|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Ard UnjiiGo
The Bastards
   |
Posted - 2008.02.05 00:26:00 -
[1]
Low-sec, for those of us that choose to live there, is it's own reward. It's an acquired taste for those that like to be on their toes, aren't chasing virtual currency like it's mana from heaven but simply a means to get what you want from your play time and frankly many of us enjoy the lack of crowds.
When I travel to any trade or mission hub in high sec on my alts, the average IQ of my local chat window drops by about 50 points . I see no value in trying to "compel" these folks to low-sec. The best way is to continue educating those in high sec that are incredibly misinformed about what it takes to live there (and their numbers are legion) and get the folks that, once they have been debrainwashed from their exposure to the EVE chicken littles (most of whom seem to haunt the forums, NPC and rookie corp chat), have a compelling interest and the knack for it down here.
To sum it up: One of the main culprits to the lower population in low sec is the false impression and information that most folks get about it as rookies. This one is easy to fix and won't upset those that couldn't bear it and would run off to another game if their L4s were all moved to low-sec. I don't want those people down here anyway. No offense. Wanna improve low-sec population but with folks that really will enjoy the playstyle? Make it your goal to 'hook' a new person on the real joys of low-sec and help them make their start there every month.
|
Ard UnjiiGo
The Bastards
|
Posted - 2008.02.05 15:46:00 -
[2]
I agree with Alowishus.
Also, others are correct, imo, that trying to have high sec mission runners and low sec dwellers talk about this is usually like speaking foreign languages at one another.
Here's another stab at making one low sec person's perspective understood to the high sec mission runners. The high sec mission runners (and miners to a lesser degree) claim that the "risk" is not worth the "reward" and I have respect for Olley and know he's no high sec mission runner but this was also essentially his view.
Here's where the miscommunication starts imo for many of us: the high sec mission runner's idea of "risk" and "reward" are not the same as the typical low-sec dweller (mission runner, miner, PvPer, etc.). Also the level of "risk" you have to handle for that "reward" quite frankly has a LOT to do with your willingness to adjust to low-sec and your overall skill at parts of the game.
I've been in low-sec since day 2 and have mission run on and off during that time and never been popped by another player while doing a mission in those 6 months. This isn't becuase I'm an uber player by any stretch of the imagination. It's because from the get go I decided there was nothing really to be afraid of in low-sec (it's a game after all and there is no REAL risk - just the virtual kind) and decided I needed to learn strategies for surviving there. I also have to make compromises. The person that just has to find the risk vs. reward worth it to bring their CNR down here solo to mission run doesn't get it. Let me repeat that: you don't get it. You should be expected to adapt to be in low-sec and bring cheaper more approriate gear. It's a different play style so plan to play differently.
At any rate, the "risk" for me being in low-sec is much lower then it is for some of you that have been high sec mission runners primarily because I didn't waste any time learning how to get around and operate in low-sec. That is true for all of us that dwell consistently in low-sec. We learned and adapted. Additionally our perception of what constitutes a "risk" is generally higher then yours. If it wasn't we wouldn't be here. Your idea of "reward" is mostly centered simplistically around "can I make more isk in the same amount of time there then in high sec factoring in my ship/equipment losses?". Most low-sec folks don't look at the "reward" of being here exclusively that way. For most of us the "reward" is the playstyle we enjoy here. So for us it's minimal "risk" for very high "reward". To change low sec to meet your idea of "risk" vs. "reward" would mean to gear it towards the desires of the high sec mission runners. We already have a place in the game for you.
My argument is that there are a ton of misinformed people (mostly rookies) in high sec who would enjoy the low-sec playstyle the way it is if they had their misconceptions corrected and we're encouraged to jump out here full-time to learn to manage the "risk".
I don't see a problem with low-sec personally, but if the powers-that-be really feel like it's broken then please just nerf high-sec. Don't change low-sec (accept make it possible to take sentry guns in cruisers  ). Sure, a few L4 mission *****s might leave the game. Let them. No big loss. But preferrably, do nothing and let us as a player base work to get more of the folks that can hack it in low-sec and would enjoy it, out here. There's nothing broken with the game mechanics of high sec vs. low sec. What's broke are all the rookies getting largely one POV regarding low-sec and the type of players being attracted unfortunately to the game lately ("Oh NOES! I can't get blown up! That's no fun for me. I'm so tied up in my online character I can't separate his loss/failure from my own personal self-esteem. CCP DO SOMETHING!!")
Low-sec is fine. It's the player-base that is broken.
|
Ard UnjiiGo
The Bastards
|
Posted - 2008.02.05 16:03:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Ard UnjiiGo on 05/02/2008 16:07:20
 Originally by: Ulstan
Yes. It is a different playing style. Everyone who enjoys that playing style is already in low sec. The people that don't, are in hi sec. You're not going to convince that group to move, ever. Give up on them.
I respectfully disagree. As a rookie I was hammered in the rookie channel and to alesser degree on the forums by folks trying to discourage rookies from getting into low-sec. I continue to run into rookies under the false impression that there is no way for them to cope and thrive here and continually read their misconceptions or concerns in the rookie forum as well. Everyone that would like it the way it is are not here already by any stretch of the imagination thanks in large part to the shrill doomsday pronouncements on the forums and in the NPC and rookie chats by those that failed at it for whatever reasons (poor planning, information or just lousy players).
If I wasn't somewhat stubborn I might still be in high-sec and gotten bored with the mind-numbingly boring quality of it ( to me at least) and left EVE.
Edit: and I do care about the risk vs. reward of low-sec. I love it the way it is and don't want it turned into high-sec's ideas of risk vs. reward. The high secers don't want their risk/reward set-up borked (except they'll always take more reward for less risk if given the chance *sigh*) and I don't want low-sec's borked.
|
Ard UnjiiGo
The Bastards
|
Posted - 2008.02.05 16:23:00 -
[4]
The low-sec sov thing keeps getting tossed around so here's some concerns I have with that:
1) If it's empire space how can anyone but the empire have sov? I suppose you could do something where the empire essentially "farms-out" sov to the corporations or alliances.
2) People already complain endlessly about the tedium of POS warfare in 0.0 so why would you bring that to low-sec?
3) If low-sec is made more profitable and you can have sov, guess who the main folks are going to be in low-sec? Hard to see how it wouldn't be the major 0.0 alliances that already have the infrastructure, political motivation ("I can lock down the access points to certain 0.0 areas and thwart my opponents or protect my 0.0 access point.") and like and enjoy the basic idea of system sov. The large 0.0 alliances already control a fair bunch. By giving higher profits and sov to low-sec all you do is give them an incentive to expand their reach beyond 0.0. Now maybe that's fine if your corp wants to be a "pet" but one of the great things about low-sec is for corp's like ours that have consciously chosen not to do the alliance thing, don't care one whit about sov (if we did we'd join an 0.0 alliance) and don't want to be anyone's pet to do what we enjoy.
All the ideas to try to improve the population of low-sec (and we aren't even agreed frankly that low-sec's lower population is even a problem) is to make it more like high sec or more like 0.0. If you really see the smaller population of low-sec as a problem how about a solution that respects what low-sec is and doesn't try to make it like a region that you already like.
|
Ard UnjiiGo
The Bastards
|
Posted - 2008.02.05 16:37:00 -
[5]
Ulstan what you describe is risk vs reward. The ability to play casually and putter while making some isk is still a risk vs. reward. It's just different then my (and I imagine many folks in low-sec) idea of risk vs. reward. I'm not mistaken. Anyone who plays, regardless of their play style and motivation (isk, puttering, intense PvP) is playing to set of risks and rewards that are personal to them. Including you.
|
Ard UnjiiGo
The Bastards
|
Posted - 2008.02.05 17:12:00 -
[6]
Ulstan you seem to be trying to define for all of us what a risk is and what a reward is based on your persepctive. That's impossible to do. You do play based on your own set of risk and reward just as the miner does and I do. And in some ways our ideas of risk and reward might be similiar and in other ways different. As someone said above though that seems generally accurate: low-sec dwellers tend to be folks with a higher tolerance for not just risk in general but certain types of risk (getting blown up for example or losing/not making a load of virtual currency) then high sec dwellers. You aren't going to get them down here without lowering that equation for them which then completely changes low-sec. You can however, increase a person's tolerance for risk and that's very easy to do in a video game since it is, after all, just a game and games are where we learn and practice taking risks.
You could play casually in low-sec but then your risk goes up to a level that's apparently intolerable to you (understandably ) either through more lost ships, the time to come down here for a few missions and then go back up to high sec when you only want to jump on for 30 minutes and crank a mission or two out. Coming down here casually may mean the trip is for nothing if you only have 30 minutes and run into a gate camp. It's not worth the risk. These are just examples that may or may not apply to some or all casual mission runners. Casual players play to a set of risk vs. rewards that are often about their limited play time understandably. But keep arguing you don't play the risk/reward game. It's getting funny.
|
Ard UnjiiGo
The Bastards
|
Posted - 2008.02.05 17:22:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Ard UnjiiGo on 05/02/2008 17:25:04
For the record kaimon this is one low-sec pirate that doesn't want to see a thing changed except less antilow-sec propaganda spewed at rookies by those that can't hack it or don't like it.
As a low-sec pirate that has briefly tried the 0.0 thing and has had other chances for our corp to go get involved we don't do it because we don't like the politics, lag fests and general boredom of fleet ops. We're in low-sec not because we can't run with the so-called "big dogs" but because at heart we're wolves.
|
Ard UnjiiGo
The Bastards
|
Posted - 2008.02.05 18:29:00 -
[8]
Alowishus - What? Me shoot other pirates? Perish the thought. Are we getting together again tonight to all sing Kumbaya? I love it when we do that. 
|
|
|
| |
|