EVE Search - Should High sec go away?

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Should High sec go away?

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 .. 14 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)

Chribba Otherworld Enterprises Otherworld Empire 14735	Posted - 2015.08.10 10:01:02 - [31] - Quote Robert Warner wrote: Chribba wrote: If you want to see pilots being docked even more then yes by all means, make it low/null-sec, and then of course watch as local gets more empty as pilots quit. High-sec is a good social part of the game for those of us that are perhaps not so into pvp'ing every second you undock. /c To be honest, Chibba, that's a very jaded opinion of low/null sec space. The environment outside of high sec can be constant PvP if that's what you're looking for, but equally there are options for occasional PvP with the added excitement of just a little unpredictability. The game map is big and caters to many types of player outside of high sec. I didn't mean to make it sound that nothing happens in low or null, I meant more that turning high-sec into low or null would most likely make many pilots not wanting to undock at all - I would be one of them that wouldn't fancy undocking unless I need to since the risk just increased 100 times. I'm fully aware that there's pvp to be found if wanted, both consentual and non-consentual. But I do believe that pilots who enjoy safety will undock even less if there's only low-sec and null. /c GÿàGÿàGÿà Secure 3rd party service GÿàGÿàGÿà Visit my in-game channel 'Holy Veldspar' Twitter @Chribba

Tipa Riot Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 1209	Posted - 2015.08.10 11:01:12 - [32] - Quote Funny, recently I brought up a similar idea in the German sub-forum. High-sec area should be reduced and nerfed down in profit ... because the only way to bring people to take risks is greed and rewards. ... reduce highsec to a few constellations for safe trading and rookie systems ... no POS and corp HQs in highsec allowed (bye bye Wardecs) ... lvl1 and lvl2 agents only ... maximum DED 2/10 plexes ... no Incursions ... relic/data can stay, it's crap anyway ... mining will be reduced by less space and more competition I'm my own NPC alt.
Anthar Thebess 1262	Posted - 2015.08.10 11:43:00 - [33] - Quote No - higsec play important role in eve. Maybe putting more lowsec between empires could be interesting, but no one in CCP will want to get this kind of workload on their desk. Capital Remote AID Rebalance Way to solve important nullsec issue. CSM members do your work.
Sanael Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 0	Posted - 2015.08.10 11:55:31 - [34] - Quote Surprised this thread hasn't already been locked due to clear trolling. This topic has been discussed adnauseum since the early days of eve. You cannot force high seccers out of high sec just to be your content... They will just quit.. I don't think eve is dying, but the population has declined somewhat over the last couple of years, judging by the apparent emptiness of low and null sec, I'm going to guess a lot of the people gone, were pvpers. I do agree that some of the highest ISk earning things such as level 4 and up missions, incursions and FW should be moved to low sec at the least.. This way you have to risk it to make a lot of ISK, and it might encourage more people out of high sec. Yes this is a very pvp oriented game, but not everyone wants to pvp all of their time online or can afford to..
Andreus Ixiris Duty. 5591	Posted - 2015.08.10 12:26:28 - [35] - Quote Thread Title wrote: Should High sec go away? Well, if you want to completely destroy EVE Online, sure. Andreus Ixiris > A Civire without a chin is barely a Civire at all. Pieter Tuulinen > He'd be Civirely disadvantaged, Andreus. Andreus Ixiris > ... Andreus Ixiris > This is why we're at war.
Jonah Gravenstein Machiavellian Space Bastards 24564	Posted - 2015.08.10 12:36:27 - [36] - Quote Lalaideur wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: because they have a huge aversion to even imaginary loss. What some people don't seem to understand is that there is nothing like "imaginary" losses in EvE. Either you lose RL money investment because you bought a PLEX to buy the things you just lost, or you lose the time you spent earning that ISK in game, for example with the terrible PvE it has. If most ways to make ISK in this game weren't so boring that they were sensed like a second job, I'm convinced people would be more willing to risk their ships. Losses in Eve are imaginary, the stuff that you lose is A: the virtual property of someone else, specifically CCP, and B: incorporeal objects that hold no fiscal value and have no presence outside of the virtual world they exist in. If you buy a PLEX to cover your intangible losses that's your choice, nobody is forcing you to do it. PLEX itself becomes a game object with no real world value the moment that it enters the redeem queue. The time you spend ingame making isk is already lost by virtue of non professional gaming, like most other forms of entertainment, being a way to pass or waste time. Your time has no value because you choose to waste it in the pursuit of entertainment. Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business. Nil mortifi sine lucre.
Avvy Republic University Minmatar Republic 74	Posted - 2015.08.10 12:56:14 - [37] - Quote Lalaideur wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: because they have a huge aversion to even imaginary loss. What some people don't seem to understand is that there is nothing like "imaginary" losses in EvE. Either you lose RL money investment because you bought a PLEX to buy the things you just lost, or you lose the time you spent earning that ISK in game, for example with the terrible PvE it has. If most ways to make ISK in this game weren't so boring that they were sensed like a second job, I'm convinced people would be more willing to risk their ships. If you're worried about losing time in a game then you shouldn't be playing one. Games are effectively a time sink. PLEX doesn't have a real monetary value when its redeemed and becomes part of the game it has an isk value. Problem is people start to compare what it cost before it entered the game and start to make comparisons, like that carrier is worth such and such (real monetary value). When in fact the carrier is only worth isk. I bought 2 PLEX when I started and sold them in Jita, I don't think of that isk as having a real monetary value the value is restricted to in-game. Yes you can use isk to buy PLEX and extend game time, all you are really doing is getting a free month whilst the person buying the PLEX from CCP is paying for it and when the PLEX is redeemed in-game and sold they get the isk from the person buying the PLEX off of the in-game market. So the barrier to loosing space pixels is created by the people wrongly considering game time and isk as having a real monetary value.
McChicken Combo HalfMayo The Happy Meal 1010	Posted - 2015.08.10 13:10:42 - [38] - Quote Is it really the ISK? Personally I've found most risk averse players are worried about not feeling like a Level 80 Hero of New Eden, which I suppose is fairly difficult when you're drunk and on someone elses Teamspeak singing 90s pop music at 3AM on a Tuesday in the hopes of saving your Snake set. There are all our dominion Gate camps: "Its like the lowsec watercooler, just with explosions and boose" - Ralph King-Griffin
Andreus Ixiris Duty. 5591	Posted - 2015.08.10 13:15:49 - [39] - Quote Let me just write down some actual thoughts here. These pie charts represent figures from a few years ago, but CCP don't seem to have released more recent ones (or if they have, I'm an idiot and can't find them), so let's use these ones as the most accurate representation we currently have. Just under three quarters of EVE's population lives in hi-sec, meaning that for every dollar CCP makes in profit, 71 cents were earned from a character in hi-sec. At this point I could pretty much stop - the fact that hi-sec comprises 70% of CCP's income is basically a QED in itself. Removing it or significantly nerfing its income or level of available content would destroy the game, because a vast number of players would leave. However, whenever this statistic is brought up, there's always a counterargument, which I feel like pre-emptively addressing since it's stupid. "The majority of those figures are hi-sec alts of people who live in other types of space!" The first problem is that the only reasonable answer to this is "yeah, so what?" People wouldn't have hi-sec alts if there wasn't a benefit to being able to operate there. If you strip away the benefits of hi-sec, there'll be no reason to have them. The second problem with this is that the maths don't even hold water. Let us hypothesise that every single person in low-sec, null-sec and w-space has precisely one hi-sec alt. This would comprise a faction 28.5% of the total playercount in size. "Legitimate" hi-sec dwellers would still comprise 35.75% of the total playercount, no longer being the clear majority but still being the plurality. In any case, we can be relatively certain that not every player who doesn't live primarily in hi-sec has a hi-sec alt. Hi-sec isn't ever going to go away. I absolutely wouldn't mind seeing a little rebalancing to reinvigorate the other types of space, but people are either going to have to get used to the idea of "living in hi-sec" being a legitimate and permanent playstyle or they're going to have to leave the game. CCP is not going to commit financial suicide to appease people who provide them less money. Andreus Ixiris > A Civire without a chin is barely a Civire at all. Pieter Tuulinen > He'd be Civirely disadvantaged, Andreus. Andreus Ixiris > ... Andreus Ixiris > This is why we're at war.
admiral root Red Galaxy 2982	Posted - 2015.08.10 13:21:29 - [40] - Quote Andreus Ixiris wrote: Let me just write down some actual thoughts here. These pie charts represent figures from a few years ago, but CCP don't seem to have released more recent ones (or if they have, I'm an idiot and can't find them), so let's use these ones as the most accurate representation we currently have. Just under three quarters of EVE's population lives in hi-sec, meaning that for every dollar CCP makes in profit, 71 cents were earned from a character in hi-sec. At this point I could pretty much stop - the fact that hi-sec comprises 70% of CCP's income is basically a QED in itself. Removing it or significantly nerfing its income or level of available content would destroy the game, because a vast number of players would leave. 75% of characters, not players. Included in that 75% are characters whose owners would prefer to have them in null, wormhole space or lowsec, but it's safer and more profitable to put them to work in highsec. If you had any interest in the facts you'd be asking how much the numbers would change if CCP fixed risk / reward so that it progressed from 1.0 all the way to -1.0 sec status. No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff CODE. forum - everyone's welcome (no shiptoasters)

Andreus Ixiris Duty. 5591	Posted - 2015.08.10 13:32:44 - [41] - Quote admiral root wrote: 75% of characters, not players. Included in that 75% are characters whose owners would prefer to have them in null, wormhole space or lowsec, but it's safer and more profitable to put them to work in highsec. If you had any interest in the facts you'd be asking how much the numbers would change if CCP fixed risk / reward so that it progressed from 1.0 all the way to -1.0 sec status. A tellingly defensive answer, baselessly implying that I have no interest in the facts. I just presented the facts. The facts are that yes, CCP probably should fix risk/reward, but doing it by nerfing hi-sec in any way has one and exactly one outcome: disaster. Andreus Ixiris > A Civire without a chin is barely a Civire at all. Pieter Tuulinen > He'd be Civirely disadvantaged, Andreus. Andreus Ixiris > ... Andreus Ixiris > This is why we're at war.
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai 3938	Posted - 2015.08.10 13:33:47 - [42] - Quote Q: Should the reason why you pay monies to CCP go away? A: No, why do you ask? 73% of EVE characters stay in high security space. 62% of EVE subscribers barely PvP. 40% of all new accounts just "level up their Ravens". Probably that's why PvE content in EVE Online is sub-par and CCP is head over heels for PvP...
Mina Sebiestar Minmatar Inner Space Conglomerate 926	Posted - 2015.08.10 13:44:05 - [43] - Quote Short answer No Long answer Noooo...
McChicken Combo HalfMayo The Happy Meal 1011	Posted - 2015.08.10 13:52:50 - [44] - Quote Andreus Ixiris wrote: admiral root wrote: 75% of characters, not players. Included in that 75% are characters whose owners would prefer to have them in null, wormhole space or lowsec, but it's safer and more profitable to put them to work in highsec. If you had any interest in the facts you'd be asking how much the numbers would change if CCP fixed risk / reward so that it progressed from 1.0 all the way to -1.0 sec status. A tellingly defensive answer, baselessly implying that I have no interest in the facts. I just presented the facts. The facts are that yes, CCP probably should fix risk/reward, but doing it by nerfing hi-sec in any way has one and exactly one outcome: disaster. Why disaster? People in highsec aren't struggling to pay their bills. That's why they fit billions of ISK on ships that can do those same missions with a T2 fit... two ship classes below. The statement "CCP probably should fix risk/reward but not by nerfing highsec" is very odd in itself and one I hear quite often. What is the difference between nerfing highsec and buffing everything besides highsec? The results are much the same. There are all our dominion Gate camps: "Its like the lowsec watercooler, just with explosions and boose" - Ralph King-Griffin
Gimme Sake State War Academy Caldari State 206	Posted - 2015.08.10 14:43:02 - [45] - Quote Should high sec go away then any security rating should disappear including player's. Also skills. You start the game in a rookie ship in a random system and it's up entirely up to you. That's a real sand box and leaves no room for any exploit mechanics. However, you'd need an npc controlled market system spread through out the universe to avoid known trading hub docking massacres. You wont be able to have a player driven economy without high sec space because it is the only thing that allows the market to function somehow free (or at least under the illusion of freedom) from politics. p.s. btw remember that without Concord local also does not exist. "Never not blob!" ~ Plato
Hadrian Blackstone Immortalis Fratres Vacui Legio immortales CXCI 174	Posted - 2015.08.10 16:18:08 - [46] - Quote I'm about done with these forums. Good lord.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 25576	Posted - 2015.08.10 16:20:36 - [47] - Quote McChicken Combo HalfMayo wrote: The statement "CCP probably should fix risk/reward but not by nerfing highsec" is very odd in itself and one I hear quite often. What is the difference between nerfing highsec and buffing everything besides highsec? The results are much the same. The difference is that buffing everything else will have some pretty significant adverse effects on the economy ofGÇª well, everything. There's a reason why nerfs are pretty much universally better than buffs. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
Freya Sertan Et Liberate Vos De Deus 726	Posted - 2015.08.10 16:21:15 - [48] - Quote This really went three pages? Really? Damn. New Eden isn't nice. It isn't friendly. It isn't very hospitiable. Good thing there are people here to shoot in the face. Want to make New Eden a nice place? Try this out.
Hengle Teron Explosions Delivered with Love 56303	Posted - 2015.08.10 16:29:01 - [49] - Quote Yes. No. I don't know. Ask me later.
Mr Epeen It's All About Me 8986	Posted - 2015.08.10 16:31:43 - [50] - Quote Hengle Teron wrote: Yes. No. I don't know. Ask me later. What he said. Maybe. Or maybe not. vOv Mr Epeen There are 86,400 seconds in a day. You just saved one of them by typing 'u' instead of 'you'.-á Congratulations, dumbass!

Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. CODE. 14051	Posted - 2015.08.10 16:35:07 - [51] - Quote Tippia wrote: McChicken Combo HalfMayo wrote: The statement "CCP probably should fix risk/reward but not by nerfing highsec" is very odd in itself and one I hear quite often. What is the difference between nerfing highsec and buffing everything besides highsec? The results are much the same. The difference is that buffing everything else will have some pretty significant adverse effects on the economy ofGÇª well, everything. There's a reason why nerfs are pretty much universally better than buffs. That, and because personal income and by extension purchasing power are relative. That means that nerfing the largest offenders against risk/reward, you achieve balance for the rest at the same time. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs. Best Meltdown Ever.
Dave Stark 7529	Posted - 2015.08.10 17:04:45 - [52] - Quote should high sec go away? no. everything would just become a logistical pain in the ass. if you think the tedium is bad now... oh boy you'd be in for a treat.
Gallowmere Rorschach Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation 1074	Posted - 2015.08.10 17:06:52 - [53] - Quote Andreus Ixiris wrote: CCP is not going to commit financial suicide to appease people who provide them less money. If you had've said this about twelve months ago, I'd have agreed with you completely. Now, I'm not so sure.
Sonya Corvinus Grant Village 39	Posted - 2015.08.10 17:21:42 - [54] - Quote I'd be interested in exploring a new mechanic around security status. The idea needs to be fleshed out a lot more than I will here, but I like the idea of a variable security status for systems. If a system has a high amount of ganking/podding/etc, CONCORD starts to stage a higher presence there, ie the security status increases by 0.1 every so often. If a system has low activity, CONCORD vacates, causing the security status to decrease by 0.1 every so often. I would consider every current low/high sec system to be included in this, so theoretically a system could actually switch from high sec to low sec and vice versa, depending on player activity.
Herzog Wolfhammer Sigma Special Tactics Group 6931	Posted - 2015.08.10 17:51:10 - [55] - Quote Sonya Corvinus wrote: I'd be interested in exploring a new mechanic around security status. The idea needs to be fleshed out a lot more than I will here, but I like the idea of a variable security status for systems. If a system has a high amount of ganking/podding/etc, CONCORD starts to stage a higher presence there, ie the security status increases by 0.1 every so often. If a system has low activity, CONCORD vacates, causing the security status to decrease by 0.1 every so often. I would consider every current low/high sec system to be included in this, so theoretically a system could actually switch from high sec to low sec and vice versa, depending on player activity. If I could go back in time, after buying really cheap gold and investments, I would try to convince CCP that instead of completely different constellations with security status, it would be best to put all three types in each and every solar system. Thus it could be assumed that the livable planets in the interior of the solar system is highsec because that's what matters to any controlling empire faction (markets, stations, etc.). Beyond that, into the less habitable planets' orbits, lowsec. Close enough to be seen doing naughty things, but too far for the space police to do anything. Beyond the last orbit, interstellar perhaps, it's a free for all zone and nobody can hear you scream (nor care for that matter so no security loss for further naughty activity). Gates, moons, bridges, sites - all across the spectrum of the three zones per system, and yes, even capitals could jump but only in outer space and the outer ring. Some systems have gates in the secure zone to other systems with gates in just about any zone, but other gates in the systems on lower security zones as well. (Would have been great for smuggling and moving restricted ships too). That model alone would have prevented this entire "sec" conflict thing. Chances are things were done the way they are done now for reasons I don't comprehend since I was not there when they came up with it. For example, highsec has a lot of processing overhead for activity because there are a lot of checks for security status, space police checking on activity, etc. Get in close to a freighter gank and note that there is usually a lag spike because the server is doing a lot of processing of standings loss, who is doing what to who, and all that other related functions, at the same time. If nullsec had the same mechanics, the big fleet battles would TiDi into negatives and the players involved would probably go back in time (or it would take a week to launch a missile). Bring back DEEEEP Space!
Lady Areola Fappington 2671	Posted - 2015.08.10 18:17:46 - [56] - Quote I don't mind highsec existing. The original concept of Eve didn't involve a "highsec". New Edan was basically all 0.0, all the time. This became a problem when people who were not as "good" at Eve started getting ROFLStomped. So yeah, there needs to be a little bit of a buffer to give us normal scrubs room to play alongside the leet MLG420noscope pros. As for highsec being the most lucrative space in Eve...yeah, that needs a fixing. About the only "fair" way I could see that happening is to implement some sort of diminishing returns system on highsec living. 7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided. --Eve New Player Guide
Josef Djugashvilis 2975	Posted - 2015.08.10 18:19:43 - [57] - Quote Jeez, not this again... This is not a signature.
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 1547	Posted - 2015.08.10 18:34:27 - [58] - Quote Gallowmere Rorschach wrote: Andreus Ixiris wrote: CCP is not going to commit financial suicide to appease people who provide them less money. If you had've said this about twelve months ago, I'd have agreed with you completely. Now, I'm not so sure. Honest question; why the uncertainty now?
admiral root Red Galaxy 2984	Posted - 2015.08.10 18:48:55 - [59] - Quote Josef Djugashvilis wrote: Jeez, not this again... I dunno, I kind of find these threads interesting, especially when you see the people who don't want highsec removed and they turn out to be the usual suspects - the same people whinebears except to be leading the charge for deleting it. No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff CODE. forum - everyone's welcome (no shiptoasters)
Sgt Ocker Military Bustards FUBAR. 685	Posted - 2015.08.10 18:51:25 - [60] - Quote Ima Wreckyou wrote: Damien Power wrote: I say should it go away because in a since with all the changes people who leave corps because they want to avoid wardecs have now found that being in a npc corp has only slightly increased your chance of not losing something expensive. Ganking has proven that! When you think your safe flying billions worth of assets in Hs you find yourself getting ganked and rage quit. Now if you increase the risk by lowering Hs to a lowsec stat then people usually try to be more careful when moving around . Not autopiloting in a expesive ship or freighter in Hs thinking your safe just to come back too see you been ganked. False since of security to me. The apparent safety in Highsec is what provides the target rich environment. CCP buffed CONCORD to a point where people are comfortable autoplioting their whole belongings around. And we can still kill them. I don't see a reason to change Highsec at this point, as we are changing it successfully the sandboxy way with the tools provided. If you want to kill stuff in Highsec, learn how to gank and don't whine in the forums to CCP to change the game in your favour like a little carebear. No point typing it twice, Herzog said it beautifully. Quote: Herzog Wolfhammer This is why highsec is filled up, and the "elite PVPer" of highsec is just as incapable of handling low and null (when not in a big fleet or a 50 to 1 death camp) and therefore in highsec for the same reason their prey is. My opinions are mine. If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care ISD Dorrim Barstorlode - Vice Admiral, Forum Dictator



Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 .. 14 :: 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.