|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Aerasia
Republic University Minmatar Republic
69
|
Posted - 2015.08.11 06:34:13 -
[1] - Quote
Noragen Neirfallas wrote:I still think a content driver is needed in highsec. If you want to drive something, figure out a way to drive these corps into lowsec.
|
Aerasia
Republic University Minmatar Republic
69
|
Posted - 2015.08.11 17:46:57 -
[2] - Quote
Noragen Neirfallas wrote:I am trying to push for a way to drive conflict in general in highsec Really? Your OP makes it sound like you're just kinda mad you can't dunk on casuals all day.
If you want to fight a corp without wardec mechanics getting in the way, then move that corp somewhere that wardec mechanics don't exist.
|
Aerasia
Republic University Minmatar Republic
69
|
Posted - 2015.08.11 18:18:40 -
[3] - Quote
And if you got those people into lowsec, then Low would be a target rich environment.
And bonus! You'd actually be allowed to shoot all of those targets without having to pay for a single war. |
Aerasia
Republic University Minmatar Republic
69
|
Posted - 2015.08.11 18:57:44 -
[4] - Quote
Tengu Grib wrote:Why should I do your work for you? Work for me? Noragen's the one that wants to shoot all the people. I'm just pointing out that there's already a fertile field of shooting all the people available, and usually only a half dozen jumps away.
|
Aerasia
Republic University Minmatar Republic
69
|
Posted - 2015.08.11 21:43:30 -
[5] - Quote
Noragen Neirfallas wrote:read post 1 and 4. Right - you're trying to pin the casual's feet to the floor so they're forced to take it on the chin.
Ideally, high sec space would be for newbros, casuals and Red Frog. I see no reason to help people punch puppies. So instead, I say figure out how to get these groups out of the training wheels area instead of trying to find a way to punish them for founding a tax-dodge corp.
Your problem with not being able to shoot people? Solved. Your problem with people not HTFU and learning to defend themselves? Solved. Your problem with neutrals? Solved.
|
Aerasia
Republic University Minmatar Republic
70
|
Posted - 2015.08.11 23:13:09 -
[6] - Quote
Zeus Maximo wrote:Changing these isk gardens would shift the very foundation of Eve as we know it.
Please understand that High-sec is very unique and nothing like low-sec or null-sec. In my opinion high-sec shouldnt suffer because low/null entities are too far spread out. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to kneecap highsec.
There's already more outright ISK to be made in Low, but the danger (and even the threat of danger) eats up all the extra profits. I'd love to see changes made to make lowsec a better transition between the infallible NPC police force of highsec, and the purely player blue blanket of Null. Get that balance right so that a small highsec tax-dodge corp can look over the wall and see similar groups making more money and want to move out on their own.
Take your own experience with highsec incurions: what would it take for whatever group you run/ran with to decide to move to low? |
Aerasia
Republic University Minmatar Republic
70
|
Posted - 2015.08.12 00:26:56 -
[7] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Concord protection. Well the old saw is that Concord doesn't provide "protection". Consider: If you were running a highsec incursion, and 30-odd Talos showed up on dscan, what would your response be? "Oh, it'll be OK - Concord protects"? Is it just the travel (i.e. gatecamps) that makes lowsec incursions undesireable? |
Aerasia
Republic University Minmatar Republic
70
|
Posted - 2015.08.12 01:05:41 -
[8] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Consider: we don't see 30 Talos' going after Incursion runners on the regular. You're right. Personally, I think that's more because they've got easier targets. But those targets do show that 100k tanks aren't an insurmountable barrier, even in highsec.
Your response points to what I'd love to see changed about lowsec though, the risk/reward balance. Even with a nearly 50% higher reward you know that the same evaluation for the pirates is skewed even further. Could that be changed though? Could the Incursions themselves (and by extension other forms of lowsec PvE) be modified to deter piracy enough to keep lowsec profitable for the Incursion runners?
Which isn't to say I've got the answers. But I think if a way to make lowsec a more attractive PvE/lifestyle proposition than highsec can be found, that solves a lot of the OP's stated problems. |
Aerasia
Republic University Minmatar Republic
71
|
Posted - 2015.08.12 02:10:39 -
[9] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:unless you mean to suggest a freighter holds similar mobility and offensive capabilities as an incursion BS. No, I only meant to point out that Incursion fleets aren't safe in highsec because they invulnerable - only because Concord invariably imposes a gank tax.
Tyberius Franklin wrote:The issue is the massive gap in regular behavior that constitutes the risks and creates logistical hurdles, thus justifying the higher payout. Work around that and you eliminate the justification for the payout (and barring some really clever solution, the distinction between lowsec and highsec). By all accounts, the logistical hurdles are in place - but the payouts aren't. I want to 'work around' the fact that lowsec means far more work for slightly more pay on the PvE side, but more pay for less work on the Pirate side. |
|
|
|