Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
darmwand
Repo.
82
|
Posted - 2012.12.30 01:45:00 -
[1] - Quote
Hey there
First I would like to apologize if this has been suggested before - I tend to keep an eye on the forums but I don't read everything. If it has been suggested feel free to tell me so I can go hide in my quarters and keep quiet. Also, I have no direct personal interest in this since I'm a resident of low-sec space, trying to live off loot, ransoms and a trading alt in high-sec.
Anyway. There seem to be a lot of threads about nerfing high-sec and trying to get people to do more things in low / null. My idea would basically comprise the following two points:
- Make very low quantities of null-sec ore available in low-sec
- Nerf industry slots in high and buff them in low/null
Let me try to explain: making some of the precious null-sec ores available in low would allow industrialists to get these ores and build their things without traveling dozens of jumps through scary systems. Instead they could still live in high-sec and just go mining in a neighboring low-sec system every now and then. Null would still have the advantage of a) proving much higher quantities of these ores and b) allowing players to properly control an area, thereby giving their miners the ability to mine in safety whereas low-sec miners would have to run and hide whenever a drunk Rifter gang passes through.
As a side effect this would allow people to get all the materials they need to build a decent ship very close to most high-sec/low-sec border systems, thereby reducing the dependence on trade hubs. Combined with the reduced number of industry slots available in high-sec this might help de-centralize the market - why bring everything to Jita if you can mine and build things locally?
Plus, after a while people will probably start realizing that low-sec and null-sec aren't that scary, use the mostly idle industry slots there, take an interest in their surroundings and hopefully try and chase off people like me. Or they could just ignore all that, mine happily and enjoy the fact that they can now build their ships and modules from scratch. Or they can keep playing exactly as they are doing now, the new options in low-sec should reduce the negative impact from the industry slot nerf.
The core idea behind this is not to force people to change the way they play the game but to give them a good reason why they would want to do so.
Thoughts? darmwand Repossession Agent http://www.repo-corp.net/ Recruitment is OPEN |
Randolph Rothstein
whatever corp.
230
|
Posted - 2012.12.30 01:51:00 -
[2] - Quote
darmwand wrote:
The core idea behind this is not to force people to change the way they play the game but to give them a good reason why they would want to do so.
i dont understand
i assume that people play the way they want
why would they want to change it when they are already playing the way they want
or are you saying they dont play the way they want? if so why they play at all?
rephrase it
|
Snow Axe
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
799
|
Posted - 2012.12.30 01:52:00 -
[3] - Quote
Randolph Rothstein wrote:rephrase it
The idea is that there are people that would be absolutely willing to take the additional risks of living in lowsec or nullsec if there was any advantage at all to doing it. Right now, there isn't, and that's broken. "Look any reason why you need to talk like that? I have now reported you. I dont need to listen to your bad tone. If you cant have a grown up conversation then leave the thread[" |
darmwand
Repo.
82
|
Posted - 2012.12.30 01:55:00 -
[4] - Quote
Good point. What I was trying to say is that there are people who would like to see the industry less centralized and more active in low and null and these changes would give players that don't want to commit to a large null sec alliance the opportunity and a small incentive to actually try that out. After all, industry and trade in "remote" areas is much more likely to take off if some experienced players get involved. darmwand Repossession Agent http://www.repo-corp.net/ Recruitment is OPEN |
darmwand
Repo.
82
|
Posted - 2012.12.30 01:55:00 -
[5] - Quote
Snow Axe wrote:Randolph Rothstein wrote:rephrase it The idea is that there are people that would be absolutely willing to take the additional risks of living in lowsec or nullsec if there was any advantage at all to doing it. Right now, there isn't, and that's broken.
This. darmwand Repossession Agent http://www.repo-corp.net/ Recruitment is OPEN |
Gevrik
Total-Mad-Ownage
3
|
Posted - 2012.12.30 01:56:00 -
[6] - Quote
I see lots of space tumbleweed in the future of this game if such an idea would be implemented. |
Randolph Rothstein
whatever corp.
230
|
Posted - 2012.12.30 02:00:00 -
[7] - Quote
Snow Axe wrote:Randolph Rothstein wrote:rephrase it The idea is that there are people that would be absolutely willing to take the additional risks of living in lowsec or nullsec if there was any advantage at all to doing it. Right now, there isn't, and that's broken.
you are saying there are people who want to go to lowsec but they dont go to lowsec
so they dont play the way they want?
they should unsubscribe |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
3558
|
Posted - 2012.12.30 02:04:00 -
[8] - Quote
Snow Axe wrote:Randolph Rothstein wrote:rephrase it The idea is that there are people that would be absolutely willing to take the additional risks of living in lowsec or nullsec if there was any advantage at all to doing it. Right now, there isn't, and that's broken.
Sadly, any kind of advantage that gets directly translated into ISK per hour is always going to be hard to implement. It'd be much easier to implement *perks* that given the same revenue, entice people to do stuff outside of hi sec.
In order to balance over ISK/hour without misbalancing everything and just repeat what we have today, you have to translate how much ISK / hour should be made in the various EvE zones to keep a fair competition. That is you have to quantify hard to quantify things like logistics to move the stuff and quantify the risk.
How do you quantify risk? How do you quantify and monetize the amount of player provided (in null, low and WH) effort needed to keep that risk low enough?
Are the numbers you get out of the above compatible with having say hi sec people still stay subbed? If crunching numbers you came out hi sec industrialists should earn 1M ISK / hour tops then it's not going to end well even if that'd be mathematically fair.
I still stick to my idea that perks should offset the bare ISK / hour computations, else it's very easy to end in a dead end.
Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
|
ISD Cura Ursus
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
111
|
Posted - 2012.12.30 02:43:00 -
[9] - Quote
Moved to Features and Ideas discussion. ISD Cura Ursus Lieutenant Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department |
|
Paikis
Vapour Holdings
500
|
Posted - 2012.12.30 02:47:00 -
[10] - Quote
Counter proposal: Low sec stations give +5% faster production and 5% less minerals used.
POS refineries gain the ability to refine at 100% if you have all related skills to V. |
|
Omnathious Deninard
Extrinsic Operations
363
|
Posted - 2012.12.30 04:37:00 -
[11] - Quote
Randolph Rothstein wrote:Snow Axe wrote:Randolph Rothstein wrote:rephrase it The idea is that there are people that would be absolutely willing to take the additional risks of living in lowsec or nullsec if there was any advantage at all to doing it. Right now, there isn't, and that's broken. you are saying there are people who want to go to lowsec but they dont go to lowsec so they dont play the way they want? they should unsubscribe The current progression for many (industrial) players is as follows High Security Worm Space Null Security Ideas For Drone Improvement Updated 11/30/12Catastrophic Uprising is Recruiting |
Ines Tegator
Towels R Us
192
|
Posted - 2012.12.30 07:01:00 -
[12] - Quote
All you'd do is force more people to put up highsec POSes. Everyone needs to stop thinking about nerfing highsec- the problem is not that high is too attractive. It's that the barrier to moving out of it is too strong. That barrier needs to be shallower, or noone that currently stays in highsec will want to leave, regardless of what bait you put out there for them. |
Sayuri Akaya
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2012.12.30 09:42:00 -
[13] - Quote
Ines Tegator wrote:Everyone needs to stop thinking about nerfing highsec- the problem is not that high is too attractive. It's that the barrier to moving out of it is too strong. That barrier needs to be shallower, or noone that currently stays in highsec will want to leave, regardless of what bait you put out there for them. I totaly agree.
There are lots of topics in EVE forums these days, but why do these players think it's necessary to nerf Highsec ? I think that lowsec/nullsec players want more activity, more industry, more pvp in their areas. They just want highsec players to rejoin them. And I don't blame them for that.
The problem is : it's too hard for casual players (or non hardcore gamers) to go into these areas. You get killed SO easily, SO quickly. And losing a ship is really really frustrating... (joining an Alliance or Corporation in lowsec/nullsec might help but it will not prevent them to lose ships).
As I said, losing a ship is frustrating. Even if it's part of EVE (when you lose one, you really lose it)... it gives the player a really bad feeling (rare are players who don't care about losing a ship).
Frustration is not what players want. They want to have fun (whatever the game). So, it's normal that so many players still want to stay in Highsec.They just want to avoid losing ships. The sad thing is... I am sure more players would want to try PVP if it was less risky.
EVE Online (at least, lowsec/nullsec) is not made for the average player, it's aimed at hardcore gamers. If you guys think nerfing highsec will make players go to lowsec/nullsec, you're wrong. It might have some results but not drastically.
There is a game mechanic problem in EVE Online, that's all. As long as CCP still makes this game hard for average players, players wll continue to live in highsec (or unsubcribe). I would really like CCP to create a poll for unsubscribers, asking why they decided to quit the game. I am sure, many of them would answer that they found the game too hard.
CCP is walking a thin line.. They just don't want to lose subscribers and I guess it's hard for them to make important decisions that will affect all players. Highsec/Lowsec/Nullsec is a bad game concept, imo.. See where we are now..
|
Akrasjel Lanate
Naquatech Conglomerate
970
|
Posted - 2012.12.30 11:03:00 -
[14] - Quote
Nerfing high sec wont repair null |
Kira Vanachura
MicroPush Push Interstellar Network
38
|
Posted - 2012.12.30 11:25:00 -
[15] - Quote
Another one of those threads. Few people currently enjoy the content offered in lowsec. CCP's main objective is not to spread the playerbase over Eve, they provide content for people to enjoy which then leads to subscriptions and other sources of income for CCP. Giving people incentives to do things in lowsec they currently do in hisec is not going to positively affect CCPs bottom line. It might drive a few hisec industrialists out of the game instead. If you think CCP needs to push more people into lowsec, then the first question I'd like to see answered is: WHY? |
Daichi Yamato
Swamp Bucket Swamp Bucket Empire
476
|
Posted - 2012.12.30 11:36:00 -
[16] - Quote
the attraction of high sec is casual gaming, its not just about the isk/hour.
when real life pulls u from the game every 5 minutes, being able to look away for a few minutes, or even WALK away from ur keyboard while things still go on in game and not get shot is a real help. this cannot be done in low or null. u cant even guarantee theres a station to warp to in low and null, or that u wont be camped in.
u cannot afk haul in low, null and WH's. u cannot afk mine, afk mission. Hi-sec is essentially filled by ppl who arent always there. sometimes because they have RL responsibilities that pull them away a lot. |
Mars Theran
Red Rogue Squadron
1562
|
Posted - 2012.12.30 12:23:00 -
[17] - Quote
Paikis wrote:Counter proposal: Low sec stations give +5% faster production and 5% less minerals used.
POS refineries gain the ability to refine at 100% if you have all related skills to V.
..or roughly something like that anyway. The best way to find out if the players in Null and Low will take advantage of something like this is to give it to them. Either way, with improvement in POS refining and manufacturing, you'd see more people relying on them than currently, and less need for Highsec Industry slots.
zubzubzubzubzubzubzubzub |
Blastil
Black Thorne Corporation Black Thorne Alliance
44
|
Posted - 2012.12.30 15:50:00 -
[18] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Snow Axe wrote:Randolph Rothstein wrote:rephrase it The idea is that there are people that would be absolutely willing to take the additional risks of living in lowsec or nullsec if there was any advantage at all to doing it. Right now, there isn't, and that's broken. Sadly, any kind of advantage that gets directly translated into ISK per hour is always going to be hard to implement. It'd be much easier to implement *perks* that given the same revenue, entice people to do stuff outside of hi sec. In order to balance over ISK/hour without misbalancing everything and just repeat what we have today, you have to translate how much ISK / hour should be made in the various EvE zones to keep a fair competition. That is you have to quantify hard to quantify things like logistics to move the stuff and quantify the risk. How do you quantify risk? How do you quantify and monetize the amount of player provided (in null, low and WH) effort needed to keep that risk low enough? Are the numbers you get out of the above compatible with having say hi sec people still stay subbed? If crunching numbers you came out hi sec industrialists should earn 1M ISK / hour tops then it's not going to end well even if that'd be mathematically fair. I still stick to my idea that perks should offset the bare ISK / hour computations, else it's very easy to end in a dead end.
agreed. This is the way to move forward with improving nullsec. Simply nerfing things won't do anything to help, Nerfing highsec will only prove to cause people to either quit, or adapt by buying more accounts.
What will really fix null right up for industry is making POS-based industry viable, and competitive with highsec industry, revamping 0.0 exploration, and adjusting rat tables in certain 0.0 regions (cough) syndicate (cough, cough) to come in line with the rest of 0.0
lowsec can only be fixed by introducing industry there that CANNOT be done in highsec, cheifly, illegal industries, like drugs, and as has been proposed several times, other 'illegal' industries. I think it would be cool for example for 'illegal' PI that plunders rare but valuable materials from planets like.. i dunno, whale blubber and baby seal's skins, luxury furs, drugs, and human trafick. |
Paikis
Vapour Holdings
505
|
Posted - 2012.12.30 16:21:00 -
[19] - Quote
The reason people stay in Highsec nothing really to do with null or low sec being any better in terms of ISK/h. It is purely risk aversion, same reason there are long-term/permanent newbie corp members that are 5+ year old characters. No amount of buffing LS/NS industry is going to get those bears out from under the watchful gaze of Concord.
There are only 2 options to get HS bears out of HS; 1. Remove concord from HS. If you're at risk everywhere, why not go where the profit is best? This will result in mass cancelling of subs by the HS crowd. 2. Add Concord/variation to low/null sec. If you're safe everywhere, why not go where the ISK is better? This will result in mass cancelation of subs by the PvPers and gankers in low/null.
In short, this is a problem without a solution. |
Sayuri Akaya
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2012.12.30 17:58:00 -
[20] - Quote
Paikis wrote:The reason people stay in Highsec nothing really to do with null or low sec being any better in terms of ISK/h. It is purely risk aversion, same reason there are long-term/permanent newbie corp members that are 5+ year old characters. No amount of buffing LS/NS industry is going to get those bears out from under the watchful gaze of Concord.
There are only 2 options to get HS bears out of HS;
1. Remove concord from HS. If you're at risk everywhere, why not go where the profit is best? This will result in mass cancelling of subs by the HS crowd.
2. Add Concord/variation to low/null sec. If you're safe everywhere, why not go where the ISK is better? This will result in mass cancelation of subs by the PvPers and gankers in low/null.
In short, this is a problem without a solution. 1. CCP can't afford losing subscribers and if EVE universe has no real safe places, as you said, many players will cancel their subs.
2. PvPers will not necessary cancel their subs. A suggestion among many others : - what if CCP removed lowsec and nullsec areas ? Why not creating only one big area, a unique universe where every player would be safe. There are still wardecs and Wormholes to do PvP... I don't know, other places or mechanics of PvP could be added later..
Frankly, how fun is it for (highsec) players to know that as soon as they would jump through a stargate, a group of evil players is waiting for them... planning to kill them. We all know gates are traps..
Whatever they plan to do, choices will have to be made and some players will like them, others won't. I tend to think that to attract (to keep) more players to EVE Online, the game needs to get "easier". |
|
Paikis
Vapour Holdings
509
|
Posted - 2012.12.30 18:00:00 -
[21] - Quote
Sayuri Akaya wrote:1. CCP can't afford losing subscribers and if EVE universe has no real safe places, as you said, many players will cancel their subs.
2. PvPers will not necessary cancel their subs. A suggestion among many others : - what if CCP removed lowsec and nullsec areas ? Why not creating only one big area, a unique universe where every player would be safe. There are still wardecs and Wormholes to do PvP... I don't know, other places or mechanics of PvP could be added later..
Frankly, how fun is it for (highsec) players to know that as soon as they would jump through a stargate, a group of evil players is waiting for them... planning to kill them. We all know gates are traps..
Whatever they plan to do, choices will have to be made and some players will like them, others won't. I tend to think that to attract (to keep) more players to EVE Online, the game needs to get "easier".
This is why we can't have nice things. |
Ines Tegator
Towels R Us
193
|
Posted - 2012.12.30 21:28:00 -
[22] - Quote
Paikis wrote: There are only 2 options to get HS bears out of HS; 1. Remove concord from HS. If you're at risk everywhere, why not go where the profit is best? This will result in mass cancelling of subs by the HS crowd. 2. Add Concord/variation to low/null sec. If you're safe everywhere, why not go where the ISK is better? This will result in mass cancelation of subs by the PvPers and gankers in low/null.
Option 1 will not only get the out of highsec, it will get them out of EVE. That's not the gameplay they want- if it was, they'd be in lowsec already. This is not an option.
I have a suggestion to implement option 2 in a way that actually encourages conflict, but does it in a way that lets players decide how much risk to take on, and still gives pirates space to ply their trade. Yes this is a shameless plug, but there's already some good discussion over there- https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=187645&find=unread |
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors Late Night Alliance
1793
|
Posted - 2012.12.30 21:46:00 -
[23] - Quote
Sayuri Akaya wrote:A suggestion among many others : - what if CCP removed lowsec and nullsec areas ? Why not creating only one big area, a unique universe where every player would be safe. There are still wardecs and Wormholes to do PvP... I don't know, other places or mechanics of PvP could be added later..
You'd have a situation very similar to Ultima Online's Trammel Server.
There'd be an explosion of subscriptions followed by a slow, painful decline that will only be temporarily arrested whenever CCP comes up with a new "content expansion." Additionally, the in-game market would go to hell (because fewer things are being destroyed than built), people would still avoid war-decs the way then do now (jump/abandon corp, wait til it blows over... use the dec-shield to shed the war-dec... etc), and the same complaints made about low-sec and null-sec gatecamps will be made about the entrances to wormholes.
Sayuri Akaya wrote:Frankly, how fun is it for (highsec) players to know that as soon as they would jump through a stargate, a group of evil players is waiting for them... planning to kill them. We all know gates are traps.. ... which are easily avoided and/or blown through if you have the knowledge.
PvPers are not "superhuman" players that can do things you can't. They are subject to the same rules and limitations that apply to you. All they have is knowledge, experience, and a "predator/prey mentality." If you can gain that last one... the other two will come with time.
Sayuri Akaya wrote:Whatever they plan to do, choices will have to be made and some players will like them, others won't. I tend to think that to attract (to keep) more players to EVE Online, the game needs to get "easier". To which I say... there are a multitude of games in the market just like that. Leave at least one or two titles out there for those who like things "hardcore" and "niche." Change isn't bad, but it isn't always good. Sometimes, the oldest and most simple of things can be the most elegant and effective. |
Doctor Invictus
The Scope Gallente Federation
13
|
Posted - 2012.12.30 22:11:00 -
[24] - Quote
The economy of EVE will always be heavily centralized on hi-sec as long as that area provides very low cost, highly effective security. There are some solutions to this, off the top of my head...
1) Increase the cost of the security provided in hi-sec. Instead of having CONCORD protection be free/very low cost, put a price on it. The model that comes to mind would be to have CONCORD act like a kind of insurance; pilots choose to buy insurance (or not) from CONCORD, which gives them protection against being shot at in hi-sec under the same rules that exist now. Pilots without insurance would not have such protection; anyone can shoot at them without CONCORD retaliation (though sec-status would still take a hit). The insurance premiums would be made up of two components: a base rate that devs can tweak and a multiplier based on sec status (criminals pay higher rates). New players get free coverage. Once the system is in place, pilots have the option of choosing between paying for their security (hi-sec is more expensive than present), staying in hi-sec without security (hi-sec is riskier than present) or moving out to low-sec/nullsec to take advantage of better risk/rewards.
2) Longer supply lines/harder logistics. Economics centers in hi-sec because it is safe, but also because that safe-haven of cheap goods is readily accessible from unsafe areas. Make hi-sec harder to access by making transit either more expensive (gate tolls, export fees per m3, jump fuel prices, etc) or more difficult/laborious (shorter jump ranges). Same effects might be achieved by expanding low-sec/nullsec systems outward into more regions, but player-groups would probably just cluster in the space around hi-sec anyways. |
darmwand
Repo.
82
|
Posted - 2012.12.31 02:44:00 -
[25] - Quote
I totally agree with what has been said about not forcing people out of high-sec. Removing options is always a bad thing. Thus the suggestion about adding small quantities of null-sec ore to low-sec. It would give those who are a little more adventurous a reason to check low-sec, I hear some areas are quite deserted and should therefore be interesting mining grounds. Of course this will still not be an option for the casual player who gets a lot of distractions, but maybe some of the more involved industrialists would be interested in risking a retriever or two if it made their production lines self-sufficient? Then again, maybe not, I don't really know that much about the industrial life-style, just thought it might be an interesting idea.
Anyway, I personally don't really mind if people stay where they are, I usually have enough things to shoot at plus I prefer it when they shoot back . Giving people a good reason to explore different parts or space seemed like a reasonable idea though. darmwand Repossession Agent http://www.repo-corp.net/ Recruitment is OPEN |
Kuro Bon
Running with Knives Nexus Fleet
41
|
Posted - 2013.01.03 02:10:00 -
[26] - Quote
Having just moved into a nullsec sov space for the first time, I have a different perspective on this than I had previously.
Neutrals have already provided some fun exciting moments, but I'm pretty sure I can make easily 2-5x as much per hour in high-sec missioning than I can currently in nullsec ratting. (( FYI - I'm a "relatively" new player. The best ship I can fly is a T2-fit Heavy Missile Drake (~330 dps with T2 missiles for me). I've tried missioning a Raven, but my Cruise skills are not good enough to put out the dps. ))
The contributing factors are:
1) logistics and loot sale.... The #1 reason I make more in high-sec missions is that for me loot/salvage (with a tiny amount of effort) is worth 2-4x more than bounties and rewards (L3 or L4). I can do my own loot/salvage in nullsec if I want to be anti-social, but I simply have no means to get anywhere close to the same sell prices. The corp logistics pays a percentage of average value. I can make nearly 2x as much doing it myself in high-sec. Note this is NOT "trade profit" as some like to say, because it's not trade arbitrage. I'm just patient about selling items for the best price instead of quickly selling to the highest bidder.
2) fleet needs and neutrals... So far, in just a single day in nullsec, we've had neutrals in the system three times interrupting ratting. It was exciting! Awesome, totally new for me, and very very unprofitable. High-sec wardecs are equally unprofitable and not fun like this, so I suppose that's better. Still, if I was in highsec, I would have much more profit.
3) Heartier targets... The targets take longer to kill AND I get less profit out of them (because of #1). So far, running belt rats or Den / Rally / Hub Anomolies is so unprofitable I couldn't even afford to use T2 ammo if there was any on my nullsec market (which there isn't).
It's true there are other activities in nullsec, but they all come with the #1 logistics challenge. I don't mine. It's just not my style. I do like PI, but doing well in PI is again about getting good sale prices. I'd have to pull 2x more out of the planet to break even given my available logistics.
Unless I come upon some magic new strategy, I expect soon I'll be back to making money in highsec missioning and PI, and visiting nullsec only when I want the thrill of a PVP roam, exploration, or territory defense. 100M ISK per hour is about $3US an hour. -áIt's more efficient to work at starbucks.-á Playing the game doesn't advance skills, kinda like ProgressQuest. |
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |