the mission, I would consider it fair that such intruders be able to warp direct to their target, rather than be held at artificial distances by the gating system. Since this scenario would be taking away all the advantages the intruders have over the missioner, its only fair to remove the only advantage the missioner has. Non Moritur Cuius Fama Vivat He Dies Not Whose Fame Survives |
Olleybear
I R' Carebear
|
Posted - 2010.05.18 21:59:00 -
[148]
Originally by: Aralyn Cormallen
The thing is, its a case of trying to mitigate some of the risk.
Hooray!!! *olley does a dance* ( I realize I may have blinded your minds eye with the dance, oops )
Someone else who gets it!
I couldn't have explained it better myself.
<<< Just because your pet likes you, that does not mean you are a good person. >>> |
Illwill Bill
House of Tempers
|
Posted - 2010.05.18 22:42:00 -
[149]
I like low-sec as it is. It's supposed to be a cold, harsh world for the daring; not a place where carebears can add a WCS to their Raven setups and instantly gain 20% higher mission rewards.
An exploration boost would be interesting, though.
|
altyaltyaltyalt
|
Posted - 2010.05.19 03:21:00 -
[150]
Got my vote x4 just because you're awesome and hunting and killing people and as the awesomest pilot running for CSM you deserve a vacation in Iceland. gl.
And I guess I want to add that FW lowsec is prettymuch fine atm. There's lots of people around everywhere. It's the non-FW lowsec regions that need the boost. They're not good for anything besides the low-competition moons. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |