| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 .. 11 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Imperator Jora'h
   |
Posted - 2007.05.23 09:10:00 -
[1]
Note: Despite the title this is not a carebear whine. Give it a read before flaming...
It is often brought up on these forums that low sec needs greater rewards to be worth the risk of working in there. As it currently stands few bother (for good reason) and pirates find the pickings slim. The problem lies in how to buff low sec without imbalancing the game. As it stands you'd need to make low sec more "valuable" than 0.0 to encourage many out there which of course makes little sense. However, I think a solution does exist.
As the title implies I believe the solution is to buff the carebear side of the equation (hear me out...not as bad as it sounds, in fact there is nerfage in there for them too). The problem is carebears have practically no incentive to go to low sec...indeed they have excellent reasons not to.
For some reason CCP has seen fit to make money "easy" in EVE. While to an extent that was a good change (was a day when it took you a month of serious grinding to earn enough for a battleship and there was no insurance) it has gone too far. It seems CCP's assumption is if ships are cheap and money easy to come by people will risk more. Well, to an extent but the fact remains people just do not like losing and get ****ed off at getting killed in a shuttle. In other words, people are generally risk averse no matter how little they actually stand to lose.
So, how do we improve low sec without imbalancing the game? Let the market dictate it. With the following changes I think Low Sec becomes attractive and along with that most everything else in EVE too. Please read through and see my conclusions before flaming.
Redistribute Minerals:
Make it so minerals you get from various ores can only be found in certain security systems. Yes it is this way today but I am suggesting a much sharper line be drawn.
Tritanium and Pyerite: Should be everywhere as it is today (read Veldspar and Scordite asteroids).
Mexallon: Maybe slightly nerfed out of Hi Sec (leave Pyroxeres as is, reduce Plagioclase from 25% Mexallon to 10-15%). Put more Mexallon in Low Sec only ores (buff the amount Jaspet gets and make Jaspet Low Sec only).
Isogen: Get it out of Hi Sec asteroid belts completely. Make very little available in 0.0 (nerf it out of Gneiss in 0.0 from 40% to 10%). Isogen bearing asteroids save for Gneiss should only be found in Low Sec or, if any are in 0.0, make them very rare there.
Nocxium: Fine as is (pretty much Low Sec only).
Zydrine, Megacyte, Morphite: Left as it is today as 0.0 only.
Note that this calls for both redistributing the mineral content of various ore as well as restricting where that ore can be found. Some Low Sec only ore should be accessible via Exploration in Hi Sec and some 0.0 accessible the same way in Low Sec but never in belts. But, say Hebdergite, should be extremely scarce in 0.0. Point is to give various security levels an attraction almost all their own (more on this later).
Nerf Rogue Drones:
Among the worst things that happened to EVE. Killed the miners' job badly. Either remove them or at least severely nerf the mins received from them. Give them some bounty or unique named/faction loot drops to compensate if they must stay.
Nerf Rat Droppings:
CCP seems to be going the other way with this and wanting to nerf bounties while buffing rat droppings. I think that is backwards. I am often shocked as a person who mines and does missions just how many minerals I get from refining all my crud. Not to mention this nerfs builders with all the stuff people dump on the market. Leave named/faction drops as they are but seriously lighten up on drops of T1 ABs and Turrets and such. Let players build those mostly. Buff bounties to compensate if deemed necessary.
(CONTINUED)
|
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2007.05.23 09:10:00 -
[2]
Buff Miner Defenses:
Expect miners to try Low Sec? Then they simply must have better abilities to defend themselves and/or have escorts defend them.
Buff Barge Defenses: This can take many forms and is a matter of debate and balance but give them more HP and/or better resists and/or slots (plus the grid/cpu to use them) so they can tank to some extent. This is NOT meant to make them unkillable. Just make it so they don't pop in 5 seconds. They would still be dead meat to anyone when mining solo...just make it so it takes the attacker a few extra shots to do it. If the miner has guards this would allow the guards some time to mount a defense.
Allow "Claims" to be made on Low Sec Belts: My thought here is a new deployable item that allows people to essentially stake a claim to a belt. While this item is active anyone who tries to warp to that belt will get a warning message that the belt has been claimed and they may be shot on sight. Anyone who shows in that belt can be shot on sight (essentially allowing an NBSI policy) with no sec hit. Note I said "anyone" which means just that. Guards and pirates alike can start shooting at will and no one takes a sec hit.
Of course the deployable item needs to be temporary (say an hour then deploy another one) and pricey to avoid spamming the things and only deployable in 0.4 asteroid belts and below (no point in using them in 0.0 of course). No requirement to use them either. If someone prefers to do it as it is done today they can just skip it. However, this would allow for some legitimate guarding of mining ops without the guards worrying about sec hits and pirates can likewise attack for a change without a sec hit.
Conclusion:
When thinking of all the suggestions above consider their overall effect on the various trades in EVE:
Miner:
If you look at the above you can see Hi Sec miners are getting nerfed with less valuable ore available. The ore redistribution demands that someone mining go low sec. The market will see to that. Eventually prices on low sec minerals will rise enough that people will go. By making Low Sec ore unique to Low Sec even 0.0 Alliances will have to run in for certain minerals or see their production lines halt. Industrialists NEED all mins so sooner or later some will head out there.
In return by nerfing out all that rogue drone crap and reducing the endless and mostly crud loot drops mining becomes more profitable as people will need their services.
The changes to defense are there to allow a reasonable chance at defending mining ops which is necessary for this to work.
This also nerfs farmers who mine out Hi Sec. Sure they can remain and eat Veldspar but their income will go down. If they go Low Sec they are targets.
Missioners:
Largely unchanged for this. Loot drops are reduced but perhaps bounties should be buffed to compensate (debateable).
Ratters:
Unchanged.
Industrialists:
By nerfing crud loot drops they have more to build but a harder time obtaining minerals. This will allow for greater separation in builders. Who can do the best at getting mats and offer the best prices?
Traders:
With minerals more restricted more stuff will need to be moved so opportunity for them.
Pirates/PvPers:
Almost all good for them. Downside is prices will likely rise on ships and mods but then there will be more to shoot and money to make that way. More miners, traders and guards in Low Sec means more targets. What's more this will see a lot more in the way of "small" (i.e. not blob) warfare which most say is the most fun PvP.
I think overall this is a good balance. Some nerfs, some buffs but better gameplay all around.
What say you?
|
Sokratesz
Paradox v2.0
1 Shot 1 Kill
|
Posted - 2007.05.23 09:13:00 -
[3]
Err..well it would of course need some tinkering but i agree mostly.
Nerf the rogue drones highend drop, buff their lowends.
CCP, clean up your act. |
Lance Brute
|
Posted - 2007.05.23 09:19:00 -
[4]
/signed, Lance approves of this topic. Lance approves so much that he will talk about his approval in 3rd person 
|
Ki An
Gallente
The Really Awesome Players
|
Posted - 2007.05.23 09:21:00 -
[5]
Heh, this is one of the best proposals I've read on the forums this month. Agreed on everything, except maybe for the loot drop thing. If you're talking about nerfing away low-end loot I'd agree, but you could put more named stuff in there instead.
/Ki
Joy to the world
Beware: I'm a "viscous pirate"! |
Banana Torres
The Green Banana Corporation
Privateer Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.05.23 09:25:00 -
[6]
I take it you are miner.
Cause, basically you are buffing miners at the expense of ratters/mission runners. As someone who get most of my high end minerals from refining rat drops I would be very opposed to this. Especially nerfing rogue drones.
|
Callthetruth
Caldari
Logical Logtistics
|
Posted - 2007.05.23 09:25:00 -
[7]
either that or raise the requirements in zyd+mega terms for ship construction
|
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2007.05.23 09:30:00 -
[8]
 Originally by: Ki An
Heh, this is one of the best proposals I've read on the forums this month. Agreed on everything, except maybe for the loot drop thing. If you're talking about nerfing away low-end loot I'd agree, but you could put more named stuff in there instead.
/Ki
Yep...just talking about nerfing low ends (T1 crud like ABs and Plates and Turrets). Faction/named should remain the same...perhaps a slight buff.
|
Hugh Ruka
Caldari
|
Posted - 2007.05.23 09:31:00 -
[9]
roughly ok but:
1. move omber to lowsec exclusive
2. leave other isogen ore as is.
Originally by: JP Beauregard
The experience with Exodus playtesting has scarred me for life. Those were bug-reports, not feature requests, you numbskulls.... 
|
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2007.05.23 09:33:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Banana Torres
I take it you are miner.
Cause, basically you are buffing miners at the expense of ratters/mission runners. As someone who get most of my high end minerals from refining rat drops I would be very opposed to this. Especially nerfing rogue drones.
Yes and no.
Point is it should be miners providing the vast bulk of minerals to EVE. Give them a viable job and the tools to do it.
In return I suggested that bounties be increased to compensate. Matter of balance of course but frankly missioners should buy their mins and not use ratting/missioning as a fancy asteroid belt.
|
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2007.05.23 09:42:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Sokratesz
Nerf the rogue drones highend drop, buff their lowends.
That makes sense.
As you say plenty of room for tinkering and that is one I could go with probably.
|
Banana Torres
The Green Banana Corporation
Privateer Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.05.23 09:44:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Imperator Jora'h
In return I suggested that bounties be increased to compensate.
By increasing bounties you are increaing the amount of money injected in to the Eve economy, so causing infaltion, which is a bad thing. Which is why the new regions have rogue drones and the proposed level 5 missions won't have bounties.
|
Galmar Le'Grief
Federal Navy Academy
|
Posted - 2007.05.23 09:45:00 -
[13]
Yeah this is a pretty good post actually.
Fact is if I want mins I rat / refine, and as long as its not Tech Two stuff i can usually find the items i need for free in a little while of ratting.
No one mines in lowsec because its too dangerous and you can make more isk in highsec, It'd be better for everyone of there was a point to lowsec.
========== SIG LINE ==========
Currently selling:
16m SP Pilgrim Pilot |
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2007.05.23 09:54:00 -
[14]
Edited by: Imperator Jora''h on 23/05/2007 10:00:27
Originally by: Banana Torres
Originally by: Imperator Jora'h
In return I suggested that bounties be increased to compensate.
By increasing bounties you are increaing the amount of money injected in to the Eve economy, so causing infaltion, which is a bad thing. Which is why the new regions have rogue drones and the proposed level 5 missions won't have bounties.
Increasing bounties is to offset the money lost by nerfing rat loot drops. There should be a balance there somewhere.
EDIT: Actually to be perfectly honest I think there is already WAY too much money in missioning. And I say that as someone who does it a lot. Mission reward + mission bonus + bounties + loot + salvage...it's nuts what you can earn in hi sec (and again I stay almost exclusively in hi sec). Knowing I am suggesting impacting my income I still would have zero problem with nerfing low end rat loot with NO buff to bounties. I think it is better for the game.
|
Ralara
Caldari
Exanimo Inc
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.05.23 10:09:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Imperator Jora'h
Edited by: Imperator Jora''h on 23/05/2007 10:00:27
Originally by: Banana Torres
Originally by: Imperator Jora'h
In return I suggested that bounties be increased to compensate.
By increasing bounties you are increaing the amount of money injected in to the Eve economy, so causing infaltion, which is a bad thing. Which is why the new regions have rogue drones and the proposed level 5 missions won't have bounties.
Increasing bounties is to offset the money lost by nerfing rat loot drops. There should be a balance there somewhere.
no, bounties generate isk out of thin air.
mission loot being sold is just passing isk from one player to another player.
Real men CORPSE-TANK. |
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2007.05.23 10:21:00 -
[16]
Quote:
Originally by: Imperator Jora'h
Increasing bounties is to offset the money lost by nerfing rat loot drops. There should be a balance there somewhere.
no, bounties generate isk out of thin air.
mission loot being sold is just passing isk from one player to another player.
Erm...rat loot is items created out of thin air too. It is ISK just not in a liquid form.
|
Kalazar
Amarr
Veto. Academy
Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2007.05.23 10:27:00 -
[17]
Some very good ideas there. Perhaps if the bounties on high sec rats were lowered a bit and the bounties on low sec rats were raised? Or perhaps get more higher end rats in low sec (i.e the occaisional BS spawn in 0.1's etc). Also, get rid of the bounties on mission rats. Would hopefully draw more people into low sec.
----------------------------------------------
|
Ares Lightfeather
Gallente
|
Posted - 2007.05.23 10:36:00 -
[18]
Edited by: Ares Lightfeather on 23/05/2007 10:35:35
Skill buying is an isk sink too.
But I don't agree with the OP. For me, while I agree that the difference between money making in high sec and low sec should be reduced, the best way to bring people to low sec is not to restrict money making in high sec, nor buffing the money given in low sec.
For me, the best way is to reduce the loss in low sec, aka making low sec more secure... Now here me out, before going all-out. I intend to propose something that reduces risk by raising isk making by pirates.
My idea :
Introducting a ransom mechanism for pirating. Currently, pirating is mostly done by simply (and dumbly...) blowing up people with overwhelming forces. Why is that ? because there is no way to switch ships off.
Introduce some weapons that, instead of damaging the ship, instantly blocks the propulsion / weapon / warp system of a ship. Once the ship is blocked, the negotiation begins, with cargo being given to the pirates, and the trader gets away with his ship. This special weapon works only if the armor and shield are depleted, and is akin to electronic warfare. Once blocked in this fashion, the blocked ship can be moved with a tractor beam.
In truth, the same can be done by combining sensor dampeners, warp disrupters and webbers, but I like the idea of a single module capable of capturing others, but mostly it's never going to be done.
So I think this idea is good, because :
- it lessens the danger in low-sec, therefore people won't dread coming in those places that much,
- provides good role-play and warfare possibilities (capturing an important enemy, ransoming him, organizing rescue missions...)
- provides a easy way to ransom people, therefore giving pirates a share of the loot without blowing the ship up (what's better, 40% of the loot after blocking up, or all the loot before doing it ?).
The only problem I see is people abusing the system to loot completely the ship, and then killing it as soon as it is released, or preventing others to log off in that way. 
Well, that was an idea.
|
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2007.05.23 10:42:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Kalazar
Some very good ideas there. Perhaps if the bounties on high sec rats were lowered a bit and the bounties on low sec rats were raised? Or perhaps get more higher end rats in low sec (i.e the occaisional BS spawn in 0.1's etc). Also, get rid of the bounties on mission rats. Would hopefully draw more people into low sec.
In general I agree that Low Sec rats could use a buff to be more attractive targets and I thought about that. The problem is Low Sec is more dangerous than 0.0. In order for me to want to rat in Low Sec I'd want better spawns than in 0.0. As it stands today I'd ninja my way in to 0.0 to rat and take my chances there rather than 0.1 - 0.4.
Of course having better rat spawns than 0.0 than in low sec doesn't make sense although again I agree they could still use a bit of love in low sec anyway.
|
Rez Valintine
Caldari
HeXXeD
|
Posted - 2007.05.23 10:42:00 -
[20]
Looks like these changes would be made with the hopes of a mass exodus to low sec or 0.0
Not gonna happen - people would quit.
If people enjoyed that sort of game play - they would be there.
The game is a sand box - the community can only blame the community.
|
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2007.05.23 10:52:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Ares Lightfeather
Introduce some weapons that, instead of damaging the ship, instantly blocks the propulsion / weapon / warp system of a ship. Once the ship is blocked, the negotiation begins, with cargo being given to the pirates, and the trader gets away with his ship. This special weapon works only if the armor and shield are depleted, and is akin to electronic warfare. Once blocked in this fashion, the blocked ship can be moved with a tractor beam.
That is so massively overpowered it boggles the mind.
Along those lines though I once thought there should be a way for a pilot to "turn off" their own ship. If the writing is on the wall and you are sure you are going to die you could disable your own ship. Essentially powering it off and that would be clearly indicated to your attackers. In your powered off state you could do nothing beyond jetting cargo. You could then ask for terms and hope they accept. Powering on your ship would take a minute and your attackers could see that and respond accordingly.
Pretty much all pirates honor an agreement and if they didn't after ransoming you then name and shame them here.
This deserves a different thread though (heh...hijacked my own thread  ).
|
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2007.05.23 10:56:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Rez Valintine
Looks like these changes would be made with the hopes of a mass exodus to low sec or 0.0
Not gonna happen - people would quit.
If people enjoyed that sort of game play - they would be there.
The game is a sand box - the community can only blame the community.
Why is the sandbox gone with my proposal?
The worst of it for hi sec folk is hi sec miners lose some earning ability and missioners lose some income (although not all that bad and can be compensated for if necessary).
No one is being forced anywhere which is part of what I like about it. You are free to do as you please and lose very little.
The incentives to go to low sec would be generated by the market and not some arbitrary arm twisting. Some people would go, some wouldn't and the market would find its balance.
|
Rez Valintine
Caldari
HeXXeD
|
Posted - 2007.05.23 11:07:00 -
[23]
Edited by: Rez Valintine on 23/05/2007 11:05:58
I do see that the incentives are there as proposed by you - I cannot argue that.
However - I predict "PvP or "Pirate" kills skyrocketing based on that.
I guess you could slowly "nudge" the player base in that direction; but increased risk will result in increased costs even then.
90 - 100 million for a raven is enough imo. There are other ways to "tweak" the game - I wouldn't be so keen on "adjusting" the economic engine that determines prices for the rest of us.
Also, mission running may seem boring to you and I (or maybe not) - but people do expect a certain reward based on time spent. You nerf that reward too much and people may be inclined to move to another title that they "feel" rewards their time and effort adequately.
Not sure if I made sense or not - it's late 
|
Lenaria
Caldari
Draconis Navitas Aeterna
|
Posted - 2007.05.23 11:10:00 -
[24]
Edited by: Lenaria on 23/05/2007 11:07:55
Originally by: Imperator Jora'h
The worst of it for hi sec folk is hi sec miners lose some earning ability and missioners lose some income (although not all that bad and can be compensated for if necessary).
No one is being forced anywhereundefined which is part of what I like about it. You are free to do as you please and lose very little.
The incentives to go to low sec would be generated by the market and not some arbitrary arm twisting. Some people would go, some wouldn't and the market would find its balance.
This wrong thinking is as old as eve. Low sec is ALREADY much more profitable than high sec. Do we see more many peoples there? Year ago CCP made low-sec agents twice as profitable than high-sec - did we see a mass populating low-sec? If anything, low sec become more empty since then. Get it, there is a fundamental problem: low sec is more dungerous than alliance controlled 0.0. It sould be MORE proftable than 0.0 to peoples. And, btw, the high-sec jockes will not go to low-sec no matter what. Everyone have different playstyle, and Eve is uniquie in providing a lot of different gameplay styles. Dont nerf it.
==============================================
1 Titan is ok, 2 kills any fun, 3 make peoples quit eve. No wonder online numbers decline for 3rd month. |
Daelin Blackleaf
No Joy Corp
Pride - Honor - Duty
|
Posted - 2007.05.23 11:12:00 -
[25]
Shocks me how many people consider the reprocessing of loot to provide the majority of their minerals good for the game.
Minerals should come from mining... remember, that thing we used to do before the drone regions made refined combat drops more profitable than actual mining.
|
Maior Interfeci
Caldari
|
Posted - 2007.05.23 11:16:00 -
[26]
Edited by: Maior Interfeci on 23/05/2007 11:18:27
Originally by: Imperator Jora'h
Allow "Claims" to be made on Low Sec Belts: My thought here is a new deployable item that allows people to essentially stake a claim to a belt. While this item is active anyone who tries to warp to that belt will get a warning message that the belt has been claimed and they may be shot on sight. Anyone who shows in that belt can be shot on sight (essentially allowing an NBSI policy) with no sec hit. Note I said "anyone" which means just that. Guards and pirates alike can start shooting at will and no one takes a sec hit.
Of course the deployable item needs to be temporary (say an hour then deploy another one) and pricey to avoid spamming the things and only deployable in 0.4 asteroid belts and below (no point in using them in 0.0 of course). No requirement to use them either. If someone prefers to do it as it is done today they can just skip it. However, this would allow for some legitimate guarding of mining ops without the guards worrying about sec hits and pirates can likewise attack for a change without a sec hit.
Overall not a bad idea, but the idea of deployables for claims in my opinion leaves open a situation for abuse. What I foresee happening in such a situation is gankers seeding belts in entire systems to get their "easy kill", especially if there is no skills involved in laying these claims.
A slight modification to this would be allowing only barges and a certain skill sets to lay these deployables. This would stop almost everyone and their brother from "laying claim" for a free gank. Perhaps make it some sort of Rig that only Barges can use while in the same belt it is deployed.
|
Marquis Dean
Demise and Vestige
9th Fleet
|
Posted - 2007.05.23 11:22:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Imperator Jora'h
Rat Droppings:
*chuckles*
---
Originally by: korrey
Marquis I have to admit, without you there wouldn't be much laughter in these forums.
|
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2007.05.23 11:27:00 -
[28]
Edited by: Imperator Jora''h on 23/05/2007 11:26:59
Originally by: Maior Interfeci
Overall not a bad idea, but the idea of deployables for claims in my opinion leaves open a situation for abuse. What I foresee happening in such a situation is gankers seeding belts in entire systems to get their "easy kill", especially if there is no skills involved in laying these claims.
Yeah....that was partly why I thought the deployables should be somewhat pricey.
Perhaps better would be the person laying it had to stay in the grid and if they left the deployable would self-destruct.
Besides, even if gankers ran around the system dropping these to avoid sec hits they are only advertising themselves as there would be a warning to anyone trying to warp there that they were at risk.
EDIT: I do like the idea that it is a rig barges use to deploy the things.
|
Maior Interfeci
Caldari
|
Posted - 2007.05.23 11:33:00 -
[29]
I thought of price as a factor, that is why I suggested skills and a rig. In combination with the limitation of "Barge only" launching capabilities, and having to stay in that belt to retain it's activity. It limits abuse of the system.
|
BluOrange
Gallente
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
|
Posted - 2007.05.23 11:38:00 -
[30]
Looks good overall - I can't comment on the adjustments to the roids because I haven't done enough mining, but missioning is massively overpowered atm and mining (let's face it, this isn't so much 'buff carebears' as 'buff miners') should be the primary source of minerals, not other activities.
The 'claim beacon' thing is especially interesting, since once static belts disappear, a claim beacon would probably make your mining op much easier to find. So it introduces a new element of decision-making. Giving people more decisions to make increases the fun, IMO.
I disagree that builders are nerfed by low mineral prices. Most builders are nerfed because they don't research the market before deciding what to build.
------
Agony Unleashed is recruiting. |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 .. 11 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |