Quote:

---

players need to move from hi sec

---

Originally by: Tarminic

---

You cannot get more players into 0.0 by trying to squeeze them out of high-sec.

75% of the players you'll squeezing will be squeezed right out of EVE, not into low-sec.

---

Originally by: callisthenes excelsior

---

This thread explores the idea that to improve low sec, low sec needs better rewards as well as players need to move from hi sec to populate low sec.

1) remove ALL hi sec ice
2) seed more good 0.0 ice in low sec--remember some low sec ALREADY has dark glitter

3) debate--what would the effects be and would it be a step in the right direction or solution

---

Originally by: Tarminic

---

You cannot get more players into 0.0 by trying to squeeze them out of high-sec.

75% of the players you'll squeezing will be squeezed right out of EVE, not into low-sec.

---

Originally by: Nicholai Stropkov

---

Edited by: Nicholai Stropkov on 01/05/2008 21:34:03
1) price of ice would rise
2) price of bpc would rise (researching)
3) price of T2 components would rise
4) price of both T1 and T2 products would rise (see point 2 and point 3)
5) no hisec miner would move to lowsec
6) 0.0 alliances would be recruiting some miners
7) you would whine about exorbitant prices

---

Originally by: Robert Rosenberg

---

Low-security should not be like high-sec except without concord, it should fill it's own role. Personally I think the best "fix" to low-sec is making it so you cannot get from one empire to the next without crossing it. Make three-four routes between each empire and have them all involve traveling through low-sec, bam instantly piracy is a valid profession and low-sec get some people into it.

---

Originally by: callisthenes excelsior

---

This thread explores the idea that to improve low sec, low sec needs better rewards as well as players need to move from hi sec to populate low sec.

1) remove ALL hi sec ice
2) seed more good 0.0 ice in low sec--remember some low sec ALREADY has dark glitter

3) debate--what would the effects be and would it be a step in the right direction or solution

---

Originally by: Shakuul

---

Originally by: callisthenes excelsior

---

This thread explores the idea that to improve low sec, low sec needs better rewards as well as players need to move from hi sec to populate low sec.

1) remove ALL hi sec ice
2) seed more good 0.0 ice in low sec--remember some low sec ALREADY has dark glitter

3) debate--what would the effects be and would it be a step in the right direction or solution

---

The real question is why you want this...whats wrong with pvping with people that are already in lowsec? Do you want pvp to be even laggier?

---

Originally by: Marcus TheMartin

---

Originally by: Tarminic

---

You cannot get more players into 0.0 by trying to squeeze them out of high-sec.

75% of the players you'll squeezing will be squeezed right out of EVE, not into low-sec.

---

prove it

---

Originally by: Marcus TheMartin

---

Can you prove 5 and 7?

As for 6 0.0 alliances are always recruiting miners

Rising price of ice is obvious but an end to asdhjshakgs and friends sitting in ice field 1 are welcome (so they would move to the regular roid belts but the point is that they stop mining ice)

---

Originally by: Tarminic

---

Originally by: Marcus TheMartin

---

Originally by: Tarminic

---

You cannot get more players into 0.0 by trying to squeeze them out of high-sec.

75% of the players you'll squeezing will be squeezed right out of EVE, not into low-sec.

---

prove it

---

That's an unreasonable request - I can't "prove" what would happen if high-sec was removed or if all the rewards were removed unless it's actually done.

I can, based on my own observations, postulate that converting a high-sec system to a low-sec one will see 90% of the current population moving out due to the increased isk. I think that most of the EVE community would agree with me.

Based on the above, I draw the conclusion that the majority of those in high-sec are due to low risk, otherwise they would likely be in NPC 0.0 space where rewards are higher than in high-security space.

Therefore, any change that increases the risk of staying in a location, even if the rewards are increased proportionally, wil result in a 75% net loss (most leave due to the risk, some pirates or anti-pirates move in).

Assuming that the above are relatively accurate, the wholesale removal of high-security space will cause a few to adapt by moving to low-sec or 0.0 space, while the majority would simply find a different game to play.

---

Originally by: Nicholai Stropkov

---

5) - they would move to roid belts, motsu and our friends from china would move to ingun, irmalin...

7) i would whine, you would whine, all the friggin server would whine

---

Originally by: Sergeant Spot

---

Bad idea.

No, there is nothing you can do to create a sustained increase in the supply of suicide monkeys, except to make death in Eve much less painful, but that is an even worse idea.

So stop whining about the low supply of suicide monkeys and go attack some 0.0 gate camps if you really really want some combat (of course, then YOU would be playing the role of suicide monkey, but you're the one who thinks thats ok......).

---

Originally by: Marcus TheMartin

---

your basis of 75% of people would quit is based entirely on the argument of the stereotypical eternal quitter. If x happens I'll quit. I doubt 75% of the highsec population are ice miners and I also doubt that people will quit en mass due to the fact that they can't log on read the paper, read chain mail letters in their inbox, and check their jet cans

---

Originally by: callisthenes excelsior

---

This thread explores the idea that to improve low sec, low sec needs better rewards as well as players need to move from hi sec to populate low sec.

---

Quote:

---

1) remove ALL hi sec ice

---

Quote:

---

2) seed more good 0.0 ice in low sec--remember some low sec ALREADY has dark glitter
3) debate--what would the effects be and would it be a step in the right direction or solution

---

Originally by: Yuki Santara

---

This sounds to me like thugs arguing there should be more incentive for businessmen to travel the lawless parts of town, so there is more prey to be robbed.

---

Originally by: Thirzarr

---

If you want to have Mission-Runners, Haulers and Miners in Low-Sec there is ONE... and only that ONE SOLUTION:

Remove the Pirates, Gankers and Campers

Thats it. No more. No less.

---

Originally by: Tarminic

---

Originally by: Marcus TheMartin

---

your basis of 75% of people would quit is based entirely on the argument of the stereotypical eternal quitter. If x happens I'll quit. I doubt 75% of the highsec population are ice miners and I also doubt that people will quit en mass due to the fact that they can't log on read the paper, read chain mail letters in their inbox, and check their jet cans

---

That 75% figure has nothing to do with the forums.

Whenever CCP increases the rewards for operating in low-sec (as they have several times), it has little on the actual population. I believe that is due to the fact that most players in high-sec value lower risk much more than a higher reward.

Therefore, increasing the reward a high-risk area will have little effect on it's most of those in high security space unless the increase is extremely dramatic.

Conversely, decreasing the reward in an area of low-risk will have little effect on the population of high-security space unless that is extremely drastic.

Since most players in high-security space are risk-adverse, they will leave the game instead of adapting to function in a high-risk environment.

NOTE: By "risk" I mean the likelihood of losing wealth they've accumulated. By "reward" i mean the rate at which they can accumulate wealth.

---

To Shar -verb:
 1 - To say what you mean.
 2 - To say what it means.
 3 - To say something mean.

Originally by: Thirzarr

---

If you want to have Mission-Runners, Haulers and Miners in Low-Sec there is ONE... and only that ONE SOLUTION:

Remove the Pirates, Gankers and Campers

Thats it. No more. No less.

---